US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4400

On September 17 2024 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:

Democrats tend to go the other way, preposterously pretending political violence is never their answer while they perpetuate the embargo against Cuba, drop bombs in several countries, and engage in ethnic cleansing/genocide (amongst plenty of other political violence).

It's silly.

On September 17 2024 06:23 BlackJack wrote:


Just pointing out that the first play in the playbook for people on the left is to try to label the person disagreeing with you some kind of -ist to discredit them in response to Biff saying the right-wing is the one relying on ad hominem for political arguments



An example that comes to mind is Canadian President Justin Trudeau speaking of the unvaccinated:

“They don’t believe in science/progress and are very often misogynistic and racist....This leads us, as a leader and as a country, to make a choice: Do we tolerate these people?"

Do you think there is a logical if-then condition that allows us to conclude that someone who opposes vaccine mandates is a hater of women? Or a hater of colored people? Or do you think it's simply a deliberate attempt to demonize those that disagree with him so people can move onto asking the more pressing question of "should we tolerate these people"

On September 17 2024 06:23 BlackJack wrote:


Just pointing out that the first play in the playbook for people on the left is to try to label the person disagreeing with you some kind of -ist to discredit them in response to Biff saying the right-wing is the one relying on ad hominem for political arguments



An example that comes to mind is Canadian President Justin Trudeau speaking of the unvaccinated:

“They don’t believe in science/progress and are very often misogynistic and racist....This leads us, as a leader and as a country, to make a choice: Do we tolerate these people?"

Do you think there is a logical if-then condition that allows us to conclude that someone who opposes vaccine mandates is a hater of women? Or a hater of colored people? Or do you think it's simply a deliberate attempt to demonize those that disagree with him so people can move onto asking the more pressing question of "should we tolerate these people"

On September 17 2024 06:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Tell me. When you hear a speech from Trump, don’t you hear a more vitriolic and violent tone than when you listen to Biden or Harris?

Genuine question. Because i find his speeches terrifying. It’s all violence. Us against them. Anger and hatred.

But maybe we hear something different.

On September 17 2024 06:48 Fleetfeet wrote:


Quick question : how do you pronounce '/' ?

+ Show Spoiler +

On September 17 2024 06:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Oh we talk about different things GH. I mean violence against their opponents from the other aisle.

I don’t think any democrat has ever suggested harming republican leaders. And despite the fact that he is a traitor that tried to overthrow American democracy, i haven’t heard Biden or Harris asking their supporters to chant lock him up or to ask 2nd amendment people to take care of him.

I know you don’t like the democrats, and neither do i.

On September 17 2024 07:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Many on the left isnt leading leftist politicians though, it's hardly even pundits. Biden was unequivocal in his condemnation of the assassination attempt. Trump flirts with violence way more than leading democrays do and honestly i think you know and agree with that. Admitting it also doesnt invalidate your point that many of the left is hypocritical in the way they demonize while accusing republicans of demonizing.

On September 17 2024 07:58 BlackJack wrote:


I mean, sure. If you want to narrow it down simply to Trump vs Harris or anyone else then Trump as a single entity is always going to win the award of most "problematic." I just don't quantify it that way. Trump is 2 months away from the final nail in his coffin and MAGA has no sway over anything besides the supreme court.

On September 17 2024 07:30 BlackJack wrote:


It's translated from French so there is no exact quote unless it's written in French. I think bringing up misogyny and racism when speaking of those that opposed the vaccine speaks for itself in making my point.

It's also hardly a one-off

Speaking of critics of criminal justice reform problems

"“They claim to be tough on crime but really they’re just tough on Black Canadians and Indigenous people,” "

He also repeated accusations of racism/misogyny against the Ottawa trucker protestors and accused them of flying racist and Nazi flags.

Like I said, it's their first play in the playbook. Disagree with me on immigration you're a xenophobe. Disagree with me on criminal justice you're a racist. Disagree with me on abortion you're a sexist. Disagree with me on Palestina you're an Islamophobe. Disagree with me on gender theory you're a transphobe. The list is endless. It's their favorite argument.

On September 17 2024 07:13 BlackJack wrote:


When's the last time you've heard Biden give a speech of take question from the press? Harris has done like 1 interview now with her emotional-support-VP by her side. Trump rambles on and on for hours off the cuff at his stupid rallies and then the 10 second most ridiculous portion is quote-mined and circulated around the mainstream media. It's not really a 1:1 comparison.

Biden literally said of Trump "I'd take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him" or something. Does that count as political violence? Or how about saying to an audience of predominantly black voters "They want to put you back in chains." Is that not "Us against them." Not to mention the ire that many on the left expressed when they realized the first Trump shooter just missed blowing his head off.

On September 17 2024 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm aware.

Part of what I was pointing out is how Democrats (and others) frequently whittle away at the meaning of "political violence" until to them it is colloquially just a narrow subset of political violence they use to hypocritically bludgeon their political opposition. It's not unique to the term "political violence" or to Democrats. It's just disingenuous, at best.

Political violence is and always has been an integral part of "The American Experiment" and will be until its demise.

Democrats not "suggesting harming Republican leaders" isn't based in some principled stance against political violence, it's naked cynical self-preservation.Frequently at the expense of oppressed peoples that will endure the political violence instead of the bipartisan leaders orchestrating/inflaming it.

On September 17 2024 08:28 Fleetfeet wrote:


...why would you not be able to quote in other languages?

Trudeau said "qui croient pas dans le science" which is literally "...who don't believe in science" with no mention of progress, which was in your quote.

He also says "qui sont souvent mysogenes" and "souvent racistes" which is "who are often mysogynists" and "often racists" without the 'very' your quote shoves in there.

French isn't some unknowable language riddled with context that makes it difficult to translate into english. You could shove that shit through google translate and get pretty darn close.

I agree that your point would have been better served with the actual quote, but you didn't do that and so I yelled at you for using someone's tilted translation.

On September 17 2024 08:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Well, you know, GH, I will be perfectly honest, I don’t like the USA, and I don’t think it’s a force of good in the world. And I share your opinion that both parties are and have been active part in what the US do and have done, and the countless crimes and morally questionable decisions of their domestic and foreign policies.

That being said, it’s also a country with a remarkable history of peaceful transition of power. There is so much that is broken with American democracy, but when someone lose, they gracefully take the L and let the other guy take it.

Maybe you think it’s not much. I think it’s quite a big thing.

One of the differences between the US and Latin America is that in almost every Latin American country, from their foundation, every time someone would lose an election, it would be a coup, a civil war, or as assassination. Take the history of Mexico, and you have to wait until quite recently before an election is won or lost fair and square. And while the american Presidents were succeeding each other in orderly fashion, the mexican politicians were murdering each other and confiscating power.

The fact that Washington basically declined a crown, and that when Adams lost he just took it and let Jefferson get the job, and that outside of the civil war, that has always been the case in 240 years is absolutely remarkable and it explains the undeniable successes the country has enjoyed. Because there is just nothing worse for a country than the instability created by constant changes of regime by force. I am from an Argentine mother that had to flee a junta in a country that until today has never enjoyed any stability, for context.

I think what is at stake is that tradition. Because Trump is the first president in the US history who just refuses to play by those rules. He is the guy who loses, goes back to his provinces and comes back with a lot of cousins with horses and guns because an election is only valid when you win. He is the guy for whom a political opponent is an enemy to eliminate. He is simply not a democrat in the first sense of the word.


So. You don’t need to tell me how awful and /or hypocritical everyone is. I know. That liberal democracy is terrible. If you want. We have had that discussion. I am just saying. On top of all the awfulness, it’s the one good thing about that country, here, that is at stake. And it’s not the democrats that are threatening it.