Ah. Clearly the corona virus doesn't infect horny people. Or something.
Judge overrules county, allows San Diego strip clubs to reopen
Coronavirus cases and hospitalizations continue to increase in San Diego County.www.latimes.com
Election 2020 Election Fraud: Let's face it, this year will be a shitshow
- Thread starter MelancholicMechanicus
- Start date
Until Biden is sworn in, it is not over. It is definitely not over till it reaches SCOTUS, regardless of what is going on with the EC.
There has been so much fraud and election irregularities, all favoring Biden, that there is a good chance SCOTUS overturns the results of the elections in those states.
And if Biden/the Dems do cheat thier way into a win, we are fucked. We will have lost our last, best chance to derail the Great Reset and the globalists. We will have lost our last, best chance of saving our Republic, and our future will be what the CCP wants it to be, because they will own America. Our election will be proven to be a sham worth nothing, and no person who supported Trump will have a future; they will come for us one way or another.
There has been so much fraud and election irregularities, all favoring Biden, that there is a good chance SCOTUS overturns the results of the elections in those states.
And if Biden/the Dems do cheat thier way into a win, we are fucked. We will have lost our last, best chance to derail the Great Reset and the globalists. We will have lost our last, best chance of saving our Republic, and our future will be what the CCP wants it to be, because they will own America. Our election will be proven to be a sham worth nothing, and no person who supported Trump will have a future; they will come for us one way or another.
Last edited:
ShieldWife
Marchioness
I still really hope that Trump can prove large scale election fraud and win. I want that to happen as much as anybody here. I think it's really really unlikely at this point, but I still hope that it happens.
But when it comes to faithless electors or state governments choosing electors or any similar method that could theoretically let Trump win - we don't want to win that way!
If state legislators start picking electors instead of a vote by the state's population or electors start voting in mass contrary to how they are supposed to then it will fundamentally alter the nature of the election process and actually make it far less responsive to the will of the people and more under control of political insiders. If Trump were to win that way, then just imagine what the next election will be like - who cares about convincing voters, lets just try to win the electors and state legislators over.
But when it comes to faithless electors or state governments choosing electors or any similar method that could theoretically let Trump win - we don't want to win that way!
If state legislators start picking electors instead of a vote by the state's population or electors start voting in mass contrary to how they are supposed to then it will fundamentally alter the nature of the election process and actually make it far less responsive to the will of the people and more under control of political insiders. If Trump were to win that way, then just imagine what the next election will be like - who cares about convincing voters, lets just try to win the electors and state legislators over.
If we do not win here and now, there will never be another GOP POTUS, and no future elections will matter, so your complaint is moot.
The Dems will cheat again and again, starting with the Georgia run-off election to make Harris the tie-breaker in the Senate.
There is enough election fraud that has been shown to have gone on, all in Biden's favor, that State legislatures invalidating the results and either sending pro-Trump electors or no electors to the EC, this shifting things to the House, is perfectly valid from both a legal and political stand point.
If you think the Georgia run off election isn't going to be watched like a hawk by the Republicans and Independents...
Or that this would have had any chance in hell of working without Corona giving them a legal way to sideline observers...
They will simply find new ways to justify lockdowns and keep observers out, and we are only two Senate seats away from the Dems having effective control of all 3 branches if Biden cheats his way in. They will try to pack SCOTUS if they get a chance too, and then our Constitution will be treated like an unwanted baby at Planned Parenthood.
It doesn't matter how closely the GA run-off is watched, because they will still use the same Covid rules to keep observers from doing thier jobs, and the same Dominion software to switch votes.
If Trump is ousted with a fraudulent election, our Republic is dead and nothing will save it. The voting box will have proved useless and untrustworthy, and once that happens there is no recovering from it.
Over 70% of the Republican base, and 30% of Dems base, feel there was enough fraud in this election to give Biden the win. That does not happen if things are not completely fucked and the fraud is blatant; even if some legislators and judges are fine with enabling said fraud because they don't like Trump.
Trump must fight till the very end, using any legal means available to him to overturn the mass fraud that has been perpetrated. Because when the voting box becomes untrusted and useless, there is very little recourse for people to use to make thier voices heard.
Last edited:
ShieldWife
Marchioness
I understand your point, in fact I largely agree. It's highly likely that large scale election fraud happened and if they get away with it this time, they can not only get away with it again, but likely use their power to make cheating (this way or another) even easier in the future. In fact, if Biden gives citizenship to large numbers of illegals, in the future the Democrats won't even need to cheat in order to shut the Republicans out of the presidency forever. So, you're right, you are and it's scary.
Though if Republicans do some kind of shenanigans with electors, which I think is even more unlikely than than proving fraud and Trump being declared winner, then not only haven't they addressed the problem with cheating, but they have radically changed the nature of national elections in a way that will favor well connected elites over the people in the long run. What will that action gain for us? 4 more years of Trump instead of Biden, that is good, but I don't know if Trump can fix the corruption that let Biden cheat over the next 4 years, especially with the media and deep state at his heels, Democrats in charge of the House, and a substantial portion of the public who claims (with some justification) that the Republicans cheated to let Trump win.
So I'm not completely disagreeing with you, I just think that elector shenanigans to get Trump in isn't a good idea. I'm all for Trump and his campaign fighting to discover election fraud though, I support that 100%
Ultimately, and I don't want to be too much of a black pill girl but I think its true, whether it's now or in 4 to 8 years from now, the Republican Party will be finished. For many decades the American right has given over control of the future to the left - mostly with education and immigration - while Republicans just thought about the next 4 years, Democrats have been working to secure their power into future generations and its worked. Even if Trump can pull out an unlikely win now, he will likely be the last Republican president.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
mesonoxian
Well-known member
I'm glad you don't know anyone who has gone without food or medical care. I have known people who have done both. I have gone without treatment for some conditions due to lack of insurance. I know a man who is blind because he couldn't afford routine medical care, and by the time it became clear that he didn't have a choice the damage was already done. That's why I care about these programs. They are the difference between people being healthy or not. They are the difference between people having full stomachs or not. They let people in desperate need of mental healthcare get it. I think these are morally important programs and hostility to them is a serious problem.Well, you consider any policy other than "let the entire world into America, no borders at all" unjust, so no surprise.
There were going to be death squads, America was going to turn into a theocracy, WW3 would happen, we would all be forced to learn Russian, etc. (as was said about Reagan and Bush, apart from the learning Russian). People on the Left were genuinely, seriously calling to go full survivalist and hide out in the hills pointing guns at anybody who got too close to their compound. I literally saw this hysteria firsthand, don't tell me it didn't happen.
Now, there's similar hysteria here and in other conservative internet spaces about Biden, but after my initial panic on election night my position is strictly wait-and-see. And when elements of the left have been spouting rhetoric for four years straight about making lists of us, forcing us to wear symbols on our clothing so they can tell us on sight, imprisoning us in camps, killing us, raping us, and in their more compassionate moments forcibly re-educating us to be good little leftist drones, etc. there is certainly room for concern.
Charlottesville, Charlottesville. As if no WS rallies happened under Obama or any of the Presidents before him. These folks have been there for decades, and they've been neutered since the 1960s. They are and were a non-issue.
How much of this is increased activity and how much increased media attention? I would be worried about white supremacists and fascists taking over when open white supremacists and fascists hold institutional power in the media and academia as open black nationalists and Marxists do. When a WS terrorist gets a prestigious university post as various of the 70s left-wing terrorists did, that's the time to worry about them heavily affecting the discourse in society.
The "abuses" of harshly enforcing existing immigration laws, which had the bare minimum of enforcement for decades. Now, one can argue that the law is a bad law and the immigration system needs major reform, and that's a valid political POV to hold. But while the law is law, the government must enforce it.
I wouldn't take "moderate" seriously from a guy who thinks governments shouldn't exist at all.
Yes, the policies that keep people reliant on government benefits to survive, thus ensuring they vote blue no matter who. Oh, and people need Obamacare to live now, because this was America in 2008:
Every Dem is a flaccid centrist and even so milquetoast a GOPer as Romney had it said about him that he would bring back slavery.
*The working class (i.e., the people leftism claims to champion).
*The police
*The black community (continuation of failed policies)
*Conservatives, who will once more face political harassment from Federal agencies as under Obama.
*Small business owners under the planned national lockdown.
But we can already tell who'll be the opposite of substantially harmed by Biden's policies - the CCP and the Iranian mullahs, both committed enemies of America. Keeping foreign (actual) theocrats and (actual) fascists on life support to own the cons!
It's not about "equality of access", it's about forcing Christians to violate their moral consciences as a show of power. Like when they tried forcing a group of Catholic nuns to provide abortion drugs to their employees, or indeed when they tried to force a Christian baker to make an edible piece of art celebrating a gay wedding. And being severely fined and possible having your business destroyed for not wanting to support the left-wing cause de jure is indeed pretty harmful. One just has look at what they did this very year, when they closed churches and designated strip clubs "essential businesses", to get their real attitude toward Christianity.
Trump did more than enforce bad immigration laws. There are official points of entry to the US. CBP physically blocked access to these points and then treated everyone entering around them as having forfeited asylum status, even though refugees status isn't legally linked to arriving at an official point of entry. They then used their "zero tolerance" policy to remand all adults entering regardless of refugee status for criminal prosecution, separating parents from their children and putting the children into camps which had virtually no oversight and where there have been repeated allegations of abuse. The refugees were stripped of their belongings. Seeing the piles of stolen rosaries and medicine taken from people fleeing desperate circumstances and knowing this was a deliberate choice made by our government should give anybody pause.
I am afraid you will keep hearing about Charlottesville. Trump is never going to shake it. You said the left believed the right wing would go unchecked if Trump was elected. So did the far right. This rally was a result of them being emboldened by Trump's embrace of xenophobic rhetoric, and his letting people like Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon into his administration. This was the result of that belief. Trump had the easiest possible choice to make. All he had to do was decry people marching under swastikas who had run down a score of people and murdered a young woman. And he couldn't. His "good people on both sides" was seen by far left and far right alike for what it was, a refusal to denounce fascist, racist violence. Trump could live to be a hundred and sixty and he'll still have that hung around his neck. He had the chance to define his presidency and he did so.
Your list of losers under Biden is not compelling to me. First of all, Trump has done nothing for the working class. He has harmed them by weakening the ability of workers to negotiate collectively, and has weakened programs that benefit them most of all. Trump didn't even win the working class vote in 2016, Clinton did. Trump wins only if you exclude working class minorities, His strongest support is middle class white men, and the strongest correlation with voting Trump was racial anxieties, not economic ones according to polling.
Conservatives were targeted for audits by the IRS because there had been a lack of oversight and multiple abuses of the law. If you can justify taking people from their children and returning refugees to places they are likely to be murdered as just enforcing possibly bad laws, the idea that conservative groups might have to actually explain their book keeping to retain tax exempt status is definitely straining at a gnat.
You are right that the Democrats have failed the Black community. What I disagree with you on is the notion thatt he Republicans would be better rather than worse. While I doubt Biden will do anything significant about police murders of black men, he won't signal support for police violence as Trump has. The Democrats did fail the Black community, by fighting de jure racism and segregation in the south, while leaving a lot of de facto segregation and racism in the north untouched, as well as doing far to little about economic inequality. But I don't think the Republicans are going to step in and fix that, and neither do Black voters who, even more strongly than the working class, rejected Trump and his party.
The police are going to be harmed by not being given carte blanche to commit murder? And small business owners will be hurt by not being allowed to force their employees to expose themselves to a deadly disease? In both cases, I amk entirely willing to trade the social capital of these groups for the lives of people they would victimize.
This last bit is probably going to sound rude, but I think it needs to be said. You say Biden will help the CCP and the Iranian government, I am presuming by not engaging with trade wars with China and backing the nuclear deal with Iran. I think those are good policies, but that isn't what I want to talk about. You say it is to "own the cons". Nobody says "own the cons". Likewise, you say that the left wants to force Christians to violate their consciences as a "show of power". This is a recurring issue I am noticing with the right, the assumption that everything is fundamentally about you.
There is a sort of total self-centeredness, where not only is there an assumption that the important thing in any issue is how it effects you, but that everyone else also cares first and foremost about that. People have claimed on this site that historians don't care about history, just about making people feel bad. Think of the thought process there. The historian has a view of history that makes the hearer feel sad or bad and rather than moving on or arguing it isn't true, the immediate response is that the point of the analysis was to make them feel bad, and the historian is an enemy. People have accused me of supporting Muslims because "they aren't white". Like it is completely unthinkable that you could really care about a minority group as people, rather than as a way of getting at white people you don't like.
And now that I look back, it makes sense of a lot of weird right wing positions. Like deciding criticisms of video games is a reason to send people death threats. It is utterly absurd if you think people just have thoughts and opinions they want to share, but makes (a little) more sense if you believe that they are saying these things out of a direct hostility to you and your identity. Or the bizarre overreaction when there is a woman starring in movie, or LGBT people in TV shows. The assumption really seems to be that women or minorities including people like themselves in fiction isn't for them, or other members of their group, but is intended for white men. And if white men don't like it, it must be to attack white men.
This just isn't how people on the left mostly think. The point of requiring the nuns to offer health insurance with a full range of coverage is a belief that your employer shouldn't get to decide what sort of medical treatment you should receive. The point of not allowing the baker to turn away a gay couple is that we don't want businesses to be able to refuse business to minorities and go back to the days of green books. The feelings of people on the right is not an element of policy positions for people on the left. I don't support trans rights because it makes right wingers unhappy. I support them because I know trans people, and I have seen how prejudice effects them, and how much happier they are after transitioning. The same is true for expanded healthcare benefits, marriage equality, addressing economic inequality. Fundamentally, the world is bigger than you. When somebody holds a position or states a belief you don't like, that isn't about you.
mesonoxian
Well-known member
I hope a double post is forgivable. For some reason I thought these responses were in a different thread, and it seemed rude to make such a large edit to a post after someone had already reacted to it.
I am guessing you aren't from the US. Our system really is confusing, and the way we talk about it makes it moreso.
Due to our constitution being written in the 18th century, you don't actually vote directly for the president, you vote for "electors", people who actually go and do the real voting. The reasons why that happened and how they changed are pretty abstruse, but the long and the short of it is that these days the parties select people to be electors and they pledge themselves in advance to a particular candidate. The electors are very often retired politicians or long time political staffers. So when I went in and clicked the little box to vote for Joe Biden, I really was voting for a guy selected by the state Democrats to represent them. And likewise, the Republicans selected and elector to vote for Trump. My state went for the Republicans, so the electors we are sending to the college are all the ones selected by the Republican party who have promised to vote Trump. The ones from New York are all Democrats, who have promised to vote for Joe Biden. A few states will divide up their electors depending on how various regions voted, or the proportion of voters for each candidate's electors in the state, but everyone who is being sent belongs to one party or the other and has already promised to vote for either Biden or Trump.
Legally they can vote for whoever they want, but in the end there are only two possibilities. Either a person who can legally serve as president is voted for by a majority of the electors or nobody who fits that description gets a majority of the electoral votes.
In the first case, that person, whether they are Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or Mike Tyson is going to be president. Since 306 of the electors have promised to vote for Joe Biden and he only needs 270 to have a majority, we can very confident Joe Biden will be the president. For the alternative to be true, dozens of his sworn electors would have to choose not to vote for him despite their running as his electors. There is no reason to believe this will happen. The only way the electoral college can give the presidency to Donald Trump is by voting for him during this phase. But he doesn't have enoug helectors to win.
If they don't give a majority of the votes to any viable candidate (either because some large number abstain, they split the vote multiple ways, or they elect someone unable to serve like a dead person, a noncitizen, or someone under 35), they can keep voting until they get a result. Of they continue to fail to elect a president , then whoever they select as vice president will become president on inauguration day. If they haven't elected a president or a vice president, then the speaker of the House becomes president. Donald Trump isn't in the line of succession. His term ends in January.
So the only way the electoral college gives Trump another Term is dozens of Democrats defecting to support him. That simply won't happen in any realistic future.
There is very little the courts can do. The selecting of electors is very explicitly a state issue. In 2000, the supreme court resolved an issue between those members of the Florida government who wanted to continue the recount, and those who wanted to end it. Here, though, Trump would need several states he has clearly lost flipped to him. There is simply no way for the SCOTUS to order that and it have any power to enforce its will. And even if there were, the cases brought by Trump's lawyers have universally been found to be without merit.
This is incorrect.
I am guessing you aren't from the US. Our system really is confusing, and the way we talk about it makes it moreso.
Due to our constitution being written in the 18th century, you don't actually vote directly for the president, you vote for "electors", people who actually go and do the real voting. The reasons why that happened and how they changed are pretty abstruse, but the long and the short of it is that these days the parties select people to be electors and they pledge themselves in advance to a particular candidate. The electors are very often retired politicians or long time political staffers. So when I went in and clicked the little box to vote for Joe Biden, I really was voting for a guy selected by the state Democrats to represent them. And likewise, the Republicans selected and elector to vote for Trump. My state went for the Republicans, so the electors we are sending to the college are all the ones selected by the Republican party who have promised to vote Trump. The ones from New York are all Democrats, who have promised to vote for Joe Biden. A few states will divide up their electors depending on how various regions voted, or the proportion of voters for each candidate's electors in the state, but everyone who is being sent belongs to one party or the other and has already promised to vote for either Biden or Trump.
Legally they can vote for whoever they want, but in the end there are only two possibilities. Either a person who can legally serve as president is voted for by a majority of the electors or nobody who fits that description gets a majority of the electoral votes.
In the first case, that person, whether they are Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or Mike Tyson is going to be president. Since 306 of the electors have promised to vote for Joe Biden and he only needs 270 to have a majority, we can very confident Joe Biden will be the president. For the alternative to be true, dozens of his sworn electors would have to choose not to vote for him despite their running as his electors. There is no reason to believe this will happen. The only way the electoral college can give the presidency to Donald Trump is by voting for him during this phase. But he doesn't have enoug helectors to win.
If they don't give a majority of the votes to any viable candidate (either because some large number abstain, they split the vote multiple ways, or they elect someone unable to serve like a dead person, a noncitizen, or someone under 35), they can keep voting until they get a result. Of they continue to fail to elect a president , then whoever they select as vice president will become president on inauguration day. If they haven't elected a president or a vice president, then the speaker of the House becomes president. Donald Trump isn't in the line of succession. His term ends in January.
So the only way the electoral college gives Trump another Term is dozens of Democrats defecting to support him. That simply won't happen in any realistic future.
There is very little the courts can do. The selecting of electors is very explicitly a state issue. In 2000, the supreme court resolved an issue between those members of the Florida government who wanted to continue the recount, and those who wanted to end it. Here, though, Trump would need several states he has clearly lost flipped to him. There is simply no way for the SCOTUS to order that and it have any power to enforce its will. And even if there were, the cases brought by Trump's lawyers have universally been found to be without merit.
Leaving aside the nonsense about BLM and antifa, you must understand that to everyone outside the OAN/Trump tweet media bubble, a Trump victory would be the outright theft of the election by a president with ties to the far right. Trump's opponents absolutely see Trump stealing the election as an existential threat to US democracy. I can assure you a Trump "victory" would be far worse for the stability of the US.
@mesonoxian no one minds double posts here. It's not a rule or anything, you're good
BLM are a bunch of racist, communist thugs -- their founders even admitted on video that their manifesto was derived from Marxism/Leninism. AntiFa are an odd mix of pre-Nazi Germany brownshirts and LARPers: both are grassroot-funded by Democratic sources.
Navarro
Well-known member
Maybe you shouldn't have closed the mental institutions and let the mentally ill rot in the streets.
Until they quickly did an about-face and started denouncing him as a Jewish puppet.
The rally was a response to proposals to bring down a statue of Robert E. Lee, and in attempt to unite the various factions of the alt-right, as its name indicates.
So, the people brainwashed by literal generations of propaganda.
That your country has a high crime rate is not the USG's problem. The USG is not the world government nor should it be.
It was wrong when Nixon targeted the IRS at his political enemies and it was wrong when Obama did it.
Well, one-party democrat rule has led to literally no improvement and the situation in some metrics (rates of single parenthood, for instance) has gotten worse.
The vast majority of these incidents were criminals assaulting officers of the law, sometimes with deadly weapons. They weren't murders, but killings in self-defence. And I mean, the very idea that the President should directly involve himself in these incidents is a farce. The media blows each one of them up specifically because they're rare - and unjustified police shootings are even more rare than justified ones.
Violence is sometimes a necessity in police work, especially in a country where lots of people are walking around packing heat. Now, there are some people who go a bit too far with it, and who are to quick to jump the gun, and there are folks who view their job as a sadistic power-tripping exercise, but the solution to this is better training, less sale of surplus military equipment to the cops, on-the-beat policing to build rapports to local communities, and body cams to make sure the truth can be known about what incidents do occur.
Not abolishing the police to go back to the hue-and-cry of the dark ages.
Which explains why recent immigrants from Africa have done statistically significantly better? Or can these hypothetical racists in complete control of black people's destinies tell at a glance whether a black person he sees is a recent immigrant from Africa or a descendant of African slaves brought over centuries ago?
"Throwing money into the ghettos hasn't fixed the problems the black community faces - we just need to throw in even more money, and call it reparations for slavery this time!"
Of course, this doesn't work because:
A. There are a lot more problems facing the black community than a lack of money.
B. Money which isn't earned by work (and that includes the often very difficult and risky work of running and/or starting a business) tends to be spent frivolously and hence have no net effect on an individual's well-being. See the behaviour of lottery winners, oil states, and society heiresses for an example.
But then, when your stupid ideals inevitably fail, socialists like you always say it was because you weren't socialist enough. No surprise. And of course, the more money that gets thrown into these deep blue cities, the more money mysteriously comes into possession of the people in charge of them.
I mean, Trump made gains among black voters (as well as Hispanics, LGBTs, and even Muslims) in 2020 from 2016. He certainly picked up less than amongst Hispanics (especially among escapees from socialism who've seen what socialists do when they take over a country) but "rejection" would imply that they supported him even less in 2020 than they did in 2016. In fact, as exit polls show, Trump gained amongst all minorities and amongst women. His losses were among ... dun dun dun ... white males.
As I noted, the majority of "police murders" were lawful killings in self-defence. Now, power-tripping assholes and loose cannons amongst the police do exist, but their numbers will only increase with lowered budgets and an increase in rhetoric that sees the police as an enemy.
In some cities up to a third of small businesses are shuttered already. But of course, socialists like you don't actually care about whose livelihoods these policies destroy (which not only includes the business owners and their employees, but the wider communities in which these businesses exist in general).
The CCP are expansionist, imperialist, totalitarian ethno-nationalists. That our industrial civilisation and its supply chains is so heavily reliant on them is a moral shame and a strategic theat. They are enemies and should be treated as such.
The Iranian Mullahs are millenarian religious fanatics who have sponsored terrorism throughout the Middle East and beyond and want to bring about a nuclear war which they believe will spark the arrival of the 13th Imam, who serves as a Messianic figure in their religion. The deal is a pinkie-pie promise not to develop nuclear weapons, which they already broke before Trump entered office as Mossad has confirmed and even has an explicit sunset clause (making it even more worthless). They are enemies and should be treated as such.
But what's really surprising is that you side with the literal theocrats and fascists. They're contrary to all of your stated political positions, but you instinctively side with these immoral regimes that not only act as enemies to the US, but oppress and terrorise their own people. We should not be acting to contain and weaken them you say - better prostrate ourselves and kowtow!
Why? Opening China made a degree of sense in the context of the Cold War to split the communist bloc, as did the weakening of American industry in general, but the Cold War is over. Russia is a has-been with no power projection capability and an economy the size of Italy's. We don't need to support Beijing any more. Neither has the PRC shifted towards liberalism as a result of our favourable policies towards them - indeed, the opposite has happened, and the CCP touts its economic success to justify the regime to the Chinese populace even as they persecute the Uyghurs and Chinese Christians along with the people of Hong Kong.
And the Mullahs who run Iran are a millenarian cult (the "Iranian government" you talk about has no real power). Imagine Scandinavia was ruled by hardcore adherents of the old Norse religion, who wanted dearly to start a nuclear war so they could die in an atom bomb blast and go straight to Valhalla, and as a sidenote were obsessed with destroying England and gaining hegemony over Europe as a stepping-stone to their nuclear war, and to do this were causing terrorist attacks all over the continent.
But then you're so breathtakingly naive so as to think "governments shouldn't be a thing". Geopolitics is far beyond you.
I mean, the games media of the time did directly assault the 'gamer' identity with "gamers are dead" and other such statements. The ultimate inciting incident was not even those articles, which were themselves in response to an otherwise forgettable accusation of domestic abuse after the end of a failed relationship.
And the FBI literally did a full investigation (under Obama, no less) and found nothing worth taking seriously.
Yeah, right. You obsess constantly about how evil you are and how we stand in the way of your fantasyland socialist utopia.
The historian engages in a propagandistic, slanted reading of history which inflames tension and attacks the legitimacy of America and its institutions, going so far as the very Constitution itself. Now, the 1619 project certainly has a right to exist and be published - but it's so hilariously easily refutable (the South was a backwater and economic growth actually picked up after slavery was abolished, which doesn't make sense if it was the great secret of American success) that it shouln't be taken seriously. But it insists, not on having the right to have its voice heard, which it does, but on becoming the new historiographical orthodoxy - the prism through which America views its own history, and that all other positions are immoral and holding them makes you evil.
Requiring nuns to provide abortificients ... you're asking them to commit a grave sin in the Catholic religion, one which is deemed worthy of one of the most severe punishments, excommunication. You're asking them to, at least in their minds, damn themselves to Hell rather than accept that they have a right to live by their own self-chosen moral standards.
And even if you really believe in the stated cause ...
"The point of making the Christians offer a sacrifice to the Emperor isn't to make them transgress their most cherished beliefs about there only being one god, it's about making them give a show of support to the institutions and customs of the Empire."
And now you're outright lying about the facts of the matter. It wasn't a case of "turning away a gay couple" but of forcing a baker to make a public display of support for something which contradicts his religious beliefs. The gays could happily have brought any number of cakes and stuck a pin with two men in suits on the top of them - but they chose to force him to bake a custom work of art promoting gay marriage. There was even an exact parallel case in the UK, where the court ultimately made the same decision.
