Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[Mobius_118]

Yes...I'm the insane one. Apparently so is the rest of the world and anyone in this country who sees what's going on. Those Japanese internment camp survivors? Nuts. Those Holocaust survivors? Cranked. All the experts out there saying trump is fucking crazy and his supporters are denying reality? Bonkers.

But those nazi's in Charleston? Very fine people.

Sarcasm heavily implied, if you're unable to process that.

[TheodoricFriede]

You're right. I wouldn't know anything about the Holocaust or Nazi's.

[Mobius_118]

Which makes me perplexed as to why you'd resist the idea of this nation embracing a fascist dictatorship, because all the signs are right there. Smacking you in the face.

[TheodoricFriede]

OR.

OR.

OR.

There is not an imminent fascist threat to the country, and you are merely a raving lunatic.

[Mobius_118]

I circle back to what I stated about, I dunno, everyone else noticing the trend with trump.

Or perhaps you should listen to your elders.

Or you should quit being a contradictory voice just because you despise me for something that happened years ago that has no bearing on the right now.

I know you won't though. You're petty like that.

[TheodoricFriede]

"Everyone else"

"Elders"

"Contradictory"

[TTTX]

OR.

OR.

OR.

There is not an imminent fascist threat to the country

That's what my grandparents are saying and they grew up during WW2, so I'll take their word for it, then the news.

[TheodoricFriede]

I enjoyed watching an interview of an older woman, just for the purposes of recording family history, where she talked about her life. She was about 90 or so.

They asked her about the recent political drama and she replied with something to the effect of, "I lived through World War 2, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Cold War, Nixon, the death of JFK, the Civil Rights movement... [And proceed to list every other major historical event] ...This inst even a blip on the radar."

Perspective is a HELL of a thing.

[Mobius_118]

Well of course you can cherry pick people for interviews.

Meanwhile the older folks I talk to and hear from are saying the complete opposite.

[FrozenShadow]

OR.

OR.

OR.

There is not an imminent fascist threat to the country, and you are merely a raving lunatic.

Funny thing is, while there is no imminent threat, there are definitely sign of possible directions the matters could end up going, if people don't resist.

Take this recent South border case. If there would've been no outrage against the policy of separating children from their families and basically treating all illegal immigrants with barely there human rights, you can bet nothing would've have changed. Quite to contrary, Trump and co would've taken it as sign "go ahead, everything ok" and moved in to next step and eventually targeted the next group.

This is exactly how dictators/tyrants works, exactly how it went in Germany back in 1930s. You start with smallish "testing waters" things and if people allow it, let alone support it, you take the next step. And if you managed to take enough steps, you can eventually run unopposed, just like Hitler did in Germany.

Not saying this is exactly what's happening in US right now. But it could go there, if people won't oppose. There are enough people in US (even in high places), who would be more than happy to see the illegal immigrant fate repeating with muslims, gays and even black Americans. And I bet these people would use their opportunity, if they get their chance and no amount of citizenship or rights will protect you. Whatever rights and protection you have right now, it could easily be taken away.

Can't be done, you think? It's already done with Patriot Act.

All you need is enough lunatics/opportunist in power and they get another law passed that targets certain groups of people and in no time you might find yourself in second class citizenship status or detained somewhere, because you're different.

But again, this isn't yet happening in US and with all the recent outrage, there is good chance it won't ever happen. But if there would be no outcry over all of Trump's action...... I would really fear for America and the world.

[TheodoricFriede]

Uh huh. And Donald Trump COULD have given Kim Jong Un the nuclear launch codes and sold out the country.

Lost of things COULD happen if you remove all logic and sense.

[TheodoricFriede]

Well of course you can cherry pick people for interviews.

Meanwhile the older folks I talk to and hear from are saying the complete opposite.

Jewish. New York. Democrat.

[Mobius_118]

I person vs how many?

Increase your sample size.

[TheodoricFriede]

God GAC is right, you are a fucking joke.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

God GAC is right, you are a fucking joke.

I'm just happy that reality is clashing with his narrative enough that everyone else is starting to be able to see it.

[Mobius_118]

So, wait. Wanting you to have a mass consensus before you make a statement is being a joke?

The fuck is the matter with you?

[TheodoricFriede]

Explaining the meaning of context to a simpleton isn't my idea of a good time.

Go. Whine. Scream. Gnash and tear at a world that doesn't want or need you, but ultimately is incapable of being rid of you.

People like you, on either side of the political spectrum, are a malignant cancer. You will destroy the world.

[Mobius_118]

Funny, wanting a functional government, that we had before this farce of an administration, is considered to be a malignant cancer now.

[Mobius_118]

Also, nice dehumanizing language there, Theo.

You're well on track to being exactly what you hate.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Also, nice dehumanizing language there, Theo.

You're well on track to being exactly what you hate.

>Mobius

>Talking shit to anyone about "Dehumanzing language"

Top kek

[Mobius_118]

Pretty sure you're the type of person to work kebab and dune coon into a conversation, GAC.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Pretty sure you're the type of person to work kebab and dune coon into a conversation, GAC.

Oh I'll shit on kebab all night long dear.

But I don't then try to moralize at people about it.

You do.

[Mobius_118]

You mock those that see humans as humans, and those that would treat humans as humans.

This isn't exactly a hard topic to see where your failings are.

[Raga]

What's happening *right this very instant* with Trump is a sign of deep political and social dysfunction coming to a head, but it's not the sign of an imminent fascist takeover.

However, something has to change with our political polarization, or this is going to get much, much uglier. Trump himself has never been the issue. How people divide into camps over him is. Insert Lincoln: "a house divided against itself cannot stand" blah, blah. I currently think we have three possible paths open in front of us:

1. We retreat into ourselves, reassert ourselves on traditional American democratic lines sans world police role. We become less powerful, with less global influence, but more self-reliant, less decadent, and with more social cohesion.

2. We bifurcate on a Spanish/English line. We become something like Switzerland, with a big chunk speaking one language and another chunk speaking another. This gets incorporated into the government, culture, and the economy. Bilingualism becomes increasingly common. We still retreat into ourselves more but with stronger ties to countries in this hemisphere.

3. Globalization, mass migration, and neoliberal domestic and international policies proceed, perhaps at a slightly slower rate, but still too fast to keep up with. This will result in one of two things: 1) a radical decline in the standard of living until it becomes on par with the Global South, which is the only thing that will stop migration flows with permeable borders, 2) violence as the people experiencing the standard of living decline eventually resort to torches and pitchforks in a bid to stop it.

Summary: If you want the path that flirts the most with violence, if you want to truly tempt a genocide or a dictatorship or whatever, keep trucking along down option #3. So far this path has produced Trump. It is capable of producing much, much worse things.

(Those three things also happen to be my preferences for what we do, in order).

[Raga]

Also, looks like Mexico is about to elect a populist who says mass migration to the United States is a human right. So, yea, there's some gasoline for the fire.

[Vol]

Trump's not a Caeser and he never will be. He's a businessman and a social bully and that is how he's operating, so far it seems to work pretty well. Now, eventually there will be a Caesar, in some form or another, when the quality of life deteriorates more. I mean, think about it. How much national unity exists anymore?

@Raga: 1 would be nice. Stop being the Global Dick for the World's Pussy, accept some painful lumps for that decision, and try to find some ties that bind among our cultures. Ignore the professional cultural critics that reflexively tear down tradition. Scale down our army. Become more civically engaged. Embrace the mild asceticism. Less meat, less corn, more exercise. Less mass media, more family time. Less international influence, more local. Cozy.

2 would be the end of the republic. We've already had a gigantic percentage of our population replaced by unchecked immigration from third world countries. We actively import more and more and spread them all over the land, because it's been decided that homogeneity is immoral. Our financial system runs on theoretical wealth being created decades later. We have elected officials calling for the active harassment and denial of service of their political opponents and any who work for them. We don't like each other unless we think the same way. Pills flow to numb the feelings. It would come to a head eventually if we start having ethnostates within the union, after trying so hard to destroy the ones that naturally formed.

3 is probably what's going to happen. Trump's trying to staunch it, despite the best efforts of those whose power is linked to allowing it to happen. We'll get some factories up again, some more domestic energy, resources. Then a globalist will win and undo it all and make it worse. For the sake of the global community. For the sake of the poor and downtrodden. Sure, Cletus can't find a job and living on the dole is driving him to meth and booze, 'cause he can't support himself or a family, everything he buys is made somewhere else, everything he eats is processed shit, everything he watches or reads is meant to make him feel bad, but hey, at least he's got a place to live and a smartphone. Fulfilling!

Oh, if that Mexican commie wins and tries that, a nice border war would put the foot on the pedal.

[TheodoricFriede]

Also, looks like Mexico is about to elect a populist who says mass migration to the United States is a human right. So, yea, there's some gasoline for the fire.

At what point is that just a declaration of war?

[TTTX]

In other news the EU is voting on laws that would make such as making and using memes illegal among other things and if you link to another site you have to pay the site first for doing so.

[Alienmorph]

Indeed. And my country doesn't even have a position about it, because the jackasses who are in charge are too busy fighting immigrants and bitch about vaxcines. I am seriously beginning to hate this shitshow of a nation and the tons of stupid fucking people who live in it.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xxe-RNLlKQo

[TTTX]

Indeed. And my country doesn't even have a position about it, because the jackasses who are in charge are too busy fighting immigrants and bitch about vaxcines. I am seriously beginning to hate this shitshow of a nation and the tons of stupid fucking people who live in it.

Our country doesn't even tell us about it, because they love the EU so much.

[Raga]

2 would be the end of the republic. We've already had a gigantic percentage of our population replaced by unchecked immigration from third world countries. We actively import more and more and spread them all over the land, because it's been decided that homogeneity is immoral. Our financial system runs on theoretical wealth being created decades later. We have elected officials calling for the active harassment and denial of service of their political opponents and any who work for them. We don't like each other unless we think the same way. Pills flow to numb the feelings. It would come to a head eventually if we start having ethnostates within the union, after trying so hard to destroy the ones that naturally formed.

I think it's possible, but it's predicated on several things.

1. Spanish remaining overwhelmingly dominant as the secondary language after English. If we end up with some kind of 50% English, 25% Spanish, 25% Chinese or such breakdown, this won't work.

2. Various Latin Americans being able to shed connections to their home states and morphing into some over-arching "Latino" identity, much as various Europeans just became "white people" in the US. The recent turn of the tide from Mexican migrants towards Central Americans might actually help with this because it erodes at Mexican dominance as the main immigrant group.

3. Dispersal of a large chunk of the Spanish-speaking population out of the American Southwest into other parts of the country. This is already happening to some degree as they tend to go where the jobs are.

4. A significant enough portion of Latinos rising out of the lower classes that "Latino" doesn't just become short hand to referring to somebody's class.

The main hurdle right now is class. The only really notable cultural difference I'm aware of is that Latinos tend to be more family oriented, which frankly we could use a decent infusion of here.

[Vol]

It is a little disturbing that the SCOTUS voted 5-4 against government compelled speech and 5-4 for the president's explicit power to restrict immigration. Those should have been 9-0.

@Raga:
1) English is the lingua franca, I wouldn't _expect_ sheer weight of numbers on the border to change that. The best use of Spanish is to make learning English easier after all. Now if we outright had half the population speaking Mandarin or Spanish, that would be a complete breakdown of a cohesive society. Right now, it's 80%, and that's too low.

2) Do they have any pressure to? The dominant white culture is being critiqued to death, assimilation is the enemy, and government makes it easier to live in your enclaves forever.

3) The silver lining is that the birth rate is falling for everyone, so invasive populations are less a problem if they're not pumping out 8 kids. Makes you wonder how well an open border policy for, say, eastern Europeans would go over. To help prop up the birth rate of course.

4) Eh, in time. But I don't think they'll rise to the demographic success of Asians. Better than blacks, less than whites. But the cost of that is surrendering your culture and beliefs. Capitalism enables the cult of diversity and professional critics to make their livings, but it doesn't allow unique populations to exist without great resistance. You can have your shitty little neighborhood taco stands and homemade peppers and that old grandma who'll watch the ninos, but when you have a mortgage and a 2 story house, all of a sudden, you start liking chain restaurants and certified child care specialists.

[Raga]

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/27/53399748 ... -to-retire

This might breath some effort into the increasingly moribund prospects of Democrats in the upcoming mid-terms. Having enough liberal butts in seats in Congress is the only way to hold up the appointment of a conservative Justice which would stack the court 6-3 for conservatives.

This is about to get interesting.

I have mixed opinions. Stacked 6-3 conservative court? Really good for immigration enforcement, religious freedom, & free speech. Really bad for keeping the middle class alive.

[SciFlyBoy]

Really bad for keeping the middle class alive.

How so? Wasn't most of the appeal of Trump his support for the middle class? Also in Cal, the left wants to keep the lowest down low as well as tax the hell out of the middle class and virtually eradicate them.

[Raga]

How so? Wasn't most of the appeal of Trump his support for the middle class? Also in Cal, the left wants to keep the lowest down low as well as tax the hell out of the middle class and virtually eradicate them.

Because the mantle he will look for in a judge is: 1. socially conservative for Evangelicals (anti Roe, anti Obergefell), 2. Populist on identity issues for his base (tighter borders, pro-white gerrymandering, anti-Voting Rights Act) 3. Neoliberal/con on economics for the Republican Establishment (pro rights of giant corporations - unending copyright & patent terms, forcing people to sign contracts limiting competition and speech, pro massive campaign contributions from corporations & billionaires, forcing people filing lawsuits for malfeasance to settle in binding arbitration, anti-union, permissive of monopolies)

The first two are mostly irrelevant for middle class people in the short term. For instance, if Roe is overturned, it means abortion laws just go back to the states, and a sizable number of states won't outlaw it. That means if you have enough money, you can always hope on a plan to New York or California and get an abortion even if you live in Alabama or Utah.

Why the 3rd is bad for the middle class seems fairly straight forward, but I can go into more detail if you want. Basically, there are two poles currently squeezing the middle class, one that is popular with the right (outsourcing, "free" trade, financial market liberalization) and one that is popular with the left (mass migration, enormous social programs for the poor).

However, the things the left advocates for are largely downstream problems *caused* by the neoliberal policies pushed by the right. So, yea, they want to let in lots of Latino migrants, but why are there so many Latino migrants to begin with? Well, because poor Mexican corn farmers couldn't compete with cheap, subsidized American corn following NAFTA so their livelihood collapsed and because we've been busily propping up brutal, tinpot dictators in Latin America so long as they allow giant American transnationals to operate in their countries. And so on.

So the left's polices are just bandaid solutions. And, yes, they *do* squeeze the Middle Class in favor of the poor. But the reason there are so many poor needing/wanting services in the first place is largely a consequence of economic policies pushed starting aggressively with Reagan & Thatcher, though our soft imperialism began well before that with Eisenhower. Trump does resist squeezing the middle class to help the poor, but he is pro policies that cause large numbers of the middle class to *become* poor.

A good book that goes over this at a global level if you are interested: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/355 ... earch=true

[Raga]

A follow-up: Trump's economic populism is basically limited to being pro-tariffs, which without meaningful overarching regulatory change does nothing to stop automation, raise wages, or stop the financial bubbles that happen like clockwork every 10 years or so and consistently knock people back on their ass every time they manage to barely stand up again.

All it does is impede China's ability to drop cheap shit on our market and manipulate currency to effect that purpose quite so easily.

Putting tariffs on developed countries that follow the rules and have strong Rule of Law (like the EU countries) is counterproductive and mostly ends up biting us in the ass.

[SciFlyBoy]

Roe will never be over turned. I've heard lawyers argue over that for a long time. It's so ingrained in our society that it won't be done. Plus there are more important things than overturning Roe.

Also SCOTUS has a history of justices flipping on their view. I think Warren is the latest example as the first republican appointed justice sine the depression who ended up being WAY more liberal than anyone anticipated. So I think it's all up in the air. There are always surprises.

[Raga]

Roe will never be over turned. I've heard lawyers argue over that for a long time. It's so ingrained in our society that it won't be done. Plus there are more important things than overturning Roe.

I personally think Obergefell is more secure than Roe. But there are things leading up to an out and out overturn of Roe that can render it effectively dead anyway without out and out overturning it. I also think you underestimate the singularity of that issue for religious conservatives. The country and the Court overall has bigger things on its agenda, but there are religious right activists and legal professionals waiting in the wings to start sprinting full speed ahead as soon as they get a perceived conservative court. (For the record, Roe is actually not a make or break issue for me, believe it or not. I am an abortion moderate. I've never voted based on this issue. It's pretty damn easy to avoid unwanted pregnancy. I was more just using it as an example for how socially conservative justices are mostly non-issues for Middle Class people).

And yes, there has been a mixed tract record with "partisan" judges generally, but that's mostly been on social issues. Kennedy was appointed by a conservative but was pro-LGBT and civil rights stuff for the most part. He was quite reliable on neolib stuff. He authored Citizens United. I'm not aware of any conservative appointee from the last 30 years who was consistently swing on neoliberal issues.

[SciFlyBoy]

What is the size of the religious right (I guess that doesn't count the religious left?) now compared to when Roe, for example, was decided? Is it really the large group we are assumed it to be? It has to be significantly smaller today then at least 20 years ago, right? Does that mean in general it doesn't have quite the power its assumed to have? Or is it a matter of a small group with a lot of money and an agenda.

[Raga]

What is the size of the religious right (I guess that doesn't count the religious left?) now compared to when Roe, for example, was decided? Is it really the large group we are assumed it to be? It has to be significantly smaller today then at least 20 years ago, right? Does that mean in general it doesn't have quite the power its assumed to have? Or is it a matter of a small group with a lot of money and an agenda.

When Roe was decided the religious right was more or less dormant. Following the Scopes Monkey Trial in the 1920s, a large chunk of what we call Evangelicals opted out of politics, at least as as organized front. Starting about with Nixon, Republicans began to figure out that there was an enormous pull of potentially reliable conservative voters that the party had not been mobilizing. They started making overtures, but Reagan was the first one to really rally them as a political force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority). Roe was actually a nontrivial factor in pushing their mobilization. They reached their zenith as an electoral force arguably sometime around 2004 as a key part of keeping Bush in office. General disillusionment with Bush about Iraq led to increased hostility to evangelicals by extension and that along with the gradual inching progress of the gay marriage push (Massachusetts was the first to legalize it in 2004) has eroded the singularity of their power as a voting block. Even so, they are one of the largest and most consistent voting blocks (roughly equivalent in size and consistency to black people on the left). A Republican presidential candidate cannot be elected without them so keeping them motivated and coming to the polls is a necessity.

Most of them have given up on legislative change for what they want and have been specifically holding out for Supreme Court Justices. I have various religiously conservative in-laws who voted for Trump. If you ask them why they voted for a lewd, philandering multiple divorcee who verbally abuses veterans & women and worships money (the complete opposite of what a Christian should be), their response is pretty much invariably: for Supreme Court Justices.

[SciFlyBoy]

I never saw it that way. That actually does make sense, thinking back about the rise of Fox news and Bush's reelection and how that revealed the face of this new religious right. It was at that same time I dropped out of religion and so I guess I diminished their relevance in my mind.

[FrozenShadow]

In other news the EU is voting on laws that would make such as making and using memes illegal among other things and if you link to another site you have to pay the site first for doing so.

Talk about about waste of manpower, time and money.

[Mazder]

In other news the EU is voting on laws that would make such as making and using memes illegal among other things and if you link to another site you have to pay the site first for doing so.

Talk about about waste of manpower, time and money.

The EU in a nutshell.

[TTTX]

Talk about about waste of manpower, time and money.

and that's why the EU is slowly falling apart.

[Mobius_118]

5 journalists dead in Maryland by a mass shooter.

This is what you get when you have a wannabe leader saying that it's all fake news, that the media is the enemy. Some lugenpresse chanting dipshit thinking it's time to kill people.

Yet I'm the crazy one.

[TTTX]

Yet I'm the crazy one.

OMG a crazy person does a mass shooting in the USA, that's never happened before!

Mass shootings in the USA are pretty much a dime a dozen at this point, which is tragic.

[Mazder]

5 journalists dead in Maryland by a mass shooter.

This is what you get when you have a wannabe leader saying that it's all fake news, that the media is the enemy. Some lugenpresse chanting dipshit thinking it's time to kill people.

Yet I'm the crazy one.

Probably more a somewhat mentally ill person decided it's time to kill people who had a history of hating the press long before Trump, but now has come to a boiling point, but probably would have anyway given the shit-tier amount of mental healthcare in the country.

Mind you TBH the mainstream media is kinda the enemy on quite a few fronts. Holding up forms of communication, copyright laws and generally being inept at any technologically based reporting, especially the internet as a whole.

You're the crazy one if you think Trump is solely to blame. If you think pointing the blame to him and his administration is responsible for people's long standing mental health issues that make them go to these extremes then you are a little crazy.

OMG a crazy person does a mass shooting in the USA, that's never happened before!

Mass shootings in the USA are pretty much a dime a dozen at this point, which is tragic.

And every time it's the wrong solutions expressed. Ban the guns, ban the president, ban the banning of things!

[Mobius_118]

...Really? Deadliest day for journalists in the US, we have a president who spurns the media, and his supporters are fully willing and capable of killing journalists to appease this madman. And I'm the shithead?

Shitbag trump encourages violence against the media, against anyone who dare speaks out against him. This isn't fucking rocket surgery or a goddamn sensationalist cry for attention, the guy is trying to go full tinpot and his supporters are helping him do it.

[Mazder]

...Really? Deadliest day for journalists in the US, we have a president who spurns the media, and his supporters are fully willing and capable of killing journalists to appease this madman. And I'm the shithead?

Shitbag trump encourages violence against the media, against anyone who dare speaks out against him. This isn't fucking rocket surgery or a goddamn sensationalist cry for attention, the guy is trying to go full tinpot and his supporters are helping him do it.

Never said you were a shithead mate, you're putting words in me mouth there.
If the emoji didn't make it clear I was joking about the "crazy" thing then let me be absolutely, 100% clear.
I was kidding around. Adding a bit of brevity, a bit of banter. Making things a bit less of a shit slinging contest. Not every discussion needs to be a full blown argument.


1) Deadliest day for journalists? Kind of a stretch. I didn't realize all journos were suddenly teleported to the fiery pits of Mount Doom. A shitty thing happened, yeah, but it's not the deadliest day for journalists as a whole. Especially when there are plenty of journalists that cover active war zones.

2) I don't see all of his supporters willing to kill journalists either. A vocal few making threats on it, and fewer still that have actually gone through with it. out of 62,985,106 that voted for him a grand total of....1 has actually done anything properly about it.
Many Democrats are capable of killing journalists too, if by this the criteria is gun ownership only.

3) "His supporters" are about half of the country apparently. Maybe it's time to, I don't know, find out why they're willing to support someone speaking out against the mainstream media in the USA?
It's not as if it's all a polarization contest between journalists and news outlets and they actively try to get each side shouting at the other rather than finding the common ground or compromise.

Basically if it's all that bad it'll solve itself. If not it'll be solved by the Democrat side. If not then you never stood a chance.