Remember Charlottesville? We went from "the left calls everyone who disagrees with them nazis." to "those guys are only nazis because the left kept calling them nazis." The right hasnever tried to hold violent racists accountable for their actions because they're only crime is saying the quiet parts loud. We're getting closer and closer to polo shirted mini fascists chanting" Jews will not replace us" just being the norm. They just don't want the cat out of the bag too early.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
because the far left is correct, and center "left" and right are shit by comparison.
I think if you were an American, you'd have a different opinion of the parties, and could easily vote for Republicans while maintaining largely your same beliefs.
If Trump and his cronies don't run the party then why is everyone in the Republican party so terrified to condemn Trump for his actions after the election? Why are they so unwilling to punish him and so eager to collectively oust anyone who opposes Trump?
And the internet doesn't even factor into this. A man like Baudet is undeniable an extremist, so is Bolsonari, so is Salvini. Even a brief glance at their public conduct and suggested policies would reveal as such. And all hold views that are really incompatible with democracy.
It's funny how what doesn't occur to them is that maybe men find bog-standard, low pay, insecure, low respect jobs unexciting, dispiriting, and even demeaning.
Here we are in a society where virtually every show on TV has aspirational middle to upper-middle class families with toned bods and the latest iPhones in luxury urban apartments or lovely suburban / rural homes sending out the message "This is what you should have", an ambition light years away from the bulk of the population: does no-one really think what it is to be force-fed a non-stop diet of media telling you just how poorly you match up? One can understand the sort of gym-mania (also much commented upon) and maybe excessive pride in personal appearance, because that is something a person can take control of to derive personal pride at relatively little expense and little institutional obstruction. Or, drop out, watch porn and play computer games: because if that seems about as worthwhile, why the fuck not? Or why not sell crack and meth: better income, and at least it's got some form of street cred.
And to be honest, I kind of get the "feminism" and "contemptuous liberal elites" stuff to some degree because it's not without contribution, but it's not the real problem that capitalist society has driven a race to the bottom at the lower socioeconomic levels. I said elsewhere recently that this was the real issue about "woke", that right-wing tools attempt to blame it rather than face up to the much deeper ways that society works, that they themselves have helped drive.
Yeah... no.
I think a party that has resisted socialised healthcare and then attempted to scrap even the half-hearted halfway house someone struggled through is a big sign screaming "Off Limits" to my political sensibilities. I don't believe in tax cuts for the rich, and endless military spending. I don't believe in subsidising oil companies up the wazoo and aggressively resisting environmental policy. I believe in active intervention by the state to improve poor communities and overcome institutional barriers to human development, not lack of action defended with waffle about "American Dream" and pulling up by the bootstraps. I'm in favour of free movement, which I might grant the Republican Party some leeway on in that their actions have largely not met their rhetoric. I'm disgusted by the prevalence of hostility to and impedence of disadvantaged groups in favour of 2000-year-old notions from their holy text of choice.
If we mean "conservative" specifically, I am not completely averse to conservatism. I do accept the principle of if ain't broke don't fix it as viable, and I do see that societal instutitions and traditions can have value, and so on. On the other hand, I don't think that's conservatism, it's pragmatism. My stance on conservatism is akin to Hayek: it's only as good as what it conserves. I don't think something merits any inherent priority because "That's the way we're used to doing it", and if I do not offer traditional customs any privilege, have no ideological drive to keep the status quo, I cannot meaningfully be a conservative.
I'm totally prepared to accept that the Republican Party will have at least some voters who are not so far from me who made their decision for whatever reason. However, I would probably be asking them why on earth they support it when there's a party evidently much closer aligned to their beliefs, and secondly they are not the party but its fringe and not a reflection of the general stances of US conservatism. The party is, as far as I am concerned, a non-starter on numerous levels and I am not a conservative.
I'm American, and for the rest of my life I will do everything that I can to drive Republicans out of power and out of my country.
Some of the Republicans pulled their heads out of Trump's backside to complain, thinking that maybe Trump had overstepped and they might be able to shake him off, testing out the way things were going. And then when they realised he still held their voters' approval in a vice-like grip, most of them either shoved their heads back into his fundament or into the sand.