Because ultimately both cases were not even about restricting what may be expressed in public but about forcing people to express values they disagree with. And you wholeheartedly support that.
But then, that's what you anarchists did in Catalonia. Because ultimately anarchists aren't "anarchists" at all but totalitarian socialists (repeating myself here) who think they can skip Marx's "transitional phase" of total state domination and get straight to the fairyland socialist utopia (which is based, literally, on an 18th century French philosopher's romanticised beliefs about tribal and prehistoric peoples, which have been empirically debunked by historical and ethnographic study).
Creating a bloated centralised healthcare system with endless waiting lists.
Looting the productive elements of society until there's no more to loot, i.e. all socialist "economic policy" ever.
Last edited:
mesonoxian
Well-known member
Wow. This is wrong on a lot of levels. First off, I don't think Marxism is a bad thing. I have a few differences with orthodox Marxists, but they are pretty cool. But even if it were a bad thing, there is nothing especially Marxist about BLM. Marxism is a specific set of analyses of economic relations and prescriptions which just aren't a part of BLM. The people who particpate in it aren't mostly Marxists and their activities don't have anything to do with Marxism. And they are anti-racist, so that part is just wrong.
Antifa isn't a single group, and most of them despise the Democrats. Antifa are more like the communists who beat up the brownshirts. As for LARPing, I think they manage.
Iran wants to take over the middle east in nuclear fire. Why else would the enemies of their be WORKING WITH ISREAL OF ALL COUNTRIES to fend off against Iran if they just want to have the capability for better power?
Why are we giving weapons to Taiwan and have had threats from China if they aren't impieralists trying to take over all of east asia?
Why are we giving weapons to Taiwan and have had threats from China if they aren't impieralists trying to take over all of east asia?
Navarro
Well-known member
It's a totalitarian political doctrine based on the myth of the noble savage, a shoddy confirmation-biased reading of history, and a hilarious level of failure to understand basic economic concepts.
You think a bunch of people trapped in the tendentious rambling dogmas of a racist nineteenth-century crank whose most basic predictions about the course the great communist revolution would take ("it'll deffo start in Germany, not Russia") failed are "pretty cool".
This explains a lot about you.
Part of their grab-bag of policy proposals includes ending capitalism and the nuclear family, both of which Marx proposed. Not only that, prominent members and leaders of local or national-level BLM groupings have outright stated that they consider themselves Marxists.
They're Marxists who've replaced "enemy class" with "enemy race" like a certain moustached Austrian (which actually isn't even that far from orthodox Marxism, since Marx called - and orthodox socialists like H. G. Welles continued to call well into the 20th century - for a grand global race war in which "reactionary peoples", including notably the Slavs, would be exterminated).
They're convinced that a certain group of people, based on distinctive inherited physical characteristics, are responsible for all their problems and everything wrong in the world, and represent an immutable enemy who need to be defeated. They're racist.
I mean, comparing antifa to literal Stalinists who in the end either outright defected to the Nazis en masse, or supported them in their bid to take over Germany because they viewed the SDP as worse is supposed to make them look good?
Last edited:
ShieldWife
Marchioness
The best historic group to compare Antifa to are the Red Guards under Mao. They aren’t official agents of the government, but they terrorize dissidents and enforce the will of the establish without being limited by the laws and with a wink and a nod from the authorities.
I'm sorry, but you lost me right there. I actually had a "you wot mate?" moment.
You're saying that Communism, an ideology that has ruined countries, killed countless millions, and has created a non-quantifiable amount misery across the entire planet... isn't a bad thing?I... yeah, I've not much to say to that. Holy crap.
Navarro
Well-known member
I'm sorry, but you lost me right there. I actually had a "you wot mate?" moment.
I... yeah, I've not much to say to that. Holy crap.
But you see they only mess up the implementation every time the ideas are put into practice, it's not as if there's anything wrong with the ideas themselves, right, right? /s