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.
On June 11 2025 01:19 Jankisa wrote: EDIT: I just noticed he replied, this long winded reply I will simply ignore it and won't read it, and now we wasted a nice amount of his time that he can't spend posting this shit on reddit or stormfront or wherever he usually spews his bullshit. It ain't much, but it's honest work.
Frustrating them by not participating in their bad-faith nonsense is the best strategy.
The evergreen Sartre quote universally applicable to the alt-right: “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
The conservatism in this thread is a great example of ideological possession. Conservatism for the sake of conservatism, and not for a greater purpose. This is what happens when people think their ideology is better than all other ideologies.
For anyone on the fence about whether to believe you're really Stormfront for supporting the American system of federalism.
When Biden ran against Obama and Clinton, he was indistinguishable from Stephen Miller when it came to the issue of sanctuary cities.
Later it was the Obama administration that cemented the transformation of the Democratic party on immigration policy, like creating DACA through executive order, which was only ruled to be unconstitutional years later after taking over a decade to get reviewed. Then and only after being Obama's VP, when Biden won 2020 in Obama's 3rd term he completely contradicted 40-50 years of his actual beliefs and we had to elect someone else to manage the resulting fallout from those policies.
Remember on January 6, when Trumpers were murdering police officers, Trump didn't call for the national guard because it was a "day of love". He later pardoned the murderers and invited them to the White House.
LA destroyed some easily replaceable property and they're calling it an insurrection.
There's no point in trying to engage in good faith with these folks. They don't care about their own hypocrisy. They think it's hilarious. Expose them for their lies, let them flail helplessly as they sling their whataboutisms, and then go on your day.
On June 11 2025 01:19 Jankisa wrote: Oh, I understand how these people work and I'm not trying to "win" or even more foolishly try to convince people like him of anything, I am honestly entertained by the lengths and absurdities that they will go to justify their world view.
I'm kind of new to these threads so I get people trying to warn me about guys like him or GH (by Kwark in Russia/Ukraine thread) on the other side of political spectrum because it might seem like they get to me, they really don't, I just refuse to let their moronic bullshit stand without calling it out, it's both entertainment and a public service for me to reply to them to let them know in which exact ways they are full of shit.
It's kind of like tricking an AI to say something patently absurd, the fact that this empty barrel of a man (I assume, sorry for assuming your gender oBlade) actually compared Trump to Lincoln is honestly hilarious to me, when he does shit like that as compared to his usual long winded posts with links and "explanation" for these fascists doing fascist things it's kind of fun because it's so patently absurd that it gives me hope that sooner or later people will notice how ridiculous these people are and their bullshit will stop working.
oBlade: Trump and Lincoln were both presidents. Jankisa: fascist
We'd hate to see what it would look like if it got to you.
Buddy, you didn't say they were both presidents, you said this insane thing: "Trump is a steward of keeping the Union together."
And no amount of pretending like you just said they were both presidents will change that, or the fact that you are a fascist bootlicker.
On June 11 2025 01:19 Jankisa wrote: EDIT: I just noticed he replied, this long winded reply I will simply ignore it and won't read it, and now we wasted a nice amount of his time that he can't spend posting this shit on reddit or stormfront or wherever he usually spews his bullshit. It ain't much, but it's honest work.
Frustrating them by not participating in their bad-faith nonsense is the best strategy.
The evergreen Sartre quote universally applicable to the alt-right: “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
That's a great quote and I love going over it every time I encounter it in the wild, seems to have been popping up more and more these days.
It's funny to see how he gets frustrated and how his brain is basically reeling into it's default position of imitating Trump, he's now attacking Biden, it's like a very weird little pantomime act he can't help but fall into because no one is taking the bait.
Lets get this out of the way first: Joe Biden did not say that sanctuary cities shouldn't exist. Alright, lets continue.
He pointed at the lack of funding for enforcement leading to federal laws being ignored by sanctuary cities leading to sanctions against sanctuary cities leading to stores being closed leading to the cities changing policy.
Got all that? Read it a few more times, watch the video a few more times. It'll all make sense (not to oBlade, but to people who can think around a number of corners).
Joe Biden, in 2007, wasn't against sanctuary cities. He was against them ignoring federal law. And he also criticized the existing administration for being "derelict" resulting in a lack of enforcement. So he was arguing that he had a plan to enforce federal law, not to end sanctuary cities.
Years later came Trump's sanctions against sanctuary cities. Those sanctions resulted in nothing but problems. Some courts repeatedly struck down his orders. The orders were largely - if not entirely - unconstitutional. That's because the sanctuary cities operate within the constitution. Trump had no argument against them other than his hatred for Mexicans.
Under Biden's return to sanity, federal funding for public safety to New York and other cities was restarted. Under Trump this funding was being withheld. I repeat: funding for public safety was being withheld under Trump and later returned under Biden.
This change of policy under Biden is what distinguishes him from Trump: he actually cares about the prosperity of American cities, and is therefore willing to change his policy according to the reality on the ground. If real life tells Biden he's wrong on something, he's willing to change his mind, and so he might. And so he did on occasion, such as this one. Which is a key sign of a competent leader.
Trump on the other hand only accepts bootlickers. Which is a key sign of an incompetent leader.
And this is what oBlade is complaining about. He's complaining that Biden is capable of learning to be a better leader. He wants Biden to be more like Trump, who is absolutely incapable of any and all introspection - unless it pleases his gigantic narcissism. Biden works for the country, Trump works for himself. This is what oBlade is upset about, this is what he thinks is worthy of criticism.
On June 11 2025 02:51 LightSpectra wrote: Remember on January 6, when Trumpers were murdering police officers, Trump didn't call for the national guard because it was a "day of love". He later pardoned the murderers and invited them to the White House.
LA destroyed some easily replaceable property and they're calling it an insurrection.
There's no point in trying to engage in good faith with these folks. They don't care about their own hypocrisy. They think it's hilarious. Expose them for their lies, let them flail helplessly as they sling their whataboutisms, and then go on your day.
Is there anything the libs/Dems/ilk can maintain a discussion among themselves for a few pages on here that isn't how much they dislike the stupid people to their left and right or some tangent like architecture or some shit? Hard to remember the last time they have (outside when I get them to try).
NYC mayoral primary is an obvious choice since it's arguably the most important political bellwether for the future of the Democrat party, but there are other options.
The reason the thread is mostly inane bickering with oBlade types is because that's what most of the posters here enjoy doing.
On June 10 2025 21:51 Velr wrote: Are you seriously trying to take the stance of "everyone that comes into country XYZ has a right to stay in that country just because"?
Whats the need for discussion here?
As someone who has legally moved around between 6 different countries on 4 different continents (and had to deal with all the corresponding paperwork), I'll make the case that where you happened to be born should not limit where you choose to live. We're all humans and if by some happy accident you are born in a place you like to live that's great, but if you don't like it for whatever reason, why should some arbitrary line on a map stop you from moving somewhere else?
Now, I realize a heck of a lot of society is organized around those arbitrary lines on a map and if we currently were to open all borders without inhibition, society would absolutely collapse. But that isn't a reason not to move toward a societal organization where your birth country in the world is no more relevant than your birth town is now within a country.
On June 11 2025 02:51 LightSpectra wrote: Remember on January 6, when Trumpers were murdering police officers, Trump didn't call for the national guard because it was a "day of love". He later pardoned the murderers and invited them to the White House.
LA destroyed some easily replaceable property and they're calling it an insurrection.
There's no point in trying to engage in good faith with these folks. They don't care about their own hypocrisy. They think it's hilarious. Expose them for their lies, let them flail helplessly as they sling their whataboutisms, and then go on your day.
First of all, Trumpers were not "murdering police officers" on Jan 6. That's a bit of fake news you've fallen victim to. But yes your point stands about the hypocrisy of one man's protest being another man's riot. Unfortunately the hypocrisy swings both ways as people here were defending Trudeau using emergency powers to freeze the bank accounts of protestors in Ottawa who were leaps and bounds more peaceful than the LA protestors. If Trump decided to freeze bank accounts of ICE protestors or Israel protesters people on the left would rightfully throw a shit fit.
I should also make the effort to dispel oBlade's bold-faced lie that Biden never signalled a change of policy until his term.
He was in fact openly vocal about it in 2019.
"Earlier this year, the Biden campaign released a statement saying that the former vice president opposes Trump’s “crackdown” on sanctuary cities, including the efforts to starve the municipalities of federal funding."
It's not difficult to research these things. I mean if I can find it so quickly and so easily, then there's no excuse for anyone else. So it's clear as day that oBlade enjoys a small little bit of a tiny lie if it helps him craft right-wing propaganda in support of our dear leader.
On June 10 2025 21:51 Velr wrote: Are you seriously trying to take the stance of "everyone that comes into country XYZ has a right to stay in that country just because"?
Whats the need for discussion here?
As someone who has legally moved around between 6 different countries on 4 different continents (and had to deal with all the corresponding paperwork), I'll make the case that where you happened to be born should not limit where you choose to live. We're all humans and if by some happy accident you are born in a place you like to live that's great, but if you don't like it for whatever reason, why should some arbitrary line on a map stop you from moving somewhere else?
Now, I realize a heck of a lot of society is organized around those arbitrary lines on a map and if we currently were to open all borders without inhibition, society would absolutely collapse. But that isn't a reason not to move toward a societal organization where your birth country in the world is no more relevant than your birth town is now within a country.
The weird thing to me about this discussion is that it's so normalized for the ultra-wealthy to have domiciles in 6+ countries that nobody even bats at an eye at it.
If someone truly, honestly believes in their heart that people ought to only live in their country of birth: fine. I'm not going to spend the rest of my life arguing with them about it. But at least be consistent and apply that standard to the rich as much as they do to the working class.
On June 10 2025 21:51 Velr wrote: Are you seriously trying to take the stance of "everyone that comes into country XYZ has a right to stay in that country just because"?
Whats the need for discussion here?
As someone who has legally moved around between 6 different countries on 4 different continents (and had to deal with all the corresponding paperwork), I'll make the case that where you happened to be born should not limit where you choose to live. We're all humans and if by some happy accident you are born in a place you like to live that's great, but if you don't like it for whatever reason, why should some arbitrary line on a map stop you from moving somewhere else?
Now, I realize a heck of a lot of society is organized around those arbitrary lines on a map and if we currently were to open all borders without inhibition, society would absolutely collapse. But that isn't a reason not to move toward a societal organization where your birth country in the world is no more relevant than your birth town is now within a country.
The weird thing to me about this discussion is that it's so normalized for the ultra-wealthy to have domiciles in 6+ countries that nobody even bats at an eye at it.
If someone truly, honestly believes in their heart that people ought to only live in their country of birth: fine. I'm not going to spend the rest of my life arguing with them about it. But at least be consistent and apply that standard to the rich as much as they do to the working class.
Nobody has argued that people "ought to only live in their country of birth." People are arguing that you ought not live in another country that you've not been granted permission to live in. People legally owning property in multiple countries is not the same as illegally emigrating to another country. Your inability to discern the difference doesn't make it a double standard.
That would be a fair point if it were trivial to get permission to live in other countries, but nowadays many countries have green card/visa quotas (which conveniently can be circumvented if you're wealthy [e.g. the proposed Trump Gold Card] or if you're willing to practically be a serf for a megacorporation [e.g. H1-B]).
Men and women are different, therefore there is no double standard when women are being treated unfairly. I've heard that reasoning before. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
On June 10 2025 21:51 Velr wrote: Are you seriously trying to take the stance of "everyone that comes into country XYZ has a right to stay in that country just because"?
Whats the need for discussion here?
As someone who has legally moved around between 6 different countries on 4 different continents (and had to deal with all the corresponding paperwork), I'll make the case that where you happened to be born should not limit where you choose to live. We're all humans and if by some happy accident you are born in a place you like to live that's great, but if you don't like it for whatever reason, why should some arbitrary line on a map stop you from moving somewhere else?
Now, I realize a heck of a lot of society is organized around those arbitrary lines on a map and if we currently were to open all borders without inhibition, society would absolutely collapse. But that isn't a reason not to move toward a societal organization where your birth country in the world is no more relevant than your birth town is now within a country.
It's definitely an argument that can be made.
My favorite comedian, Louis CK, made the case for open borders on Joe Rogan phrased this way:
TL;DR, we should open the borders and sure things will be a little more shitty but that's okay because its weird to box off little portions of the globe for ourselves where our lives are great and everyone else's sucks. (Of course not that his life will be affected in any way as a self-employed multi-millionaire)
But I wonder does your argument extend to let's say
People that wanted to live in the New World whose decision to move there didn't work out so well for the native populations?
People native to Hawaii who can't afford housing because billionaires like Oprah and Larry Ellison want to live there and buy large chunks of land for themselves?
People in historically black neighborhoods like Harlem that have been priced out by gentrification as wealthier whites move into the neighborhood?
People in Barcelona who are feeling the squeeze as the city caters to tourists with more money to spend than the locals?
"Roughly $12 million worth of HIV-prevention drugs and contraceptives purchased by the U.S. Agency for International Development will likely be destroyed after President Donald Trump dismantled the organization, according to a report.
These drugs have been sitting in distribution centers in Belgium and the UAE since January, when Trump ended the agency’s spending, The Washington Post reported. Now, negotiators have been instructed to sell the drugs or else they’ll be thrown out, according to the outlet.
“The mandate that [the USAID negotiator] has been given is ‘get us money for it, and if you can’t do that, we’re just going to trash it,’” someone with knowledge of the situation told the Post."
EPT
