|
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 February 14 2026 07:11 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2026 06:52 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 14 2026 04:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2026 14:55 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 13 2026 13:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2026 09:53 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 13 2026 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2026 08:50 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 13 2026 04:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2026 04:11 Jankisa wrote:[quote] [quote] + Show Spoiler +
If I misconstrued your reasoning, please feel free to correct me on it. I arrived at it from reading your general approach to topics.
Regarding oBlade's "rebuttal", I find it honestly hilarious that he tried to a) deny who he is, despite very obviously being in support of everything these guys do , b) move on to nitpick a word (classic) and then d) go on to prove exactly I wrote by going on to another comment in order to shit on Democrats.
GH, I understand that not everyone reads and comments on everything everyone writes, however, I put out 3 things that are very obvious and have been done, successfully before. This wealth would be very easily re-distributed by simply, doubling the corporate tax rate, that would get the income from it from half a trillion to one trillion. This would still be lower corporate tax rate then what it was in the 60-es. Okay... Redistributive taxation isn't the puzzle though? It's how to overcome the US Hamster Wheel/regulatory capture to sustainably implement redistributive policies that electoralism has no answer to? 1. There's a problem [wealth distribution in this case] 2. [bipartisan] Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. [bipartisan] Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. Retirement age Black people have spent their entire adult lives relentlessly supporting/voting for Democrats more reliably than any other group of people has for the last 60 years. That wealth distribution problem relative to the Black-white gap has been stagnant or gotten worse as a consequence. It's pretty literally insane to keep doing that. The problem with discussing fixing the problems with the US political system is that the system is so fundamentally broken that even if there existed the political will to fix it, it's going to take decades. + Show Spoiler +In addition, just as you correctly identified, that the problem with actually effecting any wealth redistribution runs deeper than just the political system: the problem with effecting any positive change to the political system, likewise, runs deeper, it's cultural.
And even if you had the means to effect cultural change, that is going to take decades too.
Then to bring even more bad news. At least a significant chunk of the cultural issues, are the effects of decades of cold war propaganda (and I use the term propaganda in its original non-derogative meaning). And undoing that will take decades of propaganda, which frankly, requires state involvement, which... oh no... requires you to solve the political problem.
To add to this horrible ouroboros of deeply ingrained problems, your (US) politics on the ground level, is such a team sport, that I'm sceptical you have any path to get anything done, and a part of this partisanship may be exacerbated by intentional foreign influence. Well, you have yourselves a pickle.
I don't think you have any choice but to simultaneously try to solve/lessen all 3. Even then... will probably take decades and far from guarantee of success. As a fortunate non-American, I wish you guys good luck. Looks like a bit of a pickle you guys are in. Besides the fact that what you're describing was what was supposed to be happening from the inside out with Democrats since the 60's. As I pointed out, they've gone so far the other way (despite lifetimes of a lot of very dedicated and intelligent people's best efforts), that the biggest achievement by Democrats in our lives was passing a healthcare bill that Nixon and his Republican party rejected as being too right-wing. I can't disagree that any solution is going to be hard in some capacities. However, between Trump/Fascism and the best available ecological science, no one reasonably believes that we have decades or that being non-American/not in the US will be sufficient (certainly not for future generations). So...? So small victories. There's no point doing root cause analysis to try and solve the underlying issues first, because as you say, you might not have long enough to solve the underlying issues, also the issues are circular. + Show Spoiler +All you can do attack what problems you can on every level. My point in replying to the original post, is that redistributive taxation is, in fact, the puzzle, so is everything else, the only option you guys have is to attack the problem from all angles and levels, all at the same time.
You'll need to redistribute wealth, you need to get money out of politics, you need people to stop thinking that a good way to run a country or an economy is just try to be the opposite of the USSR, and you need a third of your country to not think of another third of your country as enemies, and vice versa. You need to do all of this at the same time and more, because you don't have the luxury (or frankly the ability) to solve one problem at a time anymore. All you can do is consider and do what can be done on all these fronts, and take what little victories you can get. That sounds like standard "white moderate" rhetoric. It also doesn't address the fact that it is what was supposed to already be happening, though demonstrably isn't, and also not how things have pretty much ever actually get done. People have been making that same argument since the 60's (and at every remotely major step forward as a US society). Some knowingly, some as useful idiots, to convince people to reduce doing the things socialists and our allies work toward. The same sorts of things that also worked for slavery, suffrage, workers rights, civil rights, opposing war, etc, and to instead "take the little victories" of "getting a seat at the table" and playing along with "Third Way" Democrats. That's what has helped lead to Democrats celebrating something Nixon and Republicans rejected 50+ years ago as too right-wing as their greatest accomplishment since then. It's also a major part of how/why we got Trump/fascism. Why we still have slavery. Why the Black-white wealth gap hasn't improved. Why potentially pregnant people lost their bodily autonomy, and so many more horrific things that people accept as (sometimes regrettable) parts of the status quo. That doesn't mean I'm saying things have to be all or nothing, or "violent revolution tomorrow or bust!" It mostly means people have to change their understanding of how Democrats and elections generally fit into a coherent strategy to accomplish any of the things they ostensibly want to accomplish. The basic concept there is " non-reformist reforms". + Show Spoiler +On August 07 2024 13:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2024 06:39 Uldridge wrote:
Have you ever outlined how you think the social revolution should be enacted? If you have, I've missed it, so apologies for that. This is probably my most recent example: Show nested quote +On July 09 2024 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2024 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:
GH, I think a lot of this miscommunication is coming from how you use the word “revolution” and what you actually mean by it. People are responding to you as if your solution to everything is “we need to just all run towards politicians with pitch forks and demand universal income and an equitable tax structure”. I think it’s very clear to me that’s not what you are saying.
But it also feels like you are ignoring the fact that people are hugely misunderstanding you. You are clearly using revolution as a term to describe widespread social engagement and subsequent political changes by electing people who subscribe to worker-empowering policies. You view this as a fundamentally new framework for how equity is created and distributed. But when you don’t really address how people are framing your views, it gives the impression you’re just saying “idk I’m just saying democrats and shit heads and we should just kinda generally rush the capital with pitchforks until revolution is achieved”. They aren't "misunderstanding" in good faith, their "misunderstanding" is willful. They wouldn't refer to it as (variations of) "GH's revolution" [Kwark is stuck on calling it "imaginary"] otherwise. As if I'm the one concocting this stuff alone from staring at rocks in a hat or something. I'm not sure what you mean by "electing people". Whether you're referencing " non-reformist reforms" or that socialism is democratic and would still elect people, either way the primary obstacle for people that have failed to comprehend as much as you have isn't my communication, but their own stubborn resignation. For those (mostly lurkers checking out the thread because of recent political happenings) that could use a refresher/outline on socialist revolution, I think this could be helpful. The socialist revolution consists of the entire process, on a world scale, through which the socialist mode of production is established and supplants earlier modes of production. Hence just as the bourgeois revolution continued through an entire historical period extending over many years, during which revolutionary changes took place in one country after another, so, it may be expected, will the socialist revolution.
I think it is useful to consider the socialist revolution in this way, because then we have to reflect on the characteristics of a long process in time, passing possibly through several different stages of development as it spreads and gathers momentum. If as participants in the socialist movement we can fill our minds with such an historical sense, then we can the better adapt our passions and hopes to reality, and the better understand our current political and economic problems.
The socialist revolution is the work of generations. There are brilliant successes in its long course, and also disastrous setbacks; ideas and methods which carried all before them give rise, as conditions change through their very agency, to confusions, dogmas and falsehoods; schisms arise, mistakes and even crimes are committed. Such has ever been the history of revolutions, and the socialist revolution proves no exception.
Marxism is the theory of the socialist revolution. And considering revolution as an historical process, we should distinguish the fundamental principles of Marxism – those principles which we may expect to hold good all the time – from their consequences in policies and practices which we may expect to change from time to time; and from ideas and theories which, valid at one stage, in one set of circumstances, need to be revised when that stage is passed.
There are times of transition – and the present appears to be one of them – when it is necessary to review all the ideas and practices inherited from the past in order, in the light of facts and fundamental principles, to reject what is no longer applicable in them and generally to correct and change them for use in the new conditions. The necessity of this may well make itself known in the form of a crisis within the movement, of the revelation of evils plain for all to see as consequences of the old ideas and practices.... The revision then comes about as a bitter learning of lessons, a righting of wrongs, a conclusion forced on us by events, rather than as a calm process of scientifically deducing conclusions from premises.
What is fundamental and permanent in Marxism? What are those ideas we shall not revise, but in the light of which we shall revise other ideas? First of all, the statement of purpose, the goal of socialism. Secondly, the scientific proof of the historical necessity of that purpose. Thirdly, the demonstration of the means to gain it.
First, Marxism formulates the goal of the socialist revolution – the abolition of capitalist private property, the abolition of all exploitation of man by man, the social ownership of the means of production and their planned use for the benefit of the whole of society, leading to abundance and the brotherhood of communism.
Secondly, Marxism does not put forward this goal as a utopia, as a mere vision of what would ideally satisfy people’s needs and make them all happy, but as a goal the practical attainment of which is made necessary by the actual conditions of modern society, and the posing and attainment of which in fact corresponds to objective laws of development operating throughout human history. The development of the social production of the material means of life in the last analysis determines the direction of social development as a whole; and if now the goal of socialism is placed as a practical objective, that is because only under a socialist economy can the contradictions of modern capitalist society be solved and the great modern forces of production be fully utilised.
Thirdly, the goal being set and its necessity and attainability proved, Marxism states the indispensable means to attain the goal – in other words, what social forces must be set in motion and what action they must take. Socialism will only be gained by waging the working-class struggle. The forces to gain it are the working class in alliance with all the working people. The condition for gaining it is the conquest of power by these forces. And to wage this struggle and achieve the conquest of power, the working class must have its own independent political party.
Of course, whole books have been written, and more need to be written, explaining, justifying and elaborating the principles of Marxism, and the materialist dialectical method which is employed in them. But the above seems to me their essence.
As the socialist revolution develops, it is clearly the job of Marxist organisations to conclude from the new facts what is necessary to be done in the light of their Marxist principles. And what we have perhaps especially to guard against is fixed ideas about the means for gaining socialism and for building it, that is, fixed ideas about the methods of working-class struggle, the nature and policies of a socialist state, and the nature and methods of work of working-class parties. In times of transition, we have to criticise and revise not our fundamental principles but the conclusions we draw from them. This in turn brings with it, and cannot be effected without, changes in sentiments, in moral ideas, in standards and attitudes. www.marxists.org To tie it into previous explanations, I'd add that it basically starts with taking the socialists we have and organizing to study and do praxis more collectively. Part of that praxis is serving our communities (stuff like feeding people and providing other basic needs and services to those in need). During that praxis, we communicate with our communities. I prefer a Freirean approach which includes focusing on what our communities need based on what they tell us rather than us telling them what they need. It also includes (to the degree circumstance allows) exploring the role capitalism plays in that problem and how a socialist paradigm is different and preferable to a capitalist one in the context of the issues they care about. Organized, educated, and motivated, some of the first ambitions (and most recognizable to reformists/libs) are non-reformist reformsDifferent strains of socialism have different ideas on how best to go about just that part, before we even consider revolution. Contrary to Kwark's unabashed shitposting, none of that is imaginary. It's happening in pockets around the country despite the best efforts of conservative Republicans like Kwark, Libertarians like BJ, Libs like riot, and even social Democrats like Sunshine to undermine it and malign the people doing the work. The more "Revolutiony" bits most people are fixated on comes after a combination of reaching a critical mass of educated/organized socialists, non-reformist reforms are working, and/or material conditions demand/are conducive to revolution. I'm not an accelerationist, so the last one isn't a viable path on it's own, but rather an eventual inevitability of capitalism amid virile socialist opposition imo. One that makes it crucial to do the organizing, education, serving our communities, gathering of a critical mass, and getting the non-reformist reforms that will give us a chance against a perpetually encroaching fascist threat. What that looks like could vary wildly depending on what precipitates the revolutiony bits and one's particular favored flavor of socialism. Like it looks wildly different (particularly regarding timing) if Trump wins vs if he loses or if one identifies as a "Democratic Socialist" vs "Revolutionary Socialist" for example. It doesn't really change the need for organizing, education, or praxis, but it does dramatically impact the "material conditions demanding revolution" aspect. It sounds like standard white moderate rhetoric because Liberals have always been good on the rhetoric. Just because liberals might suggest wealth redistribution, doesn't mean they will make a SERIOUS attempt at it. At the same time, it doesn't mean they are wrong on the suggestion. It's irrelevant what the Democrats were supposed to have done, they were never going to do it. Democrats are fundamentally a party of Liberals. The keyword in the last paragraph is 'serious', Liberals are not serious, all they actually care about is maintaining some semblance of order. They may be able to sprout off progressive ideas, but they've never been serious about achieving progressive ends. They may talk about redistribution and wealth inequality, but they participate just as vigorously in the corruption and bending to big money interests. They may talk about campaign finance reform, but they will go to out the next day to tell the big business owners how they are job creators, and that they will do everything to make businesses easier. They may have in the party, or caucus with people who might be considered actually progressive, but they use their institutional power to stifle them when it comes to actual policy making or electoral power. They are a fundamentally unserious party, they just have the advantage of being stuck in a 2 party system where their single opponent feels like the political party equivalent of moustache twirling comic book villains. I for one, think IF there were to be meaningful reform to the US political system, or even just the Democratic Party, it would come through revolution, quite possibly violent. This is not a prescriptive formula for what I think should happen, just what I think would happen, and this is a BIIIGGG IF that meaningful reform will happen at all, let's say in our lifetimes. + Show Spoiler +
But it would be classless of me (and not in the good way), as a non-American, to suggest, hell,,, even predict, that how to solve these genuinely difficult problems might just be revolution, or something that looks very much like it. People get hurt in revolutions, and it's not exactly my blood or the blood of my compatriots I'd be talking about.
Your last response ended with "So...?" This leaves me with a narrow purview to directly answer the question, while also describing what I think is a viable path.
Thus my answer was, yes, you need to do wealth distribution. You also need to effect cultural change. You also need to fix the mechanics of your political system. You will swing and miss some (most) of the time, doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, take the little victories.
I, of course, left out that, realistically, doing all 3 at once, might look something like revolution. That would, of course, be classless of me.
Maybe I'm wrong. For your sakes, I genuinely hope I am. But like i said, I wish you guys good luck.
Hmm, something about you saying it doesn't trigger people? Sounds like we mostly agree, with some ambiguity around whether you recognize the differences between taking reformist reforms as "little wins" or taking non-reformist reforms as "little wins". The latter I agree with. What if the solution isn't redistribution of wealth via taxation, but more redistribution of wealth via income limits. CEOvs Average or median pay disparities are a proxy of the problem with the ultra wealthy as is. If we were to limit universal pay via legislation that no particular employee may be compensated via stock/benefit/salary more than XXX% beyond the median or average pay whatever is lower. then we may end up in a situation where the rising tide truly lifts all boats. shareholders would be over the moon not to be forced to satisfy these exorbitant CEO packages. and no one has to get taxed any more than they are now. The ultra rich do not gain money through normal income for work. They gain money through owning stuff. Doesn't mean that this is not a potentially good idea, linking CEO pay to median or lowest pay in a company sounds like a worthwhile concept. But it doesn't really deal with wealth inequality.
I doubt you're going to trick wealthy people into redistribution. The issue isn't finding a way to redistribute wealth in a way that the wealthy are okay with (there isn't one), it is how to redistribute it despite their best efforts (including paying people to assassinate/brutalize/imprison those attempting to bring about that redistribution).
That's one of the most important/core political issue of our time, and it gets almost 0 focus outside of socialist circles. Speaking of which...
Mamdani doesn't want to upset the person that has military troops policing his city's subway system by joining the people that got him elected in rallying for taxing the rich it seems.
The event seemed like a no-brainer for Mayor Zohran Mamdani to attend: a long-planned rally at the State Capitol this month to demand New York’s wealthiest residents pay more in taxes.
The message adheres to one of his central campaign promises; would raise much-needed revenue to help plug a looming $7 billion budget gap; and would keep him in the good graces of the democratic socialist base that worked to carry him into office.
But Mr. Mamdani has told the organizers of the Feb. 25 rally that he is unlikely to attend, explaining this week that he wants to maintain a strong relationship with Gov. Kathy Hochul, according to two people familiar with the talks. They were granted anonymity to discuss details from a private conversation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/nyregion/mamdani-tax-rich-rally-dsa.html
|
Canada11416 Posts
On February 14 2026 22:55 oBlade wrote:
Yeah supposing I'm American. I could be a big fat Putin spy!
Oh, sorry. That wasn't what I was going for. There was someone else from another country that was always defending Trump so I was trying to head off a "I'm not Republican, because I'm actually Australian or South Korean or something. Checkmate." But I should have seen that would invoke 'Russia, Russia, Russia.' My bad.
On February 14 2026 22:55 oBlade wrote:
Centrist is about right.
Oh, so you do consider yourself a centrist. (So in my mind, you are in fact category A.)
What are you a centre on:
For instance, on Foreign policy- Trump's ideas on NATO, war in Ukraine, Israel, anti-Free Trade and a hyper focus on ending trade deficits?
Or domestically, the current use of presidential executive orders by declaring everything an emergency?
Or what are your views on the ACA?
How legitimate do you think Trump's grievances are regarding a) rigged voting b) fedsurrection?
And his most recent calls to 'nationalize the voting'.
Or the removal of oversight over crypto plus the pausing of enforcing of the FCPA combined with Trump's enrichment efforts in international negotiations?
On February 14 2026 22:55 oBlade wrote:
I have no ideology, I just have ideas. On immigration specifically I'm around 80%-90% where Obama was 15 years ago which Reagan was to the left of.
So you claim:
1) To be a centrist
2) That your immigration position is 80-90% in line with Obama 15 years ago
And
3) Have really only defended Trump's current use of ICE in this administration.
Do you believe that Trump's current use of ICE is 80-90% similar to Obama 15 years ago and that this is a centrist position?
|
On February 15 2026 00:52 KwarK wrote:
Centrists are armed with the moral authority of 1945 Spain.
Do centrists even exist anymore? Left right barely does, at least in that what “right” politicians do and “left” politicians do has very little to do with the political spectrum.
|
On February 15 2026 05:57 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2026 00:52 KwarK wrote:
Centrists are armed with the moral authority of 1945 Spain. Do centrists even exist anymore? Left right barely does, at least in that what “right” politicians do and “left” politicians do has very little to do with the political spectrum. Apparently the overton window has shifted so far that Oblade is now a centralist 
|
On February 15 2026 02:13 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:On February 15 2026 00:37 WombaT wrote:On February 14 2026 12:58 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 14 2026 10:33 dyhb wrote:On February 14 2026 09:30 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 14 2026 06:12 dyhb wrote:On February 14 2026 03:28 WombaT wrote:On February 13 2026 10:01 dyhb wrote:On February 13 2026 06:58 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
Is this just to run in perpetuity no matter how reprehensible one’s policy prescriptions are, or individuals or political movements one carries water for? I'm a little hopeful that you can use your words to describe how and what you find reprehensible, instead of adopting the kind of insulting epithets that debases yourself. You really embody the perspective that talking about the issues is over, and now is the time to flash the middle fingers and perform your outrage. The entire right populist agenda that’s encroaching across much of the ‘Western world’ as it were contains many elements I find rephensible. Civility to me has as a pre-requisite not holding utterly reprehensible views, and not wasting my time. Perfectly happy to civilly engage conservatives over various ideological disagreements, done it here plenty, done it elsewhere plenty. Indulging in conversations where your partner will insist that the sky is actually green very much falls within the purview It ain’t those former types currently driving things, certainly not in the States, from both the top and the bottom of the chain, very much is the latter. What is there to talk about when the goalposts and positions seemingly perpetually shift? When actual good faith discussion is in very short supply indeed? Patience and civility are not infinite resources, eventually people just couldn’t be arsed anymore, that’s not really on them. I find the encroachment of populism to be precisely due to the overgeneralization of the people voting for populists as bad people not worth convincing or engaging beyond the discourse of the middle finger. The further corollary is a fundamental distrust of Democracy by center-left and far-let figures when the voters deliver candidates that are deeply opposed to their policies and not hesitant at all to declare it to their faces in a vocal, brash, and populist manner. I would like to live in a world where the center-right incorporates elements of policies that the center-left screwed up, and become a clear alternative. Consider when Germany's center-right was opposed to stricter asylum/migration policies, and then under Merz basically adopted them to deny power to the AfD's anti-immigration platform. Or when Sweden's right-of-center parties, historically isolating the far-right by refusing them coalition membership, eventually partnered with them. It turns out that many parties and countries aren't willing to do that. It's a pity about the results of it. Now, I'm having trouble deciding whether your plan of action is deliberately designed to extend the power and influence of fringe ideas and fringe parties, or if it's just an accidental consequence of a failure to understand contemporary political issues. The world didn't just happen to get more racist and xenophobic and extreme after Obama and Merkel and Cameron (etc). These were real voting people that decided that mainstream parties/candidates weren't serious about policies to correct problems as they perceived them, and suffered the wrath of the center-left and left-wing for changing their votes to indicate their dissatisfaction. The last thing you want to do in that is to wantonly declare them not worth talking to and morally reprehensible. That just cements the first error. (Also, you always have the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand. The choice to throw up your hands and dismiss new information, because you're tired or perceive bad faith, is still your choice and not some external inevitability. I'd certainly know far less about the left wing and fringe left if I refused to read what was written by people that are dismissive, insulting, or routinely operating in bad faith. Yourself potentially included, since I'm not clairvoyant on why you said "you seem to have rather grasped the lay of the land" to describe an obviously petulant and idiotic lengthy rant.) Why did you feel the need to include a condescending paragraph about Wombat having the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand, in response to Wombat's post indicating that he chooses to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand? What is there to talk about when the goalposts and positions seemingly perpetually shift? When actual good faith discussion is in very short supply indeed?
Patience and civility are not infinite resources, eventually people just couldn’t be arsed anymore, that’s not really on them.
In order to address the passive voice here. It either fully or partially contradicts your summary of the entire post. I wasn't summarizing a post, I was pointing out that implicit to Wombat's statement was cases where he chose to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand other people. It seems you chose not to listen, understand, or ask questions about that, and instead chose to preach based on your understanding of Wombat's words. Does that, at all, strike you as hypocritical? I agree that people should engage in discourse with as much civility as they can muster. However, a key social component of that communication is mutual respect, and if that respect is missing or unavailable, it's hard to pin that on just one party. "That's not really on them", as it were. Wombat is welcome to correct me if I'm misunderstanding. In any case, I wanted to highlight that I'm struggling to get around the idea that you're being hypocritical. Obviously, I don't expect that is your intent. I'm curious if you see it. Essentially yes, I’m talking more about a general shift in the last decade+, as I see it anyway. Not necessarily the internal dynamics of this thread, it’s considerably worse in the wild as it were. Let us take two hypothetical conservatives. They both profess to have concerns about immigration, especially of the illegal kind. They claim the Constitution as a quasi-sacred document, are concerned about state overreach in the socioeconomic and security realms, and worry that the executive is becoming too powerful. Just to take a few talking points. I’m perfectly capable of having a civil conversation on any of those things, there may be disagreement, there may be some agreement, albeit coming from my different ideological lens. Now, having had those conversations, if Conservative A and me don’t align on everything, but they express serious misgivings about various transgressions the Trump administration have made against their own stated concerns and values, I’m perfectly happy to continue civilly engaging there. If Conservative B does the opposite, how am I meant to continue to civilly engage? As I consider civility, ‘agree to disagree’ on certain points of divergence only functions if the points of disagreement are earnestly and consistently held positions. If we’re agreeing to disagree on a point of principle you’re happy to abandon whenever it’s your dude or dudette at the wheel, we’re not really engaging in anything worthwhile, or at least I wouldn’t consider it thus. As I’ve stressed numerous times in here, I don’t expect people to agree with or share my values, although it would be nice! I do expect people to (somewhat, very few people are 100% consistent) adhere to what they tell me they believe. If they do not, demonstrably then it’s a waste of my time having civil discussions with them, because they’re not honest interlocutors, and last I checked dishonesty isn’t considered especially civil. I find this to be a motte and bailey approach. You want credit for thinking through the positions people hold, and suspending engagement conditionally on your perception of their hypocrisy. That has its own problems, but it's somewhat reasonable. Then I come across your bailey: punishing them and anyone who is not white applying laws selectively spitting on the rest of the world regurgitated "America first" bullshit marching orders he gets form watching his idol Tucker Carlson. diatribes he copy pasted from stormfront ready when challenged here he just ignores it just a sad incel lives vicariously by watching jack booted thugs executing people it's grievance blinded by propaganda and hate convinced that immigrants are the poison killing his country willing to cheer on downright fascism as long as they punish the people he hates You think that screed represents a grasp of the lay of the land rather solidly. Just re-read it one more time. I brought it up to you, and it's zero backdown and zero regrets. Far from trying to base engagement on civility, and judge earnest and consistently held positions, you've now endorsed the exact opposite and are possibly proud to do so! (Fleetfeet chose to not address this, but perhaps he will in the interest of addressing the main point instead of digging around the edges to expose hypocrisy). I'm a little scared to ask you what you think should be done with these incel white supremacist stormfront-posters that like watching thugs executing people, but you can see I'm having trouble reconciling one version of you with another. Yes, I wanted to see if this was a moment of anger (we all have them, politics sucks), because I want to believe that there is a civil opposition represented here that keeps their head about them and maintains civility and empathy and shared humanity. I didn't find it this go-around, frankly, but I'm new here. Exactly zero people posted that that post went too far that weren't the targets of the post, and that's saying something. My perspective is to keep the dialogue open and with a base level of civility, ease off the gas pedal, and not adopt Jankisa's methods. If this isn't an attempt to otherize, then please cite which of the 12 describe you (it's ridiculously easy to point fingers). There is a risk of just being awful to other people in the name of politics with the thin excuse that you sincerely tried to not be an awful person at first, as if your twin on the right wouldn't immediately claim equal right to the same excuse. I didn’t choose, nor desire modern conservatism to take this form, I just have to take it as I see it. Which is thus. Happy to earnestly engage people who don’t suck Trump off or deny that ICE are pointlessly shooting people. If one ain’t doing that then I’m not talking about you If one wants do that I don’t see any point in engaging, and as I said prior it’s really not on me. This current breed of conservatives wants the shroud of civil engagement to legitimise their nonsense, where blank dismissal is just as appropriate I have some trouble recognizing an attack on "modern conservatism" and "the current breed of conservatives" with "If one ain’t doing that then I’m not talking about you." It can't really be broadly applicable to a movement with around a hundred million American adherents, but also only narrowly applicable to a couple guys on a forum. I think both posters he and you singled out were broadly critical of the shooting of Alex Pretti, so let me amend this to say a sometimes false portrayal of a couple guys on a forum. When you've doubled down on white supremacy, stormfront, and incel for a member of this forum (among the rest), then I'd like to hear why it's also broadly true of conservatives and conservatism.
I'll confess that when I read the 12 things cited in that post, my current and continuing reaction is that only a very few of the fringiest, hateful left-wingers would actually and seriously believe them to be true attacks that are merited. You're self-identifying into the "blinded by propaganda and hate" category quite willingly. That's the most hateful and propagandistic list of ad hominem insults I can imagine + Show Spoiler +with the possible exception of calling either or both pedophiles and terrorists. If stormfront and incels are merited, would pedophile and terrorist also be merited? I haven't sorted out if you possess a backstop to your endorsed, merited insults, so just chime in whenever you feel like at what insulting term you stop at. I really thought you could point to one of the list, and tell me that you'll go that far and no further, but you found none.
Yes, I'm still willing to engage with you despite this doubling-down on the entire list. I hope you shake off the mantra that civil engagement is an aid in legitimizing, since civil engagement is really a personal choice to talk about serious political topics with the seriousness they deserve. You suffer nothing in stopping yourself from ad hominem bullshit. If you're incapable of doing that (to put it your way, it's the other guy's fault that you won't do it), you help the opposing fringe portray you as similar crazy cranks to them, sharing the same cesspool of insulting diatribes.
|
Northern Ireland26255 Posts
On February 15 2026 06:40 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2026 02:13 WombaT wrote:On February 15 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:On February 15 2026 00:37 WombaT wrote:On February 14 2026 12:58 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 14 2026 10:33 dyhb wrote:On February 14 2026 09:30 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 14 2026 06:12 dyhb wrote:On February 14 2026 03:28 WombaT wrote:On February 13 2026 10:01 dyhb wrote:
[quote]I'm a little hopeful that you can use your words to describe how and what you find reprehensible, instead of adopting the kind of insulting epithets that debases yourself. You really embody the perspective that talking about the issues is over, and now is the time to flash the middle fingers and perform your outrage. The entire right populist agenda that’s encroaching across much of the ‘Western world’ as it were contains many elements I find rephensible. Civility to me has as a pre-requisite not holding utterly reprehensible views, and not wasting my time. Perfectly happy to civilly engage conservatives over various ideological disagreements, done it here plenty, done it elsewhere plenty. Indulging in conversations where your partner will insist that the sky is actually green very much falls within the purview It ain’t those former types currently driving things, certainly not in the States, from both the top and the bottom of the chain, very much is the latter. What is there to talk about when the goalposts and positions seemingly perpetually shift? When actual good faith discussion is in very short supply indeed? Patience and civility are not infinite resources, eventually people just couldn’t be arsed anymore, that’s not really on them. I find the encroachment of populism to be precisely due to the overgeneralization of the people voting for populists as bad people not worth convincing or engaging beyond the discourse of the middle finger. The further corollary is a fundamental distrust of Democracy by center-left and far-let figures when the voters deliver candidates that are deeply opposed to their policies and not hesitant at all to declare it to their faces in a vocal, brash, and populist manner. I would like to live in a world where the center-right incorporates elements of policies that the center-left screwed up, and become a clear alternative. Consider when Germany's center-right was opposed to stricter asylum/migration policies, and then under Merz basically adopted them to deny power to the AfD's anti-immigration platform. Or when Sweden's right-of-center parties, historically isolating the far-right by refusing them coalition membership, eventually partnered with them. It turns out that many parties and countries aren't willing to do that. It's a pity about the results of it. Now, I'm having trouble deciding whether your plan of action is deliberately designed to extend the power and influence of fringe ideas and fringe parties, or if it's just an accidental consequence of a failure to understand contemporary political issues. The world didn't just happen to get more racist and xenophobic and extreme after Obama and Merkel and Cameron (etc). These were real voting people that decided that mainstream parties/candidates weren't serious about policies to correct problems as they perceived them, and suffered the wrath of the center-left and left-wing for changing their votes to indicate their dissatisfaction. The last thing you want to do in that is to wantonly declare them not worth talking to and morally reprehensible. That just cements the first error. (Also, you always have the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand. The choice to throw up your hands and dismiss new information, because you're tired or perceive bad faith, is still your choice and not some external inevitability. I'd certainly know far less about the left wing and fringe left if I refused to read what was written by people that are dismissive, insulting, or routinely operating in bad faith. Yourself potentially included, since I'm not clairvoyant on why you said "you seem to have rather grasped the lay of the land" to describe an obviously petulant and idiotic lengthy rant.) Why did you feel the need to include a condescending paragraph about Wombat having the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand, in response to Wombat's post indicating that he chooses to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand? What is there to talk about when the goalposts and positions seemingly perpetually shift? When actual good faith discussion is in very short supply indeed?
Patience and civility are not infinite resources, eventually people just couldn’t be arsed anymore, that’s not really on them.
In order to address the passive voice here. It either fully or partially contradicts your summary of the entire post. I wasn't summarizing a post, I was pointing out that implicit to Wombat's statement was cases where he chose to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand other people. It seems you chose not to listen, understand, or ask questions about that, and instead chose to preach based on your understanding of Wombat's words. Does that, at all, strike you as hypocritical? I agree that people should engage in discourse with as much civility as they can muster. However, a key social component of that communication is mutual respect, and if that respect is missing or unavailable, it's hard to pin that on just one party. "That's not really on them", as it were. Wombat is welcome to correct me if I'm misunderstanding. In any case, I wanted to highlight that I'm struggling to get around the idea that you're being hypocritical. Obviously, I don't expect that is your intent. I'm curious if you see it. Essentially yes, I’m talking more about a general shift in the last decade+, as I see it anyway. Not necessarily the internal dynamics of this thread, it’s considerably worse in the wild as it were. Let us take two hypothetical conservatives. They both profess to have concerns about immigration, especially of the illegal kind. They claim the Constitution as a quasi-sacred document, are concerned about state overreach in the socioeconomic and security realms, and worry that the executive is becoming too powerful. Just to take a few talking points. I’m perfectly capable of having a civil conversation on any of those things, there may be disagreement, there may be some agreement, albeit coming from my different ideological lens. Now, having had those conversations, if Conservative A and me don’t align on everything, but they express serious misgivings about various transgressions the Trump administration have made against their own stated concerns and values, I’m perfectly happy to continue civilly engaging there. If Conservative B does the opposite, how am I meant to continue to civilly engage? As I consider civility, ‘agree to disagree’ on certain points of divergence only functions if the points of disagreement are earnestly and consistently held positions. If we’re agreeing to disagree on a point of principle you’re happy to abandon whenever it’s your dude or dudette at the wheel, we’re not really engaging in anything worthwhile, or at least I wouldn’t consider it thus. As I’ve stressed numerous times in here, I don’t expect people to agree with or share my values, although it would be nice! I do expect people to (somewhat, very few people are 100% consistent) adhere to what they tell me they believe. If they do not, demonstrably then it’s a waste of my time having civil discussions with them, because they’re not honest interlocutors, and last I checked dishonesty isn’t considered especially civil. I find this to be a motte and bailey approach. You want credit for thinking through the positions people hold, and suspending engagement conditionally on your perception of their hypocrisy. That has its own problems, but it's somewhat reasonable. Then I come across your bailey: punishing them and anyone who is not white applying laws selectively spitting on the rest of the world regurgitated "America first" bullshit marching orders he gets form watching his idol Tucker Carlson. diatribes he copy pasted from stormfront ready when challenged here he just ignores it just a sad incel lives vicariously by watching jack booted thugs executing people it's grievance blinded by propaganda and hate convinced that immigrants are the poison killing his country willing to cheer on downright fascism as long as they punish the people he hates You think that screed represents a grasp of the lay of the land rather solidly. Just re-read it one more time. I brought it up to you, and it's zero backdown and zero regrets. Far from trying to base engagement on civility, and judge earnest and consistently held positions, you've now endorsed the exact opposite and are possibly proud to do so! (Fleetfeet chose to not address this, but perhaps he will in the interest of addressing the main point instead of digging around the edges to expose hypocrisy). I'm a little scared to ask you what you think should be done with these incel white supremacist stormfront-posters that like watching thugs executing people, but you can see I'm having trouble reconciling one version of you with another. Yes, I wanted to see if this was a moment of anger (we all have them, politics sucks), because I want to believe that there is a civil opposition represented here that keeps their head about them and maintains civility and empathy and shared humanity. I didn't find it this go-around, frankly, but I'm new here. Exactly zero people posted that that post went too far that weren't the targets of the post, and that's saying something. My perspective is to keep the dialogue open and with a base level of civility, ease off the gas pedal, and not adopt Jankisa's methods. If this isn't an attempt to otherize, then please cite which of the 12 describe you (it's ridiculously easy to point fingers). There is a risk of just being awful to other people in the name of politics with the thin excuse that you sincerely tried to not be an awful person at first, as if your twin on the right wouldn't immediately claim equal right to the same excuse. I didn’t choose, nor desire modern conservatism to take this form, I just have to take it as I see it. Which is thus. Happy to earnestly engage people who don’t suck Trump off or deny that ICE are pointlessly shooting people. If one ain’t doing that then I’m not talking about you If one wants do that I don’t see any point in engaging, and as I said prior it’s really not on me. This current breed of conservatives wants the shroud of civil engagement to legitimise their nonsense, where blank dismissal is just as appropriate I have some trouble recognizing an attack on "modern conservatism" and "the current breed of conservatives" with "If one ain’t doing that then I’m not talking about you." It can't really be broadly applicable to a movement with around a hundred million American adherents, but also only narrowly applicable to a couple guys on a forum. I think both posters he and you singled out were broadly critical of the shooting of Alex Pretti, so let me amend this to say a sometimes false portrayal of a couple guys on a forum. When you've doubled down on white supremacy, stormfront, and incel for a member of this forum (among the rest), then I'd like to hear why it's also broadly true of conservatives and conservatism. I'll confess that when I read the 12 things cited in that post, my current and continuing reaction is that only a very few of the fringiest, hateful left-wingers would actually and seriously believe them to be true attacks that are merited. You're self-identifying into the "blinded by propaganda and hate" category quite willingly. That's the most hateful and propagandistic list of ad hominem insults I can imagine + Show Spoiler +with the possible exception of calling either or both pedophiles and terrorists. If stormfront and incels are merited, would pedophile and terrorist also be merited? I haven't sorted out if you possess a backstop to your endorsed, merited insults, so just chime in whenever you feel like at what insulting term you stop at. I really thought you could point to one of the list, and tell me that you'll go that far and no further, but you found none. . It sort of shocks me to see you double down in this manner, saying that they were merited insults. I hope I can go back a hundred pages and read oBlade citing African Americans as being racially inferior as stormfront thinks, or Introvert saying that immigrants as immigrants are a poison killing this country. I have my doubts. I'd guess that this is just how left-wingers in these parts portray mainstream center and right opinions from the last twenty years, but I'm currently exploring the limits of this. I'll remind you that not one person spoke up that Jankisa went too far. Yes, I'm still willing to engage with you despite this doubling-down on the entire list. I hope you shake off the mantra that civil engagement is an aid in legitimizing, since civil engagement is really a personal choice to talk about serious political topics with the seriousness they deserve. You suffer nothing in stopping yourself from ad hominem bullshit. If you're incapable of doing that (to put it your way, it's the other guy's fault that you won't do it), you help the opposing fringe portray you as similar crazy cranks to them, sharing the same cesspool of insulting diatribes.
Oh spare me the victim complex, I already said in a prior post that I’ll happily be civil to conservatives who behave vaguely civilly. As I have with Introvert many a time incidentally.
It wasn’t my asylum the lunatics took over. I’d dare say there’s a proportional correlation between declining civility and increasingly shit policy and equivocations surrounding it.
Nobody’s owed civility in perpetuity.
One can bum Donald Trump and everything he does, that’s ones prerogative, other people may choose not to take you remotely seriously, that’s the deal one is making.
To choose one example, not something I’m accusing you of necessarily.
|
On February 15 2026 00:52 KwarK wrote:
Centrists are armed with the moral authority of 1945 Spain.
Yep, I am completely fine with oBlade self-identifying as a centrist.
It makes total sense, from the fear of being sidelined, to keeping the discussion as ideologically void as possible. It’s the perfect label for someone who mistakes pragmatism with a total lack of morals.
His "centrism" isn't moderation, it’s just shapeshifting ideas based on personal convenience and wanting order for the sake of order. It’s purely aesthetic. A way to look reasonable while having no moral floor at all.
|
On February 15 2026 08:13 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2026 06:40 dyhb wrote:On February 15 2026 02:13 WombaT wrote:On February 15 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:On February 15 2026 00:37 WombaT wrote:On February 14 2026 12:58 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 14 2026 10:33 dyhb wrote:On February 14 2026 09:30 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 14 2026 06:12 dyhb wrote:On February 14 2026 03:28 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
The entire right populist agenda that’s encroaching across much of the ‘Western world’ as it were contains many elements I find rephensible.
Civility to me has as a pre-requisite not holding utterly reprehensible views, and not wasting my time.
Perfectly happy to civilly engage conservatives over various ideological disagreements, done it here plenty, done it elsewhere plenty. Indulging in conversations where your partner will insist that the sky is actually green very much falls within the purview
It ain’t those former types currently driving things, certainly not in the States, from both the top and the bottom of the chain, very much is the latter.
What is there to talk about when the goalposts and positions seemingly perpetually shift? When actual good faith discussion is in very short supply indeed?
Patience and civility are not infinite resources, eventually people just couldn’t be arsed anymore, that’s not really on them. I find the encroachment of populism to be precisely due to the overgeneralization of the people voting for populists as bad people not worth convincing or engaging beyond the discourse of the middle finger. The further corollary is a fundamental distrust of Democracy by center-left and far-let figures when the voters deliver candidates that are deeply opposed to their policies and not hesitant at all to declare it to their faces in a vocal, brash, and populist manner. I would like to live in a world where the center-right incorporates elements of policies that the center-left screwed up, and become a clear alternative. Consider when Germany's center-right was opposed to stricter asylum/migration policies, and then under Merz basically adopted them to deny power to the AfD's anti-immigration platform. Or when Sweden's right-of-center parties, historically isolating the far-right by refusing them coalition membership, eventually partnered with them. It turns out that many parties and countries aren't willing to do that. It's a pity about the results of it. Now, I'm having trouble deciding whether your plan of action is deliberately designed to extend the power and influence of fringe ideas and fringe parties, or if it's just an accidental consequence of a failure to understand contemporary political issues. The world didn't just happen to get more racist and xenophobic and extreme after Obama and Merkel and Cameron (etc). These were real voting people that decided that mainstream parties/candidates weren't serious about policies to correct problems as they perceived them, and suffered the wrath of the center-left and left-wing for changing their votes to indicate their dissatisfaction. The last thing you want to do in that is to wantonly declare them not worth talking to and morally reprehensible. That just cements the first error. (Also, you always have the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand. The choice to throw up your hands and dismiss new information, because you're tired or perceive bad faith, is still your choice and not some external inevitability. I'd certainly know far less about the left wing and fringe left if I refused to read what was written by people that are dismissive, insulting, or routinely operating in bad faith. Yourself potentially included, since I'm not clairvoyant on why you said "you seem to have rather grasped the lay of the land" to describe an obviously petulant and idiotic lengthy rant.) Why did you feel the need to include a condescending paragraph about Wombat having the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand, in response to Wombat's post indicating that he chooses to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand? What is there to talk about when the goalposts and positions seemingly perpetually shift? When actual good faith discussion is in very short supply indeed?
Patience and civility are not infinite resources, eventually people just couldn’t be arsed anymore, that’s not really on them.
In order to address the passive voice here. It either fully or partially contradicts your summary of the entire post. I wasn't summarizing a post, I was pointing out that implicit to Wombat's statement was cases where he chose to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand other people. It seems you chose not to listen, understand, or ask questions about that, and instead chose to preach based on your understanding of Wombat's words. Does that, at all, strike you as hypocritical? I agree that people should engage in discourse with as much civility as they can muster. However, a key social component of that communication is mutual respect, and if that respect is missing or unavailable, it's hard to pin that on just one party. "That's not really on them", as it were. Wombat is welcome to correct me if I'm misunderstanding. In any case, I wanted to highlight that I'm struggling to get around the idea that you're being hypocritical. Obviously, I don't expect that is your intent. I'm curious if you see it. Essentially yes, I’m talking more about a general shift in the last decade+, as I see it anyway. Not necessarily the internal dynamics of this thread, it’s considerably worse in the wild as it were. Let us take two hypothetical conservatives. They both profess to have concerns about immigration, especially of the illegal kind. They claim the Constitution as a quasi-sacred document, are concerned about state overreach in the socioeconomic and security realms, and worry that the executive is becoming too powerful. Just to take a few talking points. I’m perfectly capable of having a civil conversation on any of those things, there may be disagreement, there may be some agreement, albeit coming from my different ideological lens. Now, having had those conversations, if Conservative A and me don’t align on everything, but they express serious misgivings about various transgressions the Trump administration have made against their own stated concerns and values, I’m perfectly happy to continue civilly engaging there. If Conservative B does the opposite, how am I meant to continue to civilly engage? As I consider civility, ‘agree to disagree’ on certain points of divergence only functions if the points of disagreement are earnestly and consistently held positions. If we’re agreeing to disagree on a point of principle you’re happy to abandon whenever it’s your dude or dudette at the wheel, we’re not really engaging in anything worthwhile, or at least I wouldn’t consider it thus. As I’ve stressed numerous times in here, I don’t expect people to agree with or share my values, although it would be nice! I do expect people to (somewhat, very few people are 100% consistent) adhere to what they tell me they believe. If they do not, demonstrably then it’s a waste of my time having civil discussions with them, because they’re not honest interlocutors, and last I checked dishonesty isn’t considered especially civil. I find this to be a motte and bailey approach. You want credit for thinking through the positions people hold, and suspending engagement conditionally on your perception of their hypocrisy. That has its own problems, but it's somewhat reasonable. Then I come across your bailey: punishing them and anyone who is not white applying laws selectively spitting on the rest of the world regurgitated "America first" bullshit marching orders he gets form watching his idol Tucker Carlson. diatribes he copy pasted from stormfront ready when challenged here he just ignores it just a sad incel lives vicariously by watching jack booted thugs executing people it's grievance blinded by propaganda and hate convinced that immigrants are the poison killing his country willing to cheer on downright fascism as long as they punish the people he hates You think that screed represents a grasp of the lay of the land rather solidly. Just re-read it one more time. I brought it up to you, and it's zero backdown and zero regrets. Far from trying to base engagement on civility, and judge earnest and consistently held positions, you've now endorsed the exact opposite and are possibly proud to do so! (Fleetfeet chose to not address this, but perhaps he will in the interest of addressing the main point instead of digging around the edges to expose hypocrisy). I'm a little scared to ask you what you think should be done with these incel white supremacist stormfront-posters that like watching thugs executing people, but you can see I'm having trouble reconciling one version of you with another. Yes, I wanted to see if this was a moment of anger (we all have them, politics sucks), because I want to believe that there is a civil opposition represented here that keeps their head about them and maintains civility and empathy and shared humanity. I didn't find it this go-around, frankly, but I'm new here. Exactly zero people posted that that post went too far that weren't the targets of the post, and that's saying something. My perspective is to keep the dialogue open and with a base level of civility, ease off the gas pedal, and not adopt Jankisa's methods. If this isn't an attempt to otherize, then please cite which of the 12 describe you (it's ridiculously easy to point fingers). There is a risk of just being awful to other people in the name of politics with the thin excuse that you sincerely tried to not be an awful person at first, as if your twin on the right wouldn't immediately claim equal right to the same excuse. I didn’t choose, nor desire modern conservatism to take this form, I just have to take it as I see it. Which is thus. Happy to earnestly engage people who don’t suck Trump off or deny that ICE are pointlessly shooting people. If one ain’t doing that then I’m not talking about you If one wants do that I don’t see any point in engaging, and as I said prior it’s really not on me. This current breed of conservatives wants the shroud of civil engagement to legitimise their nonsense, where blank dismissal is just as appropriate I have some trouble recognizing an attack on "modern conservatism" and "the current breed of conservatives" with "If one ain’t doing that then I’m not talking about you." It can't really be broadly applicable to a movement with around a hundred million American adherents, but also only narrowly applicable to a couple guys on a forum. I think both posters he and you singled out were broadly critical of the shooting of Alex Pretti, so let me amend this to say a sometimes false portrayal of a couple guys on a forum. When you've doubled down on white supremacy, stormfront, and incel for a member of this forum (among the rest), then I'd like to hear why it's also broadly true of conservatives and conservatism. I'll confess that when I read the 12 things cited in that post, my current and continuing reaction is that only a very few of the fringiest, hateful left-wingers would actually and seriously believe them to be true attacks that are merited. You're self-identifying into the "blinded by propaganda and hate" category quite willingly. That's the most hateful and propagandistic list of ad hominem insults I can imagine + Show Spoiler +with the possible exception of calling either or both pedophiles and terrorists. If stormfront and incels are merited, would pedophile and terrorist also be merited? I haven't sorted out if you possess a backstop to your endorsed, merited insults, so just chime in whenever you feel like at what insulting term you stop at. I really thought you could point to one of the list, and tell me that you'll go that far and no further, but you found none. . It sort of shocks me to see you double down in this manner, saying that they were merited insults. I hope I can go back a hundred pages and read oBlade citing African Americans as being racially inferior as stormfront thinks, or Introvert saying that immigrants as immigrants are a poison killing this country. I have my doubts. I'd guess that this is just how left-wingers in these parts portray mainstream center and right opinions from the last twenty years, but I'm currently exploring the limits of this. I'll remind you that not one person spoke up that Jankisa went too far. Yes, I'm still willing to engage with you despite this doubling-down on the entire list. I hope you shake off the mantra that civil engagement is an aid in legitimizing, since civil engagement is really a personal choice to talk about serious political topics with the seriousness they deserve. You suffer nothing in stopping yourself from ad hominem bullshit. If you're incapable of doing that (to put it your way, it's the other guy's fault that you won't do it), you help the opposing fringe portray you as similar crazy cranks to them, sharing the same cesspool of insulting diatribes. Oh spare me the victim complex, I already said in a prior post that I’ll happily be civil to conservatives who behave vaguely civilly. As I have with Introvert many a time incidentally. It wasn’t my asylum the lunatics took over. I’d dare say there’s a proportional correlation between declining civility and increasingly shit policy and equivocations surrounding it. Nobody’s owed civility in perpetuity. One can bum Donald Trump and everything he does, that’s ones prerogative, other people may choose not to take you remotely seriously, that’s the deal one is making. To choose one example, not something I’m accusing you of necessarily. I'm glad that you're happy to talk with the guy that you've doubled down to say is motivated by grievance, blinded by propaganda and hate, convinced that immigrants are the poison killing his country, and willing to cheer on downright fascism as long as they punish the people he hates. Basically spitting in his face as you talk, but I'm not Introvert.
I have somewhat revised what I presumed about the people posting here from reading the website feedback thread, and I should've read a few dozen posts there before Jankisa's in this thread. It elaborates on the decades of disagreement and particularly "Everyone claims that they have the only right answer and everyone else is wrong and evil and a nazi and a pedophile. All of you fail to recognize that you're 98% in agreement and also, somehow, 374% wrong in all respects. Unknown to all of you, everyone is basically just trying to get along and be a good person, but there's some disagreement in exactly what that should look like, and then you all get in to an "us vs them" mindset and let the hate set in." So I'm just the noob that's late to the party unknowingly saying something that was said several months ago by someone more knowledgeable with how things work here.
|
Northern Ireland26255 Posts
On February 15 2026 09:58 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2026 08:13 WombaT wrote:On February 15 2026 06:40 dyhb wrote:On February 15 2026 02:13 WombaT wrote:On February 15 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:On February 15 2026 00:37 WombaT wrote:On February 14 2026 12:58 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 14 2026 10:33 dyhb wrote:On February 14 2026 09:30 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 14 2026 06:12 dyhb wrote:
[quote]I find the encroachment of populism to be precisely due to the overgeneralization of the people voting for populists as bad people not worth convincing or engaging beyond the discourse of the middle finger. The further corollary is a fundamental distrust of Democracy by center-left and far-let figures when the voters deliver candidates that are deeply opposed to their policies and not hesitant at all to declare it to their faces in a vocal, brash, and populist manner.
I would like to live in a world where the center-right incorporates elements of policies that the center-left screwed up, and become a clear alternative. Consider when Germany's center-right was opposed to stricter asylum/migration policies, and then under Merz basically adopted them to deny power to the AfD's anti-immigration platform. Or when Sweden's right-of-center parties, historically isolating the far-right by refusing them coalition membership, eventually partnered with them. It turns out that many parties and countries aren't willing to do that. It's a pity about the results of it.
Now, I'm having trouble deciding whether your plan of action is deliberately designed to extend the power and influence of fringe ideas and fringe parties, or if it's just an accidental consequence of a failure to understand contemporary political issues. The world didn't just happen to get more racist and xenophobic and extreme after Obama and Merkel and Cameron (etc). These were real voting people that decided that mainstream parties/candidates weren't serious about policies to correct problems as they perceived them, and suffered the wrath of the center-left and left-wing for changing their votes to indicate their dissatisfaction. The last thing you want to do in that is to wantonly declare them not worth talking to and morally reprehensible. That just cements the first error.
(Also, you always have the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand. The choice to throw up your hands and dismiss new information, because you're tired or perceive bad faith, is still your choice and not some external inevitability. I'd certainly know far less about the left wing and fringe left if I refused to read what was written by people that are dismissive, insulting, or routinely operating in bad faith. Yourself potentially included, since I'm not clairvoyant on why you said "you seem to have rather grasped the lay of the land" to describe an obviously petulant and idiotic lengthy rant.) Why did you feel the need to include a condescending paragraph about Wombat having the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand, in response to Wombat's post indicating that he chooses to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand? What is there to talk about when the goalposts and positions seemingly perpetually shift? When actual good faith discussion is in very short supply indeed?
Patience and civility are not infinite resources, eventually people just couldn’t be arsed anymore, that’s not really on them.
In order to address the passive voice here. It either fully or partially contradicts your summary of the entire post. I wasn't summarizing a post, I was pointing out that implicit to Wombat's statement was cases where he chose to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand other people. It seems you chose not to listen, understand, or ask questions about that, and instead chose to preach based on your understanding of Wombat's words. Does that, at all, strike you as hypocritical? I agree that people should engage in discourse with as much civility as they can muster. However, a key social component of that communication is mutual respect, and if that respect is missing or unavailable, it's hard to pin that on just one party. "That's not really on them", as it were. Wombat is welcome to correct me if I'm misunderstanding. In any case, I wanted to highlight that I'm struggling to get around the idea that you're being hypocritical. Obviously, I don't expect that is your intent. I'm curious if you see it. Essentially yes, I’m talking more about a general shift in the last decade+, as I see it anyway. Not necessarily the internal dynamics of this thread, it’s considerably worse in the wild as it were. Let us take two hypothetical conservatives. They both profess to have concerns about immigration, especially of the illegal kind. They claim the Constitution as a quasi-sacred document, are concerned about state overreach in the socioeconomic and security realms, and worry that the executive is becoming too powerful. Just to take a few talking points. I’m perfectly capable of having a civil conversation on any of those things, there may be disagreement, there may be some agreement, albeit coming from my different ideological lens. Now, having had those conversations, if Conservative A and me don’t align on everything, but they express serious misgivings about various transgressions the Trump administration have made against their own stated concerns and values, I’m perfectly happy to continue civilly engaging there. If Conservative B does the opposite, how am I meant to continue to civilly engage? As I consider civility, ‘agree to disagree’ on certain points of divergence only functions if the points of disagreement are earnestly and consistently held positions. If we’re agreeing to disagree on a point of principle you’re happy to abandon whenever it’s your dude or dudette at the wheel, we’re not really engaging in anything worthwhile, or at least I wouldn’t consider it thus. As I’ve stressed numerous times in here, I don’t expect people to agree with or share my values, although it would be nice! I do expect people to (somewhat, very few people are 100% consistent) adhere to what they tell me they believe. If they do not, demonstrably then it’s a waste of my time having civil discussions with them, because they’re not honest interlocutors, and last I checked dishonesty isn’t considered especially civil. I find this to be a motte and bailey approach. You want credit for thinking through the positions people hold, and suspending engagement conditionally on your perception of their hypocrisy. That has its own problems, but it's somewhat reasonable. Then I come across your bailey: punishing them and anyone who is not white applying laws selectively spitting on the rest of the world regurgitated "America first" bullshit marching orders he gets form watching his idol Tucker Carlson. diatribes he copy pasted from stormfront ready when challenged here he just ignores it just a sad incel lives vicariously by watching jack booted thugs executing people it's grievance blinded by propaganda and hate convinced that immigrants are the poison killing his country willing to cheer on downright fascism as long as they punish the people he hates You think that screed represents a grasp of the lay of the land rather solidly. Just re-read it one more time. I brought it up to you, and it's zero backdown and zero regrets. Far from trying to base engagement on civility, and judge earnest and consistently held positions, you've now endorsed the exact opposite and are possibly proud to do so! (Fleetfeet chose to not address this, but perhaps he will in the interest of addressing the main point instead of digging around the edges to expose hypocrisy). I'm a little scared to ask you what you think should be done with these incel white supremacist stormfront-posters that like watching thugs executing people, but you can see I'm having trouble reconciling one version of you with another. Yes, I wanted to see if this was a moment of anger (we all have them, politics sucks), because I want to believe that there is a civil opposition represented here that keeps their head about them and maintains civility and empathy and shared humanity. I didn't find it this go-around, frankly, but I'm new here. Exactly zero people posted that that post went too far that weren't the targets of the post, and that's saying something. My perspective is to keep the dialogue open and with a base level of civility, ease off the gas pedal, and not adopt Jankisa's methods. If this isn't an attempt to otherize, then please cite which of the 12 describe you (it's ridiculously easy to point fingers). There is a risk of just being awful to other people in the name of politics with the thin excuse that you sincerely tried to not be an awful person at first, as if your twin on the right wouldn't immediately claim equal right to the same excuse. I didn’t choose, nor desire modern conservatism to take this form, I just have to take it as I see it. Which is thus. Happy to earnestly engage people who don’t suck Trump off or deny that ICE are pointlessly shooting people. If one ain’t doing that then I’m not talking about you If one wants do that I don’t see any point in engaging, and as I said prior it’s really not on me. This current breed of conservatives wants the shroud of civil engagement to legitimise their nonsense, where blank dismissal is just as appropriate I have some trouble recognizing an attack on "modern conservatism" and "the current breed of conservatives" with "If one ain’t doing that then I’m not talking about you." It can't really be broadly applicable to a movement with around a hundred million American adherents, but also only narrowly applicable to a couple guys on a forum. I think both posters he and you singled out were broadly critical of the shooting of Alex Pretti, so let me amend this to say a sometimes false portrayal of a couple guys on a forum. When you've doubled down on white supremacy, stormfront, and incel for a member of this forum (among the rest), then I'd like to hear why it's also broadly true of conservatives and conservatism. I'll confess that when I read the 12 things cited in that post, my current and continuing reaction is that only a very few of the fringiest, hateful left-wingers would actually and seriously believe them to be true attacks that are merited. You're self-identifying into the "blinded by propaganda and hate" category quite willingly. That's the most hateful and propagandistic list of ad hominem insults I can imagine + Show Spoiler +with the possible exception of calling either or both pedophiles and terrorists. If stormfront and incels are merited, would pedophile and terrorist also be merited? I haven't sorted out if you possess a backstop to your endorsed, merited insults, so just chime in whenever you feel like at what insulting term you stop at. I really thought you could point to one of the list, and tell me that you'll go that far and no further, but you found none. . It sort of shocks me to see you double down in this manner, saying that they were merited insults. I hope I can go back a hundred pages and read oBlade citing African Americans as being racially inferior as stormfront thinks, or Introvert saying that immigrants as immigrants are a poison killing this country. I have my doubts. I'd guess that this is just how left-wingers in these parts portray mainstream center and right opinions from the last twenty years, but I'm currently exploring the limits of this. I'll remind you that not one person spoke up that Jankisa went too far. Yes, I'm still willing to engage with you despite this doubling-down on the entire list. I hope you shake off the mantra that civil engagement is an aid in legitimizing, since civil engagement is really a personal choice to talk about serious political topics with the seriousness they deserve. You suffer nothing in stopping yourself from ad hominem bullshit. If you're incapable of doing that (to put it your way, it's the other guy's fault that you won't do it), you help the opposing fringe portray you as similar crazy cranks to them, sharing the same cesspool of insulting diatribes. Oh spare me the victim complex, I already said in a prior post that I’ll happily be civil to conservatives who behave vaguely civilly. As I have with Introvert many a time incidentally. It wasn’t my asylum the lunatics took over. I’d dare say there’s a proportional correlation between declining civility and increasingly shit policy and equivocations surrounding it. Nobody’s owed civility in perpetuity. One can bum Donald Trump and everything he does, that’s ones prerogative, other people may choose not to take you remotely seriously, that’s the deal one is making. To choose one example, not something I’m accusing you of necessarily. I'm glad that you're happy to talk with the guy that you've doubled down to say is motivated by grievance, blinded by propaganda and hate, convinced that immigrants are the poison killing his country, and willing to cheer on downright fascism as long as they punish the people he hates. Basically spitting in his face as you talk, but I'm not Introvert. I have somewhat revised what I presumed about the people posting here from reading the website feedback thread, and I should've read a few dozen posts there before Jankisa's in this thread. It elaborates on the decades of disagreement and particularly "Everyone claims that they have the only right answer and everyone else is wrong and evil and a nazi and a pedophile. All of you fail to recognize that you're 98% in agreement and also, somehow, 374% wrong in all respects. Unknown to all of you, everyone is basically just trying to get along and be a good person, but there's some disagreement in exactly what that should look like, and then you all get in to an "us vs them" mindset and let the hate set in." So I'm just the noob that's late to the party unknowingly saying something that was said several months ago by someone more knowledgeable with how things work here.
Where did I double down on anything outside of the confines of your own imagination?
I’m sure plenty of posters, hell Introvert themself will attest to plenty of civil exchanges, albeit punctured with plenty of forceful disagreement.
I’ve literally said I’m happy to engage with conservatives who aren’t full of shit. If you are not in that camp, and I don’t profess to know your views, then happy days let’s have a civil conversation.
I merely think it’s daft to pretend that’s the currently prevailing cohort, nor that it’s anyone else’s fault that people couldn’t be arsed engaging with it.
It ain’t me forcing anyone’s hand in defending the Orange Emperor no matter what. One can be a conservative and you know, not so that.
|
Rubio gave an excellent speech in Munich, the good cop to Vance's bad cop last year. While still not my top pick for 2028, he'd have the best chance of the people I like. Still not sold on Vance, as I think he's a thoughtful person but not a super principled one. But unfortunately as sitting VP he has to be considered the favorite.
I know this will just cause more accusations of "just likes to crap on Democrats" but honestly the contrast of Rubio with AOC is so night and day I have a hard time understanding how the party that thinks of itself as the smart one doesn't recognize that she's a blustering, bumbling ignoramus. Maybe it's just the clips I've seen but man...
anyways Rubio was quite good
|
I sincerely hope that the American people, the real patriots in that country, the proud grandchildren of those brave anti-fascists who ended Nazism in their time, will seek justice and fucking hang publicly these genocidal child rapist aristocrats...
Fuck Trump, fuck Israel, fuck the Nazi aristocracy of the USA!
|
On February 15 2026 15:27 Introvert wrote:
Rubio gave an excellent speech in Munich, the good cop to Vance's bad cop last year. While still not my top pick for 2028, he'd have the best chance of the people I like. Still not sold on Vance, as I think he's a thoughtful person but not a super principled one. But unfortunately as sitting VP he has to be considered the favorite.
I know this will just cause more accusations of "just likes to crap on Democrats" but honestly the contrast of Rubio with AOC is so night and day I have a hard time understanding how the party that thinks of itself as the smart one doesn't recognize that she's a blustering, bumbling ignoramus. Maybe it's just the clips I've seen but man...
anyways Rubio was quite good
The papers over here reported on the Munich meet as the place where it became clear that the old world order ended. More accurately, Marco Rubio's speech wasn't nasty like 'the enemy from within' speech Vance gave, but the core message was the same.
|
lol bad cop good cop, who do you think we are.
|
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:Oh, so you do consider yourself a centrist. (So in my mind, you are in fact category A.) What are you a centre on:
Listen, whether centrist or independent or unaffiliated or whatever, if you want to quibble that centrist should mean something like in the middle on most issues rather than mixed on all issues. That's a fair demarcation to make. But to me the interpretation of "centrist" as such makes the golden mean fallacy inherent in the term. Like, are you for global thermonuclear war, or no nuclear war? Ah, I'm a radical centrist, I prefer a medium nuclear war. Who would ever choose or want to be a centrist defined as such. But that goes over most people's heads and is not the key point here, is it. You can choose the specific word. Politicalcompass (-1.25, 0.1). 8values Centrist Patriotic Moderate Neutral. No party registration. Supported Obama and Trump. Disapprove of 80% of politicians.
I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, want steeper taxes on high incomes. Bernie Sanders' social security plan was a good idea. Bush's wasn't. I want government to be bigger and cheaper (think New Deal but nonpartisan). And want to cut defense spending in half at least. I am broadly in favor of single payer healthcare. I hate civil asset forfeiture.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
For instance, on Foreign policy- Trump's ideas on NATO,
NATO should be stronger.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
war in Ukraine, Israel,
From here it starts to creep into my head what your left/right definitions are. Anti-war is left. Hawkish is traditionally right.
My view on Israel is they should exist and they're a US ally, Ukraine should also exist but except for the fact that the country that attacked them is a US enemy, they're not an ally per se. Even if they wanted to be. Though they are a friendly partner on our periphery. Now obviously attacking someone before they become someone's ally, so they can't become an ally, is its own problem. But it's more largely a European problem. Even though Russia is a polar adversary. For example if Venezuela attacked Bukele I would expect it mainly to be a US problem in our hemisphere. So in both Israel and Ukraine I believe the amount of free support they get from the US is not strictly warranted.
In Ukraine's case, my view is they have lost the war. Which is unfortunate to say the least, but getting people killed because it hurts Russia is not going to undo that reality. So my opinion in Ukraine is to end the war on paper that has already been decided in reality.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
anti-Free Trade and a hyper focus on ending trade deficits?
"Free trade" is like a 4 decades long right-wing corporatist trickle-down economics meme. I'm pro-fair trade and think a hegemon like the US must have the capability to handle core industries as part of its national security. Legitimately there is a national difference here. The differences force different policy priorities. A country like Canada, or Cuba, or Singapore, doesn't matter how geographically big or small or rich or poor, inherently experiences dependencies that it can't avoid, that huge countries at some level MUST avoid (or control with great care). Absolutely no offense to Canadians, of whom my uncle is one. The political calculus is different. Like it's okay if the US and Canada are codependent. It's not okay that the US relies on China. Whatever system made that result is wrong. Hyper-focus is a pendulum reaction to decades of no focus. Do I think the math always has to add up to $0 to be fair? No. The number is not the problem, the problem is what the number represents. Like if you decrease cholesterol in a population to stop heart attacks but it ends up that more of them die. Then you failed. The problem is what is happening to our economies, not the fact that it's approximated in a statistic.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Or domestically, the current use of presidential executive orders by declaring everything an emergency?
Most executive orders aren't to do with emergencies. They are simply the most official mechanism of how the president runs the branch that is subordinate to him. Along with proclamations and memoranda. They aren't ALL substitutes for policy that the president can't get passed as law through Congress.
Again I wonder the backdrop gauge you are using. The meme conception of the right is they want small government, so that means meek and ineffectual presidents. Yet being okay with presidents exercising their statutory authority either in Article 2 or delegated to them by acts of Congress - like the tariff powers - is also going to be right-coded? That would be a rhetorical trap, whether prepared deliberately or not.
I believe the president should be strong within their purview. I also believe Congress should be strong within their purview. But their (Congress's) own incompetence especially can't tie the other branches' hands. The president does appear stronger in comparison when Congress is a perpetual stalemate of childish corporatist cliques. Nevertheless, we need someone running the show.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Or what are your views on the ACA?
The ACA is a failure. It had no public option and has increased premiums way over the baseline trend. My view is: I wish it hadn't.
The temporary extended subsidies Democrats shut down the federal government over largely benefited people making $100k-$200k who don't need handouts. While there's still a nationwide Medicare gap below the poverty line. Besides all of which "coverage" is not "healthcare" and care quality per dollar has gotten even worse along with health outcomes.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
How legitimate do you think Trump's grievances are regarding a) rigged voting b) fedsurrection?
And his most recent calls to 'nationalize the voting'.
Voter ID is like an 80/20 issue. And it's specifically in the constitution that Congress can decide how federal elections are run. Trump is not in the picture. I do not care about Trump's grievances. Like I do not care one time Trump said X number of people voted illegally, but we looked at Oregon and found they only registered about 1000 immigrants to vote through the DMV because they had driver's licenses, so Trump is exaggerating.
Fedsurrection if you're talking about the idea that "glowies" did January 6th, Patel made a similar mistake very early I saw, thinking when the FBI said they had agents on the ground he played it up like there were 250 undercover instigators. At some press conference or hearing. Which is a lie by misrepresentation. If that's basically what you're referring to here, then there was no "fedsurrection."
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Or the removal of oversight over crypto plus the pausing of enforcing of the FCPA combined with Trump's enrichment efforts in international negotiations?
I am against all public crypto grifting and believe that should be kept within the private sector. That said, there are people who view crypto as a valid financial instrument and are into it. I'm not into it, like I'm not into mutual funds, but I don't have a problem with either existing. I really don't know that much except it's probably possible to go too far in criminalizing anything connected to crypto the way 10 years ago people thought bitcoin is just drug dealers. Or maybe I'm wrong and really it is all drug dealers and wire fraud, in which case less oversight is wrong.
The FCPA I had to look up, they paused in February and restarted in June?
Of all the subjects you listed these are probably the ones I'm most lacking on and would need to expand my knowledge of to fairly figure out any particular view I might have.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2026 22:55 oBlade wrote:
I have no ideology, I just have ideas. On immigration specifically I'm around 80%-90% where Obama was 15 years ago which Reagan was to the left of.
So you claim: 1) To be a centrist 2) That your immigration position is 80-90% in line with Obama 15 years ago And 3) Have really only defended Trump's current use of ICE in this administration.
#3 certainly not really only. My point is simply for example, say Trump launches a memecoin, which he did, and I read the news and am not in favor of it, but it doesn't happen to motivate me to post about it on a Starcraft website, I'm certainly not more motivated to prove, in some exculpatory fashion, my opposition to it after I open the website and see a European non-voter has already called me a fascist bootlicking Nazi for not having posted about it yet.
Obama the main thing we weren't aligned on is DACA. He implemented it knowing it was BS because they couldn't get it through Congress. He thinks it didn't go through Congress because it's good, I think it didn't go through Congress because it's bad. And Reagan's amnesty was empirically to the left of Obama.
On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Do you believe that Trump's current use of ICE is 80-90% similar to Obama 15 years ago and that this is a centrist position?
Yes. There is not a way to deport people without making some of them sad. Trump enforces more in sanctuary jurisdictions which causes leftists to follow DHS around and crash cars into them. Despite calling Obama the Deporter-in-Chief, leftists weren't as radicalized back then and they weren't as all-in on sanctuary policies.
|
On February 15 2026 15:27 Introvert wrote:
Rubio gave an excellent speech in Munich, the good cop to Vance's bad cop last year. While still not my top pick for 2028, he'd have the best chance of the people I like. Still not sold on Vance, as I think he's a thoughtful person but not a super principled one. But unfortunately as sitting VP he has to be considered the favorite.
I know this will just cause more accusations of "just likes to crap on Democrats" but honestly the contrast of Rubio with AOC is so night and day I have a hard time understanding how the party that thinks of itself as the smart one doesn't recognize that she's a blustering, bumbling ignoramus. Maybe it's just the clips I've seen but man...
anyways Rubio was quite good
Last year was a speech on the exact same topic with the same core content aimed at the core Republicans in the US. This year they got somebody that cares about how Europe reacts to a speech about Europe to write it. So it is a better speech, but is it different when you go to the core of it?
|
Will be interesting to see if anything remains of the Atlantic alliance once those clowns get the boot.
I think they have a point though, Europe should never have to rely on the US for its independence and its security. The US is not a reliable partner, and its voters are so volatiles and clueless they can elect a completely erratic president that turns allies into foes.
The damage to US soft power is unbelievable.
|
It was just another nazi speech about how Europe should look to the US to protect its superior white culture from the evil foreigners.
Rubio just put a slightly nicer coat over it.
|
On February 15 2026 15:27 Introvert wrote:
Rubio gave an excellent speech in Munich, the good cop to Vance's bad cop last year. While still not my top pick for 2028, he'd have the best chance of the people I like. Still not sold on Vance, as I think he's a thoughtful person but not a super principled one. But unfortunately as sitting VP he has to be considered the favorite.
I know this will just cause more accusations of "just likes to crap on Democrats" but honestly the contrast of Rubio with AOC is so night and day I have a hard time understanding how the party that thinks of itself as the smart one doesn't recognize that she's a blustering, bumbling ignoramus. Maybe it's just the clips I've seen but man...
anyways Rubio was quite good
Democrats derangement syndrome in action again, can't talk about his preferred 2028 candidate who is obviously an incredibly morally dubious and completely unprincipled person without bringing up a smart, principled and well spoken person of color.
I'd be perplexed as to how can someone watch/read that speech full of outright lies that go directly against the stated US NSS and come away impressed, but, given that you are someone who supports Trump that absolutely makes sense.
I guess it also makes sense, when you are supporting a pedophile who's hell bent on destabilizing the world and you are pretending to be a non cult member, what else will you do except come here to attack a women who you feel threatened by.
By the way, still no answer regarding why USA healthcare is what it is, I'm still very curious how you will make that one about Democrats, but I'm sure you will find a way.
|
United States43571 Posts
On February 15 2026 16:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:
lol bad cop good cop, who do you think we are.
The enemy. They think you’re the enemy.
|
On February 15 2026 20:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2026 16:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:
lol bad cop good cop, who do you think we are. The enemy. They think you’re the enemy.
American jingoistic main character syndrome strikes again
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
