[Politics] Trump and Concentration Camps
- Thread starter Saelune
- Start date
Then you don't have a clue on what you are talking about.Saelune said:
Antifa beats up journalists who disagree with them and have beaten up multiple random journalists just for covering them.
They're scum and a bunch of little shits.
A fascist/nazi killed like 3 people in a mass shooting recently, but you wont see the talk about that. No, lets focus on some fasscist journalist who got punched once instead.Kwak said:
I'm surprised they dont keep bringing up that time Spencer got punched.
I use my twitter to post outrage about Trump.Kwak said:
Andy Ngo may be an islamophobe, but so is(in theory) 51% of the US population that doesn't want Syrian refugees fleeing conflict started by Neoliberal climate policy by George W Bush who left the Kyoto Protocol.rederoin said:
Are we going to punch 51% of the US population?
Now I am for Refugees including climate refugees, but Antifa is damaging to the progressive cause in America.
Also, their methods are wrong, the left doesn't have enough guns to fight off the right.
If 51% of the country are going to support evil, then we need to stop them. While it has long been made apparent that no one fought in WW2 for good reasons, it was good that Germany was stopped. Did not matter what % of the German people were supporting evil, they needed to be stopped. A majority of the US supported slavery at one point, didn't change that it was always evil and should have been stopped sooner. I am glad Lincoln went to war over it. The deaths caused by it were worth it. Waiting for the slavers to come around would have been a fools errand.Gergar12 said:
Antifa's flaw is they don't do enough.
Yeah that didn't change. The majority simply decided an altogether different form of slavery was better for the fiscal bottom line, and slapped a smiley face on it to pretend they were somehow superior. Only difference is the lynch mobs wear badges, not hoods.Saelune said:
Lincoln didn't fuckin' go to war over it. The South did. Lincoln supported repatriation, and was perfectly content to abide slavery in non-secessionist states, which is why the Emancipation Proclamation only emancipated 50,000 out of twelve million slaves. I'm not saying Lincoln didn't play a key role in the end of slavery in the United States, but let's not go sucking his dead, rotten cock over shit he didn't do and never intended to do in the first place.
Other than the entire "you're buying into a dumpster fire of jingoistic historical revisionism, that simply happens to justify contemporary Democratic talking points" thing, yeah, it has nothing to do with the point you're making. Unfortunately, my entire point is you're buying hook, line, and sinker into jingoistic historical revisionism that justifies contemporary Democratic talking points.Saelune said:
You fail to understand my point. You use the past tense as if it is no longer a thing. Yeah, not so much.Saelune said:
Frankly, I don't hate you, and I don't hate on you. I see in you and your arguments, myself a decade, decade-and-a-half, ago. I was all piss, vinegar, and vitriol when the Bush administration came to town, and looked to the Democrats to fix shit. Clearly that didn't happen, and here I am in 2019 raging against a political party that didn't just let me down, they catastrophically failed for their own corruption, reticence, and stupidity, in ways I didn't even fully comprehend until 2016.
People said the shit I'm saying to you a decade ago, and I didn't listen. So, I don't expect you to listen now just because I said so. Just, save yourself 5-10 years of heartache and rage, and realize Democrats don't represent your interest. You're a useful idiot to them, to be exploited every 2-4 years as a vote and nothing more. As long as someone "worse" exists for them to point to, they can bank on your vote through empty campaign rhetoric, without giving you the first iota of real equity, relief, or even human dignity.
Don't let them use you, and be willing to walk away if you have to in order to do your part forcing them to act in your interest. It's how the LGBT community forced the Obama administration to accept gay marriage -- swaying the polls to the point remaining a force against progress could trigger electoral blowback -- and that's what it takes to extract an inch of genuine progress out of the "progressive" party. As long as you play the Trump derangement game, you're playing their game, and as long as you're playing their game you can't expect real progress but rather meaningless platitudes and empty promises.
The "real" enemy, such that it is, paradoxically isn't Trump or his ilk. They're idiots the Republican party will not be able to humor and remain a political force for long. You're fighting your own camp, or at least the camp you believe to be yours. The sooner you come to that realization, the sooner you can put your effort and labor to use being a positive force for meaningful, long-term, change.
Actually the lesson is that it doesn't matter why Lincoln ended slavery, nor does it matter why the world stopped Hitler, only that they did those things, and they used a far more effective method than voting in a system where the person with more votes isn't in charge.Eacaraxe said:
Oh and that if we want more progressive parties, we need to not let Trumps drag us back 50+ years cause some people are too sexist to support Hillary Godamned Clinton.
I am tired of people telling me they have my best interests when they dont, if you did, you would not have to say so. Silvanus never had to tell me that, nor has Agema or Obsidian or Thaluikhain or Caitseith, cause instead of trying to trick me, they just understood my points.
You're telling me to in-fight. If there is a problem that is not Trump, then it is the in-fighting you are telling me TO DO.
Yeah, it absolutely does, in every conceivable way. Because radical Republican condescension, rampancy, and corruption were how we ended up with the Gilded Age and a century of Jim Crow. Because the embrace of domestic Nazi sympathizers, profiteers, and apologists in the highest echelons of the federal government during the Truman administration is how we ended up with the Cold War and seventy years of foreign policy -- in this case Latin America, but it applies just as easily to the Middle East, south Asia, and practically all of Africa -- that led us to this precise moment in time and this precise issue.Saelune said: