That Thread about US current events

[Halal Cyborg]

I would argue that that’s what socialist politicians always do...so to me equally socialist.

 

I never said communist.

 

They certainly weren’t capitalist.

 

On a different note I wonder how much COVID19 had a part to play in all the tensions we’ve seen rise this past year?

People locked down with their own personal echo chamber is never a good thing

[sivispacem]

19 minutes ago, Halal Cyborg said:

I would argue that that’s what socialist politicians always do

I don't think you have a real appreciation of what socialism actually entails.

 

19 minutes ago, Halal Cyborg said:

I never said communist.

I'm not sure what in my comments makes you think I suggested you did.

 

19 minutes ago, Halal Cyborg said:

They certainly weren’t capitalist.

Given that capitalism is defined by private ownership of the means of production I think you'll find they were a lot closer than they were to socialism in which the means of production is socially owned. 

[Bartleby]

1 hour ago, Halal Cyborg said:

Yes I feel this way and its my opinion that I have come to...it doesn’t mean I need to do more research.

 

You know maybe this practice of regularly meeting an informed, evidenced position purely with unfounded opinion as if it's somehow an effective riposte is exactly what gets you the mockery and derision you seem to be so irritated by.

 

On the one hand, you want to be taken seriously, and on the other you continue to show yourself to be intellectually lazy.

 

I mean.....you don't see the connection between the two?

 

Quote

Also Hitler was a socialist.

 

Oh good lord.

[Craigsters]

 

 

 

 

I wonder if the government well have  manhunts for   those that make hate speech etc or participate in activity's that maybe dangerous  to society, like when they were looking for communist in the 1950's when communist were blacklisted?

Edited January 9, 2021 by Craigsters

[ddarko12]

10 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

That's a very convenient way of getting out of having to argue anything by simply applying a racial requirement to debating. Real convenient for you.

 

Oh, sorry, you're not white. You can't argue taxation with me. too bad.

 

'you just dont get it' isn't a good argument here. If your point has any validity it should be able to stand on its own. Not have some sort of racial requirement. The only people accepting of that racial requirement are either too scared to actually argue with you, or suffer from some complex that leads to racial guilt which just blindly accepts what you just said. No one should rationally accept it. Just explain your position to me reasonably.

That argument is used towards people like you who don't even experience what you're trying to dispute, because you're gaslighting and think using studies and graphs geared towards your narrative will prove your point without any actual experience.

 

10 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

Even if you're law-abiding, the median Black income is lower than any other racial group in the US, and as such their communities tend to be in poorer areas with higher crime rates. Of the most dangerous US cities, the most dangerous neighborhoods are overwhelmingly Black. As such, just in pure numbers, Blacks are more likely to run into encounters with police officers in areas where cops would face the most danger. So even if you're law abiding you're just more likely to run into cops as a Black person.

That is a crock of sh*t. My family is pretty upper middle class, we live in a nice area and you can still face prejudice here even from the police. It can and does happen anywhere and if anything it feels more uncomfortable being in nicer areas as a black person. It feels like you're more likely to be monitored and treated like an outsider. I used to shop at our outdoor mall a lot and the security just eyeballed me like a hawk and always seems to be wherever I am. And I've been stopped multiple times to ask why I'm out there so much...

 

Honestly, I think the consensus in this thread is that you're spewing nonsense so I don't know why I'm even bothering. Hell this isn't even about BLM it's about that failed coup on Tuesday that I repeat, isn't even comparable to the July protests.

Edited January 9, 2021 by ddarko12

[Fake Lilina]

On 1/8/2021 at 1:51 AM, Craigsters said:

I for some reason find this funny...

[jackedbanan]

look at the thread name, failed coup attempt? lmfao

[make total destroy]

7 hours ago, Halal Cyborg said:

 

Also Hitler was a socialist.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratic republic.

[sivispacem]

10 minutes ago, jackedbanan said:

look at the thread name, failed coup attempt? lmfao

Good thing your opinions are as sh*t as your username.

[Laura91]

14 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

 

at least he didnt spy on them and put them on criminal lists

 

u mad? Seriously though calm down.

 

No one should ever take politics that serious where they actually get mad. Honestly its effin pathetic. I hate seeing that.

 

It leads to people actually fighting and arguing and getting all enflamed over differing political views. Thats the problem with this nation.

 

Treat it like sports instead its not that serious. I majored in this topic and spent a looot of time on it so take it from me: it's really not that serious. 

 

 

 

 

 

You are a dimwit. Of course Drumpf was doing that sh*t. He was continuing all of those policies and aspired to ramp things up. Also, I don't treat politics as a sport. You are a f*cking dunce if you think that is what is happening in my post. Both sides f*cking suck. "It's not that serious". Wow. Again, you are a f*cking dimwit. This sh*t IS serious. Anyone who believes otherwise is a pie in the sky moron that understands f*ck-all about anything.

[Craigsters]

[sivispacem]

1 hour ago, Laura91 said:

 

You are a dimwit. Of course Drumpf was doing that sh*t. He was continuing all of those policies and aspired to ramp things up. Also, I don't treat politics as a sport. You are a f*cking dunce if you think that is what is happening in my post. Both sides f*cking suck. "It's not that serious". Wow. Again, you are a f*cking dimwit. This sh*t IS serious. Anyone who believes otherwise is a pie in the sky moron that understands f*ck-all about anything.

 

15 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

Treat it like sports instead its not that serious. I majored in this topic and spent a looot of time on it so take it from me: it's really not that serious. 

 

Holy f*ck I missed this post when skimming the previous ones to respond to. Majored in politics? From where? Zorban's Grilled Chicken University Kebab Van?

 

Jesus wept.

[ṼirulenⱦEqừinox]

4 minutes ago, Craigsters said:

 

3. He was never going to get lifetime secret service details, Clinton is the last president who will get lifetime protection, all Presidents starting with W. Bush will only receive SSA Protection for 10 years after they leave Office after that they must provide their own security.

 

Quote

A 1994 statute, Pub.L. 103–329, limited post-presidential protection to ten years for presidents inaugurated after January 1, 1997.

 

[Nrav]

 

[Laura91]

16 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

Holy f*ck I missed this post when skimming the previous ones to respond to. Majored in politics? From where? Zorban's Grilled Chicken University Kebab Van?

 

Jesus wept.

 

f*ck you. I don't care if you are a mod or not. You honestly had nothing to say. So, you pulled that out of your ass. Get bent.

[unopescio]

28 minutes ago, ṼirulenⱦEqừinox said:

 

3. He was never going to get lifetime secret service details, Clinton is the last president who will get lifetime protection, all Presidents starting with W. Bush will only receive SSA Protection for 10 years after they leave Office after that they must provide their own security.

 

 

WRONG this was overturned by Obama all future presidents will receive lifetime protection from the secret service.

[sivispacem]

17 minutes ago, Laura91 said:

 

f*ck you. I don't care if you are a mod or not. You honestly had nothing to say. So, you pulled that out of your ass. Get bent.

I forgot that the forum doesn't nest quotes anymore. For posterity, that wasn't aimed at you, it was supposed to be directed at E.A.B. I was supposed to be agreeing with you...

[Eutyphro]

11 hours ago, sivispacem said:

The politest way I can describe the suggestion that some fairly wishy washy comments of the ends of direct action are akin or comparable to inciting and enabling an armed insurrection is "ridiculous".

"Direct action" which is a euphemism for violent communism. It's confusing how you keep defending this notion. But we should also just call it for what it is, violent communism. Apart from the BLM figure of 93% peaceful protests, to be fair, that's not that low. I consider comparing the toxic side of BLM to the alt right like comparing aids to cancer. They are both absolutely terrible.

I know this is the Sivispacem vs everyone flame war thread by now, but I do wonder about these things. This thread is full of absolutely ludicrous sh*te like someone making a post about how Obama is the most fascist president ever.

Edited January 9, 2021 by Eutyphro

[sivispacem]

Just now, Eutyphro said:

"Direct action" which is a euphemism for violent communism. 

No, it's not.

 

"Direct action" isn't a euphemism for anything, it's a term used to describe protest activity designed to cause direct effects (most commonly disruption) in pursuit of a political aim. 

[make total destroy]

3 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

"Direct action" which is a euphemism for violent communism. It's confusing how you keep defending this notion. But we should also just call it for what it is, violent communism. 

lmao

[Nrav]

So this "Q Shaman" moron with the painted face and valknut tattoo got arrested as well: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/three-men-charged-connection-events-us-capitol

[Eutyphro]

If you want to call out Trumpists that invade the Capitol building we should also call out hordes of woke maniacs that intimidate politicians in restaurants, or theatres, or defile their homes, under the guise of 'direct action'. We can't condemn one type of intimidation of politicians and pretend the other is fine.

Edited January 9, 2021 by Eutyphro

[Laura91]

13 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

I forgot that the forum doesn't nest quotes anymore. For posterity, that wasn't aimed at you, it was supposed to be directed at E.A.B. I was supposed to be agreeing with you...

 

Okay. I got the wrong impression from your post. I apologize.

[sivispacem]

5 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

If you want to call out Trumpists that invade the Capitol building we should also call out hordes of woke maniacs that intimidate politicians in restaurants, or theatres, or defile their homes, under the guise of 'direct action'. 

I'd rather call out people who create false moral equivalence between literal neo-Nazis attempting to overthrow democratically elected governments and people who splash paint on the sidewalk to make a political point.

[make total destroy]

10 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

If you want to call out Trumpists that invade the Capitol building we should also call out hordes of woke maniacs that intimidate politicians in restaurants, or theatres, or defile their homes, under the guise of 'direct action'. We can't condemn one type of intimidation of politicians and pretend the other is fine.

I don't really condemn ransacking the Capitol tbh

 

It's not so much the property destruction, clashing with police, and looting state property I take issue with. It's the motivations behind the actions that I would condemn.

[FanEu7]

This thread is getting pretty heated now and illustrates the  division in the US right now lol

Edited January 9, 2021 by FanEu7

[ṼirulenⱦEqừinox]

1 hour ago, unopescio said:

WRONG this was overturned by Obama all future presidents will receive lifetime protection from the secret service.

Thanks for the clarification

 

--------------------------------

 

Another one bites the dust

 

 

[Nrav]

38 minutes ago, ṼirulenⱦEqừinox said:

Thanks for the clarification

 

--------------------------------

 

Another one bites the dust

 

 

Oh dear, someone’s losing his pension. :'D

[Reformed Squid]

attention,, LIBTURDS, PEDOFILES, AND COMMIES !!!

On the SIXTH of JANUARY we saw patriots STOP THE STEAL and god TRUMP came to save AMERICA !!! The MSM evil pedofile ring FOX news liberals tells you that he wasnt there but I have IMAGE PROOF he was there he was there !!!

 

www.image of trump at capital.com why isnt this working i think im being censored by the China Joe

 

ok make the next sentence bold ALL THE PROOF OF THE ELECTION FRAUD (sorry my dog ate it} AND THE LAMESTREAM METEOR STILL WONT DO THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE !!! By the way I have a lot of black friends who agree with me and i am not racist but sometimes black ppl do things i dont like like steal from walmart and call me bad names .

 

China joe China Chinese joe

ok now add an image of China Joe eating poop

 

Have to leave . My nurse says its time for my meds

[E.A.B.]

19 hours ago, sivispacem said:

I'm sorry but if you honestly, genuinely believe this, then I can only conclude that you have either zero factual appreciation for American political history, or no real understanding of the definition of Fascism.

Put simply, there is not a single aspect of the Obama administration which even conceptually skirts fascist ideology.

