Stupid liberal idea of the day

[iiandyiiii]

Biden said something dumb and then apologized for it.

Film at 11.

[iiandyiiii]

nm

[Ulfreida]

@iiandyiiii

Biden said something dumb and then apologized for it.

Film at 11.

Yep, this. He’s not going to stop doing it, either.

[Slash1972]

@k9bfriender

There isn’t such a disparity in women voters for and against Trump, so obviously it’s not the same. At least among white woman voters it was fairly evenly split.

But you would agree, would you not, that if you were a woman that voted for Trump, then you do not have much in common with women who did not vote for Trump? That you could identify concerns that a Hillary voter would have that a Trump voter wouldn’t care about?

Of course I would agree. However, Biden didn’t say “If you vote for Trump, you don’t have anything in common with black people who don’t vote for Trump”, he said, to me anyway, that the very essence of being black is removed from those who vote for Trump. Which, in my opinion, is a stupid thing to say, especially coming from a white guy.

Do black Trump voters magically stop being followed around at stores? Do people hold their purses and wallets less close when a black Trump voter gets near them? Do ignorant racists stop to ask black guys who they voted for before murdering them in the street?

I think not.

This is the “stupid liberal idea” thread. It’s a stupid Biden idea that a person isn’t black if they vote for Trump. And last I checked, Biden is a liberal. Regardless if he apologized or not, it’s still a stupid thing to say. I’m glad he apologized, and that apology makes him different from Trump, but it’s still stupid.

[iiandyiiii]

Meanwhile, Trump says much, much dumber stuff (sometimes stuff that raises the chance of people dying for really stupid reasons) multiple times a day and never apologizes.

But yes, what Biden said was dumb, and he apologized for it.

[Procrustus]

@Slash1972

This is strange to me. Would you say the same thing to women who voted for Trump - “If you cannot decide between myself and Trump, then you do not have much in common with women”?

It baffles me that a woman would vote for Trump. Or that a man would vote for Trump

[Slash1972]

@Procrustus

It baffles me that a woman would vote for Trump. Or that a man would vote for Trump

Does it? There have been numerous threads that spelled out exactly why a man or woman would vote for Trump. Have you not read them?

[Velocity]

@BigT

This thread was created by conservatives to have a counterpart to attack liberals. The whole idea of these things being “stupid” is that it shows how stupid liberals are. There are other threads about Biden’s campaign, in order to critique it.

I don’t think it’s a gaffe. I think it’s a safe statement designed to try and energize the base. The only people who would both know about this and be upset by this were already voting Trump anyways, and they statistically are not significant.

The guy has been way too quiet, so I think his moves are calculated.

This reminds me of Trump supporters who insist that Trump’s ill-advised tweets or statements are Trump “playing 4-D chess.” No, it’s often just a brain that didn’t have a filter between it and mouth. Occam’s razor; the simplest explanation is likely correct.

[bobot]

Biden needs to shut his mouth, put a few ads out there that feature waving flags and apple pie, and usher Trump the fuck out of office. It’s OK Joe, if it’s done quietly. In fact, it’s probably better.

[JKellyMap]

@Procrustus

It baffles me that a woman would vote for Trump. Or that a man would vote for Trump

This.

[outlierrn]

@Slash1972

Does it? There have been numerous threads that spelled out exactly why a man or woman would vote for Trump. Have you not read them?

I read lots of them and I’m still baffled.

[mhendo]

Not sure if this is the best thread for this news; I’m going to cross-post it in the “Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians” thread, as it seems relevant there too.

This week, the Arizona House of Representatives voted on SB1556, a bill that would require a criminal conviction before any attempt to take a person’s property through the process of civil asset forfeiture. The text of the bill can be read here (pdf), and the section of the bill directly relevant to forfeiture, section 13-4304, can be found starting on page 18.

13-4304. Property subject to forfeiture; exemptions; innocent owner

A. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTIONS B, C AND D OF THIS SECTION,
all property, including all interests in such property, described in a
statute providing for its forfeiture is subject to forfeiture. [del]However[/del] IF
BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING APPLY:

1. THE OWNER IS CONVICTED OF AN OFFENSE TO WHICH FORFEITURE
   APPLIES.

2. THE STATE ESTABLISHES BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE
   PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION E OF THIS
   SECTION.

[del]1. No[/del] B. A vehicle used by any person as a common carrier in the
transaction of business as a common carrier may NOT be forfeited under [del]the
provisions of[/del] this chapter unless [del]it appears[/del] THE STATE PROVES BY CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE that the owner or other person in charge of the
vehicle was a consenting party or privy to the act or omission giving rise
to forfeiture or knew or had reason to know of it.

The red deletions and the blue all-caps show what has been deleted from, and added to, the previous version of the statute. You can read more on the linked document if you want to see the other provisions of the bill.

Why is this in the “stupid liberal idea” thread? Because, while the State Senate passed the bill unanimously, the House of Representative voted it down last Thursday, with EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT voting against the changes. You can see the results here, if you’re interested.

Why did they vote against it? This article from the Arizona Capitol Times gives some information. Basically, the Democrats argued pretty much the same thing that all defenders of civil asset forfeiture have been arguing for decades:

“There are abuses out there,” said Rep. Kirsten Engel, D-Tucson.

Engel said, though, she could not support such a change without also finding a way to ensure that counties have the money they need. She said the state is in no position to do that now, partly because it already has adopted a budget for the coming fiscal year and partly because the COVID-19 pandemic is going to slash anticipated state revenues by $1 billion or more.

Basically, “We know this deprives people of their rights, but we really need the money.”

[Procrustus]

Giving cops a profit motive is always a bad idea.

[D_Odds]

That just might be the Stupidest Liberal Idea (SLI) since the inception of this thread. It’s absurd given the problems with civil asset forfeiture nationwide. Not only is it likely the SLI, but Republicans are on the right side of the issue. Is up down now?

[Gyrate]

Representative Eliot Engel (D- Bronx) was negotiating for some on-mic and on-camera time during a press conference on the George Floyd-related protests in his neighborhood. Engel did end up getting some time on-mic when a hot mic inadvertently caught him saying “If I didn’t have a primary, I wouldn’t care”.

Soooo…that went well.

[adaher]

Abolish the police. Although at this point given the pretty much all out war between the mainstream left and the Sanderistas it might no longer be fair to characterize the latters’ ideas as “liberal”.

[Ruken]

@adaher

Abolish the police. Although at this point given the pretty much all out war between the mainstream left and the Sanderistas it might no longer be fair to characterize the latters’ ideas as “liberal”.

I managed to forget what thread I had clicked on and thought you were advocating this. And I was confused.

My phone should have a caffeine blood prick test that unlocks message board access.

[Buck_Godot]

@Gyrate

Representative Eliot Engel (D- Bronx) was negotiating for some on-mic and on-camera time during a press conference on the George Floyd-related protests in his neighborhood. Engel did end up getting some time on-mic when a hot mic inadvertently caught him saying “If I didn’t have a primary, I wouldn’t care”.

Soooo…that went well.

To be fair, my interpretation of his words is that if he didn’t have a primary he wouldn’t care about not being able to speak, not that he wouldn’t care about the protest. Still not a good look of course.

[Buck_Godot]

@Gyrate

Representative Eliot Engel (D- Bronx) was negotiating for some on-mic and on-camera time during a press conference on the George Floyd-related protests in his neighborhood. Engel did end up getting some time on-mic when a hot mic inadvertently caught him saying “If I didn’t have a primary, I wouldn’t care”.

Soooo…that went well.

To be fair, my interpretation of his words is that if he didn’t have a primary he wouldn’t care about not being able to speak, not that he wouldn’t care about the protest. Still not a good look of course.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@adaher

Abolish the police. Although at this point given the pretty much all out war between the mainstream left and the Sanderistas it might no longer be fair to characterize the latters’ ideas as “liberal”.

Ah, the latest bullshit strawman meme to come out of the Great Republican Book O Strategy:

“OMG, Biden wants to abolish the police!!!11”

Being repeated by utter morons and useful idiots all over social media at the moment.

Good job adaher! Your hard work spreading this idiotic bullshit is appreciated by the Trumpsters!