ImageImageImageImageImage

2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2)

Moderators: mpharris36, NoLayupRule, King of Canada, GONYK, K-DOT, Deeeez Knicks, Capn'O, Thugger HBC, j4remi, Jeff Van Gully, mrpoetryNmotion

Jeff Van Gully
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 22,230
And1: 16,564
Joined: Jul 31, 2010
     

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2) 

Post#1681 » by Jeff Van Gully » Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:09 pm

Pointgod wrote:
Fat Kat wrote:
Read on Twitter


So association with known terrorists. Nice


well, color me shot... i mean, shocked.
RIP magnumt

welcome home, thibs.
User avatar
Fat Kat
RealGM
Posts: 27,707
And1: 18,847
Joined: Apr 19, 2004
     

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2) 

Post#1682 » by Fat Kat » Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:32 pm

fleet wrote:
Fat Kat wrote:
Read on Twitter

I read that you can drink under age 21 in Wisconsin only under parental supervision


Great. I guess there's nothing to see here
All comments made by Fat Kat are given as opinion, which may or may not be derived from facts, and not made to personally attack anyone on Realgm. All rights reserved.®
User avatar
Fat Kat
RealGM
Posts: 27,707
And1: 18,847
Joined: Apr 19, 2004
     

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2) 

Post#1683 » by Fat Kat » Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:42 pm

Read on Twitter
All comments made by Fat Kat are given as opinion, which may or may not be derived from facts, and not made to personally attack anyone on Realgm. All rights reserved.®
User avatar
Fat Kat
RealGM
Posts: 27,707
And1: 18,847
Joined: Apr 19, 2004
     

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2) 

Post#1684 » by Fat Kat » Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:47 pm

Read on Twitter
All comments made by Fat Kat are given as opinion, which may or may not be derived from facts, and not made to personally attack anyone on Realgm. All rights reserved.®
User avatar
stuporman
RealGM
Posts: 22,183
And1: 7,586
Joined: Nov 27, 2005
Location: optimistic skeptical realist

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2) 

Post#1685 » by stuporman » Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 pm

Jeff Van Gully wrote:
stuporman wrote:
Jeff Van Gully wrote:
not arguing against democratic socialism here. i supported bernie and elizabeth warren in the primaries. just pointing out that those are not good comparisons for our context. much smaller and far more homogenous societies at play. much easier to manage and apply the tenets there. the US is a true unwieldy monster. i'd love to see some detailed proposals on how it would look for us that go beyond the ideology, which i like.


This critique is disingenuous when you consider how many countries across the world have varying degrees of social democracy and social programs with a wide array of demographics. Besides, the US had it's most robust economic growth and expansion of individual wealth in the 'socialist' new deal era of it's history.

It only has been eroded away through decades of incremental legislation and a dedicated effort to demonize the words socialism/communism. So anytime there is something that they don't want the media and politicians who are in their pocket just scream socialism. The truth is we are already in a social democracy in the US it's just that the media and politicians don't call it that.

The problem is the social programs go to corporations and the wealthy. They get the tax breaks, the subsidies, the loan programs and loan forgiveness, bloated government contracts and most of the public money benefits without a second thought and framed as 'capitalist'. Any scraps tossed to the average people are framed as evil socialism and constantly asked how are we going to pay for this.

I won't even get into how much of a lie it is when they ask how do we pay for it because it's a complicated explanation I have given in previous 'presidential election' threads. A robust social safety net and programs that help everyone would actually elevate the whole society lifting the 'floor' of every citizen and raising the potential 'ceiling' of them as well to use a sports analogy.

But your demographic point is addressed in why there is so much resistance to it now even though it worked so well in the new deal era. The wealthy in the US are predominantly white and many are racists who don't want to help communities that aren't white. Let's not forget how racist the new deal was even if it was beneficial, anyone who wasn't white was excluded from the benefits of it.

So when people whine about how it won't work in the US because of the wide demographics are consciously or unconsciously using the racist reasoning against it. It's not that it won't work because of the demographics, it would work and does around the world, it's that they don't want to do it because of demographics, they don't want to help minorities.

