|
|
Post by Newan on Feb 24, 2019 20:18:34 GMT -5
If Trump wins in 2020, it’s gonna be because of people like Jussie Smollett and Nathan Phillips. At the moment it should be heavily in Trumps favor... There is no one formidable enough in the DMC, and Bernie Sanders is not exactly the American Ideal. |
|
|
|
Post by Newan on Feb 24, 2019 20:21:00 GMT -5
Trumps winning factor is that he bullied everyone into making them look weak. If no one can repel that they will instiantly lose
|
|
|
|
Post by Pinda on Feb 25, 2019 7:18:10 GMT -5
For the poll... Ideally: no. Nations should not exist. But realistically at this time I would have to go for yes, because if we abolished nations overnight that would probably create some issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spidyyr on Feb 26, 2019 12:56:02 GMT -5
AOC's Green New Deal would apparently cost .1 Quadrillion Dollars.
When asked about the cost, Kamala Harris said it didn't matter since it was an investment. Okay then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spidyyr on Feb 26, 2019 13:03:06 GMT -5
Far Right and Far Left are two sides of the same coin. If the last few years have proved anything, radical leftists are just as dangerous as reactionaries on the right. Leftists preach that you must subscribe to their system or else you are an evil that needs to be destroyed. Progressivism is not inherently good when you demonize (Democratic Party) or kill people (in the Soviet Union's case and Maduro's) for not being progressive or "forward-thinking" enough. Fasicsm and Communism move in different directions but reach the same destination. There is no far left in the US though. Even in Europe actual far left people are rare. Bernie Sanders seems more like a center-left politician by European standards, he is not an extremist. But there are LOTS of far-right people though. Honestly, even by Dutch definitions I am pretty far to the left, so you could consider me radical leftist, but I am not exactly dangerous. Aside from a few crazy people, no leftists are calling for people to be "destroyed". The core idea of progressivism/liberalism (whatever you want to call it) is to "live and let live". Sure, Stalinists are bad. But how many of those exist in the West? The far right is tied to racism and often glorifies violent or inhumane acts against minorities or people with different opinions. How many people have been assaulted by communists/socialists/radical progressives in the West in the last 30 years? Not even nearly as many as have been attacked by the far-right. And Maduro is not a progressive. Venezuela is an authoritarian state, that's the opposite. Authoritarianism is the opposite of Libertarianism, not of progressivism or liberalism. You can be on the left side and be authoritarian. (Stalin, Mao, Maduro, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, etc.) |
|
|
|
Post by Maverick-Jedi-Valen on Feb 26, 2019 13:20:14 GMT -5
AOC's Green New Deal would apparently cost .1 Quadrillion Dollars. When asked about the cost, Kamala Harris said it didn't matter since it was an investment. Okay then. Guess that national debt's getting hungry again  |
|
|
|
Politics
Feb 26, 2019 17:34:38 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Pinda on Feb 26, 2019 17:34:38 GMT -5
There is no far left in the US though. Even in Europe actual far left people are rare. Bernie Sanders seems more like a center-left politician by European standards, he is not an extremist. But there are LOTS of far-right people though. Honestly, even by Dutch definitions I am pretty far to the left, so you could consider me radical leftist, but I am not exactly dangerous. Aside from a few crazy people, no leftists are calling for people to be "destroyed". The core idea of progressivism/liberalism (whatever you want to call it) is to "live and let live". Sure, Stalinists are bad. But how many of those exist in the West? The far right is tied to racism and often glorifies violent or inhumane acts against minorities or people with different opinions. How many people have been assaulted by communists/socialists/radical progressives in the West in the last 30 years? Not even nearly as many as have been attacked by the far-right. And Maduro is not a progressive. Venezuela is an authoritarian state, that's the opposite. Authoritarianism is the opposite of Libertarianism, not of progressivism or liberalism. You can be on the left side and be authoritarian. (Stalin, Mao, Maduro, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, etc.) Authoritarianism is the opposite of liberalism. Yes, you can be left-wing and authoritarian, but you can't be liberal and authoritarian. The definition of liberalism is: "a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties" You cannot be an authoritarian liberal. Progressives can be authoritarian if we go by definitions, but the term is currently mainly used for those adovacting a "live and let live" mentality, which also conflicts with authoritarianism. Being left wing is not the same as being liberal. By definition I am a liberal, but so are many on the right. So I prefer the term social democrat... or democratic socialist when I am in a more radical mood. It isn't as simple as liberal vs conservative. |
|
|
|
Post by Star on Feb 26, 2019 17:44:29 GMT -5
Authoritarianism is the opposite of Libertarianism, not of progressivism or liberalism. You can be on the left side and be authoritarian. (Stalin, Mao, Maduro, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, etc.) Authoritarianism is the opposite of liberalism. Yes, you can be left-wing and authoritarian, but you can't be liberal and authoritarian. The definition of liberalism is: "a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties" You cannot be an authoritarian liberal. Progressives can be authoritarian if we go by definitions, but the term is currently mainly used for those adovacting a "live and let live" mentality, which also conflicts with authoritarianism. Being left wing is not the same as being liberal. By definition I am a liberal, but so are many on the right. So I prefer the term social democrat... or democratic socialist when I am in a more radical mood. It isn't as simple as liberal vs conservative. Pinda, what are you planning?!  |
|
|
|
Politics
Feb 26, 2019 18:56:51 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Spidyyr on Feb 26, 2019 18:56:51 GMT -5
Authoritarianism is the opposite of Libertarianism, not of progressivism or liberalism. You can be on the left side and be authoritarian. (Stalin, Mao, Maduro, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, etc.) Authoritarianism is the opposite of liberalism. Yes, you can be left-wing and authoritarian, but you can't be liberal and authoritarian. The definition of liberalism is: "a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties" You cannot be an authoritarian liberal. Progressives can be authoritarian if we go by definitions, but the term is currently mainly used for those adovacting a "live and let live" mentality, which also conflicts with authoritarianism. Being left wing is not the same as being liberal. By definition I am a liberal, but so are many on the right. So I prefer the term social democrat... or democratic socialist when I am in a more radical mood. It isn't as simple as liberal vs conservative. I really think you’re confusing liberalism and libertarianism. |
|
|
|
Politics
Feb 26, 2019 20:12:23 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Pinda on Feb 26, 2019 20:12:23 GMT -5
Authoritarianism is the opposite of liberalism. Yes, you can be left-wing and authoritarian, but you can't be liberal and authoritarian. The definition of liberalism is: "a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties" You cannot be an authoritarian liberal. Progressives can be authoritarian if we go by definitions, but the term is currently mainly used for those adovacting a "live and let live" mentality, which also conflicts with authoritarianism. Being left wing is not the same as being liberal. By definition I am a liberal, but so are many on the right. So I prefer the term social democrat... or democratic socialist when I am in a more radical mood. It isn't as simple as liberal vs conservative. I really think you’re confusing liberalism and libertarianism. Th two terms are used interchangeably and swap definitions depending on where you live. For example, liberalism in mainland Europe refers to neoliberals, who are socially progressive but believe in a completely free market. They are considered right-wing, taking their place to the right of the conservatives. So that differs from American liberalism. But officially liberalism is defined as supporting the ideals on which modern Western civilization was built. So it is about freedom, constitions, democracy, rule of law, individualism and human rights. American libertarianism is basically European neoliberalism, which is just another version of regular liberalism but puts more emphasis on economic freedom. Both are inherently incompatible with authoritarianism. |
|
|
|
Post by Pinda on Feb 26, 2019 20:14:08 GMT -5
Authoritarianism is the opposite of liberalism. Yes, you can be left-wing and authoritarian, but you can't be liberal and authoritarian. The definition of liberalism is: "a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties" You cannot be an authoritarian liberal. Progressives can be authoritarian if we go by definitions, but the term is currently mainly used for those adovacting a "live and let live" mentality, which also conflicts with authoritarianism. Being left wing is not the same as being liberal. By definition I am a liberal, but so are many on the right. So I prefer the term social democrat... or democratic socialist when I am in a more radical mood. It isn't as simple as liberal vs conservative. Pinda, what are you planning?! Capitalism isn't going to crush itself.  |
|
|
|
Post by Spidyyr on Feb 26, 2019 21:03:14 GMT -5
I really think you’re confusing liberalism and libertarianism. Th two terms are used interchangeably and swap definitions depending on where you live. For example, liberalism in mainland Europe refers to neoliberals, who are socially progressive but believe in a completely free market. They are considered right-wing, taking their place to the right of the conservatives. So that differs from American liberalism. But officially liberalism is defined as supporting the ideals on which modern Western civilization was built. So it is about freedom, constitions, democracy, rule of law, individualism and human rights. American libertarianism is basically European neoliberalism, which is just another version of regular liberalism but puts more emphasis on economic freedom. Both are inherently incompatible with authoritarianism. That's quite interesting. Here, liberalism is basically synonymous with left wing and conservative meaning right wing. Libertarianism (which I identify with) is crossed against Authoritarianism. It's pretty much like this but replace left and right with liberal and conservative:  |
|
|
|
Post by Spidyyr on Feb 26, 2019 21:05:14 GMT -5
Th two terms are used interchangeably and swap definitions depending on where you live. For example, liberalism in mainland Europe refers to neoliberals, who are socially progressive but believe in a completely free market. They are considered right-wing, taking their place to the right of the conservatives. So that differs from American liberalism. But officially liberalism is defined as supporting the ideals on which modern Western civilization was built. So it is about freedom, constitions, democracy, rule of law, individualism and human rights. American libertarianism is basically European neoliberalism, which is just another version of regular liberalism but puts more emphasis on economic freedom. Both are inherently incompatible with authoritarianism. That's quite interesting. Here, liberalism is basically synonymous with left wing and conservative meaning right wing. Libertarianism (which I identify with) is crossed against Authoritarianism. It's pretty much like this but replace left and right with liberal and conservative: I would consider someone like Bernie Sanders authoritarian and liberal. (More government control combined with socialism) |
|
|
|
Post by Pinda on Feb 27, 2019 10:57:31 GMT -5
That's quite interesting. Here, liberalism is basically synonymous with left wing and conservative meaning right wing. Libertarianism (which I identify with) is crossed against Authoritarianism. It's pretty much like this but replace left and right with liberal and conservative: I would consider someone like Bernie Sanders authoritarian and liberal. (More government control combined with socialism) You misinterpret the political compass. You can't replace left and right with liberal and conservative. "Left and right" are used in their European context here, which means they are based purely on economics as opposed to social issues (liberal vs. conservative). Right is associated with the free market and left with economic regulations, the welfare state or collectivism (at its most extreme). It says nothing about their social views. You can be conservative and still be on the left-wing in this compass and you can be liberal and right-wing as well. The y-axis of the compass is the social axis, so it is actually the American left-right division. Conservatism would be on the authoritarian side, with liberalism being on the libertarian side of the spectrum as is evident from this official picture from the political compass 2016 US elections:  Basically "liberal" is the American term for the European term "libertarian". And "libertarian" is the American term for "neoliberal" And you can't be authoritarian and (neo)liberal, nor authoritarian and libertarian (unless you define libertarian as purely being about the free market).  And someone like Sanders would be considerably less authoritarian than the rest of the US because he supports things like gay marriage. And his "socialist" views (which would be center-left in Europe) place him a bit further on the left-right axis because economically he opposes a free market. |
|
|
|
Politics
Feb 27, 2019 12:00:42 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Spidyyr on Feb 27, 2019 12:00:42 GMT -5
I would consider someone like Bernie Sanders authoritarian and liberal. (More government control combined with socialism) You misinterpret the political compass. You can't replace left and right with liberal and conservative. "Left and right" are used in their European context here, which means they are based purely on economics as opposed to social issues (liberal vs. conservative). Right is associated with the free market and left with economic regulations, the welfare state or collectivism (at its most extreme). It says nothing about their social views. You can be conservative and still be on the left-wing in this compass and you can be liberal and right-wing as well. The y-axis of the compass is the social axis, so it is actually the American left-right division. Conservatism would be on the authoritarian side, with liberalism being on the libertarian side of the spectrum as is evident from this official picture from the political compass 2016 US elections: Basically "liberal" is the American term for the European term "libertarian". And "libertarian" is the American term for "neoliberal" And you can't be authoritarian and (neo)liberal, nor authoritarian and libertarian (unless you define libertarian as purely being about the free market). And someone like Sanders would be considerably less authoritarian than the rest of the US because he supports things like gay marriage. And his "socialist" views (which would be center-left in Europe) place him a bit further on the left-right axis because economically he opposes a free market. That’s really interesting. Here a left-wing conservative is unheard of. And I would consider views such as 90% tax rates (proposed by the Socialist Dems here) and the government’s total control of life to authoritarian but that must just be an American thing. |
|
|
|
Politics
Feb 27, 2019 13:03:32 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Spidyyr on Feb 27, 2019 13:03:32 GMT -5
Whatever side you’re on it has to be funny to see Dems tell Trump he’s handling Kim Jong Un wrong when their solution to every hostile country has been to A) Ignore them or B) Send them money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pinda on Feb 27, 2019 13:14:52 GMT -5
You misinterpret the political compass. You can't replace left and right with liberal and conservative. "Left and right" are used in their European context here, which means they are based purely on economics as opposed to social issues (liberal vs. conservative). Right is associated with the free market and left with economic regulations, the welfare state or collectivism (at its most extreme). It says nothing about their social views. You can be conservative and still be on the left-wing in this compass and you can be liberal and right-wing as well. The y-axis of the compass is the social axis, so it is actually the American left-right division. Conservatism would be on the authoritarian side, with liberalism being on the libertarian side of the spectrum as is evident from this official picture from the political compass 2016 US elections: Basically "liberal" is the American term for the European term "libertarian". And "libertarian" is the American term for "neoliberal" And you can't be authoritarian and (neo)liberal, nor authoritarian and libertarian (unless you define libertarian as purely being about the free market). And someone like Sanders would be considerably less authoritarian than the rest of the US because he supports things like gay marriage. And his "socialist" views (which would be center-left in Europe) place him a bit further on the left-right axis because economically he opposes a free market. That’s really interesting. Here a left-wing conservative is unheard of. And I would consider views such as 90% tax rates (proposed by the Socialist Dems here) and the government’s total control of life to authoritarian but that must just be an American thing. Naturally it is unheard of in the US because your right-wing is per definition conservative. But in the Netherlands we actually have the "Christian Union" which is considered left-wing (because of its economic ideas) but also conservative because it is more strict about abortion and euthanasia. And how is the government intervening with economics authoritarian when the government intervening with people's personal lives (gay marriage, abortion, drugs) isn't? Authoritarian typically refers to social intervention. Also, a 90% tax rate would only effect like 0,1% of the population. Last I heard some people in the US proposed a 70% rate for anything made over 10 million dollars. Seems very reasonable, no one should have more than 10 million dollars... so actually it's even a bit low side. And it won't effect most people's personal lives at all, so how is that authoritarian? |
|
|
|
Politics
Feb 27, 2019 13:26:01 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Spidyyr on Feb 27, 2019 13:26:01 GMT -5
That’s really interesting. Here a left-wing conservative is unheard of. And I would consider views such as 90% tax rates (proposed by the Socialist Dems here) and the government’s total control of life to authoritarian but that must just be an American thing. Naturally it is unheard of in the US because your right-wing is per definition conservative. But in the Netherlands we actually have the "Christian Union" which is considered left-wing (because of its economic ideas) but also conservative because it is more strict about abortion and euthanasia. And how is the government intervening with economics authoritarian when the government intervening with people's personal lives (gay marriage, abortion, drugs) isn't? Authoritarian typically refers to social intervention. Also, a 90% tax rate would only effect like 0,1% of the population. Last I heard some people in the US proposed a 70% rate for anything made over 10 million dollars. Seems very reasonable, no one should have more than 10 million dollars... so actually it's even a bit low side. And it won't effect most people's personal lives at all, so how is that authoritarian? Aren’t ideas and speech part of that too? The modern Democrat party openly targets any one who doesn’t subscribe to their ridiculous ideas. What they want is a society where everyone is subservient to the state and will not only spend but exist in the way the communist socialist government wants them to. I don’t think you can be a totalitarian without being authoritarian. |
|
|
|
Post by Pinda on Feb 27, 2019 14:54:50 GMT -5
Naturally it is unheard of in the US because your right-wing is per definition conservative. But in the Netherlands we actually have the "Christian Union" which is considered left-wing (because of its economic ideas) but also conservative because it is more strict about abortion and euthanasia. And how is the government intervening with economics authoritarian when the government intervening with people's personal lives (gay marriage, abortion, drugs) isn't? Authoritarian typically refers to social intervention. Also, a 90% tax rate would only effect like 0,1% of the population. Last I heard some people in the US proposed a 70% rate for anything made over 10 million dollars. Seems very reasonable, no one should have more than 10 million dollars... so actually it's even a bit low side. And it won't effect most people's personal lives at all, so how is that authoritarian? Aren’t ideas and speech part of that too? The modern Democrat party openly targets any one who doesn’t subscribe to their ridiculous ideas. What they want is a society where everyone is subservient to the state and will not only spend but exist in the way the communist socialist government wants them to. I don’t think you can be a totalitarian without being authoritarian. In what ways? Vocally opposing people who disagree with you is kind of part of politics. As long as you don't call for violence or imprisonment or try to attack the free press I don't see why that would be authoritarian. And most of them are actually center-right by European standards... they don't want a socialist government... and they definitely don't seem to want a society as you describe it. I will admit, I am no expert on the democratic party, but this is based on my knowledge, so correct me if I am wrong. But I have seen Trump call for violence against opponents, and I have seen Trump target the free press. Seems like he is the real authoritarian in the US. |
|
|
|
Politics
Feb 27, 2019 17:54:54 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Spidyyr on Feb 27, 2019 17:54:54 GMT -5
Aren’t ideas and speech part of that too? The modern Democrat party openly targets any one who doesn’t subscribe to their ridiculous ideas. What they want is a society where everyone is subservient to the state and will not only spend but exist in the way the communist socialist government wants them to. I don’t think you can be a totalitarian without being authoritarian. In what ways? Vocally opposing people who disagree with you is kind of part of politics. As long as you don't call for violence or imprisonment or try to attack the free press I don't see why that would be authoritarian. And most of them are actually center-right by European standards... they don't want a socialist government... and they definitely don't seem to want a society as you describe it. I will admit, I am no expert on the democratic party, but this is based on my knowledge, so correct me if I am wrong. But I have seen Trump call for violence against opponents, and I have seen Trump target the free press. Seems like he is the real authoritarian in the US. Take a look at the Covington story if you want to know how bad they are. The Obama IRS would specifically target those with conservative viewpoints. And today it has become acceptable to dox and harass anyone who supports Trump. A conservative being assaulted on campus received virtually no media attention while the obviously faulty Jussie Smollet story was pushed because the media desperately wanted it to be true. |
|
|
|
Politics
Feb 27, 2019 17:57:53 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Spidyyr on Feb 27, 2019 17:57:53 GMT -5
I don’t recall Trump calling for violence against Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush or other opponents but maybe I’ve forgotten something.
The reason Trump targets the press is because it has turned into the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party along with academia and Hollywood. He isn’t attacking journalists because very few people in the mainstream media are actual journalists. Their sole job is to attack him and it has been for four years now.
|
|
|
|
Politics
Feb 27, 2019 18:11:01 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Spidyyr on Feb 27, 2019 18:11:01 GMT -5
The problem with the Democratic Party is the volatility of its positions. They live on a slippery slope.
Not too long ago, they were for first-term abortions. I don’t agree with that position but I understand why many do. But now they support termination up until the due date. And now some are even pushing for the option to kill a baby after it is born. If you think this cancerous position will not infect the rest of the party then you haven’t been paying attention.
They used to support mandatory background checks for gun owners. I actually support that position. Then they wanted to ban semi-automatic rifles. Inevitably, now they call to abolish the second amendment.
Democrats used to push for climate-friendly practices and a reduction of emissions. Again, I actually am in favor of this and try to live with a small carbon footprint. I also support clean forms of energy. But now they are calling for a plan that will criminalize fossil fuels, end air travel, and spend more money than actually exists on Earth for a plan that will do very little to solve climate change. After all, the US only accounts for 6% of emissions and Asia, which accounts for more than half, is doing nothing to fix the problem.
This is not a serious political party as much as a group of virtue signaling career politicians who will do and say anything to stay in power. They tell you that you are evil for driving a Ford but they take private jets to Puerto Rico. They call you racist for wanting a wall on your border but they have walls and armed guards protecting them.
And the views the Democrats held merely five years ago, such as stopping illegal immigration, would now have you deemed an alt-right Nazi.
|
|
|
|
Post by Star on Feb 27, 2019 22:29:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Spidyyr on Feb 27, 2019 22:41:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Politics
Feb 28, 2019 0:32:32 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by squiggy on Feb 28, 2019 0:32:32 GMT -5
The problem with the Democratic Party is the volatility of its positions. They live on a slippery slope. Not too long ago, they were for first-term abortions. I don’t agree with that position but I understand why many do. But now they support termination up until the due date. And now some are even pushing for the option to kill a baby after it is born. If you think this cancerous position will not infect the rest of the party then you haven’t been paying attention. They used to support mandatory background checks for gun owners. I actually support that position. Then they wanted to ban semi-automatic rifles. Inevitably, now they call to abolish the second amendment. Democrats used to push for climate-friendly practices and a reduction of emissions. Again, I actually am in favor of this and try to live with a small carbon footprint. I also support clean forms of energy. But now they are calling for a plan that will criminalize fossil fuels, end air travel, and spend more money than actually exists on Earth for a plan that will do very little to solve climate change. After all, the US only accounts for 6% of emissions and Asia, which accounts for more than half, is doing nothing to fix the problem. This is not a serious political party as much as a group of virtue signaling career politicians who will do and say anything to stay in power. They tell you that you are evil for driving a Ford but they take private jets to Puerto Rico. They call you racist for wanting a wall on your border but they have walls and armed guards protecting them. And the views the Democrats held merely five years ago, such as stopping illegal immigration, would now have you deemed an alt-right Nazi. The minute we decide to mess with the 2nd amendment flat out is the day we see other rights gradually be thrown out the window. Just like the escalation grew for abortion cutoffs so will our rights. We went from 1st trimester abortions and now anything up to birth and now most recently pushing for anything after birth. Just like that if they abolish the 2nd admendment it will grow to more heights until society accepts the outcome of diminished rights for the better. Anything with reason can come across as acceptable or okay if you have reason and give it time. If the people dont accept it they own the firepower and we can't revolt nor defend ourselves. The British pushed many inhumane and unfair societal taxes and implimentetions among the colonists, had they not had the guns or resources their would've been no chance of war or independence. Eventually it will no longer be you can own a gun as long as you have a clean background check. It will be the government choosing whether you can own one or not like making a case to judge in court. They want to control the guns, they want the power and are using the occasional violence as a means to push their agenda. Call me radical, call me whatever it's what's happening. |
|
|
|
Post by Spidyyr on Feb 28, 2019 0:39:12 GMT -5
It doesn't go much into the actual hearing as much how both sides prepared to spin it. To be fair, people were going to react the same way no matter what. It's likely that many of the loudest voices did not even watch the hearing. This hearing won't change anyone's mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Spidyyr on Feb 28, 2019 0:55:15 GMT -5
It is somewhat ironic that a man convicted of lying to Congress would be brought to testify to Congress but I think Michael Cohen was probably telling the truth. He now hates the President and wants to destroy him. He has nothing to lose and no one to protect. No reason to lie on Trump's behalf. You'd think that since he's off his leash, he'd drop some major bombshells about President Donald J. Trump.
But he didn't. That's honestly surprising. I honestly was worried he might even make something up about Trump to get reduced jail time. You know Democrats would go there if it meant hurting Trump. Here are a few things he said:
-He has no reason to believe Trump is being extorted or blackmailed.
-He has never been to Prague, where he was apparently sent by Trump to collude with Russia.
-He does not think Trump colluded with Russia.
Maybe he's lying. He's done it before. But why? He and Trump hate each other. What reason would he have to say Trump has not done anything wrong?
And then we got some truly ridiculous questions, such as whether Trump takes drugs, if he has a bastard child, or if he paid for abortions. He said no to all of them.
All that was really gotten out of him was that Trump says mean things sometimes. Shocking, right? Can you believe it? I never would have voted for him if I knew he was crass. No one would have.
But okay, Trump is crass. What does that change? Does that mean we should have post-birth abortions? Should we have open borders? Should we have no second amendment? Most people don't support Trump because of his personality, but his policies. And frankly, they vote for him due to the radical policies on the left. If they stopped pushing these ridiculous ideas and focused on common sense, they would probably beat Trump. But they won't do that and they're on track to lose again, despite what Rachel Maddow is telling you.