I don't think most Congressional Republicans like Trump, and they would probably love to see him fade away. But at the same time they aren't prepared to take the popularity hit by opposing him, nor the reputational damage to the party from damning him given he was their party's president. In the meantime he's raising money and still rallying the troops, so far from condemning him, on balance the Republican party is working with and facilitating him.
Oh yeah. In the sense of ''I condemn it but I sure aren't letting it cost Trump anything!''. Even the ones on camera barricading the door in fear of their lives now try to downplay it as just a rowdy tourist visit to protect Trump.
McConnel saying he condemns Trump but that he'll also refuse to discipline or punish him does't mean anything.
Last edited:
Shit this just gets more fucking mental as it goes on
(It's the braveheart speech with modifications btw)
For reference, actor best known for playing Jesus and main character in Person of Interest...
www.imdb.com
Also the protag in upcoming film that may very well be qanon baiting, but also about a very controversial real figure Tim Ballard...
(It's the braveheart speech with modifications btw)
For reference, actor best known for playing Jesus and main character in Person of Interest...
Jim Caviezel | Actor, Producer
Known for: The Passion of the Christ, Frequency, The Thin Red Line
www.imdb.com
Also the protag in upcoming film that may very well be qanon baiting, but also about a very controversial real figure Tim Ballard...
Last edited:
In what world do you think it's appropriate for Mitch McConnell to punish Donald Trump beyond public condemnation? What power of discipline to you want a US senator to have over someone who is no longer in any political office. If Trump committed a crime, he's subject to criminal prosecution, which I don't want in the hands of Mitch McConnell.
You can't even pretend to be ignorant now, as Hades mentioned Mitch McConnell condemning Trump before you posted this.
The majority of US health spending is already socialized with the support of Republicans, between Medicare, Medicaid, and the health benefits provided to the armed services, veterans, and government employees. Many Republicans oppose oil subsidies, which are actually lower in the US per capita than they are in the EU. Republicans do believe in intervention by the state to improve poor communities, just through different means than government managed ghettos and welfare dependence. I don't know about the free movement part, you'd have to be more specific, because the US allows freer movement into, out of, and around the country than basically anywhere on earth, with lots of Republican support. If there are Republicans pushing back against green cards (outside of a specific issue like Chinese student visas), they're a weird fringe. Republicans aren't what you think we are.
But also, you have to understand, most of your positions are conservative from an American perspective. Even the abortion debate, Roe v. Wade is the long established status quo, so in real terms (rather than trying to neatly split ideologies on party lines) I'm the progressive and you're the conservative.
Oopsie slight mistake there sorry, it wasn't JFK.Jr. they're expecting but JFK.Sr. ...?
Which might sound like it makes less sense than the JFK.Jr. grift, until it's made clear there's already two different accepted imposters for JFK.Jr. within the qanon conspirasphere!
And what has he actually done? Nothing beyond a wag of the finger? Then you make shit up.
Impeachment was the golden chance. Twice. Or just oust him from the party completely. For a more informal punishment the Republicans can state that Trump doesn't represent any of them and that they want nothing to do with him. And when McConnell ''condemned'' Trump he did so in the context of the impeachment.
And no. When a president commits a crime they very much aren't subject to criminal prosecution. That's kind of the big weakness in the American system. Impeachment is a political rather than a judicial process which was how Trump escaped the consequences of his actions.
How many times do I have to tell these imbeciles that there is only one crownless king? And it sure as hell is not Trump.
Stop right there. The degree of medical support for at least a third of the population (nearly all poor, but fuck them, eh?) was comprehensively inadequate. It was not in a meaningful sense socialised healthcare, it was "we picked a few people to save from the worst shit" that came nowhere near close to what I would envisage as socially just; the principle not being that people have a right to health to make the best of themselves, but that they need to be lucky and successful enough to merit health.
You mean remarkably ineffective means that are indistinguishable from neglect. The USA has just about the lowest social mobility in the Western world for a reason.
The fact that you're resorting to this sort of sophistry is de facto admitting that you don't have a case here.
Let's put it this way: reality is the final arbiter. So if you're defining conservatives in a way that doesn't relate to the actuality of what everyone understands as conservatism, that's your problem more than everyone else's.
Am being a dumbo here, Is this an anime reference? (Or a videogame reference? Or an anime videogame reference??) It feels like an anime reference, but I'm too uncultured to catch it, heh!
Last edited: