Printable View
Can't stop laughing after reading this article - https://www.politico.com/news/2021/1...ica-dnc-522864.
It's about our nation's most at-risk special needs demographic (progressive college students) and how they can't find a leader for their national political organization because they keep canceling the people who get elected. Over...wait for it...racist texts and social media posts from the past! It is HILARIOUS, I know you guys will enjoy it.
Attachment 1354102!
I read the article but I have a brain so I have a different take than you.
One of the biggest problems with the Republican party is that they claim they merely want to avoid excessive offense over insensitive words yet they defend overt racism. Your party seems to make excuses for the kind of dehumanizing racism that gets people killed. If for instance Marjorie Taylor Greene were able to get her way would she kill Muslims? I'd have trouble arguing that she wouldn't. Would she kill Jews? If believing Jews were evil and should be harmed were a Republican dogma I believe she'd happily go along with it. Afterall, she thinks we control lasers from outer space.
Paul Gosar recently posted a meme that threatened the life of AOC. This isn't merely insensitive. It's a threat to civilized society.
In this article you linked, the girl in question clearly subscribed to a worldview where Jews are not to be trusted and are behind everything she doesn't like including Hillary Clinton's debate performance. She engages in a conversation with someone who says "God will kill the Jews" repeatedly and she says nothing. She was young enough that she can redeem herself but how normal is it to engage in conspiratorial antisemitism or talk about exterminating people? Shouldn't we take that seriously? Is it an excuse if she implies that kind of talk is common in North Africa? I don't think dehumanizing speech should be relativized or normalized.
I think you're going to have a lot of trouble convincing civilized people that it should be normal to threaten people (like Gosar) or call people subhuman or subscribe to a worldview where specific people are considered agents of any misfortune you suffer. Without question there is a problem holding people accountable for past words (particularly when they're teenagers). At what point have they changed? But Republicans really seem to have gotten to the point where they think present racism and threats of violence are okay.
You're missing the humor of the story, Bronco. I mean you've got this antisemitic (big surprise) Muslim girl who's being asked to resign, which then results in accusations of "rampant anti-Muslim bigotry" and sexism against HER accusers. Woke-ism is eating itself and O.Henry couldn't have written the denouement any better.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
It's interesting you should bring up racism and threats of violence, Bronco, because the Democrats are the race agitators in every situation. And they don't stop at mere threats of violence, they burn cities to the ground. Not really clear on what your point is here, Bronco, but it sounds suspiciously like the pot calling everything else in the kitchen black.
As for that Gosar video, not sure what to tell you. Haven't seen it, don't find the story particularly interesting, but I got the gist of it from the news. I don't think you've got a firm handle on exactly how badly Joe Biden is fucking up, Bronco. He won an election by the narrowest of margins behind veiled threats of Democrat thugs tearing the country to shreds, and he's treating it as a mandate to turn this nation into a welfare state. Or at least that's what his handlers are doing, I doubt Sleepy Joe even knows what state he's in from one hour to the next. I can't believe we actually have a senile old fool for a PRESIDENT now. Thanks, Big Tech.
Anyway, it's no surprise to me that people are calling for his head, and that of AOC, a literal moron with zero capacity for critical thinking, who is using her substantial platform to try to sell socialism to capitalists. "Fidel Castro with tits" probably would have been dragged through the streets by now if this were 60 years ago. Polish mercenary Rafal Ganowicz, when asked what it feels like to take a human life: "I wouldn't know, I've only ever killed communists."
I'll end this by extending to you the same invitation I extended to Stavros, Bronco. I invite you to give me one single example of actual systemic racism in this country. Just one. I'm waiting. It's a horseshit media narrative is all it is.
Attachment 1354148
It's not that I don't see any issue with anyone's actions in the article you linked but it's far better than just turning a blind eye to racism. I don't think I'd want to hold someone accountable for things they said when they're 13. At the same time I would have appreciated a better apology from her. I don't think her being Muslim caused her to say what she said anymore than MTG's whiteness caused her delusions about practically everyone and everything.
How is the bickering outlined in the article more worrisome than Republicans inciting violence against their fellow lawmakers? I also don't see a problem condemning Kathy Griffin but I will point out that she's not a lawmaker. If she were I bet you more than two Democrats would have voted to censure her. The problem with your party is that specific threats of violence against other lawmakers have been sanctioned by almost all Republicans in Congress.
If you're interested in systemic racism you should probably look at our criminal justice system. The death penalty is more likely to be used in cases where there was a white victim than a black victim even when you adjust for rates of victimization. The numbers are more egregious for outcomes in drug cases. If you think white people are equally likely to be prosecuted for minor drug offenses as black people you should probably be drug tested. I'd be happy to provide you more info on this in the next few days. But this is where I'd start. I also think our healthcare system probably would provide a good example as well of unequal treatment producing significantly different health outcomes.
I don't know who this Polish mercenary is but I couldn't disagree more strongly. I have nothing in common with Communists and if someone told me they were a Communist I probably wouldn't trust their judgment on most things. I would not however think they should lose personhood status or don't deserve basic civil rights. I don't even think the Neo-Nazis from your party who stormed our capitol should be treated as subhuman or denied civil rights. There's no excuse for threatening AOC or anyone else ffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
So, is this wilder that a party in which criticism of Trump's big stolen election lie or the events of January 6 is now forbidden on pain of political death? Is is wilder than Republican congressional leaders grovelling to a man who abuses them and was indifferent to their safety on January 6? Is it wilder than claiming that a President can't be investigated even after he's left office, as if he was some absolute monarch? Is is wilder than all the Republican supporters who approve of the QAnon cult?
We know how this works. The more extreme the party you support becomes, the more you have to double down to try to convince yourself that the problems are really on the other side.
The word "worrisome" as applied to all this political banter doesn't sit right with me. Was anyone ever really "worried" that Kathy Griffin was going to chop off Donald Trump's head? Is anyone worried that Paul Gosar is going to turn into some kind of anime avatar and wreak havoc on his political opposition? Kathy Griffin was blacklisted. Paul Gosar was censured. End of story, no heads rolled and no Transformers transformed. It's all just hyperbole, but of course with (my estimate) 90% of the American populace being too intellectually under-served to vote on relevant issues in real time, hyperbole is what we have now.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I'm genuinely curious, Bronco, about your opinion on the Arab-Jewish thing. Most Arabs are raised from birth hating Jews. And vice versa. It's a hatred that extends back thousands of years, to before progressivism, to before the Anno Domini calendar, before the Roman Empire, before the Egyptian empire, before 99% of recorded history. It's a much more intense hatred than black vs white, these two groups want each other dead, they want each other's children dead, they want their pets, their beasts of burden, their livestock, dead, dead, dead, their homes and crops burned, their lands ravaged. It's a hatred from the very core of being that burns with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns.
Whites want blacks to get their collective shit together, and blacks want whites to...well, I don't know, I came to an impasse there. But we manage to get along, overall, within the same society. Arabs and Jews can't even live across a river from each other without bombing the other side.
So how is this, uh, little problem going to fit into the progressive agenda? So far it's fitting in just fine, they simply don't talk about it. But suddenly you've got young Arabs and Jews in the same political organizations. These are not seasoned adults here, they haven't learned yet how to keep their hatreds hidden. Their agenda is ostensibly battling "racism," but meanwhile they are the absolute most adamant and unforgiving racists in the history of the planet. You think they're going to start getting along? You think they're going to bury the proverbial hatchet? Yeah, a lot of people have thought that for a long, long time.
Far as the criminal justice system, that's a legitimate debate. Are more blacks being punished by the system because they're black? Or are more blacks being punished by the system because they commit more crimes? Statistics say it's the latter. I tend to agree with you that blacks are more likely than whites to be executed by the death penalty. Most juries are mostly white. Why? Well, first of all, more people in the USA are white than black, by far. And secondly, in order to be called for jury duty, you have to be a taxpayer and a registered voter. In a mostly black city like Baltimore or Memphis you're going to get a mostly black jury. In a mostly white city you're going to get a mostly white jury. This is an "issue" that is easily questioned, but also easily explained.
And you know something, Bronco? I have personally been arrested for drugs several times in my youth. A few times for marijuana, once for cocaine, once for LSD. Simple possession, I was never a drug dealer. And I remember the penalties being quite harsh - time in jail, large fines, and years of probation. Hell, there was a (very white) judge named Turner in Sumner County TN who once told me that if I ever appeared in his court again he was going to throw the book at me; then he proceeded to read to me, verbatim, an entire chapter of Dick Nixon's War on Drugs propaganda from the early 70's regarding the harmful effects of marijuana. Luckily, by the time I did find myself in front of him again, he'd forgotten me.
My point is I never got a break for being white, and this was in the early 80's, an era when the "N" word had just recently gone out of fashion. Special treatment for whites by the criminal justice system is a myth. They do you based on what you did, it's not more complicated than that.
That Polish mercenary is nobody, just a guy who said one quote that was so awesome his name will live forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
You know, Bronco, there is a very fundamental dissonance between capitalism and communism. They are essential opposite philosophies of government, and communism has proved to be the lesser form without question. The big problem with communism is that it's an easy sell to children. "Yes, everything SHOULD be distributed equally," thinks the inexperienced and idealistic mind of the person who has never confronted poverty or studied the USSR. That's why killing communists is so widely accepted. They're incorrigible, so killing them is in some cases the only legitimate choice to protect one's children from their damaging influence. We don't do it here in the USA because our nation is strong enough to make the case against socialism/communism to our children, as they grow up and contend with the reality of life on Planet Earth. For someone like AOC, a sheltered, upper middle-class, socialist-educated suburbanite who's never faced a real problem in her life, the day of reckoning will never come. She lives in a separate reality. But in a lesser nation they'd have simply burned her down long ago.
You know why Jan. 6 happened Flighty? Because people absolutely could not accept that their fellow countrymen were stupid enough to elect Joe Biden as President. Cognitive dissonance, it didn't seem viable. Now me, I accept the results of the election. I'm not even sure there wasn't some shady business there, but if the Democrats did rig that election, I respect that. All's fair in politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Student politics, Broncofan -loud, hysterical, temporary. Rather than respond to this drivel, suggest you focus on issues more worthy of your intellect.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Correction, Jan 6th happened because people were stupid enough to believe Trumps lies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
Bill Maher has illustrated the extreme gap between Progressive Liberals and Classical Liberals - and right now, that gap is huge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
a) Who is Bill Maher?
b) do you have a link to his distinctions -I can't get any from google
c) what is the difference between a classical liberal and a progressive liberal
and
d) maybe you Americans are more interested in labels as some kind of fetish, or a replacement tool than an actual discussion about ideas in politics, the economy and society?
Unfortunately, Americans when they disagree instantly go the label/name calling route. And this is for BOTH Liberals and Conservatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Note that discussion doesn't mean that one party is inherently correct and the other is inherently incorrect.
And a problem with discussion is that each side doesn't listen to the other and instead keeps blasting away their point as if smash the other side into succession.
a) Bill Maher is a liberal talk-show host who occasionally demonstrates that he is still a normal human being by saying something conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
b) Distinctions? Far as I know he has not been knighted but his ratings are pretty good.
c) A classical liberal wants more spending on social programs but realizes money doesn't grow out of the human anus; a progressive liberal is an angry teenager, or an adult with fetal alcohol syndrome. Sadly this is irreversible.
d) This, uh, sounds more like a statement with a question mark at the end of it than an actual question.
HUGE difference between the two. There are many reads out there that define the differences, an "internet search" will provide you with a myriad of results. That being said, here is one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/whats...ce-betw_b_9140
Many consider Carter, Kennedy, Bill Clinton to be "Classic" Liberals. To many, Obama is a hybrid between the Classic and Progressive Liberal.
The current US Administration is definitely Progressive Liberal IMHO.
Re: my previous comment about the divide between Classic and Progressive Liberals, here's on OpEd and the Liberal division....
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2021/02...hreat-liberty/
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
Many thanks Mr Fanti for these two links, I have read them both. The article by David Sirota originally from 2005 actually distinguishes between a Liberal and a Progressive, so I am not sure that a 'Progressive liberal' is in fact a category. In both cases, I see differences that don't amount to much so I don't know why the distinction is made.
A further problem arises when he considers the anti-trust law know as the 'Sherman Act' of 1890. John Sherman was a Republican, and 103 years later, this is a key interpretation of justification for that law-
"The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherma...st_Act_of_1890
This seems to me to reflect also the way that Republican and Democrat parties have flipped since the Anti-American War of the 1860s, as I am sure these days it is not Liberals of any type, but Conservatives and Libertarians who would argue the State should never interfere with market forces, that the provisions of the Sherman Act be dismissed and the Act and any laws related to it repealsed. The Democrats, most obviously under FDR re-defined what the relationship could be, between the State and the Citizen, even if FDR was poaching ideas from the 19thc Republicans, and I think we can agree that LBJ was sufficiently influenced by FDR to use the powers of and money raised by the Federal Govt to address issues of poverty and to increase the extent of welfare as a compensation for 'market failure' in the US -and this, it seems to me, is where the dividing line was drawn, as the 'New Deal Administation' and its thinking dominated US domestic policy until the election of Ronald Reagan who said, as I am sure you know, 'Government is not the soution to the problem, Governmet IS the problem'.
Indeed, in the more interesting article in Cato Unbound Kevin Vallier makes a strong case for the 'social trust' which he says is the essential ingredient that enables the US to hold together as a Union of 50 States, though he is reluctant to call it 'mass loyalty' -to the Constitution and its aims, let alone describe it as a Collective Understanding of what Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness means in practical terms
For this reason, he is naive when he says-
"Preserving religious liberty and expanding school choice are other ways of ensuring that our cultural choices are not imposed on those who disagree, but we must also respect the values of people who have diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. Conservative religious communities and progressive LGBTQ communities are here to stay. Let us make peace between them by preventing them from excluding the other from social life."
-because it is the so-called 'Christian Evangelists' in the US and their multi-million dollar backers who, since the emergence of the 'Moral Majority' in the late 1960s and early 1970s, have used political power to impose their views on US citizens and campaign to remove Constitutional rights from the LGBTQ citizens they regard as immoral and a threat to 'their' United States. At the same time as recognizing the damage done by the collapse of bi-partisan or Consensus politics, Vallier fails to admit that it is so-called Conservatives who have marched through the institutions to demolish Constitutional rights. His claim that the left is intent on capturing the education system is exposed as nonsense -if the left has been so influential in educating Americans, why has the two-party system endured? As for Race, it is noted by its absence, even though it has shaped the United States from Jamestown to today, and is the heartache that appears to have no soothing balm.
So I think Vallier has some valid arguments, but is too coy about calling out the people who have done so much to undermine the legtimacy of the US Constitution, the electoral process with the emergence of an aggressive 'State Power' replacing the legality of 'State's Rights'. They call themselves Conservatives, not Liberals.
But in US history, Consevatives supported the Monarch against the Revolutionaries, they sought to Conserve British America and the rule of King George. And where once, eg William F. Buckley, might have defined American Conservatism as the intellectual framework for a low-tax, minimal Govt country, the allure of absolute power by a man who has never read the Constitution let alone understood it, who has no idea what the 1776 Revolution was about, has been promoted by men and women who do know, but reject it and seek a new arrangement of power in which there is no civil society forming the basis of 'Social Trust' and the cycle of elections to the Presidency and Congress is replaced by what by any other name is a Monarchy with absolute powers.
Liberals, Libertarians, Conservatives -call them what you wish, but it looks to me as if the US is marching backwards, and too many of your fellow citizens like the view.
Actually, if you Americans knew any history you would know that this is the definition of classical liberal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market, civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on limited government, economic freedom, political freedom, and cultural liberalism."
In typical American fashion, you have totally screwed up the meaning of the word liberal. This is what it means elsewhere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy."
A lot of political words get transmogrified by the political media over time. Even the meaning of the word "Freedom" changes frequently. What's happening in American politics now is all just bluster and smoke aside from the one central dividing issue that hasn't changed much at all since the FDR administration - how much money do we put toward social (and now environmental) programs in this country? Now I'm not saying that's the most important issue in the country, but it is the thematic basis of Republican vs Democrat since the New Deal - the Republicans are going to cut programs, the Democrats are going to expand them, and as long as neither side goes too far, a delightful balance has been maintained.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
But suddenly people are going too far. Obama went too far. Trump went too far. Biden is taking it to an unprecedented extreme and suddenly people are paying attention again. Pretty sure we're going to get a classical Republican president in 2024 - maybe Ron DeSantis. I know Trump has to be getting pressure not to run, at this point it's starting to look like any Republican can beat Biden. Time for a return to sanity.
And I'll also add that I think it's a genuine shame that Biden's puppet-masters have already blown their whole load on this padded infrastructure bill. He's not going to get his super-spender package through the Senate, no way, there may even be party defections over it, more than just Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema are going to step up to the plate and block this ridiculous spending spree now that Biden's approval ratings are in the dirt. And that's great, I consider the entire matter settled.
But what about all of Biden's other promises? Clemency for non-violent drug offenders? Decriminalize marijuana? Transgender rights? Eliminate the federal death penalty? End for-profit detention centers? Make Social Security solvent? Restrict SuperPACs? Change the pharmaceutical industry tax code to encourage domestic production? I mean it goes on and on, but the problem is, none of this shit was a priority for Biden, all he ever really wanted to do was pass as many trillions of dollars worth of Democrat-controlled spending as he could during his brief 2-year window of opportunity. Looks like he's gonna have to settle for $1.2 trillion, but ultimately he was simply the wrong man at the wrong time for the Democrats, and all of the positive cultural changes that might have come from a moderate liberal administration are going to have to wait until at least 2028. Probably much longer, Biden's effect on the public's perception of the Democratic Party is probably going to prove just as profound as George W. Bush's was for the Republicans. People are going to start distancing themselves from him now, and it's not going to get any prettier from here on out. Any more than he's going to get less senile.
Exactly this, and thanks. The problem, I think, is that the Political Culture of the US has evolved to a stage where language has been adapted to soothe public anxiety -because of the Cold War, for example Socialism became something associated with the USSR, as if (as in the UK) there was no American Socialism pre-dating the Bolshevik Revolution, which of course there was as many immigrants arrived in the US from Europe with their politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Bannon Deux Chemises promotes Fascism often without naming it as such -I am sure it was he who gave Trump Mussolini's slogan 'Drain the Swamp' though as Trump used to keep a volume of Hitler's speeches in a bedside cabinet, he may also have a fascination for the Italian -but never claim that the European war of 1939-41 was an anti-Fascist war, or the voters might scratch their heads and wonder why they are being asked to support it now.
The debasement of language under Trump is understandable at one level because he is so genuinely ignorant he doesn't know what a lot of words mean. To describe the Democrats as 'Far Left' or 'Radical Left' is so preposterous as to rob the terms of any meaning. Just as, when Trump uses the word 'freedom' he is referring to idolatry, of himself mostly.
It goes beyond the childish resort to nicknames Trump uses as a crutch, just as Socialism, even Social Democracy cannot be used so as not to frighten the voters, and woe betide anyone who criticises the military. It doesn't matter how many catastrophic mistakes the military makes and at staggering cost, accountability for successive failures does not exist -whereas there was root and branch reform after the Vietnam war- and one is left with the bravery of the service men and women in spite of the hopelessness of their cause as defined by politicians and the generals -and note the the most consistent critic of the military has been Donald Trump, not out of any strategic brilliance on his part, but only in reference to himself, on the basis he would never have made the mistakes, he knows more about the military than the military and so on, and of course, his obsessive need to insult and abuse Veterans and their families if they do not idolize him, as if he were a God. Has there ever been a President who so consistently and so regularly and publicy insulted and abused Veterans, Gold Star families, even the top brass?
So to God, and the fetish which makes it impossible to deny the existence of God and get elected to public office, not even to be sceptical, or critical of the so-called 'Churches' which in the US, have turned the Gospels according to Jesus of Nazareth into nothing more, and nothing less than a commercial opportunity- to watch those 'Evangelicals' is no different from watching teleshopping where you are assured this offer for those dinner plates will never be repeated. And to think these shameless frauds insist on imposing their bogus morals on Americans, invading their libraries and their bedrooms to wag their finger at the 'immorality' of a society which in reality does not interest them beyond its willingness to pay.
What exactly have you seen this year that makes you think that any Republican politician will have the guts to stand up to Trump, or that he could be persuaded to let it go? Two things we know about Trump are that he can't bear to be seen as a loser and he is obsessed with getting even.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
The so-called Trump Base is a myth. I mean, yeah, he's got a base - conservative voters. Conservative voters aren't like liberal voters. I told you I voted for Obama twice but that's because the only other choices were a half-senile war hawk with an insane maniac for a running mate, or a religious fanatic. Other than that I've always voted straight Republican and that's how most conservative voters are - simply will not vote for a Democrat unless HIGHLY offended by the Republican offering and slightly impressed by the Democratic candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
I can tell you right now that the Democrats have no one to run in 2024. It can't be Kamala Harris, AKA The Cackler. She's managed to turn "off-putting" into an art form. To be frank I doubt it will be Joe Biden. He's talking now like he wants it but as time goes on in this sad little administration, we're going to start finding out more and more about his rapidly declining cognitive powers. They've already started covering it up with this recent physical, but it can't stay hidden for long, he's the President, he's going to have to do some speaking, and in spite of their best efforts he's going to wing it on occasion. Prepare for one planetary facepalm after another. There's undoubtedly someone at the highest levels of the DNC who's already figured out that Biden '24 is a non-starter.
It looks like they're grooming Pete Buttigieg to run, and I mean, yeah, no, he can't win. He's not particularly qualified and he's got an image problem - that problem being that every time someone looks at him they get a mental image of him bent over taking the high hard one. America MIGHT be ready for a gay President (probably not), but the first gay President is gonna at least have to be a top.
So anyway yeah, it's like that for the Democrats. It doesn't seem to matter WHO the Republicans run, they've got the mid-terms AND 2024 locked up. So why run a one-termer for President? Trump can't serve 2 terms if he wins, he's already served one. Not saying Trump would gladly step aside. Not saying it will be pretty to push him out as the candidate. But I'm pretty certain there are senior Republican strategists talking about this very subject quite a lot these days.
I wouldn't lump Libertarians in the same group as Conservatives nor would I lump them in the same group as Liberals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
IMHO, Libertarians support some aspects of Conservatism and some aspects of Liberalism - which is most like why BOTH groups don't like them.
You are evidently out of touch with the majority of your fellow partisans. If Trump runs the polls suggest they would support him by a 4 to 1 margin over the next most favoured candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
https://www.uspresidentialelectionne...al-nomination/
It's startling how deep in denial you are about what has been happening within the Republican Party. It is no longer primarily the party of small government and free enterprise. It is increasingly the party that wants to aggressively use the power of the state to protect what it sees a a threatened 'culture'.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...patrick-deneen
So you didn't vote for Romney because he is a Mormon. What exactly is the evidence that his religious views have influenced his policy positions, as opposed to Trump's cynical moves to ingratiate himself with the Christian fundamentalists?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
It's Trump's nomination to take or pass, never said it wasn't. They are going to have to convince him to do what's best for the Republican Party, and what's best for the Republicans is to get a moderate Republican in office with no political baggage, to serve two terms and fix all the things the Democrats are currently fucking up. It's not as if Trump doesn't have an honorable way out - he'll be 78 years old in 2024. All he has to do is retire gracefully and his legacy is secure.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
If he doesn't, it will be 4 more years of Trump and I'm good with that too.
It surprises me how vulnerable you are to political propaganda, Flighty. I mean look at yourself, you just read one article about one political extremist and suddenly the entire Republican Party wants to tear down the house. On the other hand, a lot of conservatives (and moderate liberals) are starting to understand that there is no tyranny quite as repressive as progressive tyranny. They've got us right on the edge of a real Orwellian dystopia now, "thought-crime" is no longer a fictional concept.
But if the conservatives of this country ever do take to the streets like the liberals have, we won't have any of these problems anymore. You think we're going to burn down courthouses? Loot shoe stores?
I don't have any evidence regarding Romney. But I know Mormons.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
I understand the point you are making and agree with it in terms of political theory, whereas my point in the previous post was to suggest that all three of these political persuasions have played, and are playing a role in the legitimacy crisis that is undermining the integrity of your Union of 50 States. If we must assume that the Democrats are Liberals, then their failure to arrest and prosecute Donald Trump and hs various campaign staff in 2016 -for violating the law on election campaigns; in 2020-21 for organizing and encouraging a seditious attack upon the USA, means they have failed to defend the Rights of Man as both a legal and a natural right in the contexts of the Constitution in particular and the law in general. One cannot hope to rely on so-called Libertarians as they are interested only in a Utopia which will never exist, though they repudiate most of what currently comprises the political, economic and legal realities of the US, while so-called Conservatives have become Trumpet players for a Orchestra of hate and lies that seeks less to Conserve than to destroy.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
Out of that soup of brackish fluids a tasty dish cannot be made. How the US recovers its original purpose now I don't know, so the question remains -can the US survive this crisis? Or is the fate of the US to decay into an assortment of quasi-independent States? And to think the pivot for this decay has been the resentmen of one man that The People did not vote for him! But as I said befoe, this suits those with their own agenda, and I would rather call them New Wave Fascists rather than Lberals, Libertarians or Conservatives. It is a new old movement, and though it might not succeed in capturing the US, it can certainly bring it to an end.
When he said the Economist was far left I looked up what their views are. They are pro free markets and deregulation. But they apparently don't support immigration policy aimed at trying to maintain white hegemony. As a result they're FAR left.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
And the term globalism or globalist seems to have nothing to do with economics (now) but has more to do with a debate between pluralism and narrow nationalism. You're a globalist if you don't have seizures upon hearing someone speak Spanish. Republicans don't know what they want. They didn't know they were anti-vax until educated people started telling them vaccines could save lives. Now a picture of Fauci can send them into a rabid frenzy.
Looks like mainstream economics is far left these days. He probably read that they favour a market-based solution to reduce greenhouse emissions, or some such crazy left idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Republicans know exactly what they want, Bronco - WHITE CULTURAL HEGEMONY.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Has nothing to do with racism, has everything to do with the fact that white culture is objectively superior to other cultures. Oh, that IS racism? Sorry.
You know, Democrats, globalists, communists, whatever you want to call them, all they really want is a piece of the American pie without having to work for it. They want to do whatever the fuck they want, and be supported financially by everyone else. That's their full agenda.
What most people consider to be white culture is wrong. White culture is simply living life responsibly. Anyone can participate in white culture, you don't have to be white to do it.
Hallmarks of white culture include educating our children, fostering a strong work ethic, encouraging personal financial responsibility, having a long-term plan, and abiding by an unspoken social contract to treat people decently. You want some of that? All you have to do is get your shit together, move to the suburbs, and stop being an asshole. We don't ask much, but if you move into our neighborhoods and bring the ghetto with you, you're gonna have problems. You're gonna think we're racist. But all we ever wanted you to do was display some class, it never had anything to do with your race.
And that's what racism in the USA really is - class-ism. You can't convince me that there's systemic racism in the USA when we elected a 2-term black President. What does Obama have that's so special? He embraced white culture.
White culture isn't evil or oppressive. In fact it's boring as fuck, it's the most boring culture ever - the end-game is you, at an old-folks home, watching Family Feud, eating canned peaches and nilla wafers, and fading in and out of consciousness. But we like it. We built it, and we like it, and there's nothing wrong with it, and we're tired of being called racists. Like, so tired of it that you're about to find out what white backlash really is in these next two election cycles. Yes, I speak for all white people, I just got out of a Zoom conference with the lot of them.
The Economist occupies a position somewhere between the Institute for Economic Affairs and the Financial Times, but I doubt either of these mean much to people outside the UK. The IEA [f.1955] is rooted in the ideas of Hayek, von Mises and economists of that type, while the FT is focused on daily analysis of business and markets with short medium and long term analysis -and all three have their criticisms of Government and policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
In the days when I was a reguar reader of the Economist, mostly during the Thatcher era, it had some interesting writers and a touch of sarcasm and sardonic wit, but once I started work in the private sector I realised the magazine can't be taken seriously and have not bothered with it since, I think it's best days are long gone. I read quite a lot of the IEA stuff, mostly because I had to, but to describe the Economist as 'Far Left' is plain ignorance, or a provocation for the sake of it, like condemning Marjorie Taylor Greene for being a Communist, or Joe Biden as the same if not worse.
At some point, and I think we reached it some time ago, the debasement of language disqualifies its terms, while journalism is by definition a temporary if necessary reporter for current events, but no match for sustained analysis of cause and effect.
One can see this in the annual Amercan ritual of 'Thanksgiving'- a celebration of racial violence (1610) or the proof that racial violence can be healed (1864)-? The Economist might well put it 'Thanks for not Giving, just Taking'.
It's not that upon first hearing this I would automatically assume championing "white culture" is racist. It's only upon realizing it has no meaning or logically consistent usage that I realize it is. The things you want to claim as aspects of white culture are neither exclusive to white people nor universal among them. I wouldn't even argue in most places they're more prevalent among white people. I recall a white kid in university complaining about Asian students in pre-med studying very hard and denying him his rightful place in medical school. Was this work ethic not the work ethic he had in mind? When an Asian person works hard how can we denigrate them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
You seem to think that working hard or being wealthy is intrinsically white. I'd argue it's been made easier by the lack of institutional barriers to becoming wealthy for most white people, but I also think you would only champion wealth for white people and you'd think it has a different character when wielded by a non-white. Would a Middle Eastern oil baron be seen as good? Would a Jewish financier been seen as good or somehow unseemly? Even more than all the wasps who got wealthy by taking over major industries, abusing their workers, and creating American dynasties of spoiled rich shmucks? What about a Black person who gets rich? Are you going to be okay with that or will you suddenly argue that there's something different about their wealth? Or that the way they're rubbing your face in it is now unseemly? If a Black person who is richer than you buys a nice car will he lack the same dignity as a rich white person who buys a yacht and wears stupid golf pants?
I think this racist essentialism is laid bare by the history of exclusive country clubs in this country. These clubs did not simply want rich members. If you were Desi Arnaz and Cuban you were undesirable. Desi was rich. Desi was funny and worked hard. But was there something different about his wealth or his work ethic?
Who are these wealthy black people being discriminated against? Did Snoop Dogg get kicked out of his HOA or something? Oprah being forced to use a different bathroom at Tiffany's?Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
White culture arose from capitalism, it's ALL about money. All our behaviors which, as you say, are not exclusive to white culture but are definitely part of it, came about from the requirements of living in capitalism. It's not that having money automatically makes you okay to have as a neighbor. It's that the standards via which most people achieve financial success in this country automatically dictate that if you have enough money to be my neighbor, you must adhere to most of those standards, which ideally should add up to you being a quality human being.
White people are hard on each other. Any hint of scandal or criminal behavior is frowned on. Any sign that you're not financially and emotionally self-reliant is taken as a sign you don't belong. There's plenty of hypocrisy, but it's the standard that matters, not the individual. Our favorite farewell is "Take care!" As in, "Take care of yourself because no one else is going to fucking take care of you."
And I suppose what you envision is some nouveau riche black lottery winner straight out of the housing projects, suddenly finding himself living in the middle of Whitopia. Pretty sure there have been sitcoms and movies about that, but in reality it isn't something to concern yourself over. People adjust.
Sometimes the wrong people are forced to adjust. Sometimes the adjustment being demanded represents injustice. That's at the core of the current racial unrest. That and the non-stop race baiting by the liberal media.
Far as our exclusive country clubs, Bronco, well, I mean, so? Nearly all of them are being sued into compliance with modern standards of non-discrimination based on race and gender, but I think that's ridiculous. Is there simply no acceptable circumstance under which white men are allowed to enjoy each other's company? Can't even have a round of golf together, too evil?
The giveaway is the Republican attitude these days towards non-white immigration , especially Hispanics. We are talking about people who predominantly want to come to the US to work hard and better themselves, who believe in religion and family, and come from a European heritage - all supposedly Republican values. And this is not just about illegal immigration - the Trumpists sharply cut the authorised immigration program and wanted to go even further.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Zero immigration is what I favor, Flighty. Is that a problem for you? Sorry, we're full unless you've got something to contribute besides one more vote for Democratic charity. Under what set of guidelines, moral or otherwise, is the USA obligated to accept immigrants? Yours?Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
As I've already told you, I live in a normal, civilised country so why would I want to move to your 'shithole' country?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
Then why in God's name do you give the slightest fuck what our immigration policy is?Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
People have no reason to care about anything that doesn't affect them directly? I guess that's another handy reason to dismiss any racism concerns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
I hesitate to ask, but would your rationale for zero immigration be something like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
My objection to immigration is purely cultural. I don't believe in multi-culturalism. Are my ears supposed to perk up on hearing that my new neighbor is from some 3rd-world shithole, or worse yet, Europe? "Oh, that's fantastic, now I'm going to learn new dances! We'll eat boiled aardvark testicles at cookouts and pick lice off each other's heads!" Nah, give me a guy I can talk college football with instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Well that's okay. You're not a racist, just a xenophobe. Are you one of those people who goes overseas and insists on eating exactly what you eat at home? Or maybe one of the two-thirds of Americans who don't even have a passport?