Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

275 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      89
    • No
      112
    • Maybe
      74
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      49
    • No
      111
    • Indifferent
      44


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

I don't know about fascist, but his actions lead to the deaths of American soldiers and foreign citizens for no real good reason. Dick Cheney may have been whispering in his ear but it isn't hard to conclude that it was straight up evil.

No one action Trump has done so far has really come close to the colossal fuckery that was that period of neoconservativism in my opinion.

We're still feeling the aftereffects, too (hello TSA).

22 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

The GOP and Trump will call whoever is up against him in the next election a socialist or communist so it's just going to be terrible on all fronts most likely.

That's why I don't want to slap labels on Trump as a president.  His side will resort to name-calling, because it's intellectually lazy, catchy for people who don't take the time to analyze the effect of labels on discourse, and a good way to shut down discussion.  I feel that the Democratic party will lose if they resort to his tactics, because it'll be a case of "old boss, just like the new boss" for those who get their political news through sound bytes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, eclipse said:

I seriously doubt this.  Demented people are going to find excuses to hurt/kill others, whether it be in the name of religion, race, politics, or something else.  IMO if you want to combat this, support better mental health care/research.  I doubt a good health care system will catch every single unbalanced individual, but it's better than what we have now.

Mental health care is extremely lacking and we need to improve how we administer and talk about it, but this kind of argument seriously downplays what motivates these people to commit violence towards their specific targets. The "oh well they're crazy, so it's inevitable they'll hurt somebody" argument is a tired and broken one, and shows a lack of understanding about mental health issues.

Combating the spread of racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, etc bullshit with actions like deplatforming can reduce the severity and frequency of these tragedies as fewer people would be influenced by hateful and factually wrong ideas. For example, the Nazis in Charlottesville chanting "you will not replace us" is in reference to the white nationalist conspiracy theory of "the great replacement" (aka "white genocide"). The NZ shooter also referenced it in his manifesto. It's utter bullshit, but people believe it and act violently because of it. Deplatforming the people who promote it and similar ideas while educating the audience can reduce the number of people who subscribe to those ideas and act on it.

18 hours ago, eclipse said:

Going on a site that already leans left and calling Trump a fascist?  That's about as helpful as passing on a chain letter.  There's one too many people in the White House who gets off on labeling others for his own benefit.  Don't make the same mistake.

Not sure I'd say this site leans left, but that aside, this isn't some hot take based on nothing. Calling him a fascist and explaining the potential dangers that it means is a way to generate awareness, understanding, and discussion about Trump, his administration, his appointees, and his supporters (some of whom are open about their fascism). Frankly I'm disappointed that your only critiques boil down to "labels are bad" and "it's not a problem because it's not affecting me personally yet".

6 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Just hope John Bolton, who was too extreme even for the Bush administration, doesn't have significant influence for Trump.

Incidentally...

Not that I think there's an imminent war with Iran coming, but Bolton definitely wants one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Johann said:

Mental health care is extremely lacking and we need to improve how we administer and talk about it, but this kind of argument seriously downplays what motivates these people to commit violence towards their specific targets. The "oh well they're crazy, so it's inevitable they'll hurt somebody" argument is a tired and broken one, and shows a lack of understanding about mental health issues.

I'd argue the opposite.  Let's take this recent series of posts as an example.

So far, the discussion has been differing opinions.  No personal insults have been thrown, your warn bar hasn't moved, my inbox isn't full of trash, etc.  At least on my end, I know you're someone, not just a bunch of words on a screen.  Therefore, personally insulting you because your opinion is different than mine is not okay - you're a person, and deserve to be treated with some basic respect.  Likewise, I'm not going to send death threats to you, attempt to find you IRL and harass you, etc.

Now imagine how you'd have to see things in order to do what I mentioned.  And then take it a step further - justifying unprovoked physical harm to someone who's different than you, whether it be race, religion, gender, or something else.  But I'll continue this in a bit.

31 minutes ago, Johann said:

Combating the spread of racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, etc bullshit with actions like deplatforming can reduce the severity and frequency of these tragedies as fewer people would be influenced by hateful and factually wrong ideas. For example, the Nazis in Charlottesville chanting "you will not replace us" is in reference to the white nationalist conspiracy theory of "the great replacement" (aka "white genocide"). The NZ shooter also referenced it in his manifesto. It's utter bullshit, but people believe it and act violently because of it. Deplatforming the people who promote it and similar ideas while educating the audience can reduce the number of people who subscribe to those ideas and act on it.

If your only goal is to combat racism, sure.  But I also want to see an end to violence because of religion, sexual orientation, etc.  The root, IMO, is dehumanization (one way of achieving this is. . .labels).  I have no issues killing the ants that wander around the kitchen, but I wouldn't harm random people on the street.  Some can be rehabilitated through proper education.  But I think there's a fragment of the general population that lacks the empathy for that education to stick.  That's where the mental health thing comes in.

39 minutes ago, Johann said:

Not sure I'd say this site leans left, but that aside, this isn't some hot take based on nothing. Calling him a fascist and explaining the potential dangers that it means is a way to generate awareness, understanding, and discussion about Trump, his administration, his appointees, and his supporters (some of whom are open about their fascism). Frankly I'm disappointed that your only critiques boil down to "labels are bad" and "it's not a problem because it's not affecting me personally yet".

In terms of US politics?  This thread is very much to the left.

I mean, if you can't understand my logic, that's fine.  This might be a life experience thing, since I saw the same sentiments through GWB's presidency - names were called, predictions of doom and gloom, and yet America survived.  IMO the fascist label would be like a ROM-sharing warning here - only hacked out when absolutely necessary, and very weighty when it hits.  I think the narcissism thing should be emphasized, since this points to a mental illness. . .and anyone who'd vote for someone who's mentally ill for a position like president needs their priorities straightened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, eclipse said:

If your only goal is to combat racism, sure.  But I also want to see an end to violence because of religion, sexual orientation, etc.  The root, IMO, is dehumanization (one way of achieving this is. . .labels).  I have no issues killing the ants that wander around the kitchen, but I wouldn't harm random people on the street.  Some can be rehabilitated through proper education.  But I think there's a fragment of the general population that lacks the empathy for that education to stick.  That's where the mental health thing comes in.

Whoa....so being apathetic is being mentally ill? Or at least some type of equivalent?  Lacking empathy or compassion for those who are different can't be as easy as saying they are sick mentally. There are people all over this world that have cultures and values embedded in them that some in our society would think are barbaric or inhumane. Such as in parts of Africa where they practice female circumcisions (cutting off the clitoris). It serves no good either from a medical point of view, biological, or quality of life yet it is done in the name of culture. How about in other cultures where is it normal for 40+ year old men to get 14 year old girls pregnant. 

Educate them? Rehabilitate them? Have them learn the error of their ways and join us since we take a supposed higher moral ground and are advance? That sounds like social engineering and the destruction of other cultures plus their way of lives. How can we do that? Oh yeah...we got the bigger stick. Our military is stronger. But does that make us right? Does that make us good and just in our cause? Only historians can tell after everything is done and behind us. I agree with you in the sense that it is simply how life will be as far as when you said people will die inevitably, but trying stop violence is impossible. There will always be violence. No mental health care advancements will change that unless we create only one race, one culture, one religion, one pretty much everything. Being accepting of others and open minded isn't exclusive to also being aware of the fact the violence is in human nature. You can't get rid of it. We are born to be violent. Some of us more than others. The people who kill in the name of hate and prejudice are only bad because we label them that after they've been defeated by stronger forces such as our law enforcement. From the perspective of man who has a child as his wife, are we good or bad when we come to his country and put an end to him for his way of life or incarcerate him? I don't condone these acts by the "Nazis" who attack minorities, but writing it off as mentally ill isn't productive. I'll continue after I quote Johann.

1 hour ago, Johann said:

Mental health care is extremely lacking and we need to improve how we administer and talk about it, but this kind of argument seriously downplays what motivates these people to commit violence towards their specific targets. The "oh well they're crazy, so it's inevitable they'll hurt somebody" argument is a tired and broken one, and shows a lack of understanding about mental health issues.

Combating the spread of racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, etc bullshit with actions like deplatforming can reduce the severity and frequency of these tragedies as fewer people would be influenced by hateful and factually wrong ideas.