 

I don't know what's so hard to understand because I made it abundantly clear in my prior posts that Obama wasn't a fascist. 'Closest' does not mean 'he was a fascist'.

 

If I had a lineup of 30 priests-all good men. And I had to decide which was the 'closest' to satan, I'd pick the guy that got the mail 3 minutes late. That does not mean he is anything near what Satan is, or even evil whatsoever. But he is the "closest". It's like people only read what they want to.

 

I even used the modifier 'recent history' because I understand he wasn't a fascist destroying America, but the point was that he pulled off some sh*t that exceeds some guy sh*tposting on Twitter.

 

I *could* argue some of the finer points in the post:

 

Quote

it was not characterised by suppression of individual liberty or authoritarianism.

 

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/just-the-facts-what-we-know-about-the-nsa-spying-on-americans/

 

Does spying on Americans count? And you know what, even then I'm not totally against the NSA spying on Americans during Obama's tenure. I'm not even against Obama killing Americans without a trial. I even understand declaring wars on nations without the approval of Congress. I'm just saying these points CAN be debated.

 

Quote

Also, whilst we're on the subject of questionable assertions, drawing any kind of analogy between the events that took place on the 6th and Trump's role in inciting them, and the BLM protests and comments made by ideological supporters of the movement is absolutely absurd. In one instance you have a primarily peaceful movement (93% of the circa 2,500 BLM protests saw zero recorded instances of violence) addressing legitimate societal grievances, and on the other you have an army of far right, neo-Nazi and white supremacist goons equipped with firearms and IEDs who attempted to overthrow a legitimately elected political administration, kidnap and kill government employees they saw as traitors, and who in about three hours of violence in one location resulted in more fatalities and more dead law enforcement officers than have been attributed to the actions of BLM and their supporters in over 2,400 protests across 5 months.

 

This, I believe, is disingenuous. It's easy to characterize the fringe elements of a movement as the entire movement, and throughout the summer that is precisely what the right did to BLM.

 

It's really no different what you're doing here. Point out the fringe, and apply it to the whole. Trump had something like 70 million votes in the election; 70 million didn't storm the capital. Granted, I doubt all the people that voted for him agree with his conspiracy theory. But even if its 200 people total, it wasn't 200 people storming the capital.

 

About the only point I can really address here is the "addressing legitimate societal grievances" and "resulted in more dead law enforcement officers than have been attributed to the actions of BLM and their supporters"

 

The latter is objectively false:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_killings_of_NYPD_officers

 

The shooting occurred just weeks after a grand jury decided not to indict NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo, who was responsible for the death of Eric Garner on July 17, 2014.^[2] The grand jury's decision resulted in widespread protests in New York City and across the nation against police brutality and the lack of accountability for it.^[3] The protests also coincided with widespread protests in response to a grand jury's decision not to indict Darren Wilson, the police officer who shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, on August 9.^[4] Brinsley's motive to kill the NYPD officers was motivated by outrage over the two deaths.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers

 

On July 7, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson ambushed and fired upon a group of police officers in Dallas, Texas, killing five officers and injuring nine others. Two civilians were also wounded. Johnson was an Army Reserve Afghan War veteran and was angry over police shootings of black men. He stated that he wanted to kill white people, especially white police officers. The shooting happened at the end of a protest against the police killings of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, which had occurred in the preceding days.

 

I await the, "not all BLM supporters are like this" after the "These Trump crazies need to all be shut down".

 

It's not even a contest anyway I don't know why this is a point to argue. My entire thing has always been the hypocrisy of certain segments suddenly disparaging an entire movement and group of people over those that chose to do something stupid. And the sudden outcry and outrage when these same people rationalized the BLM burnings. That's my gripe.

 

Quote

AOC's expression of support for the ends of direct action is not an incitement to violence. She hasn't committed seditious conspiracy by claiming herself the rightful leader of the US and actively encouraged her followers to perform actions specifically designed to undermine the elected leadership and the US Constitution. AOC did not use her powers to prevent the involvement of the National Guard  or federal law enforcement until after an attempted insurrection had failed. 

 

You know, unless someone can prove me wrong, Trump never called for direct action and incitement to violence either. I've tried looking for this, and I am more than willing to be proven wrong on this. But the most I've found are NYT articles that quote him saying something along the lines of, "GONNA BE IN DC! STOP THE STEAL! LETS GET WILD!" or somesuch. Which is not a direct call to violent action. By that metric I can read into a *lot of things* by BLM supporters, and it wouldn't even be hard. "Pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon"? You can much more easily infer violent action from that than anything Trump has said.

 

Besides that I'm not here to defend Trump, and I don't want people to think I am. I agree that Trump, after months of lawsuits failing in courts, kept going and going like an idiot. I'm fine with vetting elections, but 3 months after the fact it became obvious that there's just no proof.

 

Quote

That's before we get onto the claims about race and crime which are construed in such a way as to ignore the core issues. Multiple academic studies have demonstrated that US law enforcement disproportionately targets ethnic minorities in their actions, with analysis suggesting that as many as 40% of police interactions with black Americans would not occur if the individual was white. Comparing outright numbers of police shooting victims ignores that demographics of the US, and comparing crime rates to shooting rates commits the double fallacy of ignoring the fact that commission of crime is not in itself a justification for shooting (only the specific circumstances of the incident are), and that the reasons for higher crime rates amongst ethnic minorities are chiefly a result of economic, political and social suppression.

 

I'm more than willing to see these studies, I'm just telling you why they may face more police stops and fatal encounters. The reasons for Blacks either living in poorer areas or comitting more crimes or what have you are up for debate, and I never said it can't be because of something systematic. I don't think that's the case, obviously. But I didn't shut it down.

 

I'm merely saying there's a reasonable explanation for more frequent fatal police encounters.

 

But I cant imagine how youd gauge that "40% of police interactions with black Americans would not occur if the individual was white". Within my coursework we had to formulate peer reviewed studies and I have no clue how you would even go about proving a negative. Isn't that an impossibility?

 

Quote

We've already seen a wholesale move to other platforms from those on the far right as their ability to use the larger social media platforms as a mouthpiece for their hate has been eroded.

 

'mouthpiece for hate' is questionable. The people on Parler are people like Megyn Kelly and Rand Paul, although he's inactive. I took a gander at it and I can't speak for the majority populace, but it has a lot of typical right wing politicos that are anything but 'hatespeech' spreaders. Either way, the idea of 'hate speech' is bullsh*t to begin with. And even then, what qualifies as such is questionable depending on what we're looking at. It's dangerous to begin a campaign against something as subjective as 'hate speech'. I'm not calling it in line with fascism, but it leads to similar control and subjugation.

 

Quote

and people who splash paint on the sidewalk to make a political point.

 

again, this is what Im talking about. The way you characterize a movement you dislike with one that has your full support is the issue.

 

Quote

Holy f*ck I missed this post when skimming the previous ones to respond to. Majored in politics? From where? Zorban's Grilled Chicken University Kebab Van?

 

Jesus wept.

 

I haven't been here in a while, but I recognize your name. Very familiar. And your posts are generally thoughtful and have a good modicum of thought put into them,.

 

But stuff like this diminishes both your larger point and the perception of you. Don't resort to the tactic of people that are either angry or flustered in a debate. It's why I'm riding this other guy so hard over being angry at me. I'm not actually mad at anyone that disagrees with me, but he sure as sh*t is.

 

You're better than low-brow insults. Cause we can do that all day. If you're gonna lash out and say "f*ck you" just say it instead of wasting my time reading an unfuny 'witty' insult.

 

Quote

Lol at the absolute dumbass saying Obama was the closest America got to fascism. Absolutely lol. Imagine thinking that unironically. Must have been living under a rock for the past 4 years.

good argument

Edited January 10, 2021 by E.A.B.