My mistake, I agree on this.Originally Posted by sugilite
As for some GOP that only care about fiscal responsibility when not in power - I haven’t done my research on that, but I trust you, under grounds of good character, that it is true.
Hardcore Biker
My mistake, I agree on this.
As for some GOP that only care about fiscal responsibility when not in power - I haven’t done my research on that, but I trust you, under grounds of good character, that it is true.
Kiwibiker
Not trump, but free speech pops up often in this thread. I've said often that it is a sad indictment that some of the most balanced accurate reporting comes from comedians, but here is a video showing comedian Rowen Atkinson talking about free speech. Just ignore the irony that it has been posted by what I assume is a right wing leaning person trying to make out that Rowan only just said it, as it looks to have been filmed in the obama days. However, still very, very relevant today!
The Majestic Metal Wizard
Yes, the irony was not lost on me - and the fact you noticed my restraint made me smile.Ill quote this one for others sanity. But pop in your ending from your earlier post for context below. Yes indeed, thank you for reminding us what a true wall of text is, and I can see areas where you were even holding back
Trump is a reaction to the modern Left. Same with what is happening in Europe, Even England that elected Sir Keir Starmer in a supposed landslide... with 20 percent of the vote.Mate, each side shows off their visions of a shiny utopia which somehow never comes to fruition. As you know very well, much of trumps brand is based on division. So for you to be speaking like only of the left are doing it is actually not even being on thin ice, as in fact it is deep, deep water. So unless your name is Jesus, or you wear scuba gear as your daily attire - I highly recommend you not go there! Unless if course you are wanting an avalanche of youtube videos showing the right wing separatists doing their worst?.
In many places the modern left is facing pushback from, ironically, a lot of the working-class types.
And no need to worry about the Right Wing separatist types, I know them and will talk about them in a mo.
I think I posted previously in this thread about the study of the shift in policy over time and how the Republicans have remained fairly stable (lower taxes, smaller government, strong military, law, order, borders etc.) with some interesting fissures (The Warhawk Republicans vs the isolationist Republicans for example) - I could take most of the the current Republican platform in terms of Policy, drop it into the Republican party of 2000s or the 1990s or the 1980s and it would not look out of place.
However, on the Left, there has been a noticeable shift. Some off the top of my head examples:
- Free Speech, used to be a virtue championed primarily by the Left, now they champion the concept of Hatespeech.
- Abortion, used to be Safe, Legal and Rare was the slogan (one I agree with), now it is Abortion is Healthcare (a statement I find repulsive)
- The Border - see the quote I used for Joe Biden compared to Joe Biden now.
- The God Emperor himself Donald J Trump - A Registered Democrat until 2009 - now he is considered Far-Right.
The separatists have looked at where the Left is going and gone:
Fuck this, we are out.
I do not deny their existence - but again, I put it to you that they are a reaction to the excesses of the modern Left.
Which Democrats though.Lets do a good old sugilite analogy shall we? (like you have a choice?)
In the marxist corner (you pick the country that runs the closest version of actual marxism) we have their best cake, it is a joyless vegan, gluten free xmas cake made from the driest shitty ingredients possible, so not a cake for their leadership, but rather their people.
Now we have a cake made in good ole U.S.A., a spectacular capitalist heart attack inducing rich multilayered chocolate cake, oozing with cream and adorned with the finest icing available. A cake that is available for everyone - hurrah!
Now in the large scheme of things, I put it to you that if you were to compare the republican cake, and the dems version of the same cake, there would be little difference other than one has red sprinkles on it, and the other blue sprinkles - if it is a birthday cake, the dems candles may be made from tampons.
However, in no way would the dems cake share any meaningful likeness to the poor old dry unappealing marxist cake from an ACTUAL marxist regime.
Now if you don't mind I'm off to buy me a cake, for some reason I'm getting hungry for one, I will however forgo the dems candles
There are some who I would absolutely agree with your analogy.
But allow me to raise the likes of AOC (yeah, low hanging fruit - but she is an elected Congresswoman) - firstly she is a member of the Democratic Socialists (they do love their contradicting names) - however secondly, and I quote:
I mean - that is pretty clear cut as a direct quote.To me, capitalism is irredeemable,
Then there are the numerous members of the so-called progressive wing of the DNC - Pro-Palestine, Defund the Police, Green new deal etc. etc.
I put it to you that if that faction of the DNC got their way, then using your analogy - it would absolutely be a joyless vegan cake.
Now - for the sake of fairness, let me pick the most extreme person I can think of on the Republican side - Magic The Gathering - what would America look like if all of her most extreme positions came true - well it would be a Christian Christmas cake, with a Gun on the side, no FBI, no foreign aid, no illegal migrants etc....
But still a cake.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Kiwibiker
A massive over correction in my opinion, but I take your point.
As for policies, does maga have any? Today Trump was asked today what was his policy going to be for inflation? His response "vote for me, I will fix it". You are living in the days when the GOP existed, same goes for their policy statements. In case you missed it, the republican partys coffin was lowered into the grave when trump took over the RNC. You can type a shogun part two sized post and you will not shift my needle on this.
If trump wins, and lets face it, for the last month he has been doing his best to lose it - actual policy will only be known once the secretive project 25 mob come out of the shadow of secrecy and start administering it while trump is on the golf course 12 hours a day. The people deserve to know what policy a party is going to implement BEFORE the election. Anyone voting for trump will be in the dark more than those voting for Harris. Trumps policy for replacing obamacare - It will be a big beautiful plan - that's it. what a fucking joke, but that is the low bar the maga movement has settled for because trump owns the libs Weeeeeeeeeeeee
Can show you plenty of maga mob expounding free speech for me but not for thee.
I can see how it comes under healthcare, unless you are going to see a murky type with a coat hanger in a dark alley, however I noticed how both sides can talk about this subject for seemingly hours without mentioning the word "abortion" once. woman are still very pissed, and with maga mob having ivf in their sights, it is not an election winner for them.
The right lost credibility on the border when they killed a by-partisan bill that would of had the strictest ever border measures ever. While I agree that yes, trump was better at border policy in the past, he fucked that by killing the latest bill because he wanted it as an election hammer. Yet another demonstration why he should not be let near the presidency ever again.
Trump is for Trump, always has been and always will be. He is a grade "A" bucket of orange vomit, though that is being unkind towards buckets of actual orange vomit.
And no elections, for sure authoritarian, it is her dream. While you are correct on your AOC scenario, as I mentioned, the extreme left has been well suppressed by their leadership, thank god! But over on the right, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
While you are correct, if AOC took over, I have no doubt that the cake would be leaning way left into the joyless zone, but while we are talking horrific scenarios, I invite you to imagine if you have the stomach strength for it - a President Hillary Clinton, and Vice President AOC and secretary of state Omar. They somehow won the election in 2028, the corrupt supreme court has already ordained a no worries on committing any crimes they deem in the name of the presidency. Right wing bodies start falling out of high rise building windows like confetti at a rich Indian wedding, so many it even has putin blushing. Now think of this wrecking crew with the powers that the maga mob had put in place the cycle before having got schedule F through and the now actual marxists party has put in their own hand picked stooges throughout all of government.
Feel comfortable with schedule F and free crimes for presidents now?
Be careful what you wish for good sir.
The Majestic Metal Wizard
Agree to Disagree.
Reduce Federal bureaucracy.
Energy Independence.
Reduce government spending on BS (which is what will address inflation)
Deregulation etc.
It is hard to claim secrecy - when they have published the document in all its 900 page glory.If trump wins, and lets face it, for the last month he has been doing his best to lose it - actual policy will only be known once the secretive project 25 mob come out of the shadow of secrecy and start administering it while trump is on the golf course 12 hours a day. The people deserve to know what policy a party is going to implement BEFORE the election. Anyone voting for trump will be in the dark more than those voting for Harris. Trumps policy for replacing obamacare - It will be a big beautiful plan - that's it. what a fucking joke, but that is the low bar the maga movement has settled for because trump owns the libs Weeeeeeeeeeeee
Sure - however - I am willing to bet there is some context in those clips - that it is in response to certain groups. Maintaining a principle that advantages your opponent when they will absolutely not grant you the same courtesy is a tough sell. Allowing a group a freedom that allows them to subvert your position that they would not grant in return is difficult.
There are days when it is tempting.
But it is not healthcare, is it? Medical procedure? Sure. But it is not healthcare. However, this is beside the point - which is to show the drift of position - from one that a self-avowed right winger is happy with, to one that is repugnant.
I have heard different versions of this - namely that tacked onto the bill was a whole bunch of other stuff that was not to do with the border. But again - I want to reframe the point - 17 years ago, the Left was talking about the Border like any rational politician would, now the Left wants to abolish border controls
No one thought that until 2015. When he announced his run for Presidency. Remember how I asked you for all the reasons you hated Trump and all the claims from yourself and others could all be traced to hit-pieces written after he announced his candidacy.
Have they been Suppressed - again - look at the shift in Policy - We have gone from Law and Order to Defund the Police. Freedom of Speech to Hatespeech. Borders need to be secure to abolish ICE.
And these are mainstream democrat policy positions.
The shift left of the Democrats over the last 20 years or so has been massive. Further examples - Joe Rogan - a Self-confessed Bernie Bro who believes in UBI (Universal Basic Income) - is considered Far Right. Russel Brand who is a practically a Socialist is condemned as Far Right.
Thus my point: There is a radical faction of the Democrats that is pushing them further and further Left - and whilst there are certainly some in the party that are more of the, shall we say, Managerial persuasion (Neither left or right per se, but believe they know what is best for people and so need power to rule) - they are happy to sleep next to the radical element - because ultimately they both believe in power.
I have seen many a left-wing commentator make this argument or variations of it (the most popular being that they could send the SEALs in to assassinate people - completely ignoring Posse comitatus).
The ruling is for official acts.
Now, the legislation and precedent around this is hazy - I will grant you - but let us use an example from history:
The Louisiana Purchase - done by Jefferson, with authority he did not have. There was a lot of debate at the time (and amongst subsequent historians) around this - and the general consensus is that what Jefferson did was right and correct - but that he did not have the legal authority to do what he did. E.g. what he did was illegal.
This is a type of action where the President would have immunity for something done in an official capacity.
Another example - Obama and Bush and their foreign wars and drone strikes - I include them together so as to make the argument bi-partisan. Both have been accused as War Criminals - both are immune from prosecution because these are official acts, taken as President.
Despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth - this is inline with other legal theories - such as Qualified Immunity for Police.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Hardcore Biker
Hardcore Biker
Integrating federal agencies (inc FBI, DOJ, DOC, FCC, HSS, etc, etc.) under the Direct Control of the Executive branch (President/King) This is 'Unitary Executive Theory' into Practice.
All designed to undermine the independent rule of law, separation of powers, separation of church and state, and civil liberties, etc ,etc.
You would think that persons truly concerned with their 'personal independence' would find this extremely disconcerting.
The Majestic Metal Wizard
Are those entities the Judiciary or the Legislature?
Or are they branches of the Executive and therefore come under the auspices of the President (as head of the Executive)?
This is textbook separation of powers. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the reason that a lot of the Alphabet Agencies are in the crosshairs is precisely because they have been acting as their own Legislature, Judiciary and Executive, in violation of the concept of separation of powers.
That is - they have been making law without the passing of acts by Congress or the Senate, they have been re-interpreting the law as they see fit and then enforcing that law.
Case in point - the Pistol brace ban (there are other notable instances).
On the Civil Liberties front - the system is designed to function much the same as it always has:
The Executive tries to do something not supported in Law (the Legislature) or Precedent (the Judiciary) - Legal challenges are filed:
If it is something that the People have voted for (e.g. they have enough representation in Congress and the Senate) - then Legislation is written to make whatever it is legal.
If it is something new, but similar to other majority judicial opinions - then precedent is set.
If it is not something that the People have voted for - then Congress and the Senate can write legislation expressly forbidding it.
If it is something not in-line with Judicial opinion - then ultimately the supreme court will strike it down as unconstitutional.
FWIW - as an aside - half of the issues here have been because the very roadblocks in the US governmental system put in place by the founding fathers to prevent authoritarian from taking hold were stopping 'progress' from happening and so the various agencies decided to become their own little fiefdom.
That all said - there is one thing conspicuous by its absence - even if I take everything you say at face value - the claim was authoritarian kleptocracy - the President having greater control over the executive does not prove that.
And in the American context - as they are want to say - the Second Amendment protects all the others.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
In the riders seat
Defunding the police is all about Law and Order, It's just approaching it from a different angle
"If you can make black marks on a straight from the time you turn out of a corner until the braking point of the next turn, then you have enough power."
The Majestic Metal Wizard
I know what you mean - but I gotta ask:
How'd that all work out?
That is without expanding on the second point which is that certain people view the police and judiciary as systemically corrupt racist institutions and want to get rid of them completely, so that this can fuel divisions in society that will ultimately lead to the proletariat rising up...
It is not about Law and Order and never was. It was always about undermining western civilization.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Geriatric hoon
For some years they have been the most effective opposition to Trump. Their ads can be brilliant. I listen to Wilson regularly.
Wilson, Conway, and the others are Republicans though and when Trump is finally gone some Democrats are in for a shock.
There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop
Forum whore
Such an honest candidate...
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/525...ft-endorsement
it's not a bad thing till you throw a KLR into the mix.
those cheap ass bitches can do anything with ductape.
(PostalDave on ADVrider)
Kiwibiker
I know how the opposite worked out when in the 90's when after successive governments had underfunded mental health and many of the psychiatric hospitals were shuttered due to building decay. The government of the day (cannot remember which flavor it was) simply cast most of the patients out onto the streets and the police suddenly became mental health providers. It was a disaster then, and still is to quite some degree now. I lived in Porirua in those days and saw the carnage first hand.
To spout "the left want to defund the police" and leave the statement at that is disingenuous. Right up there with the right saying in the states that the dastardly dems support abortion right up to and even after birth - which is absurd as at that point by law it is considered murder/infanticide.
Ultimately, Yes left "some" wing radicals want to defund the police in the manner which you are suggesting, however they are a very small minority.
I'm far from convinced that presenting right (or left) wing talking points as gospel translates to a stable position from which to make compelling arguments.
Got plenty to say about your other post to me, just trying to work out a format to do so without driving other forum members around the twist because of our walls of quoted text.
We should probably at least attempt to only discuss one point at a time lest we be run out of dodge for creating mental instability among those not so keen on our brand of discourse
The Majestic Metal Wizard
So - on this point, no argument from me. Mental Health facilities are inadequate. The Police are not Mental Health providers.
And yes, both in NZ and the USA it was the right wing that axed the Mental Institutions.
Okay - it is a fair critique to a point. So let me expand - there are some people who advocate for "defund the police" who genuinely believe that funds spent on enforcement would have better mileage being spent on preventative programs. And that is a sentiment I think has a degree of merit.
I would much rather spend my Tax Dollars on something that prevented a kid committing a crime and earning a criminal record than I would the extra officers to arrest them and having that stigma for life.
However... If you want to explore the nuance of it, there are additional points that need to be made:
The efficacy of the programs that were supposedly to replace the Police were of a dubious nature.
