US Politics XV: Time to Mull Mueller Mania

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
"you can't just go around calling everyone you disagree with a borg"

tEfeyzH.jpg
 
Informative thread on Trumps spy satellite tweet

https://twitter.com/shaneharris/status/1167830184910839808?s=21

All i can think of is what has he shared with other nations that wasn’t in a tweet.

But. Her. Emails. Haha


He didn’t do anything illegal.

Everyone needs to put this sensational story to bed. The only story here might be that he’s an immature high school boy who wants to show off America’s dick. What’s new?
 
Also pls everyone stop saying “leftist.” It’s a dumb word manufactured by the right to make the left sound extreme.
 
He didn’t do anything illegal.

Everyone needs to put this sensational story to bed. The only story here might be that he’s an immature high school boy who wants to show off America’s dick. What’s new?



He can declassify anything he wants, doesn’t make it any less fucking dumb.
 
He can declassify anything he wants, doesn’t make it any less fucking dumb.



But it doesn’t make it illegal and it shouldn’t be worded as though the president “posted pictures of classified material.” That didn’t happen. It’s perhaps an insult to the apparatus who surrounds him to think that he’s capable of even doing such a thing.
 
I’ve been plenty fair to you, so I don’t know how I’ve suddenly come under your cryptic fire ??

No prob.

The Senator Collins 'is the worst kind of person' thing..... Silly, but no big deal. It's the internet, right?

Your 'Hitler's children' bit, and the same kinda Nazi trash offered by a few of the local heavies here, it digs a little deeper. I suppose it fits Fym nowadays.

Wish yolland was still around.
 
Yes, but what does Piers Morgan think about it all?

So entertaining. Same can be be said of what does NPR think of it? What does Rachel Maddow think of it? What does CNN think of it?

Or, you could address the actual topic.
 
They call him a leftist, so he must be important and a representative voice for anyone who is liberal.

I mean, that’s just undeniable.

Just as undeniable as AOC being fascist.

Boom.

Anyone who is in a position of leadership, and wants to force their views on others , and take rights away is a fascist.

AOC, and unfortunately many others (including people on this forum) want to restrict freedom of speech (fascism) , support violence in response to views (real or imagined) that they don’t like, force people into giving up their religious freedoms and calling it hate , is fascism. Faking hate crimes, and fake photo ops to push leftist propaganda is fascism.

AOC is just the latest leftist tool being used and drooled over by the left. The fact that you guys are more obsessed with what I say, versus deciding which millionaire hypocrite you guys will prop up (or the DNC rigs the primary for) between Biden , Warren, or Sanders , is very telling.
 
No prob.



The Senator Collins 'is the worst kind of person' thing..... Silly, but no big deal. It's the internet, right?



Your 'Hitler's children' bit, and the same kinda Nazi trash offered by a few of the local heavies here, it digs a little deeper. I suppose it fits Fym nowadays.



Wish yolland was still around.



And if you disagree, a period doesn’t help. She is the worst kind of person. So is Joe Manchin. They’re fake ass pandering politicians who pretend to be in the middle but are just uniquely putting on that coat because their constituency is split. Ironically, it’s folks like AOC and Ted Cruz who are actually reaching across the isle without giving up their beliefs. They’re not the worst kind of people.

On your second point, it’s he freaking internet. You clearly remember when I said “Hitler’s children” better than I do... almost certainly using language from Bono’s Goes to Bitburg, if I said it. Though maybe you’re actually referring to when I said something about being “right out of a playbook from the Third Reich.” Donald Trump isn’t a nazi, doesn’t want to murder people, isn’t consciously aware of his racism yada yada (genuinely I don’t think the guy is racist but I do think he legitimately hates poor people). But if you think Donald Trump doesn’t exhibit strong-man characteristics inspired by Hitler, I don’t know... you’re wrong. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...-a-book-of-hitlers-speeches-by-his-bed-2015-8

The stuff was reported on well before Trump’s rise in politics. Stuff he was doing was apparent well before he was a serious politician. Heck, before he was a republican. Reading up on Hitler doesn’t make you a nazi, and there’s nothing wrong with studying someone like that. But put two and two together, it’s literal. So, when I said “right out of a playbook from the third Reich,” yes this is the internet and no I don’t have to be so formal. If you don’t agree with what I’m saying, you can inquire and I will explain. Maybe we will get argumentative, but that’s okay, it’s not always a fight. I’m happy to mock the president for using leadership tactics that are characteristics of awful people, because guess what? He’s an awful person. No, he’s not fucking Adolf Hitler. No, he hasn’t started a war. He doesn’t have the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on his hands. But he does rely on some oppressive shit to rally his base, and it is causing domestic social issues to be resurrected that we were doing so well on in the 90s and 2000s. Ask yourself, regarding the president’s platform of illegal immigration, who is responsible for polarizing the left? Bush, who removed more people than anyone prior and worked with democrats to put up a fence? Obama, who remover even more people than Bush (most of which were criminals)? Or Donald Trump, who made it personal? Think about it.

Anyways, I’m ranting right now. If you can’t inquire what someone means or engage in a true discussion, what’s the point? Stop ranting about how people here are or whatever. Do you know how much shit I had to take from everyone in the NBA thread for years? Heck even here in the political threads for not voting for Obama in 2012, for saying the Muslim community lacked a voice of its own, yada yada yada. Defend yourself. If you’re not a bad person people will know when you explain what you mean or how you feel about a topic.
 
How? Actual leftists use the term to refer to themselves quite commonly and without issue.



Racist
Misogynist
Supremacist
Sexist
Hedonist
Fascist
Communist (somewhat)
Capitalist (somewhat)
Socialist (somewhat)

All of these terms are pejoratives used from the right or left to attack the other.

Leftist
Rightist?

Nobody says rightist. The term is “ist” is now a freaking pejorative. In the political realm, -ist words are almost exclusively used as pejoratives, except for those who try to claim or reclaim the words. And some of them aren’t reclaimable.

I’m by no means suggesting that the prefix -ist is negative, but it’s definitely so in the political realm. I never see people on the left referring to themselves as “leftist.” It’s liberal or progressive. The folks on the right are the near exclusive users of the term “leftist,” and it sounds stupid. An -ist would imply an -ism is a thing. “Leftism” might have a definition but it means a whole lot of nothing, as though the left is one entity of homogenous beliefs. And it doesn’t jive well at all with the use of the term “leftist,” which is typically used in an extreme sense.
 
Racist
Misogynist
Supremacist
Sexist
Hedonist
Fascist
Communist (somewhat)
Capitalist (somewhat)
Socialist (somewhat)

All of these terms are pejoratives used from the right or left to attack the other.

Leftist
Rightist?

Nobody says rightist. The term is “ist” is now a freaking pejorative. In the political realm, -ist words are almost exclusively used as pejoratives, except for those who try to claim or reclaim the words. And some of them aren’t reclaimable.

I’m by no means suggesting that the prefix -ist is negative, but it’s definitely so in the political realm. I never see people on the left referring to themselves as “leftist.” It’s liberal or progressive. The folks on the right are the near exclusive users of the term “leftist,” and it sounds stupid. An -ist would imply an -ism is a thing. “Leftism” might have a definition but it means a whole lot of nothing, as though the left is one entity of homogenous beliefs. And it doesn’t jive well at all with the use of the term “leftist,” which is typically used in an extreme sense.


I'll take your word for it in a US context, but anecdotally, a very large amount of people I know self describe as leftists. And because even in an Australian context 'progressive' as a descriptor is too mild for what we actually believe in. I do as well.
 
I'll take your word for it in a US context, but anecdotally, a very large amount of people I know self describe as leftists. And because even in an Australian context 'progressive' as a descriptor is too mild for what we actually believe in. I do as well.



I could certainly see a discrepancy in Australia or the UK (though admittedly I’d never heard of anyone in the UK even use the term “left” or “right” when I lived there). In the US though, I’ve noticed the users are pretty much Fox News et al., similar to how they’ve attempted to make the term “liberal” derogatory. The latter is actively contended, though the former was never used in common speak here. It might have been used to describe a revolutionary, perhaps like Che Guevara?

When I google “leftist,” YouTube videos show up for “the fatal flaw in leftist American politics,” “Joe Rogan on Leftist Social Retards & Piranhas,” “Lunatic Leftist School Occupation Part 1,” “Netanyahu calls Lieberman a leftist following decision to dissolve the Knesset,” and last but not least a Turning Point USA video entitled “This is the Face of Leftist HATE!” The one following is actually a Sky News Australia video of the Australian Boris Johnson complaining about leftists being responsible for trashing the reputation of Australian landmarks (lol maybe explain that one to me because I really didn’t get it).

In fairness, words only have meanings by utilization, so me railing on “leftism” and “leftist” being somewhat incongruent is a little weak. I get that it does actually have a meaning, I just think as few people here use it outside of the right, and given the fact that it lacks a “rightist” counterpart... my OCD is a bit triggered.
 
Ah yes, Sky News Australia is Rupert Murdoch's attempt to recreate Fox News for an Australian context. The evening programming is commonly called 'Sky After Dark' because the programs are virtually all ideologically skewed to the conservative side of the ruling Liberal Party. So don't be surprised if it makes little sense. :)

And of course, there's the matter of YouTube algorithms that seems to promote hard-right channels and videos irregardless of what you actually watch.
 
He doesn’t see it, folks.



What’s intriguing about this is, effectively, the left and the right are both hell bent on pointing the fascist finger at Donald Trump or... first term congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (side note, talk about scapegoatism).

The argument here is really that AOC is effectively Benito Mussolini, while Donald Trump is Adolf Hitler (and please people on the right don’t get upset, I am talking about as statesmen and leaders, not as genocidal leaders).

Coincidentally, Benito the fascist was incredibly popular... until he started hanging around with Adolf Hitler [emoji23] Mussolini was revered globally.

Anyways, I’m not sure how AOC is fascist, unless you’re selectively picking fascist characteristics. Let’s be literal for gzus, our almighty:

Fascism is a form of far right-wing(1), authoritarian(2) ultranationalism(3) characterized by dictatorial power(4), forcible suppression of opposition(5), and strong regimentation of society and of the economy(6)

(1) AOC is on the far right wing?
(2) AOC, a member of the legislative branch, is authoritarian with no authority?
(3) AOC is an “ultra” nationalist?
(4) AOC supports dictatorial power despite not being executive?
(5) AOC suppresses opposition?
(6) ah we found it, AOC does in fact support strong regimentation of society and the economy, to some extent.


Opposed to liberalism(7), Marxism(8), and anarchism(9), fascism is placed on the far-right(10) within the traditional left–right spectrum.

(7) AOC, a liberal, is opposed to liberalism?
(8) AOC, a democratic socialist, is opposed to Marxism?
(9) Ok AOC is opposed to anarchism.
(10) AOC is on the far right?

Ok so for those ten sampled points, AOC perhaps supports strong regimented society and an economy and opposes anarchism. So, she’s like 20% fascist. Now, Donald Trump arguably fits the bill for (1), (2), (3), (5), (7), (8), (9), and (10). So that’s, I don’t know, a solid 80% fascist.

Ok ok I admit my methods for calculation there are a bit arbitrary.

One common definition of the term, frequently cited by reliable sources as a standard definition, is that of historian Stanley G. Payne. He focuses on three concepts:

#1. the "fascist negations": anti-liberalism, anti-communism, and anti-conservatism;
#2. "fascist goals": the creation of a nationalist dictatorship to regulate economic structure and to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture, and the expansion of the nation into an empire; and
#3. "fascist style": a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth, and charismatic authoritarian leadership.


HMMM. Well now that we look at these definitions, neither Donald Trump nor AOC can possibly meet item #1, as one is anti-liberal and anti-communist, while the other is anti-conservative. Neither can possibly meet item #2, as AOC is not a nationalist dictator and Donald Trump is not a dictator demanding a regulated economic structure. Neither can really meet item #3 either. I mean... Donald Trump does fit half the criteria there and AOC strictly fits none of it, but I would hardly say Trump fits the bill for promoting youth [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Anyways, AOC has almost no relation to fascism. Donald Trump has plenty of the aesthetic and obviously meets the right wing aspect, but that’s about it.
 
Ah yes, Sky News Australia is Rupert Murdoch's attempt to recreate Fox News for an Australian context. The evening programming is commonly called 'Sky After Dark' because the programs are virtually all ideologically skewed to the conservative side of the ruling Liberal Party. So don't be surprised if it makes little sense. :)

And of course, there's the matter of YouTube algorithms that seems to promote hard-right channels and videos irregardless of what you actually watch.



It was just straight humor because it was such a reach. It assumed that foreigners had hard opinions about not
visiting Uluru or Bondi.
 
the term "leftist" is something that people on that side have been proudly labeling themselves since at least the 60s.

just because ben shapiro uses it to slander people now on youtube doesn't mean the rest of us need to drop it.
 
last time i checked her twitter, AOC was saying that every able-bodied child in america should be immediately drafted into a junior military cadets program to begin their training as soldiers for the glorious expansion of the nation.

point proven #1
 
Anyone who is in a position of leadership, and wants to force their views on others , and take rights away is a fascist.

AOC, and unfortunately many others (including people on this forum) want to restrict freedom of speech (fascism) , support violence in response to views (real or imagined) that they don’t like, force people into giving up their religious freedoms and calling it hate , is fascism. Faking hate crimes, and fake photo ops to push leftist propaganda is fascism.

AOC is just the latest leftist tool being used and drooled over by the left. The fact that you guys are more obsessed with what I say, versus deciding which millionaire hypocrite you guys will prop up (or the DNC rigs the primary for) between Biden , Warren, or Sanders , is very telling.



Do you have an example of real restrictions for speech being proposed at a government level?

Examples supporting violence?

Of restricting religious freedoms?

A photo op is not propaganda perse, and propaganda is a tool, not actual fascism. If it were then the majority of your posts would make you an actual fascist.
 
Do you have an example of real restrictions for speech being proposed at a government level?

Examples supporting violence?

Of restricting religious freedoms?

A photo op is not propaganda perse, and propaganda is a tool, not actual fascism. If it were then the majority of your posts would make you an actual fascist.



1. She actively speaks out against white nationalists and takes social stances. This is clearly opposition to freedom of speech.

2. She’s young and of color and so are the terrorist group antifa so by default she supports them who are violent.

3. I don’t know how to make humor about the religious freedoms one because there’s no actual sarcastic path to that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom