United States The Left Can't Meme

[Skallagrim]

that one works. much as I love them. neither of the Pauls have been particularly good at running for president.

Nah, doesn't really work at all, because the bottom imagine is Hillary "Happy Birthday to this future President" Clinton.

Rand Paul only ran for President, without any special expectations, while Clinton herself arrogantly assumed that she'd get the job by default...

 

[Marduk]

I think the obvious issue here is that for some strange reason we are running the whole question with implied assumption that all mental illness is made equal, while by common sense, it isn't. There are "first world problem" level mental illnesses that in more traditional societies aren't even consider that, like eating disorders, ok, no one gives a shit if the fat fuck or the skinny fuck can buy a gun, even if technically they are mentally ill.

The problem goes back to the question of... more spicy kinds of mental illness, schizo fucks like many of the mass shooters, psychotics and the like. Though on the other hand there is also a good argument that this kind of status should be given far more effect than merely no guns, these people are dangerous, and in many countries that is in fact done. After all, by all reason you don't want the dangerously crazy person around with a machete, isekai truck or can of petrol any more than you want them to have a gun.

 

[Wargamer08]

I think the obvious issue here is that for some strange reason we are running the whole question with implied assumption that all mental illness is made equal, while by common sense, it isn't. There are "first world problem" level mental illnesses that in more traditional societies aren't even consider that, like eating disorders, ok, no one gives a shit if the fat fuck or the skinny fuck can buy a gun, even if technically they are mentally ill.

The problem goes back to the question of... more spicy kinds of mental illness, schizo fucks like many of the mass shooters, psychotics and the like. Though on the other hand there is also a good argument that this kind of status should be given far more effect than merely no guns, these people are dangerous, and in many countries that is in fact done. After all, by all reason you don't want the dangerously crazy person around with a machete, isekai truck or can of petrol any more than you want them to have a gun.

Who gets to determine who is guilty of precrime? That's always the issue with the remove rights/punish the crazy crowd.

 

[Scottty]

I think the obvious issue here is that for some strange reason we are running the whole question with implied assumption that all mental illness is made equal, while by common sense, it isn't. There are "first world problem" level mental illnesses that in more traditional societies aren't even consider that, like eating disorders, ok, no one gives a shit if the fat fuck or the skinny fuck can buy a gun, even if technically they are mentally ill.

The problem goes back to the question of... more spicy kinds of mental illness, schizo fucks like many of the mass shooters, psychotics and the like. Though on the other hand there is also a good argument that this kind of status should be given far more effect than merely no guns, these people are dangerous, and in many countries that is in fact done. After all, by all reason you don't want the dangerously crazy person around with a machete, isekai truck or can of petrol any more than you want them to have a gun.

The other problem is those politicians who will gleefully use such common-sense arguments as a foot in the door for removing the rights of everyone. Get rid of that problem, and I suspect that a lot of other things would be more easily resolved.

 

[Jormungandr]

I think the obvious issue here is that for some strange reason we are running the whole question with implied assumption that all mental illness is made equal, while by common sense, it isn't. There are "first world problem" level mental illnesses that in more traditional societies aren't even consider that, like eating disorders, ok, no one gives a shit if the fat fuck or the skinny fuck can buy a gun, even if technically they are mentally ill.

The problem goes back to the question of... more spicy kinds of mental illness, schizo fucks like many of the mass shooters, psychotics and the like. Though on the other hand there is also a good argument that this kind of status should be given far more effect than merely no guns, these people are dangerous, and in many countries that is in fact done. After all, by all reason you don't want the dangerously crazy person around with a machete, isekai truck or can of petrol any more than you want them to have a gun.

There are people out there that equate someone having OCD, a phobia, or an aversion personality disorder to someone who hallucinates that Jesus is in their room, in clown makeup ala IT, telling them to go stab people to death to send them to Upstairs or Downstairs.

Yeah, there are people that goddamn stupid alive.

 

[Marduk]

The other problem is those politicians who will gleefully use such common-sense arguments as a foot in the door for removing the rights of everyone. Get rid of that problem, and I suspect that a lot of other things would be more easily resolved.

Just because the left exists is no reason to turn the whole society into San Francisco with junkies, crazies and crazy junkies owning the streets, because any law against them can be abused. It's a reason to kick the left out of positions of power. If they hold those solidly enough, they will abuse something anyway, if not this, it's gonna be criminal conspiracy, treason laws, or something else, they will figure it out, they always do, it's not reason to become anarchists like a bunch of clowns, it won't stop them anyway.

Who gets to determine who is guilty of precrime? That's always the issue with the remove rights/punish the crazy crowd.

Traditionally any decent society does that with the crazies to some degree or another. The progressive solution is being tried, do you like the results?

 

[Yinko]

What about this one?

Issue with it is, almost no one on the Right believes that Biden runs his own administration, so even if what they do is on the chad side of the picture, the man himself is closer to the virgin side of things.

 

[Zyobot]

Anyway, something anachronistic for a change:

Bit behind the times, but still short and funny. 🤷

 

[Bigking321]

I feel like most conservatives would agree with this now.

Crazy how things change. At the time I was all for him.

With what I know now he is quite horrible. Neo-cons suck. Frigging globalists...

 

[Cherico]

I feel like most conservatives would agree with this now.

Crazy how things change. At the time I was all for him.

With what I know now he is quite horrible. Neo-cons suck. Frigging globalists...

Traditionalism is fundamentally based on trial and error and finding out what works based upon that over a period of the entire human history. Hence why traditionalists are often times more willing to learn from mistakes.

 

[Scottty]

I feel like most conservatives would agree with this now.

Crazy how things change. At the time I was all for him.

With what I know now he is quite horrible. Neo-cons suck. Frigging globalists...

I still think the other guy would have been worse.

 

[Bigking321]

I still think the other guy would have been worse.

Absolutely 💯% no question.

But in hindsight it becomes evil vs radical insane evil.

One is CLEARLY worse than the other but that doesn't make the other good.

 

[Zyobot]

I still think the other guy would have been worse.

Absolutely 💯% no question.

But in hindsight it becomes evil vs radical insane evil.

One is CLEARLY worse than the other but that doesn't make the other good.

Which one, Al Gore or John Kerry?

Or both, since they’re both rich oligarchs into the climate shtick, as well as the warmongering?

 

[Bigking321]

Which one, Al Gore or John Kerry?

Yes.

But in all seriousness, Democrats are much worse than Republicans in pretty much every conceivable way. Democrats deny basic economics and hell, basic reality on a regular basis. They are pure ideology and political corruption.

That does not make Republicans good. They can be just as corrupt and incompetent at times. Some of them are there to actively sabotage the party and are in bed with democrats. The Bushes, McCains, Romneys, and McConnells make me sick.

Just like in the prequel vs sequel debates, both are bad but one is infinitely worse than the other.

 

[Zyobot]

Okay, so how would a Gore or Kerry presidency have been worse than a Bush one, then?

Can certainly imagine they’d have been subpar, at least, seeing as they’re still self-serving Globalist oligarchs who want more war and more government control of everything.

 

[Blasterbot]

Okay, so how would a Gore or Kerry presidency have been worse than a Bush one, then?

Can certainly imagine they’d have been subpar, at least, seeing as they’re still self-serving Globalist oligarchs who want more war and more government control of everything.

Gore would have gone all in on the climate stuff back in 2000. that would have really fucked the economy over. in terms of war in the middle east no clue. Afghanistan probably still happens. but without Cheney in there I would say low chance of going into Iraq. could be wrong there. overall a mixed bag.

edit remembered a video I saw on this actually.


brings up the disaster that was no child left behind act too.

 

[Abhorsen]

Okay, so how would a Gore or Kerry presidency have been worse than a Bush one, then?

Can certainly imagine they’d have been subpar, at least, seeing as they’re still self-serving Globalist oligarchs who want more war and more government control of everything.

Honestly, it would likely have been better. It's hard to do worse than the Iraq war. And any stupidity from Dems running stuff would have been made up for by Dems getting hated for fucking the economy in 2008 (no idea when it would blow up, but likely faster with Dems), as they'd get blamed for the collapse.

 

[S'task]

Okay, so how would a Gore or Kerry presidency have been worse than a Bush one, then?

Can certainly imagine they’d have been subpar, at least, seeing as they’re still self-serving Globalist oligarchs who want more war and more government control of everything.

Firstly massive increase in government regulations would have shut down the American economy long before the crash and Great Recession. As would the lack of Bush tax cuts.

Secondly, Bush got to appoint two Supreme Court justices: Alito and Roberts. While neither have been as stalwart Originalist as many Conservatives wanted, Kerry likely would have appointed radical leftists to the Court (as Dems ALWAYS do)... and with the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist in 2005 you'd likely have seen Kerry appoint Ginsburg as Chief Justice.

So basically, you know how the court is presently 6-3 Conservative leaning? Yeah, it would be 5-4 Liberal Leaning with a Liberal Chief Justice. This means the following critical cases likely would have been decided differently, trying to stick to the 2006 - 2012 timeframe as going beyond that becomes harder to say that these cases even would have come up:

Shelby vs Holder - Which struck down preclearance of many State's electoral maps that had artificially been boosting Democrat numbers in the House due to requiring majority-minority districts etc.

Gonzales vs Carhart - Upheld a ban on Partial Birth Abortion at the Federal level.

Burwell vs Hobby Lobby - Enforcing the Free Exercise clause and allowing closely held corporations (that is corporations held by a single owner) to make policy based on the owner's religious beliefs.

Dobbs vs Woman's Health Organization - Yeah, this is obvious, but you'd never have seen this one come up, the court would have been to closely tied for it even if Ginsburg had been replaced by a Republican.

Janus vs AFSCME - This overturned mandatory union fee payment by non-members.

Town of Greece vs Galloway - This allowed non-sectarian voluntary prayer at the opening of town council meetings.

DC vs Heller - Made explicit that the 2nd Amendment applies to an individual's rights and basically shifted the entire gun control debate onto ground favorable to gun rights advocates and against gun control.

McDonald vs Chicago - Companion case to DC vs Heller in the shift on Gun Control. Held that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States via incorporation via the 14th amendment.

Medellin vs Texas - Held that International treaties are not binding domestic law unless Congress enacts statutes implementing them or unless the treaties are self-executing. Also, decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law, and without authority from Congress or the Constitution, the President lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.

Basically the Religious rights would be weaker, gun rights would be weaker, unions more powerful (and thus MORE power to the Dems than they already have), Abortion would be massively expanded, and pretty much the entire situation in the Supreme Court would be so utterly different that it could potentially change EVERYTHING.

So yeah, want to know how much worse it could be: without W. Bush there would be no conservative majority on the Court and we would have had a liberal dominated court for about a decade, which means there would have been no real checks on the Dems push for socialism.

 

[Zachowon]

But you see

Firstly massive increase in government regulations would have shut down the American economy long before the crash and Great Recession. As would the lack of Bush tax cuts.

Secondly, Bush got to appoint two Supreme Court justices: Alito and Roberts. While neither have been as stalwart Originalist as many Conservatives wanted, Kerry likely would have appointed radical leftists to the Court (as Dems ALWAYS do)... and with the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist in 2005 you'd likely have seen Kerry appoint Ginsburg as Chief Justice.

So basically, you know how the court is presently 6-3 Conservative leaning? Yeah, it would be 5-4 Liberal Leaning with a Liberal Chief Justice. This means the following critical cases likely would have been decided differently, trying to stick to the 2006 - 2012 timeframe as going beyond that becomes harder to say that these cases even would have come up:

Shelby vs Holder - Which struck down preclearance of many State's electoral maps that had artificially been boosting Democrat numbers in the House due to requiring majority-minority districts etc.

Gonzales vs Carhart - Upheld a ban on Partial Birth Abortion at the Federal level.

Burwell vs Hobby Lobby - Enforcing the Free Exercise clause and allowing closely held corporations (that is corporations held by a single owner) to make policy based on the owner's religious beliefs.

Dobbs vs Woman's Health Organization - Yeah, this is obvious, but you'd never have seen this one come up, the court would have been to closely tied for it even if Ginsburg had been replaced by a Republican.

Janus vs AFSCME - This overturned mandatory union fee payment by non-members.

Town of Greece vs Galloway - This allowed non-sectarian voluntary prayer at the opening of town council meetings.

DC vs Heller - Made explicit that the 2nd Amendment applies to an individual's rights and basically shifted the entire gun control debate onto ground favorable to gun rights advocates and against gun control.

McDonald vs Chicago - Companion case to DC vs Heller in the shift on Gun Control. Held that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States via incorporation via the 14th amendment.

Medellin vs Texas - Held that International treaties are not binding domestic law unless Congress enacts statutes implementing them or unless the treaties are self-executing. Also, decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law, and without authority from Congress or the Constitution, the President lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.

Basically the Religious rights would be weaker, gun rights would be weaker, unions more powerful (and thus MORE power to the Dems than they already have), Abortion would be massively expanded, and pretty much the entire situation in the Supreme Court would be so utterly different that it could potentially change EVERYTHING.

So yeah, want to know how much worse it could be: without W. Bush there would be no conservative majority on the Court and we would have had a liberal dominated court for about a decade, which means there would have been no real checks on the Dems push for socialism.

ABHORSEN noted that bo Iraq war!!

 

[Zyobot]

Well… seems my query got a lot more traffic than I expected.

Maybe I should start an “Al Gore Wins In 2000!” or “John Kerry Wins In 2004!” thread, in the interest of continued discussion without derailing this meme-oriented one.