The communities where these experiments were being run were historically under-policed, and so defunding the police lead to them being even more under-policed.
And my original point that there is a group, who loudly believe in the defund part because of their philosophical outlook on life: A Law is by definition, exclusionary. There is something you can or something you cannot do. It creates a division. And we cannot live in our perfect utopia if there is a means by which people are different.
And it is the latter group who use the trojan horse of community outreach programs to breach the walls of Troy.
Two points here - firstly, I have seen and heard Left-wing activist types (almost entirely women) saying that they would support Abortion up to Birth (and in some cases, beyond) - now, to be fair - most of these clips were in the context of informal debate, so I am taking them with a little grain of salt as I am not sure in *most* cases they genuinely believe that, more that they were backed into a corner and so agreed with the inference in order to not loose face.
Secondly is the infamous quote by one: Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam.
Even when taking in context and even allowing him grace in that he is talking about fringe scenarios that are difficult - what he said:
That still sounds horrific to me.[Third trimester abortions are] done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
They are the tail that wags the dog though.
I wont be down your ways for a while, but sounds like it would be a great opportunity to do it over a pint, in front of a fire.I'm far from convinced that presenting right (or left) wing talking points as gospel translates to a stable position from which to make compelling arguments.
Got plenty to say about your other post to me, just trying to work out a format to do so without driving other forum members around the twist because of our walls of quoted text.
We should probably at least attempt to only discuss one point at a time lest we be run out of dodge for creating mental instability among those not so keen on our brand of discourse
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Kiwibiker
For the sake of shortness of reply, anything I don't comment on you can assume that point has become an "agree to disagree".
I'm yet to see trump talking with any kind of ,meaningful depth about any of these policies.
In my time of observing politics here and the USA - I consider the gold standard of articulating policy to be David Seymour. You are never left wondering what the policy is and how and when it will be implemented. While I do not agree with many of his policies, I do acknowledge his articulation of said policy is top draw stuff.
So, with Seymour being a 10 out of 10 for policy articulation, where do you place trump on that scale?
I give trump a 1 out of 10. He only gets the "1" for occasionally mentioning the title of a policy.
I'm not naive enough to believe that they have published every unpalatable policy they will seek to bring in - are you?
Simone Biles saying she "loved her black job". Had many fox contributors and commenters losing their heads and saying (the polite version) she should not wade into politics and only comment on gymnastics. And all she was doing was showing support for trump by quoting him
There are PLENTY of other instances out there where right wingers suddenly find free speech inconvenient. I see trump trolled taylor swift last night posting up an ai photo on truth social of her supposed supporters wearing swifties for trump t shirts and trump "accepting" their endorsement. If I were Swift, I would make an endorsement (as is her first amendment right) the night before the actual election date. Fuck trump lol.
Initially the left tried attaching Ukraine money to it, but then put it through separately. The maga mob then under trumps prompting refused to put the stand aslone version of it through to the senate. The rest of what you say (17 years ago etc) is moot because it was the strongest border proposal ever put forward in the history of the usa.
And I told you at the time that i formed my opinions on the lying piece of shits own words from videos. I already thought he was a dickhead from his apprentice days, though a entertaining dickhead, i prob watched at least 10 episodes of it.
Funny you bring up rogan, as trump dissed him big time last week when he dared to say he would vote RFK. Your guy is a proper cry baby eh, wahhhhh, waaaahhhhhh waaaaaahhhhhhhh
Cuts both ways sport, as you well know both sides have to live with their radicals, and the left right now, waaaaaaaay better than the right at controlling them. For example - the maga mob in the house have shown for the last 2 years is they cannot work together and sure as shit cannot pass laws, you know - their job! Marge is now trying to remove their latest speaker lol
Your history lesson past this point are also moot as hazy is exactly what this corrupted supreme court was going for.
If they have shown anything over the last two years, this supreme court will cheerfully pop past presidents into the trash in aid of their convicted criminal mate and corporate masters.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks