Okay then - I've mentioned this in other threads and so I'll mention it again here - when it comes to Trump, you are very much on the 'There's no smoke without fire' train, you believe he's a criminal (or at least has committed criminal acts) and despite there being no successful prosecution, you still believe that.
Fine, you do you.
Yet, when I hold a position that is equally unproven, somehow I'm ridiculous?
When I looked at some of the voting patterns in the US, going back ~150 years, there are a number of things 'odd' about the 2020 election. Odd doesn't 'prove' fraud, but that is the Smoke that 70% think means there is fire.
The only thing I have got to take issue with is Mail-in Voting is not proven to be reliable. After the 2000 election Florida and Ohio (IIRC) both implemented a raft of legislation to tighten up some of the issues with Mail-in Voting and since those changes,
in those states it is reliable.
Other states that did not have a history of large scale mail-in voting did not have those methods applied to their mail-in voting process. Does this prove fraud? No. But again, it's suspicious.
Which Majority? There's an image that I'm 99% sure you've seen that shows the number of red counties vs number of blue counties in the US - and almost the entirety of the US, by area, is deeply conservative.
It's only the extremely densely populated cities that give the Democrats any victories. Granted, that numerically, they tend to outweigh the Republicans in terms of numbers - but I'm not sure you can so easily say it's flawed. If you had a cult compound in a small NZ town with more people in the compound than the surrounding town - would it be a fair assessment to say that the town was a religious cult? In one sense of Stats, absolutely, in another sense, absolutely not.
'The Dems have been very smart' - so it's naked Politicing then and nothing to do with Justice, thanks for the confirmation
It was proven to be a figment of the Dem's imagination. Nothing more, nothing less. At best, I'd say Mueller was an honest man who was himself deceived.
24 hours? The Twitter ban ran for weeks alone - and it wasn't just Twitter, it was FB, YT etc.
And again - it doesn't change the fact that there was Cabal-like behavior, where they admitted to 'Fortifying' the election. We have the source code that the level playing field was absolutely tipped in one direction, only in the favor of the Democrats. If you think that this makes it a fair and free election, then I'd like you to take every bit of rhetorhic you hurled at me over 'destroying Democracy' and read it aloud for yourself.
Now, sure if you want to say 'look at what the RWNJs were posting' sure, then I get to say 'Look at what the Gender Activists were posting' - they weren't banned... Until Elon came along.
Well, did those woes happen under Trump? No?
Did they happen under Biden? Yes?
That's about as far as I care at this point. To answer the challenge directly: I do believe that Biden's Energy, Fiscal, Mandate and Foreign Policy have all been significant causal factors in the currents issues we face.
There are obviously home-grown issues as well, but seeing as Jacinda sung from the same song sheet, I'm not inclined to draw a distinction.
As for Marxism - The problem is - you've read the work and you know I'm right on this - the ideologies that are currently in vogue amongst the Left all trace their roots back to the Frankfurt School, Gramscii and Marx.
I'll grant you that some of the people parroting these ideas probably don't know the source of the ideas or what the intended goal of them is - but that is not my concern. They are functionally no different than someone who does know the source and does have that as the intended goal - and so by that metric I damn both of them with the same critique.
Cause it doesn't work.
I'm being serious here. There is no evidence economically that increasing the Mininmum Wage helps poverty in the Long run. Now, I'll grant you that for a few short months, it will 'seem' to help - but Poverty is not a short-term problem for those who are most affective, so why would a short term 'fix' make any difference?
I'll give you one example here - do you know what the single biggest predictor is for long term success is? It's a two-parent (Mother and Father) household. I looked in his Poverty plan - I didn't see anything in there to address the rate of Divorce or the rate of single motherhood.
All I see is the same number of failed ideas that are based on the same flawed economic theories that underpin modern Leftism.
That in-of-itself wouldn't be that bad if those policy ideas were benign, but I put it to you that many of them
over time compound the problem and make it worse. I often get accused of callousness - but what is more callous? Saying no in the short-term, so that the long-term prospects are better or saying yes in the short-term and damning the person in the long run.
Okay then - tell you what, let's put aside the second amendment for a moment - I'm going to cherry pick two things here:
"The wrong people with guns is bad" and "In the group of response able peers you were with yes, I get that."
Simple question: How do you make sure only the reasonable people and not the wrong people have them?
Greedy, Marxist fucks. And it wasn't a Travesty, it was an inevitability.
What Quo-isym do I support?
I'll tell you: Meritocracy. Race need not apply.
The problem for you is that if America is as bad as you say it is - why are Asians, Indians and first generation Immigrants crushing the White Population? Why are the systemic barriers that supposedly uphold 'whiteness' not hold back those groups? That's when they (The marxists) come up with terms like 'White adjacent' and other such nonsense.
There is a painful truth here - that if you tell a group that they are systematically oppressed and that no matter how hard they try, they'll never succeed - guess what? They'll believe it. That belief will then colour (pun intended) every interaction of theirs. Just like you accused me of seeing Marxism everywhere (although in my case, I have the academic citations to back it up) they will see Racism everywhere and then will act in accordance to that belief.
This is not anything new either - Sun Tzu even said it:
"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.”
If you want to improve Race relations, first and foremost - you have to stop with the victim narrative
even if there is some historic truth in that matter - because someone who believes they can succeed will find a way to.
There's other things as well - like the massive rate of Fatherlessness in the Black Community, Gangs and crime - but without that belief - you could fix everything else and still be screwed.
Tip the scales the other way? In regards to Racial Justice? How has that worked out in the past? In a pile of bloody corpses as far as the eye can see. CRT has but one goal in mind, it's not Racial Justice - just like BLM was a Trojan horse for Greedy Fucks (your words, mind) CRT is a trojan horse for a revolution - you've even read the citations, yet still don't believe it.
I don't doubt your personal experience in terms of what you saw - I'm saying that the charge of 'Racism' required an interrogation of both the act
and the mindset of the person doing it - to use the legal term: Mens rea - the guilty mind.
I heard an interaction recently between 2 people "Are you Indian?", "No, I'm not", "But your skin is Indian", "I'm not from india", "Where did you come from?", "I'm from New Zealand"
Sounds Racist as fuck, right? Now, let's re-read that with some Context. That was from a child, talking to a Nurse in hospital who had been learning about India in School. There was not a drop of racism, only curiosity and a child's clumsiness of speech.
Of course, not everyone is a Child - the point being that if you are inferring mindset purely on action - I'm going to call you up on it.
That and the 'research' on implicit bias is completely bunk, to the point that the Authors of the research asked that it stopped be used in the manner that it was.
If you see no light between what I write and a White Supremecist - that's your call, I doubt you truly mean that, because I doubt you'd broke any words with a white supremecist - however, depending on how bored I get today, I may decide to test this theory - I'm sure I could cut out a few snippets of CRT texts and replace the word White with Black and see if you can tell the difference
So, you're Transphobic then....
Do you think maybe there's some connection here - like the Dems not backing off and saying 'You know what? This is too far.'? Like maybe if they stopping
pushing it, then the conservative media would find something else to be annoyed about?
As a general rule, I disagree - I'm trying to think of an issue that wokeness has highlighted that needed to be addressed and requires Wokeness to be addressed. Can't think of one. Closest would be MeToo - but even that went too far.
If it has gone to far, why do you criticize me and the right for pushing back? That's the only way to get back to Balance. Problem is, you know, as well as I do - that the moment you push back, you are in the same camp as me and you know you'll cop the same flak that I do, despite not agreeing with me on many subjects.
Tell you what though - how about this - if I could, I'd take us back to the mid-2000s consensus on many issues, Trans included - they exist, we'll leave them alone to do their thing.
Deal?
'Or otherwise' And that my Dear Sugi is part of the problem.
The conversation I see on Climate Change from the Left (which is why they get the label of Marxism) goes something like this:
"Capitalism is evil, it's ruining the environment, therefore we need to get rid of it and the only way to do that is to give all the power and money to the Government"
Normally with the first part conveniently omitted.
Now, if it's 'Or Otherwise' - then that is a very different set of problems to solve than if it's man-made. I've mentioned elsewhere I have an old book from the 90s about Energy and it's a lovely book and in it, it makes all sorts of energy predictions - none of them have come true. And these predictions are very milk-toast, not like the doomerism of the Climate mob today. I can go back 70 odd years to the 1950s and give you a laundry list of failed climate scares.
So when the Government says 'You need to change your entire lifestyle because Climate (oh and BTW we'll need to take some of your rights, money and freedom too)' - yeah, to say I'm skeptical would be a massive understatement. To say that I'm outright hostile when I see the same philosophers cited in the theory that drives it is probably more accurate.
Here is the thing though - I'm not opposed to 'Green' Technologies - My thoughts, to put them as succinctly as I can "When they are good enough, they will be able to compete on their own merits, without Government fiat".
That and there's a bit of 'You say I need to drive less, to save the planet, but you need to fly your private jet'. I see the claims as nothing more than 'Do as we say, not as I do'
The Dems are in a tough spot - Wokeness isn't popular, but it is what drives the Activist base. You could take one look at UK Politics to see this - you have Labour being wildly unelectable under Jeremy Corbyn and then Sir Keir Stamer trying to convince the party that it's not the party of Corbyn, Stamer doesn't have the minerals to do what Blair did in the 90s and oust all the Communists (although ironically, Blair turned out to be awful, but for different reasons). Then you've got the Tories who keep forgetting that they aren't meant to be Labour.
What the Left wing needs - and perhaps even more for the Right wing, is a new Left wing ideology that doesn't have it's roots in Marxism. Think like the 1980s left wing politics - that was heavily libertarian and (due to the Cold War) was still wary of Marxist ideas.
A new form of Left Wing Politics would naturally curb the excesses of the Right (as above - they Right keep pushing because the Left keep pushing - and IMO the Left drew first blood(
Ron
Originally Posted by TheDemonLord
Reply With Quote
\
Bookmarks