Controversial General Political Discussion

[Jew D. Boy]

I just wouldn’t underestimate him. He has no morals and cares only about power. He hated Trump in the past, now he’s part of the administration.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5133970-vance-khanna-doge-staffer-rehiring/amp/

Bro literally supported hiring a dude that hates his wife and kids. There is probably nothing this man won’t do for a political win.

Shana Tova btw

That’s an accurate description, but he only rode into the White House on Donnie’s tacky coattails, he wouldn’t have stood a chance at the top of the ticket back then and I doubt he would now. Hell, Ted Cruz capitulated to the guy who called his father the Zodiac Killer because he knew his political legacy will always be that of a failed candidate, these guys learn their place and are comfortable with getting filthy rich by scamming as many of their constituents as possible in exchange for never even sniffing the presidency. JD will get the boot whenever his boss leaves office and he’ll run for governor or the Senate, but he’s already reached the highest position he’s ever gonna hold. Also, Shana Tova back to you! I’d say “Next year in Jerusalem,” but, well, you know…

 

[Logiko]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1970073293030871325

 

[Blax Blah]

Your Nazi, sir

But he also said black women don't have as much brain processing power as white people, and that the civil rights act of 1964 was a mistake

And the people running his podcast now said "some deaths are funny" and mocked Aaron Bushnell, who burned himself to draw attention to the palestinians' issues

Post automatically merged: Today at 9:23 AM

On the surface the Democratic Party seems better, but they always compromise and bend the knee because they got no choice; the political landscape forces them to. America leans so much to the right that a centrist like Bernie Sanders is called a communist or radical leftist.

In order to campaign, you need funding. You don't get funding from corporations and organizations without appealing to the status quo, and it was the biggest reason Bender Sanders always lost. His policies go too much against the status quo, so they push other candidates over him.

The biggest issue with the Democratic Party is that they fund far right candidates to make themselves look like the lesser evil. The pick the easiest, most outrageous far right candidates in their minds in order to easily win seats. This strategy, though successful at times, has backfired and got far rightist voted in at the state level, and federal level in the senate and house. The biggest blunder so far was them funding Donald Trump in 2015 and 16.

What I heard was this:

All these concessions to the people did not come about by voting or anything like that, they came about because the threat from the workers was too great to their wealth

For example, social democracy is a compromise hoping to pacify strong unions, so they would not just overthrow the capitalists

So now that there aren't really strong and radical unions, these concessions have no backbone to stand on, so the thing that propped the democrats and social democrats up in suceeding within the system isn't there anymore, and the system has no incentive to appease the workers anymore, since the workers don't have much power anymore, since they are not organised in strong radical unions that make big demands and have the force through organisation of workers to back it up

 

[RyoQ]

But he also said black women don't have as much brain processing power as white people

He listed 4 black women, he did not say all "black women are less intelligent than whites".

and that the civil rights act of 1964 was a mistake

Being against DEI = Nazi

Half his lines of reasoning for being against DEI are that it hurts blacks.

He is against DEI because it gives an unfair advantage to blacks which implies he doesn't feel they need it, AKA they are equally as capable as whites, something no Nazi would ever even consider.

 

[HerreraIsBack]

I love how that Vendal Savage cosplayer thinks he nailed and managed to understand everything while completely ignoring the works of actual political scientists and reworking new concept he just came up with with no actual basis on any kind of work.

Trying to make us believe that somehow the left and the right was simply something related to political parties and not a form of systemic patterns of behaviors related to both progressism and conservatism.

I mean, this bad Francis Lalanne clone literally invisibilized the fact that leftists and marginalized were directly targeted by nazism to explain that naming nazism leftist or rightist was BS. Nazism was rightist, but more so far rightist and fascist. Why ? Because it's rooted into deep liberal, capitalist, eugenistic, and historically conservative idea. That's an historical fact. You can be mad at it, it's reality and the way we describe rightism at the moment.

Trying to defend that fascism was actually anti-individualistic while quoting.... you guessed it : THE FASCIST HIMSELF BENITO MUSSOLINI. Let me repeat: You are sharing a video of someone who is defending that fascism is anti-individualistic (when it's actually the opposite, it's the most individualistic ideology there is) through quoting the guy who made FUCKING FASCIST propaganda.

This medieval knight wanking moron literally holds his entire argument on "Nazism was just authoritarian" while completely invizibilizing the reactionnary ELEPHANT in the room.

Do not trust someone who do not use the work of scholar and suddenly try to make you think that he bypassed the entire knowledge of the world. It's usually pure reactionnary bullshit and it's the case here. And for the fucking love of usopp, don't trust someone who is telling you to help him fight back against the rewriting of history while praising fascists and taking pictures of himself playing with medieval gears to compensate his masculinity complex that will end up on a banner worthy of a first years graphic designer.

There is nothing impartial about what this guy is saying. How can you gobble that without actually taking a step back? Even when I was a conspiracy theorist, I was able to understand when some people went too far...

Sure let's ignore what the creators said and believe in what my communist journal says. Why bother having the direct source as a valid and credible one when you can have someone else delusional opinion instead?

I'm reformulating: This theory was verified scientifically. Meaning the content of the article I gave you.

Now, what I want to know, is if despite this, will you dissmiss it and why or will you trust it, and why?

Please don't. You are incapable of formulating a simple question. Stop pretending you are an intellectual. You are not. You just speak a bunch of nonsense.

 

[Blax Blah]

He listed 4 black women, he did not say all "black women are less intelligent than whites".




Being against DEI = Nazi

Half his lines of reasoning for being against DEI are that it hurts blacks.

He is against DEI because it gives an unfair advantage to blacks which implies he doesn't feel they need it, AKA they are equally as capable as whites, something no Nazi would ever even consider.

So is the civil rights act DEI?

The guy was racist, look there are many people on the far left who I completely disagree with, like the deprogram podcast I disagree on very many things, what they support and what I support are two different things that are completely opposed

The international workmen's association literally had a big rift between the anarchists and the authoritarians

I would say don't go out there and defend people like Trump or Kirk or others just because they are on the right, because some of them are lunatics

Post automatically merged: Today at 12:54 PM

One of the subreddits I use the most is tankiejerk, it is a far left subreddit, that talks about the bad takes of authoritarian socialists, and debunks those, like TheDeprogram podcast, Bad Empanada, China supporters, USSR Cuba etc supports, and those people are called tankies

Just because you're on the same wing of politics as someone doesn't mean you have the same views or want the same things

Post automatically merged: Today at 12:58 PM

This is its description:

TankieJerk: Revengeance

Dunking on tankies from a leftist (anti-capitalist) perspective. A tankie is someone who defends/supports authoritarian/ totalitarian regimes under the guise of socialism. The term originated from those who supported the 1956 invasion of Hungary by the Soviet Union. Nowadays, most tankies are terminally online genocide-deniers who fall heavily for the state propaganda coming from their beloved regimes.

 

[Mathias]

How much fame will Tyler Robinson get ?

And how many more ?

Post automatically merged: Today at 1:14 PM

Before it stops.

 

[Kizaruber Eats]

https://www.scenemag.co.uk/grindr-outage-during-charlie-kirk-memorial-sparks-satirical-frenzy/

 

[RyoQ]

So is the civil rights act DEI?

Kirk is against it or aspects of it due to DEI, you can disagree about whether the 1964 is actually dei or not

Meanwhile you are attempting to say he was against it because he was pro-segregation or some shit. Dishonestly you take something he said like that and don't explain "why"

The guy was racist

No he wasn't. He was against DEI believing it gave blacks an advantage which implies without it they would be equally capable as white something he has stated many times over the years.

He encouraged blacks, even LGBT+ blacks like Rob Smith, to join Republicans and publically defended them

You are inside of a left wing echo chamber and clearly do not interact with anyone on the right, let alone the far right at all, because the perception from our side for the past decade is that he is a moderate and civic nationalist type who doesn't represent the dissident right at all, and through his organization, gatekeeps it from entering the mainstream

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

No he wasn't. He was against DEI believing it gave blacks an advantage which implies without it they would be equally capable as white

Lmao

 

[Blax Blah]

Kirk is against it or aspects of it due to DEI, you can disagree about whether the 1964 is actually dei or not

Meanwhile you are attempting to say he was against it because he was pro-segregation or some shit. Dishonestly you take something he said like that and don't explain "why"




No he wasn't. He was against DEI believing it gave blacks an advantage which implies without it they would be equally capable as white something he has stated many times over the years.

He encouraged blacks, even LGBT+ blacks like Rob Smith, to join Republicans and publically defended them

You are inside of a left wing echo chamber and clearly do not interact with anyone on the right, let alone the far right at all, because the perception from our side for the past decade is that he is a moderate and civic nationalist type who doesn't represent the dissident right at all, and through his organization, gatekeeps it from entering the mainstream

Well I was on the right for a long time, what made me go to the far left was realising the issue of profit being theft, and of wage labour being exploitation

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

We all lean on it being staged with a pantsy.
1) the blood splurge is very common with exist wounds
2) Kirk was shot in the spinal cord seeing how he tensed up instead of going limp
3) Looking at the footage frame by frame, you can see something hitting the back of him, and him immediately reacting to the hit with his neck skin stretching outward. Next frame is the exit wound
4) First thing security and FBI did was cameras behind Kirk
5) Feds did nothing to secure the scene and instead, immediate construction. Securing the scene and evidence is the basics.
6) They claim Tyler(the alleged gunman), disassemble his gun, put it in his backpack, then jumped from the roof, ran to the woods, reassembled the gun, and then buried it.

Those of us with even minimal investigation experience thinks its insane.

That would mean his chat with the trans roommate is staged too.

 

[RyoQ]

Well I was on the right for a long time, what made me go to the far left was realising the issue of profit being theft, and of wage labour being exploitation

You were never on the right if you think Charlie fucking Kirk was anything close to a Nazi or RW extremist. LOL

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

We all lean on it being staged with a pantsy.
1) the blood splurge is very common with exist wounds
2) Kirk was shot in the spinal cord seeing how he tensed up instead of going limp
3) Looking at the footage frame by frame, you can see something hitting the back of him, and him immediately reacting to the hit with his neck skin stretching outward. Next frame is the exit wound
4) First thing security and FBI did was cameras behind Kirk
5) Feds did nothing to secure the scene and instead, immediate construction. Securing the scene and evidence is the basics.
6) They claim Tyler(the alleged gunman), disassemble his gun, put it in his backpack, then jumped from the roof, ran to the woods, reassembled the gun, and then buried it.

Those of us with even minimal investigation experience thinks its insane.

I looked at it again and you do have a point.
The way his neck tissue seems to be pushed towards the front is strange.

 

[RyoQ]

Lmao

Logic so solid you can chide but not actually counterpoint. He believed in meritocracy

 

[Blax Blah]

You were never on the right if you think Charlie fucking Kirk was anything close to a Nazi or RW extremist. LOL

What does being on the right mean to you?

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

Tinfoil time:
Kirk's murder was staged by the same group that made an attempt on Trump's life to create martyrs in order to further rile up the right and increase political divisions.
Or it was Trump himself ordering a hit on Kirk to distract from the Epstein files.
OR even more shady background characters ordered both to distract from the Epstein files because Trump is not the highest profile name on the list.

Or all of these and then some.

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

We all lean on it being staged with a pantsy.
1) the blood splurge is very common with exist wounds
2) Kirk was shot in the spinal cord seeing how he tensed up instead of going limp
3) Looking at the footage frame by frame, you can see something hitting the back of him, and him immediately reacting to the hit with his neck skin stretching outward. Next frame is the exit wound
4) First thing security and FBI did was cameras behind Kirk
5) Feds did nothing to secure the scene and instead, immediate construction. Securing the scene and evidence is the basics.
6) They claim Tyler(the alleged gunman), disassemble his gun, put it in his backpack, then jumped from the roof, ran to the woods, reassembled the gun, and then buried it.

Those of us with even minimal investigation experience thinks its insane.

Man it's crazy you could watch the clip over and over again to analyze it like that. Not an insult either, I'm just saying you must have seen some real fucked shit to be able to do that over and over like that without flinching.

 

[RyoQ]

What does being on the right mean to you?

You think being against DEI (the bare minimum for even being conservative) means being a Nazi. You weren't ever right-wing

You were some apolitical or moderate who was convinced to lean left.

 

[Blax Blah]

I was pro-capitalism, thought feminism was extreme or something, thought communism was an issue, watched right wing channels and podcasts