hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 652 of 735 FirstFirst ... 152552602642649650651652653654655662702 ... LastLast
Results 13,021 to 13,040 of 14685

Thread: US Politics Thread, 2.0

  1. #13021

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    13,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Pattern View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pattern View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    nothing alastair said was wrong really. you don't beat hate by being just as bad in a different flavour, all you do then is swing the pendulum even further from the norm, and then the swing back is more horrific. you beat it by winning the small goals, and normalising your point of view.
    lol get a grip. There is no "just as bad" if the Democrats are a little more assertive about using their power.
    so you want 4 years of dem, followed by 4 of repub with each cycle getting more antagonistic then? ok

    people aren't talking about being a little more assertive, they're talking about a lot more assertive and unless you want to go full erich and put everyone who voted for trump in the last round against a wall, you need to be able to slowly change these peoples mindsets because otherwise they'll just vote against you, and with more fervour, in the next election.
    Because that worked for Obama.
    so you just give up and accept politics getting even more polarised and toxic?
    If your strategy of appeasement depresses the vote of your own base for no appreciable return? Yeah. Anything else is stupidity.

    If anything, the shift to the centre has allowed/forced the republicans to take ever increasingly extreme positions due to structural forces some, including yourself, are completely clueless about.
    Solid poast.

    Also, seriously, if one side wants to be a literal redo of the fucking nazis, how is anything but a polarized opposite response reasonable?

    Should we have just talked it out with Hitler I suppose? Oh wait... wait, how did that go again... In before someone goes "lol stop being so extreme" again, after the last year or so of shit.

  2. #13022
    Jack Coutu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 9, 2011
    Location
    marketjacker
    Posts
    1,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Isyel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pattern View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pattern View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    nothing alastair said was wrong really. you don't beat hate by being just as bad in a different flavour, all you do then is swing the pendulum even further from the norm, and then the swing back is more horrific. you beat it by winning the small goals, and normalising your point of view.
    lol get a grip. There is no "just as bad" if the Democrats are a little more assertive about using their power.
    so you want 4 years of dem, followed by 4 of repub with each cycle getting more antagonistic then? ok

    people aren't talking about being a little more assertive, they're talking about a lot more assertive and unless you want to go full erich and put everyone who voted for trump in the last round against a wall, you need to be able to slowly change these peoples mindsets because otherwise they'll just vote against you, and with more fervour, in the next election.
    Because that worked for Obama.
    so you just give up and accept politics getting even more polarised and toxic?
    If your strategy of appeasement depresses the vote of your own base for no appreciable return? Yeah. Anything else is stupidity.

    If anything, the shift to the centre has allowed/forced the republicans to take ever increasingly extreme positions due to structural forces some, including yourself, are completely clueless about.
    Solid poast.

    Also, seriously, if one side wants to be a literal redo of the fucking nazis, how is anything but a polarized opposite response reasonable?

    Should we have just talked it out with Hitler I suppose? Oh wait... wait, how did that go again... In before someone goes "lol stop being so extreme" again, after the last year or so of shit.
    There a few people here jerking off really hard over the idea of a new Hitler, while the rest of us debate how to stop that happening. Centrism is what democrats have tried for decades now. It has never worked. Centrism doesn't move the needle on whats acceptable. Enact huge changes, destroy conservative legacies and steamroll the little brownshirt screams of angst. Any retards left clinging to conservatives ideals will have to do what they've always done. Slowly shift their goals to slightly less repressed ones. A majority won in a system set up for the minority is a clear ticket to do whatever the fuck you want. If Democrats want to keep power they need to use power. Don't even reach across the isle until they are begging for it.

    It'll never happen because centrists rule the party. It should happen though.

  3. #13023

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    13,818
    Also yes this is totally the party one should compromise with and we should be really nice to them.

    https://www.ocregister.com/2020/10/1...ons-officials/

    Unofficial ballot drop boxes popping up throughout the state worry elections officials
    Promoting such boxes — which have been found in Los Angeles, Orange and Fresno counties — could be a felony.

  4. #13024
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    3,913
    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    nothing alastair said was wrong really. you don't beat hate by being just as bad in a different flavour, all you do then is swing the pendulum even further from the norm, and then the swing back is more horrific. you beat it by winning the small goals, and normalising your point of view.
    lol get a grip. There is no "just as bad" if the Democrats are a little more assertive about using their power.
    so you want 4 years of dem, followed by 4 of repub with each cycle getting more antagonistic then? ok

    people aren't talking about being a little more assertive, they're talking about a lot more assertive and unless you want to go full erich and put everyone who voted for trump in the last round against a wall, you need to be able to slowly change these peoples mindsets because otherwise they'll just vote against you, and with more fervour, in the next election.
    You change people's mindsets by offering improvements in their life. And you improve those lives by wielding power. Going "pwetty pwease let me give you check" to hardcore partisans is a waste of time.

    There's people who can be persuaded by tangibles, but first you'd need to implement those policies. And that means getting more assertive.

  5. #13025
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    17,909
    Alastair, Teds, I think the talking past each other you're doing with some of the other respondents is because they have recognised, if not so plainly articulated, as a fact one thing that you're missing.

    The US is in a civil war, and has been for a number of years. An undeclared civil war, but it's war none the less. The opening salvo was the public pledge by the Republican senate in, when was it? 2010? Someone get this for me pls, to make Obama a one term president and to refuse to pass any legislation he authored. In fact by his second term, they were vetoing their own legislation rather than allow him the 'victory' of actually getting something past him. It was a low level insurgency war that was still pretty civil, but the basic tenet of warfare applied nonetheless: you don't willingly grant your enemy anything, even if it means destroying your own assets. Warfare is when you don't compromise with your enemy on anything: you fight till you win or you're defeated.

    It kicked into high gear when Trump nomination and the sole and only reason it hasn't turned into wide scale official shooting violence is that the Republicans are winning most of what they want without it, and the propaganda cost of doing it violently is higher than the administrative cost of clothing themselves in the increasingly wilted fig-leaf of "norms and institutions, sorta". And what they're not winning without it, they're more than happy - openly and gleefully eager, in fact, to use violence.

    We've already seen documented reports of unmarked vans disappearing people into custody. We've seen the president open encouraging fascist gangs to use violence to intimidate opposition voters. We've seen the president openly call for his opponent to be imprisoned.

    There's no compromise here, because an enemy at war won't recognise or honour any such thing. The only possible interactions with the Republican party are to either defeat them or surrender to them.

    And option #1 WILL involve violence. They'd said it loud. They've said it clear. They've shouted it in our fucking ear.

    Maybe time to start listening to what they're actually saying and looking at what they're actually doing instead of pretending that they're saying what they should and doing what they ought to, hey?

    Because you're at fucking war.
    Quote Originally Posted by Isyel View Post
    And btw, you're such a fucking asshole it genuinely amazes me on a regular basis how you manage to function.

  6. #13026
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    16,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Alastair, Teds, I think the talking past each other you're doing with some of the other respondents is because they have recognised, if not so plainly articulated, as a fact one thing that you're missing.

    The US is in a civil war, and has been for a number of years. An undeclared civil war, but it's war none the less. The opening salvo was the public pledge by the Republican senate in, when was it? 2010? Someone get this for me pls, to make Obama a one term president and to refuse to pass any legislation he authored. In fact by his second term, they were vetoing their own legislation rather than allow him the 'victory' of actually getting something past him. It was a low level insurgency war that was still pretty civil, but the basic tenet of warfare applied nonetheless: you don't willingly grant your enemy anything, even if it means destroying your own assets. Warfare is when you don't compromise with your enemy on anything: you fight till you win or you're defeated.

    It kicked into high gear when Trump nomination and the sole and only reason it hasn't turned into wide scale official shooting violence is that the Republicans are winning most of what they want without it, and the propaganda cost of doing it violently is higher than the administrative cost of clothing themselves in the increasingly wilted fig-leaf of "norms and institutions, sorta". And what they're not winning without it, they're more than happy - openly and gleefully eager, in fact, to use violence.

    We've already seen documented reports of unmarked vans disappearing people into custody. We've seen the president open encouraging fascist gangs to use violence to intimidate opposition voters. We've seen the president openly call for his opponent to be imprisoned.

    There's no compromise here, because an enemy at war won't recognise or honour any such thing. The only possible interactions with the Republican party are to either defeat them or surrender to them.

    And option #1 WILL involve violence. They'd said it loud. They've said it clear. They've shouted it in our fucking ear.

    Maybe time to start listening to what they're actually saying and looking at what they're actually doing instead of pretending that they're saying what they should and doing what they ought to, hey?

    Because you're at fucking war.
    Spot on.

    The tea party, which is the "activist branch we can plausibly deny" of the Republican party were burning Obama in effigy right after his election, so...
    meh

  7. #13027
    Donor Shiodome's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    I am a white male.
    Posts
    5,559
    I thought war was when a state applied it's monopoly on violence at a macro scale to achieve policy or security aims. Apparently now it means being petulant in order to be mean to someone. It's also news to me that war negates all chance of compromise. these new definitions people cook up are very confusing. maybe the US having a different idea of what war is to everyone else is why they've been so bad at it?
    Last edited by Shiodome; October 12 2020 at 07:18:23 PM.

  8. #13028

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    13,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiodome View Post
    I thought war was when a state applied it's monopoly on violence at a macro scale to achieve policy or security aims. Apparently now it means being petulant in order to be mean to someone. It's also news to me that war negates all chance of compromise. these new definitions people cook up are very confusing. maybe the US having a different idea of what war is to everyone else is why they've been so bad at it?
    Wait till you discover the various meanings of "violence" yet.

    Maybe look at the message being conveyed instead of going UM ACKSHULLY pedant on it tbh.

  9. #13029
    evil edna's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    5,864
    The irony of america of all places having a civil war without guns

  10. #13030
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    6,177
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Pretty much says it all.

  11. #13031
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    17,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiodome View Post
    I thought war was when a state applied it's monopoly on violence at a macro scale to achieve policy or security aims. Apparently now it means being petulant in order to be mean to someone. It's also news to me that war negates all chance of compromise. these new definitions people cook up are very confusing. maybe the US having a different idea of what war is to everyone else is why they've been so bad at it?
    OK whatever, everything is fine, and there's nothing to worry about really.

    Silly Malcy. USA still bestestest.
    Quote Originally Posted by Isyel View Post
    And btw, you're such a fucking asshole it genuinely amazes me on a regular basis how you manage to function.

  12. #13032
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    6,177
    Quote Originally Posted by evil edna View Post
    The irony of america of all places having a civil war without guns
    Something something an armed society is a polite society something something.

  13. #13033
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    17,909
    Quote Originally Posted by evil edna View Post
    The irony of america of all places having a civil war without guns
    Oh you'll see plenty of fucking guns mate don't worry.
    Quote Originally Posted by Isyel View Post
    And btw, you're such a fucking asshole it genuinely amazes me on a regular basis how you manage to function.

  14. #13034
    Donor Pattern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,175
    Quote Originally Posted by evil edna View Post
    The irony of america of all places having a civil war without guns
    Meanwhile, in the other USA unrest thread....

  15. #13035
    Jack Coutu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 9, 2011
    Location
    marketjacker
    Posts
    1,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Pattern View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by evil edna View Post
    The irony of america of all places having a civil war without guns
    Meanwhile, in the other USA unrest thread....
    Not to mention the months of protests about police shootings and brutality that have plagued the nation for years, and the little fucker Kyle Rittenhouse and the mayhem there. It's a question of can it cool down, or will things get hotter. A democratic majority doing centrist bullshit will not solve anything, it had a vast role in enabling this situation. No one but the worst of society is eager for civil war. It's already been a low level conflict here for years, and this past year has seen it boil over. I have hope mixed with dread on the issue, but I'm just hoping to get all my medical appts in before November.

  16. #13036
    Super Chillerator Global Moderator teds :D's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 9, 2011
    Posts
    9,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Alastair, Teds, I think the talking past each other you're doing with some of the other respondents is because they have recognised, if not so plainly articulated, as a fact one thing that you're missing.

    The US is in a civil war, and has been for a number of years. An undeclared civil war, but it's war none the less. The opening salvo was the public pledge by the Republican senate in, when was it? 2010? Someone get this for me pls, to make Obama a one term president and to refuse to pass any legislation he authored. In fact by his second term, they were vetoing their own legislation rather than allow him the 'victory' of actually getting something past him. It was a low level insurgency war that was still pretty civil, but the basic tenet of warfare applied nonetheless: you don't willingly grant your enemy anything, even if it means destroying your own assets. Warfare is when you don't compromise with your enemy on anything: you fight till you win or you're defeated.

    It kicked into high gear when Trump nomination and the sole and only reason it hasn't turned into wide scale official shooting violence is that the Republicans are winning most of what they want without it, and the propaganda cost of doing it violently is higher than the administrative cost of clothing themselves in the increasingly wilted fig-leaf of "norms and institutions, sorta". And what they're not winning without it, they're more than happy - openly and gleefully eager, in fact, to use violence.

    We've already seen documented reports of unmarked vans disappearing people into custody. We've seen the president open encouraging fascist gangs to use violence to intimidate opposition voters. We've seen the president openly call for his opponent to be imprisoned.

    There's no compromise here, because an enemy at war won't recognise or honour any such thing. The only possible interactions with the Republican party are to either defeat them or surrender to them.

    And option #1 WILL involve violence. They'd said it loud. They've said it clear. They've shouted it in our fucking ear.

    Maybe time to start listening to what they're actually saying and looking at what they're actually doing instead of pretending that they're saying what they should and doing what they ought to, hey?

    Because you're at fucking war.
    sorry, again - what's the solution? swing away from them and leave them behind? or slowly try and restore some normalcy, until you can make your ideas the accepted norms?

  17. #13037
    Jack Coutu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 9, 2011
    Location
    marketjacker
    Posts
    1,644
    The country doesn't set up a magic system that only applies to the people that voted for it. If Democrats enacted massive changes, it would improve the situation for alot of the Republican base as well as the poorest people. It would NOT benefit the upper middle class fucktard groups but they can die in a fire for all I care. 40 years of pillaging workers and leaving everyone in the cold isn't going to get a "well you can keep ALL that shit you stole". They'll still be wealthy, they will just wail and moan about not being even MORE wealthy. Compromise for a minority and the wealthy isn't a compromise worth making.

  18. #13038
    Totally Not Larkonnis's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 25, 2012
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Coutu View Post
    The country doesn't set up a magic system that only applies to the people that voted for it. If Democrats enacted massive changes, it would improve the situation for alot of the Republican base as well as the poorest people. It would NOT benefit the upper middle class fucktard groups but they can die in a fire for all I care. 40 years of pillaging workers and leaving everyone in the cold isn't going to get a "well you can keep ALL that shit you stole". They'll still be wealthy, they will just wail and moan about not being even MORE wealthy. Compromise for a minority and the wealthy isn't a compromise worth making.
    Dilate


  19. #13039

    Join Date
    May 25, 2011
    Posts
    381
    But cutting through all the froth, the best chance to move forward from where we are now is to win the (at least slightly rigged) election in November.

    That win, hopefully in the presidential and senate races, will then have to be defended from various forms of cheating and refusal to relinquish power. But again, our best weapon is a large margin of victory, rather than anti-fascists with bricks.

  20. #13040
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    14,832
    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    sorry, again - what's the solution? swing away from them and leave them behind? or slowly try and restore some normalcy, until you can make your ideas the accepted norms?
    deplatforming, making association with them toxic, you know the usual fare.
    the stakes are higher and it will probably require throwing the usual rulebook out the window entirely, but its been done.

    Quote Originally Posted by duckduck View Post
    But cutting through all the froth, the best chance to move forward from where we are now is to win the (at least slightly rigged) election in November.

    That win, hopefully in the presidential and senate races, will then have to be defended from various forms of cheating and refusal to relinquish power. But again, our best weapon is a large margin of victory, rather than anti-fascists with bricks.
    you're making the bold assumption that any such attempts aren't going to get actively blocked by the "NORMS AND CIVILITY!" crowd.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •