|
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 |
Canada11350 Posts
"If he said someone died but nobody died, then he would be incorrect"
No, not in correct. Lying. Like he's does all the time. I didn't include all those things I 'have a problem with' (do you have any problems with them? to open the scope of the debate but to give evidence of a pattern of behaviour. He lies like he breathes. His reasons for sending in the troops is false. And yes I saw when writing the first post the one body found and wondered if you would use it. No evidence that it's connected. Could be a drug overdose for all we know. But even if it was connected. One death is what it takes?
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/got-to-do-a-better-job-donald-trump-claims-he-dialled-gavin-newsom-over-la-unrest-governor-says-didnt-even-get-a-voicemail/articleshow/121764609.cms
And you are right- he says a lot of things, specifically a lot of lies. Which is why he shouldn't be trusted.
And no, my alternate interpretation was not a 'bad interpretation' but me trying to imagine any scenario in which he wouldn't be lying. But you are right. It's just a lie. Or if you want to soft pedal the truth; it 'incorrect.'
Is the 'Biden opened the borders' talking point going to be like Obama's? Open border, open border and now you have people like Pierce Morgan calling Obama 'deporter in chief' as some kind of gotcha verses his liberal guests?
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/biden-deportation-record
Maybe not so open after all?
"There are other statutory authorities that do exist which are what have been invoked. "
Okay, so what are they and why isn't Trump (the Incomparable) and his team citing them?
https://newrepublic.com/post/196706/hegseth-question-trump-authority-deploy-troops-los-angeles
The fact of the matter is this administration has been losing in court 9-0 in one case for how they are conducting their deportations. Some are beginning to return after losing again when they tried defying the courts. But the play is to move faster than the courts and keep going.
But I feel like we are dancing around a central philosophical issue.
As a matter of principle:
1) Do you believe that the Ends justify the Means?
2) And are you against the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine which stays the hand of the justice system?
Because this is what is at stake here- not whether or not illegals can be deported, but in what manner and with what due process. And not whether or not the National Guard can be deployed, but in what circumstance and to what end?
Do you believe, like the president in the quotation attributed to Napoleon that the president posted on his social media account;
"That he who saves his country, violates no law."
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-if-it-saves-country-its-not-illegal-2025-02-16/
|
United States42754 Posts
On June 13 2025 00:41 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm not talking about discussions, I mean polls that show what percentage of Americans are aware what a tariff is.
It's always tough when you find out just how little the average person knows. At my last job the warehouse supervisor was a hardcore Trumper, car covered with the dumbest bumper stickers etc. One day he made a point to tell me, unsolicted, that he believed that 1x1 was 2. His evidence was that 2x2 is 4 and that if there are two 1s in 1x1 then how can there only be one 1. We were reviewing inventory count discrepancies at the time.
There's an instinct to treat other people as being basically like you, to assume that what intuitively makes perfect sense to you should make sense to them, that if you can get aligned on a common set of facts then you can find common ground. But that's only true within a given band of intelligence, outside of that you're basically trying to talk to a golden retriever.
The guy was Hispanic and a former gang member (proudly shared this with me too). Fucking rabid about Trump. What can you do. There's no world in which he ever understands what a tariff is and why mercantilism is a discredited economic model.
|
Northern Ireland25432 Posts
On June 13 2025 00:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2025 00:41 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm not talking about discussions, I mean polls that show what percentage of Americans are aware what a tariff is. It's always tough when you find out just how little the average person knows. At my last job the warehouse supervisor was a hardcore Trumper, car covered with the dumbest bumper stickers etc. One day he made a point to tell me, unsolicted, that he believed that 1x1 was 2. His evidence was that 2x2 is 4 and that if there are two 1s in 1x1 then how can there only be one 1. We were reviewing inventory count discrepancies at the time. There's an instinct to treat other people as being basically like you, to assume that what intuitively makes perfect sense to you should make sense to them, that if you can get aligned on a common set of facts then you can find common ground. But that's only true within a given band of intelligence, outside of that you're basically trying to talk to a golden retriever. The guy was Hispanic and a former gang member (proudly shared this with me too). Fucking rabid about Trump. What can you do. There's no world in which he ever understands what a tariff is and why mercantilism is a discredited economic model.
Those sound like delightful wee interactions.
|
On June 12 2025 15:41 Uldridge wrote:
The actual actual problem is that sometimes burning it all down is the correct way forward because your entire system is so entangled and murky and procedural (proceduralism is power; drown them in paperwork; another tool for waging the class war)
But doing that takes on a workload that most aren't willing to wade into.
Not really. All you have to do is elect unaffiliated narcissistic buffoon as president who promise you to solve the problems. He obviously fails, on the way antagonising large parts of country. Overtime you will have mass unrests across the country which he will eventually stomp, due to support of army and certain demographic. Then his narcissistic ego takes over and he antagonizes those who supported him. After some reshuffles you have moderate government and new system. Simple.
Lol if it will actually happen.
|
One day he made a point to tell me, unsolicted, that he believed that 1x1 was 2. His evidence was that 2x2 is 4 and that if there are two 1s in 1x1 then how can there only be one 1.
Isn't that a whole thing, with some guy going on Rogan to talk about that shit? I think he even wrote a "paper" about it.
|
United States42754 Posts
On June 13 2025 01:06 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2025 00:56 KwarK wrote:On June 13 2025 00:41 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm not talking about discussions, I mean polls that show what percentage of Americans are aware what a tariff is. It's always tough when you find out just how little the average person knows. At my last job the warehouse supervisor was a hardcore Trumper, car covered with the dumbest bumper stickers etc. One day he made a point to tell me, unsolicted, that he believed that 1x1 was 2. His evidence was that 2x2 is 4 and that if there are two 1s in 1x1 then how can there only be one 1. We were reviewing inventory count discrepancies at the time. There's an instinct to treat other people as being basically like you, to assume that what intuitively makes perfect sense to you should make sense to them, that if you can get aligned on a common set of facts then you can find common ground. But that's only true within a given band of intelligence, outside of that you're basically trying to talk to a golden retriever. The guy was Hispanic and a former gang member (proudly shared this with me too). Fucking rabid about Trump. What can you do. There's no world in which he ever understands what a tariff is and why mercantilism is a discredited economic model. Those sound like delightful wee interactions.
Just gotta keep it professional and grey rock on everything else. Basic social graces cover what not to talk about in mixed company, religion, politics, and money, as you never know how what you say will be received.
|
United States42754 Posts
On June 13 2025 01:09 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +One day he made a point to tell me, unsolicted, that he believed that 1x1 was 2. His evidence was that 2x2 is 4 and that if there are two 1s in 1x1 then how can there only be one 1. Isn't that a whole thing, with some guy going on Rogan to talk about that shit? I think he even wrote a "paper" about it.
Yeah, it's quite common. You're thinking of the actor Terrence Howard who is just mentally unwell, it's not just that he's bad at maths, it's a full on delusion where he believes he's unlocking the secrets of the universe by not taking his antipsychotics. But in this case it's just that, as he proudly explained to me, he didn't have much time for school because of all the gang shit.
|
Northern Ireland25432 Posts
On June 13 2025 01:09 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +One day he made a point to tell me, unsolicted, that he believed that 1x1 was 2. His evidence was that 2x2 is 4 and that if there are two 1s in 1x1 then how can there only be one 1. Isn't that a whole thing, with some guy going on Rogan to talk about that shit? I think he even wrote a "paper" about it.
I can’t remember what specific sum he had an issue with, I do recall something like that.
Whatever it was I do recall it being complete bollocks
|
If Lyndon LaRouche were around today he'd be a leading candidate for POTUS.
|
On June 13 2025 01:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2025 01:06 WombaT wrote:On June 13 2025 00:56 KwarK wrote:On June 13 2025 00:41 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm not talking about discussions, I mean polls that show what percentage of Americans are aware what a tariff is. It's always tough when you find out just how little the average person knows. At my last job the warehouse supervisor was a hardcore Trumper, car covered with the dumbest bumper stickers etc. One day he made a point to tell me, unsolicted, that he believed that 1x1 was 2. His evidence was that 2x2 is 4 and that if there are two 1s in 1x1 then how can there only be one 1. We were reviewing inventory count discrepancies at the time. There's an instinct to treat other people as being basically like you, to assume that what intuitively makes perfect sense to you should make sense to them, that if you can get aligned on a common set of facts then you can find common ground. But that's only true within a given band of intelligence, outside of that you're basically trying to talk to a golden retriever. The guy was Hispanic and a former gang member (proudly shared this with me too). Fucking rabid about Trump. What can you do. There's no world in which he ever understands what a tariff is and why mercantilism is a discredited economic model. Those sound like delightful wee interactions. Just gotta keep it professional and grey rock on everything else. Basic social graces cover what not to talk about in mixed company, religion, politics, and money, as you never know how what you say will be received.
I've had moments where coworkers or neighbours had an "oh, I didn't know you're into politics" reaction when hearing me speak about it for the first time, having known me for years. I think those social graces are hurting us a lot in how political ideas spread.
To most people, the discussions we're having here might as well be in Klingon, they're completely opaque. They vote based on surface level vibes and most importantly based on what benefits them socially within their community.
They also have these mental maps of who knows their stuff at what. You are probably the "computer guy" or the "tax guy" and they come to you when they need advice on those topics. Guess who is their politics guy? It's not you, it's the guy that talks their ear off every time about the latest NY Post headline that popped up on their Facebook feed or the latest Tiktok political hoax they've seen. Those are the guys who know their shit about politics to them, the ones that don't have those social graces.
I think this is one of the main reasons we're losing, there's a gigantic mass of impressionable people out there that look around them for cues and we're sitting it out because we consider it common decency to do so.
|
Northern Ireland25432 Posts
On June 12 2025 23:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2025 23:30 WombaT wrote:On June 12 2025 21:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 12 2025 08:51 WombaT wrote:On June 12 2025 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 12 2025 07:47 Jankisa wrote:I think it greatly depends on the topic. GH is an annoying cosplayer who is completely uninterested in having any sort of a real discussion because he thinks he's above it, all of us who engage in any realpolitk are morons who don't understand that his way is the only way and doing anything that he doesn't agree with is a big waste of time, ironically, he's not really doing anything so there's that. The split personality saga was so annoying that it might paint people here as overly aggressive and angry at him, to me, at least in this thread he's relatively benign, pushing his own little agendas and criticisms and living his best far leftie life. On the other hand, his takes in the Palestine and Ukraine threads are extremely obnoxious and aggravating. + Show Spoiler +oBlade is just a weird little dude who much like him thinks he's the only one who figured things out, in a really weird twist he gets most of his takes from Tucker Carlson who might be the most fake person in the history of media so there's that.
Also, as a personal pet peeve, oBlade thinks he's funny which makes him much worse. Also, fascist bootlicking. Your emotionally lashing out with personal attacks is pretty standard around here. There's actually a wide spectrum of ideas that I have mixed feelings about and would be thrilled to have a real discussion on. They just aren't really reformism/electoralism for reasons I've laid out at length. That said, no one wants to develop/contribute to the best plan for Democrats to win electorally anyway. Lots of people here are better educated and probably more capable in a host of intellectual tasks than I am. We all literally think the politics we have are the best we can have (maybe you guys intentionally have shitty politics?). I'm sure people have noticed I post significantly less than I did at my peak, in part, because I'm doing more in my communities that aren't TL. You guys can keep your little mean girl routine up as long as you'd like though. Discuss them then, nobody is stopping you. + Show Spoiler +
I don’t especially disagree with your critiques of reformism at all. I think the problem with your ‘best plan’ is it’s not couched in reality. I’m more team Kwark on this. If Obamacare is too socialist for many, and you’ve voted in a Fascist strongman twice, then said nation to me would not be a prime candidate for me to flip to genuine left wing politics. I don’t think a polity can simultaneously be primed for a leftist revolution, while being Fascist-adjacent at the same time.
If attempts to do so keep on losing, then at some point one has to accept you’re a leftist living in an avowedly right wing country. If there’s some signs of the opposite, great maybe not.
Myself, I’m waiting for the dust to settle a bit. If leftist candidates start making inroads, even if they’re merely performing better than expected and don’t actually win, you’re getting some data that there’s some receptiveness there. If they aren’t, consistently then I’d find it hard to argue that, at least pragmatically that it’s a good plan to pivot left. A main part of the point I've made is that the libs/Dems/ilk that believe in electoralism aren't discussing how they are making it work now among themselves. So much so, that months later, instead of pointing to their better plan and their discussion of it, they still typically just attack me personally instead. Despite not being able to vote and taking a "wait and see" approach (that's definitively not how you get off the path of fascism), you're more engaged on the topic than any of the posters that can vote and need to be discussing/taking actions that will take the US off the path of self-destructive fascism. I'd like to see the libs/Dems/ilk that believe in electoralism discuss it like they actually believe in it beyond just rationalizing bad policy and spamming to vote blue no matter who when it gets to a general. They insist I'm not worthy of discussing that with them (while still demanding my vote), that's fine, I'm pointing out they don't discuss it among themselves here either. Libs/Dems/ilk prefer to do the arguing with squirrels in the park thing. ‘Wait and see’ informs the plan. It’s not a substitute for it. Maybe vast swathes of the country are sick of the GOP and mainstream Democratic politics and want a proper departure. Maybe they don’t, and a return to Biden-era respectability is the height of ambition there. Maybe it’s both and just varies hugely by state or other locale. Until we get a clearer sense of that collectively, how does one plan a counter-punch? I might have a fantastic plan to push and elevate leftist candidates across the nation. It doesn’t matter how good the plan is if there’s a huge amount of hostility towards genuine leftist politics. + Show Spoiler +For me electoralism and legalistic frameworks are far, far better at keeping Fascists from power, than it is in dealing with them when they are in power. Which greatly informed my pre-election positions, and I think we’re seeing borne out subsequently in real time. "Wait and see" is the (bad imo) plan. A significant part of politics is using this time specifically (when it isn't "vote blue no matter who to stop the GOP" time) to influence and shift opinions on Democrat party politics along with their appeals to the masses. "Wait and see" is also just not how primary campaigns (or democracy generally) for people that aren't the incumbent work. You don't just wait and see how people vote (unless one's intent is to thinly veil a desire to maintain the status quo). Instead of using this time (when we don't have to fall in line to beat the GOP) to shape Democrat politics and their appeal to the masses, we get a perpetual stream of variations on "wow MAGA is stupid!" for libs/Dems/ilk to pump up their egos while they "wait and see" which Democrat the party makes them support in the general.
Well no, you don’t do nothing in the interim necessarily, but you do have to assess whether a chosen course of action can even work.
Most people are followers, not activists. They may jump on a train that’s got some momentum, they’re not going to be the ones first pushing it. Perhaps a problem sure, but I think a pretty reasonable observation.
Myself, not American. All I can really do is give my half a dollar and wait and see how something goes. If one is American, perhaps some local organiser gets a ball rolling, or a campaign firing, and if sufficient, others start to get engaged by it close to the ground floor. Right to the wavering voter who might only make that call on election day.
Folks jump in and out at different points. And with that in mind, without some evidence, we’re just indulging in speculation, or aspirations rather than anything practical.
Rewind back to the Tea Party. Obviously have had a big influence on how politics have gone. On day one it really metastasised into being a semi-formal movement, if you asked me ‘will the Tea Party effectively rule America one day?’, I’d have zero idea. I’d just be guessing. Further and further down the line, where you see the momentum, the popularity of some ideas, then I’ve got a way better idea.
I’d merely apply the same lens to efforts to push the Democratic Party leftwards. I’d like to see it, personally. But I need to see some momentum, some growth, some minor wins that become major wins etc. As of now, it’s just kinda hard to know which way the cookie will crumble.
People will naturally talk more about the GOP, at a time where they’re in power and fucking things up.
|
Northern Ireland25432 Posts
On June 13 2025 02:36 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2025 01:11 KwarK wrote:On June 13 2025 01:06 WombaT wrote:On June 13 2025 00:56 KwarK wrote:On June 13 2025 00:41 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm not talking about discussions, I mean polls that show what percentage of Americans are aware what a tariff is. It's always tough when you find out just how little the average person knows. At my last job the warehouse supervisor was a hardcore Trumper, car covered with the dumbest bumper stickers etc. One day he made a point to tell me, unsolicted, that he believed that 1x1 was 2. His evidence was that 2x2 is 4 and that if there are two 1s in 1x1 then how can there only be one 1. We were reviewing inventory count discrepancies at the time. There's an instinct to treat other people as being basically like you, to assume that what intuitively makes perfect sense to you should make sense to them, that if you can get aligned on a common set of facts then you can find common ground. But that's only true within a given band of intelligence, outside of that you're basically trying to talk to a golden retriever. The guy was Hispanic and a former gang member (proudly shared this with me too). Fucking rabid about Trump. What can you do. There's no world in which he ever understands what a tariff is and why mercantilism is a discredited economic model. Those sound like delightful wee interactions. Just gotta keep it professional and grey rock on everything else. Basic social graces cover what not to talk about in mixed company, religion, politics, and money, as you never know how what you say will be received. I've had moments where coworkers or neighbours had an "oh, I didn't know you're into politics" reaction when hearing me speak about it for the first time, having known me for years. I think those social graces are hurting us a lot in how political ideas spread. To most people, the discussions we're having here might as well be in Klingon, they're completely opaque. They vote based on surface level vibes and most importantly based on what benefits them socially within their community. They also have these mental maps of who knows their stuff at what. You are probably the "computer guy" or the "tax guy" and they come to you when they need advice on those topics. Guess who is their politics guy? It's not you, it's the guy that talks their ear off every time about the latest NY Post headline that popped up on their Facebook feed or the latest Tiktok political hoax they've seen. Those are the guys who know their shit about politics to them, the ones that don't have those social graces. I think this is one of the main reasons we're losing, there's a gigantic mass of impressionable people out there that look around them for cues and we're sitting it out because we consider it common decency to do so.
Aye that tracks.
I’ll talk politics if it comes up, frequently to correct things I consider nonsense. I don’t tend to bring it up apropos of nothing. Whereas Mr/Ms ‘I saw something on TikTok’ don’t seem to have such compunctions.
It’s one of those conundrums that, I recognise the problem, but I dunno really what you do about it.
Even very, very angry WombaT tries to couch things in some kind of (attempt) to discuss sober reality. Whereas Joe TikTok doesn’t really do the latter (although often unintentionally)
And I don’t wanna be lecturing people on politics every 5 seconds either
|
On June 13 2025 00:50 Falling wrote:No, not in correct. Lying. Like he's does all the time. I didn't include all those things I 'have a problem with' (do you have any problems with them? to open the scope of the debate but to give evidence of a pattern of behaviour. He lies like he breathes. His reasons for sending in the troops is false. And yes I saw when writing the first post the one body found and wondered if you would use it. No evidence that it's connected. Could be a drug overdose for all we know. But even if it was connected. One death is what it takes? https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/got-to-do-a-better-job-donald-trump-claims-he-dialled-gavin-newsom-over-la-unrest-governor-says-didnt-even-get-a-voicemail/articleshow/121764609.cmsAnd you are right- he says a lot of things, specifically a lot of lies. Which is why he shouldn't be trusted. And no, my alternate interpretation was not a 'bad interpretation' but me trying to imagine any scenario in which he wouldn't be lying. But you are right. It's just a lie. Or if you want to soft pedal the truth; it 'incorrect.'
Why is everything a food fight.
Yes, he lies all the time.
So does Newsom who does not have a great record about phone calls specifically, during the wildfires he's caught on camera saying "I'm on the phone with the president right now" 5 seconds before admitting he he didn't even have cell service. For Newsom, now, telling the truth about talking to Trump is probably even more harmful than Trump lying about having talked to Newsom if he hadn't. So Trump would have no incentive to make it up and all he does is talk, meetings, and call people all day anyway. My gut is on Newsom lying on this one.
I didn't say he wasn't lying about deaths. I just said he was incorrect because we obviously agree (although you admit knowing about the body before you posted when I didn't know about the quote OR the body). If he's lying he's obviously incorrect too. You can't be correct and lying.
Since the quote is just about Newsom "doing a bad job" and "causing a lot of death" (this is an uncountable "death" not a certain toll of "deaths") this can very easily be as broad as, say: the fact that the criminal aliens California shields, kill people, which is the fault of California leaders when they could get the people out of their jurisdiction. In fact, that makes perfect sense and since you threw the kitchen sink at this "lying" thing when I didn't even mean to push back about it or imply you must be wrong about him lying at all, just that I said I didn't know the quote and I hadn't looked for any death tolls, now I'm way less sympathetic to your framing of it than I was before.
On June 13 2025 00:50 Falling wrote:
Is the 'Biden opened the borders' talking point going to be like Obama's? Open border, open border and now you have people like Pierce Morgan calling Obama 'deporter in chief' as some kind of gotcha verses his liberal guests?
I'm not Piers Morgan, but that's a pretty well-known gotcha because the term Deporter-in-Chief originated in Democratic opposition to Obama playing both sides of the fence by creating DACA but not mothballing DHS entirely.
The article you linked said exactly what I said doesn't it? That the National Guard authority is clear but I don't know the authority for the Marines? Hegseth is right when he says there's historic precedent, but if you need the president to personally sign off on explicitly invoking the Insurrection Act like you need him for the Alien Enemies Act and he didn't, which became a point in one of the deportation cases, that's not dotting your Is and crossing your Ts.
The actual memo authorizing is here. It cites the code that the hearing you linked seemed to go along with for the National Guard activation. It's the Marine callup that he blanked on.
On June 13 2025 00:50 Falling wrote:
As a matter of principle:
1) Do you believe that the Ends justify the Means?
Seeing this I realize it's been a while and the instant and only answer I have is obviously it depends what the ends and means are. Seeing that at the level of a principle and not a situational debate seems inappropriate. If the question is this ICE/LA/immigration debate, the answer is yes, if the question is in general, of course it's no.
On June 13 2025 00:50 Falling wrote:
2) And are you against the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine which stays the hand of the justice system?
I just talked about this a page ago, why would I be against this?
On June 13 2025 00:50 Falling wrote:
Because this is what is at stake here- not whether or not illegals can be deported, but in what manner and with what due process. And not whether or not the National Guard can be deployed, but in what circumstance and to what end?
I think the National Guard is pretty well settled, my prediction is the Marines is likely to reach an injunction, or require an undeployment or redeployment, OR explicit PRESIDENTIAL mention of the Insurrection Act, in order to stand.
The reason is the memo mentions "rebellion" a bunch of times, which is what you say when invoking the Insurrection Act also, how other presidents phrased their EOs, but it doesn't reference it outright. Not a big deal for me because it's a power the president obviously has. The part where he does or doesn't have to say "I am reminding you I have this power as president and I'm telling you I'm using it now" as he uses it doesn't seem like the important part.
+ Show Spoiler +But I honestly don't know what the Marines are doing. If the "deployment" was purely sending them to practice crowd control moves on a football field like the video I saw, then realistically there is no deployment. Every video I search for Marines only actually shows National Guard so I don't have good info about Marines on the ground unfortunately.
Like just their existence in the city as a deterrent, even if they're holding a sack race tournament during the riots, could just be pure psychological warfare, which would be hilarious, and even if Hegseth or Bondi's office couldn't figure out the authority for that I don't think it would matter because you probably don't need a statutory authority to do... nothing. That's more of a thought experiment though. It's not a 5D chess move it would just be a lucky set of coincidences, you need authority to order active military units to support the National Guard, but you forgot to get it, but because they're not doing anything it doesn't matter. Would be funny.
|
|
|
He should be lucky that Whacky Doodles didn't have her puppy shotgun handy!
|
What you guys have to understand is that for once GH is right. The only effective way to stop the fascist takeover of America is to fight back actively. These people don't care about being proven right or wrong, they just want to hurt other people.
|
Out of curiosity, how much do we know about the psychology of people in this stage of a political party ramping up the fascist stuff? Do we have interview accounts from people in Nazi Germany when it was still really early on? Or other similar fascist rises. There are a couple of people who I have chatted with about Trump and what the current situation is, and I am genuinely getting the impression they know what's going on but they don't want to admit it.
I will say I think most people are so tribal and so committed to "us vs them" mindsets they truly don't understand what is going on is bad. They are the by far majority and they are an example of how a frog can be boiled. Everything that happens is contextualized by the previous week, so nothing seems bad.
But there are definitely some people who seem to know what's going on and just don't want to admit they are into it and think its good. These are the really interesting people to me because it feels like they not only like it, but they want to be a part of it.They want to contribute to the gaslighting and they seem motivated to keep this fascist stuff on track to fully secure a dictatorship. It is very chilling and weird to interact with because I can tell they are trying to stay on message and not give an inch and whatnot.
|
|
|
MAGAts and their leader love child abuse, so probably.
|
We already know Trump likes 'em young. If it were up to Trump, he'd give it a pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
