Five minutes of hate news

DarthOne said:
I swear women these days just keep proving the anti-feminists right.

This is just manipulating the system for financial gain and clout. Probably some political shenanigans too.
Click to expand...
It's getting to the point where I've seen even some of the everyday men out there openly say that even giving women the right to vote was a mistake.

This is going to all come crashing down sooner than later, and all that supposed oppression feminists shriek about? Yeah, it's going to be a dark reality... and they're the ones fucking causing it! 😮‍💨
 
TyrantTriumphant said:
While the establishment is indeed responsible for many of our current woes, that does not change the position we find ourselves in. We do not have enough people in congress for serious gains at this time.

McCarthy may not be as conservative as I would like but he's the best that can be done for now. He is in fact, a vast improvement on the last few Republican Speakers we've had. I remember Paul Ryan and John Boehner.

It was a good idea to get rid of Cheney because she was from a safe Republican district. Wyoming could do better than her. But that is not the case everywhere. Plenty of Republican congressmen are not very conservative because their constituents are not very conservative. Replacing them would be counterproductive because their voters would not tolerate anyone more right wing than them. And those congressmen will not tolerate the kind of speaker that Gaetz is demanding.

If the Democrats are to be stopped from taking over the entire country than we have to make decisions based on how things are, not the way be want them to be. We do not have the seats in the house to get significant concessions from the Democrats. Many districts will not vote in hard-line conservatives. These are the facts and we have to deal with them.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying, but to say that he's "the best that can be done for now" is just straight up delusional. Not because he isn't "as conservative as I would like", but because it would be physically impossible for him to be less "conservative"; aka, more pro-establishment. Because let's be honest here; the whole "conservative" versus "liberal" paradigm is complete bullhonky, an embarrassing display of a circus that, more than anything, is meant to distract you from the fact that it's actually the authoritarian establishment on both sides of the isle, versus the comparative handful of populists who have realized how bad things have gotten, and are trying to push back against the tide.

The Republican party as it currently exists cannot do what you want it to be able to do; if it could, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in right now. The only way to change that is to purge the party of its pro-establishment elements; most of whom represent the majority of Republican-held political offices.
 
ParadiseLost said:
This is the sort of shit that makes me feel like humans aren't properly calibrated in how to respond to danger these days.

I remember recently about a case where a teenager had shot at three teenage brothers with a gel gun and then got beaten to death. And while that's disproportionate, in a neighborhood with a lot of crime? You should know better than to pull shit like that, dude.

I think that also tends to play into why liberals are so upset by self defense of civilians or police. I think a lot of college liberals genuinely believe they could talk down an angry 6' dude high on drugs that increase aggression and lower inhibitions.

I think part of it comes down to not understanding just how fast things can go to shit if someone with strongly violent intent is just throwing fists, let alone has a knife.

In the video, it actually looks like the killer was trying to break into someones car down the street - and clearly being loud about it - and it looks like Ryan actually went over (and brought his girlfriend with him!) to... intervene? Check shit out?

Again, not calibrated in terms of how to respond to danger. You aren't a cop, there's nobody in that car, you aren't responsible for that cars safety - walk away a bit, and call the police about vandalism/theft, if you really wanna be a responsible citizen. Its not your fucking job to help druggies trying to commit theft at 2 AM deal with their personal issues.

Then the dude is completely shocked that the guy responds violently to the interruption, and things just get worse from there as Ryan keeps trying to reason with a dude who is in no way going to respond to reason.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there is this cultural fault that in no small degree fuels the whole gun control debate as a sideshow. There is no universal agreed upon... customary, legally and morally clear line where violence against criminals is justified. For some people, naturally the more conservative side, the line is not that different from where a western gunslinger or a viking warrior would put it - if someone attacks me or my property or even the commons, that clearly means they are asking for a taste of lead or cold steel.

But for some other people, this is backwards and barbaric, and they think lethal violence against criminals should be avoided at any cost and the "any cost" part couldn't possibly have terrible implications in terms of how far will criminals be willing to go with such political support in promoting safety in their choice hobby or career.

And then there are various moderates somewhere in between, often trying to balance between sense and stupidity which unfortunately often means just lesser stupidity, like expecting people to make guesses about intent and weaponry of erratic and unpredictable preps and honorably engage them in fair melee combat for reasons.

Here we had a member of the enlightened elite who think violence is never the answer, and he just saw a member of oppressed minority just having a crisis moment in public, so as the good citizen he definitely thought himself to be, he has decided to do what his personal choice of solution to such is - put on his social worker hat and try to "intervene" with his tongue, clearly one hardened in slinging progressive slogans and excusing criminals like the objective at hand. This man at least believed what he said (note having a romantic middle of the night bench sit-down with his girlfriend in a crime ridden city), no matter how idiotic his beliefs were, and that's how Darwin finally caught up to him.
 
people arguing about whether it is good or bad that McCarthy got outed.

my reaction?