I'm not accusing you of being racist for bringing that up...I'm just pointing out the source and reasoning of the argument against it and how much nonsense it is so you may prefer to expose it and not employ it. The diversity in colors of skin or cultural and ethnic backgrounds in no way prevents something that works in every corner of the world from working in the US.

To be fair, socialism isn't the government doing stuff, socialism is workers owning the means of production. It's worker co-ops, employee owned businesses, worker unions, employee profit sharing corporations, employee share compensation...things like that. The conflation of socialism and government social programs to mean the same thing is actually an erroneous one.


That was another thing the propaganda campaign did, misinform about what these things are and also convince the average person that to educate themselves about it is evil elitist indoctrination. What these words really mean, the ideas they represent and application of them in the market and society around us has been so obscured it's virtually impossible to have any discourse about it.

Strong worker protections and programs in the marketplace aren't in the interest of capitalists, they don't want to work for their money, they want others to work for their money and do it for very little money. Capitalists even prefer to have everyone who isn't them on a week to week basis of survival because it puts them in peril every moment and they can exploit it.

The social programs we are talking about actually put a buffer between the worker and this peril and that isn't something the wealthy want. They want a desperate worker not one that has any power at all. If the worker has health care without the dictates of the employer or they can get an education without having to be in debt for decades then the worker is less desperate.

The capitalists own the media and politicians so they get to create the dominant narrative about these social programs and they will do everything they can to keep them from coming to be. It's only been the advent of the internet that the discourse has been freed up to explore these ideas outside of the control of the wealthy, the corporations and the politicians.

I'm here discussing these things with you and you can present these points to others then them to even more with very little interference from those that don't want us to share or understand them. Then we need to elect people who represent these concepts and policies so they can become a reality for us.


thanks for the discussion. i appreciate it. it's helpful to arm me when i end up in these kinds of conversations in which i am clearly outside of my depth. again, as i think you get, it's something i want. i also agree that the demographics shouldn't matter as much we we say. i believe in the main point very firmly, but have been down rabbit holes i couldn't find my way out of -- especially in the context of healthcare.


The easiest way to explain medicare for all or the public option is when someone argues against it tell them it's just like private insurance. Except it will cost them less in premiums, there are no deductibles or co-pays, they'll have a bigger network so no or few denials on specialists and can keep their doctor or switch if they want, no surprise billing, no denials on FDA approved treatments them and their doctor agree on and possible exceptions for experimental treatments plus they won't lose health care if they lose their job.

Or they can just keep going with the private insurance continue to pay more and have none of those advantages if they want I guess... :lol:

Obviously some aspects of it may be fluid depending on how it is implemented but the general benefits of it at the core of the program will be felt by the average person making less than $450k a year per household which is 98% of the population. This is based on Bernie's plan with the average yearly family health care costs but those wealthy 2% that would pay a little more on average lobby politicians to help them instead the rest of America. Not to mention it would reduce health care costs overall and even employers and health care providers would realize cost benefits with many orgs working on their behalf support it.

I've had quite a bit of success in educating people about how it would actually effect their lives directly and many are surprised by this realizing they have been lied to about it.
Image?
User avatar
stuporman
RealGM
Posts: 22,183
And1: 7,586
Joined: Nov 27, 2005
Location: optimistic skeptical realist

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2) 

Post#1686 » by stuporman » Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:04 pm

Fat Kat wrote:
fleet wrote:
Fat Kat wrote:
Read on Twitter

I read that you can drink under age 21 in Wisconsin only under parental supervision


Great. I guess there's nothing to see here


That law applies on private property as someone's home not in a commercial business licensed to serve alcohol so no...not legal even if parents are there.
Image?
rammagen
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,830
And1: 588
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Atlanta GA

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2) 

Post#1687 » by rammagen » Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:25 pm

Fat Kat wrote:
fleet wrote:
Fat Kat wrote:
Read on Twitter

I read that you can drink under age 21 in Wisconsin only under parental supervision


Great. I guess there's nothing to see here

except he does not live in Wisconsin he lives in Illinois
A 17-year-old Illinois resident connected to an overnight shooting during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was taken into custody Wednesday morning, according to police in Antioch, Illinois. Wisconsin authorities issued an arrest warrant charging Kyle Rittenhouse with first-degree intentional homicide, Antioch Police said.
Quote from ESPN’s Bill Simmons posted on Twitter “28 FT’s to 5. I don’t watch rigged NBA games, I’m switching to hockey”
User avatar
CharlesOakley
Veteran
Posts: 2,568
And1: 2,204
Joined: Jun 27, 2006

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2) 

Post#1688 » by CharlesOakley » Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:48 pm

rammagen wrote:
Fat Kat wrote:
fleet wrote:I read that you can drink under age 21 in Wisconsin only under parental supervision


Great. I guess there's nothing to see here

except he does not live in Wisconsin he lives in Illinois
A 17-year-old Illinois resident connected to an overnight shooting during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was taken into custody Wednesday morning, according to police in Antioch, Illinois. Wisconsin authorities issued an arrest warrant charging Kyle Rittenhouse with first-degree intentional homicide, Antioch Police said.


His parents must be so proud.
User avatar
stuporman
RealGM
Posts: 22,183
And1: 7,586
Joined: Nov 27, 2005
Location: optimistic skeptical realist

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2) 

Post#1689 » by stuporman » Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:53 pm

Pointgod wrote:
Jeff Van Gully wrote:
HarthorneWingo wrote:
1. Nordic Democratic Socialist countries are great. Check.


not arguing against democratic socialism here. i supported bernie and elizabeth warren in the primaries. just pointing out that those are not good comparisons for our context. much smaller and far more homogenous societies at play. much easier to manage and apply the tenets there. the US is a true unwieldy monster. i'd love to see some detailed proposals on how it would look for us that go beyond the ideology, which i like./quote]

Yes and no. I’ve heard this argument made before it’s essentially saying Americans are too racist and self serving to implement social programs... hmm maybe the argument has merit. Seriously though, you can look at Canada as a country that has a similar racial makeup as the US but has built a model similar to the Nordic Countries. You can even look at India and Brazil as examples of countries with huge diverse populations that have implemented social programs, even if they’re limited.

On the other hand it must be stated and restated. The Nordic Countries aren’t Socialist, they’re capitalistic, free market societies with social safety nets and guard rails. And they’re even having problems with sustainability of their social programs. And I agree with you in one point, the US might as well be 50 different countries and that will be the biggest hurdle in implementation. There is no Central planning of the government and the States have an enormous amount of power


This is the typical neolib take that is a flawed explanation. You may want to read my response to this same post to realize the misrepresentations perpetuated.

I know it has intentionally been ingrained into the psyche of people through propaganda that market is synonymous with capitalism and also with free market but they aren't. Markets existed long before capitalism and even profiting in markets existed long before capitalism. Oh...and there is no such thing as a 'free market'...especially in the modern world, it's all regulated.

Things like capitalism, socialism and communism are ideologies that people hold which influence how markets are regulated and structured. I know you can bring up lots of dictionary definitions, educational information and wiki pages that say it's much more but they are conflating the ideology with the regulations and structures as the same thing without recognizing and emphasizing the ideologies as inspiring the different types of regulations and structures. Some may think I'm breaking it down too much but I think it's beneficial to realize these distinctions.

Capitalism leads someone to only prioritize capital and profit while dismissing things like the well being of workers, the environment, the community and society overall by calling them externalities. There is no account of them in their ledgers so they desire regulations and structure that ignores them so they don't have to account for them or pay any cost associated with their economic activities negative effects in them. This is why capitalism is exploitative and erodes societal cohesiveness over time because it creates inequality and a degradation of material conditions in many ways.

Socialism prioritizes the society and everything that encompasses it like the well being of those things that capitalism wants to dismiss as external. Although, profit and wealth are included in analysis within this ideology because it effects the well being of those other things but does so as much as it serves society, not prioritized at the expense of society. Anyone who says profit isn't socialistic has an incomplete understanding of it. Socialism seeks regulations and structure that priorities the well being of society and all individuals in it.

Communism actually is an oddball compared to the others because it doesn't endorse a market, it prioritizes community production and ownership of the goods produced. In it's ideal form there is no money, no market and no state, it's the community sharing. Ironically, it's how the bible tells Christians they should live this way but I dare you to find very many that do. Understandably the ideal form of this is virtually impossible to attain and sustain spontaneously so any regulation and structure can be problematic considering that notion of a communist state is an oxymoron. It often becomes an authoritarian state to enforce the 'community sharing' on those that don't want to share.

Thanks for reading my Ted talk.... :lol:
Image?
User avatar
Fat Kat
RealGM
Posts: 27,707
And1: 18,847
Joined: Apr 19, 2004
     

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2) 

Post#1690 » by Fat Kat » Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:20 pm

rammagen wrote:
Fat Kat wrote:
fleet wrote:I read that you can drink under age 21 in Wisconsin only under parental supervision


Great. I guess there's nothing to see here

except he does not live in Wisconsin he lives in Illinois
A 17-year-old Illinois resident connected to an overnight shooting during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was taken into custody Wednesday morning, according to police in Antioch, Illinois. Wisconsin authorities issued an arrest warrant charging Kyle Rittenhouse with first-degree intentional homicide, Antioch Police said.


Or that he’s publicly espousing racist beliefs while on bail. I hope the kid gets what’s coming to him
All comments made by Fat Kat are given as opinion, which may or may not be derived from facts, and not made to personally attack anyone on Realgm. All rights reserved.®
User avatar
Capn'O
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 60,112
And1: 52,413
Joined: Dec 16, 2005
Location: Harden = Nets Championship
 

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2) 

Post#1691 » by Capn'O » Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:41 pm

I didn't realize he was out and about. Gross.
BAF Clippers
PG: Kyrie Melton Chiozza
SG: SGA KCP TFerg
SF: Middleton Green THT
PF: DFS Bjelica Eubanks
C: Nurkic Holmes Len

RIP Mags :beer:
"Greatness wasn't worth anything if you couldn't share it."-Kobe
spree2kawhi
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,823
And1: 1,606
Joined: Mar 01, 2005

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2) 

Post#1692 » by spree2kawhi » Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:51 pm

CharlesOakley wrote:
rammagen wrote:
Fat Kat wrote:
Great. I guess there's nothing to see here

except he does not live in Wisconsin he lives in Illinois
A 17-year-old Illinois resident connected to an overnight shooting during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was taken into custody Wednesday morning, according to police in Antioch, Illinois. Wisconsin authorities issued an arrest warrant charging Kyle Rittenhouse with first-degree intentional homicide, Antioch Police said.


His parents must be so proud.


Chances are ... :roll:
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
Knicks Forum Grandpa's Law
Posts: 65,551
And1: 31,383
Joined: May 16, 2005
   

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2) 

Post#1693 » by HarthorneWingo » Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:07 pm

Fat Kat wrote:
Read on Twitter


:o

Nassau county PD next!
Image
Jeff Van Gully
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 22,230
And1: 16,564
Joined: Jul 31, 2010
     

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2) 

Post#1694 » by Jeff Van Gully » Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:30 pm

stuporman wrote:
Spoiler:
Jeff Van Gully wrote:
stuporman wrote:
This critique is disingenuous when you consider how many countries across the world have varying degrees of social democracy and social programs with a wide array of demographics. Besides, the US had it's most robust economic growth and expansion of individual wealth in the 'socialist' new deal era of it's history.

It only has been eroded away through decades of incremental legislation and a dedicated effort to demonize the words socialism/communism. So anytime there is something that they don't want the media and politicians who are in their pocket just scream socialism. The truth is we are already in a social democracy in the US it's just that the media and politicians don't call it that.

The problem is the social programs go to corporations and the wealthy. They get the tax breaks, the subsidies, the loan programs and loan forgiveness, bloated government contracts and most of the public money benefits without a second thought and framed as 'capitalist'. Any scraps tossed to the average people are framed as evil socialism and constantly asked how are we going to pay for this.

I won't even get into how much of a lie it is when they ask how do we pay for it because it's a complicated explanation I have given in previous 'presidential election' threads. A robust social safety net and programs that help everyone would actually elevate the whole society lifting the 'floor' of every citizen and raising the potential 'ceiling' of them as well to use a sports analogy.

But your demographic point is addressed in why there is so much resistance to it now even though it worked so well in the new deal era. The wealthy in the US are predominantly white and many are racists who don't want to help communities that aren't white. Let's not forget how racist the new deal was even if it was beneficial, anyone who wasn't white was excluded from the benefits of it.

