United States Election 2020: The Derail

mesonoxian

Well-known member
People like @mesonoxian make me wonder why they even bother to live in the US if they dislike it so much.

I'm not trying to pull the "then leave" card here, it just genuinely baffles me. He hates private property, hates the basic ideals of capitalism, and hates the concept of nation-states.

So why do people like him continue to live here? Their communal belief system is fundamentally at odds with the ideas of the individualist USA, why not move to another nation that more closely aligned with their political and moral viewpoints?
Several things. First off I am poor, and moving costs money. Secondly, I don't care about the US as an entity, but I quite like the region I live in (especially in the fall) and its culture. Also my family lives here, my ancestors are buried here, my church is here. All stuff I'd be very reluctant to leave behind, even if I could.

And there really isn't anywhere on Earth where exploitation and coercion aren't happening, even if they might not be as obvious as here. Even places like the Nordic countries, where capitalism seems largely tamed and the people in the country are pretty well taken care of maintain their prosperity through exploitation overseas. And even if there were a utopia, it wouldn't be right to walk away from where evil is happening without helping the people subject to it. Not that I wouldn't be tempted.

We love them anyways though😁😁😁😁

Also @mesonoxian i'm sorry but quotes aren't working for me right now, i think it's because i'm xbox 1 posting?. So i would like to address your post here. The incident you were talking about and the one i was talking about are two different ones i think?. There was an incident with a guy macing a security guard hired by a news team who was then shot with his most decidely non lethal mace. His social media was full of pro antifa and leftist messaging of course.

The one i was talking about was when a guy was walking down the sidewalk and a group of antifa ambushed him and shot him point blank with no apparent provocation on his part aside from wearing something pro Trump. The cops later went to apprahend the guy and he resisted or reached and got lit up.

You say there is no context in my fire video but i think you are maybe allowing yourself to be willfully blind. If some guy who was like 40 something,white,wearing khakis and a maga hat was found 20 minutes away from a violent right wing protest with numerous assaults and arson. Had matches but no cigarettes and an antifa flophouse was burning what would you think?

You also said there is no reason for a member of the terrorist group antifa to set fire in the area.There are a few reasons, for starters rural areas have long been associated with Trump supporters by the media and antifa themselves. Also during the riots it was quite common for the right to laugh and make comments about the left burning their own cities down. Antifa certainly use social media and would have been exposed to this right wing narrative of them only hurting themselves. This gives them additional motive.

I'm honestly amazed and terrified that the police and fbi are so partisian that the idea of the people commiting arson and hopping in a car to commit arson where their ideological enemies live is somehow impossible.

Groups like antifa and blm have committed a campaign of terror against the right. Unfortunately for both the right and left it seems to have worked with the stolen election of biden(unless Trump says 2020 is just starting ya'll) so it's clear to many on the right that the long standing belief that political violence will hurt your side in elections is no longer the case.

I honestly expect an explosion of right on left violence when or if it's clear that Trump is out. Afterall what do they have to lose?Congress woman aoc is making a list of them. They're jobs? they already lost them for wrong think or were 'cancelled'. They're families? prominent laft wingers gleefully speak about indoctrinating their children and destroying the family unit. You may say 'well that would hurt the Republicans' so what? Many if not most on the right see them as rino's and war starting neocons of the 'uniparty'. The Republicans without Trump are worthless for defending and advancing right wing beliefs.

The right would not be anywhere near as angry or radicalised were it not for the left and you're constant escalations and attacks on the right and the constitution. The left can laugh all it want's and act like it's above it all, ban and gaslight the right. But i don't believe they know just how absolutely PIST the right is right now.

This is just my personal ancedotal experience so it may not apply everywhere. My local neighborhood just formed a 'gun club'. A guy came and knocked on our door and asked if we would be interested in joining a local 'gun club' to learn about guns and if necessary defend the neighborhood. Like wtf right? We are not even close to any protest or blm stuff. My uncle in a neighboring town just joined his local 'neighborhood watch' ffs. The current situation in America is going to get much more ugly i fear as the right has nothing left to lose. Everyone should start praying Trumps legal team can turn liberal tears into wine otherwise America is going to get interesting.
I know people in the radical left wing circles in California. They are not happy about the wildfires. Rural California is still California and a lot of leftists, and families and friends of leftists live there, and a lot of people have lost their homes, never mind the health consequences so many people in the cities suffer when these kinds of wildfires happen. Even if antifa were the heartless monsters you seem to believe they are (and they're not), they would have no reason to do this.

Antifais about resisting fascism. Breaking up fascist demonstrations, and protecting protestors from fascist agitators who would frequently come and start trouble. They are also in my experience mostly really chill, nice folks.

This whole narrative seems completely divorced from reality as I see it. The US lurched wildly to the right in the 1980s and there has been basically no pushback. the Democrats just went along with it. The ACA was essentially the Republican plan in the 1990s, as an opposition to proper single payer health care. The voting rights act as has been gutted. The Democrats meekly went along with Bush's idiotic wars to avoid looking weak. The right wing militarized and radicalized all through the 1990s, claiming that utter centrist milksop Bill Clinton was the anti-Christ and an existential threat to democracy. (Which got us The OKC bombing). They radicalized under G.W. Bush, becoming increasingly hostile to immigrants and Muslims. They radicalized further under Obama, a complete boring centrist who continued Bush's wars and struggled to get a half-assed version of Romneycare over the finish line. And they continue to radicalize under Trump, openly embracing the racism and authoritarianism they used to pretend wasn't part of their ideology.

It wasn't the left that played chicken with defaulting on the debt to get their way. It wasn't the left that stole a SC seat. It wasn't the left that stole the Presidency in 2000 and treated a popular vote loss in 2016 as a mandate for radical change. It wasn't the left who described literal Nazis as "good people" or fought tooth and nail to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry, or who pushed back hard against civil rights protections. It wasn't the left that decided to launch campaigns of harassment at women who dared have opinions on the most superficial elements of culture, like comic books and video games, or to develop bizarre conspiracy theories about secret Islamic extremism or satanic pedophile rings in Washington DC. (And fantasizing about Satanic pedophiles has been a right wing pre-occupation since the 1980s, so it isn't some reaction to Obama.)

The Democrats (who aren't even the left) finally, finally started to push back a tiny little bit, by having some people object to attempts to "reach across the aisle" to people who have broken every rule and norm of government. AOC is absolutely right that the people who abetted Trump in his crimes shouldn't be allowed to slink away like so many of Nixon's cronies and the Iran-Contra conspirators and their enablers were allowed to. If somebody helped Donald Trump commit his crimes, they should at the barest minimum not be given work in their field. That isn't some call to shut down everybody who voted for the man, but the people who were significant in selling and running his presidency.

If you spend years doing actual harm to people, messing up their lives, hurting children, spreading disease, taking away their access to healthcare, threatening them and declaring them degenerate scum, then eventually they are going to be just a little irritated. The left is absolutely enjoying seeing Trump beaten and his followers demoralized. That is entirely natural. What they aren't going to do is spend the next four years trying to find policies that will hurt them and destroy the things they value for the lulz. Some people are really, really angry. They want to let the Republican voting areas rot, and ignore the economic hardships they suffer. The thing is, when they say things like that, people come out of the woodwork to tell them to stop being an idiot and trying to punish people and their families for having stupid political opinions. When is the last time you heard somebody on the right talk about fucking over urban America with anything but glee?

The left is not making this radicalism happen. Most leftists I know hate thinking about politics. They do it because they think it will help people. It isn't a game, these are people's lives we're talking about. But there is only so much farther even the most well meaning people can be pushed before something gives.
 

Ixian

Well-known member
Several things. First off I am poor, and moving costs money. Secondly, I don't care about the US as an entity, but I quite like the region I live in (especially in the fall) and its culture. Also my family lives here, my ancestors are buried here, my church is here. All stuff I'd be very reluctant to leave behind, even if I could.

And there really isn't anywhere on Earth where exploitation and coercion aren't happening, even if they might not be as obvious as here. Even places like the Nordic countries, where capitalism seems largely tamed and the people in the country are pretty well taken care of maintain their prosperity through exploitation overseas. And even if there were a utopia, it wouldn't be right to walk away from where evil is happening without helping the people subject to it. Not that I wouldn't be tempted.



Deep roots and low wealth I can understand, thats basically the same reason most southern families refuse to leave the places they live.

What I don't quite grasp is this complete disregard for your nation of birth (assuming you are an American here of course), because I agree with you that there are no utopian nations on the planet currently, but in my experience the US is about the closest you'll find. Sure, there are other nations that have high standards of wealth, or liberties, or safety, some are even better than the US in one or two categories. I have yet to see one that exceeded all three.

Have you done much traveling? To be fair most of my experiences are with Pacific, Southeast Asian, and Western European nations in that order. So I can't claim to be an authority on how the US compares to every other nation on the globe. Don't mistake what I'm saying as advocating against any possible criticism of the US either, there is plenty to improve upon here, but from what I gather you don't think the US should be improved, you seem to be saying that as a nation-state it is inherently evil. Apologies if that isn't the point you are trying to make.

To follow your beef with Capitalism, do you see any distinction between Capitalism and Corporatism?
 

mesonoxian

Well-known member
Deep roots and low wealth I can understand, thats basically the same reason most southern families refuse to leave the places they live.

What I don't quite grasp is this complete disregard for your nation of birth (assuming you are an American here of course), because I agree with you that there are no utopian nations on the planet currently, but in my experience the US is about the closest you'll find. Sure, there are other nations that have high standards of wealth, or liberties, or safety, some are even better than the US in one or two categories. I have yet to see one that exceeded all three.

Have you done much traveling? To be fair most of my experiences are with Pacific, Southeast Asian, and Western European nations in that order. So I can't claim to be an authority on how the US compares to every other nation on the globe. Don't mistake what I'm saying as advocating against any possible criticism of the US either, there is plenty to improve upon here, but from what I gather you don't think the US should be improved, you seem to be saying that as a nation-state it is inherently evil. Apologies if that isn't the point you are trying to make.

To follow your beef with Capitalism, do you see any distinction between Capitalism and Corporatism?
I d oactually live in the South. Well sort of where the South meets Appalachia. I come from old hillbilly stock.

It isn't that I think the US is especially evil, I just can't really feel much of anything for hundreds of millions of people spread out over most of a continent that I don't feel for humanity as a whole. I love my home, my friends, and my family. But the kind of love I feel for Americans as a category is the same I feel for humans in general. I don't want to see America prosper at the expense of other people, but I absolutely want to see Americans (and Canadians and Chinese, and English, and so on) happy and well.

I think nation states are mostly built on coercion and exploitation. I think that eventually it would be best if we reorganized society in a more humane, productive fashion. But that isn't something you can do as an individual or a small group. Learning from Lenin's mistakes there. That sort of change will happen when people are ready for it.

In the mean time, the political sphere has impact over a lot of people's life. It is sort of like the weather. You don't have to like it, but you've got to deal with it. So you try to pick the candidates you think will do the least harm/most good when the time to vote comes around. But I think efforts are better spent n local organizing, helping communities become better at cooperation, and helping us take better care of each other without the intermediary of the state.

I think corporatism (in the Mussolini sense) is the inevitable result of capitalism. Capitalism encourages the concentration of money. Money is power. That power can and eventually will subvert government institutions for the purpose of further concentrating wealth. You can build safeguards, but those safeguards are only as strong as the systems maintaining them, and so they can be subverted. And eventually you have corporate and political power intermixed anyway.
 

Ixian

Well-known member
I d oactually live in the South. Well sort of where the South meets Appalachia. I come from old hillbilly stock.

It isn't that I think the US is especially evil, I just can't really feel much of anything for hundreds of millions of people spread out over most of a continent that I don't feel for humanity as a whole. I love my home, my friends, and my family. But the kind of love I feel for Americans as a category is the same I feel for humans in general. I don't want to see America prosper at the expense of other people, but I absolutely want to see Americans (and Canadians and Chinese, and English, and so on) happy and well.

I think nation states are mostly built on coercion and exploitation. I think that eventually it would be best if we reorganized society in a more humane, productive fashion. But that isn't something you can do as an individual or a small group. Learning from Lenin's mistakes there. That sort of change will happen when people are ready for it.

In the mean time, the political sphere has impact over a lot of people's life. It is sort of like the weather. You don't have to like it, but you've got to deal with it. So you try to pick the candidates you think will do the least harm/most good when the time to vote comes around. But I think efforts are better spent n local organizing, helping communities become better at cooperation, and helping us take better care of each other without the intermediary of the state.

I think corporatism (in the Mussolini sense) is the inevitable result of capitalism. Capitalism encourages the concentration of money. Money is power. That power can and eventually will subvert government institutions for the purpose of further concentrating wealth. You can build safeguards, but those safeguards are only as strong as the systems maintaining them, and so they can be subverted. And eventually you have corporate and political power intermixed anyway.

Haha, we could be distant cousins then if you have any ancestors from Kentucky or Tennessee.

The love of family and close friends isn't surprising. The vast majority of Humanity values those "tribal" groups above the nation-state.

I wouldn't call all nation-states exploitive, sure you have to pay taxes and follow their laws, but usually you receive something in exchange. Infrastructure, and safety being the two obvious benefits. If you receive something of equal or greater value (debatable I know) then by definition it cannot be an exploitive relationship.

I do have to wonder what you think about one of the nation-states primary purposes however. That being defense, many nation-states formed from a need for the common defense of whatever culture/ethnic group was the main founders of said nation-state, and while we are living in an era of unprecedented peace (which is arguably due to Capitalism) one doesn't need to look far for examples of why that service is still needed.
 

mesonoxian

Well-known member
Haha, we could be distant cousins then if you have any ancestors from Kentucky or Tennessee.

The love of family and close friends isn't surprising. The vast majority of Humanity values those "tribal" groups above the nation-state.

I wouldn't call all nation-states exploitive, sure you have to pay taxes and follow their laws, but usually you receive something in exchange. Infrastructure, and safety being the two obvious benefits. If you receive something of equal or greater value (debatable I know) then by definition it cannot be an exploitive relationship.

I do have to wonder what you think about one of the nation-states primary purposes however. That being defense, many nation-states formed from a need for the common defense of whatever culture/ethnic group was the main founders of said nation-state, and while we are living in an era of unprecedented peace (which is arguably due to Capitalism) one doesn't need to look far for examples of why that service is still needed.
I think states exist largely to allow the wealthy to maintain their ability to extract value from the labor of the poor. They aren't completely without utility. They do provide basic protections. But I think those things could be achieved via an organization of people that doesn't permit some to acquire wealth and power at the expense of others. But that is as far as I'd like to get into anarchist theory.

I don't think much of ethnicity as a grounds for community. There is no reason for different family and cultural groups not to cooperate and live together peacefully, and there is no reason for their members not to marry and fuse their cultures if that will make them happy.
 

ReeeFallin

The Yankee Candle
That's completely ignoring the legal status of platform vs publisher.

If you are a platform, you are not liable for content posted on your site. On the flip side though, you do not get to practice editorial control, and the legislation that covers this, Section 230, *specifically lists* that encouraging political discourse is part of the purpose of this legislation.

If you are a publisher, you have absolute control over what is on your site, but you also then have full liability for what is posted there.

You don't get to have it both ways. You're one or the other, not both.
That's really not how it works. There has never been a time that private businesses were not allowed to censor the content they deliver. You're essentially arguing that tv stations can't play abridged versions of films or censor for language, and they do that all the time.

Like I don't know where you got into your head that the two options you've presented are the only options that exist, but lol.
Except Twitter is not flagging false things, only things that run counter to thier preferred political narrative.
I assume you're equally upset that parler, the frees peech platform, doesn't allow advocation for marijuana legalization, since that runs counter to their preferred political narrative.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
That's really not how it works. There has never been a time that private businesses were not allowed to censor the content they deliver. You're essentially arguing that tv stations can't play abridged versions of films or censor for language, and they do that all the time.

Like I don't know where you got into your head that the two options you've presented are the only options that exist, but lol.

TV stations are publishers, not platforms. They can choose to put or not put whatever they want on the air, but they carry full legal liability for it.

IIRC, the 'platform' legal classification was originally made for telephone companies, so that they wouldn't be legally liable for what people did over the telephone, like plotting crimes. Otherwise, they would have had to have operators listening in on literally every single phone call in order to protect themselves from liability.

Platform status was specifically extended to ISPs, and then as a thing websites in general could have, to promote the economic growth and open discussion capabilities of the internet.

Have you actually read Section 230?
 

ReeeFallin

The Yankee Candle
TV stations are publishers, not platforms. They can choose to put or not put whatever they want on the air, but they carry full legal liability for it.

IIRC, the 'platform' legal classification was originally made for telephone companies, so that they wouldn't be legally liable for what people did over the telephone, like plotting crimes. Otherwise, they would have had to have operators listening in on literally every single phone call in order to protect themselves from liability.

Platform status was specifically extended to ISPs, and then as a thing websites in general could have, to promote the economic growth and open discussion capabilities of the internet.

Have you actually read Section 230?
How do you rationalize extending common carrier status from an ISP, which owns and operates infrastructure, to a website, which is simply a collection of code?

Furthermore, it seems awfully anti freedom to try to put a gun to twitter's head and make them do what you what. If you don't like it, don't use it.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
How do you rationalize extending common carrier status from an ISP, which owns and operates infrastructure, to a website, which is simply a collection of code?

Furthermore, it seems awfully anti freedom to try to put a gun to twitter's head and make them do what you what. If you don't like it, don't use it.

I don't use Twitter. I also don't use Facebook, and the only video I ever posted on Youtube was basically about driving in weather.

It's not about putting a gun to their head. It's about fair enforcement of law. Youtube in particular only exists, because they are not legally liable for the enormous amounts of illegal content that are regularly posted on their site. That is due to being protected as a platform, not a publisher. If they are going to enjoy those protections, then they must act as a platform, rather than a publisher. People also post copyrighted material without permission on other sites, but it's particularly rampant on YT.

Also, note that these tech giants legally claim this platform status and its protections in legal proceedings.

Now, why Section 230 is so contentious, is because it does allow for limited good-faith moderation of content. But included in the text of it is:

"(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services
offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse,
unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad
avenues for intellectual activity."

"`(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that
presently exists for the Internet and other interactive
computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
`(3) to encourage the development of technologies which
maximize user control over what information is received by
individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and
other interactive computer services;"

It is clear and obvious at this point that the current tech giants are both behaving monopolistically, are assuming control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools, and is participating in the active suppression of political and cultural discourse.

We also have this element:
"`(4) to remove disincentives for the development and
utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower
parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or
inappropriate online material; and
`(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws
to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and
harassment by means of computer."

It is absolutely clear that Section 230's primary function is to allow parents to protect their children from obscene material, and to discourage illegal activity. Instead, we regularly see Tech Giants doing little or nothing to stop the posting and activity of groups like ISIS, but they'll stomp on people like Milo Illanopoulis as soon as they think they can get away with it, and let's not even get started on how they treat PragerU.

Instead, Tech giants try to use Section 230 to silence people that they disagree with.


If they want to be publishers, they can be publishers. If they want the protection of platforms, they have to act like platforms.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
How do you rationalize extending common carrier status from an ISP, which owns and operates infrastructure, to a website, which is simply a collection of code?

In my opinion, common carrier status should be defined by functionality -- a "collection of code" which functions as infrastructure shouldn't be legally distinct from a pile of physical hardware which functions as infrastructure.

Edit: Especially since hardware can directly model software, and software can directly emulate hardware. A hardware/software distinction is really not a useful one in this context.

1) If it's non-selective service that doesn't filter content, it is a "platform". This is equivalent to a state where anyone who meets a minimum order size can submit a custom license plate design and the state will print them without review.

2) If it's a selective service that does filter content, it is a "publisher". This is equivalent to a state where custom license plate designs have to be submitted to some form of regulatory body which may approve or deny them.


I choose the example of license plates because there are actual legal precedents over this -- the courts have actually deemed that when a state offers custom license plates on a "platform" style basis, the content of those plates is not deemed state speech and therefore doesn't have to be neutral the way state speech does. However, if the state exercises discretionary review over the content of custom plates, then the content of those states *is* state speech and must follow all the rules for state speech.

Why bother making the analogy at all? Because those legal precedents point us directly at a pretty solid rule of thumb for the intermediate cases where the selectivity of a service is itself the debated point. The license plate precedent is that where things are filtered for legality / compatibility / other bona fide technical reasons but not on the basis of the content per se, that falls under "not state speech", which would correspond to "platform" status.
 
Last edited:

ReeeFallin

The Yankee Candle
In my opinion, common carrier status should be defined by functionality -- a "collection of code" which functions as infrastructure shouldn't be legally distinct from a pile of physical hardware which functions as infrastructure.

Edit: Especially since hardware can directly model software, and software can directly emulate hardware. A hardware/software distinction is really not a useful one in this context.

1) If it's non-selective service that doesn't filter content, it is a "platform". This is equivalent to a state where anyone who meets a minimum order size can submit a custom license plate design and the state will print them without review.

2) If it's a selective service that does filter content, it is a "publisher". This is equivalent to a state where custom license plate designs have to be submitted to some form of regulatory body which may approve or deny them.


I choose the example of license plates because there are actual legal precedents over this -- the courts have actually deemed that when a state offers custom license plates on a "platform" style basis, the content of those plates is not deemed state speech and therefore doesn't have to be neutral the way state speech does. However, if the state exercises discretionary review over the content of custom plates, then the content of those states *is* state speech and must follow all the rules for state speech.

Why bother making the analogy at all? Because those legal precedents point us directly at a pretty solid rule of thumb for the intermediate cases where the selectivity of a service is itself the debated point. The license plate precedent is that where things are filtered for legality / compatibility / other bona fide technical reasons but not on the basis of the content per se, that falls under "not state speech", which would correspond to "platform" status.
But twitter is not the digital equivalent of infrastructure. It is the digital equivalent of a convention hall. It is a forum of discussions. It's a conversation club.
 

Sir 1000

Shitlord
. I know people in the radical left wing circles in California. They are not happy about the wildfires. Rural California is still California and a lot of leftists, and families and friends of leftists live there, and a lot of people have lost their homes, never mind the health consequences so many people in the cities suffer when these kinds of wildfires happen. Even if antifa were the heartless monsters you seem to believe they are (and they're not), they would have no reason to do this.

Antifais about resisting fascism. Breaking up fascist demonstrations, and protecting protestors from fascist agitators who would frequently come and start trouble. They are also in my experience mostly really chill, nice folks.

This whole narrative seems completely divorced from reality as I see it. The US lurched wildly to the right in the 1980s and there has been basically no pushback. the Democrats just went along with it. The ACA was essentially the Republican plan in the 1990s, as an opposition to proper single payer health care. The voting rights act as has been gutted. The Democrats meekly went along with Bush's idiotic wars to avoid looking weak. The right wing militarized and radicalized all through the 1990s, claiming that utter centrist milksop Bill Clinton was the anti-Christ and an existential threat to democracy. (Which got us The OKC bombing). They radicalized under G.W. Bush, becoming increasingly hostile to immigrants and Muslims. They radicalized further under Obama, a complete boring centrist who continued Bush's wars and struggled to get a half-assed version of Romneycare over the finish line. And they continue to radicalize under Trump, openly embracing the racism and authoritarianism they used to pretend wasn't part of their ideology.

It wasn't the left that played chicken with defaulting on the debt to get their way. It wasn't the left that stole a SC seat. It wasn't the left that stole the Presidency in 2000 and treated a popular vote loss in 2016 as a mandate for radical change. It wasn't the left who described literal Nazis as "good people" or fought tooth and nail to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry, or who pushed back hard against civil rights protections. It wasn't the left that decided to launch campaigns of harassment at women who dared have opinions on the most superficial elements of culture, like comic books and video games, or to develop bizarre conspiracy theories about secret Islamic extremism or satanic pedophile rings in Washington DC. (And fantasizing about Satanic pedophiles has been a right wing pre-occupation since the 1980s, so it isn't some reaction to Obama.)

The Democrats (who aren't even the left) finally, finally started to push back a tiny little bit, by having some people object to attempts to "reach across the aisle" to people who have broken every rule and norm of government. AOC is absolutely right that the people who abetted Trump in his crimes shouldn't be allowed to slink away like so many of Nixon's cronies and the Iran-Contra conspirators and their enablers were allowed to. If somebody helped Donald Trump commit his crimes, they should at the barest minimum not be given work in their field. That isn't some call to shut down everybody who voted for the man, but the people who were significant in selling and running his presidency.

If you spend years doing actual harm to people, messing up their lives, hurting children, spreading disease, taking away their access to healthcare, threatening them and declaring them degenerate scum, then eventually they are going to be just a little irritated. The left is absolutely enjoying seeing Trump beaten and his followers demoralized. That is entirely natural. What they aren't going to do is spend the next four years trying to find policies that will hurt them and destroy the things they value for the lulz. Some people are really, really angry. They want to let the Republican voting areas rot, and ignore the economic hardships they suffer. The thing is, when they say things like that, people come out of the woodwork to tell them to stop being an idiot and trying to punish people and their families for having stupid political opinions. When is the last time you heard somebody on the right talk about fucking over urban America with anything but glee?

The left is not making this radicalism happen. Most leftists I know hate thinking about politics. They do it because they think it will help people. It isn't a game, these are people's lives we're talking about. But there is only so much farther even the most well meaning people can be pushed before something gives.
This wouldn't be the first time extremists have done things that harmed they're own side(don't forget all the times antifa has beaten up it's own side btw) and it's all the more reason to deny involvement. I'm sorry but when seemingly every member of an organization or you're 'idea' advocate violence,commits arson and attacks journalist's reporting this in an attempt to cover up their crimes. I can not see them as anything besides thugs and criminals. The fact that numerous members have priors involving child abuse and molestation,domestic abuse, burglary and other crimes only cements my belief.

Simply calling themselves the 'anti bad guys' does not make them good and breaking up legal demonstrations is stupidly wrong for a couple of reasons. For starters they have the right to demonstrate or protest as guaranteed by the constitution. Antifa does not decide this and has no right to do so or presume to do so. If the left dislikes this freedom then they should behave in a civilized manner and work to change the laws.

Before you mention the paradox of tolerance i feel i should point out that assumes the ones stomping on 'intolerance' do so in good faith and not simply to impose they're own brand of intolerance. Let us not forget that antifa is a communist organization. The paradox of tolerance applies to them as well. Unless you want to argue communism of all things didn't kill a shitload of people and took away their rights through tyranny.

I'm sure they are all very nice as long as you parrot the correct opinions on matters. The inquisition was great too depending..........

I can't comment on the ACA and the voting rights act as i'm unfamiliar however i have a hunch it's not so cut and dried. Maybe someone else in the thread would like to chime in?. I can however remind you that the rise of the number of militias was in respone to the utter fusterclucks of Ruby ridge and Waco, Timothy mcveighs attack was allegedly because of Ruby ridge and the government straight up murdering people.

As for the wars i would argue thats basically uniparty as many of the people who complained about them, now complain about Trump trying to get us out of them, not to mention Biden supported them also and is putting supporters of said war in his cabinet. It also wasn't only the right who was pissed about 9/11 though several years later it was the left who pussied out and cared more about punishing wrong think than the people running them over and molesting children in grooming gangs.


Saying 'Obama was center' is just an attempt at moving the overton window. The man was far left to the core, he repealed the Smith-Mundt act and made domestic propganda legal. He used the IRS to attack conservative groups and political opponents. He deliberately through gasoline on race relations with his various remarks on cases where the 'bad guys' were later found not guilty by a jury of their peers. He signed off on spying on the incoming conservative administration and many other instances of blatant far left partisianship. He was not some centrist by any means.

Saying Trump supporters rdicalized under Trump ignores a few things. Much of the right was being driven further right before he came into the picture. Through an enormous media effort to paint any white christian man as the most evil thing ever in a massive propganda push(hello Smith-Mundt act btw) and western civilization as irredeemable. The actions of members of antifa in assaulting peaceful protestors and terrorizing anyone with ideas to the right of Marx or that the elite don't like. An educational and academic purge of everyone not on board with the former things. Among other legitimate grievances the right was driven to be more extreme and partisan simply to survive. Trump is a symptom, the right would have happily supported a Romney or Mcain type if they had the balls to hit back and not be principled losers. Much of the escalation of the past ten years is wholly on the left.

The debt? Was a wall that doesn't even work according to the left really so much? The thing was like 24 billion which is change between the couch cushions in a budget as large as Americas. The dems went to extrordinary lengths to stop him from funding it. I guess Trump was just supposed to bend over and take it like a good conservative amirite? Mitch mconnel told the Democrats they would regret it and so they did. It would have also been a poor idea to leave that seat unfilled when both parties were complaining about election fraud. Which considering recent events seems like it was a wise choice. I can't comment on the 2000 election as i didn't really like either candidate.

That quote about Trump was long ago debunked as taking what he said out of context and the right hasn't gave a shit about lgbt for years unless the left is teaching kindergardners about dildos,having 'drag time storyhour' or shoving dollar bills down the thong of an 8 yr old boy terking in the latest pride/degeneracy parade.

Are we in some bizzare oposite land? It wasn't the right who cined the words 'cancel culture' buddy. I will agree with the whole satanic thing, i don't really understand it myself tbh. Though i think that whole thing started because of some childcare place in the 80's being weird and some investigators stupidly throwing fuel on the fire.

We will have to agree to disagree on the Democrats pushback or lack thereof as it's highly subjective. That's a load of bs and i think you know it. This is intended not merely people in his administration but peple who have donated to his campaign as well. There has even been attempts by the left to add people who have voted for him as well though thankfully those are failing for obvious reasons. That has not stopped various prominent leftists on twitter from trying to organize a list of people who supported Trump on social media however. The fact is thats wrong and attempting to terrorize innocent people for the 'crime' of not sucking commie girl dick is the act of tyrants. We also have this thing called a justice system for people who commit real crimes.

I could accuse the left of everysingle thing you accuse the right of as many left wing policies cause those very things. Either you are naive or dishonest about hurting the right as many Democratic policies that Joe Biden has as his platform either hurt us directly or indirectly and your insistence that the left is policing it's own is laughable when i can read what leftwing politicians and organizations say on twitter or in public. If the right takes glee in a measure of revenge i'm not going to cheer them on but i'm also not going to condem them. Like many things the left complain about the right doing they started flinging shit first.

Ahahahahaha the left don't like thinking about politics? Are you high? That's all the left thinks about. It has not been the right pushing politics and id pol into literally everything movies,tv,music,books,etc. How we need to bring up politics at holidays to convert,shame,brainwash,etc the evil drumphers. How time is racist and milk is a symbol of muh 'white supremacy'. Every single feftist i know does nothing but talk politics.

I wish i had read that last paragraph before typing all of this out and giving you the benefit of the doubt because i don't believe there is anything i could say or show you that would convince you to change your beliefs on some things so i feel like i just wasted a lot of my time. You are correct that there is only so far well meaning people can be pushed and your terms are acceptable.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
But twitter is not the digital equivalent of infrastructure. It is the digital equivalent of a convention hall. It is a forum of discussions. It's a conversation club.
A "conversation club" with over 330 million members. At that point, the sheer scale of it turns it into a public square; because if you have something to say, you're going to have to say it on Twitter if you want anyone to hear you.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
The ACA was essentially the Republican plan in the 1990s, as an opposition to proper single payer health care.

I wasn't aware that political parties aren't allowed to ever change thier positions on any issue ever. Tell me, how should we view Biden in light of him authoring the 1994 crime bill?

he right wing militarized and radicalized all through the 1990s, claiming that utter centrist milksop Bill Clinton was the anti-Christ and an existential threat to democracy. (Which got us The OKC bombing).

OKC happened because Clinton's DOJ decided to go around throwing their weight around reminding the peons who's *really* in charge, a series of action that resulted in the murder of Randy Weaver's family by federal agents, and then they doubled down and murdered dozens of other people at Waco.

McVeigh's actions were disproportionate and badly targeted, but his choice to take the fight to the DOJ was 100% justified. The Clinton era DOJ was out of control and needed to be reminded that they are, in the end, the servants of the american public and not it's rulers, and the only upside of the bombing was that that lesson sunk in. It is unfortunate that they allowed things to escalate to the point that such action was nearly inevitable, and that McVeigh chose to act the way he did.


As for the right wing "militarizing", give me a break. The democratic has been fearmongering about "radical right wing militas" for 30 straight years, spinning narrative after narrative about how they're totally a major threat and a spree of violent right wing violence is an imminent threat, and for 30 years it's been a malicious lie.

And they continue to radicalize under Trump, openly embracing the racism and authoritarianism they used to pretend wasn't part of their ideology.

Prove it.

It wasn't the left that stole a SC seat.

1. That never happened.
2. The left has no right to complain about the SC, given that they are entirely responsible for the turning the appointment process into an utter circus, in the name of defending a grossly illegitimate ruling from 1973.

It wasn't the left that stole the Presidency in 2000 and treated a popular vote loss in 2016 as a mandate for radical change.

Is there a single leftist conspiracy theory you don't buy into? As for 2016, the popular vote is meaningless and always has been, and "radical change" is about the least accurate thing you can say about his administration, unless you count things like, say, making actual progress in the middle east peace process or getting us out of the stupid wars your precious Obama got us into.

It wasn't the left who described literal Nazis as "good people"

It wasn't the right either.

or fought tooth and nail to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry, or who pushed back hard against civil rights protections.

I'll grant you that elements of the right did that, years ago, but since then the party has largely accepted gay marriage and related issues, with their only current objections being to some minor procedural issues as to how those policies have been enacted, and some trans related issues that are not even close to being as clear cut as the gay marriage debate.

It wasn't the left that decided to launch campaigns of harassment at women who dared have opinions on the most superficial elements of culture, like comic books and video games,

Assuming that's a gamergate reference, that wasn't a right wing thing, and your view of the people involved on the anti-GG side is ludicrously rose tinted.

develop bizarre conspiracy theories about secret Islamic extremism or satanic pedophile rings in Washington DC. (And fantasizing about Satanic pedophiles has been a right wing pre-occupation since the 1980s, so it isn't some reaction to Obama.)

No, you've developed differant, equally insane conspiracy theories about different topics (and frankly, I think the Qanon people are on to something, given how much people in the democratic establishment are freaking out about it). The differance is, our fringe conspiracy nuts are just that, fringe nuts, while yours are in leadership postions in the goverment, media, and DNC establishment. Perhaps you may have heard of some of them, they're fans of this explicitly disproven claim about Trump being a Russia asset and working with them to "steal" the election in 2016?

abetted Trump in his crimes

What crimes, exactly?

What they aren't going to do is spend the next four years trying to find policies that will hurt them and destroy the things they value for the lulz. Some people are really, really angry. They want to let the Republican voting areas rot, and ignore the economic hardships they suffer. The thing is, when they say things like that, people come out of the woodwork to tell them to stop being an idiot and trying to punish people and their families for having stupid political opinions. When is the last time you heard somebody on the right talk about fucking over urban America with anything but glee?

That does not match my experience, from what I've seen people rarely stand up to or disagree with lefts when they start openly talking about punishing republicans for daring to disagree with them, and leftist will absolutely spend time pushing policies explicitly out of spite.

People on the right are far from sympathtic when it comes to american's urban areas, but from what I've seen it's more of "hahaha, you made your bed now lie in it" response, rather than claiming responsiblity...in fact, most people on the right, as you very well know, are very quick to pin all blame for the plight of urban areas on the democrats.
 
Last edited:

Navarro

Well-known member
OKC happened because Clinton's DOJ decided to go around throwing their weight around reminding the peons who's *really* in charge, a series of action that resulted in the murder of Randy Weaver's family by federal agents, and then they doubled down and murdered dozens of other people at Waco.

McVeigh's actions were disproportionate and badly targeted, but his choice to take the fight to the DOJ was 100% justified. The Clinton era DOJ was out of control and needed to be reminded that they are, in the end, the servants of the american public and not it's rulers, and the only upside of the bombing was that that lesson sunk in. It is unfortunate that they allowed things to escalate to the point that such action was nearly inevitable, and that McVeigh chose to act the way he did.

As for the right wing "militarizing", give me a break. The democratic has been fearmongering about "radical right wing militas" for 30 straight years, spinning narrative after narrative about how they're totally a major threat and a spree of violent right wing violence is an imminent threat, and for 30 years it's been a malicious lie.

Not to mention that Waco and Ruby Ridge happened specifically because of the paranoid fear of a far-right uprising mentioned, which derived from ... a small group of neo-Nazis inspired by The Turner Diaries who managed to kill one man, rob a few banks, and get themselves wiped out in a shootout with the police. Far less than what the levels of domestic terrorism that happened in the 60s.

No, you've developed differant, equally insane conspiracy theories about different topics (and frankly, I think the Qanon people are on to something, given how much people in the democratic establishment are freaking out about it). The differance is, our fringe conspiracy nuts are just that, fringe nuts, while yours are in leadership postions in the goverment, media, and DNC establishment. Perhaps you may have heard of some of them, they're fans of this explicitly disproven claim about Trump being a Russia asset and working with them to "steal" the election in 2016?

Not to mention that it was the Left which eagerly snapped on to 9/11 conspiracy theories, including a US Congressional representative.
 
Last edited:

Navarro

Well-known member
What crimes, exactly?

Winning the 2016 election, trying to repeal a broken healthcare law, deregulation, trying to reduce the scope of government, lowering taxes, taking a firm stance against Islamist terrorism, taking action against the Iranian terror-state's ambitions to conquer the middle east and nuke Israel into oblivion, trying to denuclearise the Korean peninsula, enforcing pre-existing laws against illegal immigration, and as many more as the DNC can come up with.
 
Last edited:

ReeeFallin

The Yankee Candle
A "conversation club" with over 330 million members. At that point, the sheer scale of it turns it into a public square; because if you have something to say, you're going to have to say it on Twitter if you want anyone to hear you.
what makes it public? do you know what public means?

And if it is a 'public square' then every previous argument about being a provider is bullshit.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
I have no idea what reality you are posting from, but I'm a pacifist, so no war for me.

Oh, you're a coward.

Well don't worry, the real men will go and die. You stay home and think wistfully of being able to bed their women while their gone. Just explain that you're a pacifist. That always gets them nice and wet.


Abortion is the thin end of the wedge, but by attempts to block abortion have led to set ups where women can't get basic reproductive health done without risking legal liability in some places. It ain't good.

You act as though society simply cannot survive without abortion. Which is ironic, because the reverse appears to be true. Just ask Europe.

The Democrats are also shit. The Republicans are worse about it, given the active glee they seem to take in police violence (and the fact the police themselves are much more suburban and right wing than the cities they police in many cases). But the Democrats definitely haven't covered themselves in glory.

Surely they could have hired left-wing police officers? Or at least moderate ones? Or maybe...they just don't give two shits. Let's be honest. If a city is shit and run by one political party for the past half century, is it the fault of the opposing party or does it probably mean the Democrats don't give two shits?

Not that worthless commies would do any better.

Given that Trump's policies were shot down legally, I don't think he can take credit.

Lol:


The Supreme Court upholds Trump's Muslim Ban 3.0
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the Trump administration’s third Muslim ban. As disappointing as this decision is, it does not affect the ACLU of Washington’s case against the Trump Administration’s refugee ban, Doe et al. v. Trump.

This is because plaintiffs in Doe et al. v. Trump have an entirely separate legal claim to have their families reunited with them in the U.S. and those claims were not part of the challenge to the Muslim ban.

Of the Supreme Court’s decision on Muslim ban 3.0, Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said, “This ruling will go down in history as one of the Supreme Court’s great failures. It repeats the mistakes of the Korematsu decision upholding Japanese-American imprisonment and swallows wholesale government lawyers’ flimsy national security excuse for the ban instead of taking seriously the president’s own explanation for his action."

“It is ultimately the people of this country who will determine its character and future. The court failed today, and so the public is needed more than ever. We must make it crystal clear to our elected representatives: If you are not taking actions to rescind and dismantle Trump’s Muslim ban, you are not upholding this country’s most basic principles of freedom and equality.”

Maybe try and actually keep up after the first court case. Trump's ban was upheld. So yes, he can take credit. But I'm sure you'll invent a new reason why he can't.

France and Germany have made a point of alienating and isolating their Muslim minority, and have a violent history with their colonial subjects going back a ways. In the 1950s, a couple hundred Muslim protesters were straight up murdered in Paris. The history there is hardcore fucked up.

Except the recent arrivals are the ones committing the violence. And given how people like to downplay Islamic violence, I somewhat doubt the French authorities outright slaughtered Islamic protesters. More likely, they were rioters.


And we all no how much Republicans care about free speech. ;)

Well, more than the Democrats certainly. Funny how it's the Republicans demanding to be able to have free speech on social media platforms and it's the Democrats demanding censorship and "fact correcting".

Look, I'm a Christian.

I'm sure you are.

And this isn't a pathetic attempt to try and steal the high ground.

And beyond that, I just find the whole internet rationalist movement unbelievably douchey. Also, a lot of the "new atheist" movement wound up on the right over the last few years. I think it is because the movement was always more about bullying than reason.

No, they were just of no more use to the democrats. Supporting new atheists was always about undercutting religious arguments against homosexuality, sexual exploration, and other subjects.

I'm not a Democrat, and I don't care about coddling bigots, regardless of their backgrounds.

Congrats, prepare to lose again commie. Because all you've proven is you're incapable of putting together a working coalition.

It's the torture one.

So the one where we cut off someone's penis?

Anti-Semites are inconsistent and irrational? Who knew?

Ah yes! I'd forgotten when Hitler went back and forth, burning political capital to help the Jews retake their long last homeland, right before he shoved them in concentration camps. Or the KKK, which switches between donating to the Israeli Lobby to calling for them to be strung up high.

Oh wait, none of them do that. Because there's a vast difference between having an irrational hatred of something and being mentally incapable of following a line of action against the thing you hate.

But beyond that, Trump isn't all right wingers. Frankly, Trump isn't smart or coherent enough to have an ideology.

If that were true, then why has Trump consistently selected conservative judges? If he lacked any sort of ideology, then he would not have been able to differentiate between a conservative judge and a liberal one. Or if that were the case, why would he consistently avoid getting entangled in wars with other nations? If he were so feckless, then he would have listened to whatever Bolton told him, so long as he thought it would make him important. Nor would Trump have strongly pushed for the wall. Or make policy moves that support the Christian right.

In fact, in order for Trump not to have any sort of ideology, you would need to argue that he is mentally unfit to do...well, anything. If Trump is so over-the-top retarded, then how did he manage to outmaneuver the Democrats for the past four years?

He's the id in a tacky suit. But the right has traded in anti-Semitism since before the Republicans were a party. (And the left also has a problem with anti-Semites. I don't think the problem is as bad, and it certainly isn't as tolerated as it is on the right, but it is there.)

The Progressive left--specifically members of the squad, have literally been insisting that the Jews are evil and that the Holocaust didn't happen.

Oh, so the white supremacists are the victims. Good to know.

You're calling them victims. I'm simply saying that given their predicament, they made the rational decision to join the side that wasn't anti-white. It has nothing to do with good or evil or victims and predators. Simply that people vote for their own perceived benefits. Since voting for Democrats who are pushing anti-white narratives is not really in the best interest of a white supremacist or a white nationalist, they'll obviously vote for the other party.


Bullshit. There is nothing in the human genome that corresponds to race, and multiethnic societies have been around since before written language.

Multi-ethnic? Maybe. Multi-racial? Not so much.

In fact, before the age when nations could reach over vast distances (ie, the imperial age), most conflicts were between local ethnicities. The Europeans mostly had wars with other Europeans. The Arabs mostly had wars with other Arabs. Africans mostly had wars with other Africans. Asians mostly had wars with Asians. It was only as the ability for humans to travel grew that so did the ability to wage conflict.

As for multi-ethnic societies before written language? I would like to see some proof of that. Because multi-ethnic societies could only exist in the form of vast empires, but most of the ethnic groups would be separate from one another. You might have a Persian empire dominating different ethnic groups throughout the Middle-East or even into parts of Europe, but you would not have a large degree of Persians and Europeans and other ethnic groups living together. The exception would be large cities, where you get a large flow of trade and goods and so might have some ethnic groups settle down. Or from previous invasions.

Overall though, ethnic identities tend to remain within their geographic borders. Most people just don't move.

EDIT -- As for your human genome argument in regards to race...more sheer stupidity on your part. If that were true, kids would pop out all sorts of different colors and variations. It literally flies in the face of evolution.


It has been presented. The judge asked them if any of the evidence actually supported their claim, and rather than commit perjury they admitted it did not. The judge then dismissed the case.

Cite the case.


That he's an internet rando repeating stuff with no evidence.

No dipshit, he's a cyber security analyst who worked for the Texan government and determined that the system was too dangerous to use.

Trump was getting hit for racist shit in the 1980s. Children don't know their history.

Lol, you mean where the court agreed that his company (not Trump himself) hadn't actually done anything wrong? Put up the actual court case.

You do understand proof doesn't work like that. Like I have pointed out the company in question didn't tabulate votes, had no headquarter where the "raid" supposedly occurred, that anyone who would have knowledge of the incident has denied knowing anything about it, and that the person presenting it made multiple factually incorrect statements about the case. What more do you want, video of a place that doesn't exist not being raided?

No, you're basically saying that they're lying with no proof, then asserting that other groups must be telling the truth. Again, with no proof. We won't know until the court case shakes out.

So Democrats are obviously not unified against Trump, and the evidence of this is that they turn on anyone who doesn't vote against Trump. Impeccable logic.

Well no, that isn't what I said. But given your low intellectual skills thus far, I'm not surprised you fail at basic reading comprehension. Or rather, your pathetic attempt to reframe what I said into an argument that you can win. But hey, if you didn't lack brains, you wouldn't be a commie.

That sounds like bullshit to me. The US has been more than happy to overthrow stable regimes for economic benefit. The sooner that stops, the better.

No, the US has had a habit of removing leaders that they didn't like, because if went against their national interest. The USA doesn't just randomly show up to throw over governments because the CIA is bored.

Globalism in grown up land is specifically a notion about the interdependence of markets and the inadequacy of national laws to contain multinational corporations.

That is literally not how it works. Then again, we can't expect a socialist to understand how money works.

Globalism as you see it today was based upon American geo-strategic concerns. Do you think it's a coincidence that the US public lost interest in most foreign affairs in the 90s? Do you think it's a coincidence that as shale began to grow in strength, Obama grew less and less interested in sending Super Carriers to the warn off Iran? Do you think it a coincidence that Trump, the guy with the largest anti-war policies in the past hundred years, was elected in 2016 and proceeded to draw down as much as he could?

Of course not. Now that the geo-strategic concerns of needing oil and containing Russia are gone, the US is focusing on its geo-economic needs. And that has been the trend for the past 30 years.

In conspiracy loon territory it is a shadowy cabal of people with loyalty to no nation who plat their downfall through control of the banks. Which, surprise, surprise, is exactly the role of the Jews in old John Bircher/anti-Dreyfussard conspiracy theory.

*Slow clap*

Congrats, you're asserting that the position held by lunatics in the far right is somehow the main position of the Republican party. Who keep sending aid and support to Israel. What a smart little bumpkin you are. A pity your mommy never laid off the wine when she was pregnant with you. You might not have arrived so soft headed.

Well, I hate capitalism and I think American liberal democracy is a sham, so I guess I'm a globalist.

Globalism has nothing to do with socialism commie.

In fact, crony capitalism has been rampant throughout Africa and China in the past 20-30 years because of globalism.
 
Last edited:

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
Several things. First off I am poor, and moving costs money.

You mean you don't have a job.


Secondly, I don't care about the US as an entity, but I quite like the region I live in (especially in the fall) and its culture.

Weren't you complaining that you were surrounded by hicks who voted for Trump and will always vote for Trump?

Also my family lives here, my ancestors are buried here, my church is here. All stuff I'd be very reluctant to leave behind, even if I could.

Or are you so lazy that you're unwilling to have two strong men cart you out in a wheel barrel?

And there really isn't anywhere on Earth where exploitation and coercion aren't happening, even if they might not be as obvious as here. Even places like the Nordic countries, where capitalism seems largely tamed and the people in the country are pretty well taken care of maintain their prosperity through exploitation overseas. And even if there were a utopia, it wouldn't be right to walk away from where evil is happening without helping the people subject to it. Not that I wouldn't be tempted.

Let me guess. You applied and they said no.

Antifais about resisting fascism. Breaking up fascist demonstrations, and protecting protestors from fascist agitators who would frequently come and start trouble. They are also in my experience mostly really chill, nice folks.

You know, most "chill" people don't go out and burn down black neighborhoods so they can pretend to be revolutionaries. And you don't resist a fascist regime by going and destroying public or private property. If you all had any real balls, you'd show up at the White House and try to attack the President himself. Since by your logic, he is the source of this evil. Or hell, go to red dominated areas and riot.

Of course, that would mean all your chill friends would get mowed down by gunfire. And we all know a bunch of white middle-class communists larping as heroes sure as hell aren't going to lay down their lives for their beliefs.

This whole narrative seems completely divorced from reality as I see it. The US lurched wildly to the right in the 1980s and there has been basically no pushback.

Because abortion rights, LGBT acceptance, sexual promiscuity, and fat fucks are in no way a talking point in the MSM.

It wasn't the left that played chicken with defaulting on the debt to get their way. It wasn't the left that stole a SC seat. It wasn't the left that stole the Presidency in 2000 and treated a popular vote loss in 2016 as a mandate for radical change.

The Republicans didn't steal a seat. Contrary to what low-information voters believe (ie, you), the Republican Senate was under no obligation to confirm anyone that Obama put up. That's the whole point of the confirmation process. Otherwise, that would have made the Judicial Branch an extension of the Executive Branch, since it would allow the President to appoint whoever they wanted. No, the Senate's role is vital to help the Judicial Branch retain its independence.

Obama was the one who put up a candidate that the Republican dominated Senate did not like.

Nor did the Republicans steal the election in 2000. Bush contested the results in Florida (as is his right), which went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that Bush was in the right and that votes weren't counted correctly.

Nor does the popular vote matter, save to low-information voters who listen to their Democrat pimp daddies.

It wasn't the left who described literal Nazis as "good people"

You know, you seem to believe a lot of crap that low-information voters believe. How extraordinary.

or fought tooth and nail to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry, or who pushed back hard against civil rights protections.

Hmmm, no. But it was the left that fought tooth and nail to insist that changes to laws could be made by SCOTUS. And oddly enough, a few years later, we have a major dominating right-leaning SCOTUS. Because oddly enough, not even the Democrats gave two shits about LGBT marriage laws on the national level.

It wasn't the left that decided to launch campaigns of harassment at women who dared have opinions on the most superficial elements of culture, like comic books and video games, or to develop bizarre conspiracy theories about secret Islamic extremism or satanic pedophile rings in Washington DC. (And fantasizing about Satanic pedophiles has been a right wing pre-occupation since the 1980s, so it isn't some reaction to Obama.)

You mean where women came into the male space and harassed and belittled men and their hobbies? And then said women were promptly told to fuck off? And now that companies decided to side with the women, they're all losing money? Almost as if the women who complained had no real standing in the "communities" that they were complaining about?

How very, very strange!

The Democrats (who aren't even the left) finally, finally started to push back a tiny little bit, by having some people object to attempts to "reach across the aisle" to people who have broken every rule and norm of government. AOC is absolutely right that the people who abetted Trump in his crimes shouldn't be allowed to slink away like so many of Nixon's cronies and the Iran-Contra conspirators and their enablers were allowed to. If somebody helped Donald Trump commit his crimes, they should at the barest minimum not be given work in their field. That isn't some call to shut down everybody who voted for the man, but the people who were significant in selling and running his presidency.

What crimes did Trump commit?

The Muslim ban was legal. See SCOTUS.
His appointments were legal. See the Senate.
His wall building was legal. See SCOTUS.
His desire to draw back troops overseas is legal. See the Constitution.
Detaining and deporting illegal immigrants is legal. See the Constitution and SCOTUS.

Exactly what crimes did Trump commit?

If you spend years doing actual harm to people,

Making commies get jobs.

messing up their lives,

Taking away their weed.

hurting children,

Detaining children sold or abducted by coyotes before sending them back to their country of origin on a plane, at tax payer's expense.

spreading disease,

Pouring billions into vaccine companies, who announced a cure within several months.

taking away their access to healthcare,

Not allowing worthless fat commies to enslave healthy, educated doctors.

threatening them and declaring them degenerate scum,

Telling male feminists to stop trying to rape women. Or for people to stop cutting off their 8 year old's penis.

then eventually they are going to be just a little irritated.

Then eventually they'll throw out poll watchers, stuff the ballots with millions of illegal votes, and pretend that they won by legit means.

Because that's how commies roll. Why go through all the hard work of doing something, when you can just flip a switch and pretend you earned it?

The left is absolutely enjoying seeing Trump beaten and his followers demoralized.

Which is why the Republicans have had large scale peaceful protests and the Democrats in the House are at each other's throats.

That is entirely natural.

Because expecting a communist to be a good sport is like expecting them to get a job.

It simply won't work.

What they aren't going to do is spend the next four years trying to find policies that will hurt them and destroy the things they value for the lulz.

Get purged by the neo-cons and neo-liberals, because those insane policies cost them the seats in the House and Senate.

Some people are really, really angry. They want to let the Republican voting areas rot, and ignore the economic hardships they suffer.

A popular communist position well before Obama came along.


The thing is, when they say things like that, people come out of the woodwork to tell them to stop being an idiot and trying to punish people and their families for having stupid political opinions. When is the last time you heard somebody on the right talk about fucking over urban America with anything but glee?

Like when Trump passed criminal law reforms to help inner city blacks. Or when the Democrats let thugs burn down the inner cities.

The left is not making this radicalism happen.

Because screaming that 60 million people are irredeemable racist is just natural. As is trying to censor and ban people from speaking. As is forming lists of former Trump supporters in order to impoverish them. Or threatening Republican officials with death threats. Or Democrat officials abusing their offices through false prosecutions of someone's constitutional right.

Most leftists I know hate thinking about politics.

Which is exactly why we should trust them when they talk about politics.

They do it because they think it will help people.

Like using leeches to cure diseases. Good policy isn't important. Feeling important is important.

It isn't a game, these are people's lives we're talking about.

Which is why we should trust people who don't put any effort into educating themselves about politics. Much like how you can't expect a fat person to put any effort into being amazing, people should just treat them as if they are amazing. Rather than the worthless mass of fat and despair they actually are.

But there is only so much farther even the most well meaning people can be pushed before something gives.

In this case, their chair and bed springs.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top