EDIT: Also heard that Trump knew about WikiLeaks in July 2016. That would be a big deal if WikiLeaks hadn’t announced they had information about Hillary in June 2016.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spidyyr on Feb 28, 2019 0:57:18 GMT -5
The problem with the Democratic Party is the volatility of its positions. They live on a slippery slope. Not too long ago, they were for first-term abortions. I don’t agree with that position but I understand why many do. But now they support termination up until the due date. And now some are even pushing for the option to kill a baby after it is born. If you think this cancerous position will not infect the rest of the party then you haven’t been paying attention. They used to support mandatory background checks for gun owners. I actually support that position. Then they wanted to ban semi-automatic rifles. Inevitably, now they call to abolish the second amendment. Democrats used to push for climate-friendly practices and a reduction of emissions. Again, I actually am in favor of this and try to live with a small carbon footprint. I also support clean forms of energy. But now they are calling for a plan that will criminalize fossil fuels, end air travel, and spend more money than actually exists on Earth for a plan that will do very little to solve climate change. After all, the US only accounts for 6% of emissions and Asia, which accounts for more than half, is doing nothing to fix the problem. This is not a serious political party as much as a group of virtue signaling career politicians who will do and say anything to stay in power. They tell you that you are evil for driving a Ford but they take private jets to Puerto Rico. They call you racist for wanting a wall on your border but they have walls and armed guards protecting them. And the views the Democrats held merely five years ago, such as stopping illegal immigration, would now have you deemed an alt-right Nazi. The minute we decide to mess with the 2nd amendment flat out is the day we see other rights gradually be thrown out the window. Just like the escalation grew for abortion cutoffs so will our rights. We went from 1st trimester abortions and now anything up to birth and now most recently pushing for anything after birth. Just like that if they abolish the 2nd admendment it will grow to more heights until society accepts the outcome of diminished rights for the better. Anything with reason can come across as acceptable or okay if you have reason and give it time. If the people dont accept it they own the firepower and we can't revolt nor defend ourselves. The British pushed many inhumane and unfair societal taxes and implimentetions among the colonists, had they not had the guns or resources their would've been no chance of war or independence. Eventually it will no longer be you can own a gun as long as you have a clean background check. It will be the government choosing whether you can own one or not like making a case to judge in court. They want to control the guns, they want the power and are using the occasional violence as a means to push their agenda. Call me radical, call me whatever it's what's happening. I bet Venezuela wishes they didn't give their guns up. |
|
|
|
Politics
Feb 28, 2019 1:33:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Spidyyr on Feb 28, 2019 1:33:35 GMT -5
BREAKING NEWS: Hawaii Judge rules that peace with North Korea is unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pinda on Feb 28, 2019 14:43:58 GMT -5
In what ways? Vocally opposing people who disagree with you is kind of part of politics. As long as you don't call for violence or imprisonment or try to attack the free press I don't see why that would be authoritarian. And most of them are actually center-right by European standards... they don't want a socialist government... and they definitely don't seem to want a society as you describe it. I will admit, I am no expert on the democratic party, but this is based on my knowledge, so correct me if I am wrong. But I have seen Trump call for violence against opponents, and I have seen Trump target the free press. Seems like he is the real authoritarian in the US. Take a look at the Covington story if you want to know how bad they are. The Obama IRS would specifically target those with conservative viewpoints. And today it has become acceptable to dox and harass anyone who supports Trump. A conservative being assaulted on campus received virtually no media attention while the obviously faulty Jussie Smollet story was pushed because the media desperately wanted it to be true. The problem with that "Covington" story seems to be that the media just jumped to conclusions before knowing all the facts, which seems common in the US. They corrected it once more facts came out didn't they? And of course an assault on a random person is no going to get the same attention as an assault on a celebrity... that is unfortunately how the media works. As for the Obama IRS thing. I looked into that, but I am not familiar with the US tax system so I am not sure if I understand completely... It seems more complicated than what you said. The way I understood it is that there was a rise in conservatives organizations applying for tax exemption by pretending to be a non-profit/charity even though they were not. So they decided to check on certain conservative words when checking if organizations deserved tax exemption. Seems kind of similar to using an algorithm to find fraud. Also, from what I read they used it for progressive groups as well. And doxing/harassing is not okay. But I think every political group has people who do that, unfortunately. |
|
it’s been quite a while. I’ve been pretty good, how about yourself?
Sept 30, 2024 21:29:31 GMT -5
it’s been quite a while. I’ve been pretty good, how about yourself?
Sept 30, 2024 21:29:31 GMT -5
Nov 11, 2024 16:43:58 GMT -5
Nov 11, 2024 16:43:58 GMT -5