Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions?
I'm not an American and unable to directly participate, so my own thoughts are perhaps no more helpful than yours. Nonetheless, I think there are a couple of things to bear in mind.
- It is worth remembering that the "simmering hatred" being perceived is in large part (though not wholly) a product of online interactions and discussions. There are communities and situations where that hostility is real, direct and personal against other people personally known by their real names and faces, but they are less numerous and widespread than one might expect going by the 'Net. Therefore, one action that might help minimize this effect would be to try to keep one's political interactions, where possible, on the local and personal level. Get involved in local school boards and town halls. If nothing else, this makes it clear exactly how opinions are really distributed.
- Try to understand what an antagonistic individual or group really wants by whatever they're declaring their "victory conditions": if what they ultimately want is protections for a particular group, can those protections be achieved by a solution you can both live with, if it's not their preferred one? It may be possible to come to productive compromises that way. (This is not always practical because people are not always honest about this, either to opponents, allies, or even themselves, but if compromise is possible this is usually a critical step.)
- Be willing to accept that compromise is the art of managing disappointment. This is one point where I see, perhaps, the Left being a little too stubborn about rejecting this and the Right being a little too quick to accept it, which is one reason the conflict has continued without finding productive resolution either way.
Hi everyone!
As someone who is an immigrant to America, and a bit of an "outsider" politically speaking (I still can't vote), it's hard not to notice the simmering hatred the two political sides have for each other. This also makes political compromises less and less tenable, and leads to breakdown of cooperation. To me, views like "this can only lead to civil war, there's no way back now" aren't helping. Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions? I have a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, and I think some admissions have to be made on either side, but I'll see what you guys think first.
Hi everyone!
As someone who is an immigrant to America, and a bit of an "outsider" politically speaking (I still can't vote), it's hard not to notice the simmering hatred the two political sides have for each other. This also makes political compromises less and less tenable, and leads to breakdown of cooperation. To me, views like "this can only lead to civil war, there's no way back now" aren't helping. Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions? I have a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, and I think some admissions have to be made on either side, but I'll see what you guys think first.
Hi everyone!
As someone who is an immigrant to America, and a bit of an "outsider" politically speaking (I still can't vote), it's hard not to notice the simmering hatred the two political sides have for each other. This also makes political compromises less and less tenable, and leads to breakdown of cooperation. To me, views like "this can only lead to civil war, there's no way back now" aren't helping. Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions? I have a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, and I think some admissions have to be made on either side, but I'll see what you guys think first.
Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions?
Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions?
Hi everyone!
As someone who is an immigrant to America, and a bit of an "outsider" politically speaking (I still can't vote), it's hard not to notice the simmering hatred the two political sides have for each other. This also makes political compromises less and less tenable, and leads to breakdown of cooperation. To me, views like "this can only lead to civil war, there's no way back now" aren't helping. Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions? I have a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, and I think some admissions have to be made on either side, but I'll see what you guys think first.
-To the right wing first, you have to realize that Trump is a divisive figure, quite possibly too divisive. Even if you agree with his ideas, it shouldn't be hard to realize that the guy rubs A LOT of people the wrong way, even a good chunk of traditionally conservative people (though anyone who is able to study the guy vs the perception of him for a few minutes also knows he is very often misrepresented, taken out of context, or simply misquoted too. But this is made easy by Trump himself who often blurts out divisive statements). There are also some odd clashes in philosophy; e.g. between focus on Christianity (which tends to ignore other faiths), and at the same time religious freedom (sometimes seeming contradictory), claiming to be more scientific (e.g. with gender/sex) and at the same time ignoring science when it is convenient (both sides do this, but the right has the history of ignoring evolution in the past, and very few conservative politicians even mention conservation of nature at all). Keep in mind; many leftists are just under the impression that blacks and women (and trans people etc) are being treated much worse than what actually seems to be the case (according to people on the right), and they have been bombarded with this “information” on a daily basis for years.
-To the left, the demonizing of the right has gone way too far. Disagreement does not justify all the disruption we've seen coming from the left (in my perception the left is currently more violent than the right, feel free to disagree, but this is at the very least the case in my own neighborhood). A lot of the "anti-racism", "feminism", "LGBTQblahblah" comes across as pettiness and passive aggressiveness at best and open aggression at worst, and a lot of it clashes with common sense (also pointed out by some leftists, like Bill Maher). A lot of the criticisms against Trump were plainly made up. Keep in mind that some conservatives will agree to some gradual tweaking of the system, but not wholesale “tear it all down and build it up again” (I have a leftist friend who seriously suggested this). Also keep in mind that some of the “deplorable” Trump supporters and gun enthusiasts are also capable of what you see in this video (I know for a fact that the guy in the video who gets shot in the leg is a Trump supporter): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-hQlGmcfDE&t=58s
Hi everyone!
As someone who is an immigrant to America, and a bit of an "outsider" politically speaking (I still can't vote), it's hard not to notice the simmering hatred the two political sides have for each other. This also makes political compromises less and less tenable, and leads to breakdown of cooperation. To me, views like "this can only lead to civil war, there's no way back now" aren't helping. Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions? I have a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, and I think some admissions have to be made on either side, but I'll see what you guys think first.
I think a lot of us who aren't on the left, that doesn't mean right necessarily, have had this thought. I've given up, they don't want compromise or harmony or even to understand what the rest of us actually want. It's a cult, they aren't allowed by their own to understand the people they oppose. As a party they want absolute control over the whole country and everyone in it. They have no founding principles or even a consistent ideology, their organizers act with the simple goal of amassing power and influence using the mob as a bludgeon to get it.
At this point im done making compromises the issues they want us to submit to (they wont take compromise) aren't something any of us are willing to compromise on. Freedom of speech and right to bare arms are the two things they attack to the most and neither one is negotiable. What we need isnt compromise, it's a mass deprogramming of the weaponized delusions of the left.-To the right wing first, you have to realize that Trump is a divisive figure, quite possibly too divisive. Even if you agree with his ideas, it shouldn't be hard to realize that the guy rubs A LOT of people the wrong way, even a good chunk of traditionally conservative people (though anyone who is able to study the guy vs the perception of him for a few minutes also knows he is very often misrepresented, taken out of context, or simply misquoted too. But this is made easy by Trump himself who often blurts out divisive statements). There are also some odd clashes in philosophy; e.g. between focus on Christianity (which tends to ignore other faiths), and at the same time religious freedom (sometimes seeming contradictory), claiming to be more scientific (e.g. with gender/sex) and at the same time ignoring science when it is convenient (both sides do this, but the right has the history of ignoring evolution in the past, and very few conservative politicians even mention conservation of nature at all). Keep in mind; many leftists are just under the impression that blacks and women (and trans people etc) are being treated much worse than what actually seems to be the case (according to people on the right), and they have been bombarded with this “information” on a daily basis for years.
-To the left, the demonizing of the right has gone way too far. Disagreement does not justify all the disruption we've seen coming from the left (in my perception the left is currently more violent than the right, feel free to disagree, but this is at the very least the case in my own neighborhood). A lot of the "anti-racism", "feminism", "LGBTQblahblah" comes across as pettiness and passive aggressiveness at best and open aggression at worst, and a lot of it clashes with common sense (also pointed out by some leftists, like Bill Maher). A lot of the criticisms against Trump were plainly made up. Keep in mind that some conservatives will agree to some gradual tweaking of the system, but not wholesale “tear it all down and build it up again” (I have a leftist friend who seriously suggested this). Also keep in mind that some of the “deplorable” Trump supporters and gun enthusiasts are also capable of what you see in this video (I know for a fact that the guy in the video who gets shot in the leg is a Trump supporter): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-hQlGmcfDE&t=58s
Trump isn't really the issue, if it's not Trump it's De Santis or Ted Cruz or Abbot. They paint all of them with the same brush, so we can swap names and faces but no matter who the right puts forward it's still "Trump."
The one saving grace of this whole situation is the people i meet in real life are nowhere near as deranged as those we see making these policies or appearing on the news. I can count on one hand the number of people I've met Irl that were so far gone that common sense has left the building. I had one girl ask me if she charged me with a pair of scissors if I'd still shoot her because I don't know what she really intends. The look on her face when I told her I'd ventilate her and never lose any sleep over it was priceless. Like it was just beyond her that someone would have a response like that.
What we have here isn't left vs right anymore, this is closer to mass hysteria
There can be no compromise. If you're for sexualizing children, allowing completely unrestrained illegal immigration, and throwing good money after bad on countries that hate the US, you're complete anti-American and should be killed.
I would have zero problems with an insurgency that killed off leftists. The problem, however, is that humans can't just stop, they have to find "the next" and it turns into the French Revolution. We *already* see this from leftists who find "-ist" behavior where it doesn't exist because they have to have some form of commie struggle.
That having been said, one would *hope* that an insurgency by conservatives (not neocons) and combat vets would be well-regulated.
There can be no compromise. If you're for sexualizing children, allowing completely unrestrained illegal immigration, and throwing good money after bad on countries that hate the US, you're complete anti-American and should be killed.
See what I mean? The lefties want to rape our children, the righties want to kill the gays, the lefties want to murder babies, the righties want to enslave women.
How can these two positions possible reconcile?QuoteI would have zero problems with an insurgency that killed off leftists. The problem, however, is that humans can't just stop, they have to find "the next" and it turns into the French Revolution. We *already* see this from leftists who find "-ist" behavior where it doesn't exist because they have to have some form of commie struggle.
That having been said, one would *hope* that an insurgency by conservatives (not neocons) and combat vets would be well-regulated.
Hope in one hand and shit in the other...
-To the right wing first, you have to realize that Trump is a divisive figure, quite possibly too divisive. Even if you agree with his ideas, it shouldn't be hard to realize that the guy rubs A LOT of people the wrong way, even a good chunk of traditionally conservative people.Trump isn’t divisive. Trump didn’t create MAGA. Trump just gave a voice to the producing class that has been denied one by a technocratic globalist elite. Just like the TEA Party was before (that the Uniparty elites co-opted in order to stamp it out too).
He most definitely is. With chants like "lock her up" he made political discussion continue its downward spiral. His bragging also rubs people the wrong way. To begin with he didn't even know who his base was, so he would sometimes e.g. make statements in favor of more censorship (of video games etc).-To the right wing first, you have to realize that Trump is a divisive figure, quite possibly too divisive. Even if you agree with his ideas, it shouldn't be hard to realize that the guy rubs A LOT of people the wrong way, even a good chunk of traditionally conservative people.Trump isn’t divisive. ....
Trump isn’t divisive. ....He most definitely is. With chants like "lock her up" he made political discussion continue its downward spiral...
And by avoiding the rest of the statement you ignore the actual point to argue an irrelevant side detail.He most definitely is. With chants like "lock her up" he made political discussion continue its downward spiral. His bragging also rubs people the wrong way. To begin with he didn't even know who his base was, so he would sometimes e.g. make statements in favor of more censorship (of video games etc).-To the right wing first, you have to realize that Trump is a divisive figure, quite possibly too divisive. Even if you agree with his ideas, it shouldn't be hard to realize that the guy rubs A LOT of people the wrong way, even a good chunk of traditionally conservative people.Trump isn’t divisive. ....
Regarding the trans agenda and sexualizing of children... Most leftists don't support that stuff, they are just to stupid to realize how far their side has gone so quickly. GOP needs to put this sort of thing front and center on every election and force the Democrats to state their position.
No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.
As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
Being an extremist is much worse.
Extremism in the cause of right is no vice and compromising with evil no virtue.No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.
As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
Being an extremist is much worse.
No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.
As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
Being an extremist is much worse.
Extremism in the cause of right is no vice and compromising with evil no virtue.
When Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews would it be virtuous to compromise and only let him murder half? Or would it be virtuous to do everything in your power to take the fucker down and save as many Jews as possible?
Now, me? I’m an extremist. I believe in making no compromises with Hitler or anyone else who wants others to die for their own benefit.
So, either admit that sometimes extremism is necessary and good or put your money where your mouth is and publically state for the record that the Allies should have compromised and let Hitler kill half the Jews on Earth.
No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.
As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
Being an extremist is much worse.
"Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue; extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." -- Barry Goldwater (an actual AMERICAN, who understood our culture and values).
This whole "the middle is so much better" argument is as European as it gets. We don't want your advice on how to "fix" our country or politics. Your ideas are the reason our politics are as screwed up as they are (socialism, communism, and the welfare state are imports). If you are so enamored with the Euro-middle (which is far left in an American political sense), GO BACK THERE. Otherwise, listen and learn what made America the greatest nation in the past millennia. It wasn't European sensibilities, that's for sure...
No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.
As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
Being an extremist is much worse.
"Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue; extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." -- Barry Goldwater (an actual AMERICAN, who understood our culture and values).
This whole "the middle is so much better" argument is as European as it gets. We don't want your advice on how to "fix" our country or politics. Your ideas are the reason our politics are as screwed up as they are (socialism, communism, and the welfare state are imports). If you are so enamored with the Euro-middle (which is far left in an American political sense), GO BACK THERE. Otherwise, listen and learn what made America the greatest nation in the past millennia. It wasn't European sensibilities, that's for sure...
No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.
As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
Being an extremist is much worse.
"Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue; extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." -- Barry Goldwater (an actual AMERICAN, who understood our culture and values).
This whole "the middle is so much better" argument is as European as it gets. We don't want your advice on how to "fix" our country or politics. Your ideas are the reason our politics are as screwed up as they are (socialism, communism, and the welfare state are imports). If you are so enamored with the Euro-middle (which is far left in an American political sense), GO BACK THERE. Otherwise, listen and learn what made America the greatest nation in the past millennia. It wasn't European sensibilities, that's for sure...
Great, your version of the American way is working so well for you right now. I seem to be more fond of America than most Americans. I have noticed that if someone posts some purely negative meme about America online, it's usually Americans who laugh. The people who laugh are usually the woke. Americans even invented a whole lot of the woke lingo, and many Europeans have noticed. For instance an extremely American thing is the over-emphasis on race. If anything makes me move, that will probably be the reason.
No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.
As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
Being an extremist is much worse.
"Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue; extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." -- Barry Goldwater (an actual AMERICAN, who understood our culture and values).
This whole "the middle is so much better" argument is as European as it gets. We don't want your advice on how to "fix" our country or politics. Your ideas are the reason our politics are as screwed up as they are (socialism, communism, and the welfare state are imports). If you are so enamored with the Euro-middle (which is far left in an American political sense), GO BACK THERE. Otherwise, listen and learn what made America the greatest nation in the past millennia. It wasn't European sensibilities, that's for sure...
Great, your version of the American way is working so well for you right now. I seem to be more fond of America than most Americans. I have noticed that if someone posts some purely negative meme about America online, it's usually Americans who laugh. The people who laugh are usually the woke. Americans even invented a whole lot of the woke lingo, and many Europeans have noticed. For instance an extremely American thing is the over-emphasis on race. If anything makes me move, that will probably be the reason.
The only people who overemphasize race are the hustlers and grifters who make their living keeping racism alive in the name of being anti-racist.
Because of the leftist (read "Soviet") infiltration of the universities and media. The Soviet propaganda was always to try and draw moral equivalence between slavery and race relations and whatever the criticism of the USSR at the time, and their parrots in the universities and media simply repeated it. As I mentioned above, the poison injected by the left in the 20s through the 60s has long outlived the poisoner. This Influence is well documented, and at one point a major focus of our intelligence agencies. Now those agencies have been co-opted as well. Our "version" of America right now has been imported from Europe. We don't need any more, so, unless you plan to learn more about what America actually stood for, you can leave at any time...No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.
As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
Being an extremist is much worse.
"Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue; extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." -- Barry Goldwater (an actual AMERICAN, who understood our culture and values).
This whole "the middle is so much better" argument is as European as it gets. We don't want your advice on how to "fix" our country or politics. Your ideas are the reason our politics are as screwed up as they are (socialism, communism, and the welfare state are imports). If you are so enamored with the Euro-middle (which is far left in an American political sense), GO BACK THERE. Otherwise, listen and learn what made America the greatest nation in the past millennia. It wasn't European sensibilities, that's for sure...
Great, your version of the American way is working so well for you right now. I seem to be more fond of America than most Americans. I have noticed that if someone posts some purely negative meme about America online, it's usually Americans who laugh. The people who laugh are usually the woke. Americans even invented a whole lot of the woke lingo, and many Europeans have noticed. For instance an extremely American thing is the over-emphasis on race. If anything makes me move, that will probably be the reason.
The only people who overemphasize race are the hustlers and grifters who make their living keeping racism alive in the name of being anti-racist.
I agree. And it's very much an American problem today, more so than almost anywhere else I can think of. Sweden is probably the closest.
Our "version" of America right now has been imported from Europe. We don't need any more, so, unless you plan to learn more about what America actually stood for, you can leave at any time...
Extremism in the cause of right is no vice and compromising with evil no virtue.No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.
As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
Being an extremist is much worse.
When Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews would it be virtuous to compromise and only let him murder half? Or would it be virtuous to do everything in your power to take the fucker down and save as many Jews as possible?
Now, me? I’m an extremist. I believe in making no compromises with Hitler or anyone else who wants others to die for their own benefit.
So, either admit that sometimes extremism is necessary and good or put your money where your mouth is and publically state for the record that the Allies should have compromised and let Hitler kill half the Jews on Earth.
Extremism in the cause of right is no vice and compromising with evil no virtue.No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.
As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
Being an extremist is much worse.
When Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews would it be virtuous to compromise and only let him murder half? Or would it be virtuous to do everything in your power to take the fucker down and save as many Jews as possible?
Now, me? I’m an extremist. I believe in making no compromises with Hitler or anyone else who wants others to die for their own benefit.
So, either admit that sometimes extremism is necessary and good or put your money where your mouth is and publically state for the record that the Allies should have compromised and let Hitler kill half the Jews on Earth.
The Nazi position was that the Jews were an existential threat, and that exterminating them was morally justified.
So their extremism was necessary.
Greetings!
Yes, Trond, European immigrants have contributed greatly to America. Primarily so in forging the foundations. Europeans and European thinking, philosophy, and influence throughout our history has been a mix of the very best and the very worst. Later on, of course, lots of other folks would put their efforts into making America great, whether they were Indians, Blacks, Eastern or Southern Europeans, Mexicans, Asians, and many other smaller groups.
YOU are still welcome here, in your new homeland, friend.
As for modern currents, plenty of the most terrible things have been home-grown right here, pushed and promoted and celebrated by native-born Americans. As Eirikautha pointed out--much of the inspiration from such terrible movements and philosophies ultimately have their roots again, in European circles, most prominently the Communists from the Soviet Union. Plenty of godless, degeneracy and corruption has also been inspired from the fucking French, British, Italians, and God knows who else. How about fucking Soros? That scumbag is Hungarian. I like Hungarians. Hungarians are great--but that fucker Soros can gargle with Napalm.
I think we have entered a terminal stage of our empire. The more recent fractures--driven by the Libtards--have pushed this country into all kinds of problems, that frankly, I think the differences, the world visions--are quite clear, and they are fundamentally different. In the past, as others mentioned, Chris I think--were minimal, and often stylistic rather than differences of a foundational philosophy. Those days are long gone, in the rearview mirror.
Now, we are dealing with the Libtards that hate white people, hate America, and hate Christianity. They also hate middle-class working people, CAPITALISTS, and our Republican government. Self Reliance, independence, parental authority, local autonomy, GUN RIGHTS AND GUNS!--the list goes on and on, and on.
The Libtards are merely godless, evil, tyrannical Globalist Marxists. Scratch the paint off, and they embody everything that this country has hated and worked against for the past hundred years. Yes, the political Communism, but also so much of everything else they believe and promote--is poisonous, corrupt, and hateful to everything that America traditionally stands for and cherishes.
Yes, in the past, we trained to go to war and kill these same kinds of people. We have worked to resist them and fight them here in every way, for generations.
They, themselves, have embraced the cloak and mantle of our enemy. Such is not what right-thinking Americans insisted on forcing upon them--they gleefully and proudly have embraced such ideology, and have built, and molded, and shaped themselves into the enemy of America. European Aristocrat Tyrants, Japanese Imperialists, German Nazis, Soviet Communists, Globalists--all of them, have contributed ingredients into being our enemy, and what we hate the most. It is fundamental, Trond.
The conflict is historical, philosophical, ideological--and spiritual. We are a free people, and they embrace an elitist, globalist Tyranny.
You wonder if we can "Compromise". In the past, we waged wars. We hunted these fuckers down in the courts or the streets, imprisoning them, killing them, or driving them to hide impotent in the shadows away from the light, lest they be crushed like a cockroach.
There isn't any room or even reason to compromise with these monsters. They are corruption, in the flesh, and poisonous to a good and strong America. This struggle will determine whether this country continues as an independent, free nation--a REPUBLIC--not a fucking "Democracy"--or becomes a globalist slave state, a gullible breeding farm of pigs and whoring strumpets that are easily manipulated and controlled with "Bread and Circuses" by the smug, ruling elites. The struggle embraces "Left and Right"--but also as mentioned, has grown to truly be far more than that. The struggle is not merely *political* now--over obscure policy differences--but the scope of conflict embraces ideology, religion, economics, our national history and identity, parents authority over their children, and on down the line. Family, faith, culture. So many things that aren't just a slight difference of opinion or approach--but so different, it makes people hate you, fearful of you, or want to crush you with a lead pipe. You don't fuck with the issues I listed above--and not get people violent real fast. Again, fundamental, deep conflicts. It isn't just older, white, Conservative men that are going nuts at schoolboard meetings, as we have often seen recently. Women have as well. Mothers, grandmothers, and more. Younger people are also standing up--and showing up--to protest, fight, and otherwise stand against the Leftist Globalist tyranny. Again, on many different issues. It has definitely intensified--and people have woken up to the threat of globalist Marxism, the tyrant mommy-state, the anti-white racism, the hatred of America, Christianity, our Bible, and our guns. More, and more. So, yeah, the fight is definitely coming, in many avenues and areas of society.
I expect more conflict, rather than less.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Outside of cartoons, evil always claims it’s doing a good thing, but as the saying goes, “by your fruits you will know them.” Any ideology or group that says innocents need to die for their good to be reached is evil and needs to be opposed. The Nazis were evildoers making excuses for why their evils were actually good.Extremism in the cause of right is no vice and compromising with evil no virtue.No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.
As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
Being an extremist is much worse.
When Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews would it be virtuous to compromise and only let him murder half? Or would it be virtuous to do everything in your power to take the fucker down and save as many Jews as possible?
Now, me? I’m an extremist. I believe in making no compromises with Hitler or anyone else who wants others to die for their own benefit.
So, either admit that sometimes extremism is necessary and good or put your money where your mouth is and publically state for the record that the Allies should have compromised and let Hitler kill half the Jews on Earth.
The Nazi position was that the Jews were an existential threat, and that exterminating them was morally justified.
So their extremism was necessary.
Extremism in the cause of right is no vice and compromising with evil no virtue.No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.
As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
Being an extremist is much worse.
When Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews would it be virtuous to compromise and only let him murder half? Or would it be virtuous to do everything in your power to take the fucker down and save as many Jews as possible?
Now, me? I’m an extremist. I believe in making no compromises with Hitler or anyone else who wants others to die for their own benefit.
So, either admit that sometimes extremism is necessary and good or put your money where your mouth is and publically state for the record that the Allies should have compromised and let Hitler kill half the Jews on Earth.
The Nazi position was that the Jews were an existential threat, and that exterminating them was morally justified.
So their extremism was necessary.
I guess the "... in defense of liberty" part was too difficult to read? Exterminating others is not "liberty." A leftist can try to twist words to mean what they don't (see "woman"), but that doesn't change the fact that liberty doesn't include killing off part of your citizenry.
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.
Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.
There can be no compromise. If you're for sexualizing children, allowing completely unrestrained illegal immigration, and throwing good money after bad on countries that hate the US, you're complete anti-American and should be killed.
See what I mean? The lefties want to rape our children, the righties want to kill the gays, the lefties want to murder babies, the righties want to enslave women.
How can these two positions possible reconcile?QuoteI would have zero problems with an insurgency that killed off leftists. The problem, however, is that humans can't just stop, they have to find "the next" and it turns into the French Revolution. We *already* see this from leftists who find "-ist" behavior where it doesn't exist because they have to have some form of commie struggle.
That having been said, one would *hope* that an insurgency by conservatives (not neocons) and combat vets would be well-regulated.
Hope in one hand and shit in the other...
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.
Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.
Don't worry, one of them made an exception for his personal friends.
But joking aside, yes the clique of boneheads took over the thread pretty fast.
Next time (if you get one), don't make a habit out of jumping immediately to calling your political opponents Nazis.
Just sayin'.
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.
Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.
Don't worry, one of them made an exception for his personal friends.
But joking aside, yes the clique of boneheads took over the thread pretty fast.
Indeed. And it's not "to the left of GWBush" it's "to the left of Trump." These guys would think GW Bush is a RINO these days. Because he was a neocon who believed in a level of globalism and immigration and didn't think gay people were groomers by definition.
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.
Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.
Indeed. And it's not "to the left of GWBush" it's "to the left of Trump." These guys would think GW Bush is a RINO these days. Because he was a neocon who believed in a level of globalism and immigration and didn't think gay people were groomers by definition.
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.
Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.
Don't worry, one of them made an exception for his personal friends.
But joking aside, yes the clique of boneheads took over the thread pretty fast.
I don't think all LGBTs are groomers.
I do think there are lots of LGBT people who are, however. I say this as a gay man, who has seen it going on and heard and read it advocated for first hand. Its not new. It was an old and dirty open secret in the 90s/00's, and you can read articles about it in LGBT zines and books as far back as, at least, the 70s. And I'm sick to death of people pretending otherwise, and I condemn anyone who is silent about it or tries to pretend it doesn't happen as complicit.
When I came out, it was almost expected that young gay people would be "initiated" by older gay men. Sometimes this was nominally legal, if morally suspect - 18 and 19 year olds with 40, 50 year old men or older. Other times it was not legal at all, and everyone was expected to just keep quiet about it, it was the way it was.
And that's before you get into some of the more recent issues. I'm just talking the stuff that's been going on for a long time. NAMBLA has been a thing since the late 70s. And it doesn't even operate in secret. It's a fucking gay pedophilia advocacy group.
Call it out, call it out loudly and often, or be counted as one of them. I hold myself to no lesser of a standard.
Next time (if you get one), don't make a habit out of jumping immediately to calling your political opponents Nazis.
Just sayin'.
Which post is this referring to?
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.
Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.
Don't worry, one of them made an exception for his personal friends.
But joking aside, yes the clique of boneheads took over the thread pretty fast.
Indeed. And it's not "to the left of GWBush" it's "to the left of Trump." These guys would think GW Bush is a RINO these days. Because he was a neocon who believed in a level of globalism and immigration and didn't think gay people were groomers by definition.
LMAO.....GW was RIGHT of Trump in office. Wow how short the memories....he OPPOSED GAY MARRIAGE and waged wars at the drop of a hat. He is an elitist and a globalist...but pretending he is left of trump is short memory retarded.
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.
Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.
Don't worry, one of them made an exception for his personal friends.
But joking aside, yes the clique of boneheads took over the thread pretty fast.
From the very first post. There's nothing more boneheaded than a foreigner deciding to lecture Americans on how to solve American politics....
Right and Obama and Clinton both opposed gay marriage as well. However they didn't think gay people were grooming children.
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.
Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.
Don't worry, one of them made an exception for his personal friends.
But joking aside, yes the clique of boneheads took over the thread pretty fast.
Indeed. And it's not "to the left of GWBush" it's "to the left of Trump." These guys would think GW Bush is a RINO these days. Because he was a neocon who believed in a level of globalism and immigration and didn't think gay people were groomers by definition.
LMAO.....GW was RIGHT of Trump in office. Wow how short the memories....he OPPOSED GAY MARRIAGE and waged wars at the drop of a hat. He is an elitist and a globalist...but pretending he is left of trump is short memory retarded.
Right and Obama and Clinton both opposed gay marriage as well. However they didn't think gay people were grooming children.
Waging war is neither right nor left wing. Democrats also wage a lot of war.
You can call him whatever you want relative to Trump, but it's obvious anyone not on board with Trumpian politics is considered a RINO these days. A GW Bush supporter. like myself, is called a RINO. Right here in fact.
From the very first post. There's nothing more boneheaded than a foreigner deciding to lecture Americans on how to solve American politics....
They don’t think we’re wrong, they think we’re EVIL, so anything they do to us is warranted. I was foolish to think otherwise, but no more. War.
My progressive friends get the benefit of the doubt, thanks to years of friendship. All the new ones I meet are presumed enemies unless they prove otherwise.
The Left are godless zombies that have embraced a globalist, Marxist philosophy. The Left--in whatever permutation or flavour--desire a society, country, and world, that is diametrically and fundamentally opposed to that of right-thinking Americans.
In such a situation, there is only one solution--WAR.
Either one side or the other wins. Whoever loses this struggle will be exterminated like cockroaches.
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.
Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.
Don't worry, one of them made an exception for his personal friends.
But joking aside, yes the clique of boneheads took over the thread pretty fast.
Indeed. And it's not "to the left of GWBush" it's "to the left of Trump." These guys would think GW Bush is a RINO these days. Because he was a neocon who believed in a level of globalism and immigration and didn't think gay people were groomers by definition.
LMAO.....GW was RIGHT of Trump in office. Wow how short the memories....he OPPOSED GAY MARRIAGE and waged wars at the drop of a hat. He is an elitist and a globalist...but pretending he is left of trump is short memory retarded.
Right and Obama and Clinton both opposed gay marriage as well. However they didn't think gay people were grooming children.
Waging war is neither right nor left wing. Democrats also wage a lot of war.
You can call him whatever you want relative to Trump, but it's obvious anyone not on board with Trumpian politics is considered a RINO these days. A GW Bush supporter. like myself, is called a RINO. Right here in fact.
The problem with that term RINO, is it is meaningless. Republicans do not stand for shit, the past 3 decades bombing people into democracy and slow walking any uber left bullshit, but never pushing back. If you supported GW, you are not a RINO, you are just an idiot. I don't call GW anything I want, I just call it like it was and is. Trump is LEFT of GW on almost everything, and he is called a right wing extremist (I guess having the audacity to think American leaders should put the needs of America and Americans first is nutty right wing bullshit).
Regarding reconciliation, I think one hopeful thing is that despite the rhetoric - we have had less political violence so far than in the 1960s. Still, there are events like the recent nightclub shooting in Colorado. I think in general, while people are worked up by clickbait, for the most part people's lives are fairly stable, and they are more inclined to tweet about violence than actually murder people - which is good. If one side is perceived to move into violence first, I think they will lose a lot of support.They don’t think we’re wrong, they think we’re EVIL, so anything they do to us is warranted. I was foolish to think otherwise, but no more. War.
My progressive friends get the benefit of the doubt, thanks to years of friendship. All the new ones I meet are presumed enemies unless they prove otherwise.The Left are godless zombies that have embraced a globalist, Marxist philosophy. The Left--in whatever permutation or flavour--desire a society, country, and world, that is diametrically and fundamentally opposed to that of right-thinking Americans.
In such a situation, there is only one solution--WAR.
Either one side or the other wins. Whoever loses this struggle will be exterminated like cockroaches.
For either of you - how do you perceive the current situation progressing into active civil war?
Regarding reconciliation, I think one hopeful thing is that despite the rhetoric - we have had less political violence so far than in the 1960s. Still, there are events like the recent nightclub shooting in Colorado.
Still, there are events like the recent nightclub shooting in Colorado.There is no evidence that this was political violence.
BTW, since I mentioned some people who have shifted political stance lately, and who try to bridge the gap so to speak, what do you guys think of Tulsi Gabbard?
You sort of ignore the political violence of 2020 riots which saw 25 people killed, thousands injured and billions of dollars in damages
while the worst violence of the 1968 riots which saw 39 people killed, thousands injured, and less damage.
They are quite comparable.
Well, for a couple of reasons, this thread is part of the problem in American politics. First, it treats compromise as if it is always the best resolution of a problem, when that is not always the case. Let's say I want to rape your 4 daughters. You don't want me to rape your daughters at all. Is the proper resolution to this letting me rape two of them? Sometimes the "middle" is just as wrong as the extremes.
Fifty years ago, democrats and republicans both believed in the American Dream. They believed that America offered the best possible outcome for its citizens, compared to any other country or culture. They were all American Exceptionalists. They saw American culture and its ethos as a force for good in the world. They just differed on how that ethos was to be spread, safeguarded, and extended to all of its citizens (and immigrants). Both sides believed in the great melting pot.
Now, both sides do NOT share a common vision of what America should be. One sides hates the American Dream, calls it racist, sexist, and bigoted, believes it is illegitimate and evil at its founding. One side no longer believes that immigrants should be assimilated into American culture; in fact, they believe that immigrant cultures are equal to or better than American culture. One side no longer accepts the institutions of America, the law, the self-reliance, the freedom of speech. Are you suggesting that I should compromise with those who say I can't state what I see as a biological fact, because it might hurt the feelings of some dude who wishes he was a chick? That's "reconciliation"? Sounds a lot more like "capitulation"...
Regarding reconciliation, I think one hopeful thing is that despite the rhetoric - we have had less political violence so far than in the 1960s. Still, there are events like the recent nightclub shooting in Colorado. I think in general, while people are worked up by clickbait, for the most part people's lives are fairly stable, and they are more inclined to tweet about violence than actually murder people - which is good. If one side is perceived to move into violence first, I think they will lose a lot of support.They don’t think we’re wrong, they think we’re EVIL, so anything they do to us is warranted. I was foolish to think otherwise, but no more. War.
My progressive friends get the benefit of the doubt, thanks to years of friendship. All the new ones I meet are presumed enemies unless they prove otherwise.The Left are godless zombies that have embraced a globalist, Marxist philosophy. The Left--in whatever permutation or flavour--desire a society, country, and world, that is diametrically and fundamentally opposed to that of right-thinking Americans.
In such a situation, there is only one solution--WAR.
Either one side or the other wins. Whoever loses this struggle will be exterminated like cockroaches.
For either of you - how do you perceive the current situation progressing into active civil war?
Regarding reconciliation, I think one hopeful thing is that despite the rhetoric - we have had less political violence so far than in the 1960s. Still, there are events like the recent nightclub shooting in Colorado. I think in general, while people are worked up by clickbait, for the most part people's lives are fairly stable, and they are more inclined to tweet about violence than actually murder people - which is good. If one side is perceived to move into violence first, I think they will lose a lot of support.They don’t think we’re wrong, they think we’re EVIL, so anything they do to us is warranted. I was foolish to think otherwise, but no more. War.
My progressive friends get the benefit of the doubt, thanks to years of friendship. All the new ones I meet are presumed enemies unless they prove otherwise.The Left are godless zombies that have embraced a globalist, Marxist philosophy. The Left--in whatever permutation or flavour--desire a society, country, and world, that is diametrically and fundamentally opposed to that of right-thinking Americans.
In such a situation, there is only one solution--WAR.
Either one side or the other wins. Whoever loses this struggle will be exterminated like cockroaches.
For either of you - how do you perceive the current situation progressing into active civil war?
Greetings!
Well, I definitely see a kind of national divorce going on--a process--where like minded people separate and gather together with others that embrace their same ideology and world view. There's a flood of Californians pouring into the state to escape the shithole that California has become. I think politically and legally, you will see an increase of states basically asserting their autonomy and telling the federal government to get fucked. Yes, lots of legalese and hoop jumping, but individual states are simply not going to comply with Libtard bs on so many issues, especially when such measures are put upon by the federal government. So, legally, politically, there's an increase in separation. Socially, you see hordes of people fleeing Libtard states. I think you will see more separation through church, through work--people working at ideologically acceptable places--and consumer experiences. We see this right here, in action--companies and customers alike segregating based on political ideology, essentially.
I think of course you see separation also in dating circles--i.e. "Trumpers pass me by"; and "Liberals swipe left" and so on.
All of this is the strands of separation. In past generations, these things were largely foreign to most people. Now, these things are increasingly being seen as normal, and also as necessary and good.
I have doubts about any kind of full-fledged "Civil War". However, I do think there will be an increase in irregular disorganized violence, killings, riots, and more going on throughout the country. Certainly, there are many people that are unwilling to crush someone else's head in with a lead pipe based upon their ideology. Short of that, though, more and more people actively work to oppose the others. To resist them, to exclude them, to oppose them in every way. I think that Conservatives in general hold a deep respect for human life, and are hesitant to become violent. The Libtards are mentally unstable, however, and will increasingly become more and more violent. As the victims pile up, and the Libtards get crazy stupid, then you will see Conservatives embrace violence with more enthusiasm.
I think this is how things get going and will proceed.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.
Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.
Buddy, when you are telling me my daughter has to go into the locker room with dudes and you are for mutilating kids' genitals.....I wont say to shoot you, but I sure as hell do not think you and I are going to have enough common ground to be in the same nation. The conclusion is not to shoot anyone, but it is to say there are issues so dividing there is going to be no middle ground or healing. Amicable divorce is the best long term solution.
by stopping efforts to provide legal aid to illegal immigrants
by stopping efforts to provide legal aid to illegal immigrants
Hey buddy, you're in the vast minority on that topic. You do, in fact, need to compromise on legal aid to illegal immigrants. 86% of likely voters in the United States support the government providing an attorney for illegal immigrants who cannot afford one. That's not them having a problem it's you. You live in a nation where people think those trying to emigrate to the U.S., even illegally, should have legal council if they cannot afford legal council to try and prove they're not here illegally or that deportation would be illegal.
Hey buddy, you're in the vast minority on that topic. You do, in fact, need to compromise on legal aid to illegal immigrants. 86% of likely voters in the United States support the government providing an attorney for illegal immigrants who cannot afford one. That's not them having a problem it's you. You live in a nation where people think those trying to emigrate to the U.S., even illegally, should have legal council if they cannot afford legal council to try and prove they're not here illegally or that deportation would be illegal.
I was comparing the worst year of the 60's to the worst of the 20's. And we've got 7 years to make the rest of the 60's look like child's play.You sort of ignore the political violence of 2020 riots which saw 25 people killed, thousands injured and billions of dollars in damages
while the worst violence of the 1968 riots which saw 39 people killed, thousands injured, and less damage.
They are quite comparable.
The 1968 riots after MLK's assassination was just one piece of violence of the 1960s, though. The summer 1967 race riots killed at least 85 people across dozens of cities. There were the 1964 Watts riots that had 34 deaths. There were dozens of other major riot incidents throughout the 1960s.
There were also a string of assassinations including JFK, MLK, and other notable figures. There was the Kent State shooting (technically in 1970 but clearly part of the period). Domestic terrorist groups including the KKK and others were highly active.
by stopping efforts to provide legal aid to illegal immigrants
Hey buddy, you're in the vast minority on that topic. You do, in fact, need to compromise on legal aid to illegal immigrants. 86% of likely voters in the United States support the government providing an attorney for illegal immigrants who cannot afford one. That's not them having a problem it's you. You live in a nation where people think those trying to emigrate to the U.S., even illegally, should have legal council if they cannot afford legal council to try and prove they're not here illegally or that deportation would be illegal.
Absolutely not. 99% of them are here for economic reasons (or sneaking across for terrorism or crime purposes) rather than persecution. Those who come here *legally* (like my brother's and sister's in-laws from Cuba and Colombia) are essentially being told that they're a bunch of fools for following the law, applying for visas, waiting in line, learning English, applying for legal residency, and ultimately studying for and achieving citizenship.
I don't care that it's not nice to not allow illegals to enter (and not pursue them when they are found here). No other nation anywhere in the world tolerates this the way the US does. None of them. And that's the right of *every* sovereign nation to secure their borders. Period.
It's a *business* to smuggle illegals into the US. Overwhelmingly of people coming from central American countries who get robbed, raped, and beaten by Mexican border forces when they hit the southern/eastern border of Mexico. How cruel are you that you want that to continue.
A tourist who knowingly overstayed your visa? Too fucking bad - hit the bricks.
Fleeing religious or political persecution? Apply at the embassy in your home country or go to a refugee camp to start with.
I travel *a lot* (and it's picked back up post plandemic). I see plenty of people trying to illegally enter other countries and they don't put up with it. Neither should we.
Hey buddy, you're in the vast minority on that topic. You do, in fact, need to compromise on legal aid to illegal immigrants. 86% of likely voters in the United States support the government providing an attorney for illegal immigrants who cannot afford one. That's not them having a problem it's you. You live in a nation where people think those trying to emigrate to the U.S., even illegally, should have legal council if they cannot afford legal council to try and prove they're not here illegally or that deportation would be illegal.
Disingenuous nonsense. There isn't any question that they are here illegally.
We're not talking some racist ICE agents going into the racial enclaves of LA and rounding up legitimate immigrants and shipping them to Mexico, like the folks over a TBP imagine goes on every day. We by and large leave the illegal immigrants who manage to reach those and more or less integrate into society alone, as long as they keep their heads down and avoid getting into the legal system by committing crimes. We're talking people caught trying to cross the border illegally.
This is me having to prove you don't live in my house to be able to kick you out of my house when you broke in at night while I was sleeping... At my expense. While I give you room and board in the meantime.
I don't care that it's not nice to not allow illegals to enter (and not pursue them when they are found here). No other nation anywhere in the world tolerates this the way the US does. None of them. And that's the right of *every* sovereign nation to secure their borders. Period.
Except sometimes there is.
86% of likely voters disagree with your view on this. So tough shit. It's just an attorney. You can live it them getting access to an attorney.
by stopping efforts to provide legal aid to illegal immigrants
Hey buddy, you're in the vast minority on that topic. You do, in fact, need to compromise on legal aid to illegal immigrants. 86% of likely voters in the United States support the government providing an attorney for illegal immigrants who cannot afford one. That's not them having a problem it's you. You live in a nation where people think those trying to emigrate to the U.S., even illegally, should have legal council if they cannot afford legal council to try and prove they're not here illegally or that deportation would be illegal.
Absolutely not. 99% of them are here for economic reasons (or sneaking across for terrorism or crime purposes) rather than persecution. Those who come here *legally* (like my brother's and sister's in-laws from Cuba and Colombia) are essentially being told that they're a bunch of fools for following the law, applying for visas, waiting in line, learning English, applying for legal residency, and ultimately studying for and achieving citizenship.
I don't care that it's not nice to not allow illegals to enter (and not pursue them when they are found here). No other nation anywhere in the world tolerates this the way the US does. None of them. And that's the right of *every* sovereign nation to secure their borders. Period.
It's a *business* to smuggle illegals into the US. Overwhelmingly of people coming from central American countries who get robbed, raped, and beaten by Mexican border forces when they hit the southern/eastern border of Mexico. How cruel are you that you want that to continue.
A tourist who knowingly overstayed your visa? Too fucking bad - hit the bricks.
Fleeing religious or political persecution? Apply at the embassy in your home country or go to a refugee camp to start with.
I travel *a lot* (and it's picked back up post plandemic). I see plenty of people trying to illegally enter other countries and they don't put up with it. Neither should we.
Nothing you said is a response to having access to an attorney
I don't care that it's not nice to not allow illegals to enter (and not pursue them when they are found here). No other nation anywhere in the world tolerates this the way the US does. None of them. And that's the right of *every* sovereign nation to secure their borders. Period.
Actually, you're wrong on this, one nation is an even softer touch than the US: the UK. We have a natural boundary, the sea, which should prevent people simply rolling over the border at will. There's 30 miles of sea to cross from the European mainland even at the closest point.
We've had tens of thousands of illegal migrants (overwhelmingly young men of fighting age, most recenty the majority are from Albania) turning up every year. They get on little boats in French coastal towns, the French navy escorts them into our waters where the Royal Navy, Border Force or RNLI escorts them here. When they arrive they're put up in 4-star hotels (now some 5-star hotels), given free phones, 3 meals a day and cash.
Unsurprisingly, the places hosting all these groups of men are having many problems with them, which the authorities do their best to cover up.
I stand corrected. I forgot about the Muzzie grooming gangs in the UK...
I don't think reconciliation is possible no.
Where would the left even start?
Would they apologize for the 2020 riots? The people they murdered?
Would they admit to spending the entirety of Donald Trump's presidency lying about him? What would they do to atone for the propaganda and fear mongering?
Are the voter base going to stop voting for the Democratic politicians that has become nothing but woke progressive liars?
Are those politicians going to resign?
Are they going to dismantle their own propaganda machine? Will they rise up against deplatforming and suppression?
Will they actually start caring about left wing issues again as something more than just a pretense?
Obviously not. I think if there is one thing the left actually wants it is to retain things as they are. They're not going to wake up, go 'oh gods what have we become' and try to atone. Those who do will do like Tulsi and leave. Any hope of reconciliation requires reforming the modern left into something that isn't just a lie, and any hope of that died in 2020.
Except sometimes there is.
Again, disingenuous nonsense.
Let us be clear: When people talk about "the border crisis" and "illegal immigration" as political topics, you and I both know nobody is taking about edge cases like people fleeing religious persecution. Americans, even conservatives, have historically been receptive to that sort of immigration. Hell, Cuban refuges have been embraced better than most others because they are more clearly refugees fleeing oppression.
That is neither the sort of immigration people are talking about as apolitical issue, nor more than than a tiny fraction of it.86% of likely voters disagree with your view on this. So tough shit. It's just an attorney. You can live it them getting access to an attorney.
We don't govern by polling.
When you don't allow illegals to enter to begin with
No but voters have massive influence in what politicians do. It's the basis of the system.
No but voters have massive influence in what politicians do. It's the basis of the system.
Not really. Voters have massive influence on what politicians say they will do. That's not at all the same thing.
And that's assuming poling is accurate, a dubious proposition at best.
When you don't allow illegals to enter to begin with
Good luck with that.
When you don't allow illegals to enter to begin with
Good luck with that.
It requires nothing more than the political will to enforce the law and the resources to do it. Other countries manage to do this with no problem.
I was comparing the worst year of the 60's to the worst of the 20's. And we've got 7 years to make the rest of the 60's look like child's play.You sort of ignore the political violence of 2020 riots which saw 25 people killed, thousands injured and billions of dollars in damages
while the worst violence of the 1968 riots which saw 39 people killed, thousands injured, and less damage.
They are quite comparable.
The 1968 riots after MLK's assassination was just one piece of violence of the 1960s, though. The summer 1967 race riots killed at least 85 people across dozens of cities. There were the 1964 Watts riots that had 34 deaths. There were dozens of other major riot incidents throughout the 1960s.
There were also a string of assassinations including JFK, MLK, and other notable figures. There was the Kent State shooting (technically in 1970 but clearly part of the period). Domestic terrorist groups including the KKK and others were highly active.
When you don't allow illegals to enter to begin with
Good luck with that.
It requires nothing more than the political will to enforce the law and the resources to do it. Other countries manage to do this with no problem.
So why did Trump fail at it?
Also noteworthy - other countries usually don't attract as many people to them. YOU may not believe in the American Dream but many do. It's really quite easy to keep people out of Venezuela when people don't want to emigrate there.
There won't be any reconciliation. That requires compromise and finding common ground. It's increasingly difficult to even speak with progressives, let alone find common ground. They continue to push the ridiculous which further alienates those that should be considered "moderate".
There won't be any reconciliation. That requires compromise and finding common ground. It's increasingly difficult to even speak with progressives, let alone find common ground. They continue to push the ridiculous which further alienates those that should be considered "moderate".
I'll continue saying it. We're at where we're at because we conservatives have been overly-tolerant. If a few more Marxist college professors had been drafted to go fight in Vietnam, they'd likely *not* be Marxists when they returned. Instead we allowed them to proliferate on college campuses and spread their disease to multiple generations of college students.
The same goes for tolerance in the public square - a few more leftists leaving a "rally" with a broken nose or missing a tooth and we wouldn't be here dealing with antifa terrorists.
Civility in the face of leftist tyranny is nothing more than cowardice.
I don't think that the worst race riots of a decade are a good measure of overall political violence.No you don't get to take the 2020 race riots off the table as they are overtly political.
I don't think that the worst race riots of a decade are a good measure of overall political violence.No you don't get to take the 2020 race riots off the table as they are overtly political.
The 2020 riots were fanned, funded and owned by white leftists.
When you don't allow illegals to enter to begin with
Good luck with that.
It requires nothing more than the political will to enforce the law and the resources to do it. Other countries manage to do this with no problem.
So why did Trump fail at it?
Also noteworthy - other countries usually don't attract as many people to them. YOU may not believe in the American Dream but many do. It's really quite easy to keep people out of Venezuela when people don't want to emigrate there.
Who says he failed? When he was in office, illegal immigration declined because of the deterrent effect of not just letting them in without even trying to keep them out.
As to your assertion that "we get so many that we shouldn't even bother trying to control our borders" - how about go fuck yourself. By that attitude, you should en masse encourage every homeless drug addict in Cali to come and walk in your front door, rape your wife, and steal all your worldly possessions - while you pay them and give them room and board to do so. After all, if enough random strangers show up, why bother locking your front door, right?
There won't be any reconciliation. That requires compromise and finding common ground. It's increasingly difficult to even speak with progressives, let alone find common ground. They continue to push the ridiculous which further alienates those that should be considered "moderate".
But Conservatives refuse to treat moderates and independents with anything like respect right now. Let's see if that changes for this next election.
Which is why I always truthfully tell people my political philosophy is Subsidiarity. It’s fun because so few on any side have even heard of it so they rarely have pre-canned answers ready for it.But Conservatives refuse to treat moderates and independents with anything like respect right now. Let's see if that changes for this next election.
Really? You really think that's a conservative problem?
Here's a whole thread full of gamers on reddit high-fiving each other and agreeing that you gotta keep those filthy moderates out of games, because they're just closet nazis who don't wanna admit it. (https://www.reddit.com/r/rpghorrorstories/comments/z4m21k/whats_your_political_alignment/)
There won't be any reconciliation. That requires compromise and finding common ground. It's increasingly difficult to even speak with progressives, let alone find common ground. They continue to push the ridiculous which further alienates those that should be considered "moderate".
If you focus on making moderates and independents the power in the nation you won't need to negotiate with progressives.
It's not like Israel is negotiating with progressives right now.
But Conservatives refuse to treat moderates and independents with anything like respect right now. Let's see if that changes for this next election.
The fact is that moderates and independents have no platform, no beliefs, and no principles. If they did, they'd be defined by those, and not by the fact that they are in the middle of competing belief systems. And that's why they can't be trusted. Because being "moderate" or "civil" or whatever other terms they use to virtue signal is far more important than actual beliefs or accomplishments. They are the people who think Solomon should have actually split the baby. I'd rather be fighting those who truly believe in the opposite of what I do than subject to the vacillations of the principle-less middle. To paraphrase Patton, I'd rather have a liberal division in front of me than a "moderate" one behind me...
The fact is that moderates and independents have no platform, no beliefs, and no principles. If they did, they'd be defined by those, and not by the fact that they are in the middle of competing belief systems. And that's why they can't be trusted. Because being "moderate" or "civil" or whatever other terms they use to virtue signal is far more important than actual beliefs or accomplishments. They are the people who think Solomon should have actually split the baby. I'd rather be fighting those who truly believe in the opposite of what I do than subject to the vacillations of the principle-less middle. To paraphrase Patton, I'd rather have a liberal division in front of me than a "moderate" one behind me...
Well, look. It's important to be careful to not boil your worldview down to "radical extremism is the only true virtue". There'a a world of positions you can hold, for example, between "all criminals should be executed" and "we should abolish the criminal justice system".
You can hold a position in the middle. The important thing is to hold that opinion, though. Don't make your opinion just be whatever the midway between two other opinions is because it's the point in between.
It's important to be careful to not boil your worldview down to "radical extremism is the only true virtue". There'a a world of positions you can hold, for example, between "all criminals should be executed" and "we should abolish the criminal justice system".
You can hold a position in the middle. The important thing is to hold that opinion, though. Don't make your opinion just be whatever the midway between two other opinions is because it's the point in between.
The problem is that I've never met a "moderate" that could do so. I know what a socialist is, a communist, a libertarian, a classical liberal, a conservative, a tea-party-ist. What's a moderate? Hell, even a neo-conservative, at least if they hold to the definition self-ascribed by guys like David Horowitz: a red diaper baby that is socially liberal but free market economically. But the problem arises with moderates and independents that they don't have any solid principles to hang their hat on, because their pick-a-little-from-here-and-there quickly becomes logically inconsistent.
It's important to be careful to not boil your worldview down to "radical extremism is the only true virtue". There'a a world of positions you can hold, for example, between "all criminals should be executed" and "we should abolish the criminal justice system".
You can hold a position in the middle. The important thing is to hold that opinion, though. Don't make your opinion just be whatever the midway between two other opinions is because it's the point in between.
The problem is that I've never met a "moderate" that could do so. I know what a socialist is, a communist, a libertarian, a classical liberal, a conservative, a tea-party-ist. What's a moderate? Hell, even a neo-conservative, at least if they hold to the definition self-ascribed by guys like David Horowitz: a red diaper baby that is socially liberal but free market economically. But the problem arises with moderates and independents that they don't have any solid principles to hang their hat on, because their pick-a-little-from-here-and-there quickly becomes logically inconsistent.
In my experience, I find extremists are more often logically inconsistent. I know a number of people who will twist themselves into logical knots in order to justify their extreme positions, especially to justify hypocritical condemnation of the other side. i.e. When we do X, then it's justified. When they do X, then it shows how evil they are.
That said, most people of any leaning are logically inconsistent. Human beings don't primarily work on logic. I respect those uncommon individuals who are more open-minded and are willing to listen to logic, but I don't expect it - and I know many people who aren't logically consistent whom I would consider good.
Sadly, what you find good or positive or anything else is irrelevant. You are not the arbiter of consistency or political utility. Your "experience" has no bearing on the actualities of this discussion. It's not about you.
The problem is that I've never met a "moderate" that could do so. I know what a socialist is a communist, a libertarian, a classical liberal, a conservative, a tea-party-ist. What's a moderate? Hell, even a neo-conservative, at least if they hold to the definition self-ascribed by guys like David Horowitz: a red diaper baby that is socially liberal but free market economically. But the problem arises with moderates and independents that they don't have any solid principles to hang their hat on, because their pick-a-little-from-here-and-there quickly becomes logically inconsistent. If you aren't bound by hard-and-fast principles, then you aren't a trustworthy ally. Period.
Sadly, what you find good or positive or anything else is irrelevant. You are not the arbiter of consistency or political utility. Your "experience" has no bearing on the actualities of this discussion. It's not about you.
Let me show you this nice mirror over here in the corner...
Also...The problem is that I've never met a "moderate" that could do so. I know what a socialist is a communist, a libertarian, a classical liberal, a conservative, a tea-party-ist. What's a moderate? Hell, even a neo-conservative, at least if they hold to the definition self-ascribed by guys like David Horowitz: a red diaper baby that is socially liberal but free market economically. But the problem arises with moderates and independents that they don't have any solid principles to hang their hat on, because their pick-a-little-from-here-and-there quickly becomes logically inconsistent. If you aren't bound by hard-and-fast principles, then you aren't a trustworthy ally. Period.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- Ralph Waldo Emerson. Also, you, about 4 months ago.
It's pretty obvious that you don't have a clue what "foolish" is... which is fitting...
I don’t mind one bit if I’m not a “trustworthy ally” of a political party or movement. That sounds a bit sheepish to me. I don’t think I agree 100% with any single person either.
I don’t mind one bit if I’m not a “trustworthy ally” of a political party or movement. That sounds a bit sheepish to me. I don’t think I agree 100% with any single person either.
Yeah, my response to someone telling me I wasn't a "trustworthy ally" in politics would be some slightly less geekish version of "I'm not your torchbearer, sir.".
The problem is, you can either be slavishly loyal to an ideal, or to a political party.
If you're slavishly loyal to a political party, you can't truly hold any ideals. Because sooner or later the party will betray you. In my lifetime I've seen both political parties make massive shifts in their professed opinions.
Look at the Democrat party. They march in lockstep to a greater degree than the republicans. Politically speaking, it's one of their strengths - and I've often lamented it. Democrats don't generally have to worry about what percentage of their members are going to betray them on an upcoming vote. It's a very small number, and the ones that will (like Manchen) are notorious. But the flip side is, how many Democrat politicians are both nominally religious, and yet hold views their church condemns, just as an example? Hell, the catholic diocese have tried to make their displeasure known by denying some of them Communion. You have to betray your personal ideals to function like that.
On the other side of the relationship, these are the mythical ~20% of the voter base that each party has that will, come hell or high water, always vote for one party. Although honestly, I think it's higher than that anymore, but that's still the number everyone uses. These are the useful idiots.
If you're slavishly loyal to an ideal, on the other hand, you just become an angry, insular idealist yelling about how you can't trust anyone to be loyal. Because the vast majority of people are going to disagree with you about some important issues to some extent. Because they have their own ideals. There is a reason that a generation or two ago, it was normal for friends to argue politics. As part of friendly social interaction. And then still be friends the next day.
As an example, despite normalloy tending to hold conservative / right wing ideals, there are certainly some issues I don't on. One of them is the death penalty. I am ardently against it. Not because I don't believe, as a matter of philosophy, that the state doesn't have the right, but rather because as a practical matter, the state screws up. It's basically the ultimate manifestation of Blackstone's ratio, for me. Since it's impossible to guarantee the government never executes an innocent man by mistake, I don't believe they have any business being allowed to execute people. An innocent person who spends time in prison has been wronged, but there may be some attempt to redress that wrong. If they are dead, they are just dead. Given that, I don't see a compelling argument to allow execution, or any benefit it will serve that life in prison will not... save for sating bloodlust. There isn't even an economic argument for it, given how long it takes an the expenses involved. And I've had more than a few "excited" arguments about the subject with friends who believe other wise. Still friends with them.
Of course, a few issues get more complicated. Abortion being the big one. If you absolutely believe that any abortion in any form is murder, and I can't say you're wrong to feel that way if you do, then yeah, it's going to be hard to compromise. The compromise between "murder is okay" and "murder is not okay" isn't so simple as "some murder is okay".
Ah, hell, I'm rambling at this point. The older I get, the more I watch the world grow more partisan, the more friendships and familial relationships I see strained or torn apart over the subject in the last few years, the more I'm coming to agree with the people who dismiss it all with a cry of "politics suck!". And in my younger days, I was intensely political. I couldn't get enough of it. Listened to it all the time, read books on it, had my own political blog, tried to help with local elections... That's a lot of my life I probably could have spent more wisely.
I don’t mind one bit if I’m not a “trustworthy ally” of a political party or movement. That sounds a bit sheepish to me. I don’t think I agree 100% with any single person either.
Yeah, my response to someone telling me I wasn't a "trustworthy ally" in politics would be some slightly less geekish version of "I'm not your torchbearer, sir.".
The problem is, you can either be slavishly loyal to an ideal, or to a political party.
If you're slavishly loyal to a political party, you can't truly hold any ideals. Because sooner or later the party will betray you. In my lifetime I've seen both political parties make massive shifts in their professed opinions.
Look at the Democrat party. They march in lockstep to a greater degree than the republicans. Politically speaking, it's one of their strengths - and I've often lamented it. Democrats don't generally have to worry about what percentage of their members are going to betray them on an upcoming vote. It's a very small number, and the ones that will (like Manchen) are notorious. But the flip side is, how many Democrat politicians are both nominally religious, and yet hold views their church condemns, just as an example? Hell, the catholic diocese have tried to make their displeasure known by denying some of them Communion. You have to betray your personal ideals to function like that.
On the other side of the relationship, these are the mythical ~20% of the voter base that each party has that will, come hell or high water, always vote for one party. Although honestly, I think it's higher than that anymore, but that's still the number everyone uses. These are the useful idiots.
If you're slavishly loyal to an ideal, on the other hand, you just become an angry, insular idealist yelling about how you can't trust anyone to be loyal. Because the vast majority of people are going to disagree with you about some important issues to some extent. Because they have their own ideals. There is a reason that a generation or two ago, it was normal for friends to argue politics. As part of friendly social interaction. And then still be friends the next day.
As an example, despite normalloy tending to hold conservative / right wing ideals, there are certainly some issues I don't on. One of them is the death penalty. I am ardently against it. Not because I don't believe, as a matter of philosophy, that the state doesn't have the right, but rather because as a practical matter, the state screws up. It's basically the ultimate manifestation of Blackstone's ratio, for me. Since it's impossible to guarantee the government never executes an innocent man by mistake, I don't believe they have any business being allowed to execute people. An innocent person who spends time in prison has been wronged, but there may be some attempt to redress that wrong. If they are dead, they are just dead. Given that, I don't see a compelling argument to allow execution, or any benefit it will serve that life in prison will not... save for sating bloodlust. There isn't even an economic argument for it, given how long it takes an the expenses involved. And I've had more than a few "excited" arguments about the subject with friends who believe other wise. Still friends with them.
Of course, a few issues get more complicated. Abortion being the big one. If you absolutely believe that any abortion in any form is murder, and I can't say you're wrong to feel that way if you do, then yeah, it's going to be hard to compromise. The compromise between "murder is okay" and "murder is not okay" isn't so simple as "some murder is okay".
Ah, hell, I'm rambling at this point. The older I get, the more I watch the world grow more partisan, the more friendships and familial relationships I see strained or torn apart over the subject in the last few years, the more I'm coming to agree with the people who dismiss it all with a cry of "politics suck!". And in my younger days, I was intensely political. I couldn't get enough of it. Listened to it all the time, read books on it, had my own political blog, tried to help with local elections... That's a lot of my life I probably could have spent more wisely.
The problem with the conservative approach to moderates is that they still need to sway undecided voters to win elections. All the bluster and indignity in the world will only drive them the other way. Unless you're willing to dispense with democracy at which point you're not anything I'd support.
So, I was talking to a teacher at my child's school this one time and I said, "if I was dictator I'd do things differently." And she said, "but you'd be a benevolant dictator, right?" And I said, "no, they'd have to kill me, I'd be a horrible tyrant. There are no benevolant dictators."
So, I was talking to a teacher at my child's school this one time and I said, "if I was dictator I'd do things differently." And she said, "but you'd be a benevolant dictator, right?" And I said, "no, they'd have to kill me, I'd be a horrible tyrant. There are no benevolant dictators."
True story, I'm a really pompus ass.
What about Cincinnatus?
What about Cincinnatus?
The position of "Dictator" in ancient Rome was different than the present usage. I suppose I should have said "autocrat.'
Still, I think the greatest threat to modern society is the growing disillusionment with democracy and the growing anger on both sides. As far as I'm concerned, anarchy is only a prelude to autocracy and communism has been tried many times and failed shortly thereafter each time. Socialism seems to work okay in a thriving economy but cannot survive ill fortune without constant bailouts from Germany and the UK.
I'm afraid you'll have to accept a very high body count to achieve that.
Unfortunately, people don't really start to question or rise up until they are hungry and it is too late. Still, radical conservatives alienating undecided voters is why we keep losing these battles. Scary people scare people for some reason. I'm sick of losing because conservatism is so full of reactionary loudmouths that virtually hand the election to the liberals.
Yes libralism has its scary reactionaries but the liberal media tends to minimize that for some reason or another.
I'm afraid you'll have to accept a very high body count to achieve that.
I'm afraid you'll have to accept a very high body count to achieve that.
Your terms are acceptable.
But seriously, I think you vastly overestimate the resolve most of these leftists actually have. Since they stand for nothing, they typically capitulate almost instantly to any sort of legitimate threat. That CHAZ nonsense where the rapper took over in less than a day with a single rifle is a good example. Also I don't think they realize the people they want to fuck with have restrained themselves for a long time now, and when the breaking point is reached it'll be hell on earth.
As for your commentary, yes, I agree. Those terms are acceptable. Increasingly, the country needs to be cleansed if the Republic is to even have a chance at survival and potential recovery. Our unique American civilization itself is threatened by these degenerates.
Greetings!
BRAD!!!! Wecome back, my friend! It is very good to see you again! More than a few members here have missed you!
I hope you and your family are good, and that you enjoyed Thanksgiving!
As for your commentary, yes, I agree. Those terms are acceptable. Increasingly, the country needs to be cleansed if the Republic is to even have a chance at survival and potential recovery. Our unique American civilization itself is threatened by these degenerates.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
So what you're saying is that we've lost and will continue to lose because you've given up? Because you don't have the stones to keep fighting and now insist on resorting to violence? What are you two? If you think the left isn't capable of producing suicidal radicals you didn't follow the rise of communism in the twentieth century very closely. If the right wants to win we need to clean up our act and be the moral paragons we tell ourselves we are when we're posing in front of the bathroom mirror.
See, that's where I get off the train, when we start talking about purging the "degenerates". Because that's a nice little ambiguous word that doesn't specifically mean very much, specifically, doesn't mean the same thing to everyone who uses it, and, bluntly, I have no interest in being purged. Because I know to many people the fact I'm gay makes me a degenerate. No matter how much I stand up against the excesses of the so-called "gay culture", no matter how much I refuse to be a part of that culture, no matter how much I've been 'disowned' time and time again by that culture... including by a few high-profile TBP posters back when I used to post there, being decried as "heteronormative" and a sellout and a traitor... no matter any of that, I know I'm still viewed as a degenerate for not wanting to crawl in the ovens, or at best go back to hiding and fearing for my life and career lest anyone find out.
So what you're saying is that we've lost and will continue to lose because you've given up? Because you don't have the stones to keep fighting and now insist on resorting to violence? What are you two? If you think the left isn't capable of producing suicidal radicals you didn't follow the rise of communism in the twentieth century very closely. If the right wants to win we need to clean up our act and be the moral paragons we tell ourselves we are when we're posing in front of the bathroom mirror.
As for your commentary, yes, I agree. Those terms are acceptable. Increasingly, the country needs to be cleansed if the Republic is to even have a chance at survival and potential recovery. Our unique American civilization itself is threatened by these degenerates.
See, that's where I get off the train, when we start talking about purging the "degenerates". Because that's a nice little ambiguous word that doesn't specifically mean very much, specifically, doesn't mean the same thing to everyone who uses it, and, bluntly, I have no interest in being purged. Because I know to many people the fact I'm gay makes me a degenerate. No matter how much I stand up against the excesses of the so-called "gay culture", no matter how much I refuse to be a part of that culture, no matter how much I've been 'disowned' time and time again by that culture... including by a few high-profile TBP posters back when I used to post there, being decried as "heteronormative" and a sellout and a traitor... no matter any of that, I know I'm still viewed as a degenerate for not wanting to crawl in the ovens, or at best go back to hiding and fearing for my life and career lest anyone find out.
So what you're saying is that we've lost and will continue to lose because you've given up? Because you don't have the stones to keep fighting and now insist on resorting to violence? What are you two? If you think the left isn't capable of producing suicidal radicals you didn't follow the rise of communism in the twentieth century very closely. If the right wants to win we need to clean up our act and be the moral paragons we tell ourselves we are when we're posing in front of the bathroom mirror.
One can be a moral paragon while still stacking bodies. There is a vast quantity of people who just want to be left the fuck alone. The left continues to intrude upon them. *Many* of them are combat veterans.
I'll just put this little quote here since it nicely sums up how this'll go once the gloves come off and the non-RINO conservatives finally responded to leftists calling for violence and threatening riots if they don't get their way.
"What is the number of veterans in this country? I mean, it’s gotta be more than a million. There are so many people in this country that really understand violence, and they’re not the ones calling for violence. They’re not the “punch a Nazi” people. The people that really understand violence, that have seen violence, that have committed violence for their country, those are the motherfuckers that you break glass in case of war. You need them and people don’t understand that. These people running around, calling for violence, calling for revolution; you are going to open a door that you can never close. And when those soldiers come pouring our of that door to defend what they think is an attack on their freedoms and their country, you’re fucked." - Joe Rogan
This is a "I'll know it when I see it" test regarding degenerates.
For example, when you have gay and lesbian people who get cancelled for calling out the grooming of children and the normalization of pedophilia, you know that they are not degenerates and the people they are calling out are degenerates.
It isn't the "I wanna make sweet sweet man-love with my sex slave wearing leather in the privacy of my home or in a membership sex dungeon" that is the problem. It's the flaunting that activity in front of children on a public city street or encouraging children to try dressing in drag and dancing for money that is the problem.
That is - whether you are gay, straight, trans and you want to engage in any type of adult activity in privacy that doesn't involve non-consent (kids, animals, adults who can't provide consent), have at it. I don't care if you're into S&M, group sex, or boring vanilla huggin-and-a-kissin. You're doing it in private with others who also want to. It's the moment you try to flamboyantly expose everyone else to what is intended to be private that it becomes a problem for most people. And *that* is the crux of the issue - the activist element amongst the LGBTQ don't respect boundaries.
Here's a little thought experiment: would your opinion of a married hetero couple with a couple of kids who lead a "typical" life change if you knew that they preferred kinky sex in private? Most people would say yes (moreso out of jealousy that that weren't having as much fun). But you generally aren't aware of their sex lives precisely because they don't throw it out for everyone to see. The same holds true of gay or trans people who don't feel the need to announce their sexual activities to the world.
It isn't that someone is gay or straight or trans. It is that someone who is mentally ill in thinking that sexualizing children is normal while simultaneously needing to be an attention whore.
This is a "I'll know it when I see it" test regarding degenerates.
For example, when you have gay and lesbian people who get cancelled for calling out the grooming of children and the normalization of pedophilia, you know that they are not degenerates and the people they are calling out are degenerates.
It isn't the "I wanna make sweet sweet man-love with my sex slave wearing leather in the privacy of my home or in a membership sex dungeon" that is the problem. It's the flaunting that activity in front of children on a public city street or encouraging children to try dressing in drag and dancing for money that is the problem.
That is - whether you are gay, straight, trans and you want to engage in any type of adult activity in privacy that doesn't involve non-consent (kids, animals, adults who can't provide consent), have at it. I don't care if you're into S&M, group sex, or boring vanilla huggin-and-a-kissin. You're doing it in private with others who also want to. It's the moment you try to flamboyantly expose everyone else to what is intended to be private that it becomes a problem for most people. And *that* is the crux of the issue - the activist element amongst the LGBTQ don't respect boundaries.
Here's a little thought experiment: would your opinion of a married hetero couple with a couple of kids who lead a "typical" life change if you knew that they preferred kinky sex in private? Most people would say yes (moreso out of jealousy that that weren't having as much fun). But you generally aren't aware of their sex lives precisely because they don't throw it out for everyone to see. The same holds true of gay or trans people who don't feel the need to announce their sexual activities to the world.
It isn't that someone is gay or straight or trans. It is that someone who is mentally ill in thinking that sexualizing children is normal while simultaneously needing to be an attention whore.
The problem, and this touches on something Brad mentioned, is that, well... you're talking some sort of flexible boundaries.
Brad asked, "am I grooming children?" I would say, absolutely not! I'm strongly against it, and have spoken about it many, many times.
However...
Flaunting it in public? Do you mean, do I walk down the street in a leather gimp suit with my boyfriend on a leash in puppy gear, or whatever the fuck that bald Biden admin freak that was in the news for stealing a woman's luggage did? No. I find the whole "pride" scene to be to be repulsive, having long outlived any actual purpose it served beyond being some sort of kinky mardi gras, and the fact that people suggest taking kids there is disgusting to me.
I'd be right there with y'all to get rid of that sort of shit. I think kink needs to be kept between adults, and preferably in private.
Or do you mean by "flaunting it in public" kissing my boyfriend when we part, or holding his hand while we watch a movie in the theater? Because there are people who say that's "flaunting it" when gay people do it, but straight people do it all the time. And I'm not speaking hypothetically, I've had people tell me exactly that.
Kissing your boyfriend in public? I could care less. Kissing your boyfriend in public while loudly proclaiming "we're queer and we're here - deal with it, breeders!!!" That's a problem. Not because you're kissing in public - because you're making a spectacle of yourself.
That's the rub - trying to make the "not the norm" become "the norm." Not because gay/straight, married/single, or a multitude of racial and cultural makeups. Because of the activist attitude that continually tries to make the majority acquiesce to the minority in society coupled with their attitude that not being given special rights somehow equals being discriminated against.
To put it more succinctly, if everyone minded their own fucking business, we'd all be better off.
Kissing your boyfriend in public? I could care less. Kissing your boyfriend in public while loudly proclaiming "we're queer and we're here - deal with it, breeders!!!" That's a problem. Not because you're kissing in public - because you're making a spectacle of yourself.
It sounds like this complaint isn't about sexualization at all. It's about what people are allowed to say in public.
I don't agree with what a lot of people say - but I also believe in free speech. People have a right to speak their mind, even if that makes them a spectacle. And especially, this is in the context of SHARK and Brad talking about violent cleansing of people they consider degenerates.
That's the rub - trying to make the "not the norm" become "the norm." Not because gay/straight, married/single, or a multitude of racial and cultural makeups. Because of the activist attitude that continually tries to make the majority acquiesce to the minority in society coupled with their attitude that not being given special rights somehow equals being discriminated against.
To put it more succinctly, if everyone minded their own fucking business, we'd all be better off.
In a society with free speech where people can live as they like, it shouldn't matter what "the norm" is. Jehovah's Witnesses are the minority, but they're still free to try to get others to convert to their religion. They'd love it if everyone joined their religion. That doesn't mean they're evil for trying to disrupt the norm. They are free to advocate for their way of life, just as much as Catholics or Lutherans are to advocate for theirs.Jehovah's Witnesses aren't trying to make Baptists or Catholics or Jews change their religious practices and calling for them to be fired from their jobs if they don't.
Being white Anglo-Saxon Protestant used to be the norm for an American, but now it isn't. That's not a post-modern woke thing. It changed nearly a century ago.
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't trying to make Baptists or Catholics or Jews change their religious practices and calling for them to be fired from their jobs if they don't.
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't trying to make Baptists or Catholics or Jews change their religious practices and calling for them to be fired from their jobs if they don't.
Jehovah's Witnesses are inherently and inescapably evangelical. I mean, that's, like, the #1 thing they're known for. They may not be trying to get people fired, but they are absolutely trying to convert people to their faith.
So, to possibly move the thread in a more positive discussion, what would need to happen to make rconciliation more viable?
So, to possibly move the thread in a more positive discussion, what would need to happen to make rconciliation more viable?
I think it's already started now that Elon Musk is running Twitter.
That's not going to make reconcilliation more viable. It's already being portrayed as the Worst Thing Evar by the left.
So, to possibly move the thread in a more positive discussion, what would need to happen to make rconciliation more viable?
Employers actively and legally discriminate based on race and sex....I am pretty sure not getting fired over opinions is a long way in the rear view at this point.
Employers actively and legally discriminate based on race and sex....I am pretty sure not getting fired over opinions is a long way in the rear view at this point.
Tell that to the lawyer who was let go from her law firm for having the nerve to say -- in a conference call explicitly designated as a "safe space" to talk about such reactions -- that she actually didn't disagree with the Dobbs decision.
There's also a difference in that most current discrimination (affirmative action or otherwise) takes place in the hiring part of the process. Cancel culture, by contrast, is all about socio-economically punishing people for things that have nothing to do with how well they do or don't do their job.
Free speech was a huge point for lefties for a long time. Now a days....there seem to be some subjects so dangerous they can not be discussed in public by anyone lest the corrupting words immediately take effect and cause mass violence..... So strange that once a side is able to use a tool, free speech, to get what they want tolerated as norms, time to shut that shit down.... It will be an interesting next two decades.
So, to possibly move the thread in a more positive discussion, what would need to happen to make rconciliation more viable?
I think it's already started now that Elon Musk is running Twitter.
Kissing your boyfriend in public? I could care less. Kissing your boyfriend in public while loudly proclaiming "we're queer and we're here - deal with it, breeders!!!" That's a problem. Not because you're kissing in public - because you're making a spectacle of yourself.
It sounds like this complaint isn't about sexualization at all. It's about what people are allowed to say in public.
I don't agree with what a lot of people say - but I also believe in free speech. People have a right to speak their mind, even if that makes them a spectacle. And especially, this is in the context of SHARK and Brad talking about violent cleansing of people they consider degenerates.
It's not a free speech issue. It's the attention-whoring look-at-me-ism of someone purposely trying to force someone else to accept and condone, rather than tolerate.
I might disagree with what people say or how they express it - but expressing their positions is their right in a free society.
I might disagree with what people say or how they express it - but expressing their positions is their right in a free society.
This is exactly what communists say until they gain control, then all that crap goes right out the window.
This is exactly what communists say until they gain control, then all that crap goes right out the window.
This is exactly what communists say until they gain control, then all that crap goes right out the window.
"<X> is exactly what <Y> would say!" is one of weakest and most suspect arguments in existence. I heard it enough over on TBP.
"Meat is good, I like meat!"
"That sounds like something a cannibal would say!"
In this case, it's more like -
"Meat is good, I like meat!"
"That's exactly what a radical vegetarian would say, right up until they get control and take away all meat."
I've seen exactly this among some leftists, with "I'm not racist" being met with "That's exactly what a racist would say."
This is exactly what communists say until they gain control, then all that crap goes right out the window.
"<X> is exactly what <Y> would say!" is one of weakest and most suspect arguments in existence. I heard it enough over on TBP.
"Meat is good, I like meat!"
"That sounds like something a cannibal would say!"
Yes. Similar basic ideals can be held both by people with good intentions and people with bad intentions. But, with a margin of error small enough it hardly matters, almost every time this argument gets used, what I hear is "I can't actually argue the basic point, so I'm just going to compare you to someone we've all agreed to hate to silence you."
This. This is what mainstream Republicans don't get. No one gives a shit about Queensberry Rules. You have to win by any means necessary.This is exactly what communists say until they gain control, then all that crap goes right out the window.
"<X> is exactly what <Y> would say!" is one of weakest and most suspect arguments in existence. I heard it enough over on TBP.
"Meat is good, I like meat!"
"That sounds like something a cannibal would say!"
Yes. Similar basic ideals can be held both by people with good intentions and people with bad intentions. But, with a margin of error small enough it hardly matters, almost every time this argument gets used, what I hear is "I can't actually argue the basic point, so I'm just going to compare you to someone we've all agreed to hate to silence you."
well I agree it is a weak argument in a logical sense, but guess what? That bullshit works and works like a charm. So...if you are going to be in a fight with someone fighting fair is really stupid.
well I agree it is a weak argument in a logical sense, but guess what? That bullshit works and works like a charm. So...if you are going to be in a fight with someone fighting fair is really stupid.
This. This is what mainstream Republicans don't get. No one gives a shit about Queensberry Rules. You have to win by any means necessary.
This is exactly what communists say until they gain control, then all that crap goes right out the window.
"<X> is exactly what <Y> would say!" is one of weakest and most suspect arguments in existence. I heard it enough over on TBP.
"Meat is good, I like meat!"
"That sounds like something a cannibal would say!"
Yes. Similar basic ideals can be held both by people with good intentions and people with bad intentions. But, with a margin of error small enough it hardly matters, almost every time this argument gets used, what I hear is "I can't actually argue the basic point, so I'm just going to compare you to someone we've all agreed to hate to silence you."
I didn't make an argument, I just pointed out a fact. Cf. every communist regime for the past hundred years. I mean, what are you trying to refute? Have you ever read Hegel before? This is exactly how it works.
Well, you're right that you didn't make an argument.
My response is, so what?
Bad people do <X>. So what? Are you saying <X> is bad because bad people do it? Are you saying <X> makes bad people? Are you saying because bad people do <X>, we should be suspicious of anyone who supports <X>? Are you saying we need to regulate <X> because bad people lie about supporting it?
Again, bad people do <X>, so what?
But Conservatives refuse to treat moderates and independents with anything like respect right now. Let's see if that changes for this next election.
Really? You really think that's a conservative problem?
Here's a whole thread full of gamers on reddit high-fiving each other and agreeing that you gotta keep those filthy moderates out of games, because they're just closet nazis who don't wanna admit it. (https://www.reddit.com/r/rpghorrorstories/comments/z4m21k/whats_your_political_alignment/)
There won't be any reconciliation. That requires compromise and finding common ground. It's increasingly difficult to even speak with progressives, let alone find common ground. They continue to push the ridiculous which further alienates those that should be considered "moderate".
If you focus on making moderates and independents the power in the nation you won't need to negotiate with progressives.
It's not like Israel is negotiating with progressives right now.
But Conservatives refuse to treat moderates and independents with anything like respect right now. Let's see if that changes for this next election.
Talk about oblivious to history! Every time a "moderate" is in power, they give the left everything they want. Name the great moderates in American politics. McCain? Romney? GHW Bush? How did they push back on the left? They just headed left more slowly.
The fact is that moderates and independents have no platform, no beliefs, and no principles. If they did, they'd be defined by those, and not by the fact that they are in the middle of competing belief systems. And that's why they can't be trusted. Because being "moderate" or "civil" or whatever other terms they use to virtue signal is far more important than actual beliefs or accomplishments. They are the people who think Solomon should have actually split the baby. I'd rather be fighting those who truly believe in the opposite of what I do than subject to the vacillations of the principle-less middle. To paraphrase Patton, I'd rather have a liberal division in front of me than a "moderate" one behind me...
well I agree it is a weak argument in a logical sense, but guess what? That bullshit works and works like a charm. So...if you are going to be in a fight with someone fighting fair is really stupid.This. This is what mainstream Republicans don't get. No one gives a shit about Queensberry Rules. You have to win by any means necessary.
I'm not talking about fighting fair or being nice. I'm saying it's a meaningless argument that can be used to justify anything, and yet really justifies nothing. It's not even really an argument, it's a silencing tactic. It's basically just "Shut up, Nazi". It's every bit as robust and logical as the idiots who try the whole "Hitler was a vegetarian!" joking meme argument against vegans.
It's not even being wrong, it's just being dumb.
There won't be any reconciliation. That requires compromise and finding common ground. It's increasingly difficult to even speak with progressives, let alone find common ground. They continue to push the ridiculous which further alienates those that should be considered "moderate".
If you focus on making moderates and independents the power in the nation you won't need to negotiate with progressives.
It's not like Israel is negotiating with progressives right now.
But Conservatives refuse to treat moderates and independents with anything like respect right now. Let's see if that changes for this next election.
Talk about oblivious to history! Every time a "moderate" is in power, they give the left everything they want. Name the great moderates in American politics. McCain? Romney? GHW Bush? How did they push back on the left? They just headed left more slowly.
I could list a ton of conservative principles they supported with policies, you'd ignore the ones that make you uncomfortable and focus on some tiny aspect of one you thought you could spin to exploit as "proof" of your argument, and it would be useless. Because, as you admit, you're starting from a position of disrespect, so anything I say as a moderate you'd disrespect.QuoteThe fact is that moderates and independents have no platform, no beliefs, and no principles. If they did, they'd be defined by those, and not by the fact that they are in the middle of competing belief systems. And that's why they can't be trusted. Because being "moderate" or "civil" or whatever other terms they use to virtue signal is far more important than actual beliefs or accomplishments. They are the people who think Solomon should have actually split the baby. I'd rather be fighting those who truly believe in the opposite of what I do than subject to the vacillations of the principle-less middle. To paraphrase Patton, I'd rather have a liberal division in front of me than a "moderate" one behind me...
No dumbass moderates are as principled as anyone else they just don't fit in the perfect little model you fit yourself in. They can be pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations, etc.. Saying you have to line up exactly with all the conservative issues or else you're unprincipled is nonsense. Your principles are no more or less valuable and consistent as a moderates, you just have a unified label for yours that you're satisfied-enough with.
I don't think reconciliation is possible no.
Where would the left even start?
Would they apologize for the 2020 riots? The people they murdered?
Would they admit to spending the entirety of Donald Trump's presidency lying about him? What would they do to atone for the propaganda and fear mongering?
Are the voter base going to stop voting for the Democratic politicians that has become nothing but woke progressive liars?
Are those politicians going to resign?
Are they going to dismantle their own propaganda machine? Will they rise up against deplatforming and suppression?
Will they actually start caring about left wing issues again as something more than just a pretense?
Obviously not. I think if there is one thing the left actually wants it is to retain things as they are. They're not going to wake up, go 'oh gods what have we become' and try to atone. Those who do will do like Tulsi and leave. Any hope of reconciliation requires reforming the modern left into something that isn't just a lie, and any hope of that died in 2020.
But you just hit the nail on the head. Tulsi Gabbard is, to the left, worse than a traitor, because she can clearly articulate to the public just exactly how fucked up their agenda is.
But let's be clear. It isn't that there are all these leftists who organically just want to be activists for bledding-heart causes. They are useful idiots for a ChiCom (primarily) communist agenda. The CCP owns many US politicians and business leaders - across the political spectrum. Ask yourself who benefits from an agenda that proposes that sexually confused teens take hormone blockers and chop off body parts and don't engage in traditional gender roles. Ask yourself who benefits from having a citizenry divided amongst itself. Or that allows an unchecked horde of non-loyal immigrants. Or that allows foreign holding companies to buy real estate and businesses, including farmland and facilities in the food and energy sectors? How many other "10% to the big guy" criminal activities are going on that haven't come to light? Why did a group of both Dem and Rep senators try to stifle the SEC investigation of FTX? How many pols of both parties continue to miraculous beat the S&P 500? Follow the money.
How many other countries tolerate any of this? Go ahead and try dissenting in China and see how quickly you end up in a reeducation prison.
We are a nation divided, led by an administrative state that is not loyal to the principles the country was founded on, and society is in moral decay. The US *is* the Roman Empire under Caligula and Nero.
Again, I agree. I also can clearly see retard level dumb WORKS when it comes to moving the needle in the direction one might want politically. The whole book rules for radicals centers around just tossing out dumbs shit non stop to put others on the defensive, because the goal is not to look or sound smart, it is to win. To get what you want.
"moderates" in a modern sense have NO principles. They are like jellyfish. If you are pro gun control and against higher taxes you do not understand how the world works. "Far right" principles and stances today are just "moderate" principles from 20 years ago. There is no moderate when the window is sliding so fast to the left.
Then accept that you and everyone you love who doesn't betray you will lose, suffer and die and the winners will write in the history books that you were a monster who deserved what you got.Again, I agree. I also can clearly see retard level dumb WORKS when it comes to moving the needle in the direction one might want politically. The whole book rules for radicals centers around just tossing out dumbs shit non stop to put others on the defensive, because the goal is not to look or sound smart, it is to win. To get what you want.I'm not willing to win that way.
Again, I agree. I also can clearly see retard level dumb WORKS when it comes to moving the needle in the direction one might want politically. The whole book rules for radicals centers around just tossing out dumbs shit non stop to put others on the defensive, because the goal is not to look or sound smart, it is to win. To get what you want.
I'm not willing to winthat way.
Then accept that you and everyone you love who doesn't betray you will lose, suffer and die and the winners will write in the history books that you were a monster who deserved what you got.
There's a thing called picking your battles and not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good (or less bad in this case). The Left has been moving the needle for a hundred years and we've hit the existential crisis level. You can't clean that up overnight... its going to take years (decades realistically) pushing back in the other direction to fix it. The only question in terms of politicians these days is "which side sucks less.".
You push the needle by getting involved in the primaries and pushing for best candidate both there and in the general and take the ground back inch by inch just like they took it inch by inch.
The Republican establishment sucks ass, but we allied with the Soviets to take down the Nazis... and the deck is so stacked against third parties that a hostile takeover of Republican Inc. (both parties are corporations... and if not for all the judges belonging to them could probably be sued for anti-trust collusion) is the most viable battle strategy at the moment. There are thousands of open positions that can affect that... I signed up for one unoccupied precinct position this last election and now I have a vote in the corporate outcomes; if everyone disgusted with the direction of the country did the same we could actually make real changes... but most just want to whine about it on social media (or here) rather than actually do something about it.
Being against the death penalty is not moderate or liberal. Its common sense. Death penalty as the USA uses it does not discourage crime nor is it cost effective. As for any one’s vote…that ship has sailed.
Hi everyone!
As someone who is an immigrant to America, and a bit of an "outsider" politically speaking (I still can't vote), it's hard not to notice the simmering hatred the two political sides have for each other. This also makes political compromises less and less tenable, and leads to breakdown of cooperation. To me, views like "this can only lead to civil war, there's no way back now" aren't helping. Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions? I have a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, and I think some admissions have to be made on either side, but I'll see what you guys think first.
If things are as bad as some seem to think, the time to fight is now. Otherwise, they'll round you up before you ever get around to it based on your internet posts.
If things are as bad as some seem to think, the time to fight is now. Otherwise, they'll round you up before you ever get around to it based on your internet posts.
Exactly, except of course, they won't. They are a bunch of keyboard warriors. They know that if they actually fight they have already lost, particularly when considering that the moderates are also on the shit list, and that they themselves (the "warriors" here) aren't exactly unified either (also notice the chaotic bunch that was the Jan 6 crowd) ;D
What principles do you feel you'd be violating by working with "the army you have" instead of holding out for "the army you want" in order to not have those you love suffer and die?Then accept that you and everyone you love who doesn't betray you will lose, suffer and die and the winners will write in the history books that you were a monster who deserved what you got.
So you're saying being principled means betraying my principles. Got it.
If things are as bad as some seem to think, the time to fight is now. Otherwise, they'll round you up before you ever get around to it based on your internet posts.
Exactly, except of course, they won't. They are a bunch of keyboard warriors. They know that if they actually fight they have already lost, particularly when considering that the moderates are also on the shit list, and that they themselves (the "warriors" here) aren't exactly unified either (also notice the chaotic bunch that was the Jan 6 crowd) ;D
So we should all should live in fear? I must admit there are way too many keyboard warriors talking about things they don't understand. All these guys who have never been in a fist fight talking about how they are going to go down shooting with a hot empty gun in their cold dead hands. Fighting and killing is hard; most cannot do it. Most likely they will end up being taken away whimpering and crying.
But I think it is just a matter of time. They are going to come after us brave or not. Armed or not. Guilty or not. Indeed, look at the Jan 6th crowd... at worst trespass. That is a misdemeanor -- $150 fine and 30 days in jail. No weapons, no violence. And yet almost 2 years on and they are still in solitary confinement being denied legal representation, basic human rights, etc. Why? Because they scared powerful and evil people.
Win elections again. Judging from what I see around me, the right had a lot of sympathy before the last midterm election, but then they also lost a LOT of momentum because of the abortion issue. I magine all the women who already had an abortion just going "nope".
What principles do you feel you'd be violating by working with "the army you have" instead of holding out for "the army you want" in order to not have those you love suffer and die?
There's a basic principle that's "don't go borrowing tomorrow's problems when you're dealing with today's."
You don't worry about what you'll become if you kill a man when that man has a knife to your kid's throat. You just do what you think is best to save your kid from the madman with the knife and worry about the rest after you've saved your kid. The very fact that you worry about becoming those things is largely a sign that you won't become those things while doing what's necessary to protect others from harm.
What principles do you feel you'd be violating by working with "the army you have" instead of holding out for "the army you want" in order to not have those you love suffer and die?
There's a basic principle that's "don't go borrowing tomorrow's problems when you're dealing with today's."
You don't worry about what you'll become if you kill a man when that man has a knife to your kid's throat. You just do what you think is best to save your kid from the madman with the knife and worry about the rest after you've saved your kid. The very fact that you worry about becoming those things is largely a sign that you won't become those things while doing what's necessary to protect others from harm.
I'm not worried about what I'll become. I'm worried about what happens when a group that fights by being illogical, silencing, anti-free-speech assholes... continues to be illogical, silencing, anti-free-speech assholes after they win, instead of magically turning into freedom-loving rational actors.
But what are the chances of that?
The US Founding Fathers were perfectly okay with killing British people & mercenaries who invaded their homes and tried to subjugate them. They weren't friendly towards Crown sympathizers either. They didn't worry if their enemies thought about them as "illogical, silencing, anti-free-speech assholes."
You sincerely have a very weird and rosy picture about the past, as well as a misunderstanding of real politics. The people who ascend to the top of power structures are almost always assholes, because that's the type of person who craves power. There's a real difference between what the US has now -- an illegitimate regime of assholes who crave power and want to hurt Americans -- versus a legitimate government full of assholes who crave power and want to help Americans.
It isn't surprising that the US revolutionaries (keep in mind, that the Revolutionary war was only fought by ~5% of the US population) fought like devils and yet turned around and made a good government. They wanted the country they were ruling to flourish.
Then go out there and get killing.
It isn't surprising that the US revolutionaries (keep in mind, that the Revolutionary war was only fought by ~5% of the US population) fought like devils and yet turned around and made a good government. They wanted the country they were ruling to flourish.
Yeah, but also, no. You are not George Washington. What he and his compatriots did doesn't make me more likely to trust Timmy the Keyboard Warrior.
Sincerely, the strawmanning is boring. I've simply been pointing out the reality of wher the US (& Europe/Australia) are.
Sincerely, the strawmanning is boring. I've simply been pointing out the reality of wher the US (& Europe/Australia) are.
You're the one bringing up armed revolution, not me. If I'm strawmanning, I'm filling the clothes you gave me with the straw you also gave me.
If things are as bad as some seem to think, the time to fight is now. Otherwise, they'll round you up before you ever get around to it based on your internet posts.
Exactly, except of course, they won't. They are a bunch of keyboard warriors. They know that if they actually fight they have already lost, particularly when considering that the moderates are also on the shit list, and that they themselves (the "warriors" here) aren't exactly unified either (also notice the chaotic bunch that was the Jan 6 crowd) ;D
If things are as bad as some seem to think, the time to fight is now. Otherwise, they'll round you up before you ever get around to it based on your internet posts.
Exactly, except of course, they won't. They are a bunch of keyboard warriors. They know that if they actually fight they have already lost, particularly when considering that the moderates are also on the shit list, and that they themselves (the "warriors" here) aren't exactly unified either (also notice the chaotic bunch that was the Jan 6 crowd) ;D
So we should all should live in fear? I must admit there are way too many keyboard warriors talking about things they don't understand. All these guys who have never been in a fist fight talking about how they are going to go down shooting with a hot empty gun in their cold dead hands. Fighting and killing is hard; most cannot do it. Most likely they will end up being taken away whimpering and crying.
But I think it is just a matter of time. They are going to come after us brave or not. Armed or not. Guilty or not. Indeed, look at the Jan 6th crowd... at worst trespass. That is a misdemeanor -- $150 fine and 30 days in jail. No weapons, no violence. And yet almost 2 years on and they are still in solitary confinement being denied legal representation, basic human rights, etc. Why? Because they scared powerful and evil people.
Win elections again. Judging from what I see around me, the right had a lot of sympathy before the last midterm election, but then they also lost a LOT of momentum because of the abortion issue. I magine all the women who already had an abortion just going "nope".
Still, notice how just a little win in the midterm started to change things away from the woke narrative everywhere.
If things are as bad as some seem to think, the time to fight is now. Otherwise, they'll round you up before you ever get around to it based on your internet posts.
Exactly, except of course, they won't. They are a bunch of keyboard warriors. They know that if they actually fight they have already lost, particularly when considering that the moderates are also on the shit list, and that they themselves (the "warriors" here) aren't exactly unified either (also notice the chaotic bunch that was the Jan 6 crowd) ;D
So we should all should live in fear? I must admit there are way too many keyboard warriors talking about things they don't understand. All these guys who have never been in a fist fight talking about how they are going to go down shooting with a hot empty gun in their cold dead hands. Fighting and killing is hard; most cannot do it. Most likely they will end up being taken away whimpering and crying.
But I think it is just a matter of time. They are going to come after us brave or not. Armed or not. Guilty or not. Indeed, look at the Jan 6th crowd... at worst trespass. That is a misdemeanor -- $150 fine and 30 days in jail. No weapons, no violence. And yet almost 2 years on and they are still in solitary confinement being denied legal representation, basic human rights, etc. Why? Because they scared powerful and evil people.
Win elections again. Judging from what I see around me, the right had a lot of sympathy before the last midterm election, but then they also lost a LOT of momentum because of the abortion issue. I magine all the women who already had an abortion just going "nope".
Still, notice how just a little win in the midterm started to change things away from the woke narrative everywhere.
Yes, win elections again. But that implies that elections were conducted without criminal activity.
We have an AZ Sec of State who threatened county elections officials with prison if they didn't vote to confirm she won and then she certified her own election results.
We have proof that Dems used database latency to make mass change of address requests on voters for mail ballots that are undeliverable due to bad zip codes which are then collected by a bad actor after which the zip codes are changed back in the voter rolls database. Then those "undeliverable" ballots are brought into polling locations under the cover of various facility issues (flooding, loss of power, fire, etc.) that cleared the building of occupants that could watch them do it
We *need* very public and very brutal punishment of willful election fraud. And it starts with jettisoning those in the RNC who are weak or actually in on the corruption.
Greetings!
Geesus. Fuck the "Moderates". All of those worms that love to wallow in "The Middle" while smugly pronouncing how oh so sophisticated and reasonable they are
And here we are today with one of the world's shittiest public school systems, with many public school students routinely graduated not knowing how to read above an eighth-grade level and not really being equipped to get any sort of decent-paying job...
As should be apparent to even the veriest idiot, a better way to handle all of this would have been to either equalize school resources or fully integrate and then end it there.
If things are as bad as some seem to think, the time to fight is now. Otherwise, they'll round you up before you ever get around to it based on your internet posts.
Exactly, except of course, they won't. They are a bunch of keyboard warriors. They know that if they actually fight they have already lost, particularly when considering that the moderates are also on the shit list, and that they themselves (the "warriors" here) aren't exactly unified either (also notice the chaotic bunch that was the Jan 6 crowd) ;D
What gives me the most hope for the future is, whatever you can say about the original fascists a whole lot of them were hardass veterans of WW I trench warfare. 21st century fascists though? 99% of them are a bunch of angry idiots shouting on the internet who'll never actually do anything. It's important for sane people to arm themselves as the current crop of fascists are generally cowardly loudmouths who would never ever get involved in a fair fight.
When I was in school, we had a special program for the students that were more intelligent. The school allocated additional resources for us to give us an advantage, and in turn we represented the school in competitions and events that helped us (theoretically) bring prestige and accolades. We sent our best musicians to play in concerts, and we send our best athletes in competitions.
These days I don't think most (USA) schools have this kind of program anymore. These resources are now allocated towards diversity programs and special education. While I think there can be some value in these things, on a case-by-case basis, they're largely a waste.
How is it strawmanning to use a historical example that demonstrates the flaw in the thesis that "assholes" won't magically turn into "freedom-loving rational actors" after they win?
Beyond that, one example does not a pattern make. The American revolution turned out well. How many revolutions turned into a shitshow afterwords, instead? I've never explicitly counted, but I'm going to say revolutions that end well, and don't devolve into a carnival of tyranny, excess, corruption, or just incompetence are are the exception, not the rule.
Sure, but also:
(https://imageproxy.ifunny.co/crop:x-20,resize:640x,quality:90x75/images/98260f93a014dc5c307e664d8d9b2d7ae6d92d97f24c9c21c14dda22657c32a9_1.jpg)
That... doesn't refute anything I said.
I'm generally all for compromise, but compromise implies a give and take situation. I can't see that leftists ever give anything, they just take. We give them an inch, they take a mile.
Let's take as an example - one of many I could use - the Civil Rights movement, specifically school integration. American Blacks and their white liberal allies had become convinced that the only way black kids would ever get equal educational resources was by integrating white schools. And in fact, "separate but equal" really was a lie, since in no way were facilities for black children, salaries for black schoolteachers, etc. equal to the white ones (at least in the South). Most Americans, including the white majority, agreed with this and so the compromise of public school integration eventually happened, albeit over resistance.
When the test scores of black children didn't get any better, then liberals argued that we needed more black teachers, as the black kids needed black role models.
But black graduation rates and test scores still didn't rise, so then it was argued that we had to dumb down the curriculum. This too happened, as the politicians making the decisions and the influential journalists pushing for them sent their kids to private schools or public schools in rich, all-white areas anyway.
Then it was argued that black children, especially boys, didn't react to discipline well and needed to be able to "act out" (i.e., misbehave without any negative consequences). Again, this happened.
We have proof that Dems used database latency to make mass change of address requests on voters for mail ballots that are undeliverable due to bad zip codes which are then collected by a bad actor after which the zip codes are changed back in the voter rolls database. Then those "undeliverable" ballots are brought into polling locations under the cover of various facility issues (flooding, loss of power, fire, etc.) that cleared the building of occupants that could watch them do itLOL. No there is zero evidence that this occurred.
Indeed the whole “I’m leaving Twitter” feet stomp sounds a lot like the “I’m on saving for Canada.” Yet they are still here.That's not going to make reconcilliation more viable. It's already being portrayed as the Worst Thing Evar by the left.
Funny how communists get mad when they can't control what people say...
Petty much accurate and a lot of ways, with you 100% on your last paragraph. America is too far gone, I've heard it said on other topics "its all over accept for the crying". Pretty much.I don't think reconciliation is possible no.
Where would the left even start?
Would they apologize for the 2020 riots? The people they murdered?
Would they admit to spending the entirety of Donald Trump's presidency lying about him? What would they do to atone for the propaganda and fear mongering?
Are the voter base going to stop voting for the Democratic politicians that has become nothing but woke progressive liars?
Are those politicians going to resign?
Are they going to dismantle their own propaganda machine? Will they rise up against deplatforming and suppression?
Will they actually start caring about left wing issues again as something more than just a pretense?
Obviously not. I think if there is one thing the left actually wants it is to retain things as they are. They're not going to wake up, go 'oh gods what have we become' and try to atone. Those who do will do like Tulsi and leave. Any hope of reconciliation requires reforming the modern left into something that isn't just a lie, and any hope of that died in 2020.
But you just hit the nail on the head. Tulsi Gabbard is, to the left, worse than a traitor, because she can clearly articulate to the public just exactly how fucked up their agenda is.
But let's be clear. It isn't that there are all these leftists who organically just want to be activists for bledding-heart causes. They are useful idiots for a ChiCom (primarily) communist agenda. The CCP owns many US politicians and business leaders - across the political spectrum. Ask yourself who benefits from an agenda that proposes that sexually confused teens take hormone blockers and chop off body parts and don't engage in traditional gender roles. Ask yourself who benefits from having a citizenry divided amongst itself. Or that allows an unchecked horde of non-loyal immigrants. Or that allows foreign holding companies to buy real estate and businesses, including farmland and facilities in the food and energy sectors? How many other "10% to the big guy" criminal activities are going on that haven't come to light? Why did a group of both Dem and Rep senators try to stifle the SEC investigation of FTX? How many pols of both parties continue to miraculous beat the S&P 500? Follow the money.
How many other countries tolerate any of this? Go ahead and try dissenting in China and see how quickly you end up in a reeducation prison.
We are a nation divided, led by an administrative state that is not loyal to the principles the country was founded on, and society is in moral decay. The US *is* the Roman Empire under Caligula and Nero.
You nailed it on the head 100%. I've been saying this for twenty years now. the comparisons to the late Roman empire are frightening:
-a politically divided population: in the late Roman Empire it was the supporters of the Senate vs the Emperor. In the USA today, it's the extremes of left and right vying for control of the center.
-borders that are not under control: late Roman empire is was invasions of Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, etc. Today in the US: illegal immigration from Mexico , Central America, and Caribbean.
- fighting several costly wars: late Roman Empire: fighting barbarian invasions. USA today: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.
- over-taxed citizens
there are others, but I think these are the ones that are key. Ultimately, the Roman Empire decayed from the inside, and pressures from outside dealt the death blow. Mind you, this didn't happen all at once. The Roman Empire's decline took several hundred years. IMO, the decline of the US is already in progress and been in decline since the late 60s. I would say in the next 50 years, the United States as it is today will no longer exist. It will be a dim shadow of itself. but this is the way of the world since the beginning of time. Empires and nations rise and fall. It's inevitable.
And sad.
At least for me. Most of my life I believed in the American Dream. A good portion of that was also spent defending those beliefs, the Constitution, and freedom. Now? This nation is slowly falling apart. Too much extremes. Nobody willing to take the center road for the common good of all. Corruption, greed, and loss of it's moral center. "A house divided cannot stand". Well, let it fall. Let it burn. Let it come crashing down. I'm ready. My family is ready. We've been ready for the coming shit storm for years. If neither one of you extreme assholes out there aren't willing to swallow your pride and come to a common ground with each other, well, I got news for ya. BOTH of you are screwed. We're all screwed.
Let. It. Burn.
I'm generally all for compromise, but compromise implies a give and take situation. I can't see that leftists ever give anything, they just take. We give them an inch, they take a mile.
Let's take as an example - one of many I could use - the Civil Rights movement, specifically school integration. American Blacks and their white liberal allies had become convinced that the only way black kids would ever get equal educational resources was by integrating white schools. And in fact, "separate but equal" really was a lie, since in no way were facilities for black children, salaries for black schoolteachers, etc. equal to the white ones (at least in the South). Most Americans, including the white majority, agreed with this and so the compromise of public school integration eventually happened, albeit over resistance.
When the test scores of black children didn't get any better, then liberals argued that we needed more black teachers, as the black kids needed black role models.
By the phrase "give an inch and they'll take a mile" -- you're implying that the 1950s racial integration was a mistake, and there should have been even greater resistance. That equalizing resources without integration would have been a reasonable route. I think this is spurious. After school integration, there was a marked improvement in black student scores. It's just that it did not bring score all the way to parity, which is not surprising given that there remain many disparities outside of school.
U.S. schools continue to be primarily locally funded, so schools in rich neighborhoods have much better resources than schools in poor neighborhoods.
Here's a graph from NAEP data. You'll see that black scores have gone up more rapidly than white score since 1971 when NAEP was started.
(https://lh5.ggpht.com/_LeZiv6e0MuU/S4tVV2_acuI/AAAAAAAAA2Q/YRd8RV8PrnA/20090509-usa.png)
Source: https://huebler.blogspot.com/2009/05/usa.html
In the bigger narrative, the American school system of the 1950s was not particularly good. It was a factory drill-and-kill system from the early 1900s that emphasized memorization over understanding. It was just better than its competition in WWII-devastated Europe and East Asia at the time. Since the 1950s, many countries in Europe and East Asia have put major effort into improving their school systems, while the U.S. has not. There are some U.S. states, like Massachusetts, that have a top-notch education systems. But it is state-by-state, and most states have not put in the effort.
We have slight improvement over time as shown by the NAEP scores, but other countries have shown much more improvement.
In particular, I would dispute these:But black graduation rates and test scores still didn't rise, so then it was argued that we had to dumb down the curriculum. This too happened, as the politicians making the decisions and the influential journalists pushing for them sent their kids to private schools or public schools in rich, all-white areas anyway.
Then it was argued that black children, especially boys, didn't react to discipline well and needed to be able to "act out" (i.e., misbehave without any negative consequences). Again, this happened.
I already mention test scores, and I also disagree about graduation rates. Since the 1950s, black student graduation rates have improved even more markedly than test scores.
(https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/stories/2020/06/black-high-school-attainment-nearly-on-par-with-national-average-figure-04.jpg)
I also do not agree that nationwide schools were dumbed down and reduced in discipline in order to accommodate black students. As shown above, compared to the 1950s, we now have greater percentage of low-income students of all races who are completing high school. Comparing apples to apples, these are students who before had less overall education, and educational attainment has improved among all races.
To the degree that there has been anything like this, it hasn't come from liberals. The biggest push for leveling has come from conservatives - specifically George H.W. Bush and the "No Child Left Behind" policy, that pushed on metrics to equalize test scores for all races. This did lead to attempts to normalize test scores by any means, which usually means muddying the stats.
If things are as bad as some seem to think, the time to fight is now. Otherwise, they'll round you up before you ever get around to it based on your internet posts.
Exactly, except of course, they won't. They are a bunch of keyboard warriors. They know that if they actually fight they have already lost, particularly when considering that the moderates are also on the shit list, and that they themselves (the "warriors" here) aren't exactly unified either (also notice the chaotic bunch that was the Jan 6 crowd) ;D
What gives me the most hope for the future is, whatever you can say about the original fascists a whole lot of them were hardass veterans of WW I trench warfare. 21st century fascists though? 99% of them are a bunch of angry idiots shouting on the internet who'll never actually do anything. It's important for sane people to arm themselves as the current crop of fascists are generally cowardly loudmouths who would never ever get involved in a fair fight.
First the fascists are imaginary. There are pretty much a non population in the USA. Second, if you think there are no people who can and will fight in the USA over some of the bullshit going on (or is it fascist to not be instantly on board with boys in the girls locker rooms and letting trannies hang around elementary school kids) you are going to FAFO. Thanks to the global american empire policy of bombing everyone into democracy for decades now there are A LOT of combat veterans in the USA. A lot of them are being demonized in society openly for just being white. Good luck on how that turns out once dip shits go too far.
I don't see any problem with trans people being teachers or whatnot
I don't see any problem with trans people being teachers or whatnot
Your attitude is exactly why the public school system is failing. No "sane person" with small children wants demonspawn teaching their kids. Oh look, more "extreme rhetoric," right? If I don't like pedophiles teaching my kids, just means I'm a bigot.
No dumbass moderates are as principled as anyone else they just don't fit in the perfect little model you fit yourself in. They can be pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations, etc.. Saying you have to line up exactly with all the conservative issues or else you're unprincipled is nonsense. Your principles are no more or less valuable and consistent as a moderates, you just have a unified label for yours that you're satisfied-enough with.
No dumbass moderates are as principled as anyone else they just don't fit in the perfect little model you fit yourself in. They can be pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations, etc.. Saying you have to line up exactly with all the conservative issues or else you're unprincipled is nonsense. Your principles are no more or less valuable and consistent as a moderates, you just have a unified label for yours that you're satisfied-enough with.
Thank you for proving my point. Those are policy positions, not principles
A principle is an overarching belief that informs all of your policy positions.
Please elucidate the overarching principle that manifests as "pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations." You don't even recognize how badly you played yourself.
I'm sure I'm just imagining all of the unhinged rhetoric in this very thread, including support for segregation and one poster wanting to kill half of the population of the US. But I guess I should just believe you and not my lying eyes.
I don't see any problem with trans people being teachers or whatnot, far better to keep priests and other groups with a proven track record of going after kids, and I'm not going to FAFO because the modern far right are cowards. They're going to shout at clouds a lot, become increasingly irrelevant, and then get old, die, and be forgotten. I hope that sane people in the US continue to arm themselves at increasing rates as modern fascists can easily be scared off by a few guns.It's a statistical fact that children are 3 times more likely to be molested by a teacher than a priest. Allowing blatant sexual deviants/exhibitionists into class rooms will surely make it worse.
Allowing blatant sexual deviants/exhibitionists
Completing high school and going to college at higher rates *isn't* a success story when the increase is due to lower standards and social promotion for minority students and "the poors" with a simultaneous sense of entitlement with grade inflation and participation trophies for the suburban white kids. Minimal effort doesn't breed success except for those willing to cheat their way there - which is how we get businesses and government run by crooks who cheated their way through school and continued doing so afterwards - not smart enough to actually do the job, but just cunning and devious enough to slither their way into the job.
don't think that 1950s school integration caused any increase in this.
No dumbass moderates are as principled as anyone else they just don't fit in the perfect little model you fit yourself in. They can be pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations, etc.. Saying you have to line up exactly with all the conservative issues or else you're unprincipled is nonsense. Your principles are no more or less valuable and consistent as a moderates, you just have a unified label for yours that you're satisfied-enough with.
Thank you for proving my point. Those are policy positions, not principles
There are consistent principals behind every one of those policy positions. Obviously.QuoteA principle is an overarching belief that informs all of your policy positions.
No you extremist twat, it's not ONE principal which is overarching all your beliefs. Most humans have multiple principals which guide their beliefs.QuotePlease elucidate the overarching principle that manifests as "pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations." You don't even recognize how badly you played yourself.
That's not how principals work. You don't have just one and that's it, and if stuff doesn't fit in that one principal then it's an ignored issue or you try and force it into that principal even when it doesn't fit. Traditionally, the chief principles are accountability, justice, nonmaleficence, autonomy, beneficence, fidelity, and veracity., though even that list has expanded over time.
I would suggest their overarching principle is either “doesn’t want to be harassed by the radical woke” or “wants to be liked by a social circle that is already partially woke.”No dumbass moderates are as principled as anyone else they just don't fit in the perfect little model you fit yourself in. They can be pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations, etc.. Saying you have to line up exactly with all the conservative issues or else you're unprincipled is nonsense. Your principles are no more or less valuable and consistent as a moderates, you just have a unified label for yours that you're satisfied-enough with.
Thank you for proving my point. Those are policy positions, not principles
There are consistent principals behind every one of those policy positions. Obviously.QuoteA principle is an overarching belief that informs all of your policy positions.
No you extremist twat, it's not ONE principal which is overarching all your beliefs. Most humans have multiple principals which guide their beliefs.QuotePlease elucidate the overarching principle that manifests as "pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations." You don't even recognize how badly you played yourself.
That's not how principals work. You don't have just one and that's it, and if stuff doesn't fit in that one principal then it's an ignored issue or you try and force it into that principal even when it doesn't fit. Traditionally, the chief principles are accountability, justice, nonmaleficence, autonomy, beneficence, fidelity, and veracity., though even that list has expanded over time.
Every time you type, you make it worse. Nowhere did i say that people have only one principle. What I stated was that a principle affects every policy you have. So, if you believe in freedom, every policy should maximize freedom, along with any other principles that you have being maximized in that policy as well. Only a squishy principle-less moderate could assert that people should have dozens of principles which only affect certain policies where convenient. I'm still waiting for the overarching principle that fits with your stealth liberal examples...
No dumbass moderates are as principled as anyone else they just don't fit in the perfect little model you fit yourself in. They can be pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations, etc.. Saying you have to line up exactly with all the conservative issues or else you're unprincipled is nonsense. Your principles are no more or less valuable and consistent as a moderates, you just have a unified label for yours that you're satisfied-enough with.
Thank you for proving my point. Those are policy positions, not principles
There are consistent principals behind every one of those policy positions. Obviously.QuoteA principle is an overarching belief that informs all of your policy positions.
No you extremist twat, it's not ONE principal which is overarching all your beliefs. Most humans have multiple principals which guide their beliefs.QuotePlease elucidate the overarching principle that manifests as "pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations." You don't even recognize how badly you played yourself.
That's not how principals work. You don't have just one and that's it, and if stuff doesn't fit in that one principal then it's an ignored issue or you try and force it into that principal even when it doesn't fit. Traditionally, the chief principles are accountability, justice, nonmaleficence, autonomy, beneficence, fidelity, and veracity., though even that list has expanded over time.
Every time you type, you make it worse. Nowhere did i say that people have only one principle. What I stated was that a principle affects every policy you have. So, if you believe in freedom, every policy should maximize freedom, along with any other principles that you have being maximized in that policy as well. Only a squishy principle-less moderate could assert that people should have dozens of principles which only affect certain policies where convenient. I'm still waiting for the overarching principle that fits with your stealth liberal examples...
I would suggest their overarching principle is either “doesn’t want to be harassed by the radical woke” or “wants to be liked by a social circle that is already partially woke.”No dumbass moderates are as principled as anyone else they just don't fit in the perfect little model you fit yourself in. They can be pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations, etc.. Saying you have to line up exactly with all the conservative issues or else you're unprincipled is nonsense. Your principles are no more or less valuable and consistent as a moderates, you just have a unified label for yours that you're satisfied-enough with.
Thank you for proving my point. Those are policy positions, not principles
There are consistent principals behind every one of those policy positions. Obviously.QuoteA principle is an overarching belief that informs all of your policy positions.
No you extremist twat, it's not ONE principal which is overarching all your beliefs. Most humans have multiple principals which guide their beliefs.QuotePlease elucidate the overarching principle that manifests as "pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations." You don't even recognize how badly you played yourself.
That's not how principals work. You don't have just one and that's it, and if stuff doesn't fit in that one principal then it's an ignored issue or you try and force it into that principal even when it doesn't fit. Traditionally, the chief principles are accountability, justice, nonmaleficence, autonomy, beneficence, fidelity, and veracity., though even that list has expanded over time.
Every time you type, you make it worse. Nowhere did i say that people have only one principle. What I stated was that a principle affects every policy you have. So, if you believe in freedom, every policy should maximize freedom, along with any other principles that you have being maximized in that policy as well. Only a squishy principle-less moderate could assert that people should have dozens of principles which only affect certain policies where convenient. I'm still waiting for the overarching principle that fits with your stealth liberal examples...
"The 19th Amendment [giving women the right to vote] was a mistake." -Brad
I would suggest their overarching principle is either “doesn’t want to be harassed by the radical woke” or “wants to be liked by a social circle that is already partially woke.”No dumbass moderates are as principled as anyone else they just don't fit in the perfect little model you fit yourself in. They can be pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations, etc.. Saying you have to line up exactly with all the conservative issues or else you're unprincipled is nonsense. Your principles are no more or less valuable and consistent as a moderates, you just have a unified label for yours that you're satisfied-enough with.
Thank you for proving my point. Those are policy positions, not principles
There are consistent principals behind every one of those policy positions. Obviously.QuoteA principle is an overarching belief that informs all of your policy positions.
No you extremist twat, it's not ONE principal which is overarching all your beliefs. Most humans have multiple principals which guide their beliefs.QuotePlease elucidate the overarching principle that manifests as "pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations." You don't even recognize how badly you played yourself.
That's not how principals work. You don't have just one and that's it, and if stuff doesn't fit in that one principal then it's an ignored issue or you try and force it into that principal even when it doesn't fit. Traditionally, the chief principles are accountability, justice, nonmaleficence, autonomy, beneficence, fidelity, and veracity., though even that list has expanded over time.
Every time you type, you make it worse. Nowhere did i say that people have only one principle. What I stated was that a principle affects every policy you have. So, if you believe in freedom, every policy should maximize freedom, along with any other principles that you have being maximized in that policy as well. Only a squishy principle-less moderate could assert that people should have dozens of principles which only affect certain policies where convenient. I'm still waiting for the overarching principle that fits with your stealth liberal examples...
More like "when you grow up you'll learn that life is complex."
"The 19th Amendment [giving women the right to vote] was a mistake." -Brad
That's not what the 19th Amendment actually says, though. Here is the text:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
Doesn't say women at all. It can be interpreted that way, and usually is, but it means you cannot be discriminatory based purely on sex. Contrast this with the provision that you must be a citizen to vote. People who do not pay taxes or fight in the military are not citizens in the sense the word was used when the Constitution was written. There has to be some skin in the game to be involved in the decision making process. Hence, by misinterpreting the 19th to basically say "women can vote now!" the concept of citizenship is watered down to such a degree that mouthbreathing morons who leech off the government teat and contribute nothing have just as big a voice as productive members of society.
This logic can be applied to the 15th as well. A citizen is a net boon on society, and limiting voting rights for arbitrary reasons is illogical when the definition of "citizen" is considered fully. While the US is not Roman, the concept of citizen has classical roots and ignoring those roots is why dumbasses jump to fucktard conclusions when statements are made they assume they understand.
There is simply no question at all that the context of crafting and passing the 19th amendment was in fact "women can vote now!" It's not misinterpreting anything, that is what it meant, and a shallow or deep look at history proves that's exactly what it meant. Now it includes "citizen" of course and doesn't water down the concept or requirement that you be a citizen to vote, but it absolute added "women!" to those citizens who could vote.
The 19th amendment was not a mistake. Sexist assholes however will pretend it was for bullshit reasons. And lets none of us pretend you're somehow not a sexist these days - remember you're the douchenozzle who had a pedo-looking girl porn avatar right here until Pundit asked you to knock it off. Pundit - who runs this place as close to free speech absolutist as they come, it took him saying "Dude, WTF with that sexist avatar?" for you to replace it. You're the most prominent, maybe the only, blatant sexist around here and you trying to pretend "Oh I was talking about watering down the meaning of citizenship when I said the 19th amendment was a mistake" is a heaping mound of bullshit any of us can spot from a mile off given your reputation and history here.
And here we are today with one of the world's shittiest public school systems, with many public school students routinely graduated not knowing how to read above an eighth-grade level and not really being equipped to get any sort of decent-paying job...
While I'd echo most of what you said, one thing to be cautious of here is the misleading nature of aggregated data. The Program for International Student Assessment, for example, shows that American students perform roughly equivalently to European students in their standardized testing. Broader USA school underperformance is easily understood because it's a more heterogenous group. Places like Texas that have regions that are majority-hispanic perform roughly equivalently to countries like Mexico on standardized testing.As should be apparent to even the veriest idiot, a better way to handle all of this would have been to either equalize school resources or fully integrate and then end it there.
I'll disagree with this point here. There is no value-neutral way to allocate resources. The value-neutral thing is important, because that's the whole reason why we theoretically favor "equality." But "equality" is a fraud. It's a cop-out for a real argument.
When I was in school, we had a special program for the students that were more intelligent. The school allocated additional resources for us to give us an advantage, and in turn we represented the school in competitions and events that helped us (theoretically) bring prestige and accolades. We sent our best musicians to play in concerts, and we send our best athletes in competitions.
These days I don't think most (USA) schools have this kind of program anymore. These resources are now allocated towards diversity programs and special education. While I think there can be some value in these things, on a case-by-case basis, they're largely a waste.
More important is the broader principle: should you cultivate the talents of the most promising, or strive endlessly to bring up the least talented? The former strategy works, the latter strategy does not work. Yet "equality" is predicated on the latter strategy. That's not a way to make a functional society.
I'd agree that there are businesses and government run by crooks and cheats - but I don't think that 1950s school integration caused any increase in this. From my reading of history, there was rampant corruption in businesses and government in the 1920s, 1930s, and other decades well before the 1950s school integration.
There's this dude named Thomas Sowell who directly addresses these problems in many of his books. Considering he lived in Harlem pre-desegregation and considers his education superior to that after the segregationists "improved" schooling, I'd tend to take his direct experience and research more seriously than some race grifters who've been pushing a bunch of complete bullshit since the 1960s. YMMV.
By the phrase "give an inch and they'll take a mile" -- you're implying that the 1950s racial integration was a mistake, and there should have been even greater resistance. That equalizing resources without integration would have been a reasonable route. I think this is spurious. After school integration, there was a marked improvement in black student scores. It's just that it did not bring score all the way to parity, which is not surprising given that there remain many disparities outside of school. Here's a graph from NAEP data. You'll see that black scores have gone up more rapidly than white score since 1971 when NAEP was started.
I think you mean "desegregationists" in the bolded reference. As for the race grifters and desegregationists who have been pushing bullshit since the 1960s, those are people like Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks, John Lewis, etc.
So yes, my mileage does vary. These leaders had just as much experience with segregation as Thomas Sowell, having grown up in segregated society. The push for desegregation in the 1960s was not a bunch of bullshit, nor were the leaders who pushed for it "race grifters".
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” -Trump
"The 19th Amendment [giving women the right to vote] was a mistake." -Brad
"support for segregation and one poster wanting to kill half of the population of the US" - Daztur quoting two other posters here.
Look, guys, it's gonna be harder and harder to deny fascism when it's "terminate the rules of the Constitution for my cause" and "women shouldn't be able to vote" and "re-segregate the population based on race" and "kill the half of the population I disagree with." And I've NEVER been one of those guys claiming the right is fascist in America. But this shit is crossing that line rapidly.
I don't see any problem with trans people being teachers or whatnot
Your attitude is exactly why the public school system is failing. No "sane person" with small children wants demonspawn teaching their kids. Oh look, more "extreme rhetoric," right? If I don't like pedophiles teaching my kids, just means I'm a bigot.
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” -Trump
"The 19th Amendment [giving women the right to vote] was a mistake." -Brad
"support for segregation and one poster wanting to kill half of the population of the US" - Daztur quoting two other posters here.
Look, guys, it's gonna be harder and harder to deny fascism when it's "terminate the rules of the Constitution for my cause" and "women shouldn't be able to vote" and "re-segregate the population based on race" and "kill the half of the population I disagree with." And I've NEVER been one of those guys claiming the right is fascist in America. But this shit is crossing that line rapidly.
This is the problem with the "we're more nuanced" leftists. At no point did he state we should suspend the constitution as a whole. What he said was that the rules governing elections - even those in the constitution - should be disregarded if there is no other way to obtain relief in the face of demonstrable criminal election activity that resulted in the fraudulent installation of Biden into the white house.
This is common sense
- if the rules dictate that you can't reliably remove a fraudulent electee after the fact if it had been proven to be fraudulent, then you *should* ignore those rules.
Hell - the process of proposing, running, and electing candidates is done by *private* political parties. Who the hell thinks that private clubs should be allowed to dictate who gets to run for political office to begin with?!?!?!
Folks, earlier in this thread I said that for reconciliation to happen, you have to be talking to rational people. Just by reading the weasel-worded responses of jhkim and Mistwell, you can tell that the "opposition" is not rational and unwilling to discuss the issue in good faith.
I don't see any problem with trans people being teachers or whatnot
Your attitude is exactly why the public school system is failing. No "sane person" with small children wants demonspawn teaching their kids. Oh look, more "extreme rhetoric," right? If I don't like pedophiles teaching my kids, just means I'm a bigot.
So here's the conundrum. Are there transgendered people who you'd never know are transgendered unless you're bumping uglies with them? Yes - there are - and they're quietly passable and monogamous . I have no issues with them living their lives. I have no problems with them teaching. They've clearly decided they're going all the way to become the other - including cutting off body parts, adding body parts, etc. Which is clearly a form of mental instability - but they're not pushing their crazy on anyone else and claiming that it's both normal and desirous for anyone else to do so.
The problem is that the transgendered that are teaching children are pretty much men in dresses or manly wimmenists with blue hair and nose rings and they're activist crusaders who have a compulsion to try and tell everyone around them about their private lives and convert others to their cause - and that's a problem when dealing with highly impressionable children. It's even more of a problem when the statistics show that the reason that many of them *are* trans is *because* they were molested as kids and *will* go on to molest kids themselves.
And it isn't even the "standard M2F" trans that this manifests as - it's stuff like the "can't tell what it is because it's purposely chosen to be confusing by growing a mustache and wear a dress and then demanding redress when someone can't figure out whether it's a man or a woman" like the DoE secretary currently in the news for stealing luggage and who is currently rumored to be under investigation for having sex with *actual* dogs. We don't need someone who is clearly mentally ill in any position of authority of any kind - whether nuclear waste or teaching kids.
Folks, earlier in this thread I said that for reconciliation to happen, you have to be talking to rational people. Just by reading the weasel-worded responses of jhkim and Mistwell, you can tell that the "opposition" is not rational and unwilling to discuss the issue in good faith.
Of course graduation rates and educational attainment have improved -- the school have been dumbed down to achieve just such a thing. Look, I worked in a public library for nearly ten years and one of my main jobs was to help connect students to resources they needed in order to complete assignments. And it wasn't at all uncommon for me to encounter high school and even college students who had no frigging idea how to even begin writing a paper. They couldn't even find a book on a shelf. How the hell did they get that far into school? Students like that make up those positive-seeming statistics of yours.
I'm implying no such thing -- as I went to pains to point out, the allocation of resources wasn't equal. The resources should have been equalized as nearly as possible and that was all, though. The other stuff -- discriminating against qualified white teachers, holding black students to different educational and disciplinary standards -- is equity bullshit and I am definitely against it. It's your side that discriminates against whites and Asians these days, not mine.
I also don't buy the "disparity of resources" argument, since the kids of poor Latin American peasants, poor Southeast Asians, etc. routinely do as well or even outperform kids of my own WASP ethnicity. There certainly seems to be a disparity of how much the parents of various ethnic groups value education, though.
And that should be horrifying to you. That you think that distinction makes this "OK" is fucking horrifying. WTF could conceivably be wrong with your brain that you think the rules in the US Constitution regarding elections should be "disregarded" concerning a matter of elections? You understand THAT'S THE ENTIRE UNDERPINNING OF A CONSTITUTION-BASED DEMOCRACY, right? That if the rules regarding how to elect the leader of the nation for which that Constitutional applies should be disregarded because some fucker claims fraud but cannot prove it using the very court system set up for that issue, THAT IS FASCISM. There is no two ways about it - that is exactly how a Democracy dies and Fascism begins, where you override the very governing Constitution to put a leader in place.
Folks, earlier in this thread I said that for reconciliation to happen, you have to be talking to rational people. Just by reading the weasel-worded responses of jhkim and Mistwell, you can tell that the "opposition" is not rational and unwilling to discuss the issue in good faith.
I said hey, work with moderates if you want to get somewhere. I was told moderates are "worse than" leftists because we don't believe anything. I explained how we do believe things just as principled and passionately as anyone else, but here we are again. We're irrational and not discussing in good faith if we don't just agree with what you say. You want to put us in a black and white firm label and place for everything and when we say that's not reality it's called "weasel-worded".
Just admit you are not interested in reconciliation and it's your way or the highway. At least the extremist progressives are willing to say that.
And that should be horrifying to you. That you think that distinction makes this "OK" is fucking horrifying. WTF could conceivably be wrong with your brain that you think the rules in the US Constitution regarding elections should be "disregarded" concerning a matter of elections? You understand THAT'S THE ENTIRE UNDERPINNING OF A CONSTITUTION-BASED DEMOCRACY, right? That if the rules regarding how to elect the leader of the nation for which that Constitutional applies should be disregarded because some fucker claims fraud but cannot prove it using the very court system set up for that issue, THAT IS FASCISM. There is no two ways about it - that is exactly how a Democracy dies and Fascism begins, where you override the very governing Constitution to put a leader in place.
Okay, but - setting aside whether or not it *has* been proven to your satisfaction... What if it *were* to be proven to your satisfaction? Plenty of people on the left have, very smugly, pointed out that the constitution doesn't provide for redress or correction adequate for such a situation.
Yes. It should be terrifying. It should also be terrifying that people should have even reached the point it's being seriously discussed, and yet here we are.
No dumbass moderates are as principled as anyone else they just don't fit in the perfect little model you fit yourself in. They can be pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations, etc.. Saying you have to line up exactly with all the conservative issues or else you're unprincipled is nonsense. Your principles are no more or less valuable and consistent as a moderates, you just have a unified label for yours that you're satisfied-enough with.
Thank you for proving my point. Those are policy positions, not principles
There are consistent principals behind every one of those policy positions. Obviously.QuoteA principle is an overarching belief that informs all of your policy positions.
No you extremist twat, it's not ONE principal which is overarching all your beliefs. Most humans have multiple principals which guide their beliefs.QuotePlease elucidate the overarching principle that manifests as "pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations." You don't even recognize how badly you played yourself.
That's not how principals work. You don't have just one and that's it, and if stuff doesn't fit in that one principal then it's an ignored issue or you try and force it into that principal even when it doesn't fit. Traditionally, the chief principles are accountability, justice, nonmaleficence, autonomy, beneficence, fidelity, and veracity., though even that list has expanded over time.
Every time you type, you make it worse. Nowhere did i say that people have only one principle. What I stated was that a principle affects every policy you have. So, if you believe in freedom, every policy should maximize freedom, along with any other principles that you have being maximized in that policy as well. Only a squishy principle-less moderate could assert that people should have dozens of principles which only affect certain policies where convenient. I'm still waiting for the overarching principle that fits with your stealth liberal examples...
What does "overarching" mean in your "overarching principle that fits with your..." sentence if you're not trying to force all policies into one principal? And where is YOUR list of principals for each of those policy issues?
What the fuck is going on here?
In the U.S., there have been a long history of people being unfairly denied their vote. This has happened many times over U.S. history. Sometimes such denial has been met with armed rebellion, but more often and more successfully, it has been met by sustained activism to push others to elect those who pass laws to change the situation - like the 19th Amendment, the Civil Right Act, and so forth.
In the U.S., there have been a long history of people being unfairly denied their vote. This has happened many times over U.S. history. Sometimes such denial has been met with armed rebellion, but more often and more successfully, it has been met by sustained activism to push others to elect those who pass laws to change the situation - like the 19th Amendment, the Civil Right Act, and so forth.
There is no way to vote a remedy for an illegitimately installed POTUS, though. There's no mechanism for a recall. Even impeachment doesn't work, it doesn't install a legitimately elected POTUS, just gets rid of (half of) an illegitimate cabinet.
In the U.S., there have been a long history of people being unfairly denied their vote. This has happened many times over U.S. history. Sometimes such denial has been met with armed rebellion, but more often and more successfully, it has been met by sustained activism to push others to elect those who pass laws to change the situation - like the 19th Amendment, the Civil Right Act, and so forth.
There is no way to vote a remedy for an illegitimately installed POTUS, though. There's no mechanism for a recall. Even impeachment doesn't work, it doesn't install a legitimately elected POTUS, just gets rid of (half of) an illegitimate cabinet.
How would such a mechanism work without it being weaponized as a political tool?
.....this person is just barely above playing with their own feces and they get to vote? What sort of meaning does it have if people who are useless get to decide matters?
How would such a mechanism work without it being weaponized as a political tool?
people cheat on their wives, their taxes, admission exams, college tests, sports, etc. Anything where there is a "reward" possible for cheating, some people will cheat. When we are talking complete power....I find it odd folks have such a hard time with thinking people are cheating around elections. Rest homes have 100 percent turn out, ballots get harvested like wheat in certain parts of certain states. All sorts of shady shit. I can understand there will be shady shit.
My issue is everyone gets to vote, this IMO is bullshit. When my kids were 3 they did not get to decide what we had for meals, cars we bought, grocery lists, etc. They were incapable of making those decisions. We have A LOT of people in the country that are net negative tax payers. They get to vote/decide on matters that affect me yet they are doing ZERO regarding effort in moving society along. I think if your life in such a state you are a net negative tax payer, you should not be allowed to vote. This is similar to stories I see where the local news will have a story about some severely mentally handicapped person (severe mental retardations) always so happy they get to go and vote.....this person is just barely above playing with their own feces and they get to vote? What sort of meaning does it have if people who are useless get to decide matters?
people cheat on their wives, their taxes, admission exams, college tests, sports, etc. Anything where there is a "reward" possible for cheating, some people will cheat. When we are talking complete power....I find it odd folks have such a hard time with thinking people are cheating around elections. Rest homes have 100 percent turn out, ballots get harvested like wheat in certain parts of certain states. All sorts of shady shit. I can understand there will be shady shit.
In general, I agree here. Yes, some level of cheating does happen, and has always happened. Pundit takes his image from the "Gangs of New York" movie that dramatized how election cheating happened in 1862. The weird thing for me is people who never before complained about election procedure or cheating - suddenly in 2020 declare that the entire system is broken and even that the Constitution doesn't work because Trump wasn't elected.
The weird thing for me is people who never before complained about election procedure or cheating - suddenly in 2020 declare that the entire system is broken and even that the Constitution doesn't work because Trump wasn't elected.
The weird thing for me is people who never before complained about election procedure or cheating - suddenly in 2020 declare that the entire system is broken and even that the Constitution doesn't work because Trump wasn't elected.
I remember the Bush years. 8 years of constant attacks on Bush that he was an illegitimately elected president due either to the electoral college being "broken" or Florida election "cheating".
I remember the four years of Trump. Constant attacks on Trump for being illegitimately elected, again either because of the electoral college being "fundamentally broken and needing to be abolished", or accused electoral cheating, or accusations of Russian hacking.
What's "weird" is how, suddenly, the very notion of even DARING to question election integrity is decried as treasonous conspiracy theories.
Interesting, isn't it.
Sure. And in the Clinton years, there were constant attacks on Clinton - including calls to impeach him - and claims of his cheating. And it goes back through Reagan, Carter, Nixon, etc. Some level of cheating is a constant, and some level of claims of cheating are constant.
You're implying that the level of claims in the 2020 election are the same as those in past elections. And that what has changed is that standards have narrowed so that now the same level of claims that were present in past elections are not tolerated.
You're implying that the level of claims in the 2020 election are the same as those in past elections. And that what has changed is that standards have narrowed so that now the same level of claims that were present in past elections are not tolerated.
We spent four years hearing, almost every single day, that Trump was a Russian plant, that Russian hacking got him elected, that Trump was sucking Putin's cock, you name it. It was a daily drone, like the most obnoxious set of bagpipes on earth.
Four years.
No. Nothing Trump has done or said stands out as particularly different than what was already being said.
The weird thing for me is people who never before complained about election procedure or cheating - suddenly in 2020 declare that the entire system is broken and even that the Constitution doesn't work because Trump wasn't elected.
I remember the Bush years. 8 years of constant attacks on Bush that he was an illegitimately elected president due either to the electoral college being "broken" or Florida election "cheating".
I remember the four years of Trump. Constant attacks on Trump for being illegitimately elected, again either because of the electoral college being "fundamentally broken and needing to be abolished", or accused electoral cheating, or accusations of Russian hacking.
Sure. And in the Clinton years, there were constant attacks on Clinton - including calls to impeach him - and claims of his cheating. And it goes back through Reagan, Carter, Nixon, etc. Some level of cheating is a constant, and some level of claims of cheating are constant.What's "weird" is how, suddenly, the very notion of even DARING to question election integrity is decried as treasonous conspiracy theories.
Interesting, isn't it.
You're implying that the level of claims in the 2020 election are the same as those in past elections. And that what has changed is that standards have narrowed so that now the same level of claims that were present in past elections are not tolerated.
But I don't think that's the case. The level of claims and action regarding cheating in the 2020 election is markedly different than in past elections. Especially in close elections, it's often been the case that the losing side protests and the opposing side decries such protests. Still, in past elections, the losing candidate has always conceded before Jan 6, for example.
It's not required for a candidate to conceed. It's a political nicety, but then Trump wasn't elected to be a quiet, polite candidate.
Personally, I find these concession speeches jarring. After accusing their opponent of being a heinous monster, a candidate then does a heel-turn and gets all congratulatory. At least, it's a reminder to me that politicans are all greasy scumbags who are not to be trusted.
Landowner was a requirement FOR GOOD REASON.
Landowner was a requirement FOR GOOD REASON.
Maybe in the minds of those who decided that, but it's fairly well meaningless in the here and now. I own land. All it means is that it was actually cheaper for me to buy land and a house outside the city than to rent an apartment in the city. Land was (and, compared to much of the world, still is) relatively cheap. It's certainly no sign a person is going to be a responsible voter, or a well informed one. The redneck (and I use the term as a redneck from a long line of rednecks) three houses down who lives in a rundown trailer with a pile of junked cars and old washing machines in his back yard who works at a gas station is not magically a better voter than a doctor renting a penthouse apartment, nor does he intrinsically have more to lose or more invested in the well being of the country.
Landowner was a requirement FOR GOOD REASON.
Maybe in the minds of those who decided that, but it's fairly well meaningless in the here and now. I own land. All it means is that it was actually cheaper for me to buy land and a house outside the city than to rent an apartment in the city. Land was (and, compared to much of the world, still is) relatively cheap. It's certainly no sign a person is going to be a responsible voter, or a well informed one. The redneck (and I use the term as a redneck from a long line of rednecks) three houses down who lives in a rundown trailer with a pile of junked cars and old washing machines in his back yard who works at a gas station is not magically a better voter than a doctor renting a penthouse apartment, nor does he intrinsically have more to lose or more invested in the well being of the country.
Your example belies your assertion. That redneck isn't moving. His kids will grow up there. He has an incentive to care about that community, and is more likely to vote for a candidate who pledges to keep the government out of his business. Your doctor can end the lease at any point, bail on whatever mess he voted for in that community, and take his gay lover to Cazumel to live in retirement.
More importantly, the people you didn't mention in your examples, the welfare queen or bum, would also lose their ability to vote themselves more of our money, which more than makes up for the issues it might cause for hypothetical renters...
It sure isnt, but it is a damn good start. I would say you also gave me zero information that makes that same redneck a WORSE voter than the cosmopolitan doctor (who probably endorsed any propaganda Phizer fed him).
I dont care to make perfect the enemy of good, but allowing people to vote for a system that seems to exist simply to support them while contributing NOTHING to said system...is a sure recipe for disaster.
That doctor may well be able to afford a house/condo of his own in the city if housing prices were not driven through the roof by massive amounts of "affordable" housing that is heavily or completely subsidized by the tax payer. Considering how many "refugees" we are now packing into "affordable" housing and driving costs ever higher for people who actually pay their own way.....not so certain how your example refutes anything and instead is introducing another symptom to the problems "mah democracy" has created.
As for renters "paying taxes" so what. Real world shit loads of people in the country are net negative tax payers, probably 50 percent. That is a bad, bad, bad forecast for the future. Spending will not go down, and if tax payer pop is always going down.....the tax pigs just have to give more so people who are worthless can have something.
The owning of land is metaphor for skin in the game, and you seem to be taking that metaphor extremely literally
The owning of land is metaphor for skin in the game, and you seem to be taking that metaphor extremely literally.
Net tax payer is pretty simple, not some "more benefits than paid in taxes". If you pay a net in, you are a net tax payer. If the government pays your rent, for food, money, for your kid's lunch....well you are a negative tax payer IMO if the government is covering any of your costs. Pretty simple what skin means. It was land at the founding because there was no massive network of government agencies to make sure useless people could be funded to live their lives and reproduce and vote as they did so. I said at the founding, and said there was good reason at the time for that being a requirement to vote, just like the Greeks required a man to be 30 before he could marry or vote. A little time on task, skin in the game and basic wisdom as to how life works make a better voter...regardless of positions he/she may take. If everything is free for you, well you just might be enticed to vote to keep getting free things.
Net tax payer is pretty simple, not some "more benefits than paid in taxes". If you pay a net in, you are a net tax payer. If the government pays your rent, for food, money, for your kid's lunch....well you are a negative tax payer IMO if the government is covering any of your costs. Pretty simple what skin means. It was land at the founding because there was no massive network of government agencies to make sure useless people could be funded to live their lives and reproduce and vote as they did so. I said at the founding, and said there was good reason at the time for that being a requirement to vote, just like the Greeks required a man to be 30 before he could marry or vote. A little time on task, skin in the game and basic wisdom as to how life works make a better voter...regardless of positions he/she may take. If everything is free for you, well you just might be enticed to vote to keep getting free things.
I tend to agree with the argument. But it's hard to get voters to let children starve in the street in order to not incentivize welfare abuse. And I don't think most people would consider that an acceptable policy.
Net tax payer is pretty simple, not some "more benefits than paid in taxes". If you pay a net in, you are a net tax payer. If the government pays your rent, for food, money, for your kid's lunch....well you are a negative tax payer IMO if the government is covering any of your costs. Pretty simple what skin means. It was land at the founding because there was no massive network of government agencies to make sure useless people could be funded to live their lives and reproduce and vote as they did so. I said at the founding, and said there was good reason at the time for that being a requirement to vote, just like the Greeks required a man to be 30 before he could marry or vote. A little time on task, skin in the game and basic wisdom as to how life works make a better voter...regardless of positions he/she may take. If everything is free for you, well you just might be enticed to vote to keep getting free things.
I tend to agree with the argument. But it's hard to get voters to let children starve in the street in order to not incentivize welfare abuse. And I don't think most people would consider that an acceptable policy.
I am fine with feeding worthless people's kids. I am not fine with the same worthless people voting. You act as if one ensures the other. I do not.
Net tax payer is pretty simple, not some "more benefits than paid in taxes". If you pay a net in, you are a net tax payer. If the government pays your rent, for food, money, for your kid's lunch....well you are a negative tax payer IMO if the government is covering any of your costs. Pretty simple what skin means. It was land at the founding because there was no massive network of government agencies to make sure useless people could be funded to live their lives and reproduce and vote as they did so. I said at the founding, and said there was good reason at the time for that being a requirement to vote, just like the Greeks required a man to be 30 before he could marry or vote. A little time on task, skin in the game and basic wisdom as to how life works make a better voter...regardless of positions he/she may take. If everything is free for you, well you just might be enticed to vote to keep getting free things.
I tend to agree with the argument. But it's hard to get voters to let children starve in the street in order to not incentivize welfare abuse. And I don't think most people would consider that an acceptable policy.
I am fine with feeding worthless people's kids. I am not fine with the same worthless people voting. You act as if one ensures the other. I do not.
It most certainly does. The trend in America specifically and The West in general has been - you don't get to govern people without them having some kind of input on the matter. That means that "worthless" people have access to the vote. And they are incentivized to vote in favor of increased welfare.
Net tax payer is pretty simple, not some "more benefits than paid in taxes". If you pay a net in, you are a net tax payer. If the government pays your rent, for food, money, for your kid's lunch....well you are a negative tax payer IMO if the government is covering any of your costs. Pretty simple what skin means. It was land at the founding because there was no massive network of government agencies to make sure useless people could be funded to live their lives and reproduce and vote as they did so. I said at the founding, and said there was good reason at the time for that being a requirement to vote, just like the Greeks required a man to be 30 before he could marry or vote. A little time on task, skin in the game and basic wisdom as to how life works make a better voter...regardless of positions he/she may take. If everything is free for you, well you just might be enticed to vote to keep getting free things.
I tend to agree with the argument. But it's hard to get voters to let children starve in the street in order to not incentivize welfare abuse. And I don't think most people would consider that an acceptable policy.
I am fine with feeding worthless people's kids. I am not fine with the same worthless people voting. You act as if one ensures the other. I do not.
It most certainly does. The trend in America specifically and The West in general has been - you don't get to govern people without them having some kind of input on the matter. That means that "worthless" people have access to the vote. And they are incentivized to vote in favor of increased welfare.
I know that is the trend...have you taken a look at what direction that trend is headed? I suggest a new trend is in order or collapse will ensue. I guess we can rearrange the chairs on the deck of the titanic as it sinks....or maybe just avoid the crash is better? If you have NO input into the governing...as in contribution to the system and only being a drain...its complete idiocy to expect people who can not run simple life tasks to have inputs on how lives should be run. I expect people to vote in their own interests, and can live with those interests contrasting mine....but only if they are pulling their weight. Entitling worthless (no quotes needed, because lots of people are at this point in the USA pretty worthless. I do believe people can change, but true change is spurred by discomfort...not coddling) people to have a say is a big mistake and the long term consequences are all around us.
Net tax payer is pretty simple, not some "more benefits than paid in taxes". If you pay a net in, you are a net tax payer. If the government pays your rent, for food, money, for your kid's lunch....well you are a negative tax payer IMO if the government is covering any of your costs. Pretty simple what skin means. It was land at the founding because there was no massive network of government agencies to make sure useless people could be funded to live their lives and reproduce and vote as they did so. I said at the founding, and said there was good reason at the time for that being a requirement to vote, just like the Greeks required a man to be 30 before he could marry or vote. A little time on task, skin in the game and basic wisdom as to how life works make a better voter...regardless of positions he/she may take. If everything is free for you, well you just might be enticed to vote to keep getting free things.
I tend to agree with the argument. But it's hard to get voters to let children starve in the street in order to not incentivize welfare abuse. And I don't think most people would consider that an acceptable policy.
I am fine with feeding worthless people's kids. I am not fine with the same worthless people voting. You act as if one ensures the other. I do not.
It most certainly does. The trend in America specifically and The West in general has been - you don't get to govern people without them having some kind of input on the matter. That means that "worthless" people have access to the vote. And they are incentivized to vote in favor of increased welfare.
I know that is the trend...have you taken a look at what direction that trend is headed? I suggest a new trend is in order or collapse will ensue. I guess we can rearrange the chairs on the deck of the titanic as it sinks....or maybe just avoid the crash is better? If you have NO input into the governing...as in contribution to the system and only being a drain...its complete idiocy to expect people who can not run simple life tasks to have inputs on how lives should be run. I expect people to vote in their own interests, and can live with those interests contrasting mine....but only if they are pulling their weight. Entitling worthless (no quotes needed, because lots of people are at this point in the USA pretty worthless. I do believe people can change, but true change is spurred by discomfort...not coddling) people to have a say is a big mistake and the long term consequences are all around us.
While I hate Commies, and agree that certain parts of American politics are FUBAR, your equating financial value with the worth of a human being is really fucking concerning.
Not to mention that while, yes, people of Welfare will vote for more Welfare; if you take away their vote, the people left with a vote will invariably vote to constantly reduce or do-away with welfare.
Hardcore Libertarianism is as delusional and ultimately destructive as aspects of Communism.
Its not financial value. It is pretty fucking easy to be a net tax payer in the USA. If you have a job and do not take any government assistance you are certainly a net tax payer. This is not hardcore libertarianism. It is common sense. Letting people decided the course of events is about as smart as letting your 3 year olds decide on retirement strategies for you. Being broke is also extremely transitional if the person who is broke wants it to be. What I propose is not even close to hard core, it is common sense. We can keep doing it the way we have been doing it though, and keep getting more of what we have been getting.
I do say that if you have no job, make no progress to having a job, take assistance and never contribute you are in fact pretty worthless to society.
I do say that if you have no job, make no progress to having a job, take assistance and never contribute you are in fact pretty worthless to society.
Its not financial value. It is pretty fucking easy to be a net tax payer in the USA. If you have a job and do not take any government assistance you are certainly a net tax payer. This is not hardcore libertarianism. It is common sense. Letting people decided the course of events is about as smart as letting your 3 year olds decide on retirement strategies for you. Being broke is also extremely transitional if the person who is broke wants it to be. What I propose is not even close to hard core, it is common sense. We can keep doing it the way we have been doing it though, and keep getting more of what we have been getting.
I do say that if you have no job, make no progress to having a job, take assistance and never contribute you are in fact pretty worthless to society.
Okay. I know I said I'm not objective enough to be fairly involved in this argument, but it's not fucking binary. There is a wide gulf between 'homeless unemployed leach on society' and getting no government assistance whatsoever.I do say that if you have no job, make no progress to having a job, take assistance and never contribute you are in fact pretty worthless to society.
One of those things is not like the others.
That is why I listed all three of them together. I also do not disagree regarding government assistance. I think during the time a person receives it, no voting. If the situation is temporary voting returns. People can fall on hard times, and aid to get back up is just fine. Making that a lifestyle though is folly.
That is why I listed all three of them together. I also do not disagree regarding government assistance. I think during the time a person receives it, no voting. If the situation is temporary voting returns. People can fall on hard times, and aid to get back up is just fine. Making that a lifestyle though is folly.
Yeah, okay, you're either not actually familiar with the conditions a lot of the country lives in, or you're being disingenuous. I'm not sure which it is. You're basically coming across like the right-wing version of liberals deriding "flyover country rednecks". And talking about a lot of the same people. So, I suppose you've got a good talking point for reconciliation right there.
It's right wing to expect people to actually run their own lives and pay for their own food and to feed their kids? Well that overton window keeps on moving.
It's right wing to expect people to actually run their own lives and pay for their own food and to feed their kids? Well that overton window keeps on moving.
Oh, are we suddenly not talking about reconciliation between the right and the left? Or are you saying you're left-leaning?
I didn't say anything about your position - however much I disagree with it - I very clearly was referring to you.
Don't pull the "I'm only banning junk food because I'm so concerned for people's welfare" schtick out. As you go on to make very clear, your interest is in disenfranchising those people you consider "worthless" - along with a whole lot of other people, too, apparently - , but you keep lumping a whole lot of people in to your very extreme example of unemployed welfare queens.
Yeah, okay, I think it's time I bowed out of this line of the argument. I will freely admit I can't be objective enough, apparently. I grew up in an area where a huge chunk of the town was at least getting subsidized lunches for their kids, or some other government aid. I was more unusual in not getting them. Most of those people weren't "worthless" - they held down honest jobs, doing things that needed doing, contributing in their own part to the functioning of our community.
One of my best friends growing up was adopted by his aunt, him and his brother, after their drug-using slut of a mother wandered off to fuck-knows-where. She was already supporting her disabled (stroke) husband. They lived in poverty, to be sure. Food stamps, school lunches, etc. But his aunt was a nurse at the hospital. Worked long-ass hours, doing good, important work, the hours she wasn't working she was caring for a ruined man who couldn't do much more than watch TV and cry, and in the few moments she had in between she tried to make sure she at least kept a couple of innocent kids off the fucking streets. She was not "worthless". The drug using mother? Sure. The stroke victim husband? It might be cruel, but sure, maybe. Her? no. And yes, I am aware, anecdotes are not data, but her story isn't unique. I knew many of them.
You guys want to lament about reconciliation being a lost cause? Fine. But it aint all on one side of the equation, here. Christ.
Here's the thing: yes he the fuck is simply by virtue of being intrinsically tied to the community in a way the doctor is not.
I don't care one bit if that dude is an uneducated rube, he has a personal stake in what happens to him and the people around him. Further, I'd trust someone like that FAR more than an overeducated doctor because at least people like that tend to be more self-reflective.
If the past two years has taught you anything it should at least be that the most "educated experts" and their ilk are truly the dumbest motherfuckers to ever walk the earth, motivated purely by money and the accumulation of social clout. They are grifters and disingenuous fucktards from top to bottom.
The dumbass redneck might not know much on paper, but he probably can at least survive and has a decent idea what to do when the apocalypse comes.
Again, don't mythologize rednecks.
I resemble that remark, dearest sir. The smartest people I know are both hillbillies from Appalachia, uneducated for the most part, one of whom could barely read as an adult. But put any sort of mechanical problem in from of him, he'd figure it out better than any engineer alive.
Net tax payer is pretty simple, not some "more benefits than paid in taxes". If you pay a net in, you are a net tax payer. If the government pays your rent, for food, money, for your kid's lunch....well you are a negative tax payer IMO if the government is covering any of your costs. Pretty simple what skin means. It was land at the founding because there was no massive network of government agencies to make sure useless people could be funded to live their lives and reproduce and vote as they did so. I said at the founding, and said there was good reason at the time for that being a requirement to vote, just like the Greeks required a man to be 30 before he could marry or vote. A little time on task, skin in the game and basic wisdom as to how life works make a better voter...regardless of positions he/she may take. If everything is free for you, well you just might be enticed to vote to keep getting free things.
I tend to agree with the argument. But it's hard to get voters to let children starve in the street in order to not incentivize welfare abuse. And I don't think most people would consider that an acceptable policy.
I am fine with feeding worthless people's kids. I am not fine with the same worthless people voting. You act as if one ensures the other. I do not.
It most certainly does. The trend in America specifically and The West in general has been - you don't get to govern people without them having some kind of input on the matter. That means that "worthless" people have access to the vote. And they are incentivized to vote in favor of increased welfare.
I know that is the trend...have you taken a look at what direction that trend is headed? I suggest a new trend is in order or collapse will ensue. I guess we can rearrange the chairs on the deck of the titanic as it sinks....or maybe just avoid the crash is better?
If you have NO input into the governing...as in contribution to the system and only being a drain...its complete idiocy to expect people who can not run simple life tasks to have inputs on how lives should be run. I expect people to vote in their own interests, and can live with those interests contrasting mine....but only if they are pulling their weight. Entitling worthless (no quotes needed, because lots of people are at this point in the USA pretty worthless. I do believe people can change, but true change is spurred by discomfort...not coddling) people to have a say is a big mistake and the long term consequences are all around us.
Oh its never getting passed by the general voting public and I would never entrust such a means of voting to our current politicians. I am simply offering an idea, a thought experiment. There would have to be a burning of the old rotted house to build a new one. No attempts at a coat of paint on a ruined structure is going to work out.
Oh its never getting passed by the general voting public and I would never entrust such a means of voting to our current politicians. I am simply offering an idea, a thought experiment. There would have to be a burning of the old rotted house to build a new one. No attempts at a coat of paint on a ruined structure is going to work out.
Oh its never getting passed by the general voting public and I would never entrust such a means of voting to our current politicians. I am simply offering an idea, a thought experiment. There would have to be a burning of the old rotted house to build a new one. No attempts at a coat of paint on a ruined structure is going to work out.
To me THIS ATTITUDE is part of the problem. You see it in lefties all the time too. Thinking that burning down the system and building it up somehow will make it better. No you need to tweak and adjust. It’s also just bizarre to me that people can live relatively comfy and safe lives and still think they are living on the edge of total destruction. I have relatives who live normal lives in countries that are far worse off. Yes, people are angrier than they used to be ten years ago, but you have to steer away from the cliff, not head straight for it.
There are higher values than leading "comfy and safe lives." This attitude is pure mental-slavery.
Particularly when said "comfort" and "safety" are paper-thin.
There are higher values than leading "comfy and safe lives." This attitude is pure mental-slavery.
Particularly when said "comfort" and "safety" are paper-thin.
"We need a revolution, anyone who disagrees is a mental slave"
Yes, the far left and right do sound very similar.
There are higher values than leading "comfy and safe lives." This attitude is pure mental-slavery.
Particularly when said "comfort" and "safety" are paper-thin.
"We need a revolution, anyone who disagrees is a mental slave"
Yes, the far left and right do sound very similar.
I am a centrist, actually. The vast majority of people seem agree that there are higher values than just achieving material comfort.
Do you have an actual argument, or are you just going to continue on with the dishonestly smearing other people while taking the "I'm so above-it-all" approach?
Oh its never getting passed by the general voting public and I would never entrust such a means of voting to our current politicians. I am simply offering an idea, a thought experiment. There would have to be a burning of the old rotted house to build a new one. No attempts at a coat of paint on a ruined structure is going to work out.
To me THIS ATTITUDE is part of the problem. You see it in lefties all the time too. Thinking that burning down the system and building it up somehow will make it better. No you need to tweak and adjust. It’s also just bizarre to me that people can live relatively comfy and safe lives and still think they are living on the edge of total destruction. I have relatives who live normal lives in countries that are far worse off. Yes, people are angrier than they used to be ten years ago, but you have to steer away from the cliff, not head straight for it.
I have so many questions.Oh its never getting passed by the general voting public and I would never entrust such a means of voting to our current politicians. I am simply offering an idea, a thought experiment. There would have to be a burning of the old rotted house to build a new one. No attempts at a coat of paint on a ruined structure is going to work out.
To me THIS ATTITUDE is part of the problem. You see it in lefties all the time too. Thinking that burning down the system and building it up somehow will make it better. No you need to tweak and adjust. It’s also just bizarre to me that people can live relatively comfy and safe lives and still think they are living on the edge of total destruction. I have relatives who live normal lives in countries that are far worse off. Yes, people are angrier than they used to be ten years ago, but you have to steer away from the cliff, not head straight for it.
The western world is 3 days without food or electricity away from anarchy.
Likely?I have so many questions.Oh its never getting passed by the general voting public and I would never entrust such a means of voting to our current politicians. I am simply offering an idea, a thought experiment. There would have to be a burning of the old rotted house to build a new one. No attempts at a coat of paint on a ruined structure is going to work out.
To me THIS ATTITUDE is part of the problem. You see it in lefties all the time too. Thinking that burning down the system and building it up somehow will make it better. No you need to tweak and adjust. It’s also just bizarre to me that people can live relatively comfy and safe lives and still think they are living on the edge of total destruction. I have relatives who live normal lives in countries that are far worse off. Yes, people are angrier than they used to be ten years ago, but you have to steer away from the cliff, not head straight for it.
The western world is 3 days without food or electricity away from anarchy.
The western world specifically? Wouldn't this affect any area? Why the western world? Because you live there? And where does the time limit come from?
But OK let's say we agree, what should be done about it? Increase our own production I suppose? this I can agree with.
How about you actually continue the conversation in an honest way before talking about "mental slavery"? Notice what the argument was before you jumped in. There was talk about "burning down the house".
Issue | Extremist Position | Centrist Position |
Should we permit dangerous gain-of-function research geared towards creating novel pathogens that might result in deadly pandemics like we saw in 2020? | Yes, we should permit people who we know are irresponsible and immoral to conduct dangerous research. | No, we do not permit people who we know are irresponsible and immoral to conduct dangerous research. People who do this must be stopped. |
Worst-Case Consequences: | Worldwide pandemics, mass death, medical tyranny | The world goes on normally and everyone lives their lives without fear of genetically engineered superviruses ravaging the planet. The normal and unavoidable risk of death from illness remains. |
Oh its never getting passed by the general voting public and I would never entrust such a means of voting to our current politicians. I am simply offering an idea, a thought experiment. There would have to be a burning of the old rotted house to build a new one. No attempts at a coat of paint on a ruined structure is going to work out.
To me THIS ATTITUDE is part of the problem. You see it in lefties all the time too. Thinking that burning down the system and building it up somehow will make it better. No you need to tweak and adjust. It’s also just bizarre to me that people can live relatively comfy and safe lives and still think they are living on the edge of total destruction. I have relatives who live normal lives in countries that are far worse off. Yes, people are angrier than they used to be ten years ago, but you have to steer away from the cliff, not head straight for it.
Not to atheistic slave mentality types who have no hope beyond this life and no great love for the good of future generations. They think if they just kowtow to the elites they’ll be allowed to keep some of their sense of normalcy. They ignore things like the Armenian Genocide, Holodomor, Khmer Rouge, etc. that always accompanies the rise of the Totalitarians and just hope that being accommodating will buy them more life than they’d have if they took a stand.Oh its never getting passed by the general voting public and I would never entrust such a means of voting to our current politicians. I am simply offering an idea, a thought experiment. There would have to be a burning of the old rotted house to build a new one. No attempts at a coat of paint on a ruined structure is going to work out.
To me THIS ATTITUDE is part of the problem. You see it in lefties all the time too. Thinking that burning down the system and building it up somehow will make it better. No you need to tweak and adjust. It’s also just bizarre to me that people can live relatively comfy and safe lives and still think they are living on the edge of total destruction. I have relatives who live normal lives in countries that are far worse off. Yes, people are angrier than they used to be ten years ago, but you have to steer away from the cliff, not head straight for it.
There are higher values than leading "comfy and safe lives." This attitude is pure mental-slavery.
Particularly when said "comfort" and "safety" are paper-thin.
As someone who is an immigrant to America, and a bit of an "outsider" politically speaking (I still can't vote), it's hard not to notice the simmering hatred the two political sides have for each other. This also makes political compromises less and less tenable, and leads to breakdown of cooperation. To me, views like "this can only lead to civil war, there's no way back now" aren't helping. Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions? I have a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, and I think some admissions have to be made on either side, but I'll see what you guys think first.
The 'missing middle' is presently 'on the right' (even if they don't identify as that) because the radical Left controls the lion's share of the media and voting apparatus and wishes to portray itself as middle-left. This is the problem with reconciliation... it can't be achieved by further compromise with the Left, its happening instead via moderate Democrats like Tulsi Gabbard aligning with the right against the psychotic fringe Left.As someone who is an immigrant to America, and a bit of an "outsider" politically speaking (I still can't vote), it's hard not to notice the simmering hatred the two political sides have for each other. This also makes political compromises less and less tenable, and leads to breakdown of cooperation. To me, views like "this can only lead to civil war, there's no way back now" aren't helping. Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions? I have a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, and I think some admissions have to be made on either side, but I'll see what you guys think first.
The hatred is really its most palpable online and there are many inside both parties, the media and many outside that see the conflict as a means to their own benefit. It is always going to be worse where extremists gather.
I think its possible to get back the 'missing middle' where decisions come about through compromise, and radical change isn't forced on others by a tiny margin, but that has to be a decision moving forward. I think its going to be a few years before that happens.
The 'missing middle' is presently 'on the right' (even if they don't identify as that) because the radical Left controls the lion's share of the media and voting apparatus and wishes to portray itself as middle-left. This is the problem with reconciliation... it can't be achieved by further compromise with the Left, its happening instead via moderate Democrats like Tulsi Gabbard aligning with the right against the psychotic fringe Left.
I wonder if the word "reconciliation" is the best description for what is possible.
In U.S. history, opposed sides have always remained opposed. But we have gone through periods of higher and lower levels of conflict.
Obviously, the Civil War was the highest point of conflict. After the war, there was punishing period of Reconstruction and radicalism, but soon after that, more moderates won out. Freed slaves kept some rights - but they were not given twenty acres and a mule, and most of their civil rights were stripped away with Jim Crow laws. Slave plantations were replaced with more moderate prison plantations or apprenticeship plantations.
The 1960s was also a high point of conflict - with acts of terrorism, lynchings, assassinations, and other extremism. This de-escalated in the later 1970s and 1980s, though. However, I wouldn't say that conservatives reconciled with communists - or that liberals reconciled with the KKK. Rather, the moderates of both sides became more dominant.
I suspect that the current period of extreme partisanship will have a similar de-escalation starting a few years from now.
I wonder if the word "reconciliation" is the best description for what is possible.
In U.S. history, opposed sides have always remained opposed. But we have gone through periods of higher and lower levels of conflict.
