|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 01 2024 22:15 Razyda wrote:My dude this are his exact words from article you linked: “She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK, let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face." It clearly means putting her on frontline (I am unaware of procedures where someone getting executed by firing squad is given a rifle). To be honest I believe everyone advocating for war should be put on the frontline of the war they advocated for, so in this case it seems like I agree with him.
I think if 99% of people said something along the lines of "Hey Politician, if you support war so much, then why don't you pick up a gun and stand on the front lines against armed opponents, instead of sacrificing other Americans", then I would not only give them the benefit of the doubt, but I'd completely agree with them too.
Unfortunately, Trump is in that extra 1%, where he's poisoned his own well so completely - he's certainly threatened the freedom and lives of his political opponents in the past - that while I wouldn't assume that this comment about Liz Cheney necessarily constitutes a death threat, I also wouldn't give him a pass either.
|
On November 02 2024 00:37 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 00:33 Magic Powers wrote:
Ok yeah sure, why not. Lets use the same reasoning. Hitler was also only using hyperbole, right? He only acted on his words later, he wasn't doing anything bad until he started doing bad things.
Oh wait, Trump already delivered on his words when he picked three anti-choice justices. All three of them ended up overturning Roe v Wade. Here are the only three judges that opposed the new ruling:
Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama.
Awesome, under Trump many rape victims can no longer have a legal abortion. Fantastic.
And this is only one of plenty of examples of Trump already causing terrible harm to Americans and the world. Remember the Paris climate accord? Trump's fault. Iran nuclear deal? Trump's fault. Anti-immigration policies and rhetoric? Trump's fault. Attempts at undermining democracy? Trump's fault.
So we have sufficient evidence that Trump's words lead to real life consequences. Now that his rhetoric got even worse, we shouldn't trust him on any of it, right? We should just stick our fingers in our ears. If Trump wins and puts Kamala in front of a firing squad, you're welcome to say 'I told you so'
Yeah if I just want to be right and that's my whole motivation, sure. Problem is I want to prevent an obvious train crash that people keep making excuses for, so my goal is ideally to never be proven right. I prefer if people don't have to explain away how they let a disaster happen that everyone could see coming from miles away. Apparently people never learned from the fallout of Nazi Germany. Now I understand much better how Hitler came into power.
|
On November 02 2024 01:07 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 00:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2024 00:33 Magic Powers wrote:
Ok yeah sure, why not. Lets use the same reasoning. Hitler was also only using hyperbole, right? He only acted on his words later, he wasn't doing anything bad until he started doing bad things.
Oh wait, Trump already delivered on his words when he picked three anti-choice justices. All three of them ended up overturning Roe v Wade. Here are the only three judges that opposed the new ruling:
Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama.
Awesome, under Trump many rape victims can no longer have a legal abortion. Fantastic.
And this is only one of plenty of examples of Trump already causing terrible harm to Americans and the world. Remember the Paris climate accord? Trump's fault. Iran nuclear deal? Trump's fault. Anti-immigration policies and rhetoric? Trump's fault. Attempts at undermining democracy? Trump's fault.
So we have sufficient evidence that Trump's words lead to real life consequences. Now that his rhetoric got even worse, we shouldn't trust him on any of it, right? We should just stick our fingers in our ears. If Trump wins and puts Kamala in front of a firing squad, you're welcome to say 'I told you so' Yeah if I just want to be right and that's my whole motivation, sure. Problem is I want to prevent an obvious train crash that people keep making excuses for, so my goal is ideally to never be proven right. I prefer if people don't have to explain away how they let a disaster happen that everyone could see coming from miles away. Apparently people never learned from the fallout of Nazi Germany. Now I understand much better how Hitler came into power.
Hitler was essentially an illegal immigrant.
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
On November 01 2024 23:21 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2024 22:16 WombaT wrote:Is Liz Cheney even a particular war hawk or are we just assuming he’s her father? I genuinely don’t know, perhaps there’s some validity to that critique Regardless, the place it comes from is not from any kind of ideological disagreement, merely not showing sufficient fealty. Liz Cheney is firstly a woman, not a he. And she's really a war hawk, they all are. This is one of the biggest schisms in US politics that exists between the new Drumpf tent and the rest of the uniparty which is united under the same foreign policy. It's an important thing to be aware of in politics. The woman publicly took shits on him and his image and was instrumental in impeaching him (destroying her reputation and elected career in the process). This is not some simple lack of bootlicking. She made herself his explicit political enemy and met the consequences of that risky action. Any reaction from him is completely justified and he has every right to do. She's also a know-nothing incompetent product of nepotism so he probably would have been justified even if he shot first, which he did not, and would have been lauded by liberals if he had done so before the year 2015. Show nested quote +On November 01 2024 12:54 Falling wrote:
As Biden has declined, his comebacks have as well. His debate had a similar one. "I'm not dumb, you're dumb". Something like that. I can't remember the exact insult, but it was equally ineffective whatever it was. But it's also not dividing as I don't see genuine hurt. I see hyper-partisan joy. They finally got Harris... er Biden to say the deplorable line. Election saved. Trump wins. Scum and Enemy within loses. Democrats are such very bad people, sick people, radical left lunatics. I can't believe they would resort to name calling. So divisive. Harris... er Biden said the thing. We win.
You are probably thinking of "you're the sucker, you're the loser" which is a strong analogy in this case because like the Puerto Rico joke, they both rely on retaliation for things that weren't even said by Drumpf to begin with. You would be hard pressed to find times when Drumpf flatly dehumanized voters with "scum" or "garbage" or "irredeemable" or "deplorable." Because I can't and I've been watching him for a while. He attacks actual opponents. Many of whom attack him first. Here's the repeating order of events simplified: 1) Punch Drumpf (acceptable because he's the fash) 2) Drumpf punches someone back (which he's not allowed to do because that's fascism) 3) Use this to confirm that Drumpf is the fash 4) Punch his supporters because that's justified now The reaction to Biden and Harris's comments is not joy so much as predictable vindication that the area-of-effect perpetual leftist outrage machine cannot help itself but lash out in uncontrolled emotional outbursts. They can't help themselves. There's very little substantive difference between him now and 2016 or 1986, the main catalyst now is how long he has persisted and how inconvenient he is as a threat to the powers who stand to lose from him.
Oh noes not a typo!
|
On November 02 2024 00:48 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 00:10 NewSunshine wrote:
I see some merit to the idea that Trump just blurted that shit out and didn't expressly mean to invoke a firing squad. I do, however, also think Trump has gotten away with a shitload of innuendo that always just happens to suggest violence against his political enemies. After a while, it's either a big coincidence, or it's a strategy.
Not to mention, if any other politician in American history meant "let's see how she does in real war" but says "let's see how she does with a specific number of rifles pointed at her", which btw is not really something that happens in war, you just get shot by somebody, a group of nine dudes doesn't stand there with rifles pointed at you, but... Anyway, any other politician says that, and that's a career-ending gaffe. Trump gets a pass again. Every other politician, moreso Democrats these days, are expected to craft their words so carefully as to make them bulletproof, impossible to interpret the wrong way, but Trump gets to be a rambling, hateful moron who just says shit like this constantly. The double standard is so striking as to be a cliff. Its a very good point. I'd probably judge other politicians much more harshly for saying the same thing. Weird.
It is not "weird" it is a a hole Democrats dig themselves into. If you keep claiming that someone is Hitler, everything else is kinda meh.
For example: If you found out that Hitler was drunk driving once, you wouldn't go "Damn I was on a fence, but people were right, he was a monster"
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
On November 02 2024 01:07 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 00:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2024 00:33 Magic Powers wrote:
Ok yeah sure, why not. Lets use the same reasoning. Hitler was also only using hyperbole, right? He only acted on his words later, he wasn't doing anything bad until he started doing bad things.
Oh wait, Trump already delivered on his words when he picked three anti-choice justices. All three of them ended up overturning Roe v Wade. Here are the only three judges that opposed the new ruling:
Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama.
Awesome, under Trump many rape victims can no longer have a legal abortion. Fantastic.
And this is only one of plenty of examples of Trump already causing terrible harm to Americans and the world. Remember the Paris climate accord? Trump's fault. Iran nuclear deal? Trump's fault. Anti-immigration policies and rhetoric? Trump's fault. Attempts at undermining democracy? Trump's fault.
So we have sufficient evidence that Trump's words lead to real life consequences. Now that his rhetoric got even worse, we shouldn't trust him on any of it, right? We should just stick our fingers in our ears. If Trump wins and puts Kamala in front of a firing squad, you're welcome to say 'I told you so' Yeah if I just want to be right and that's my whole motivation, sure. Problem is I want to prevent an obvious train crash that people keep making excuses for, so my goal is ideally to never be proven right. I prefer if people don't have to explain away how they let a disaster happen that everyone could see coming from miles away. Apparently people never learned from the fallout of Nazi Germany. Now I understand much better how Hitler came into power.
I’m as critical as anyone of Trump in this here thread, even I read his comments as ‘if she’s so keen to go to war, have her face the rifles herself’ rather than any rhetoric about sticking her in front of a firing squad
His general rhetoric is so frequently appalling that I don’t think we need to make that kind of stretch, he supplies plenty of other ammo
|
On November 01 2024 23:21 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2024 22:16 WombaT wrote:Is Liz Cheney even a particular war hawk or are we just assuming he’s her father? I genuinely don’t know, perhaps there’s some validity to that critique Regardless, the place it comes from is not from any kind of ideological disagreement, merely not showing sufficient fealty. Liz Cheney is firstly a woman, not a he. And she's really a war hawk, they all are. This is one of the biggest schisms in US politics that exists between the new Drumpf tent and the rest of the uniparty which is united under the same foreign policy. It's an important thing to be aware of in politics. The woman publicly took shits on him and his image and was instrumental in impeaching him (destroying her reputation and elected career in the process). This is not some simple lack of bootlicking. She made herself his explicit political enemy and met the consequences of that risky action. Any reaction from him is completely justified and he has every right to do. She's also a know-nothing incompetent product of nepotism so he probably would have been justified even if he shot first, which he did not, and would have been lauded by liberals if he had done so before the year 2015. Show nested quote +On November 01 2024 12:54 Falling wrote:
As Biden has declined, his comebacks have as well. His debate had a similar one. "I'm not dumb, you're dumb". Something like that. I can't remember the exact insult, but it was equally ineffective whatever it was. But it's also not dividing as I don't see genuine hurt. I see hyper-partisan joy. They finally got Harris... er Biden to say the deplorable line. Election saved. Trump wins. Scum and Enemy within loses. Democrats are such very bad people, sick people, radical left lunatics. I can't believe they would resort to name calling. So divisive. Harris... er Biden said the thing. We win.
You are probably thinking of "you're the sucker, you're the loser" which is a strong analogy in this case because like the Puerto Rico joke, they both rely on retaliation for things that weren't even said by Drumpf to begin with. You would be hard pressed to find times when Drumpf flatly dehumanized voters with "scum" or "garbage" or "irredeemable" or "deplorable." Because I can't and I've been watching him for a while. He attacks actual opponents. Many of whom attack him first.
Here's the repeating order of events simplified:
1) Punch Drumpf (acceptable because he's the fash)
2) Drumpf punches someone back (which he's not allowed to do because that's fascism)
3) Use this to confirm that Drumpf is the fash
4) Punch his supporters because that's justified nowThe reaction to Biden and Harris's comments is not joy so much as predictable vindication that the area-of-effect perpetual leftist outrage machine cannot help itself but lash out in uncontrolled emotional outbursts. They can't help themselves. There's very little substantive difference between him now and 2016 or 1986, the main catalyst now is how long he has persisted and how inconvenient he is as a threat to the powers who stand to lose from him.
The idea that Trump's offensive attacks and dehumanizing language are rare and primarily retaliatory is just plain insane. They've already been cited by the dozens over the past 8+ years. No reason to even pretend like he's the victim or only playing defense here.
|
On November 02 2024 01:07 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 00:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2024 00:33 Magic Powers wrote:
Ok yeah sure, why not. Lets use the same reasoning. Hitler was also only using hyperbole, right? He only acted on his words later, he wasn't doing anything bad until he started doing bad things.
Oh wait, Trump already delivered on his words when he picked three anti-choice justices. All three of them ended up overturning Roe v Wade. Here are the only three judges that opposed the new ruling:
Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama.
Awesome, under Trump many rape victims can no longer have a legal abortion. Fantastic.
And this is only one of plenty of examples of Trump already causing terrible harm to Americans and the world. Remember the Paris climate accord? Trump's fault. Iran nuclear deal? Trump's fault. Anti-immigration policies and rhetoric? Trump's fault. Attempts at undermining democracy? Trump's fault.
So we have sufficient evidence that Trump's words lead to real life consequences. Now that his rhetoric got even worse, we shouldn't trust him on any of it, right? We should just stick our fingers in our ears. If Trump wins and puts Kamala in front of a firing squad, you're welcome to say 'I told you so' Yeah if I just want to be right and that's my whole motivation, sure. Problem is I want to prevent an obvious train crash that people keep making excuses for, so my goal is ideally to never be proven right. I prefer if people don't have to explain away how they let a disaster happen that everyone could see coming from miles away. Apparently people never learned from the fallout of Nazi Germany. Now I understand much better how Hitler came into power.
I'll be honest I didn't think I was going to be to blame for the holocaust today.
Still, I love a new experience.
|
On November 02 2024 01:42 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 01:07 Magic Powers wrote:On November 02 2024 00:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2024 00:33 Magic Powers wrote:
Ok yeah sure, why not. Lets use the same reasoning. Hitler was also only using hyperbole, right? He only acted on his words later, he wasn't doing anything bad until he started doing bad things.
Oh wait, Trump already delivered on his words when he picked three anti-choice justices. All three of them ended up overturning Roe v Wade. Here are the only three judges that opposed the new ruling:
Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama.
Awesome, under Trump many rape victims can no longer have a legal abortion. Fantastic.
And this is only one of plenty of examples of Trump already causing terrible harm to Americans and the world. Remember the Paris climate accord? Trump's fault. Iran nuclear deal? Trump's fault. Anti-immigration policies and rhetoric? Trump's fault. Attempts at undermining democracy? Trump's fault.
So we have sufficient evidence that Trump's words lead to real life consequences. Now that his rhetoric got even worse, we shouldn't trust him on any of it, right? We should just stick our fingers in our ears. If Trump wins and puts Kamala in front of a firing squad, you're welcome to say 'I told you so' Yeah if I just want to be right and that's my whole motivation, sure. Problem is I want to prevent an obvious train crash that people keep making excuses for, so my goal is ideally to never be proven right. I prefer if people don't have to explain away how they let a disaster happen that everyone could see coming from miles away. Apparently people never learned from the fallout of Nazi Germany. Now I understand much better how Hitler came into power. I'll be honest I didn't think I was going to be to blame for the holocaust today. Still, I love a new experience.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm talking about Trump being a fascist and people not understanding how these people come into power. We have facists in power in Austria right this very moment. History repeats itself much more easily than you'd think.
|
On November 02 2024 01:51 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 01:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2024 01:07 Magic Powers wrote:On November 02 2024 00:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2024 00:33 Magic Powers wrote:
Ok yeah sure, why not. Lets use the same reasoning. Hitler was also only using hyperbole, right? He only acted on his words later, he wasn't doing anything bad until he started doing bad things.
Oh wait, Trump already delivered on his words when he picked three anti-choice justices. All three of them ended up overturning Roe v Wade. Here are the only three judges that opposed the new ruling:
Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama.
Awesome, under Trump many rape victims can no longer have a legal abortion. Fantastic.
And this is only one of plenty of examples of Trump already causing terrible harm to Americans and the world. Remember the Paris climate accord? Trump's fault. Iran nuclear deal? Trump's fault. Anti-immigration policies and rhetoric? Trump's fault. Attempts at undermining democracy? Trump's fault.
So we have sufficient evidence that Trump's words lead to real life consequences. Now that his rhetoric got even worse, we shouldn't trust him on any of it, right? We should just stick our fingers in our ears. If Trump wins and puts Kamala in front of a firing squad, you're welcome to say 'I told you so' Yeah if I just want to be right and that's my whole motivation, sure. Problem is I want to prevent an obvious train crash that people keep making excuses for, so my goal is ideally to never be proven right. I prefer if people don't have to explain away how they let a disaster happen that everyone could see coming from miles away. Apparently people never learned from the fallout of Nazi Germany. Now I understand much better how Hitler came into power. I'll be honest I didn't think I was going to be to blame for the holocaust today. Still, I love a new experience. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm talking about Trump being a fascist and people not understanding how these people come into power. We have facists in power in Austria right this very moment. History repeats itself much more easily than you'd think.
I understand exactly how these people get into power.
It takes alot of rhetoric and a population that is ready for it.
It also involves incompetent opposition.
A guy thousands of miles away disagreeing about the meaning of a statement is specifically not how he got into power.
The wider point of people being desensitized to his constant stream of crazy bullshit is a valid one, but in this case, he was not talking about lining KH up in front of a firing squad.
|
On November 02 2024 01:26 WombaT wrote:
Oh noes not a typo!
I was not being facetious, there are people on the internet who don't know basic information and I was speedily correcting without judging. If you have anything to add about something past the very first sentence, don't keep it a secret.
On November 02 2024 01:51 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 01:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2024 01:07 Magic Powers wrote:On November 02 2024 00:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2024 00:33 Magic Powers wrote:
Ok yeah sure, why not. Lets use the same reasoning. Hitler was also only using hyperbole, right? He only acted on his words later, he wasn't doing anything bad until he started doing bad things.
Oh wait, Trump already delivered on his words when he picked three anti-choice justices. All three of them ended up overturning Roe v Wade. Here are the only three judges that opposed the new ruling:
Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama.
Awesome, under Trump many rape victims can no longer have a legal abortion. Fantastic.
And this is only one of plenty of examples of Trump already causing terrible harm to Americans and the world. Remember the Paris climate accord? Trump's fault. Iran nuclear deal? Trump's fault. Anti-immigration policies and rhetoric? Trump's fault. Attempts at undermining democracy? Trump's fault.
So we have sufficient evidence that Trump's words lead to real life consequences. Now that his rhetoric got even worse, we shouldn't trust him on any of it, right? We should just stick our fingers in our ears. If Trump wins and puts Kamala in front of a firing squad, you're welcome to say 'I told you so' Yeah if I just want to be right and that's my whole motivation, sure. Problem is I want to prevent an obvious train crash that people keep making excuses for, so my goal is ideally to never be proven right. I prefer if people don't have to explain away how they let a disaster happen that everyone could see coming from miles away. Apparently people never learned from the fallout of Nazi Germany. Now I understand much better how Hitler came into power. I'll be honest I didn't think I was going to be to blame for the holocaust today. Still, I love a new experience. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm talking about Trump being a fascist and people not understanding how these people come into power. We have facists in power in Austria right this very moment. History repeats itself much more easily than you'd think.
Ballpark how many people did Hitler vs. Drumpf kill and jail in the first year since they became heads of state? What about the first 8 years? How many parties did Drumpf make illegal?
On November 02 2024 01:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2024 23:21 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2024 22:16 WombaT wrote:Is Liz Cheney even a particular war hawk or are we just assuming he’s her father? I genuinely don’t know, perhaps there’s some validity to that critique Regardless, the place it comes from is not from any kind of ideological disagreement, merely not showing sufficient fealty. Liz Cheney is firstly a woman, not a he. And she's really a war hawk, they all are. This is one of the biggest schisms in US politics that exists between the new Drumpf tent and the rest of the uniparty which is united under the same foreign policy. It's an important thing to be aware of in politics. The woman publicly took shits on him and his image and was instrumental in impeaching him (destroying her reputation and elected career in the process). This is not some simple lack of bootlicking. She made herself his explicit political enemy and met the consequences of that risky action. Any reaction from him is completely justified and he has every right to do. She's also a know-nothing incompetent product of nepotism so he probably would have been justified even if he shot first, which he did not, and would have been lauded by liberals if he had done so before the year 2015. On November 01 2024 12:54 Falling wrote:
As Biden has declined, his comebacks have as well. His debate had a similar one. "I'm not dumb, you're dumb". Something like that. I can't remember the exact insult, but it was equally ineffective whatever it was. But it's also not dividing as I don't see genuine hurt. I see hyper-partisan joy. They finally got Harris... er Biden to say the deplorable line. Election saved. Trump wins. Scum and Enemy within loses. Democrats are such very bad people, sick people, radical left lunatics. I can't believe they would resort to name calling. So divisive. Harris... er Biden said the thing. We win.
You are probably thinking of "you're the sucker, you're the loser" which is a strong analogy in this case because like the Puerto Rico joke, they both rely on retaliation for things that weren't even said by Drumpf to begin with. You would be hard pressed to find times when Drumpf flatly dehumanized voters with "scum" or "garbage" or "irredeemable" or "deplorable." Because I can't and I've been watching him for a while. He attacks actual opponents. Many of whom attack him first.
Here's the repeating order of events simplified:
1) Punch Drumpf (acceptable because he's the fash)
2) Drumpf punches someone back (which he's not allowed to do because that's fascism)
3) Use this to confirm that Drumpf is the fash
4) Punch his supporters because that's justified nowThe reaction to Biden and Harris's comments is not joy so much as predictable vindication that the area-of-effect perpetual leftist outrage machine cannot help itself but lash out in uncontrolled emotional outbursts. They can't help themselves. There's very little substantive difference between him now and 2016 or 1986, the main catalyst now is how long he has persisted and how inconvenient he is as a threat to the powers who stand to lose from him. The idea that Trump's offensive attacks and dehumanizing language are rare and primarily retaliatory is just plain insane. They've already been cited by the dozens over the past 8+ years. No reason to even pretend like he's the victim or only playing defense here.
Okeydokey, show me a dozen times he dehumanized the other side's voters as such and I'll change my vote. Not just a Sarah Palin "all of them," show me. Just one dozen. Since there's multiple dozens I'll be generous because that'd be prohibitive for your research. Just one dozen please. Not even a baker's dozen.
|
On November 02 2024 01:56 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 01:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 01 2024 23:21 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2024 22:16 WombaT wrote:Is Liz Cheney even a particular war hawk or are we just assuming he’s her father? I genuinely don’t know, perhaps there’s some validity to that critique Regardless, the place it comes from is not from any kind of ideological disagreement, merely not showing sufficient fealty. Liz Cheney is firstly a woman, not a he. And she's really a war hawk, they all are. This is one of the biggest schisms in US politics that exists between the new Drumpf tent and the rest of the uniparty which is united under the same foreign policy. It's an important thing to be aware of in politics. The woman publicly took shits on him and his image and was instrumental in impeaching him (destroying her reputation and elected career in the process). This is not some simple lack of bootlicking. She made herself his explicit political enemy and met the consequences of that risky action. Any reaction from him is completely justified and he has every right to do. She's also a know-nothing incompetent product of nepotism so he probably would have been justified even if he shot first, which he did not, and would have been lauded by liberals if he had done so before the year 2015. On November 01 2024 12:54 Falling wrote:
As Biden has declined, his comebacks have as well. His debate had a similar one. "I'm not dumb, you're dumb". Something like that. I can't remember the exact insult, but it was equally ineffective whatever it was. But it's also not dividing as I don't see genuine hurt. I see hyper-partisan joy. They finally got Harris... er Biden to say the deplorable line. Election saved. Trump wins. Scum and Enemy within loses. Democrats are such very bad people, sick people, radical left lunatics. I can't believe they would resort to name calling. So divisive. Harris... er Biden said the thing. We win.
You are probably thinking of "you're the sucker, you're the loser" which is a strong analogy in this case because like the Puerto Rico joke, they both rely on retaliation for things that weren't even said by Drumpf to begin with. You would be hard pressed to find times when Drumpf flatly dehumanized voters with "scum" or "garbage" or "irredeemable" or "deplorable." Because I can't and I've been watching him for a while. He attacks actual opponents. Many of whom attack him first.
Here's the repeating order of events simplified:
1) Punch Drumpf (acceptable because he's the fash)
2) Drumpf punches someone back (which he's not allowed to do because that's fascism)
3) Use this to confirm that Drumpf is the fash
4) Punch his supporters because that's justified nowThe reaction to Biden and Harris's comments is not joy so much as predictable vindication that the area-of-effect perpetual leftist outrage machine cannot help itself but lash out in uncontrolled emotional outbursts. They can't help themselves. There's very little substantive difference between him now and 2016 or 1986, the main catalyst now is how long he has persisted and how inconvenient he is as a threat to the powers who stand to lose from him. The idea that Trump's offensive attacks and dehumanizing language are rare and primarily retaliatory is just plain insane. They've already been cited by the dozens over the past 8+ years. No reason to even pretend like he's the victim or only playing defense here. Okeydokey, show me a dozen times he dehumanized the other side's voters as such and I'll change my vote. Not just a Sarah Palin "all of them," show me. Just one dozen. Since there's multiple dozens I'll be generous because that'd be prohibitive for your research. Just one dozen please. Not even a baker's dozen.
We’re all aware of how you’d move the goalposts with every example. If we mention how Trump dehumanized Obama or Clinton or Biden, you’d say that that’s only one voter at a time, and the language has to be aimed at groups, not individuals. And then if we mention his dehumanizing language aimed at groups like women and people of color and the LGBTQ+ community, you’d assert that some of them might still vote for Trump which means that those communities can’t truly be labeled as “the other side”. And then if we mention him attacking the Democratic party, you’d insist that each example isn’t dehumanizing enough for your liking. Hell, Trump has made over a dozen dehumanizing comments aimed just at Harris lol.
|
Canada11264 Posts
So if anyone takes you up on that, I think this will be the sticking point on whether you will even accept what is presented to you:
He attacks actual opponents.
vs
he dehumanized the other side's voters as such
What would you commit in advance as a good way to delineate between opponents vs 'other side's voter'... which he could also see as his opponents. Because if 'they' stole the election, of course they are his opponents. They are the enemy within and they are going to take away your ability to vote (Who? When?) It's the great almighty, completely undefined 'They' with Trump.
Is it just going to be finding examples Trump saying 'they' are X. But you will read into 'they' as his political opponents and the other side sees 'they' as Democrats or immigrants writ large... into an impasse on interpretation. Does Trump have to be so specific as to precisely say 'And the Democrats voters, I don't even mean their leaders, but their voters are X'? What counts as evidence in your world?
Because Trump speaks in pretty broad generalizations (They're eating the dogs) and is not known for specificity, and the broad generalizations is the very thing, I guess, that we are very mad at Biden.
|
On November 02 2024 01:56 oBlade wrote:I was not being facetious, there are people on the internet who don't know basic information and I was speedily correcting without judging. If you have anything to add about something past the very first sentence, don't keep it a secret. Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 01:51 Magic Powers wrote:On November 02 2024 01:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2024 01:07 Magic Powers wrote:On November 02 2024 00:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2024 00:33 Magic Powers wrote:
Ok yeah sure, why not. Lets use the same reasoning. Hitler was also only using hyperbole, right? He only acted on his words later, he wasn't doing anything bad until he started doing bad things.
Oh wait, Trump already delivered on his words when he picked three anti-choice justices. All three of them ended up overturning Roe v Wade. Here are the only three judges that opposed the new ruling:
Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama.
Awesome, under Trump many rape victims can no longer have a legal abortion. Fantastic.
And this is only one of plenty of examples of Trump already causing terrible harm to Americans and the world. Remember the Paris climate accord? Trump's fault. Iran nuclear deal? Trump's fault. Anti-immigration policies and rhetoric? Trump's fault. Attempts at undermining democracy? Trump's fault.
So we have sufficient evidence that Trump's words lead to real life consequences. Now that his rhetoric got even worse, we shouldn't trust him on any of it, right? We should just stick our fingers in our ears. If Trump wins and puts Kamala in front of a firing squad, you're welcome to say 'I told you so' Yeah if I just want to be right and that's my whole motivation, sure. Problem is I want to prevent an obvious train crash that people keep making excuses for, so my goal is ideally to never be proven right. I prefer if people don't have to explain away how they let a disaster happen that everyone could see coming from miles away. Apparently people never learned from the fallout of Nazi Germany. Now I understand much better how Hitler came into power. I'll be honest I didn't think I was going to be to blame for the holocaust today. Still, I love a new experience. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm talking about Trump being a fascist and people not understanding how these people come into power. We have facists in power in Austria right this very moment. History repeats itself much more easily than you'd think. Ballpark how many people did Hitler vs. Drumpf kill and jail in the first year since they became heads of state? What about the first 8 years? How many parties did Drumpf make illegal? Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 01:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 01 2024 23:21 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2024 22:16 WombaT wrote:Is Liz Cheney even a particular war hawk or are we just assuming he’s her father? I genuinely don’t know, perhaps there’s some validity to that critique Regardless, the place it comes from is not from any kind of ideological disagreement, merely not showing sufficient fealty. Liz Cheney is firstly a woman, not a he. And she's really a war hawk, they all are. This is one of the biggest schisms in US politics that exists between the new Drumpf tent and the rest of the uniparty which is united under the same foreign policy. It's an important thing to be aware of in politics. The woman publicly took shits on him and his image and was instrumental in impeaching him (destroying her reputation and elected career in the process). This is not some simple lack of bootlicking. She made herself his explicit political enemy and met the consequences of that risky action. Any reaction from him is completely justified and he has every right to do. She's also a know-nothing incompetent product of nepotism so he probably would have been justified even if he shot first, which he did not, and would have been lauded by liberals if he had done so before the year 2015. On November 01 2024 12:54 Falling wrote:
As Biden has declined, his comebacks have as well. His debate had a similar one. "I'm not dumb, you're dumb". Something like that. I can't remember the exact insult, but it was equally ineffective whatever it was. But it's also not dividing as I don't see genuine hurt. I see hyper-partisan joy. They finally got Harris... er Biden to say the deplorable line. Election saved. Trump wins. Scum and Enemy within loses. Democrats are such very bad people, sick people, radical left lunatics. I can't believe they would resort to name calling. So divisive. Harris... er Biden said the thing. We win.
You are probably thinking of "you're the sucker, you're the loser" which is a strong analogy in this case because like the Puerto Rico joke, they both rely on retaliation for things that weren't even said by Drumpf to begin with. You would be hard pressed to find times when Drumpf flatly dehumanized voters with "scum" or "garbage" or "irredeemable" or "deplorable." Because I can't and I've been watching him for a while. He attacks actual opponents. Many of whom attack him first.
Here's the repeating order of events simplified:
1) Punch Drumpf (acceptable because he's the fash)
2) Drumpf punches someone back (which he's not allowed to do because that's fascism)
3) Use this to confirm that Drumpf is the fash
4) Punch his supporters because that's justified nowThe reaction to Biden and Harris's comments is not joy so much as predictable vindication that the area-of-effect perpetual leftist outrage machine cannot help itself but lash out in uncontrolled emotional outbursts. They can't help themselves. There's very little substantive difference between him now and 2016 or 1986, the main catalyst now is how long he has persisted and how inconvenient he is as a threat to the powers who stand to lose from him. The idea that Trump's offensive attacks and dehumanizing language are rare and primarily retaliatory is just plain insane. They've already been cited by the dozens over the past 8+ years. No reason to even pretend like he's the victim or only playing defense here. Okeydokey, show me a dozen times he dehumanized the other side's voters as such and I'll change my vote. Not just a Sarah Palin "all of them," show me. Just one dozen. Since there's multiple dozens I'll be generous because that'd be prohibitive for your research. Just one dozen please. Not even a baker's dozen.
Most fascists in power never became as bad a Hitler, they still did terrible things anyway. Austria also had several fascists during Hitler's reign, they didn't commit genociode, but they were the reason why Hitler successfully infiltrated the Austrian government with Nazis and it resulted in a rigged fake referendum, after which Hitler annexed Austria with force.
You're downplaying Trump because you don't understand how far-reaching the impact of fascism is. You think in terms of black and white, either extremely evil like Hitler or nothing to see here. But that's not how this works. There's a whole spectrum of fascism outside of Nazism that's also bad and it must also be stopped even when it doesn't immediately result in a genocide. The KKK? Still fascists. Are they going around committing murder? No. Does that mean people don't need to be afraid of them anymore? Of course they do, they're still a serious threat. Just not a genocidal threat.
For the same reason Trump has to be stopped. It's the reason why people must vote Harris even if they oppose her. It's far too important to stop that man before his fascism spirals out of control.
|
On November 02 2024 02:40 Falling wrote:So if anyone takes you up on that, I think this will be the sticking point on whether you will even accept what is presented to you: vs What would you commit in advance as a good way to delineate between opponents vs 'other side's voter'... which he could also see as his opponents. Because if 'they' stole the election, of course they are his opponents. They are the enemy within and they are going to take away your ability to vote (Who? When?) It's the great almighty, completely undefined 'They' with Trump. Is it just going to be finding examples Trump saying 'they' are X. But you will read into 'they' as his political opponents and the other side sees 'they' as Democrats or immigrants writ large... into an impasse on interpretation. Does Trump have to be so specific as to precisely say 'And the Democrats voters, I don't even mean their leaders, but their voters are X'? What counts as evidence in your world? Because Trump speaks in pretty broad generalizations (They're eating the dogs) and is not known for specificity, and the broad generalizations is the very thing, I guess, that we are very mad at Biden.
It is such a populist tactic and it frustrates the hell out of me. Because if they were specific it would be obvious how awful and heinous the populist is being but because they are vague with "they" or "globalist/capitalist" the people in their camp get to pick the most evil of evil they would be alright with doing awful things too. The more specific it becomes the worse and less appealing it is so the exact "they" does not come out until power is achieved. They "they, globalist, capitalist" also is a moving problem because getting rid of them never solves the problem so you always need more and it is basically anyone who gets in the way.