Not sure I'd say this site leans left, but that aside, this isn't some hot take based on nothing. Calling him a fascist and explaining the potential dangers that it means is a way to generate awareness, understanding, and discussion about Trump, his administration, his appointees, and his supporters (some of whom are open about their fascism).

My answer or solution to the idea of how to handle these groups of people as well as creating something that would pacify most groups for a long period of time (so not indefinitely) would be segregation. Separating them from the general population and letting them have their own community so they can embrace their own cultures and values and feel free/safe from immigrating people is best idea I got. Anyone is welcome to pick it apart and challenge it but I don't know what else we are going to do.

My idea stems from the fact that, at the end of the day everyone wants to live and be happy. People can't be happy if they are fearful of the unknown or others they don't understand. They respond with violence and the slogan "maga". So why don't create new countries or territories where people can live their own way? Create a force that can keep peace between all the fractions but that also would be impartial. Then we simply let Darwinism takes it course. Groups that can't survive on their own will either die out or need to cooperate with other groups in order to live. Isn't that why people come to America anyways? Because we've clearly built something really good that other small weak groups realize if they want to be happy or safe it is better to be on our side? Inevitably these racists will realize that without working together with others, they aren't as superior as they think they are. They feel like they own this land or that everything belongs to them. So why not just leave them? They'll realize without us they aren't shit. What makes America the greatest and the best was the fact that it was a land of the different groups of people coming together, our philosophy of laws ruling man, capitalism in economics, and I'd name some other stuff but you get the picture. One race doesn't make America. I get it'd cost a huge amount of resources, money, and we'd need alot of land to start over, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even be 20 years before the Nazis beg us to come back. Either that or they'll try to come start a war and seize what we've built but their numbers would be lacking. There are plenty of minorities with education in engineering, medicine, and other fields that we'd be able to make another country, regardless of it's name, powerful and great. I'd keep going but it's taking a vague look at an overall big picture. How do others think about this idea? Again this is my solution to the fact that Johann thinks we should take away their platform or somehow get rid of these groups by making them not hate as well as to eclipse comments on violence and how to at least reduce it plus the fact that we are currently flirting with Fascism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eclipse said:

I'd argue the opposite.  Let's take this recent series of posts as an example.

So far, the discussion has been differing opinions.  No personal insults have been thrown, your warn bar hasn't moved, my inbox isn't full of trash, etc.  At least on my end, I know you're someone, not just a bunch of words on a screen.  Therefore, personally insulting you because your opinion is different than mine is not okay - you're a person, and deserve to be treated with some basic respect.  Likewise, I'm not going to send death threats to you, attempt to find you IRL and harass you, etc.

Now imagine how you'd have to see things in order to do what I mentioned.  And then take it a step further - justifying unprovoked physical harm to someone who's different than you, whether it be race, religion, gender, or something else.  But I'll continue this in a bit.

I think you're getting a bit sidetracked here, so lemme reiterate what I mean when I say the "it's all mental health" argument is a poor one.

First, from the point of view of the people who follow the hateful ideas I've referenced, they have rationalized their actions as a means for survival and preservation, even if the threat is demonstrably fictitious. The kind of rhetoric found in "the great replacement/white genocide" and similar hate-based conspiracy theories presents the idea of an existential threat to white people and "white culture". As a means of preventing what they assume would happen if nothing else is done, they take action, in a sort of "strike first" approach.

This isn't limited to uneducated youths, however-- Carl Schmitt, a highly influential German political philosopher, argued that all politics ultimately boils down to how power is distributed by identity (by any attribute). He came up with the Friend/Enemy distinction, in which a political enemy is not, say, someone who disagrees with you, but someone with whom violence (from either side) is considered a realistic possibility for any reason. Doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense or is based on a lie, only whether or not a person believes it. Schmitt believed that if a unified political enemy group with a strong political identity emerges in a nation with no strong political identity, they could take over. This led him to believe that such enemy groups need to be stopped by any means before it's too late (by striking first). The irony is that Schmitt went on to believe that this political group rising in Germany was-- get this-- the Jews, so he became a Nazi. Here was a rational, educated, grown man falling for the very thing he worried about.

The issue is that these people are mislead into this kind of thinking, primarily through fear. Mental health issues can certainly exacerbate that, but it's not a necessary ingredient. After all, there are plenty of people all over the world with mental health issues who are not committing the same acts of violence or promoting hatred. But when you attribute the violence to mental health issues, you're perpetuating the common misconceptions about mental health that we're trying to overcome, and downplaying the actual source of the violent intent.

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

If your only goal is to combat racism, sure.  But I also want to see an end to violence because of religion, sexual orientation, etc.  The root, IMO, is dehumanization (one way of achieving this is. . .labels).  I have no issues killing the ants that wander around the kitchen, but I wouldn't harm random people on the street.  Some can be rehabilitated through proper education.  But I think there's a fragment of the general population that lacks the empathy for that education to stick.  That's where the mental health thing comes in.

You might wanna reread the section you quoted. The same tactics like deplatforming are effective against any hate group or message, and few hate groups are singular with their targeting.

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

In terms of US politics?  This thread is very much to the left.

I mean, if you can't understand my logic, that's fine.  This might be a life experience thing, since I saw the same sentiments through GWB's presidency - names were called, predictions of doom and gloom, and yet America survived.  IMO the fascist label would be like a ROM-sharing warning here - only hacked out when absolutely necessary, and very weighty when it hits.  I think the narcissism thing should be emphasized, since this points to a mental illness. . .and anyone who'd vote for someone who's mentally ill for a position like president needs their priorities straightened.

Yeah, all those warnings of how the Bush Administration would destabilize the Middle East and inspire a new generation of anti-Americanism were really out there, huh?

As for Trump, I wouldn't downplay his mental health issues either but that doesn't explain the Islamophobia, xenophobia, transphobia, etc.

1 hour ago, Tediz64 said:

My answer or solution to the idea of how to handle these groups of people as well as creating something that would pacify most groups for a long period of time (so not indefinitely) would be segregation. Separating them from the general population and letting them have their own community so they can embrace their own cultures and values and feel free/safe from immigrating people is best idea I got. Anyone is welcome to pick it apart and challenge it but I don't know what else we are going to do.

My idea stems from the fact that, at the end of the day everyone wants to live and be happy. People can't be happy if they are fearful of the unknown or others they don't understand. They respond with violence and the slogan "maga". So why don't create new countries or territories where people can live their own way? Create a force that can keep peace between all the fractions but that also would be impartial. Then we simply let Darwinism takes it course. Groups that can't survive on their own will either die out or need to cooperate with other groups in order to live. Isn't that why people come to America anyways? Because we've clearly built something really good that other small weak groups realize if they want to be happy or safe it is better to be on our side? Inevitably these racists will realize that without working together with others, they aren't as superior as they think they are. They feel like they own this land or that everything belongs to them. So why not just leave them? They'll realize without us they aren't shit. What makes America the greatest and the best was the fact that it was a land of the different groups of people coming together, our philosophy of laws ruling man, capitalism in economics, and I'd name some other stuff but you get the picture. One race doesn't make America. I get it'd cost a huge amount of resources, money, and we'd need alot of land to start over, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even be 20 years before the Nazis beg us to come back. Either that or they'll try to come start a war and seize what we've built but their numbers would be lacking. There are plenty of minorities with education in engineering, medicine, and other fields that we'd be able to make another country, regardless of it's name, powerful and great. I'd keep going but it's taking a vague look at an overall big picture. How do others think about this idea? Again this is my solution to the fact that Johann thinks we should take away their platform or somehow get rid of these groups by making them not hate as well as to eclipse comments on violence and how to at least reduce it plus the fact that we are currently flirting with Fascism

Yeesh, a lot to unpack here, and some of this I'm just not even gonna touch.

No, segregation is intrinsically a horrible idea. Also, you can't appease fascists, it's been tried. Understand that I don't want to fight these people, but I will if I have to. I'd rather convert them, which is always a possibility. They can stop at anytime, renounce their ways, and try to live a normal life, and while I wouldn't trust them, the fighting would stop. The problem is that they don't feel the same way, since a black person can't stop being black, a gay person can't stop being gay, etc, and a fascist won't be satisfied until their enemy no longer exists. Genocide is the ultimate goal of fascism, whether they realize it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Johann said:

I think you're getting a bit sidetracked here, so lemme reiterate what I mean when I say the "it's all mental health" argument is a poor one.

First, from the point of view of the people who follow the hateful ideas I've referenced, they have rationalized their actions as a means for survival and preservation, even if the threat is demonstrably fictitious. The kind of rhetoric found in "the great replacement/white genocide" and similar hate-based conspiracy theories presents the idea of an existential threat to white people and "white culture". As a means of preventing what they assume would happen if nothing else is done, they take action, in a sort of "strike first" approach.

This isn't limited to uneducated youths, however-- Carl Schmitt, a highly influential German political philosopher, argued that all politics ultimately boils down to how power is distributed by identity (by any attribute). He came up with the Friend/Enemy distinction, in which a political enemy is not, say, someone who disagrees with you, but someone with whom violence (from either side) is considered a realistic possibility for any reason. Doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense or is based on a lie, only whether or not a person believes it. Schmitt believed that if a unified political enemy group with a strong political identity emerges in a nation with no strong political identity, they could take over. This led him to believe that such enemy groups need to be stopped by any means before it's too late (by striking first). The irony is that Schmitt went on to believe that this political group rising in Germany was-- get this-- the Jews, so he became a Nazi. Here was a rational, educated, grown man falling for the very thing he worried about.

The issue is that these people are mislead into this kind of thinking, primarily through fear. Mental health issues can certainly exacerbate that, but it's not a necessary ingredient. After all, there are plenty of people all over the world with mental health issues who are not committing the same acts of violence or promoting hatred. But when you attribute the violence to mental health issues, you're perpetuating the common misconceptions about mental health that we're trying to overcome, and downplaying the actual source of the violent intent.

There's something that pushes people from believing stupid things to acting on it.  I suspect there's a lot of quiet racists out there - misguided, but unlikely to commit any sort of crimes.  Combating the belief is half of it, but so is making sure those that are far gone enough, mentally speaking, are pulled back from that chasm.

For a better example, the abortion debate has people on the pro-life side.  But not all pro-lifers are going to bomb an abortion clinic.

4 minutes ago, Johann said:

Yeah, all those warnings of how the Bush Administration would destabilize the Middle East and inspire a new generation of anti-Americanism were really out there, huh?

As for Trump, I wouldn't downplay his mental health issues either but that doesn't explain the Islamophobia, xenophobia, transphobia, etc.

I don't know if you remember the general environment a few days after 9/11.  Something had hurt the US, so it was time to hurt that something back (Afghanistan).  Once the general populace calmed down, the US military had already destabilized the region.  Yes, it was stupid, and I vaguely remember my younger self thinking it was a bad idea.

Then Iraq happened.  Hoo boy.  Props to whoever threw that shoe.

As for Trump, all those -phobias you mentioned are traits that are different from him.  When you're in an extreme "with me or against me, no middle ground" mindset, that's the result.  Throw "poor people" into that mix, too - something else Trump isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, eclipse said:

There's something that pushes people from believing stupid things to acting on it.  I suspect there's a lot of quiet racists out there - misguided, but unlikely to commit any sort of crimes.  Combating the belief is half of it, but so is making sure those that are far gone enough, mentally speaking, are pulled back from that chasm.

For a better example, the abortion debate has people on the pro-life side.  But not all pro-lifers are going to bomb an abortion clinic.

What I'm saying is that many of them don't have mental health issues and are still violent. They genuinely believe that their cause is worth killing for.

20 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I don't know if you remember the general environment a few days after 9/11.  Something had hurt the US, so it was time to hurt that something back (Afghanistan).  Once the general populace calmed down, the US military had already destabilized the region.  Yes, it was stupid, and I vaguely remember my younger self thinking it was a bad idea.

Then Iraq happened.  Hoo boy.  Props to whoever threw that shoe.

Yeah, I remember quite well. There certainly were a lot of people expecting far greater escalation, whether from the US, or from allies of Iraq. The 9/11-inspired fear of "the Muslims!" is still with the US and Trump carries it as well. The travel ban is still active, remember.

20 minutes ago, eclipse said:

As for Trump, all those -phobias you mentioned are traits that are different from him.  When you're in an extreme "with me or against me, no middle ground" mindset, that's the result.  Throw "poor people" into that mix, too - something else Trump isn't.

It's more than that, though. Why put migrants in camps and try to build a wall? Why ban Muslim people from entering the country? Why try to erase transgender people from the law and kick them out of the military? It's not that these people are simply different, but that they are "the enemy"-- threatening the economy, public safety, etc, and if left unchecked, will ruin us, so we must stop them by whatever means necessary. That is the mentality of a fascist. His being a narcissist affects demeanor, not his beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Johann said:

What I'm saying is that many of them don't have mental health issues and are still violent. They genuinely believe that their cause is worth killing for.

I think we're going to have to disagree here.

4 minutes ago, Johann said:

It's more than that, though. Why put migrants in camps and try to build a wall? Why ban Muslim people from entering the country? Why try to erase transgender people from the law and kick them out of the military? It's not that these people are simply different, but that they are "the enemy"-- threatening the economy, public safety, etc, and if left unchecked, will ruin us, so we must stop them by whatever means necessary. That is the mentality of a fascist. His being a narcissist affects demeanor, not his beliefs.

I think his narcissism affects his policy.  All of the things you outlined exist to eliminate multiple "others" - people unlike Trump and his fanbase.  The government shutdown was because people didn't agree with him, and everything came to a deadlock - yet another "other", except this one wasn't summarily eliminated (which is what I'd expect out of a fascist leader).

IMO this extends to the Republican party, which has slowly been going in that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I think we're going to have to disagree here.

Alrighty

Out of curiosity, have you seen the VICE video on Charlottesville? There's also this video by Shaun which looks at a lot of the video footage from the Nazis there and looks at a lot of the causes and impacts of the event. If you find yourself with some time to watch them, I'd recommend doing so, as both showcase what these people are like.

6 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I think his narcissism affects his policy.  All of the things you outlined exist to eliminate multiple "others" - people unlike Trump and his fanbase.  The government shutdown was because people didn't agree with him, and everything came to a deadlock - yet another "other", except this one wasn't summarily eliminated (which is what I'd expect out of a fascist leader).

IMO this extends to the Republican party, which has slowly been going in that direction.

Trying to eliminate "others" is the defining feature of fascism. Whether or not he's successful at it doesn't make him any less of a fascist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, Johann said:

Whether or not he's successful at it doesn't make him any less of a fascist.

 
Yeah I've said this every which way and I think we're just at a point of "agree to disagree" with our friendly neighborhood moderator if that still isn't hitting home. 

Capability =/= Intent 

Trump's intent is to implement a hypernationalist agenda that disregards the basic human rights of populations whom he has deemed responsible for America's problems and who he has risen to power by promising to detain/deport/imprison. Moreover: his intent is to do so in a manner which circumvents Congress and The Courts and the legal constraints of his office, and which portrays anyone who opposes his efforts as an enemy of the people.

Split hairs. Shoot the messenger. Dismiss it as "labeing."  By any other name: that's fascism.      

I of course agree with @eclipse  that his narcissism effects his policy. But I don't think its right to look at this as an either/or. (i.e. one must be true and the other must be false)

(1)  Trump is a malignant narcissist and his actions are the product of mental defect; he first-and-foremost seeks to gratify his own ego, maintain his own delusions of grandeur, and tear down anyone and anything that bruises his fragile ego.

(2)  Trump as a political figure is a hypernationalist authoritarian who seeks to exercise power beyond the normal legal constraints of his office, and do so for the purpose of persecuting a targeted group of people whom he has built his political brand on labeling responsible for all of the country's problems. (i.e. a fascist) 

The statements do not negate eachother. (2) is not false because (1) is true.
_____________

I might have posted this video a while back in this thread:  this is an actual 1940s film made by the United States government, warning the American people how to spot a fascist politician and avoid being seduced by their politics.

Posting it again because evidently this bares repeating
 


^^^
This.  This right here.

This is not "diluting the term."

This is literally what the government told you to lookout for back when we were at war with Fascism. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

^^^

This.  This right here.

Right on with all of that. And yeah that video can never be posted too many times, brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only difference I see in that racist's speech and Tucker Carlson is the latter being more subtle about it. Amazing that the network that lets him flirt with White Nationalists is the highest rated MSM network and you have resources like this around.

What's also interesting to note is the point about how the guy become concerned after he was included in the ramblings, that bar has sunk so low that you have cases where Latino supporters of Trump make the excuse "I thought he'd only deport the bad Mexicans!" when loved ones are affected or end up getting screwed themselves like this dude.

"Why are we just apprehending them and not lining them up and shooting them? We have to go back to Hitler days and put them in a gas chamber"

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Johann said:

Incidentally...

Not that I think there's an imminent war with Iran coming, but Bolton definitely wants one.

If Bolton had his way, the US would be at war with Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, and escalating in Syria among probably more. I'm not sure I've heard of any military action by the US he doesn't approve of.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troika_of_tyranny

He's definitely the most evil person in Trump's administration and actually is a true believer in American supremacy to back it up.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

I met John Bolton IRL once. He was—not a pleasant man.

How did you meet him and what was the experience like

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 3:58 PM, Pixelman said:

How did you meet him and what was the experience like

At CPAC, on the convention floor, back when I was in College Republicans. He was off sitting alone at an empty table in a corner while everyone else was mingling; got visibly annoyed if you walked over and tried to start a casual conversation with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so in a funny and sad story depending on your perspective, the build the wall fund has gone quiet on actually delivering what they promised

https://splinternews.com/donors-to-the-we-build-the-wall-gofundme-page-want-to-1834704853

https://www.thedailybeast.com/shocker-the-gofundme-campaign-to-build-the-wall-is-a-bust

 

supposedly, this guy even had a scam in the past involving veteran hospitals as well so why you would even trust him is baffling

Making donors more nervous is that Kolfage has a history of participating in questionable endeavors. He was a prolific operator of hoax pages on Facebook, and money he raised in the past to help veterans’ programs in hospitals never actually went to those hospitals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

14 hours ago, Tryhard said:

so in a funny and sad story depending on your perspective, the build the wall fund has gone quiet on actually delivering what they promised

https://splinternews.com/donors-to-the-we-build-the-wall-gofundme-page-want-to-1834704853

https://www.thedailybeast.com/shocker-the-gofundme-campaign-to-build-the-wall-is-a-bust

supposedly, this guy even had a scam in the past involving veteran hospitals as well so why you would even trust him is baffling

They deserve it. Getting scammed by people willing to exploit their tribalist tendencies is what they've set themselves up for. A college girl proved it back in late 2018.

In other news, it seems the way that the Democrats are going to fuck 2020 up is by having so many of them running for President with non-existent support while completely ignoring the Senate, forgetting the fact that as long as McConnell remains Senate Majority leader, nothing will come to pass. I think we need the Senate in 2020 more than the presidency.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Democrats want to take back the Senate then what are the most vulnerable Republican seats? Susan Collins? Who else?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure which ones would be considered competitive other than Susan Collins but what is certain is that there's more Republicans up for vote this time around than there were in 2018. For 2020, you have 12 Democrats and 22 Republicans up for Re-election. Some folks are saying that Beto could be Cornyn for that Senate seat but who knows. There's also the matter of some recent rulings against some Gerrymandered districts in favor of Republicans calling for that shit to be fixed before the 2020 votes.

Someone call Samus Aran.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Better link.  As in, I didn't have to wade through a mountain of crap to get to the point. . .which I will watch when I'm not busy.  Whenever that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read Bill de Blasio is running for president and lots of people seem to be against it, and not only conservatives. Can any (preferably liberal) New Yorker or anyone who knows of the political situation of the city explain me why he's supposed to be bad (or whether he's actually not bad)?

Edited by Nobody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not American, I'm European (hope that not a problem with me posting in this thread) but what happened last week in Alabama shocked me to say the least.

How are the Americans here taking the news about the abortion law they passed/trying to pass (it still needs to go through congress?)? 

Edited by Hekselka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Hekselka said:

Not American, I'm European (hope that not a problem with me posting in this thread) but what happened last week in Alabama shocked me to say the least.

How are the Americans here taking the news about the abortion law they passed/trying to pass (it still needs to go through congress?)? 

The law passed, but it's unconstitutional for now. Whether it stays that way will be up to the US supreme court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...