Obviously, the Civil War was the highest point of conflict. After the war, there was punishing period of Reconstruction and radicalism, but soon after that, more moderates won out. Freed slaves kept some rights - but they were not given twenty acres and a mule, and most of their civil rights were stripped away with Jim Crow laws. Slave plantations were replaced with more moderate prison plantations or apprenticeship plantations.
The 1960s was also a high point of conflict - with acts of terrorism, lynchings, assassinations, and other extremism. This de-escalated in the later 1970s and 1980s, though. However, I wouldn't say that conservatives reconciled with communists - or that liberals reconciled with the KKK. Rather, the moderates of both sides became more dominant.
I suspect that the current period of extreme partisanship will have a similar de-escalation starting a few years from now.
Yup, that sounds about right.
I mean, if you can't handle people like, say Bill Maher or Ben Shapiro, who are occasionally able to point out some of the shenanigans of their respective sides (and who have, by the way, been able to have pretty good conversations) then you're being ridiculous at best or dangerous at worst.
We are at another period of high conflict. Instead of there being a small number of highly emotional issues it seems to me to be a more broad question of how the USA should be governed. As the Constitutional limitations of the central government has been eroded we have seen a growing competition for control of that central government. There is either going to be a fight of some sort with one side winning and the other side losing (and how that plays out is anyone's guess), a restoration of the federal system where these contentious issues are dealt with at the state level and the central government and the other states don't get involved, or a total collapse of the system that may bring in some sort of secession/division that may or may not be peaceful.
I think we're seeing how reconciliation is going to happen.
Trumpers are just losing support, and the right is shifting to more moderate politicians. The "They stole the election" people who ran this last time, for the most part, lost. People who want Trump to run again have been reduced to a much smaller minority of voters as he gets in more trouble over time.
Same is happening on the left. The progressive wing, for the most part, lost. Cancel culture is losing steam, and those who believe in it are fleeing to smaller and smaller enclaves on online communities.
So the reconciliation will be to adjust back to how things were before the progressives and Trumpers disrupted it - a move back to moderate wings of each party, and independents.
Which probably means something like DeSantis vs Biden for next Presidential election (my money would be on DeSantis if the recession kicks in fully).
And the progressives and Trumpers will whine bitch moan and complain about it and beat their chests and claim a civil war is coming any day now, and then ultimately it will just be more noise.
Latest poll: Three-quarters of Americans say they want members of Congress to compromise across the aisle, the highest in at least a decade.
Latest poll: Three-quarters of Americans say they want members of Congress to compromise across the aisle, the highest in at least a decade.
Latest poll: Three-quarters of Americans say they want members of Congress to compromise across the aisle, the highest in at least a decade.
Of course how do most people define 'compromise'? My guess is "the other side concedes they are wrong and I am right and I get everything I want."
Compromising with Marxist scum *for years* is how we have gotten to where we are at. I think it is insane that there are people still living in a delusion where compromise is somehow worthwhile.
These same sad, but all-too-often smug and self-righteous people wouldn't *dream* of compromising with Muslim terrorists, pedophiles, or Nazis.
Yeah, we've been 'compromising' on gun control for decades and it hasn't really worked out well.You don’t reconcile with a spouse that’s hitting you. The abusive party has to show signs of genuine change and remorse before such a process could even possibly begin (if it’s possible at all).
Sorry, no compromise. Stop fucking with us.
Yeah, we've been 'compromising' on gun control for decades and it hasn't really worked out well.You don’t reconcile with a spouse that’s hitting you. The abusive party has to show signs of genuine change and remorse before such a process could even possibly begin (if it’s possible at all).
Sorry, no compromise. Stop fucking with us.
The OP wants to know when the spouse who’s been punched in the face for decades is going to reconcile with the one trying to choke the very life out them and the abused spouse only wants to get their abuser’s hands off their throat. How uncivilized that we won’t let them choke us out as the abuser wants to.
The OP is that self-righteous church lady who berates battered wives for leaving their husbands because of the scandal it provokes. Those people are second only to the abusers themselves in terms of the lowest forms of life.
Yeah, we've been 'compromising' on gun control for decades and it hasn't really worked out well.You don’t reconcile with a spouse that’s hitting you. The abusive party has to show signs of genuine change and remorse before such a process could even possibly begin (if it’s possible at all).
Sorry, no compromise. Stop fucking with us.
The OP wants to know when the spouse who’s been punched in the face for decades is going to reconcile with the one trying to choke the very life out them and the abused spouse only wants to get their abuser’s hands off their throat. How uncivilized that we won’t let them choke us out as the abuser wants to.
The OP is that self-righteous church lady who berates battered wives for leaving their husbands because of the scandal it provokes. Those people are second only to the abusers themselves in terms of the lowest forms of life.
Yeah, we've been 'compromising' on gun control for decades and it hasn't really worked out well.You don’t reconcile with a spouse that’s hitting you. The abusive party has to show signs of genuine change and remorse before such a process could even possibly begin (if it’s possible at all).
Sorry, no compromise. Stop fucking with us.
The OP wants to know when the spouse who’s been punched in the face for decades is going to reconcile with the one trying to choke the very life out them and the abused spouse only wants to get their abuser’s hands off their throat. How uncivilized that we won’t let them choke us out as the abuser wants to.
The OP is that self-righteous church lady who berates battered wives for leaving their husbands because of the scandal it provokes. Those people are second only to the abusers themselves in terms of the lowest forms of life.
I agree with how difficult and pointless 'reconciliation' can be at times. One of the common results of marriage counseling is the realization that the couple are incompatible, and need to separate.
I don't think reconciliation should a societal goal. Toleration and patience should be the goal. Live and let live. That was the spirit on which the USA was founded and we need to return to that in order to survive as a nation.
Yeah, we've been 'compromising' on gun control for decades and it hasn't really worked out well.You don’t reconcile with a spouse that’s hitting you. The abusive party has to show signs of genuine change and remorse before such a process could even possibly begin (if it’s possible at all). Some SJWs are just stupid teenagers doing stupid teenager stuff.
Sorry, no compromise. Stop fucking with us.
The OP wants to know when the spouse who’s been punched in the face for decades is going to reconcile with the one trying to choke the very life out them and the abused spouse only wants to get their abuser’s hands off their throat. How uncivilized that we won’t let them choke us out as the abuser wants to.
The OP is that self-righteous church lady who berates battered wives for leaving their husbands because of the scandal it provokes. Those people are second only to the abusers themselves in terms of the lowest forms of life.
I agree with how difficult and pointless 'reconciliation' can be at times. One of the common results of marriage counseling is the realization that the couple are incompatible, and need to separate.
I don't think reconciliation should a societal goal. Toleration and patience should be the goal. Live and let live. That was the spirit on which the USA was founded and we need to return to that in order to survive as a nation.
Sure, “reconciliation” might not be the most accurate way of putting it for society as a whole, although it might be necessary on a personal level in many cases. Families split apart for instance.
What do you think a divorce is if not a microscale societal collapse (of a family)?Yeah, we've been 'compromising' on gun control for decades and it hasn't really worked out well.You don’t reconcile with a spouse that’s hitting you. The abusive party has to show signs of genuine change and remorse before such a process could even possibly begin (if it’s possible at all).
Sorry, no compromise. Stop fucking with us.
The OP wants to know when the spouse who’s been punched in the face for decades is going to reconcile with the one trying to choke the very life out them and the abused spouse only wants to get their abuser’s hands off their throat. How uncivilized that we won’t let them choke us out as the abuser wants to.
The OP is that self-righteous church lady who berates battered wives for leaving their husbands because of the scandal it provokes. Those people are second only to the abusers themselves in terms of the lowest forms of life.
So your “solution” is…..societal collapse, like you alluded to once here?
Or that moderates like Tulsi Gabbard realign themselves politically, like you also said, and seems completely reasonable to me? I like her btw. This is of course not going to last forever though, maybe Tulsi will stay but others, hopefully moderates, will fill her gap on the left. Politics tend to go that way and that’s fine.
Maybe stop posting when you’re having one of your bipolar episodes?
If your society is so sick that it demands people be defenseless in the face of violence and criminal action, then it deserves to die.Yeah, we've been 'compromising' on gun control for decades and it hasn't really worked out well.You don’t reconcile with a spouse that’s hitting you. The abusive party has to show signs of genuine change and remorse before such a process could even possibly begin (if it’s possible at all).
Sorry, no compromise. Stop fucking with us.
The OP wants to know when the spouse who’s been punched in the face for decades is going to reconcile with the one trying to choke the very life out them and the abused spouse only wants to get their abuser’s hands off their throat. How uncivilized that we won’t let them choke us out as the abuser wants to.
The OP is that self-righteous church lady who berates battered wives for leaving their husbands because of the scandal it provokes. Those people are second only to the abusers themselves in terms of the lowest forms of life.
So your “solution” is…..societal collapse, like you alluded to once here?
Or that moderates like Tulsi Gabbard realign themselves politically, like you also said, and seems completely reasonable to me? I like her btw. This is of course not going to last forever though, maybe Tulsi will stay but others, hopefully moderates, will fill her gap on the left. Politics tend to go that way and that’s fine.
Maybe stop posting when you’re having one of your bipolar episodes?
Indeed, the fundamental mistake being made by Trond and his ilk is that the modern Left is somehow a reasonably slightly left of centrist ideology and not a fringe extremist pro-terror organization against the vast middle and right they, through their control of the media have lumped into a single opposing faction because they're sitting the political right of Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and the other mass murdering psychos of history.If your society is so sick that it demands people be defenseless in the face of violence and criminal action, then it deserves to die.Yeah, we've been 'compromising' on gun control for decades and it hasn't really worked out well.You don’t reconcile with a spouse that’s hitting you. The abusive party has to show signs of genuine change and remorse before such a process could even possibly begin (if it’s possible at all).
Sorry, no compromise. Stop fucking with us.
The OP wants to know when the spouse who’s been punched in the face for decades is going to reconcile with the one trying to choke the very life out them and the abused spouse only wants to get their abuser’s hands off their throat. How uncivilized that we won’t let them choke us out as the abuser wants to.
The OP is that self-righteous church lady who berates battered wives for leaving their husbands because of the scandal it provokes. Those people are second only to the abusers themselves in terms of the lowest forms of life.
So your “solution” is…..societal collapse, like you alluded to once here?
Or that moderates like Tulsi Gabbard realign themselves politically, like you also said, and seems completely reasonable to me? I like her btw. This is of course not going to last forever though, maybe Tulsi will stay but others, hopefully moderates, will fill her gap on the left. Politics tend to go that way and that’s fine.
Maybe stop posting when you’re having one of your bipolar episodes?
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody. I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody. I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody. I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."
Indeed, the fundamental mistake being made by Trond and his ilk is that the modern Left is somehow a reasonably slightly left of centrist ideology and not a fringe extremist pro-terror organization against the vast middle and right they, through their control of the media have lumped into a single opposing faction because they're sitting the political right of Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and the other mass murdering psychos of history.
What needs to happen is for the fringe extremist faction to be utterly destroyed so the vast middle can finally form two genuine parties of the old style... where you mostly agreed on the destination, just disagreed over the best methods to achieve them.
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody. I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody. I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.
It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody. I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.
It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.
You post shit like this and then say that you aren't trying to gaslight people into believing your lies.
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
This is just more of the same schtick you always pull.
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody. I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.
It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.
You post shit like this and then say that you aren't trying to gaslight people into believing your lies.
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
This is just more of the same schtick you always pull.
Yes Jeff, it is. My schtick is telling hard truths.
My schtick is telling hard truths.I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody. I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.
It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.
You post shit like this and then say that you aren't trying to gaslight people into believing your lies.
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
This is just more of the same schtick you always pull.
-To the right wing first, you have to realize that Trump is a divisive figure, quite possibly too divisive.
We are well of this, speaking as someone who leans right and couldn't stand Trump at first. But he was literally the only person that stood up against the Left wing mob that has taken over America while the Republican party cowers in the corner begging Left wing media to not call them bigots and racists and homophobes. I became more amenable to Trump after his first term. The shenanigans that went on to make sure he wasn't re-elected has made me deeply suspicious of our institutions, to the point of resentment.
I don't agree there was a generic "old style" where the destination was agreed on. There have been less contentious periods in American history than now, when people were closer to agreement. However, there have also been more contentious periods, like the Civil War period or the 1960s.
I don't think that in the 1960s the segregationists and the anti-segregationists agreed on the destination. They were more fundamentally opposed. Likewise, the unions and socialists were fundamentally opposed to the radical anti-communists like McCarthy.
After the 1960s, the more radical leftists as exemplified by the Black Panther party and the Weather Underground lost influence. On the other hand, the segregationists also lost influence - and more radical anti-communist figures like McCarthy and Nixon lost influence. I'm not sure one can say they were "utterly destroyed". I'm not sure what you mean by those.
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody. I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.
It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.
You post shit like this and then say that you aren't trying to gaslight people into believing your lies.
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
This is just more of the same schtick you always pull.
Yes Jeff, it is. My schtick is telling hard truths.
Your schtick is arguing with people on the internet, just like everyone else here.
My schtick is telling hard truths.I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody. I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.
It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.
You post shit like this and then say that you aren't trying to gaslight people into believing your lies.
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
This is just more of the same schtick you always pull.
Oh? Then please provide the proof upon which your "hard truths" are based. Show us how you have arrived at your "hard truths" conclusions. Convince us.
The 1960s divisions ended, again, because the federal government got its way.
My schtick is telling hard truths.I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody. I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.
It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.
You post shit like this and then say that you aren't trying to gaslight people into believing your lies.
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
This is just more of the same schtick you always pull.
Oh? Then please provide the proof upon which your "hard truths" are based. Show us how you have arrived at your "hard truths" conclusions. Convince us.
You're not convincible if it comes from me. I could tell you the sky is blue and you'd call me a liar instinctively.
I do wonder what would happen if I started to say Traveler is a great game.
The 1960s divisions ended, again, because the federal government got its way.
News alert. The divisions of the 1960's never went away. That generation is now in power and is making America even more divisive. Like all communists nothing is ever enough until everything conforms and is subservient to The Party. And America is becoming a one party state. The Left controls the institutions, education, the media, and the government. This is why Trump freaked them out so much, it was the first time in decades that a major power didn't cow tow to them on everything. Kind of like what Elon is doing right now. But both those guys keep giving in to the Left's demands.
One day we'll get an Augusto Pinochet or a Francisco Franco, or maybe even a Napoleon or a Julius Caesar. It will be both great and terrible.
My schtick is telling hard truths.I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody. I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.
It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.
You post shit like this and then say that you aren't trying to gaslight people into believing your lies.
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
This is just more of the same schtick you always pull.
Oh? Then please provide the proof upon which your "hard truths" are based. Show us how you have arrived at your "hard truths" conclusions. Convince us.
You're not convincible if it comes from me. I could tell you the sky is blue and you'd call me a liar instinctively.
Then you have nothing. Your justifications can be summed up by saying that you like team sports and you like team blue. Thanks for the confirmation.I do wonder what would happen if I started to say Traveler is a great game.
Nothing.
Just "starting to" to say something is meaningless because if you would have the courage of your convictions, then you would just say it.
My schtick is telling hard truths.I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody. I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.
It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.
You post shit like this and then say that you aren't trying to gaslight people into believing your lies.
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
This is just more of the same schtick you always pull.
Oh? Then please provide the proof upon which your "hard truths" are based. Show us how you have arrived at your "hard truths" conclusions. Convince us.
You're not convincible if it comes from me. I could tell you the sky is blue and you'd call me a liar instinctively.
Then you have nothing. Your justifications can be summed up by saying that you like team sports and you like team blue. Thanks for the confirmation.I do wonder what would happen if I started to say Traveler is a great game.
Nothing.
Just "starting to" to say something is meaningless because if you would have the courage of your convictions, then you would just say it.
But if I say Traveler is a great game it might put you in the awkward position of instinctively feeling like you must disagree with me. And like I said I love you man. I don't want to do that to you.
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
My schtick is telling hard truths.I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody. I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.
It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.
You post shit like this and then say that you aren't trying to gaslight people into believing your lies.
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.
And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
This is just more of the same schtick you always pull.
Oh? Then please provide the proof upon which your "hard truths" are based. Show us how you have arrived at your "hard truths" conclusions. Convince us.
You're not convincible if it comes from me. I could tell you the sky is blue and you'd call me a liar instinctively.
Then you have nothing. Your justifications can be summed up by saying that you like team sports and you like team blue. Thanks for the confirmation.I do wonder what would happen if I started to say Traveler is a great game.
Nothing.
Just "starting to" to say something is meaningless because if you would have the courage of your convictions, then you would just say it.
But if I say Traveler is a great game it might put you in the awkward position of instinctively feeling like you must disagree with me. And like I said I love you man. I don't want to do that to you.
*snerk*
You'd have to get the correct spelling first since as is, you are talking about an insurance company. Which just goes to show that you know fuck all about what you are talking, again.
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
Bwahahahahaa. I nearly split a gut when I read that. There are not centrists in the Democrat party.The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.
If by centrist you mean Republicans who roll over and cower whenever the Liberal media calls them out as bigots, homophobes, nazis whenever they don't go along with the Democrat party, then yeah I guess the GOP is full of centrists.
Did you know the GOP abandoned the Trump endorsed candidates in the midterms and starved them of resources, virtually ensuring their Democrat opponent would win? Even then it is remarkable how well they did when outspent 100 to 1 or more!
I became more amenable to Trump after his first term. The shenanigans that went on to make sure he wasn't re-elected has made me deeply suspicious of our institutions, to the point of resentment.
One day we'll get an Augusto Pinochet or a Francisco Franco, or maybe even a Napoleon or a Julius Caesar. It will be both great and terrible.Out of all the fascists, I think old Franco is my fave.
One day we'll get an Augusto Pinochet or a Francisco Franco, or maybe even a Napoleon or a Julius Caesar. It will be both great and terrible.Out of all the fascists, I think old Franco is my fave.
Dollfuss we be a close second. I mean it's hard to hate on a fascist who repressed both commies and nazis.
;-)
Oh, Trumpers were depending on the old time GOP party machine to win and without them they cannot win? Good to know. I mean, goes completely against the entire Trumper message and the draining the swamp and whole propaganda schtick, but good to know privately Trumpers think they do depend on the traditional GOP party machine. I guess it's all been a bunch of talk all along...at least out of one side of your mouths.
And yes, the Democratic party is not unified and has centrists. Heck, for all she is vilified, Pelosi is nothing like AOC.
Out of all the fascists, I think old Franco is my fave.
Dollfuss we be a close second. I mean it's hard to hate on a fascist who repressed both commies and nazis.
;-)
I suspect it was slightly more convoluted, but I think you're overall correct.
Oh, Trumpers were depending on the old time GOP party machine to win and without them they cannot win? Good to know. I mean, goes completely against the entire Trumper message and the draining the swamp and whole propaganda schtick, but good to know privately Trumpers think they do depend on the traditional GOP party machine. I guess it's all been a bunch of talk all along...at least out of one side of your mouths.
And yes, the Democratic party is not unified and has centrists. Heck, for all she is vilified, Pelosi is nothing like AOC.
What are you blathering on about? The GOP base nominated Trump, he didn't run as an independent. It was the elites in the party that sabotaged conservative candidates.
When you have the communist Demonrat party funneling billions to Ukraine. Then Ukraine spends a chunk of that money on FTX. And FTX then funds Demonrat campaigns, it's a little hard to counter that.
You are correct that the divisions of the 1960s never went away, and really in everything else you said. I misspoke. I should have said that the more radical elements, like the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground lost influence because they basically got their way. The Weather Underground also murdered some people and attempted terrorist bombings, IIRC, which was a step too far for even the elements in the government and media that were sympathetic to them. My main point to jhkim was that nothing got solved by liberals and conservatives agreeing on anything -- the Left basically just got its way, and the Right backed down.
I suspect it was slightly more convoluted, but I think you're overall correct.
Oh, Trumpers were depending on the old time GOP party machine to win and without them they cannot win? Good to know. I mean, goes completely against the entire Trumper message and the draining the swamp and whole propaganda schtick, but good to know privately Trumpers think they do depend on the traditional GOP party machine. I guess it's all been a bunch of talk all along...at least out of one side of your mouths.
And yes, the Democratic party is not unified and has centrists. Heck, for all she is vilified, Pelosi is nothing like AOC.
What are you blathering on about? The GOP base nominated Trump, he didn't run as an independent. It was the elites in the party that sabotaged conservative candidates.
When you have the communist Demonrat party funneling billions to Ukraine. Then Ukraine spends a chunk of that money on FTX. And FTX then funds Demonrat campaigns, it's a little hard to counter that.
I have had a suspicion for a long time that a lot of this 'foreign aid' gets laundered and rolled right back into Beltway pockets. Ukraine was just one of the easiest places to do it (due to being amazingly corrupt). Hence the epic-tier freakout when Trump started nosing around, and why suddenly We Must Protect Ukraine is a thing.
Oh, Trumpers were depending on the old time GOP party machine to win and without them they cannot win? Good to know. I mean, goes completely against the entire Trumper message and the draining the swamp and whole propaganda schtick, but good to know privately Trumpers think they do depend on the traditional GOP party machine. I guess it's all been a bunch of talk all along...at least out of one side of your mouths.
And yes, the Democratic party is not unified and has centrists. Heck, for all she is vilified, Pelosi is nothing like AOC.
What are you blathering on about? The GOP base nominated Trump, he didn't run as an independent. It was the elites in the party that sabotaged conservative candidates.
When you have the communist Demonrat party funneling billions to Ukraine. Then Ukraine spends a chunk of that money on FTX. And FTX then funds Demonrat campaigns, it's a little hard to counter that.
I suspect it was slightly more convoluted, but I think you're overall correct.
I have had a suspicion for a long time that a lot of this 'foreign aid' gets laundered and rolled right back into Beltway pockets. Ukraine was just one of the easiest places to do it (due to being amazingly corrupt). Hence the epic-tier freakout when Trump started nosing around, and why suddenly We Must Protect Ukraine is a thing.
My man, that later part is pure fiction. I understand conspiracy theory nonsense Qanon clickbaiters have promoted that myth but there is zero evidence supporting it and it doesn't even make sense when you lift the lid even a tiny bit on those claims. I guarantee you will abandon that nonsense in a year for some other stupid conspiracy theory nonsense.
The whole point of foreign adventures is to facilitate money-laundering. That's what the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were really about, keeping the gravy train going as long as possible.
I suspect it was slightly more convoluted, but I think you're overall correct.
I have had a suspicion for a long time that a lot of this 'foreign aid' gets laundered and rolled right back into Beltway pockets. Ukraine was just one of the easiest places to do it (due to being amazingly corrupt). Hence the epic-tier freakout when Trump started nosing around, and why suddenly We Must Protect Ukraine is a thing.
I simplified for sake of an easily digestible post. There are plenty of places you can read in detail how it worked, and you can also find plenty of Dem stooges trying their best to explain it away with the willing aid of the leftist media.
edit: changed liberal to leftist. An important distinction.
Misty's willful blindness to the blatancy of FTX as Democrat money-laundering vehicle in Ukraine is hilarious.
The whole point of foreign adventures is to facilitate money-laundering. That's what the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were really about, keeping the gravy train going as long as possible.
Misty's willful blindness to the blatancy of FTX as Democrat money-laundering vehicle in Ukraine is hilarious.
The whole point of foreign adventures is to facilitate money-laundering. That's what the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were really about, keeping the gravy train going as long as possible.
...there isn't a scintilla of evidence behind it!
I mean it's so blatant there isn't a scintilla of evidence behind it!
It's "FTX gave money to Dems" and "FTX connected to Ukraine" (nevermind the vagueness there right?) and "Dems [and GOP and many other nations] gave money to Ukraine" with zero evidence...
You're as pathetic as the leftists who made this same sort of connection between Russian and Trump early on. X is connected to Y is connected to Z therefore it must be X = Z and we don't need to prove the actual connections between it all because it furthers the agenda.
Take your bullshit over to TBP, Misty. It'll play better there.
When you have the communist Demonrat party funneling billions to Ukraine. Then Ukraine spends a chunk of that money on FTX. And FTX then funds Demonrat campaigns, it's a little hard to counter that.
As I understand it, the claim is this.When you have the communist Demonrat party funneling billions to Ukraine. Then Ukraine spends a chunk of that money on FTX. And FTX then funds Demonrat campaigns, it's a little hard to counter that.
I don't know if it is counter to that - but about 75% of Republicans also voted in favor of the Ukraine aid packages. And Republicans also received many millions in donations from former FTX executive Ryan Salame, who was one of their top donors.
There are dozens of executives from many corporations who donate millions to both Democrats and Republicans. I don't like that - but it is legal, especially because of the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision - which was backed by the conservative justices. I don't even strongly disagree with Citizen's United. Trying to limit billionaire's power by donation limits isn't feasible. There is a problem in how much power billionaire's have - but the solution isn't spending limits, which can easily be circumvented. The problem is in how most of those people got their billions, because of pro-corporate laws.
The key evidence would be to show whether Ukraine gave money to FTX as kickbacks.
The question on my mind is, which Congress members have been pushing to restrict and rein in cryptocurrencies and/or corporate donations? That's who I would prefer to support, regardless of what Ukraine did with the money.
No, they can’t. Because a huge part of being a Leftist is having to pretend not to know things. They must pretend they don’t understand cause and effort, pretend to not see the rampant corruption of the institutions they support, pretend all the media gaslighting is true, pretend to actually care for the people being devastated by the policies the Left supports.As I understand it, the claim is this.When you have the communist Demonrat party funneling billions to Ukraine. Then Ukraine spends a chunk of that money on FTX. And FTX then funds Demonrat campaigns, it's a little hard to counter that.
I don't know if it is counter to that - but about 75% of Republicans also voted in favor of the Ukraine aid packages. And Republicans also received many millions in donations from former FTX executive Ryan Salame, who was one of their top donors.
There are dozens of executives from many corporations who donate millions to both Democrats and Republicans. I don't like that - but it is legal, especially because of the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision - which was backed by the conservative justices. I don't even strongly disagree with Citizen's United. Trying to limit billionaire's power by donation limits isn't feasible. There is a problem in how much power billionaire's have - but the solution isn't spending limits, which can easily be circumvented. The problem is in how most of those people got their billions, because of pro-corporate laws.
The key evidence would be to show whether Ukraine gave money to FTX as kickbacks.
The question on my mind is, which Congress members have been pushing to restrict and rein in cryptocurrencies and/or corporate donations? That's who I would prefer to support, regardless of what Ukraine did with the money.
Hold the presses! You mean they are a uni-party and they are ALL in on it??? I never could have guessed. Nevermind that the overwhelming amount of donations went to the Dems.
And corporations choosing to give their own money to parties...you can't see how that is different from sending billions of taxpayer money in aid and then getting that back in a roundabout way in campaign donations?
I mean it's so blatant there isn't a scintilla of evidence behind it!
It's "FTX gave money to Dems" and "FTX connected to Ukraine" (nevermind the vagueness there right?) and "Dems [and GOP and many other nations] gave money to Ukraine" with zero evidence...
You're as pathetic as the leftists who made this same sort of connection between Russian and Trump early on. X is connected to Y is connected to Z therefore it must be X = Z and we don't need to prove the actual connections between it all because it furthers the agenda.
You might want to take some solid advice that holds true today because it is a universal truth.
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane" - Marcus Aurelius
The communist Democrat party has long been the ranks of the insane.
Take your bullshit over to TBP, Misty. It'll play better there.
Take your bullshit over to TBP, Misty. It'll play better there.
No, they suck and I've never posted there beyond like maybe 5 posts. People here are at least honest with what they think. Much like I can be honest with what I think here without fear of being banned for wrongthink.
But I am not surprised you don't want to hear dissent. I mean, how dare I point out there is zero evidence to support your conspiracy theory, right? :)
Take your bullshit over to TBP, Misty. It'll play better there.
No, they suck and I've never posted there beyond like maybe 5 posts. People here are at least honest with what they think. Much like I can be honest with what I think here without fear of being banned for wrongthink.
But I am not surprised you don't want to hear dissent. I mean, how dare I point out there is zero evidence to support your conspiracy theory, right? :)
Again, with the zero evidence BS. If you close your eyes, put a bag on your head, stuff cotton in your ears, and yell NANANANANANANANA! I guess you may be able to avoid seeing or hearing the evidence. Like most people we see only what we want to see, hear only what we want to hear, and thus believe only what we want to believe. Even when the most casual observation would indicate it is all lies.
Merry Christmas everyone! Try not to get to bitter here 😄
Yes, Merry Christmas to everyone here and their family.
Though I use hyperbolic language at times to emphasize certain points, in real life I'm mellow and moderate tilted right. And don't take anything online personal.
Yes, Merry Christmas to everyone here and their family.
Though I use hyperbolic language at times to emphasize certain points, in real life I'm mellow and moderate tilted right. And don't take anything online personal.
"I'm going to repeatedly call a stranger insane. Nothing personal!"
Yes, Merry Christmas to everyone here and their family.
Though I use hyperbolic language at times to emphasize certain points, in real life I'm mellow and moderate tilted right. And don't take anything online personal.
"I'm going to repeatedly call a stranger insane. Nothing personal!"
No, I think it is quite entertaining actually. Because the statements Misty has been making are so insane.
Yes, Merry Christmas to everyone here and their family.
Though I use hyperbolic language at times to emphasize certain points, in real life I'm mellow and moderate tilted right. And don't take anything online personal.
"I'm going to repeatedly call a stranger insane. Nothing personal!"
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Yes, Merry Christmas to everyone here and their family.
Though I use hyperbolic language at times to emphasize certain points, in real life I'm mellow and moderate tilted right. And don't take anything online personal.
"I'm going to repeatedly call a stranger insane. Nothing personal!"
Pot. Kettle. Black.
When have I said nothing personal?
When I tell you I love you, I mean it personally Jeff :)
But I am not surprised you don't want to hear dissent. I mean, how dare I point out there is zero evidence to support your conspiracy theory, right? :)I read all the articles about the Ukraine-FTX connection and from them I found nothing indicating that Ukraine used FTX to send money to Democrats.
As to the original topic at hand
I am in my 50s, and I have seen the country change a lot over the decades. It is now more dysfunctional, radical, and polarized than in any time in its history.
This didn't really hit home for me until the BLM riots in 2020. I live in a nice suburban area, and BLM / ANTIFA was literally transported to my downtown, where the black-clad members, many carrying knives, baseball bats, and even guns, vandalized 40 businesses, assaulted 20 citizens, stabbed a couple people, and covered the buildings in spray paint. That was shocking enough, but what happened afterwards was worse
the leftists in the community (including hundreds of high-school kids) rallied around these guys and proceeded to cover downtown stores with little post-it notes and stickers praising BLM, denouncing "racism"and white people in general.
this wasn't Seattle or Portland--it is a Midwestern city.
crime is up everywhere, homeless all over the streets, and political radicalism is growing. The US has gone from a high-trust society to a low-trust society. Our government is hopelessly corrupt.
When the riots were going on, my buddy was staying up all night, sitting in the front room of his house holding an AR-15. Are we living in Somalia now?
The political left in this country doesn't simply want power and privilege. It was to disenfranchise, punish, and even kill white people. Last I checked, the BLM website was selling t-shirts with "1804 needs to happen again"! on them: the date of the Hatian massacre of white families during the revolution.
even in the gaming industry, we had guys like Jeff Dee posting on FB the names and addresses of the family members of the Covington Catholic kid who was wrongfully accused of racism, and telling his followers to go pay the family members a visit (aka go after them). When the truth came out, Dee didn't back off, but instead said the family were Nazis anyway, and people should still go after them. He was later forced to take some of this down by FB (amazing I know), but I think some of it remains.
When I was younger, Republicans, Democrats, left and right could meet up and iron-out their differences. Sure, there was some competition and even animosity, but it was nothing like what we see today. You can't debate or negotiate with people who, at best, want to take your property and rights, and at worst, kill you.
As to the original topic at hand
I am in my 50s, and I have seen the country change a lot over the decades. It is now more dysfunctional, radical, and polarized than in any time in its history.
This didn't really hit home for me until the BLM riots in 2020. I live in a nice suburban area, and BLM / ANTIFA was literally transported to my downtown, where the black-clad members, many carrying knives, baseball bats, and even guns, vandalized 40 businesses, assaulted 20 citizens, stabbed a couple people, and covered the buildings in spray paint. That was shocking enough, but what happened afterwards was worse
the leftists in the community (including hundreds of high-school kids) rallied around these guys and proceeded to cover downtown stores with little post-it notes and stickers praising BLM, denouncing "racism"and white people in general.
this wasn't Seattle or Portland--it is a Midwestern city.
crime is up everywhere, homeless all over the streets, and political radicalism is growing. The US has gone from a high-trust society to a low-trust society. Our government is hopelessly corrupt.
When the riots were going on, my buddy was staying up all night, sitting in the front room of his house holding an AR-15. Are we living in Somalia now?
The political left in this country doesn't simply want power and privilege. It was to disenfranchise, punish, and even kill white people. Last I checked, the BLM website was selling t-shirts with "1804 needs to happen again"! on them: the date of the Hatian massacre of white families during the revolution.
even in the gaming industry, we had guys like Jeff Dee posting on FB the names and addresses of the family members of the Covington Catholic kid who was wrongfully accused of racism, and telling his followers to go pay the family members a visit (aka go after them). When the truth came out, Dee didn't back off, but instead said the family were Nazis anyway, and people should still go after them. He was later forced to take some of this down by FB (amazing I know), but I think some of it remains.
When I was younger, Republicans, Democrats, left and right could meet up and iron-out their differences. Sure, there was some competition and even animosity, but it was nothing like what we see today. You can't debate or negotiate with people who, at best, want to take your property and rights, and at worst, kill you.
And it won't get better until average everyday citizens start stacking leftist bodies when they engage in criminal terrorist activities.
The reason that the left and the media were so outraged at Rittenhouse wasn't that he shot and killed two of the three convicted felons who were trying to kill him - it's that he dared to freely walk around Kenosha and stop their rioting to begin with.
When government orders police to *not* stop criminal activity; when they order police to unlawfully interfere with the exercise of constitutionally protected activity by citizens; when you're safer in Somalia than in an average US city..
The moment that antifa and blm declared CHAZ and the state and local police did nothing, Trump should have had federalized Guardsmen in there killing them and destroying their tree fort. Trying to reason with or placate these animals does nothing but encourage them. And the only people who understand this are legal immigrants who've fled this type of anarchy elsewhere.
Leftists are the way they are because the West is so soft - all of the problems have been solved so they have to invent new ones and then demand ridiculous things.
It's one big grift and it ends when average citizens start by knocking their teeth down their throats - if they don't get the hint, then run the city out of body bags.
I don't know if it is counter to that - but about 75% of Republicans also voted in favor of the Ukraine aid packages. And Republicans also received many millions in donations from former FTX executive Ryan Salame, who was one of their top donors.
Hold the presses! You mean they are a uni-party and they are ALL in on it??? I never could have guessed. Nevermind that the overwhelming amount of donations went to the Dems.
The key evidence would be to show whether Ukraine gave money to FTX as kickbacks.
The question on my mind is, which Congress members have been pushing to restrict and rein in cryptocurrencies and/or corporate donations? That's who I would prefer to support, regardless of what Ukraine did with the money.
And corporations choosing to give their own money to parties...you can't see how that is different from sending billions of taxpayer money in aid and then getting that back in a roundabout way in campaign donations?
As for more donations going to the Democrats... Publicly-reported donations from FTX execs were $25M to Republicans and $48M to Democrats, though there could also be dark money donations. If what you are saying is correct, then that just means that the Republicans laundered money the same way but sold their votes a little more cheaply than the Democrats. That doesn't sound like any sort of moral superiority.
We are experiencing the death of the American empire. Our armed forces have spent decades spilling blood on foreign soil but do not defend our borders, and have been adulterated with every type of pussy one could imagine.
The political left in this country doesn't simply want power and privilege. It was to disenfranchise, punish, and even kill white people.
When I was younger, Republicans, Democrats, left and right could meet up and iron-out their differences. Sure, there was some competition and even animosity, but it was nothing like what we see today. You can't debate or negotiate with people who, at best, want to take your property and rights, and at worst, kill you.
We are experiencing the death of the American empire. Our armed forces have spent decades spilling blood on foreign soil but do not defend our borders, and have been adulterated with every type of pussy one could imagine.
Hey, Alathon. Long time no see. Welcome back. This is one of those odd overlaps.
From previous conversations, I know that you had been opposed to ethnic mixing. That's what I would guess is meant by the "adulteration" from varied types of pussy. We disagree about this.
That said, I also oppose how the U.S. posts its armed forces all over the world and constantly intervenes in foreign conflicts. I would favor far less foreign military entanglements than the U.S. has historically had, though there are still some wars that I think were justified.The political left in this country doesn't simply want power and privilege. It was to disenfranchise, punish, and even kill white people.When I was younger, Republicans, Democrats, left and right could meet up and iron-out their differences. Sure, there was some competition and even animosity, but it was nothing like what we see today. You can't debate or negotiate with people who, at best, want to take your property and rights, and at worst, kill you.
I don't agree about your broad characterization of all the left there, though I agree that there are people with anti-white bias.
Still, I'd accept your point at the moment as a premise. Would you agree that there was even more significant anti-black bias in the 1950s and 1960s? The question to my mind is, do you think that black people should have debated or negotiated with those biased against them? I'm not sure how old you are. I was born in 1970. At the time, there was still very serious anti-black bias. I remember being in friend's houses and hearing their parents argue over black people being allowed in the swimming pools they used.
Greetings!
Imagine one day seeing a TikTok video of a young mother crying hysterically as she is hauled away in chains by police, while other police take her 10-year old daughter away to be sterilized, or otherwise mutilated into becoming "Trans".
One TikTok video away from the match being struck to the gasoline.
I'm always reminded of how world wars, huge, savage rebellions, great revolutions throughout history have often been started by seemingly small, localized, insignificant events. Small things, small atrocities, small injustices--that set everything ablaze, and the storm of blood is unleashed.
I told a friend of mine, it is hard to predict precisely, because these things can literally come out of nowhere, and erupt in otherwise the most unassuming places. A suburb in Chicago. A small town school in Texas. This kind of blaze event could come from anywhere. All that is required is some overzealous Leftist teacher or school administrator, a few unthinking police, and a bystander with a cell phone.
*BOOM* Suddenly, that one blaze event spreads, and maybe it is also fueled in rapid succession by a cascade of similar events, as tyrant Marxists are wont to do so often. In a dizzying swift and short span of time, masses of people simply decide enough is enough. That switch is flipped, and the blood flows. Mass slaughter, brutal executions, savagery and chaos unleashed everywhere. The rush can be so great, so overwhelming, no power will be able to stop it. Not police. Not the military. They too, will be swept up into the storm, some rising with it, and some trying to fight against it. This is what history tells us about how these things go so often.
The Leftists will beg and sob, but there will be no mercy shown to them. The switch will have been flipped, and the masses will rise up to cleanse society. The degenerate tyrants will be first on the list. There will be no escape. No laws, no lawyers, their money won't save them.
The moment will be savage, brutal, and utterly ruthless.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Greetings!
Imagine one day seeing a TikTok video of a young mother crying hysterically as she is hauled away in chains by police, while other police take her 10-year old daughter away to be sterilized, or otherwise mutilated into becoming "Trans".
One TikTok video away from the match being struck to the gasoline.
I'm always reminded of how world wars, huge, savage rebellions, great revolutions throughout history have often been started by seemingly small, localized, insignificant events. Small things, small atrocities, small injustices--that set everything ablaze, and the storm of blood is unleashed.
I told a friend of mine, it is hard to predict precisely, because these things can literally come out of nowhere, and erupt in otherwise the most unassuming places. A suburb in Chicago. A small town school in Texas. This kind of blaze event could come from anywhere. All that is required is some overzealous Leftist teacher or school administrator, a few unthinking police, and a bystander with a cell phone.
*BOOM* Suddenly, that one blaze event spreads, and maybe it is also fueled in rapid succession by a cascade of similar events, as tyrant Marxists are wont to do so often. In a dizzying swift and short span of time, masses of people simply decide enough is enough. That switch is flipped, and the blood flows. Mass slaughter, brutal executions, savagery and chaos unleashed everywhere. The rush can be so great, so overwhelming, no power will be able to stop it. Not police. Not the military. They too, will be swept up into the storm, some rising with it, and some trying to fight against it. This is what history tells us about how these things go so often.
The Leftists will beg and sob, but there will be no mercy shown to them. The switch will have been flipped, and the masses will rise up to cleanse society. The degenerate tyrants will be first on the list. There will be no escape. No laws, no lawyers, their money won't save them.
The moment will be savage, brutal, and utterly ruthless.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/019/304/old.jpg)
We are experiencing the death of the American empire. Our armed forces have spent decades spilling blood on foreign soil but do not defend our borders, and have been adulterated with every type of pussy one could imagine.
Grillboy or Soyboy, we share the same spirit: BLAH BLAH BLAH on the internet, glug glug glug in front of our screens.What the heck is a "grillboy"?
In other words, these leftists of today (white and black) not only hate white people, they are convinced that whites are collectively guilty of crimes against humanity. It isn't about keeping people in their place, it is about actively punishing them. If given unlimited governmental and police power, every member of the BLM organization would round up whites, put them into camps, and gas them to death. Women, children, everybody. These are profoundly hateful and resentful people who are out to exact revenge on an entire race
In other words, these leftists of today (white and black) not only hate white people, they are convinced that whites are collectively guilty of crimes against humanity. It isn't about keeping people in their place, it is about actively punishing them. If given unlimited governmental and police power, every member of the BLM organization would round up whites, put them into camps, and gas them to death. Women, children, everybody. These are profoundly hateful and resentful people who are out to exact revenge on an entire race
Hi, MerrillWeathermay. I'm curious to know about your personal experience with such people.
For example, my church has a Black Lives Matter banner out front, but we don't believe in active punishment that I can tell. Most of the congregation is white, and to the degree that we engage with racial issues, the emphasis has been on learning - through education, engagement, etc. I also have a friend, Rahman, who was invited to speak at a Black Lives Matter protest two years ago. He also emphasized learning as the way forward - advocating for required training for police.
I believe there are hateful people, but they haven't been a part of my experience, so I'd be interested in comparing notes.
Incidentally, I'd also say that I don't believe in blanket labeling of people on the other side, either. I think dialog between people of different sides is vital to moving forward.
In other words, these leftists of today (white and black) not only hate white people, they are convinced that whites are collectively guilty of crimes against humanity. It isn't about keeping people in their place, it is about actively punishing them. If given unlimited governmental and police power, every member of the BLM organization would round up whites, put them into camps, and gas them to death. Women, children, everybody. These are profoundly hateful and resentful people who are out to exact revenge on an entire race
Hi, MerrillWeathermay. I'm curious to know about your personal experience with such people.
For example, my church has a Black Lives Matter banner out front, but we don't believe in active punishment that I can tell. Most of the congregation is white, and to the degree that we engage with racial issues, the emphasis has been on learning - through education, engagement, etc. I also have a friend, Rahman, who was invited to speak at a Black Lives Matter protest two years ago. He also emphasized learning as the way forward - advocating for required training for police.
I believe there are hateful people, but they haven't been a part of my experience, so I'd be interested in comparing notes.
Incidentally, I'd also say that I don't believe in blanket labeling of people on the other side, either. I think dialog between people of different sides is vital to moving forward.
The problem with the "learning" is that it is almost exclusively "learn why your systems/skin color/history is evil and oppressive," and when people push back that they don't agree, they're called racists with thin skin.
I find 90% of the "facts" pushed by groups like BLM to be absolute horseshit. If your church group and friend group support them, then they're drones.
Well, don't take jhkim's anecdotes to seriously. Were you to believe everything he tells you, he's had personal experiences with every topic that shows up on this site (from BLM churches to trans volleyball players). In fact, his general modus operandi is to jump in on a thread with a personal anecdote that supposedly should caution you against overly generalizing some liberal sacred cow. Which, of course, is stupid on its face.
In other words, these leftists of today (white and black) not only hate white people, they are convinced that whites are collectively guilty of crimes against humanity. It isn't about keeping people in their place, it is about actively punishing them. If given unlimited governmental and police power, every member of the BLM organization would round up whites, put them into camps, and gas them to death. Women, children, everybody. These are profoundly hateful and resentful people who are out to exact revenge on an entire race
Hi, MerrillWeathermay. I'm curious to know about your personal experience with such people.
For example, my church has a Black Lives Matter banner out front, but we don't believe in active punishment that I can tell. Most of the congregation is white, and to the degree that we engage with racial issues, the emphasis has been on learning - through education, engagement, etc. I also have a friend, Rahman, who was invited to speak at a Black Lives Matter protest two years ago. He also emphasized learning as the way forward - advocating for required training for police.
I believe there are hateful people, but they haven't been a part of my experience, so I'd be interested in comparing notes.
Incidentally, I'd also say that I don't believe in blanket labeling of people on the other side, either. I think dialog between people of different sides is vital to moving forward.
Well, don't take jhkim's anecdotes to seriously. Were you to believe everything he tells you, he's had personal experiences with every topic that shows up on this site (from BLM churches to trans volleyball players). In fact, his general modus operandi is to jump in on a thread with a personal anecdote that supposedly should caution you against overly generalizing some liberal sacred cow. Which, of course, is stupid on its face.
Eirikrautha - my anecdotes are genuine, which can often be checked since I'm public with my identity. If you have doubts, here's my church:
(https://www.uufrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/UUFRC-Front.jpg)
Source: https://www.uufrc.org/racial-justice/
If you want to log in then, I'll be worship associate on services on this New Year's Day at 10:30am Pacific time. My full name is John Hanju Kim - I'm listed as "Hanju Kim" in the services. I've been worship associate about a dozen times over the past two years - I can give links for me speaking in past services if anyone's interested.
EDITED TO ADD: I'm happy to talk more about the topic in another post, but the criticism that I'm lying about my anecdotes is off. I do feel indignant at the accusation, but I am happy to have dialog about the other points.
Well, don't take jhkim's anecdotes to seriously. Were you to believe everything he tells you, he's had personal experiences with every topic that shows up on this site (from BLM churches to trans volleyball players). In fact, his general modus operandi is to jump in on a thread with a personal anecdote that supposedly should caution you against overly generalizing some liberal sacred cow. Which, of course, is stupid on its face.
Eirikrautha - my anecdotes are genuine, which can often be checked since I'm public with my identity. If you have doubts, here's my church:
(https://www.uufrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/UUFRC-Front.jpg)
Source: https://www.uufrc.org/racial-justice/
If you want to log in then, I'll be worship associate on services on this New Year's Day at 10:30am Pacific time. My full name is John Hanju Kim - I'm listed as "Hanju Kim" in the services. I've been worship associate about a dozen times over the past two years - I can give links for me speaking in past services if anyone's interested.
EDITED TO ADD: I'm happy to talk more about the topic in another post, but the criticism that I'm lying about my anecdotes is off. I do feel indignant at the accusation, but I am happy to have dialog about the other points.
I'm not sure who lies more, you or Mistwell.
So, jhkim's assertion that he knows of a BLM-supporting church only proves that: A, he goes to church with very stupid, virtue-signaling people, or B, (if the church even exists) he goes to church with people who know exactly how vile BLM is and hide behind platitudes to escape criticism for their support of racism. Because BLM is a vile, racist ideology founded on a fiction and responsible for violence, death, and massive amounts of grifting. If your "church" thinks it can learn something (positive) from BLM, then it has little relationship with actual religion or holiness. You've slapped "church" on your country club (like the Universalist Unitarian church)...
Eirikrautha - my anecdotes are genuine, which can often be checked since I'm public with my identity. If you have doubts, here's my church:
(https://www.uufrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/UUFRC-Front.jpg)
Eirikrautha - my anecdotes are genuine, which can often be checked since I'm public with my identity. If you have doubts, here's my church:
(https://www.uufrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/UUFRC-Front.jpg)
Source: https://www.uufrc.org/racial-justice/
If you want to log in then, I'll be worship associate on services on this New Year's Day at 10:30am Pacific time. My full name is John Hanju Kim - I'm listed as "Hanju Kim" in the services. I've been worship associate about a dozen times over the past two years - I can give links for me speaking in past services if anyone's interested.
Eirikrautha - my anecdotes are genuine, which can often be checked since I'm public with my identity. If you have doubts, here's my church:
(https://www.uufrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/UUFRC-Front.jpg)
Source: https://www.uufrc.org/racial-justice/
If you want to log in then, I'll be worship associate on services on this New Year's Day at 10:30am Pacific time. My full name is John Hanju Kim - I'm listed as "Hanju Kim" in the services. I've been worship associate about a dozen times over the past two years - I can give links for me speaking in past services if anyone's interested.
If I were you I would ask the church at the very least to tone it down, or to change to another church.
Well, don't take jhkim's anecdotes to seriously. Were you to believe everything he tells you, he's had personal experiences with every topic that shows up on this site (from BLM churches to trans volleyball players). In fact, his general modus operandi is to jump in on a thread with a personal anecdote that supposedly should caution you against overly generalizing some liberal sacred cow. Which, of course, is stupid on its face.
Eirikrautha - my anecdotes are genuine, which can often be checked since I'm public with my identity. If you have doubts, here's my church:
(https://www.uufrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/UUFRC-Front.jpg)
Source: https://www.uufrc.org/racial-justice/
If you want to log in then, I'll be worship associate on services on this New Year's Day at 10:30am Pacific time. My full name is John Hanju Kim - I'm listed as "Hanju Kim" in the services. I've been worship associate about a dozen times over the past two years - I can give links for me speaking in past services if anyone's interested.
EDITED TO ADD: I'm happy to talk more about the topic in another post, but the criticism that I'm lying about my anecdotes is off. I do feel indignant at the accusation, but I am happy to have dialog about the other points.
Yet we live in a world in which oppressive structures prevent us from living out these Principles. Although legal segregation in America ended with the passage of civil rights laws in the 1960's, many primary institutions and systems of our nation including business, health care, criminal justice, media, etc., were little affected by these laws.
In our congregations white culture is considered to be the norm and People of Color are expected to assimilate into this white culture.
The focus of much of our justice work is on the victims of racism and not the oppressors that benefit from racism.
We need to put greater focus on the power and privilege that white people have in our racist society.
But making America worse is THE GOAL of the Left.Eirikrautha - my anecdotes are genuine, which can often be checked since I'm public with my identity. If you have doubts, here's my church:
(https://www.uufrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/UUFRC-Front.jpg)
Source: https://www.uufrc.org/racial-justice/
If you want to log in then, I'll be worship associate on services on this New Year's Day at 10:30am Pacific time. My full name is John Hanju Kim - I'm listed as "Hanju Kim" in the services. I've been worship associate about a dozen times over the past two years - I can give links for me speaking in past services if anyone's interested.
If I were you I would ask the church at the very least to tone it down, or to change to another church.
America's racial issues are toxic, and after moving here I have come to the realization that BLM and the current Democratic party are at the center of this, not so much the Republicans. Notice how Biden reacted to the Georgia voting laws, despite that nobody could actually explain how the law was racist ("Jim Crow on steroids", why the hell would you say that right after the riots started to die down). Another example of how far it has gone are various statements by Nick Cannon, and his show was still promoted everywhere in LA despite widely known anit-white racist statements. The LGBTQ part is sort of reinforcing that this church supports the hard line leftists. Conservatives would probably stop right there at the door and go elsewhere. So I am pretty sure, seeing this image of the church, it's part of the movement that is making America worse, not better.
I speak specifically of hardcore ideological people, not simply those oblivious souls who are along for the ride. There have been plenty of black activists who were honestly out to improve the lot of their people and to achieve equality. I have known them and get along fine with them.
there are reasonable people, who may be wrong on some issues, and then there are extremists, who won't tolerate dissent or debate.
Hey, Alathon. Long time no see. Welcome back. This is one of those odd overlaps.
From previous conversations, I know that you had been opposed to ethnic mixing. That's what I would guess is meant by the "adulteration" from varied types of pussy. We disagree about this.
That said, I also oppose how the U.S. posts its armed forces all over the world and constantly intervenes in foreign conflicts. I would favor far less foreign military entanglements than the U.S. has historically had, though there are still some wars that I think were justified.
Under the Republican umbrella, devout Christians and NRA-funding gun owners do most of the real work, while the "compassionate conservatives", moderates, and judeo-cons pour the wealth of our empire into obsolete war machines and feckless warmongering.
We just need to admit that we need a hard reset.
We just need to admit that we need a hard reset.
So who do you want hung, specifically?
I feel like the average American, or likewise the typical person I might disagree with on either side of the aisle (but more likely the left, given my positions), is not completely beyond facts and reasonable discourse. While cancel culture is a poison that is eating away at the ability to conduct open discourse it isn’t at the level of support yet where it can totally shut down dialogue.
I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that change doesn’t happen overnight and changing opinions requires regular exposure to differing opinions and solid reasoning as to why one’s current position doesn’t fit well with reality. I think generally what would be needed for reconciliation is a lot of discomfort and suffering through conversations. By this I do not mean one sided lectures, though honesty is important. Basically everyone not notably left of center would need to speak up and represent themselves well, but especially those right of center. Especially when talking to the youth, because age demographics are not friendly to what I consider reasonable discourse within our nation’s future.
Honestly, though, I’m thinking this is unlikely and in the long run Gen Z (which I guess I’m technically part of) will shit the bed big time. Partly because of this, we will become a racially discriminatory socialist hellhole.
But yeah, basically we would need well reasoned pushes into the hearts and minds of those who can be convinced and a societal shift back towards discourse and free speech where that would win out. But that takes putting up with a lot of bullshit and discomfort and I don’t think it would happen.
I feel like the average American, or likewise the typical person I might disagree with on either side of the aisle (but more likely the left, given my positions), is not completely beyond facts and reasonable discourse. While cancel culture is a poison that is eating away at the ability to conduct open discourse it isn’t at the level of support yet where it can totally shut down dialogue.
I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that change doesn’t happen overnight and changing opinions requires regular exposure to differing opinions and solid reasoning as to why one’s current position doesn’t fit well with reality. I think generally what would be needed for reconciliation is a lot of discomfort and suffering through conversations. By this I do not mean one sided lectures, though honesty is important. Basically everyone not notably left of center would need to speak up and represent themselves well, but especially those right of center. Especially when talking to the youth, because age demographics are not friendly to what I consider reasonable discourse within our nation’s future.
Honestly, though, I’m thinking this is unlikely and in the long run Gen Z (which I guess I’m technically part of) will shit the bed big time. Partly because of this, we will become a racially discriminatory socialist hellhole.
But yeah, basically we would need well reasoned pushes into the hearts and minds of those who can be convinced and a societal shift back towards discourse and free speech where that would win out. But that takes putting up with a lot of bullshit and discomfort and I don’t think it would happen.
If you want to win the hearts and minds of people then perhaps it would be a good idea to draw a clean line between reasonable conservatism and the constant calls for mass bloodshed that have filled this thread.
Just a thought.
The warmongering isn't feckless, it's incidental. The whole point is to facilitate industrial scale money-laundering. Plenty of RINOs are getting rich off the whole scam, so don't give a fuck who dies in the process.I'll grant you that for our oligarchs it is not feckless, they stand to profit handsomely, and it worked out for them last time around.
The warmongering isn't feckless, it's incidental. The whole point is to facilitate industrial scale money-laundering. Plenty of RINOs are getting rich off the whole scam, so don't give a fuck who dies in the process.I'll grant you that for our oligarchs it is not feckless, they stand to profit handsomely, and it worked out for them last time around.
Mainline conservatives generally don't believe that's what it's about though, they genuinely think we're the good guys who beat up the bad guys in WW2, and we can do it again in Ukraine, just like Grampa did! They don't see pressuring EU members into vast donations of military hardware as a way to create demand for Raytheon and General Dynamics, both by depriving EU member states of much of their military stockpiles and by inciting hostility with Russia to stir up even more future sales.
true story.
The problem with American conservatism, especially of the neocon variety, is that it is globalist, corrupt, and ineffective. We can look at the narratives vs. the realities:
1. "We must support Ukraine and give Putin a lesson"! --No, we don't need to do that. While Putin is a total thug and a criminal, Zelensky is also corrupt and authoritarian. Getting into some proxy war between these two countries serves absolutely no national interest here in the US save for providing profits for the military industrial complex. NATO should not have expanded eastwards--we did that under Yeltsen, and even he was upset about it. This idea that Russia will send troops into the Baltic states or Poland if those countries don't get defense agreements from the US is nonsense. Putin can't even hold onto 20% of the Ukraine with his horseshi* army, and has lost 100k men in the process. The GDP of Texas is bigger tan that of Russia. We have to remember that it was the neocons who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan --both were total disasters--this needs to stop.
2. The GOP is always ready to give corporate welfare out (as are the Dems), but heaven forbid we get healthcare spending under control, or give Americans access to some kind of national health insurance. I am self-employed, and my health insurance premium is more than my mortgage and my property taxes combined. And I am on a bronze plan! That is just insane. There is a middle-way here
3. Both parties engage in reckless spending and have mortgage the future of our kids. Sure, the Dems are worse, but spending was insane under Bush and Trump
We have the new speaker of the house promising he will go to Taiwan just to start shit with China and potentially start a war. How does this serve US national interests? "We need the chips from Taiwan"! --no, we need to make those fu**ing chips here.
None of this is nationalist, or even populist. Globalist oligarchs and business tycoons run our government. They are supported by career politicians and overpaid civil servants
/end rant
The problem with American conservatism, especially of the neocon variety, is that it is globalist, corrupt, and ineffective.
1. ... We have to remember that it was the neocons who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan --both were total disasters--this needs to stop.
2. The GOP is always ready to give corporate welfare out (as are the Dems), but heaven forbid we get healthcare spending under control, or give Americans access to some kind of national health insurance. I am self-employed, and my health insurance premium is more than my mortgage and my property taxes combined. And I am on a bronze plan! That is just insane. There is a middle-way here
Believe it or not, while racial adulteration of the U.S. armed forces is a serious problem, it is not the problem I speak of. Most of that comes in the form of Hispanic recruits who do not, so far as I have heard, lack courage. Sooner or later we will get what Emperor Valens got for Rome, but that's not our worst problem.
The 'pussy' I speak of comes in the form of political hires who are liabilities. Careerist REMFs, perverts, and women. The women are the worst of the lot, because at least the careerists and perverts are theoretically capable of fulfilling their obligations, whereas a population of women just plain can't. Standards must be greatly lowered to allow them to participate and advance, which they now consider some sort of right, and weak males permit it. Enemy soldiers will not lower their own standards to allow for pussyfeelz.
It is worth noting that most of the women in the U.S. armed forces come out of conservative communities. This is a great way to turn them into harlots or corpses, but conservatives have not only allowed it but helped make it happen. It's one more mountain of evidence that conservatives won't conserve shit. Under the Republican umbrella, devout Christians and NRA-funding gun owners do most of the real work, while the "compassionate conservatives", moderates, and judeo-cons pour the wealth of our empire into obsolete war machines and feckless warmongering.
By "judeo-cons" do you mean Jewish conservatives? I wasn't familiar with that term.It is well known that many of the early neocons were 1960's liberal anti-communist hawks in the mold of Kennedy.
Given the role of religion in what you say, I'm curious what role you think religion plays in this? What denomination do you favor?
By "judeo-cons" do you mean Jewish conservatives? I wasn't familiar with that term.The "neo-con" movement is notorious for its over-representation of jews, its suspiciously large media footprint, and for waging wars that were ruinous for America, ruinous for our victims, ruinous for middle-eastern Christian communities that were more than a thousand years old... but quite beneficial for the current occupational forces in Palestine.
Given the role of religion in what you say, I'm curious what role you think religion plays in this? What denomination do you favor?
My parents both came from deeply religious Christian families, and I've found devout Christian conservatives easier to connect with than secular conservatives. Also, the most devout Christians that I know are mostly non-white - notably Latino Catholics, black Congregationalists, and Korean Presbyterians. Even among conservative white Christians, most of the ones I know considered all ethnicities to be united under God, and deliberately sought out united effort with other ethnicities.
The problem with American conservatism, especially of the neocon variety, is that it is globalist, corrupt, and ineffective.
Such sloth and indifference does open some interesting doors, though. Serfs like this will submit to just about anyone. It could be that all the talk about hangings is arising from a growing awareness that a small segment of the population, willing to fight, could dominate the rest and enforce their will.
The "neo-con" movement is notorious for its over-representation of jews, its suspiciously large media footprint, and for waging wars that were ruinous for America, ruinous for our victims, ruinous for middle-eastern Christian communities that were more than a thousand years old... but quite beneficial for the current occupational forces in Palestine.
With your overt advocacy of sodomite pride, I dare say you have few devout Christians in alliance with you, no matter how many cry "Lord, Lord!" Christ was very clear with us that it would be better we were drowned than that we set stumbling blocks in front of children.
I'll have you know that I am celibate!Such sloth and indifference does open some interesting doors, though. Serfs like this will submit to just about anyone. It could be that all the talk about hangings is arising from a growing awareness that a small segment of the population, willing to fight, could dominate the rest and enforce their will.
Oh look, the actual fucking racist also supports an authoritarian dictatorship. Gosh, where have we seen this story before? I am waiting for the "Jews secretly plot to control the banking and entertainment and global politics" take.
Edit:
Ah shit, it was literally just a few more posts!
The "neo-con" movement is notorious for its over-representation of jews, its suspiciously large media footprint, and for waging wars that were ruinous for America, ruinous for our victims, ruinous for middle-eastern Christian communities that were more than a thousand years old... but quite beneficial for the current occupational forces in Palestine.
With your overt advocacy of sodomite pride, I dare say you have few devout Christians in alliance with you, no matter how many cry "Lord, Lord!" Christ was very clear with us that it would be better we were drowned than that we set stumbling blocks in front of children.
Yup, there it is. Alathon is a white nationalist fucker.
I personally disagree quite firmly with calls to violence against our fellow Americans
I feel like rational and measured discourse would indeed help temper society against government infringement on civil liberties and the like as well as promote various other goals and policies.
For there to be reconciliation there needs first and foremost to be good faith discourse with an attempt towards solid reasoning and expression, not a focus on the promotion or delineation of specific dogma, however ostensibly valid or well meaning it may seem to me.
I think the arguments of the left dominate a lot of the media and society, leading to ostracism and silencing of many dissenting opinions, especially within a younger generation that seems less tolerant and willing to engage in discussion with those of differing opinions. The right has its own versions of cancel culture, and UNLISTENING extremism, that are also an issue, but in the future seem unlikely to remain an any way dominant under the crushing weight of demographic shifts. I think everyone would need to discuss and open the pathways of communication soon if America is to reconcile with itself, because we are indeed becoming more and more isolated in our own polarizing bubbles and echo chambers.
I personally disagree quite firmly with calls to violence against our fellow Americans
This thread is chock full of calls to violence against our fellow Americans and nobody (except non-conservatives like jhkim) has been pushing back against them at all until I specifically prompted you. This leads me to think that many people on this thread (not including you, as I have no reason to distrust you) do not disagree with calls to violence against our fellow Americans due to the rather obvious fact that they are not disagreeing with the numerous calls to violence that have filled this thread.QuoteI feel like rational and measured discourse would indeed help temper society against government infringement on civil liberties and the like as well as promote various other goals and policies.
I do enjoy rational and measured discourse myself and find it disappointing that it seems impossible for many people to discuss issues without strident calls for violence.QuoteFor there to be reconciliation there needs first and foremost to be good faith discourse with an attempt towards solid reasoning and expression, not a focus on the promotion or delineation of specific dogma, however ostensibly valid or well meaning it may seem to me.
Many people find it hard to engage in good faith discourse with people who either publicly proclaim they'd like to see them dead (such as SHARK and several other posters on this thread) or people who seem to have no problem with such unhinged bloodlust (just about everyone else on this thread). I'm sure you can see the reasons for this.QuoteI think the arguments of the left dominate a lot of the media and society, leading to ostracism and silencing of many dissenting opinions, especially within a younger generation that seems less tolerant and willing to engage in discussion with those of differing opinions. The right has its own versions of cancel culture, and UNLISTENING extremism, that are also an issue, but in the future seem unlikely to remain an any way dominant under the crushing weight of demographic shifts. I think everyone would need to discuss and open the pathways of communication soon if America is to reconcile with itself, because we are indeed becoming more and more isolated in our own polarizing bubbles and echo chambers.
This is a real Matthew 7:3 moment (Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?). This thread is full of SHARK and the likes calling for the streets to run red with blood and everyone shrugs or cheers them on. Meanwhile people are incensed about social ostracism. The utter hypocrisy of this would be hilarious if it wasn't so unnerving.
Luckily 99% of the people to talk about all of the bloodletting they'd like to see on the internet are far too cowardly to actually do anything and the remaining 1% are too stupid and uncoordinated to accomplish much, so I hope that the threat isn't as large as it can appear. If I'm wrong, well, the first thing I'm doing if I ever move back to the US is getting a gun for self defense.
I personally disagree quite firmly with calls to violence against our fellow Americans
This thread is chock full of calls to violence against our fellow Americans and nobody (except non-conservatives like jhkim) has been pushing back against them at all until I specifically prompted you. This leads me to think that many people on this thread (not including you, as I have no reason to distrust you) do not disagree with calls to violence against our fellow Americans due to the rather obvious fact that they are not disagreeing with the numerous calls to violence that have filled this thread.
I'll have you know that I am celibate!Such sloth and indifference does open some interesting doors, though. Serfs like this will submit to just about anyone. It could be that all the talk about hangings is arising from a growing awareness that a small segment of the population, willing to fight, could dominate the rest and enforce their will.
Oh look, the actual fucking racist also supports an authoritarian dictatorship. Gosh, where have we seen this story before? I am waiting for the "Jews secretly plot to control the banking and entertainment and global politics" take.
Edit:
Ah shit, it was literally just a few more posts!
The "neo-con" movement is notorious for its over-representation of jews, its suspiciously large media footprint, and for waging wars that were ruinous for America, ruinous for our victims, ruinous for middle-eastern Christian communities that were more than a thousand years old... but quite beneficial for the current occupational forces in Palestine.
With your overt advocacy of sodomite pride, I dare say you have few devout Christians in alliance with you, no matter how many cry "Lord, Lord!" Christ was very clear with us that it would be better we were drowned than that we set stumbling blocks in front of children.
Yup, there it is. Alathon is a white nationalist fucker.
As for the rest, by all means keep white-knighting the Epsteins, Weinsteins, and Bankman-Frieds of the world. See where that gets you.
Hey, Alathon. Long time no see. Welcome back. This is one of those odd overlaps.
From previous conversations, I know that you had been opposed to ethnic mixing. That's what I would guess is meant by the "adulteration" from varied types of pussy. We disagree about this.
That said, I also oppose how the U.S. posts its armed forces all over the world and constantly intervenes in foreign conflicts. I would favor far less foreign military entanglements than the U.S. has historically had, though there are still some wars that I think were justified.
Thank you for your kind words.
Believe it or not, while racial adulteration of the U.S. armed forces is a serious problem, it is not the problem I speak of. Most of that comes in the form of Hispanic recruits who do not, so far as I have heard, lack courage. Sooner or later we will get what Emperor Valens got for Rome, but that's not our worst problem.
The 'pussy' I speak of comes in the form of political hires who are liabilities. Careerist REMFs, perverts, and women. The women are the worst of the lot, because at least the careerists and perverts are theoretically capable of fulfilling their obligations, whereas a population of women just plain can't. Standards must be greatly lowered to allow them to participate and advance, which they now consider some sort of right, and weak males permit it. Enemy soldiers will not lower their own standards to allow for pussyfeelz.
It is worth noting that most of the women in the U.S. armed forces come out of conservative communities. This is a great way to turn them into harlots or corpses, but conservatives have not only allowed it but helped make it happen. It's one more mountain of evidence that conservatives won't conserve shit. Under the Republican umbrella, devout Christians and NRA-funding gun owners do most of the real work, while the "compassionate conservatives", moderates, and judeo-cons pour the wealth of our empire into obsolete war machines and feckless warmongering.
Let's leave aside the globalism part (I agree with you - and I believe globalism is a net good).
I thought I was quite clear the first time, but I'll gladly spell it out.I'll have you know that I am celibate!
As for the rest, by all means keep white-knighting the Epsteins, Weinsteins, and Bankman-Frieds of the world. See where that gets you.
Go ahead and answer the accusation. Do you think America is and should be a nation led by white people for white people? Do you think it's wrong for white people to have children with non-white people? Do you think Jews secretly conspire to cause America to go to war, while controlling the finance and entertainment industry? Come on you cowardly little fucking white nationalist, answer the questions.
Let's leave aside the globalism part (I agree with you - and I believe globalism is a net good).
Suddenly it all becomes clear, Misty is a globalist cunt. No wonder you agree with everything the estabishment is doing.
Forget everything else you claim to believe, this is the only thing that matters.
The problem with American conservatism, especially of the neocon variety, is that it is globalist, corrupt, and ineffective.1. ... We have to remember that it was the neocons who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan --both were total disasters--this needs to stop.
2. The GOP is always ready to give corporate welfare out (as are the Dems), but heaven forbid we get healthcare spending under control, or give Americans access to some kind of national health insurance. I am self-employed, and my health insurance premium is more than my mortgage and my property taxes combined. And I am on a bronze plan! That is just insane. There is a middle-way here
These seem like points of potential dialog - if not the "reconciliation" of the title.
I and many other liberals have been vocal about the problems of the military-industrial complex and the problems of U.S. constant military interventions - especially since Vietnam in the 1960s. We might disagree about some specifics, but we could agree on principles and generally reducing military spending. I've mentioned here before that while I've been opposed to over 90% of U.S. wars. Even though there are a handful of wars I supported, lets not let 90% agreement be the enemy of perfect alignment.
Also, national health insurance is something many Democrats have backed - but it has always been shot down, and any mention of reducing healthcare spending gets targeted as "death panels".Believe it or not, while racial adulteration of the U.S. armed forces is a serious problem, it is not the problem I speak of. Most of that comes in the form of Hispanic recruits who do not, so far as I have heard, lack courage. Sooner or later we will get what Emperor Valens got for Rome, but that's not our worst problem.
The 'pussy' I speak of comes in the form of political hires who are liabilities. Careerist REMFs, perverts, and women. The women are the worst of the lot, because at least the careerists and perverts are theoretically capable of fulfilling their obligations, whereas a population of women just plain can't. Standards must be greatly lowered to allow them to participate and advance, which they now consider some sort of right, and weak males permit it. Enemy soldiers will not lower their own standards to allow for pussyfeelz.
It is worth noting that most of the women in the U.S. armed forces come out of conservative communities. This is a great way to turn them into harlots or corpses, but conservatives have not only allowed it but helped make it happen. It's one more mountain of evidence that conservatives won't conserve shit. Under the Republican umbrella, devout Christians and NRA-funding gun owners do most of the real work, while the "compassionate conservatives", moderates, and judeo-cons pour the wealth of our empire into obsolete war machines and feckless warmongering.
By "judeo-cons" do you mean Jewish conservatives? I wasn't familiar with that term.
Given the role of religion in what you say, I'm curious what role you think religion plays in this? What denomination do you favor?
My parents both came from deeply religious Christian families, and I've found devout Christian conservatives easier to connect with than secular conservatives. Also, the most devout Christians that I know are mostly non-white - notably Latino Catholics, black Congregationalists, and Korean Presbyterians. Even among conservative white Christians, most of the ones I know considered all ethnicities to be united under God, and deliberately sought out united effort with other ethnicities.
I have never been dogmatic with my politics, and tend to be eclectic and a bit technocratic. This has made me enemies on both sides of the spectrum
Here is one angle I take when trying to reach an agreement or consensus among people of different political and ideological persuasions:
1. Can we agree that there are things we could call "public good" --those things that are necessary for the functioning of society, and which cannot be provided by the private sector alone. Those things that must be supported by the public (aka taxes, etc.)? National defense is a good example.
But I would also put healthcare into this category. Why?
a) The private sector has failed for decades to provide effective healthcare at a reasonable cost. There are many reasons for this, but there is the profit motive, lack of pricing transparency, high malpractice insurance costs, regulation, etc. We can talk all day about why the system is broken, but all the math leads to the same solution--it is hopelessly dysfunctional and cannot be fixed without a total overhaul.
b) A healthy population with access to healthcare is a public good. Many years ago, a dude with TB got into a train I was on and proceeded to infect me and several others with the disease. I spent 9 months on antibiotics and physical therapy. That guy had no health insurance and minimal access to care--and his problem became everyone's problem.
c) We can have a national health insurance that covers everyone, but everyone has to pay into it. A VAT or national sales tax, and some increases in income taxes will be required. I am happy to pay it. The idea that taxing the 1% is going to give everyone healthcare is nonsense. It is hugely expensive.
Story comes out a couple days ago that the US will start demanding COVID tests for people coming here from China, and quarantining those who fail.
But the virus has been here for 3 years and like 95% of our population has been infected. How does this make any sense at all? When we have this level of stupid in our government, we have really big problems. Or claims that spending additional trillions of dollars will *lower* inflation (total nonsense), or that eliminating cash bail will *lower* crime (totally illogical) --I could go on and on.
Let's leave aside the globalism part (I agree with you - and I believe globalism is a net good).
Suddenly it all becomes clear, Misty is a globalist cunt. No wonder you agree with everything the estabishment is doing.
Forget everything else you claim to believe, this is the only thing that matters.
Let's leave aside the globalism part (I agree with you - and I believe globalism is a net good).
Suddenly it all becomes clear, Misty is a globalist cunt. No wonder you agree with everything the estabishment is doing.
Forget everything else you claim to believe, this is the only thing that matters.
Of course he's a globalist - he runs CA's version of the Triangle Shirtwaist Co. His sweatshop full of sewing machines isn't going to staff itself. He's gotta keep bringing in Central American slave labor...
Let's leave aside the globalism part (I agree with you - and I believe globalism is a net good).
Suddenly it all becomes clear, Misty is a globalist cunt. No wonder you agree with everything the estabishment is doing.
Forget everything else you claim to believe, this is the only thing that matters.
Of course he's a globalist - he runs CA's version of the Triangle Shirtwaist Co. His sweatshop full of sewing machines isn't going to staff itself. He's gotta keep bringing in Central American slave labor...
Dude, it is not OK for you to make personal attacks on my personal business (which are slanderous and false) because you disagree with my general politics. Take it back a notch please. You know we can discuss these topics without you making it about my private life (which was not raised as a topic in this thread in any way and which you know very little about apparently), so let's do that instead of you doing literally one of the only things which can get you banned around here.
But our biggest problem is all the Clown World nonsense that is going on in this country right now. The Transgenderism, postmodern nonsense in the universities, identity politics, etc.
We can't have open, honest, and meaningful debate with people who think:
1. Men can have babies
2. That biological sex is "non-binary"
3. That language and truth are meaningless
4. That government-sanctioned systemic racism still exists in the US, and that it is impossible to change it without full-blown revolution and violence
5. That pederasty is OK, because "love is love"!
etc.
You can't have agreements with crazy people. And the political parties in this country need to stop pandering to the crazy people. There is a profound level of ignorance and irrationality within our public sphere, and we are reminded of this daily.
I thought I was quite clear the first time, but I'll gladly spell it out.I'll have you know that I am celibate!
As for the rest, by all means keep white-knighting the Epsteins, Weinsteins, and Bankman-Frieds of the world. See where that gets you.
Go ahead and answer the accusation. Do you think America is and should be a nation led by white people for white people? Do you think it's wrong for white people to have children with non-white people? Do you think Jews secretly conspire to cause America to go to war, while controlling the finance and entertainment industry? Come on you cowardly little fucking white nationalist, answer the questions.
1. Do you think America is and should be a nation led by white people for white people?
Is? No. Should be? Yes.
2. Do you think it's wrong for white people to have children with non-white people?
With Blacks, Africans, Aborigines, Mestizos, and semites, yes. It's marrying down in every way that truly matters. I guess some of it is eugenic, to judge by the sort of white women typically seen with mulatto babies, but it's still sad.
With the northern Asian peoples, it's more like marrying sideways, so it's a judgement call. Some limited amount of intermarriage can be healthy, as a hedge against consanguinity and to acquire beneficial genetic mutations. Couples should consider seriously the cultural challenges they take on by having two very different family trees to work with and sometimes appease.
For others (Inuit, Amerindian, south-Asian, Persian, etc..) judgement call, but they are not peers in achievement or intellect.
3. Do you think Jews secretly conspire to cause America to go to war, while controlling the finance and entertainment industry?
No, there's nothing secret about it. AIPAC operates openly. The ADL operates openly. America's warmongering in the middle east, and the deplatforming of those who criticize jews, have not been secret.
Let's leave aside the globalism part (I agree with you - and I believe globalism is a net good).
Suddenly it all becomes clear, Misty is a globalist cunt. No wonder you agree with everything the estabishment is doing.
Forget everything else you claim to believe, this is the only thing that matters.
Of course he's a globalist - he runs CA's version of the Triangle Shirtwaist Co. His sweatshop full of sewing machines isn't going to staff itself. He's gotta keep bringing in Central American slave labor...
Dude, it is not OK for you to make personal attacks on my personal business (which are slanderous and false) because you disagree with my general politics. Take it back a notch please. You know we can discuss these topics without you making it about my private life (which was not raised as a topic in this thread in any way and which you know very little about apparently), so let's do that instead of you doing literally one of the only things which can get you banned around here.
I did not state your name or the name of your business - it's not a personal attack. It's an observation regarding *your* statement that globalism is a good thing where you provided zero context on why you would think it is a good thing. To anyone who works for a living (in pretty much *every* country on earth), globalism is a cancer.
Let's leave aside the globalism part (I agree with you - and I believe globalism is a net good).
Suddenly it all becomes clear, Misty is a globalist cunt. No wonder you agree with everything the estabishment is doing.
Forget everything else you claim to believe, this is the only thing that matters.
Of course he's a globalist - he runs CA's version of the Triangle Shirtwaist Co. His sweatshop full of sewing machines isn't going to staff itself. He's gotta keep bringing in Central American slave labor...
Dude, it is not OK for you to make personal attacks on my personal business (which are slanderous and false) because you disagree with my general politics. Take it back a notch please. You know we can discuss these topics without you making it about my private life (which was not raised as a topic in this thread in any way and which you know very little about apparently), so let's do that instead of you doing literally one of the only things which can get you banned around here.
I did not state your name or the name of your business - it's not a personal attack. It's an observation regarding *your* statement that globalism is a good thing where you provided zero context on why you would think it is a good thing. To anyone who works for a living (in pretty much *every* country on earth), globalism is a cancer.
You made a claim that I run a sweatshop and import slave labor from central America - which is absurdly false and fabricated by you and shows you don't even follow what I have said publicly here about my business. In a topic which had ZERO to do with that and which was not raised by me or anyone else. Do not fucking claim that was not a personal attack. You made up something untrue directly about my personal life because you disagreed with my general politics.
I've provided lots of context about my globalism views. I've publicly had this discussion, at length, on this forum in this very section of the forum. Apparently you missed it but it's not like I've withheld my views on that or didn't put a lot of effort into discussing a lot of aspects of that topic. Which this particular thread IS NOT ABOUT and you're ranting about literally a side comment made in parenthesis.
If you want to join that discussion you can - in the thread we were talking about it. But you're derailing this conversation, and doing it in a particularly personal and pernicious way. There are people who know who I am in my private life and it is not OK for you to make up slanderous claims about my business because you're pouty I disagree with you about a very general political topic which was a side comment on this thread. Much like I know about some of your private life from CM but I don't haul it out here and make a fabricated personal attack against your profession and business because I disagree with you on some general topic (because your private life is your private life unless you make it public here in a topic).
TAKE IT DOWN A NOTCH. Are you really unsatisfied with just calling me names that you have to make shit up about my business?
Let's leave aside the globalism part (I agree with you - and I believe globalism is a net good).
Suddenly it all becomes clear, Misty is a globalist cunt. No wonder you agree with everything the estabishment is doing.
Forget everything else you claim to believe, this is the only thing that matters.
Of course he's a globalist - he runs CA's version of the Triangle Shirtwaist Co. His sweatshop full of sewing machines isn't going to staff itself. He's gotta keep bringing in Central American slave labor...
Dude, it is not OK for you to make personal attacks on my personal business (which are slanderous and false) because you disagree with my general politics. Take it back a notch please. You know we can discuss these topics without you making it about my private life (which was not raised as a topic in this thread in any way and which you know very little about apparently), so let's do that instead of you doing literally one of the only things which can get you banned around here.
I did not state your name or the name of your business - it's not a personal attack. It's an observation regarding *your* statement that globalism is a good thing where you provided zero context on why you would think it is a good thing. To anyone who works for a living (in pretty much *every* country on earth), globalism is a cancer.
You made a claim that I run a sweatshop and import slave labor from central America - which is absurdly false and fabricated by you and shows you don't even follow what I have said publicly here about my business. In a topic which had ZERO to do with that and which was not raised by me or anyone else. Do not fucking claim that was not a personal attack. You made up something untrue directly about my personal life because you disagreed with my general politics.
I've provided lots of context about my globalism views. I've publicly had this discussion, at length, on this forum in this very section of the forum. Apparently you missed it but it's not like I've withheld my views on that or didn't put a lot of effort into discussing a lot of aspects of that topic. Which this particular thread IS NOT ABOUT and you're ranting about literally a side comment made in parenthesis.
If you want to join that discussion you can - in the thread we were talking about it. But you're derailing this conversation, and doing it in a particularly personal and pernicious way. There are people who know who I am in my private life and it is not OK for you to make up slanderous claims about my business because you're pouty I disagree with you about a very general political topic which was a side comment on this thread. Much like I know about some of your private life from CM but I don't haul it out here and make a fabricated personal attack against your profession and business because I disagree with you on some general topic (because your private life is your private life unless you make it public here in a topic).
TAKE IT DOWN A NOTCH. Are you really unsatisfied with just calling me names that you have to make shit up about my business?
Let's leave aside the globalism part (I agree with you - and I believe globalism is a net good).
Suddenly it all becomes clear, Misty is a globalist cunt. No wonder you agree with everything the estabishment is doing.
Forget everything else you claim to believe, this is the only thing that matters.
Of course he's a globalist - he runs CA's version of the Triangle Shirtwaist Co. His sweatshop full of sewing machines isn't going to staff itself. He's gotta keep bringing in Central American slave labor...
Dude, it is not OK for you to make personal attacks on my personal business (which are slanderous and false) because you disagree with my general politics. Take it back a notch please. You know we can discuss these topics without you making it about my private life (which was not raised as a topic in this thread in any way and which you know very little about apparently), so let's do that instead of you doing literally one of the only things which can get you banned around here.
I did not state your name or the name of your business - it's not a personal attack. It's an observation regarding *your* statement that globalism is a good thing where you provided zero context on why you would think it is a good thing. To anyone who works for a living (in pretty much *every* country on earth), globalism is a cancer.
You made a claim that I run a sweatshop and import slave labor from central America - which is absurdly false and fabricated by you and shows you don't even follow what I have said publicly here about my business. In a topic which had ZERO to do with that and which was not raised by me or anyone else. Do not fucking claim that was not a personal attack. You made up something untrue directly about my personal life because you disagreed with my general politics.
I've provided lots of context about my globalism views. I've publicly had this discussion, at length, on this forum in this very section of the forum. Apparently you missed it but it's not like I've withheld my views on that or didn't put a lot of effort into discussing a lot of aspects of that topic. Which this particular thread IS NOT ABOUT and you're ranting about literally a side comment made in parenthesis.
If you want to join that discussion you can - in the thread we were talking about it. But you're derailing this conversation, and doing it in a particularly personal and pernicious way. There are people who know who I am in my private life and it is not OK for you to make up slanderous claims about my business because you're pouty I disagree with you about a very general political topic which was a side comment on this thread. Much like I know about some of your private life from CM but I don't haul it out here and make a fabricated personal attack against your profession and business because I disagree with you on some general topic (because your private life is your private life unless you make it public here in a topic).
TAKE IT DOWN A NOTCH. Are you really unsatisfied with just calling me names that you have to make shit up about my business?
So you're claiming that you ONLY hire American Citizens?
I have never been dogmatic with my politics, and tend to be eclectic and a bit technocratic. This has made me enemies on both sides of the spectrum
Here is one angle I take when trying to reach an agreement or consensus among people of different political and ideological persuasions:
1. Can we agree that there are things we could call "public good" --those things that are necessary for the functioning of society, and which cannot be provided by the private sector alone. Those things that must be supported by the public (aka taxes, etc.)? National defense is a good example.
I mildly agree. I don't agree that they must be provided by the state, but they can be. And the state may be the best way to accomplish this, but it's picking amongst options that all have their drawbacks.QuoteBut I would also put healthcare into this category. Why?
a) The private sector has failed for decades to provide effective healthcare at a reasonable cost. There are many reasons for this, but there is the profit motive, lack of pricing transparency, high malpractice insurance costs, regulation, etc. We can talk all day about why the system is broken, but all the math leads to the same solution--it is hopelessly dysfunctional and cannot be fixed without a total overhaul.
All issues that exist with a public system. America's hybrid system is a good example of that.Quoteb) A healthy population with access to healthcare is a public good. Many years ago, a dude with TB got into a train I was on and proceeded to infect me and several others with the disease. I spent 9 months on antibiotics and physical therapy. That guy had no health insurance and minimal access to care--and his problem became everyone's problem.
A state run health system would not have mitigated this without other issues, like China's response to Covid, turning public health issues into an authoritarian nightmare of people welded into boxes and locked into apartments for the "greater good".
Covid is a glaring and relevant example of how the state killed people and illustrated that "the experts" are all idiots who will lie rather than actually help people.Quotec) We can have a national health insurance that covers everyone, but everyone has to pay into it. A VAT or national sales tax, and some increases in income taxes will be required. I am happy to pay it. The idea that taxing the 1% is going to give everyone healthcare is nonsense. It is hugely expensive.
Not even in theory. Even touted european public health care systems have their issues, loopholes, and people falling through the cracks. Corruption and abuse. Officials cooking the books to cover their asses. You'll be trading one set of issues for another, and very likely just pulling even in net good.QuoteStory comes out a couple days ago that the US will start demanding COVID tests for people coming here from China, and quarantining those who fail.
But the virus has been here for 3 years and like 95% of our population has been infected. How does this make any sense at all? When we have this level of stupid in our government, we have really big problems. Or claims that spending additional trillions of dollars will *lower* inflation (total nonsense), or that eliminating cash bail will *lower* crime (totally illogical) --I could go on and on.
These are the assholes who would be in charge of an expanded public health care system.
Personally, I think we should have a public option for those who cannot afford private health care, but be aware that there are perverse incentives and people who will try to expand that public option to try and crush private health care and create a government monopoly on health care. One that they control and profit from, instead of those "filthy capitalists".
Greetings!
Reconciliation between two groups that have entirely different cultures and world views is a fool's errand, and essentially impossible. The differences are not merely political, as some people seem to want to believe. It isn't just a different political flavour or approach to solving some kind o problem. It is an entirely different view o religion, o personal rights, business, social rules and expectations, sexuality, parent's rights and authority, how children are viewed, how schools are to operate with children, taxation, government bureaucracy and power, and on and on.
These many, continuous an fundamental differences are unbridgeable. There is no "compromise" between those people that believe that children are sacred, special, and should be cherished and raised properly--and the fucking degenerates that believe in fucking kids and all the scum that think it's just great to pump degenerate sexualized propaganda and corruption into children, and totally morally corrupt them.
These differences have some connections in the past--but the more genuine differences have developed from the Libtard's mass embrace of woke Marxist and Feminist ideology in recent years.
These more recent developments have thus required true Americans t re-evaluate their relationships and how they think, believe, and operate. As the Marxists have strengthened their grip and influence throughout society, creating more corruption and degeneracy, good Americans need to resist more, and their response needs to become increasingly stronger.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I am not arguing for a NHS or full-blown socialized medicine. Not even a Canadian system, but rather something that looks like the German hybrid healthcare system.
I have never been dogmatic with my politics, and tend to be eclectic and a bit technocratic. This has made me enemies on both sides of the spectrum
Here is one angle I take when trying to reach an agreement or consensus among people of different political and ideological persuasions:
1. Can we agree that there are things we could call "public good" --those things that are necessary for the functioning of society, and which cannot be provided by the private sector alone. Those things that must be supported by the public (aka taxes, etc.)? National defense is a good example.
I mildly agree. I don't agree that they must be provided by the state, but they can be. And the state may be the best way to accomplish this, but it's picking amongst options that all have their drawbacks.QuoteBut I would also put healthcare into this category. Why?
a) The private sector has failed for decades to provide effective healthcare at a reasonable cost. There are many reasons for this, but there is the profit motive, lack of pricing transparency, high malpractice insurance costs, regulation, etc. We can talk all day about why the system is broken, but all the math leads to the same solution--it is hopelessly dysfunctional and cannot be fixed without a total overhaul.
All issues that exist with a public system. America's hybrid system is a good example of that.Quoteb) A healthy population with access to healthcare is a public good. Many years ago, a dude with TB got into a train I was on and proceeded to infect me and several others with the disease. I spent 9 months on antibiotics and physical therapy. That guy had no health insurance and minimal access to care--and his problem became everyone's problem.
A state run health system would not have mitigated this without other issues, like China's response to Covid, turning public health issues into an authoritarian nightmare of people welded into boxes and locked into apartments for the "greater good".
Covid is a glaring and relevant example of how the state killed people and illustrated that "the experts" are all idiots who will lie rather than actually help people.Quotec) We can have a national health insurance that covers everyone, but everyone has to pay into it. A VAT or national sales tax, and some increases in income taxes will be required. I am happy to pay it. The idea that taxing the 1% is going to give everyone healthcare is nonsense. It is hugely expensive.
Not even in theory. Even touted european public health care systems have their issues, loopholes, and people falling through the cracks. Corruption and abuse. Officials cooking the books to cover their asses. You'll be trading one set of issues for another, and very likely just pulling even in net good.QuoteStory comes out a couple days ago that the US will start demanding COVID tests for people coming here from China, and quarantining those who fail.
But the virus has been here for 3 years and like 95% of our population has been infected. How does this make any sense at all? When we have this level of stupid in our government, we have really big problems. Or claims that spending additional trillions of dollars will *lower* inflation (total nonsense), or that eliminating cash bail will *lower* crime (totally illogical) --I could go on and on.
These are the assholes who would be in charge of an expanded public health care system.
Personally, I think we should have a public option for those who cannot afford private health care, but be aware that there are perverse incentives and people who will try to expand that public option to try and crush private health care and create a government monopoly on health care. One that they control and profit from, instead of those "filthy capitalists".
I am not arguing for a NHS or full-blown socialized medicine. Not even a Canadian system, but rather something that looks like the German hybrid healthcare system.
Dude: I have heard all the arguments you have put forward before, and they amount to saying everything is fine with the house, except for the fact the entire thing is on fire and about to collapse. Our healthcare system is absolute trash, and no, it isn't all because of the private sector, it is also because of issues within the public.
Even with our mostly private system, the government still locked people down during COVID, assumed emergency powers (the governor of Illinois still has them), issued vaccine passports in places like New York, while big pharma worked with government officials and the media to push false narratives. It was the worst of both worlds.
A national health insurance should be available to anyone who needs it, but private policies can also be purchased (like in Germany). There will be a cost for the public option, but it won't be outrageous. I pay $2100 a month for my health plan with $30,000 in annual deductibles (family of 4) --that is fuc*ing immoral. A system like this cannot survive.
there are always going to be trade-offs and sacrifices, but we have to get away from this dogmatic thinking that the government shouldn't be involved with anything --the private health insurance companies have raped the public for decades. This needs to be fixed
For those who think we’re talking about entirely different cultures; I have noticed that in America, there’s a strong tendency for hyper-conservative families to breed rebellious leftists. There’s a bit of the opposite too, but I have seen somewhat less of it.
For those who think we’re talking about entirely different cultures; I have noticed that in America, there’s a strong tendency for hyper-conservative families to breed rebellious leftist kids. There’s a bit of the opposite too, but I have seen somewhat less of it.
Very possible. That wasn’t the main point though. The point is, I don’t think you can subdivide the country that easily.For those who think we’re talking about entirely different cultures; I have noticed that in America, there’s a strong tendency for hyper-conservative families to breed rebellious leftist kids. There’s a bit of the opposite too, but I have seen somewhat less of it.
And I've noticed a lot of pushback from young people over the past few years against the insanity of the left. I suppose how much depends on your perspective.
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.
Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!
So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?
For those who think we’re talking about entirely different cultures; I have noticed that in America, there’s a strong tendency for hyper-conservative families to breed rebellious leftist kids. There’s a bit of the opposite too, but I have seen somewhat less of it.
I've said that many time here before. That you missed it is funny.
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.
Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!
So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?
Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.
Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.
There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.
No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.
For those who think we’re talking about entirely different cultures; I have noticed that in America, there’s a strong tendency for hyper-conservative families to breed rebellious leftist kids. There’s a bit of the opposite too, but I have seen somewhat less of it.
This is a Hollywood trope but the statistical evidence (insofar as you should trust anything that comes out of social science) does not align with this outcome.
Conservative parents raising kids in conservative ways generally tend to raise conservative children. The outside influence of (peer group / media environment) can lead children to be rebellious but the effect is reduced the more conservative/religious the parents. For example, among the Amish, fewer young adults who are going on Rumspringa are choosing to abandon their faith & lifestyle than in the past. It's the children of Lefty/Liberal parents who are more prone to radicalism.
I've said that many time here before. That you missed it is funny.
I've never seen it, but now I know.
Contrary to those who wish to banish you to the Big Purple Arsehole, I want you to stay. You serve a valuable function, telling us what the Establishment swamp thinks.
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.
Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!
So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?
Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.
Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.
There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.
No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.
So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.
Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!
So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?
Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.
Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.
There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.
No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.
So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.
I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.
Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!
So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?
Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.
Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.
There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.
No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.
So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.
I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.
How on Earth would he know if you were Jewish or not?
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.
Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!
So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?
Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.
Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.
There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.
No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.
So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.
I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.
How on Earth would he know if you were Jewish or not?
I always tell you the truth Jeff. You just choose to disbelieve the things I say which make you uncomfortableAnd I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.
Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!
So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?
Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.
Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.
There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.
No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.
So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.
I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.
How on Earth would he know if you were Jewish or not?
My Favorite Liberal Scratching Post will get mad and throw it out there.
See, he gets mad easily and then you actually get some truth out of him.
I always tell you the truth Jeff. You just choose to disbelieve the things I say which make you uncomfortable
I'll give you a truth right now that will make you uncomfortable. Despite you disliking me, I still genuinely like you. Other than politics, we're not that dissimilar, and I appreciate your gaming knowledge and passion for gaming.
And I know you will think that's a lie to trick you. Because it makes you uncomfortable so it's just easier for you to think i'm lying. Though I'm not.
I always tell you the truth Jeff. You just choose to disbelieve the things I say which make you uncomfortable
I'll give you a truth right now that will make you uncomfortable. Despite you disliking me, I still genuinely like you. Other than politics, we're not that dissimilar, and I appreciate your gaming knowledge and passion for gaming.
And I know you will think that's a lie to trick you. Because it makes you uncomfortable so it's just easier for you to think i'm lying. Though I'm not.
No no, that can’t be the case! You must be a monster who wants America to burn, and who uses slave labor, and who probably rapes kids just for fun. In fact you must be a literal monster, sort of like the blob, sitting and typing with your slimy pseudopods. Yes I think we nailed you down there! 😄
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.
Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!
So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?
Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.
Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.
There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.
No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.
So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.
I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.
How on Earth would he know if you were Jewish or not?
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.
Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!
So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?
Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.
Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.
There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.
No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.
So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.
I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.
How on Earth would he know if you were Jewish or not?
he has a built-in jew detector
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.
Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!
So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?
Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.
Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.
There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.
No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.
So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.
I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.
How on Earth would he know if you were Jewish or not?
he has a built-in jew detector
The Hans Landa of therpgsite.net
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.
Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!
So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?
Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.
Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.
There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.
No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.
So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.
I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.
How on Earth would he know if you were Jewish or not?
he has a built-in jew detector
The Hans Landa of therpgsite.net
Who?
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.
Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!
So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?
Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.
Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.
There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.
No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.
So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.
I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.
How on Earth would he know if you were Jewish or not?
he has a built-in jew detector
The Hans Landa of therpgsite.net
Who?
Since you seem to lack 5 seconds and a search engine, here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Landa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Landa)
Note that it's a quip in relation to MeganovaStella's post.
I've mentioned I am Jewish several times here at RPGsite, and it's never been a big deal or really much commented on. For example, I mentioned it in the Bob Bledsaw II thread (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/bob-bledsaw-ii-sprints-past-the-line/). Not the only thread where it has come up.
I'm not particularly devout as I don't go to temple very often. Acouple times a year, and I observe major holidays. Reformed sect temple when I do.
There isn't any possible reconciliation or understanding between the radical. We need to find the people who are sensible, ethical, and logical (at least to some degree), and pull them away from the crazies.
Which one?
Which one?
MeganovaStella: 'he has a built-in jew detector'
My quip reply: 'The Hans Landa of therpgsite.net'
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.
Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!
So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?
Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.
Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.
There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.
No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.
So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.
I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.
How on Earth would he know if you were Jewish or not?
My Favorite Liberal Scratching Post will get mad and throw it out there.
See, he gets mad easily and then you actually get some truth out of him.
I've mentioned I am Jewish several times here at RPGsite, and it's never been a big deal or really much commented on. For example, I mentioned it in the Bob Bledsaw II thread (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/bob-bledsaw-ii-sprints-past-the-line/). Not the only thread where it has come up.
I'm not particularly devout as I don't go to temple very often. Acouple times a year, and I observe major holidays. Reformed sect temple when I do.
Never registered with me.
I do remember when you ran over to CIRCVS MAXIMVS trying to mock Pundit in order to create some cross-forum drama and they laughed you out of there.
I am curious. What does the German hybrid system look like? I know nothing about it and had not heard that brought up before. I'm cool just Googling in but if you know something about it I'd be happy to hear a summary.
I think our healthcare system is a mess, and was made worse by Obamacare (though it was never good). The whole "you can keep your health insurance" was a lie - I could not. I was told I had to buy new health insurance, which covered less and cost more. And I was pissed about it. And my left-wing friends had no sympathy, and just kept repeating that more people had health insurance now and that was a small price to pay. As all of them enjoyed health insurance paid for by their employer (sometimes the Government or a University) and they paid no price
I am curious. What does the German hybrid system look like?