It always should be called out by everyone, but the "they's" getting talked about are a huge percentage of the population. It is some scary shit when you think about the actual specifics of what it would take to do what Trump wants, or what some of the posters here are talking about.
|
Also, supporting Ukraine is being anti-war. If you think this is wrong you just have spent too much time on the wrong youtube channels.
|
On November 02 2024 02:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 01:56 oBlade wrote:On November 02 2024 01:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 01 2024 23:21 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2024 22:16 WombaT wrote:Is Liz Cheney even a particular war hawk or are we just assuming he’s her father? I genuinely don’t know, perhaps there’s some validity to that critique Regardless, the place it comes from is not from any kind of ideological disagreement, merely not showing sufficient fealty. Liz Cheney is firstly a woman, not a he. And she's really a war hawk, they all are. This is one of the biggest schisms in US politics that exists between the new Drumpf tent and the rest of the uniparty which is united under the same foreign policy. It's an important thing to be aware of in politics. The woman publicly took shits on him and his image and was instrumental in impeaching him (destroying her reputation and elected career in the process). This is not some simple lack of bootlicking. She made herself his explicit political enemy and met the consequences of that risky action. Any reaction from him is completely justified and he has every right to do. She's also a know-nothing incompetent product of nepotism so he probably would have been justified even if he shot first, which he did not, and would have been lauded by liberals if he had done so before the year 2015. On November 01 2024 12:54 Falling wrote:
As Biden has declined, his comebacks have as well. His debate had a similar one. "I'm not dumb, you're dumb". Something like that. I can't remember the exact insult, but it was equally ineffective whatever it was. But it's also not dividing as I don't see genuine hurt. I see hyper-partisan joy. They finally got Harris... er Biden to say the deplorable line. Election saved. Trump wins. Scum and Enemy within loses. Democrats are such very bad people, sick people, radical left lunatics. I can't believe they would resort to name calling. So divisive. Harris... er Biden said the thing. We win.
You are probably thinking of "you're the sucker, you're the loser" which is a strong analogy in this case because like the Puerto Rico joke, they both rely on retaliation for things that weren't even said by Drumpf to begin with. You would be hard pressed to find times when Drumpf flatly dehumanized voters with "scum" or "garbage" or "irredeemable" or "deplorable." Because I can't and I've been watching him for a while. He attacks actual opponents. Many of whom attack him first.
Here's the repeating order of events simplified:
1) Punch Drumpf (acceptable because he's the fash)
2) Drumpf punches someone back (which he's not allowed to do because that's fascism)
3) Use this to confirm that Drumpf is the fash
4) Punch his supporters because that's justified nowThe reaction to Biden and Harris's comments is not joy so much as predictable vindication that the area-of-effect perpetual leftist outrage machine cannot help itself but lash out in uncontrolled emotional outbursts. They can't help themselves. There's very little substantive difference between him now and 2016 or 1986, the main catalyst now is how long he has persisted and how inconvenient he is as a threat to the powers who stand to lose from him. The idea that Trump's offensive attacks and dehumanizing language are rare and primarily retaliatory is just plain insane. They've already been cited by the dozens over the past 8+ years. No reason to even pretend like he's the victim or only playing defense here. Okeydokey, show me a dozen times he dehumanized the other side's voters as such and I'll change my vote. Not just a Sarah Palin "all of them," show me. Just one dozen. Since there's multiple dozens I'll be generous because that'd be prohibitive for your research. Just one dozen please. Not even a baker's dozen. We’re all aware of how you’d move the goalposts with every example. If we mention how Trump dehumanized Obama or Clinton or Biden, you’d say that that’s only one voter at a time, and the language has to be aimed at groups, not individuals. And then if we mention his dehumanizing language aimed at groups like women and people of color and the LGBTQ+ community, you’d insist that some of them might still vote for Trump which means that those communities can’t truly be labeled as “the other side”. And then if we mention him attacking the Democratic party, you’ll insist that each example isn’t dehumanizing enough for your liking. Hell, Trump has made over a dozen dehumanizing comments aimed just at Harris lol.
Oh - Are you now condemning the reciprocal comments made by Harris and Democrats towards Drumpf? What an olive branch.
I'm not moving any goalposts, and I'm not going to. I built one and left it there. It's fixed.
What you're describing is likely just your own goalpost because you realize you have no actual tit for tat examples on this, or are desperately scouring the internet for even a single semblance of one.
Categorizing women, ethnic minorities, and LGBT as Democrats is asinine. What were you thinking when you typed that?
At any rate you seem to hold the opinion that he attacks a lot of groups. That's great. This increases your odds. "Democratic voters" is a group. "Biden voters" is a group. "Biden supporters" is a group. Replace "Biden" with "Kamala" and they're still groups. Find me 12 examples dehumanizing any combination of those. Because the last 3 Democratic nominees for president have done this, and the last 3 Republican nominee hasn't.
Perhaps calling people Nazis is not dehumanizing per se, but superhumanizing, in which case maybe our definition is a bit too narrow. Clearly calling voters stupid or Nazis is a different line than calling the person you're running against stupid or a Nazi. One does not justify or excuse the other.
I say "clearly" because that's the issue. If that's not clear to you then I'm happy to keep my vote.
Many candidates have complained "X don't support me enough." This again is not dehumanizing. There is really only one side that explicitly attacks the voters for voting, both in this thread and among nominees for president.
|
If I was a republican I'd want Giuliani to disappear. Not only his incompetence, but he forgot the dog whistle part of his racism lately.
They live back 200 years ago. They just shouldn’t have been taken out of the jungle and placed in the middle of small town America. That’s ridiculous. Or big town America, for that matter. These people are insane, what they’re doing. They’re insane.
https://ca.yahoo.com/news/rudy-giuliani-rant-haitians-jungle-124106132.html
There can be no more arguments on where he stands.
|
https://x.com/CalltoActivism/status/1851771647784612248
Ok lets test the waters on this. This is a case where hes specifically calling the people around kamala scum and garbage. Does this qualify as one of the cases for you? Because this took a few seconds of google searching and I don't know if anyone wants to put in the effort with your track record if this even isn't enough. I know at least we can find the times he calls people vermin that disagree with him. The bizzare mention of "find me 12 cases of this that I accept" does not strike a lot of confidence that you will acept any evidence to begin with.
|
On November 02 2024 03:25 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 02:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 01:56 oBlade wrote:On November 02 2024 01:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 01 2024 23:21 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2024 22:16 WombaT wrote:Is Liz Cheney even a particular war hawk or are we just assuming he’s her father? I genuinely don’t know, perhaps there’s some validity to that critique Regardless, the place it comes from is not from any kind of ideological disagreement, merely not showing sufficient fealty. Liz Cheney is firstly a woman, not a he. And she's really a war hawk, they all are. This is one of the biggest schisms in US politics that exists between the new Drumpf tent and the rest of the uniparty which is united under the same foreign policy. It's an important thing to be aware of in politics. The woman publicly took shits on him and his image and was instrumental in impeaching him (destroying her reputation and elected career in the process). This is not some simple lack of bootlicking. She made herself his explicit political enemy and met the consequences of that risky action. Any reaction from him is completely justified and he has every right to do. She's also a know-nothing incompetent product of nepotism so he probably would have been justified even if he shot first, which he did not, and would have been lauded by liberals if he had done so before the year 2015. On November 01 2024 12:54 Falling wrote:
As Biden has declined, his comebacks have as well. His debate had a similar one. "I'm not dumb, you're dumb". Something like that. I can't remember the exact insult, but it was equally ineffective whatever it was. But it's also not dividing as I don't see genuine hurt. I see hyper-partisan joy. They finally got Harris... er Biden to say the deplorable line. Election saved. Trump wins. Scum and Enemy within loses. Democrats are such very bad people, sick people, radical left lunatics. I can't believe they would resort to name calling. So divisive. Harris... er Biden said the thing. We win.
You are probably thinking of "you're the sucker, you're the loser" which is a strong analogy in this case because like the Puerto Rico joke, they both rely on retaliation for things that weren't even said by Drumpf to begin with. You would be hard pressed to find times when Drumpf flatly dehumanized voters with "scum" or "garbage" or "irredeemable" or "deplorable." Because I can't and I've been watching him for a while. He attacks actual opponents. Many of whom attack him first.
Here's the repeating order of events simplified:
1) Punch Drumpf (acceptable because he's the fash)
2) Drumpf punches someone back (which he's not allowed to do because that's fascism)
3) Use this to confirm that Drumpf is the fash
4) Punch his supporters because that's justified nowThe reaction to Biden and Harris's comments is not joy so much as predictable vindication that the area-of-effect perpetual leftist outrage machine cannot help itself but lash out in uncontrolled emotional outbursts. They can't help themselves. There's very little substantive difference between him now and 2016 or 1986, the main catalyst now is how long he has persisted and how inconvenient he is as a threat to the powers who stand to lose from him. The idea that Trump's offensive attacks and dehumanizing language are rare and primarily retaliatory is just plain insane. They've already been cited by the dozens over the past 8+ years. No reason to even pretend like he's the victim or only playing defense here. Okeydokey, show me a dozen times he dehumanized the other side's voters as such and I'll change my vote. Not just a Sarah Palin "all of them," show me. Just one dozen. Since there's multiple dozens I'll be generous because that'd be prohibitive for your research. Just one dozen please. Not even a baker's dozen. We’re all aware of how you’d move the goalposts with every example. If we mention how Trump dehumanized Obama or Clinton or Biden, you’d say that that’s only one voter at a time, and the language has to be aimed at groups, not individuals. And then if we mention his dehumanizing language aimed at groups like women and people of color and the LGBTQ+ community, you’d insist that some of them might still vote for Trump which means that those communities can’t truly be labeled as “the other side”. And then if we mention him attacking the Democratic party, you’ll insist that each example isn’t dehumanizing enough for your liking. Hell, Trump has made over a dozen dehumanizing comments aimed just at Harris lol. Oh - Are you now condemning the reciprocal comments made by Harris and Democrats towards Drumpf? What an olive branch. I'm not moving any goalposts, and I'm not going to. I built one and left it there. It's fixed. What you're describing is likely just your own goalpost because you realize you have no actual tit for tat examples on this, or are desperately scouring the internet for even a single semblance of one. Categorizing women, ethnic minorities, and LGBT as Democrats is asinine. What were you thinking when you typed that? At any rate you seem to hold the opinion that he attacks a lot of groups. That's great. This increases your odds. "Democratic voters" is a group. "Biden voters" is a group. "Biden supporters" is a group. Replace "Biden" with "Kamala" and they're still groups. Find me 12 examples dehumanizing any combination of those. Because the last 3 Democratic nominees for president have done this, and the last 3 Republican nominee hasn't. Perhaps calling people Nazis is not dehumanizing per se, but superhumanizing, in which case maybe our definition is a bit too narrow. Clearly calling voters stupid or Nazis is a different line than calling the person you're running against stupid or a Nazi. One does not justify or excuse the other. I say "clearly" because that's the issue. If that's not clear to you then I'm happy to keep my vote. Many candidates have complained "X don't support me enough." This again is not dehumanizing. There is really only one side that explicitly attacks the voters for voting, both in this thread and among nominees for president.
Props for potentially moving the goalposts to "attacking voters for voting" and/or definitely forbidding demographics that are traditionally Democratic. I'm so glad I didn't waste my time lol. Do Biden and Obama and Clinton and Harris count as Democratic voters?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
