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.
Does anyone actually believe Democrats will hold the criminal organization that is the current administration accountable in any meaningful way? Do people not think that failure will have catastrophic/terminal consequences to the concept that the US is a "nation of laws"?
I found this:
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries and President Donald Trump's son-in-law and outside adviser Jared Kushner met privately recently in New York, a signal that the White House is seeking ways to work with Democrats if they wrest majority control from Republicans in the midterm elections.
The meeting, first reported Sunday by The New York Times, touched on issues ranging from housing, immigration to the high costs of living. People in the United States are struggling under inflationary prices that Democrats blame on Republicans, alongside Trump, for failing to get under control.
Kushner suggested that Jeffries, who is in line to become House speaker if Democrats regain power in November, meet with White House chief of staff Susie Wiles as a follow-up.
Jeffries, in a statement Sunday, did not mention the private conversation but said the Republican administration needed to drop the GOP's "my-way-or-the-highway" approach that "has failed the American people."
"To stop the madness, we have repeatedly made clear that an extremist approach will not work and will be met with forceful opposition," the New York congressman said. "The question is whether Republicans will join us."
The meeting shows the depth of Republican Party angst over losing their congressional majority, particularly the House, and the need to make inroads with the opposing party as the White House seeks to stem any potential political fallout on the president.
If Democrats retake power, the White House can expect an aggressive oversight agenda into what Jeffries has called the "crooks" in the administration, with the threat of impeachment among the many tools at the party's disposal.
I don't see this meeting as an optimistic indicator that Congressional Democrats are going to be able to get anything done while Trump is still in office, even if Democrats retake control of Congress. They won't push as hard as they need to; they won't do what Republicans have been willing to do (for better or for worse). I have no reason to think that anything is seriously going to change before we have both a Democratic president and a Democrat-led Congress at the same time, and I definitely don't think that they'll ever hold the criminal organization that is the current administration accountable in any meaningful way.
I appreciate the reasonable response.
What about your thoughts on the damage of what you describe to the notion that the US is a "nation of laws" and "the rule of law" generally?
I think the lack of accountability and consequences perpetuates the idea that there is a two-tiered justice system in our country: if you have extreme money, power, or political connections, you're generally free to do as you please even if you break the rules; if you're in the less privileged, lower 99%, then the law still applies to you and you might even suffer additional consequences from that top 1% doing whatever they want. We have laws, and they should be enforced no matter who the criminal is, but sadly that's not the reality of the situation.
Does anyone feel like this disconnect between reality and what our leaders (from both parties) tell us is reality is fundamentally unsustainable (and coming to a sort of head sooner than later)?
That contrary to the story people sorta thoughtlessly absorbed (because the propaganda was ubiquitous), the US and the institutions and laws were always "corrupted by money". They were built and written by affluent, genocidal, land stealing, rapist, slavers to protect and expand their wealth. Rather than a deviation, Trump and his coterie of crooks is a continuation and proud unmasking of that tradition.
It's a huge problem that ought to not exist, but I'm not entirely sure how/when to label it as sustainable or unsustainable. Like, in our political landscape for example, the biggest jump ever in abusing this two-tiered justice system has occurred between the pre-Trump era and then from 2017 onwards. No one has ever been as bad as Trump, nor taken as much advantage of the system as Trump has. And yet the general population isn't pissed off enough to not repeatedly vote for him as the Republican nominee and as president. I wish that this situation was less sustainable - that there would be more protests, more actions taken to push for more accountability, and more willingness to eat the rich and jail the powerful criminals and vote for leaders who will actually make that happen (regardless of their political affiliation) - but I don't see much changing unfortunately. I think both of Trump's presidencies are setting a terrible precedent, and I shudder to think what the next jump in a future president abusing power looks like.
Well, we both know wishing isn't very effective. We both recognize Democrats and Republicans aren't a viable path to accountability we both identify as necessary. So it's not really a mystery why we wouldn't see things improving.
What are we doing to "be the change we wish to see"? How do we make there be more more protests, more [effective] actions taken to push for more accountability, and more willingness to eat the rich and jail the powerful criminals and support* leaders who will actually make that happen (regardless of their political affiliation [since it isn't either D's or R's])?
It's also important to note that the leaders do what they have to do (usually at the Epstein Class's demand). FDR's New Deal was absolutely necessary to save capitalism and the pre-Epstein class from themselves for example.
On August 26 2026 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote: What are we doing to "be the change we wish to see"? How do we make there be more more protests, more [effective] actions taken to push for more accountability, and more willingness to eat the rich and jail the powerful criminals and support* leaders who will actually make that happen (regardless of their political affiliation [since it isn't either D's or R's])?
A great start would be, we could tell all those un-activated people things like "I'm not here to convince you" and "don't talk to me until you already agree with me".
Does anyone actually believe Democrats will hold the criminal organization that is the current administration accountable in any meaningful way? Do people not think that failure will have catastrophic/terminal consequences to the concept that the US is a "nation of laws"?
I found this:
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries and President Donald Trump's son-in-law and outside adviser Jared Kushner met privately recently in New York, a signal that the White House is seeking ways to work with Democrats if they wrest majority control from Republicans in the midterm elections.
The meeting, first reported Sunday by The New York Times, touched on issues ranging from housing, immigration to the high costs of living. People in the United States are struggling under inflationary prices that Democrats blame on Republicans, alongside Trump, for failing to get under control.
Kushner suggested that Jeffries, who is in line to become House speaker if Democrats regain power in November, meet with White House chief of staff Susie Wiles as a follow-up.
Jeffries, in a statement Sunday, did not mention the private conversation but said the Republican administration needed to drop the GOP's "my-way-or-the-highway" approach that "has failed the American people."
"To stop the madness, we have repeatedly made clear that an extremist approach will not work and will be met with forceful opposition," the New York congressman said. "The question is whether Republicans will join us."
The meeting shows the depth of Republican Party angst over losing their congressional majority, particularly the House, and the need to make inroads with the opposing party as the White House seeks to stem any potential political fallout on the president.
If Democrats retake power, the White House can expect an aggressive oversight agenda into what Jeffries has called the "crooks" in the administration, with the threat of impeachment among the many tools at the party's disposal.
I don't see this meeting as an optimistic indicator that Congressional Democrats are going to be able to get anything done while Trump is still in office, even if Democrats retake control of Congress. They won't push as hard as they need to; they won't do what Republicans have been willing to do (for better or for worse). I have no reason to think that anything is seriously going to change before we have both a Democratic president and a Democrat-led Congress at the same time, and I definitely don't think that they'll ever hold the criminal organization that is the current administration accountable in any meaningful way.
I appreciate the reasonable response.
What about your thoughts on the damage of what you describe to the notion that the US is a "nation of laws" and "the rule of law" generally?
I think the lack of accountability and consequences perpetuates the idea that there is a two-tiered justice system in our country: if you have extreme money, power, or political connections, you're generally free to do as you please even if you break the rules; if you're in the less privileged, lower 99%, then the law still applies to you and you might even suffer additional consequences from that top 1% doing whatever they want. We have laws, and they should be enforced no matter who the criminal is, but sadly that's not the reality of the situation.
Does anyone feel like this disconnect between reality and what our leaders (from both parties) tell us is reality is fundamentally unsustainable (and coming to a sort of head sooner than later)?
That contrary to the story people sorta thoughtlessly absorbed (because the propaganda was ubiquitous), the US and the institutions and laws were always "corrupted by money". They were built and written by affluent, genocidal, land stealing, rapist, slavers to protect and expand their wealth. Rather than a deviation, Trump and his coterie of crooks is a continuation and proud unmasking of that tradition.
It's a huge problem that ought to not exist, but I'm not entirely sure how/when to label it as sustainable or unsustainable. Like, in our political landscape for example, the biggest jump ever in abusing this two-tiered justice system has occurred between the pre-Trump era and then from 2017 onwards. No one has ever been as bad as Trump, nor taken as much advantage of the system as Trump has. And yet the general population isn't pissed off enough to not repeatedly vote for him as the Republican nominee and as president. I wish that this situation was less sustainable - that there would be more protests, more actions taken to push for more accountability, and more willingness to eat the rich and jail the powerful criminals and vote for leaders who will actually make that happen (regardless of their political affiliation) - but I don't see much changing unfortunately. I think both of Trump's presidencies are setting a terrible precedent, and I shudder to think what the next jump in a future president abusing power looks like.
Well, we both know wishing isn't very effective. We both recognize Democrats and Republicans aren't a viable path to accountability we both identify as necessary. So it's not really a mystery why we wouldn't see things improving.
What are we doing to "be the change we wish to see"? How do we make there be more more protests, more [effective] actions taken to push for more accountability, and more willingness to eat the rich and jail the powerful criminals and support* leaders who will actually make that happen (regardless of their political affiliation [since it isn't either D's or R's])?
It's also important to note that the leaders do what they have to do (usually at the Epstein Class's demand). FDR's New Deal was absolutely necessary to save capitalism and the pre-Epstein class from themselves for example.
That reminds me. Weren't the "no kings" protests gaining some traction. But they're super punctual 1-day things. And then everyone goes home and nothing is followed up on (until the next "no kings" protest a few months later. Similarly, I remember there was talk of a general strike. I don't recall whether it happened, but if it did, it was 1 day and then everything went back to normal. Why are Americans so incredibly bad at protesting? Your population used to be much better. The 60s and 70s were rife with protests that achieved things. Protests that achieved things require the people protesting to make life for those in charge uncomfortable. Even Occupy Wallstreet was a lot more effective. Clearly doing something about the abuse of power just isn't really a priority for most people. Either that, or there's a Stasi-level counter organization going on to silently disrupt all attempts at organization and mobilization.
Does anyone actually believe Democrats will hold the criminal organization that is the current administration accountable in any meaningful way? Do people not think that failure will have catastrophic/terminal consequences to the concept that the US is a "nation of laws"?
I found this:
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries and President Donald Trump's son-in-law and outside adviser Jared Kushner met privately recently in New York, a signal that the White House is seeking ways to work with Democrats if they wrest majority control from Republicans in the midterm elections.
The meeting, first reported Sunday by The New York Times, touched on issues ranging from housing, immigration to the high costs of living. People in the United States are struggling under inflationary prices that Democrats blame on Republicans, alongside Trump, for failing to get under control.
Kushner suggested that Jeffries, who is in line to become House speaker if Democrats regain power in November, meet with White House chief of staff Susie Wiles as a follow-up.
Jeffries, in a statement Sunday, did not mention the private conversation but said the Republican administration needed to drop the GOP's "my-way-or-the-highway" approach that "has failed the American people."
"To stop the madness, we have repeatedly made clear that an extremist approach will not work and will be met with forceful opposition," the New York congressman said. "The question is whether Republicans will join us."
The meeting shows the depth of Republican Party angst over losing their congressional majority, particularly the House, and the need to make inroads with the opposing party as the White House seeks to stem any potential political fallout on the president.
If Democrats retake power, the White House can expect an aggressive oversight agenda into what Jeffries has called the "crooks" in the administration, with the threat of impeachment among the many tools at the party's disposal.
I don't see this meeting as an optimistic indicator that Congressional Democrats are going to be able to get anything done while Trump is still in office, even if Democrats retake control of Congress. They won't push as hard as they need to; they won't do what Republicans have been willing to do (for better or for worse). I have no reason to think that anything is seriously going to change before we have both a Democratic president and a Democrat-led Congress at the same time, and I definitely don't think that they'll ever hold the criminal organization that is the current administration accountable in any meaningful way.
I appreciate the reasonable response.
What about your thoughts on the damage of what you describe to the notion that the US is a "nation of laws" and "the rule of law" generally?
I think the lack of accountability and consequences perpetuates the idea that there is a two-tiered justice system in our country: if you have extreme money, power, or political connections, you're generally free to do as you please even if you break the rules; if you're in the less privileged, lower 99%, then the law still applies to you and you might even suffer additional consequences from that top 1% doing whatever they want. We have laws, and they should be enforced no matter who the criminal is, but sadly that's not the reality of the situation.
Does anyone feel like this disconnect between reality and what our leaders (from both parties) tell us is reality is fundamentally unsustainable (and coming to a sort of head sooner than later)?
That contrary to the story people sorta thoughtlessly absorbed (because the propaganda was ubiquitous), the US and the institutions and laws were always "corrupted by money". They were built and written by affluent, genocidal, land stealing, rapist, slavers to protect and expand their wealth. Rather than a deviation, Trump and his coterie of crooks is a continuation and proud unmasking of that tradition.
It's a huge problem that ought to not exist, but I'm not entirely sure how/when to label it as sustainable or unsustainable. Like, in our political landscape for example, the biggest jump ever in abusing this two-tiered justice system has occurred between the pre-Trump era and then from 2017 onwards. No one has ever been as bad as Trump, nor taken as much advantage of the system as Trump has. And yet the general population isn't pissed off enough to not repeatedly vote for him as the Republican nominee and as president. I wish that this situation was less sustainable - that there would be more protests, more actions taken to push for more accountability, and more willingness to eat the rich and jail the powerful criminals and vote for leaders who will actually make that happen (regardless of their political affiliation) - but I don't see much changing unfortunately. I think both of Trump's presidencies are setting a terrible precedent, and I shudder to think what the next jump in a future president abusing power looks like.
Well, we both know wishing isn't very effective. We both recognize Democrats and Republicans aren't a viable path to accountability we both identify as necessary. So it's not really a mystery why we wouldn't see things improving.
What are we doing to "be the change we wish to see"? How do we make there be more more protests, more [effective] actions taken to push for more accountability, and more willingness to eat the rich and jail the powerful criminals and support* leaders who will actually make that happen (regardless of their political affiliation [since it isn't either D's or R's])?
It's also important to note that the leaders do what they have to do (usually at the Epstein Class's demand). FDR's New Deal was absolutely necessary to save capitalism and the pre-Epstein class from themselves for example.
That reminds me. Weren't the "no kings" protests gaining some traction. But they're super punctual 1-day things. And then everyone goes home and nothing is followed up on (until the next "no kings" protest a few months later. Similarly, I remember there was talk of a general strike. I don't recall whether it happened, but if it did, it was 1 day and then everything went back to normal. Why are Americans so incredibly bad at protesting? Your population used to be much better. The 60s and 70s were rife with protests that achieved things. Protests that achieved things require the people protesting to make life for those in charge uncomfortable. Even Occupy Wallstreet was a lot more effective. Clearly doing something about the abuse of power just isn't really a priority for most people. Either that, or there's a Stasi-level counter organization going on to silently disrupt all attempts at organization and mobilization.
Yeah, wasn't popular to point out the performative nature of the "no kings" stuff at the time, but it's pretty obvious now.
Since the Civil Rights Movement, the pitch from Democrats was "Hey women and Black people! We're (mostly) letting you vote now! Isn't that great! This is how you are to make any changes politically now! No more of that silly mass disruption stuff until demands are met! You can have big fun protests, just make sure to keep them performative/symbolic"
There was also the whitewashing of MLK jr and the Civil Rights Movement generally. Basically the TLDR of MLK Jr. that most people internalized (not sure how kids around the country/world are being taught this nowadays) was that he organized legal/peaceful protests and speeches then white people in the US saw the violent response from the state and heard MLK Jr.'s speeches, had some sort of moral awakening, and then agreed that Black people deserved civil/constitutional rights.
That's just not what happened and there's a plethora of writing attempting to describe the gap from a variety of angles (The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Women Who Started It comes to mind since it covers what many people remember as just some random woman tired from a days work refusing to give up her seat then MLK Jr. came and saved the day or whatever). I could describe my interpretation beyond my point on leverage, but I think it's important for people to find their own new understanding of what the civil rights movement actually was when they realize what they believe is grossly mis/underinformed.
As it sits, people's misunderstanding of the Civil Rights Movement helps form the base of a fundamentally wrong analysis of how politics works that stands in the way of our ostensibly common goals, whatever they may be (human rights and protests in these cases).
While not "Stasi level" (COINTELPRO definitely has some similarities) Democrats were instrumental in the government's assassination of Fred Hampton. There has also been a bipartisan effort to squash the protests including Occupy, BLM, pro-Palestinian/anti-genocide protests and related efforts.
As you've seen here, they (primarily Third Way Democrats and their useful idiots) essentially robbed people of the basic understanding of how US democracy works, how to obtain leverage, and how that leverage functions in US politics. They replaced it with mindlessly chanting "vote blue no matter who" whenever one isn't laughing/crying about how malicious and stupid Republicans are (which got us Trump 2x).
On August 26 2026 16:27 oBlade wrote: What's making life uncomfortable look like? Uncomfortable like stuck in traffic, fear for their life?
The Vietnam war protests worked.
The Vietnam War protests "worked" to hamstring the military's execution of the war to cater to domestic political winds, which is why there's no South Vietnam today.
On August 26 2026 18:00 Slydie wrote: Black Lives Matter was close, but it was successfully derailed.
Close to... what? Everyone wears bodycams now. Go peruse some youtube channels of police bodycams.
Is the "working" part the burning down businesses part, or is the derailing part the burning down businesses part? In neither of your examples, one from 50 years ago, did you explain what making life uncomfortable is supposed to look like. I asked because I have a sneaking suspicion it's just a euphemism for "commit crime."
On August 26 2026 16:27 oBlade wrote: What's making life uncomfortable look like? Uncomfortable like stuck in traffic, fear for their life?
The Vietnam war protests worked.
The Vietnam War protests "worked" to hamstring the military's execution of the war to cater to domestic political winds, which is why there's no South Vietnam today.
On August 26 2026 18:00 Slydie wrote: Black Lives Matter was close, but it was successfully derailed.
Close to... what? Everyone wears bodycams now. Go peruse some youtube channels of police bodycams.
Is the "working" part the burning down businesses part, or is the derailing part the burning down businesses part? In neither of your examples, one from 50 years ago, did you explain what making life uncomfortable is supposed to look like. I asked because I have a sneaking suspicion it's just a euphemism for "commit crime."
Tell me you have not done any research on the Vietnam war without saying it directly.
Also, are you actually pro Vietnam war or just a new level to stoop to in an attempt to win a internet fite?
After the My Lai massacre and Thuy Bo massacre and Son Thang massacre and countless similar atrocities, maybe a little hamstringing was for the best. The fact that the next paragraph in your post is a complaint about committing crimes is a chef's kiss moment.
On August 26 2026 16:27 oBlade wrote: What's making life uncomfortable look like? Uncomfortable like stuck in traffic, fear for their life?
The Vietnam war protests worked.
The Vietnam War protests "worked" to hamstring the military's execution of the war to cater to domestic political winds, which is why there's no South Vietnam today.
On August 26 2026 18:00 Slydie wrote: Black Lives Matter was close, but it was successfully derailed.
Close to... what? Everyone wears bodycams now. Go peruse some youtube channels of police bodycams.
Is the "working" part the burning down businesses part, or is the derailing part the burning down businesses part? In neither of your examples, one from 50 years ago, did you explain what making life uncomfortable is supposed to look like. I asked because I have a sneaking suspicion it's just a euphemism for "commit crime."
Tell me you have not done any research on the Vietnam war without saying it directly.
Also, are you actually pro Vietnam war or just a new level to stoop to in an attempt to win a internet fite?
Your contribution also doesn't tell me anything new about what making life uncomfortable means or looks like. The explanation should be on the tip of your tongue if you're one who supports protesting and insists on jumping in.
On August 26 2026 16:27 oBlade wrote: What's making life uncomfortable look like? Uncomfortable like stuck in traffic, fear for their life?
The Vietnam war protests worked.
The Vietnam War protests "worked" to hamstring the military's execution of the war to cater to domestic political winds, which is why there's no South Vietnam today.
On August 26 2026 18:00 Slydie wrote: Black Lives Matter was close, but it was successfully derailed.
Close to... what? Everyone wears bodycams now. Go peruse some youtube channels of police bodycams.
Is the "working" part the burning down businesses part, or is the derailing part the burning down businesses part? In neither of your examples, one from 50 years ago, did you explain what making life uncomfortable is supposed to look like. I asked because I have a sneaking suspicion it's just a euphemism for "commit crime."
Tell me you have not done any research on the Vietnam war without saying it directly.
Also, are you actually pro Vietnam war or just a new level to stoop to in an attempt to win a internet fite?
Your contribution also doesn't tell me anything new about what making life uncomfortable means or looks like. The explanation should be on the tip of your tongue if you're one who supports protesting and insists on jumping in.
I wasn’t part of that convo, I am a fan of targeted, well thought out protests with clear messages and goals. Not so much the general ones as I don’t think they accomplish anything and create a lot of backlash.
On August 26 2026 16:27 oBlade wrote: What's making life uncomfortable look like? Uncomfortable like stuck in traffic, fear for their life?
The Vietnam war protests worked.
The Vietnam War protests "worked" to hamstring the military's execution of the war to cater to domestic political winds, which is why there's no South Vietnam today.
On August 26 2026 18:00 Slydie wrote: Black Lives Matter was close, but it was successfully derailed.
Close to... what? Everyone wears bodycams now. Go peruse some youtube channels of police bodycams.
Is the "working" part the burning down businesses part, or is the derailing part the burning down businesses part? In neither of your examples, one from 50 years ago, did you explain what making life uncomfortable is supposed to look like. I asked because I have a sneaking suspicion it's just a euphemism for "commit crime."
Tell me you have not done any research on the Vietnam war without saying it directly.
Also, are you actually pro Vietnam war or just a new level to stoop to in an attempt to win a internet fite?
Your contribution also doesn't tell me anything new about what making life uncomfortable means or looks like. The explanation should be on the tip of your tongue if you're one who supports protesting and insists on jumping in.
I wasn’t part of that convo, I am a fan of targeted, well thought out protests with clear messages and goals. Not so much the general ones as I don’t think they accomplish anything and create a lot of backlash.
You made yourself a part of the "convo" by answering, my erudite friend.
General ones like what? Well-thought out protests like what? How do you execute such a protest? Specifically. For example. "I like the good ones and don't like the bad ones?" Thanks for clarifying.
On August 26 2026 22:37 Billyboy wrote: Now you answer mine. You are pro Vietnam war?
This question/accusation ("new level to stoop to") as posed by you is malformed. For two reasons.
The first: The Vietnam War is history. I was not born. There is nothing to be "pro" so long as we have no time machine. It's as meaningless as asking if you're pro-Punic Wars. There is nobody who wants to attack Vietnam now. Even John Bolton doesn't want to invade.
The second: You spend a good part of your waking hours in this forum pontificating that the US is hostile to its allies, its allies should go elsewhere, can't trust it, etc. Assuming you aren't "pro Vietnam war", or you're unsure, the only other option is "anti." So after all the undirected indignation clears, you would be against the US supporting and defending its ally in South Vietnam... lollerskates levels of you not having thought anything through.
I found the movie and TV show M*A*S*H provided great insight into how Americans viewed the Vietnam war. For any US history buffs I highly recommend the movie.
Anyhow, citing Democrat economic advisors will not persuade Republicans that the tariff policies are incorrect. I implore Republicans and Libertarians to examine the views Alan Greenspan, Warren Buffett, and Scott Bessent (1962-2025) on tariffs.
Republican Matt Walsh has got something to say about just about everything. How come we haven't had a 2 hour documentary about why tariffs are amazing? . Mr. Walsh has been strangely silent on Trump's tariff policies. I'd say they are rather myopic. No shade on Mr Walsh.
On August 26 2026 16:27 oBlade wrote: What's making life uncomfortable look like? Uncomfortable like stuck in traffic, fear for their life?
The Vietnam war protests worked.
The Vietnam War protests "worked" to hamstring the military's execution of the war to cater to domestic political winds, which is why there's no South Vietnam today.
On August 26 2026 18:00 Slydie wrote: Black Lives Matter was close, but it was successfully derailed.
Close to... what? Everyone wears bodycams now. Go peruse some youtube channels of police bodycams.
Is the "working" part the burning down businesses part, or is the derailing part the burning down businesses part? In neither of your examples, one from 50 years ago, did you explain what making life uncomfortable is supposed to look like. I asked because I have a sneaking suspicion it's just a euphemism for "commit crime."
Tell me you have not done any research on the Vietnam war without saying it directly.
Also, are you actually pro Vietnam war or just a new level to stoop to in an attempt to win a internet fite?
Your contribution also doesn't tell me anything new about what making life uncomfortable means or looks like. The explanation should be on the tip of your tongue if you're one who supports protesting and insists on jumping in.
I wasn’t part of that convo, I am a fan of targeted, well thought out protests with clear messages and goals. Not so much the general ones as I don’t think they accomplish anything and create a lot of backlash.
You made yourself a part of the "convo" by answering, my erudite friend.
General ones like what? Well-thought out protests like what? How do you execute such a protest? Specifically. For example. "I like the good ones and don't like the bad ones?" Thanks for clarifying.
On August 26 2026 22:37 Billyboy wrote: Now you answer mine. You are pro Vietnam war?
This question/accusation ("new level to stoop to") as posed by you is malformed. For two reasons.
The first: The Vietnam War is history. I was not born. There is nothing to be "pro" so long as we have no time machine. It's as meaningless as asking if you're pro-Punic Wars. There is nobody who wants to attack Vietnam now. Even John Bolton doesn't want to invade.
The second: You spend a good part of your waking hours in this forum pontificating that the US is hostile to its allies, its allies should go elsewhere, can't trust it, etc. Assuming you aren't "pro Vietnam war", or you're unsure, the only other option is "anti." So after all the undirected indignation clears, you would be against the US supporting and defending its ally in South Vietnam... lollerskates levels of you not having thought anything through.
It’s an easy question because you have the hindsight. Your dodge is pathetic, but predictable. You said something really stupid and are now trying to avoid admitting it was stupid or standing behind it. That was the only part I commented about because it was outrageously moronic.
I wasn’t part also clear on what made a good protest and what made a bad one. Within the BLM movement you can even see both. No kings was fine in the else that it showed outrage, but there was no firm goals just a catch phrase, so that would be a bad one.
Lots of the anti Vietnam war ones were great, they had a goal, they got the message across, they through time and consistency made their point and showed that the people stopping the protests were the bad guys based on the behaviour of both.
An example of a terrible protest would be Jan 6th.
On August 26 2026 16:27 oBlade wrote: What's making life uncomfortable look like? Uncomfortable like stuck in traffic, fear for their life?
The Vietnam war protests worked.
The Vietnam War protests "worked" to hamstring the military's execution of the war to cater to domestic political winds, which is why there's no South Vietnam today.
On August 26 2026 18:00 Slydie wrote: Black Lives Matter was close, but it was successfully derailed.
Close to... what? Everyone wears bodycams now. Go peruse some youtube channels of police bodycams.
Is the "working" part the burning down businesses part, or is the derailing part the burning down businesses part? In neither of your examples, one from 50 years ago, did you explain what making life uncomfortable is supposed to look like. I asked because I have a sneaking suspicion it's just a euphemism for "commit crime."
Tell me you have not done any research on the Vietnam war without saying it directly.
Also, are you actually pro Vietnam war or just a new level to stoop to in an attempt to win a internet fite?
Your contribution also doesn't tell me anything new about what making life uncomfortable means or looks like. The explanation should be on the tip of your tongue if you're one who supports protesting and insists on jumping in.
I think I found a good example of protersters succeeding in making politicians so uncomfortable they felt real pressure to pull out.
Plenty of revolutions have started with people hitting the streets. Even some of the January 6th participants hoped they were part of one.
French farmers perfected the art of blocking highways with their trucks, but the most effective is probably a general strike.
I have recently gotten into union work, and mentioning possible strikes from time to time is a great way to gain leverage.
On August 26 2026 23:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote: I found the movie and TV show M*A*S*H provided great insight into how Americans viewed the Vietnam war. For any US history buffs I highly recommend the movie.
Anyhow, citing Democrat economic advisors will not persuade Republicans that the tariff policies are incorrect. I implore Republicans and Libertarians to examine the views Alan Greenspan, Warren Buffett, and Scott Bessent (1962-2025) on tariffs.
Republican Matt Walsh has got something to say about just about everything. How come we haven't had a 2 hour documentary about why tariffs are amazing? . Mr. Walsh has been strangely silent on Trump's tariff policies. I'd say they are rather myopic. No shade on Mr Walsh.
Don't read a book, watch a sitcom. If you can't learn it from Seinfeld, you can learn it from MASH.
Next up, watch Friends for expert advice on how to run a coffeeshop and care for ducks!
On August 26 2026 23:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote: I found the movie and TV show M*A*S*H provided great insight into how Americans viewed the Vietnam war. For any US history buffs I highly recommend the movie.
Anyhow, citing Democrat economic advisors will not persuade Republicans that the tariff policies are incorrect. I implore Republicans and Libertarians to examine the views Alan Greenspan, Warren Buffett, and Scott Bessent (1962-2025) on tariffs.
Republican Matt Walsh has got something to say about just about everything. How come we haven't had a 2 hour documentary about why tariffs are amazing? . Mr. Walsh has been strangely silent on Trump's tariff policies. I'd say they are rather myopic. No shade on Mr Walsh.
Don't read a book, watch a sitcom. If you can't learn it from Seinfeld, you can learn it from MASH.
Next up, watch Friends for expert advice on how to run a coffeeshop and care for ducks!
Meh, hospital workers in the 1970s and 1980s ranked MASH the movie and TV show as a more realistic portrayal of hospital life than shows painting every DR as a saint . You replace "the army's decision making" with hospital admin. You've got feuding DRs...unwillingness to spend money on life saving equipment...etc.
The movie didn't win a bazillion awards for nothing. It is a timeless classic.
All of the feuds going on between the various doctors in the movie and in the TV series is a semi-realistic look at how doctors constantly squabble with each other in hospitals.
The movie was both reflective of and an influence on how Americans saw the Vietnam War.
MASH was hardly 'Friends'
This is a sitcom? How many major characters in Friends were killed in an act of war the way Colonel Blake's plane was shot down over the sea of Japan? He never made it home.
EPT
. Mr. Walsh has been strangely silent on Trump's tariff policies. I'd say they are rather myopic. No shade on Mr Walsh.