So when people whine about how it won't work in the US because of the wide demographics are consciously or unconsciously using the racist reasoning against it. It's not that it won't work because of the demographics, it would work and does around the world, it's that they don't want to do it because of demographics, they don't want to help minorities.

I'm not accusing you of being racist for bringing that up...I'm just pointing out the source and reasoning of the argument against it and how much nonsense it is so you may prefer to expose it and not employ it. The diversity in colors of skin or cultural and ethnic backgrounds in no way prevents something that works in every corner of the world from working in the US.

To be fair, socialism isn't the government doing stuff, socialism is workers owning the means of production. It's worker co-ops, employee owned businesses, worker unions, employee profit sharing corporations, employee share compensation...things like that. The conflation of socialism and government social programs to mean the same thing is actually an erroneous one.


That was another thing the propaganda campaign did, misinform about what these things are and also convince the average person that to educate themselves about it is evil elitist indoctrination. What these words really mean, the ideas they represent and application of them in the market and society around us has been so obscured it's virtually impossible to have any discourse about it.

Strong worker protections and programs in the marketplace aren't in the interest of capitalists, they don't want to work for their money, they want others to work for their money and do it for very little money. Capitalists even prefer to have everyone who isn't them on a week to week basis of survival because it puts them in peril every moment and they can exploit it.

The social programs we are talking about actually put a buffer between the worker and this peril and that isn't something the wealthy want. They want a desperate worker not one that has any power at all. If the worker has health care without the dictates of the employer or they can get an education without having to be in debt for decades then the worker is less desperate.

The capitalists own the media and politicians so they get to create the dominant narrative about these social programs and they will do everything they can to keep them from coming to be. It's only been the advent of the internet that the discourse has been freed up to explore these ideas outside of the control of the wealthy, the corporations and the politicians.

I'm here discussing these things with you and you can present these points to others then them to even more with very little interference from those that don't want us to share or understand them. Then we need to elect people who represent these concepts and policies so they can become a reality for us.


thanks for the discussion. i appreciate it. it's helpful to arm me when i end up in these kinds of conversations in which i am clearly outside of my depth. again, as i think you get, it's something i want. i also agree that the demographics shouldn't matter as much we we say. i believe in the main point very firmly, but have been down rabbit holes i couldn't find my way out of -- especially in the context of healthcare.


The easiest way to explain medicare for all or the public option is when someone argues against it tell them it's just like private insurance. Except it will cost them less in premiums, there are no deductibles or co-pays, they'll have a bigger network so no or few denials on specialists and can keep their doctor or switch if they want, no surprise billing, no denials on FDA approved treatments them and their doctor agree on and possible exceptions for experimental treatments plus they won't lose health care if they lose their job.

Or they can just keep going with the private insurance continue to pay more and have none of those advantages if they want I guess... :lol:

Obviously some aspects of it may be fluid depending on how it is implemented but the general benefits of it at the core of the program will be felt by the average person making less than $450k a year per household which is 98% of the population. This is based on Bernie's plan with the average yearly family health care costs but those wealthy 2% that would pay a little more on average lobby politicians to help them instead the rest of America. Not to mention it would reduce health care costs overall and even employers and health care providers would realize cost benefits with many orgs working on their behalf support it.

I've had quite a bit of success in educating people about how it would actually effect their lives directly and many are surprised by this realizing they have been lied to about it.


not to derail into a healthcare economics discussion, but are you aware of the extent to which the united states for-profit (evil) system also basically subsidises access to medication and devices for the rest of the world? basically, we bear the entire brunt of most of the research and development. then our prices reflect the need to cover that. other nations are then able to obtain the resources at much lower cost.

just wondering what we could do about that problem that seems to also fortify the ills of the for-profit system.

again, we can talk more about it in a PM or something.
RIP magnumt

welcome home, thibs.
User avatar
stuporman
RealGM
Posts: 22,183
And1: 7,586
Joined: Nov 27, 2005
Location: optimistic skeptical realist

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2) 

Post#1695 » by stuporman » Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:11 pm

Jeff Van Gully wrote:
stuporman wrote:
Spoiler:
Jeff Van Gully wrote:
thanks for the discussion. i appreciate it. it's helpful to arm me when i end up in these kinds of conversations in which i am clearly outside of my depth. again, as i think you get, it's something i want. i also agree that the demographics shouldn't matter as much we we say. i believe in the main point very firmly, but have been down rabbit holes i couldn't find my way out of -- especially in the context of healthcare.


The easiest way to explain medicare for all or the public option is when someone argues against it tell them it's just like private insurance. Except it will cost them less in premiums, there are no deductibles or co-pays, they'll have a bigger network so no or few denials on specialists and can keep their doctor or switch if they want, no surprise billing, no denials on FDA approved treatments them and their doctor agree on and possible exceptions for experimental treatments plus they won't lose health care if they lose their job.

Or they can just keep going with the private insurance continue to pay more and have none of those advantages if they want I guess... :lol:

Obviously some aspects of it may be fluid depending on how it is implemented but the general benefits of it at the core of the program will be felt by the average person making less than $450k a year per household which is 98% of the population. This is based on Bernie's plan with the average yearly family health care costs but those wealthy 2% that would pay a little more on average lobby politicians to help them instead the rest of America. Not to mention it would reduce health care costs overall and even employers and health care providers would realize cost benefits with many orgs working on their behalf support it.

I've had quite a bit of success in educating people about how it would actually effect their lives directly and many are surprised by this realizing they have been lied to about it.


not to derail into a healthcare economics discussion, but are you aware of the extent to which the united states for-profit (evil) system also basically subsidises access to medication and devices for the rest of the world? basically, we bear the entire brunt of most of the research and development. then our prices reflect the need to cover that. other nations are then able to obtain the resources at much lower cost.

just wondering what we could do about that problem that seems to also fortify the ills of the for-profit system.

again, we can talk more about it in a PM or something.


Well, much of that development is publicly funded through grants and stuff all across the world but it's only in the US that the disproportionate amount of financial benefits go to private patent holders and very little if any makes it to the public that funded it. The politicians even wrote legislation to prevent themselves from negotiating better costs for what they funded.

The notion that US develops the majority of the world's health care innovations is an old one because it's been a long time since that describes the US health care system. Even the first covid vaccine wasn't US developed and didn't accept US Gov funds to develop it regardless of how much Trump brags he did it with 'warp speed'.

The argument that the US health care system subsidizes the world is a debunked one. What is true about this scenario is that the US public funds corporate profits, executive compensation and stock gains through insurance premiums, deductibles and out of pocket on inflated prices that are the highest in the world. The US public are simultaneously corporation's ATM and cash cow.

We can end it here though, I understand. :D
Image?
User avatar
NoDopeOnSundays
Head Coach
Posts: 7,257
And1: 12,312
Joined: Nov 22, 2005
         

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2) 

Post#1696 » by NoDopeOnSundays » Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:19 pm

Read on Twitter
?s=20


LMAO, these people are incredible.
User avatar
Fat Kat
RealGM
Posts: 27,707
And1: 18,847
Joined: Apr 19, 2004
     

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2) 

Post#1697 » by Fat Kat » Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:57 pm

Read on Twitter
All comments made by Fat Kat are given as opinion, which may or may not be derived from facts, and not made to personally attack anyone on Realgm. All rights reserved.®
User avatar
NoDopeOnSundays
Head Coach
Posts: 7,257
And1: 12,312
Joined: Nov 22, 2005
         

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2) 

Post#1698 » by NoDopeOnSundays » Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:05 pm

Fat Kat wrote:
Read on Twitter


Very fine people.
AmaresKnees
Junior
Posts: 298
And1: 213
Joined: Jun 11, 2015

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2) 

Post#1699 » by AmaresKnees » Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:11 pm

NoDopeOnSundays wrote:
Fat Kat wrote:
Read on Twitter


Very fine people.


"We love you, you're very special"
No pain no Gaines
EricAnderson
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,057
And1: 1,507
Joined: May 28, 2008

Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2) 

Post#1700 » by EricAnderson » Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:16 pm

What I don’t get is how these people getting arrested or in trouble for storming the Capitol there reactions as they’re getting arrested is shock like they stole towels from a hotel..

Did they have no idea about the consequences? Did Trump make these people feel untouchable?

Did they expect to be National heroes cheered on by most Americans for what they did?

Return to New York Knicks