Establishment Republicans have been fucking around with funds and making backroom deals with dems while breaking promises to their constituents. Watching people pat McCarthy on the back for slowing the car down from 100 to 95 doesn't change the fact that we are gonna go flying off a cliff soon. he was not the leader he promised to be. he was not what we needed.
 
TyrantTriumphant said:
Many districts will not vote in hard-line conservatives. These are the facts and we have to deal with them.
Click to expand...
This is a point that the Far-Right just doesn't want to get, because to them any desire for anything other than a hardliner/tradcon type is 'voting for a filthy RINO'.

The Far-Right doesn't want to think too much about swing districts and swing voters, because those groups are the ones that often poke massive holes in the 'well, more people will vote for us if we just go further Right' mindset many of them have.

But tactical and strategic considerations of realities on the ground seem to be something a lot of people on the Right do not want to deal with if it means admitting the moderates and swing voters do not want hardline GOP most of the time.
 
Terthna said:
I get what you're saying, but to say that he's "the best that can be done for now" is just straight up delusional. Not because he isn't "as conservative as I would like", but because it would be physically impossible for him to be less "conservative"; aka, more pro-establishment. Because let's be honest here; the whole "conservative" versus "liberal" paradigm is complete bullhonky, an embarrassing display of a circus that, more than anything, is meant to distract you from the fact that it's actually the authoritarian establishment on both sides of the isle, versus the comparative handful of populists who have realized how bad things have gotten, and are trying to push back against the tide.

The Republican party as it currently exists cannot do what you want it to be able to do; if it could, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in right now. The only way to change that is to purge the party of its pro-establishment elements; most of whom represent the majority of Republican-held political offices.
Click to expand...
The GOP has to put forward candidate that will win swing voters, more than hardliners, because not every district is a safe-red district.

Swing voters don't usually like hardliners, and unfortunately that means removing McCarthy is likely to do more damage than good unless someone even more towards the center/establishment is chosen from the GOP.

The swing voters tend to like establishment candidates, and no amount of wishing otherwise will change that.

Trump won in 2016 because Hillary was just that bad, not because people love the GOP all of a sudden.
 
Bacle said:
The GOP has to put forward candidate that will win swing voters, more than hardliners, because not every district is a safe-red district.

Swing voters don't usually like hardliners, and unfortunately that means removing McCarthy is likely to do more damage than good unless someone even more towards the center/establishment is chosen from the GOP.

The swing voters tend to like establishment candidates, and no amount of wishing otherwise will change that.

Trump won in 2016 because Hillary was just that bad, not because people love the GOP all of a sudden.
Click to expand...

How neo-con of you. You’re moving up in the world! :p
 
DarthOne said:
How neo-con of you. You’re moving up in the world! :p
Click to expand...
Have you considered that the neo-cons were right about a few things, and that maybe the establishment is there and persists because most people do not want hardline GOP in swing districts?

Deal with the elecorate and situation we have now, not the situation you wish we had that would prefer farther and farther Right candidates.

Or do you serious think the GOP can just ignore the desires and views of the center and swing voters and still accomplish anything?
 
mrttao said:
Removing a traitor who is blatantly and overwhelmingly on the side of the enemy is not a defeatist attitude.
Being afraid to remove the traitor because "what if he gets replaced with someone worse" is the defeatist attitude.
Click to expand...

Pretty much I only disagreed with the timing, not that he had to be removed. McCarthy had to go and eventually the GOP has to expel any Rino or Neocon from the party that it can. Starting with everyone in congress who defended McCarthy.

But you do that after you consolidate enough power to where you can line up easy replacements.
 
Last edited:
The Immortal Watch Dog said:
Pretty much I only disagreed with the timing, not that he had to be removed. McCarthy had to go and eventually we the GOP has to expel any Rino or Neocon from the party that it can. Starting with everyone in congress who defended McCarthy.

But you do that after you consolidate enough power to where you can line up easy replacements.
Click to expand...
The problem is that if one does not take action it really undermines people’s willingness to have faith in a movement. And considering how much crap the establishment GOP/RINOs have gotten away with, I’m surprised that this sort of thing didn’t happen sooner.

Edit: damnit autocorrect
 
Last edited:
Abhorsen said:
Obama also sold himself as less radical than he was in 2008 (change and hope meant he didn't have a lot of issues), and he was running in a time where everyone was reeling from the great recession.
Click to expand...
He was also the POTUS first election many Centennials could vote in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top