**** Elections thread *****

[OngBonga]

Lol... the chance that you'd get 1111 is the same that you'd get 8502, the first 1 is not drawn from a limited pool of ones that the subsequent ones also need to be drawn from.

Of course. However, 8502 isn't "quads". I specifically said the chances of randing quads is 0.1%. Noone gives a fuck if the reg is 8502. You do know what quads are, right?

Oh, and you should know, my friend got "[redacted] 666" recently. Obviously he's a lizard person being signaled by the New World Order to commence with his deep neural programming, right? Should I use a wooden stake, or a silver bullet?

Right, so I say they're doing weird shit with numbers because 11 and 22 keep happening, and you say lizards. That reflects badly on you, not me. It demonstrates an unwillingness to discuss this subject seriously.

I've been banging on about this shit since 9/11. Not once have I said I think the elite are lizards. All I'm saying is that the people who might be called the "deep state" seem to love their numerology, and get a kick out of hiding in plain sight.

At what point does it strike you as odd? How many times in a row have you gotta get dealt AA before you think the dealer likes you?

[wufwugy]

I think the elite are lizards.

Paging CNN

[OngBonga]

Who the fuck pages anyone in 2017?

[BananaStand]

I'm not getting where this "Bernie would have won" stuff is coming from.

Sure, I believe he would have generated higher turnout numbers than Hillary. However, getting bigger vote totals in NY and LA wouldn't have helped him win anymore than Hillary's vote totals helped her win. Electorally, I see the map filling in pretty much the same way as it did. Like Hillary, Bernie was weak on middle-class message

I'm not sure there are alot of people out there who's preference for president was Bernie > Trump > Hillary

Maybe Monica Lewinsky...but that's probably it.

[wufwugy]

I'm not getting where this "Bernie would have won" stuff is coming from.

Sure, I believe he would have generated higher turnout numbers than Hillary. However, getting bigger vote totals in NY and LA wouldn't have helped him win anymore than Hillary's vote totals helped her win. Electorally, I see the map filling in pretty much the same way as it did. Like Hillary, Bernie was weak on middle-class message

I'm not sure there are alot of people out there who's preference for president was Bernie > Trump > Hillary

Maybe Monica Lewinsky...but that's probably it.

There were quite a few Sanders supporters who voted Trump. Trump's unique appeal to the Midwest was stuff that Sanders mostly also had. Hillary had none of it. The big mistake Hillary made was ignoring the Midwest and labor. Labor really likes Sanders (because labor is really good at getting the government to benefit them at the expense of everybody else).

[wufwugy]

And there we have the problem. It's not leftist ideology, not by a long shot. The democratic party should have been left-wing by definition, but here is the kicker:In the USA, the D party is center-right. The R party is right to far-right. There is no left anymore over there.

Obama furthered leftism to a degree not seen since FDR. Clinton was a continuation of Obama leftism and Sanders' public statements revealed even greater leftism.

Both parties are leaving the center. Believe me, each side thinks they are the centrist-ish side and the other is the far extreme. I saw it on the left when I was a lefty and I see it now on the right as a righty. What is happening is that the Democrats are leaving its rightist stuff and Republicans are leaving its leftist stuff. For the Republicans, this can be viewed as the conservative movement beginning with Goldwater, being actualized with Reagan, and coming back (but with great trepidation from *true* conservatives) with Trump. Trump is a slightly centrist push relative to what the conservative movement wants.

On the Democrats side, there isn't a movement so much as there is a return to form. The stray from form came in the 80s and 90s when they moved somewhat center. This is when they responded to the problems of legislating morality by the Religious Right and became popularly socially liberal. But now they are swifty returning to social puritanism and returning to the old Democrats ways: identity matters most and government is best used to solve for inequality of outcome. They are the party of slavery, of Jim Crow, of the urban plantation, of Stalin apologetics. The current return to form is a stronger adaptation of Marxism from class warfare to identity warfare than used in the past.

The Russia coverage drives ratings. You would not believe that by looking at Maddow's average like bar on youtube, but whatever. That's all there is to it. Ratings.

Yep. They’re getting more views from those who fear Trump.

[wufwugy]

California, New York, and battlegrounds Virginia and Colorado are Hillary territory but not quite Sanders territory. This is because those places are big time open borders types excluding Virginia (which is big time establishment type). Sanders is Trump-like on immigration. Most media elites are not aware of this, but those who actually care about those issues are.

[OngBonga]

You guys think I wear a tin foil hat?

The far left is in an unholy alliance with radical Islamic terror. Most Muslims and liberals good people, the alt-left is evil.

Next fucking level.

[wufwugy]

You guys think I wear a tin foil hat?



Next fucking level.

He's right, though. It's not even conspiracy theory. He's stating a fact. Now, if he were to get into why he thinks the alliance formed, then he'd be getting into conspiracy theory.


So, you read Cernovich?

[Jack Sawyer]

You guys think I wear a tin foil hat?



Next fucking level.

There is no alt-left. It's a condescending term used by establishment democrats to smear bernie people. It's right up there with bernie bros (alleging sexism). Joy-Ann Reid is the person you have to thank for this

I repeat: there is no such thing as alt-left. There is no lefty Pepe, or a left kekistan, or any other such parallel but left nonsense. It is now simply used as a pejorative term


I know you guys hate snopes, but here

http://www.snopes.com/2017/08/17/is-...-a-real-thing/

https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-alt-left/

Jesus H Christ, all it takes is for Trump to say something and people run with it. By now you all must know that he spouts serious amounts of horse shit. Mostly shit he saw on Fox

This is unbelievable

[wufwugy]

There is no alt-left. It's a condescending term used by establishment democrats to smear bernie people. It's right up there with bernie bros (alleging sexism). Joy-Ann Reid is the person you have to thank for this

I repeat: there is no such thing as alt-left. There is no lefty Pepe, or a left kekistan, or any other such parallel but left nonsense. It is now simply used as a pejorative term


I know you guys hate snopes, but here

http://www.snopes.com/2017/08/17/is-...-a-real-thing/

https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-alt-left/

Jesus H Christ, all it takes is for Trump to say something and people run with it. By now you all must know that he spouts serious amounts of horse shit. Mostly shit he saw on Fox

This is unbelievable

I agree with you. I'll add that I think this is Trump attempting to brand. "Alt-left" might actually become a thing now. It won't be much different than "alt-right" too. Do you know what the alt-right was back when the left decided to label what they didn't understand? It was nothing but a tiny handful of people who believe in white culture enough that they vocalized it. The vast majority of Trump supporters didn't even know what it was. The only legitimacy "alt-right" ever got was from the fabulous whore Milo Yiannapolous once saying he was alt-right. Outside of that, Trump supporters being thought of as alt-right was a creation of the leftist media.

What goes around comes around. Though, I totally agree that the leftist violence and bigotry is not alt.

[Jack Sawyer]

The vast majority of Trump supporters didn't even know what it was. The only legitimacy "alt-right" ever got was from the fabulous whore Milo Yiannapolous once saying he was alt-right. Outside of that, Trump supporters being thought of as alt-right was a creation of the leftist media.

the_donald disagrees with that, or they took the ball and ran with it. It's basically split between4chan and reddit was my impression

Though, I totally agree that the leftist violence and bigotry is not alt.

I didn't say anything about violence nor bigotry. Are you saying that the left is violent and bigoted?

[wufwugy]

the_donald disagrees with that, or they took the ball and ran with it. It's basically split between4chan and reddit was my impression

Some portion on the_donald have grabbed it and run with it, but it's still not much of a thing. The media had some small success with the label. Back when the label was first introduced, I remember checking it out and its subreddit was tiny. I think it doesn't even exist anymore. I've seen far more "alt-right" from the media-Democrats than from Trump supporters.

I didn't say anything about violence nor bigotry. Are you saying that the left is violent and bigoted?

Violence and bigotry is at the core philosophy of the left.

[OngBonga]

I follow him on Twitter.

He's stating a fact.

Is he? I mean I'm not buying anything that involves Iran and Venezuela. Their alliance may be formed on a common enemy, but Chavez wasn't what we're now calling "alt-left", he was hardcore socialism. And Iran isn't Islamic terrorism. Saudi Fucking Arabia are.

[wufwugy]

The left runs apologetics for Islamic terrorism constantly.

[OngBonga]

The left runs apologetics for Islamic terrorism constantly.

Well yeah.

I mean the left, not the hard left, the normal person left, their "apologetic" tone is because they fear discrimination against peaceful Muslims, they fear greater race problems. It's coming from the right place, it's hardly an alliance.

The media are mostly left wing, but they'll say it's Islamic terrorism. The BBC are quoting the Spanish leader as calling the Barcelona attackers "jihadists". That's hardly apologetic.

Allaince for me is acting together, sharing information, mutual planning etc. I'm not saying it's not what's happening, not by any stretch, just querying your assertion that it's fact.

This modern day hard left, I think to be honest it's 90% moron students who think they're on the right side of history, and 10% mercenaries.

[wufwugy]

The media are mostly left wing, but they'll say it's Islamic terrorism. The BBC are quoting the Spanish leader as calling the Barcelona attackers "jihadists". That's hardly apologetic.

I don't know about the BBC but I do know CNN. Blitzer just finished calling the Barcelona terrorists copycat killers of the Charlottesville killer. Nevermind that Charlottesville is possibly copycat of the many car homicides Political Islam terrorists have already conducted. When one white guy kills somebody in the US, CNN calls all white people Nazis. When Political Islam terrorists go on a killing spree, CNN says the motives are unclear and that Islam isn't to blame and blah blah blah.

American mainstream media is an exemplary study in apologetics for violence and for anti-western values.

[wufwugy]

I follow Cernovich too but I haven't spent much time reading his tweets lately. I was a big fan a few months ago, but he lost me when he began his own bout of fake news that began with his "inside information" that the military was asking Trump for some huge thousands quantity of soldiers (I forget the exact #) to invade Syria. Cernovich then went on a campaign against it and when it didn't happen, he claimed he got the President and his administration to not invade Syria.

Here's what actually happened: Cernovich's source was fed a barium meal. The claim in the leak was never real and Cernovich showed dumbness in thinking such a ridiculous # was real and also that Trump had eyes set on war. The MOAB musta rattled Cernovich's brain a wee bit.

Regardless, Cernovich has shown the ability to learn from his mistakes, unlike most others in media. Eventually he may return to my rotation, but he isn't in it now. His book Gorilla Mindset is great.

[OngBonga]

Regardless, Cernovich has shown the ability to learn from his mistakes, unlike most others in media. Eventually he may return to my rotation, but he isn't in it now. His book Gorilla Mindset is great.

I don't really have an opinion on the guy yet, he's only recently been added. He definitely has some interesting opinions though.

[wufwugy]

I don't really have an opinion on the guy yet, he's only recently been added. He definitely has some interesting opinions though.

I definitely recommend him to provide perspective at least. He was one of the very few people who had his finger on the pulse of reality during the election cycle.

[OngBonga]

There is no alt-left.

Sure there is. Alt-right is a recent term, alt-left is coming into use now and will have a clearer definition in due course.

At the moment, it means extreme left, like the commies we see kicking off with Nazis.

[OngBonga]

I do like how the term "alt-left" is annoying the shit out of the left.

[Jack Sawyer]

I do like how the term "alt-left" is annoying the shit out of the left.

Remarkable how it is democrats that invented the term. Speaks volumes about democrats not actually being left.

That whole party is just a farce


edit: yup, I'm not talking out of my ass here

https://shadowproof.com/2017/08/16/b...ides-alt-left/

[wufwugy]

I do like how the term "alt-left" is annoying the shit out of the left.

It's a brilliant trap. The left spent countless hours demonizing the "alt-right" and now the chickens have come home to roost when they have to deal with the same being applied to them. I wonder if this rebranding will be as successful as Trump's total rebranding domination of Fake News. The media-Democrats just can't win.

[OngBonga]

fabulous whore

This description is enough, there is no need to name him.

[wufwugy]

This description is enough, there is no need to name him.

I'll be honest I thought about leaving out his name for that exact reason.

[CoccoBill]

Let me summarize. People on the left share ideology with Marxism so they must be violent and bigoted, and they are in cahoots with ISIS to bring down terror and destruction to all of the west?

Yeah, sounds about right.

[OngBonga]

Let me summarize. People on the left share ideology with Marxism so they must be violent and bigoted, and they are in cahoots with ISIS to bring down terror and destruction to all of the west?

The extreme left, sure.

I think wuf is being unkind to the majority left. Assuming these people are inherently violent and bigoted because they are, strictly speaking, Marxists, is to assume modern day Marxists are all in agreement what it means to be Marxist. Some of them may well reject democracy as a means of taking power, certainly those we see on the streets fighting Nazis are of this ilk. However, when I think of modern Marxists, I think of people like Jeremy Corbyn, who is a social democrat. The clue is in the name... there is no call to violent revolution here, not from the established left.

There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.

I mean yeah he's pretty revolutionary. But you don't have to agree with this statement to agree with his economic model.

I think the vast majority of modern day Marxists reject violent revolution.

[wufwugy]

I mean yeah he's pretty revolutionary. But you don't have to agree with this statement to agree with his economic model.

I think the vast majority of modern day Marxists reject violent revolution.

The economic model requires violence. Most people who think of themselves as Marxists don't understand the ideology and history enough to realize that. Keep in mind that many Marxists who claim to be against violence actually aren't; they just think the kind of violence they support is justified -- it has been a hallmark in Marxist history. When Comrade Sanders said he would force small businesses to provide health insurance even if it were to bankrupt them and they would have to shut the business down, how do you suppose he would get that done? By asking nicely?

[wufwugy]

Let me summarize. People on the left share ideology with Marxism so they must be violent and bigoted, and they are in cahoots with ISIS to bring down terror and destruction to all of the west?

Yeah, sounds about right.

I said nothing about the people, but about the ideology. Most people who think of themselves as on the left are instead confused about what leftism is.

[OngBonga]

Corbyn here is highly critical of Saudi Arabia, and says he would stop our arms trade to them if he won power. The Saudis were so worried about him taking power that they conspired with the Tories to blow up kids at a pop concert. Check out how much the number 22 pops up in that event.

It's the right here who are in alliance with Islamic terror, not the left. The left might be weak and apologetic, but they're not the ones working with them to make it happen.

[wufwugy]

Corbyn here is highly critical of Saudi Arabia, and says he would stop our arms trade to them if he won power. The Saudis were so worried about him taking power that they conspired with the Tories to blow up kids at a pop concert. Check out how much the number 22 pops up in that event.

It's the right here who are in alliance with Islamic terror, not the left. The left might be weak and apologetic, but they're not the ones working with them to make it happen.

There are big problems in this area, but this appears to be a different thing than Cernovich's claim. The establishments of the states are deeply corrupt and do corrupt things together.

[Jack Sawyer]

More about charleston

[OngBonga]

Since it has the banner "Time for Trump to go", I'll pass.

Absolute fucking hysteria.

Who gives a fuck what Trump did or didn't say in whatever fucking time frame? It's a distraction from what actually happened and who is behind it. You are being played. Come on Jack, you're smart.

[Jack Sawyer]

Since it has the banner "Time for Trump to go", I'll pass.

Absolute fucking hysteria.

Who gives a fuck what Trump did or didn't say in whatever fucking time frame? It's a distraction from what actually happened and who is behind it. You are being played. Come on Jack, you're smart.

Hahahaha

Ong, what you don't see is that that is a Fox news segment. When Fox turns on a Republican president, you know he done fucked up. Fucked up real bad

[wufwugy]

Hahahaha

Ong, what you don't see is that that is a Fox news segment. When Fox turns on a Republican president, you know he done fucked up. Fucked up real bad

FWIW this is Shep. They keep him around for "liberal cred". He's pretty disliked by conservatives and he says silly things few agree with quite a lot.

[OngBonga]

Yellow lives matter too.

[OngBonga]

Ong, what you don't see is that that is a Fox news segment. When Fox turns on a Republican president, you know he done fucked up. Fucked up real bad

Who owns Fox? That wouldn't be Rupert Fucking Murdoch would it? He's a mercenary, he's not even American, you think he gives a fuck about Republicans vs Dems? he gives a fuck about money and power.

Dude.

[Savy]

When are we banning driving? They're doing a pretty good job of killing groups of people in one go. I mean we should at least put some pretty heavy limitations on who can buy a car, especially ones that can do a lot of damage. Who really needs a sports car or a big SUV or a lorry?

[Jack Sawyer]

When are we banning driving? They're doing a pretty good job of killing groups of people in one go. I mean we should at least put some pretty heavy limitations on who can buy a car, especially ones that can do a lot of damage. Who really needs a sports car or a big SUV or a lorry?

Because vehicles were made with transportation in mind. Getting you from point A to point B, then perhaps to C or back to A in a time efficient manner as compared to what was before, camels, horses etc.

And by the way, the limitations are there. Age restriction, have to pass a license for it, heavy ticketing for vehicular mischief (double parking, passing in non passing lanes, going over speed etc.).

Can't really ban it because of this, or until a new more efficient way is invented to move around. Teletransportation much? Flying massive drones? Who knows?

In any case, right now, it is heavily regulated as is.

Also you may have seen these



Designed to prevent the stray car or the malintentioned driver of either harming or killing pedestrians

[Jack Sawyer]

When are we banning driving? They're doing a pretty good job of killing groups of people in one go.

One question: if your intention is to kill people, and you have a random group of people ready in a single agglomeration, is it more efficient to attempt to do so using a vehicle of any kind (motorcycle, sportscar, SUV, lorry, your pick) or a weapon of any kind (machete, katana, desert eagle, assault rifle, your pick)?

I take aircraft out of the equation because you would not find the average consumer flying a plane, and then a weaponized plane or with kamikaze intentions and I also take all varieties of bombs out of the equation, because no one buys grenades to kill deers with, and atomic bombs are also out of the reach of the average consumer (even though the ease with which these can be launched is terrifying, at least you got to go to flight school to learn to fly a plane, intention notwithstanding)

[Savy]

One question: if your intention is to kill people, and you have a random group of people ready in a single agglomeration, is it more efficient to attempt to do so using a vehicle of any kind (motorcycle, sportscar, SUV, lorry, your pick) or a weapon of any kind (machete, katana, desert eagle, assault rifle, your pick)?

I take aircraft out of the equation because you would not find the average consumer flying a plane, and then a weaponized plane or with kamikaze intentions and I also take all varieties of bombs out of the equation, because no one buys grenades to kill deers with, and atomic bombs are also out of the reach of the average consumer (even though the ease with which these can be launched is terrifying, at least you got to go to flight school to learn to fly a plane, intention notwithstanding)

If you're talking like a busy street then I'd assume something like an assault rifle with a large clip is going to do the most damage and then vehicles. If we're talking what vehicles will do the most damage then something with weight behind it but enough power for quick acceleration, if you're able to get up speed before hand then the bigger & heavier the better because a truck going 60+ mph will do a lot more damage than a sports car going 90.

Because vehicles were made with transportation in mind. Getting you from point A to point B, then perhaps to C or back to A in a time efficient manner as compared to what was before, camels, horses etc.

And by the way, the limitations are there. Age restriction, have to pass a license for it, heavy ticketing for vehicular mischief (double parking, passing in non passing lanes, going over speed etc.).

You can buy a car before you can buy alcohol, a lot before in certain places. You can also very easily rob a car, they're literally lined up on the street and if you're not that fussed about how it ends, like these people who are dead aren't, it's not hard to do. You can buy a car before you vote. It's actually very rare that you can't purchase a car, there are some things in place that will stop you driving it, legally, like insurance & bans but once again not an issue at all if you don't care about doing it legally.

Also in case you missed it I was being somewhat satirical.

[BananaStand]

If you're talking like a busy street then I'd assume something like an assault rifle with a large clip is going to do the most damage and then vehicles.

Not sure if this was part of your 'satirical' post, but it's wrong nonetheless.

Not sure if this story made it over the pond, but back in 2012 a deranged psycho brought an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine into a movie theater filled to capacity. He had some kind of teargas, or smoke grenades, a shotgun, and head to toe body armor. He literally had everyone in that theater trapped as the only exits were behind him.

He shot 90 people. 11 died.

The van attack in Barcelona.....on an open sidewalk.....killed 13, and injured 130 more.

I realize it's just two examples, but this demonstrates how much more devastating the vehicle attack can be.

I'm not expert on the subject of weaponry, but I do remember learning that weapons of war, like assault rifles, take bullets that are designed to shoot through a person. So bullet goes in, bullet goes out, soldier is hurt and can't fight. But his chances of living are pretty high if the bullet doesn't hit a major organ or artery.

A speeding vehicle is a much greater threat to a crowd than an armed gunman.

[Savy]

Not sure if this was part of your 'satirical' post, but it's wrong nonetheless.

Not sure if this story made it over the pond, but back in 2012 a deranged psycho brought an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine into a movie theater filled to capacity. He had some kind of teargas, or smoke grenades, a shotgun, and head to toe body armor. He literally had everyone in that theater trapped as the only exits were behind him.

He shot 90 people. 11 died.

The van attack in Barcelona.....on an open sidewalk.....killed 13, and injured 130 more.

I realize it's just two examples, but this demonstrates how much more devastating the vehicle attack can be.

I'm not expert on the subject of weaponry, but I do remember learning that weapons of war, like assault rifles, take bullets that are designed to shoot through a person. So bullet goes in, bullet goes out, soldier is hurt and can't fight. But his chances of living are pretty high if the bullet doesn't hit a major organ or artery.

A speeding vehicle is a much greater threat to a crowd than an armed gunman.

A few things you should pick up on:

1) I said damage not deaths
2) I said with a big clip
3) A cinema is different to an open crowded area

You're also a moron so if you ever have an issue with any of my posts you can either ask me, nicely, to clarify it to you in more simple terms or just assume you're wrong and get over it.

[BananaStand]

A few things you should pick up on:

1) I said damage not deaths
2) I said with a big clip
3) A cinema is different to an open crowded area

You're also a moron so if you ever have an issue with any of my posts you can either ask me, nicely, to clarify it to you in more simple terms or just assume you're wrong and get over it.

Tilt much?

I hope you fall down some stairs bro

[BananaStand]

A few things you should pick up on:.
1) I said damage not deaths

I know. 130 > 90 professor.

2) I said with a big clip

So did I. "High Capacity Magazine". But those are multi-syllable words, so I can understand why you missed it. Movie Theater-guy could fire over 100 rounds before reloading.

3) A cinema is different to an open crowded area

My point exactly!! Movie theater guy had the advantage of having his victims trapped like rats, and he still did less damage than a van plowing through an open sidewalk. You think he could have shot more people if they were all outside?

[OngBonga]

Well by that same measure, a bank repossessing a house is a violent act of capitalism, which means capitalism is inherently violent.

Of course, the bank feels justified in using such violence to recover debts, so it doesn't recognise the act as violent.

When I talk about the violence of Marxism, I'm thinking of violent revolution, the overthrow of government instead of defeating them at the ballots. That isn't a critical aspect of Marx's economic model. It's possible to simply win an election.

[wufwugy]

Well by that same measure, a bank repossessing a house is a violent act of capitalism, which means capitalism is inherently violent.

The world is inherently violent. We're not going to get away from it. The distinction between Marxism and anarcho-capitalism in this regard is that the former requires initiation of violence and the latter does not (it helps defend against initiation of violence too).

When I talk about the violence of Marxism

A small portion of its historical violence came from revolution. Most of it was just from standard governing according to the principles.

[Jack Sawyer]

Bannon is out???

[Poopadoop]

Bannon is out???

Tired of winning I guess.

[Jack Sawyer]

Tired of winning I guess.

Hahaha


Assange says "Bannon back as editor-in-chief at @BreitbartNews with a head full of White House and NSC secrets, a grudge, and likely new Mercer cash."

[Savy]

Also if you wanted clarification

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks (67 kills from gunfire)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo_Bum-kon

[wufwugy]

It's funny, upon hearing that Bannon may be out, I went to my four favorite sources of information and interpretation. They all think something different. One thinks this is Trump positioning such that it makes it look like the racism that some opponents believe he has is being expelled. One believes the statement that Bannon resigned two weeks ago, and that the purpose was to signal to North Korea of severe hawkishness. One thinks the news is a facade and that Bannon is out on paper only and will continue with his normal assistance regarding Trump. One is waiting for confirmation because he thinks enough of the news is cheese in the maze.

My initial reaction was that Trump fires people a lot and I was surprised Bannon lasted this long. He tends to bring people in to accomplish specific set of tasks then once that happens, they go. Examples: three different campaign managers for three different portions of the campaign. And none of them became Chief of Staff, which they often do.

[OngBonga]

Meanwhile, in Manchester...

Bunch of old dudes having a cowboy party in some local pub put up a Confederates flag, drinkers tear it down.

wtf next? Petitioning outside DVD stores selling the Dukes of Hazzard?

Media doing an oustanding job of getting morons to associate the Confederates flag with white supremacy, even in the UK.

The vast majority of people who think this have absolutely no fucking idea of the history of the American Civil War. My knowledge on that subject is very poor, which is why I don't sit here saying it's the same as the Nazi flag. I have no idea what the Confederates flag represents. I do respect the right of people to wave it about though. Just like morons can wave about a Nazi flag if they want to tell the world how moronic they are.

Flags will always offend someone. Fuck people who are offended by flags.

[wufwugy]

Meanwhile, in Manchester...

Bunch of old dudes having a cowboy party in some local pub put up a Confederates flag, drinkers tear it down.

wtf next? Petitioning outside DVD stores selling the Dukes of Hazzard?

Media doing an oustanding job of getting morons to associate the Confederates flag with white supremacy, even in the UK.

The vast majority of people who think this have absolutely no fucking idea of the history of the American Civil War. My knowledge on that subject is very poor, which is why I don't sit here saying it's the same as the Nazi flag. I have no idea what the Confederates flag represents. I do respect the right of people to wave it about though. Just like morons can wave about a Nazi flag if they want to tell the world how moronic they are.

Flags will always offend someone. Fuck people who are offended by flags.

People who like the Confederate flag like it because it represents freedom from tyranny. History is being revised such that people don't even remember that the union of states was originally a confederation. Many don't like the pseudo-unitary state it is becoming.

People who don't like the Confederate flag think black people are being held down by white people. They're half right. Black people are being held down by white and black Democrats.

[Jack Sawyer]

People who don't like the Confederate flag think black people are being held down by white people. They're half right. Black people are being held down by white and black Democrats.

Wuf ...

[wufwugy]

Wuf ...

Democrats have had total control of close to all black regions for many decades. Those regions used to not be destitute yet have become destitute. Economics explains in clear terms why that could happen. Investigate Thomas Sowell.

[JKDS]

Democrats have had total control of close to all black regions for many decades. Those regions used to not be destitute yet have become destitute. Economics explains in clear terms why that could happen. Investigate Thomas Sowell.

You say welfare, I say Republican president Nixon's war on drugs. I guess we'll never know.

[OngBonga]

If you're going to be offended by a flag, then it's critical that you have an understanding of what that flag represents, and be able to coherently argue your case.

I can understand people being offended by Nazi or ISIS flags, because everyone knows what these flags mean. It's easy to argue aginst these ideologies.

And yes, it's easy to argue against slavery. Is that what the Confederates flag represents? I have no idea. All I know is that there are many Confederate flags, the one we commonly see (Dukes of Hazzard) is the Battle Flag of a particular state (Georgia?). That's more than most Brits know. How can anyone place themselves in a position of moral judgement on the issue?

Because mass fucking media is brainwashing the morons.

[Poopadoop]

What I'd like to know is what all the Trumpsters have to say about the revolving door staff he has. Is there any way to spin this other than a WH in chaos?

[wufwugy]

What I'd like to know is what all the Trumpsters have to say about the revolving door staff he has. Is there any way to spin this other than a WH in chaos?

He operated like this from the very, very beginning and has operated like this the entire time. It would be spin to suggest that this represents the WH in chaos.

[Poopadoop]

He operated like this from the very, very beginning and has operated like this the entire time. It would be spin to suggest that this represents the WH in chaos.

So because chaos is the norm for Trump it's not really chaos. Ok then.

[wufwugy]

So because chaos is the norm for Trump it's not really chaos. Ok then.

One of my most recent posts ITT explained this in simple terms. It's not chaos. It has always been a strategy he uses for specific purpose.

[wufwugy]

Given the definitions of the left-wing as big government socialism and the right-wing as limited government liberalism and conservatism*, here's an example for how that makes the left-wing innately violent: if you do a left-wing thing and make Medicare-for-all and you pay for it with taxes, it is necessarily the case that the government collects the taxes and regulates Medicare using force. If, however, you do a right-wing thing and limit government such that there is "freedom of healthcare" just like "freedom of speech", you are instead prohibiting the government from using force on the matter.

The US Constitution revolution was essentially the latter. It was the first modern adoption of the idea that government is to be prohibited from using force with regard to the designated things in the Constitution.


*I use those definitions because that is how the chips have been landing. Marxism and big government ideals have all been congregating on the left-wing. That isn't to say that this is left-wing exclusive. There is an element in the right-wing that carries with it incoherence: religion. I haven't sussed the dynamic out that well yet, but it has something to do with how religion gives legitimacy to the small government idea YET religion can also be big government and akin to modern leftism. Example: the Religious Right working to pass gambling bans. Extreme example: Sharia.

[wufwugy]

When I said that leftism is inherently violent, I had something more specific than what I said above in mind. I tend to revert to principles when attempting to explain, so I reverted to principles. Here's what I had in mind though:

Leftism (not liberalism) and the core philosophy of the Democrat party is a reorganization of Marxist class warfare into neo-Marxist identity warfare. The class warfare of traditional Marxism was proletariat vs. bourgeoisie, which was essentially laborer without ownership vs. business executive with ownership. The socialist version of Marxism was to eradicate private ownership by force; the fascist version of Marxism was to explicitly control private ownership with strong interventionist government. The fascist version was more nation vs. non-nation than proletariat vs. bourgeoisie.*

At the core of Marxist philosophy are two key principles: (1) there are oppressors and there are oppressed, and (2) violence must be used to take from the oppressors and give to the oppressed. Neo-Marxism has actualized those key principles through identity groups instead of the binary class groups of traditional Marxism. You've seen it in action. It's about how the rich, white, straight, Christian male patriarchy is responsible for the oppression of each and every type of poor or non-white or non-straight or non-male or non-Christian group**. The tactics have changed but the principles have not.

If you're interested, think of The Young Turks -- the media company, not the century old genocidal revolutionaries. They're about as mainstream left as it gets. They have scrubbed youtube (with the help of its sponsors, the owners of youtube) of their erstwhile calls to violence. I remember watching the show as a fan years ago and cheering on the vilification of non-leftist and bobbleheading along with the claims that force must be used to fix disparities of inequity and inequality***. It's your run-of-the-mill Marxism and it's rooted in violence.


*If you believe D'Souza, fascists pulled tactics from Jim Crow Democrats.

**Except the smallest group there is: the individual.

***A few months ago, people started pulling up old videos of their calls to violence. Google swiftly deleted all those videos and the ones referencing them.

[JKDS]

It's the dems doing it! Of course! It's so simple!

But...we do have a Republican presidency. And house. And senate. Yet the status quo remains. Damn those dems!!!

Those dems must also be pretty clever to be putting drugs in the hands of those they represent too. I'm not sure why they'd want to incarcerate and take away the right to vote from their supporters, but I'm not too good at 3d chess.

[wufwugy]

It's the dems doing it! Of course! It's so simple!

Ridicule. Tell for cognitive dissonance.

Yet the status quo remains.

Not true. Red herring. Tell for cognitive dissonance.

Those dems must also be pretty clever to be putting drugs in the hands of those they represent too. I'm not sure why they'd want to incarcerate and take away the right to vote from their supporters, but I'm not too good at 3d chess.

Straw man. Tell for cognitive dissonance.

[JKDS]

Claim to be a victim and claim your opponents argument is full of fallacies. Never reach the merits.

Got any new strategies?

[wufwugy]

Claim to be a victim

Straw man. Cognitive dissonance.

and claim your opponents argument is full of fallacies.

No argument was presented.

[JKDS]

All I see is you not liking what you've heard. The only points you make are ones which paint the dems as bad guys and the Republicans as good guys. You argue an unsupportable position, which relies entirely on cherry picking information and sources. While others rightfully concede points, you do not. While others seek the truth, you beat the drum. It's a game.

No, the Republicans have not "barely existed in the drug war for decades." You can only reach that position by doing what I outlined above. You cannot argue that the dems are spoonfeeding drugs to their supporters while refraining from acknowledging that such an act would result in less supporters. Yes yes yes, the "welfare state" may (it's just a may) also contribute to bringing minorities down. But it is disingenuous to the extreme to ignore the many other factors while you go on beating your drum.

-----

You know, maybe I'm just taking my irritation out on you. One of my Facebook friends just made a post about how she's talking to her very almost newborn, and how he's gonna be born a white male and "what that means". My android Google feed is full of blog posts from one liberal idiot to one conservative idiot, each cherry picking point's and each ignoring the other side completely. I'm sick of it. It's all garbage, fueling whatever they want to fuel. Here comes a blogger talking about why nazis are bad, look out. I bet that'll get clicks, but dare touch the protester's actual platform. Focus on the worst. Paint them all as evil, wear the white hat. It's all just intellectual junk.

I think I expect better here. This forum was a huge source of growth for me. I never had the drive to be a pro, but learning the theory has redefined how I view pretty much everything. That only happened because this was a site with smart people posting smart things.

But now, all I see when I log in is yet another partisan post. There's no actual discussion, no learning of new information. Just the drum.

It makes me sad. In a very sincere way. And I don't really know where to go for a discussion like what used to happen here.

[wufwugy]

All I see is you not liking what you've heard. The only points you make are ones which paint the dems as bad guys and the Republicans as good guys. You argue an unsupportable position, which relies entirely on cherry picking information and sources. While others rightfully concede points, you do not. While others seek the truth, you beat the drum. It's a game.

No, the Republicans have not "barely existed in the drug war for decades." You can only reach that position by doing what I outlined above. You cannot argue that the dems are spoonfeeding drugs to their supporters while refraining from acknowledging that such an act would result in less supporters. Yes yes yes, the "welfare state" may (it's just a may) also contribute to bringing minorities down. But it is disingenuous to the extreme to ignore the many other factors while you go on beating your drum.

I'm no fan of Republicans. Democrats aren't feeding people drugs. Republicans haven't been a sizable part of policy in black communities for decades.

You know, maybe I'm just taking my irritation out on you. One of my Facebook friends just made a post about how she's talking to her very almost newborn, and how he's gonna be born a white male and "what that means". My android Google feed is full of blog posts from one liberal idiot to one conservative idiot, each cherry picking point's and each ignoring the other side completely. I'm sick of it. It's all garbage, fueling whatever they want to fuel. Here comes a blogger talking about why nazis are bad, look out. I bet that'll get clicks, but dare touch the protester's actual platform. Focus on the worst. Paint them all as evil, wear the white hat. It's all just intellectual junk.

I think I expect better here. This forum was a huge source of growth for me. I never had the drive to be a pro, but learning the theory has redefined how I view pretty much everything. That only happened because this was a site with smart people posting smart things.

But now, all I see when I log in is yet another partisan post. There's no actual discussion, no learning of new information. Just the drum.

It makes me sad. In a very sincere way. And I don't really know where to go for a discussion like what used to happen here.

I'm sorry for this.

You do get better here. If you ever see me (or others) make a post you think is wrongly partisan, point it out (outside of the Trump shitposting, I guess, which I hardly do anymore but have in the past).

You are correct that the debates are pretty much about each participant focusing on how to best represent his preferred idea. It's kinda always been like that.

[Jack Sawyer]

Re: alt-left



The establishment democrats are the greatest allies the entire Republican party can have

[wufwugy]

The establishment democrats are the greatest allies the entire Republican party can have

Do you think the focus on identity politics comes from the party or from progressives?

[wufwugy]

Tucker working on his shitposting.

[Poopadoop]

Tucker working on his shitposting.

Trump trying to be the first blind president.