What's new
By:

The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

Al-O-Meter said:
Change the rules to strip half the country of its voice. Climb atop a steel building or sit outside a fence to assassinate their candidate. You make it sound not only justified but noble.


There aren’t two fundamental political realities. There are two works of mostly fiction. Both are like the movie Forrest Gump. There are portrayals of real events used as scaffolding for the story but it is a work of fiction. It is deeply concerning to see how many have seemingly lost the ability to tell the difference between what is real and what is being contrived.
  • There is no authoritarian on the ballot
  • American Fascism isn’t coming
  • Christian Nationalism is not a force in 2024
  • Trump did not try to overthrow the government or prevent a peaceful transfer of power
  • The election isn’t that important
Click to expand...

I'll take things that are false for 500, Alex.

You're joking right?
 
Bucknutz said:
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP!
Click to expand...
Nah mate, it does. A specific, targeted tariff can be useful for a variety of reason. Blanket tariffs, like what Trump wants, do not work. That **** has been tried and tried again and all it does it manufacture economic problems. What you take from that is up you to, but when you are using a video of a Trump surrogate trying to thinking we should tariff everything that comes into the US? Yeah, you tell me.
 
str8line said:
View attachment 17237
Click to expand...
They're trading in their dog whistles...

NIN01_grey_whistle3_event_prop_hire_optimised.jpg
 
Bucknutz said:
Okay 2 things.

1. The question was asked to me "Why am I anti-Kamala?"
My response was 1. Speech Regulation and 2. Mandatory Gun buybacks
This is because both of these ideas are chipping away from our rights and are terrible ideas, I mean terrible ideas. Speech regulation is the worst idea anyone can propose. Even posters on this forum are trying to get behind it, almost exclusively people on the left. Its a short sighted view on the topic and MT Steve is doing a great job explaining why.

2. I called Kamala a far left extremist, not because of those 2 things but because of:

1. Open Border policies
2. Pack the Supreme Court because you don't like what they have decided. You blame Trump for this, but it is a Democrat who did not step down when age and health was a concern and gave Trump a 3rd pick
3. Remove the Filibuster

And more. I have videos and articles with her and her views on these topics, but I have realized that YOU and many other posters do not watch or read the provided media to support my views or show the point Im trying to make. It has bacame very obvious that most posters here really just want to argue, play gotcha or just not really want to look at something that is opposite of their view. I have also noticed many posters can't even process the argument the other person is making. No critical thinking, no effort, no real responses; just make fun of the other, call them a troll, or shame them.
Click to expand...
I've searched repeatedly and don't get anything on mandatory gun buy-backs. In the debate the moderator pointed out that that was not Harris' position and she said, we're not taking anyone's guns away, and wishes they would stop lying about it. Presumably Trump and his supporters, that is. Here is an article about it as well. There are many more. The only ones I can find with anything about mandatory are from Trump himself, his direct retinue, and the NRA. Am I missing something?

www.bbc.com

Why Kamala Harris is highlighting her gun ownership

The Democratic nominee for president has joked that anyone who breaks into her house is "getting shot".
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Change the rules to strip half the country of its voice. Climb atop a steel building or sit outside a fence to assassinate their candidate. You make it sound not only justified but noble.


There aren’t two fundamental political realities. There are two works of mostly fiction. Both are like the movie Forrest Gump. There are portrayals of real events used as scaffolding for the story but it is a work of fiction. It is deeply concerning to see how many have seemingly lost the ability to tell the difference between what is real and what is being contrived.
  • There is no authoritarian on the ballot
  • American Fascism isn’t coming
  • Christian Nationalism is not a force in 2024
  • Trump did not try to overthrow the government or prevent a peaceful transfer of power
  • The election isn’t that important
Click to expand...
I’m reasonably sure you would have supported King George III, at the time. You would have made a good Loyalist…..

“Climb atop a steel building or sit outside a fence to assassinate their candidate. You make it sound not only justified but noble” When did I approve of assassination attempts?? When did I make assassinations justified and noble? You are here lying.
You’re a LIAR.

If you don’t think Trump attempted to prevent a peaceful transfer of power, then you’re in that alternative reality, ready made for the Post Truth era and our history texts if Trump returns and has his way.

I see absolutely nothing to be gained in supporting a candidate and party that is divorced from the real world, adheres to a fake description of recent history, is eager to see Trump act as their “retribution”, and essentially move into the future on the basis of a narrative that has no basis in the real world. You can stay with the Loyalists and King George III.

If that phony, really bald face lying history, lying narrative, blaming others for his own actions and misdeeds, if that’s your position and what you want to see it unfold in our future, well, I might assume there’s something deeply, deeply wrong with you.

Sorry, but there is no reason whatsoever, to think you have anything at all to offer or add to this subject. Not when you’re right here arguing for the Lie.

One more thing: I get a kick out of your effort to label me as someone has predicted certain outcomes, which you enumerated. When I have repeatedly emphasized those very elements are a part of our present moment, and it is entirely appropriate to raise them as subjects of present interest, and not once posed as: “This is going to happen! I am predicting this. You heard it here first”. What you continue to fail to understand is that folks like myself, who thrive where ideas are thrown around, all day sometimes, find such subjects appropriate for discussion within the whole broad subject of what is happening in America in the present moment.

It is 100% appropriate to see context, esp. historical context, when trying to understand the present moment. It’s called social science, and I love using the tools of social science. Take your suggestion, implied, that I knock off doing that, and put it where the sun don’t shine. That’s where it belongs. You don’t have to like that suggested context, but if you think you can stand in my way with such an asinine post as the one I’m replying to, good luck! I don’t answer to you!

Things like Christian nationalism, while knowing full well that nationalism has been the principle cause of modern warfare since the late 19th century. Things like we may be experiencing an epidemic of Dunning-Kruger, largely a result of the internet and social media, I believe. This too is an element in our present moment, and has resulted in tons of misguided misinformation.

I could go on and on, but this is my main gripe: I don’t care in the least if you disagree with everything I have ever said. But, you are misrepresenting me when you claim I am insisting everything I believe we should be aware of, IN ORDER TO BETTER UNDERSTAND OUR PRESENT MOMENT, will result in the worst outcome we could imagine! I’m simply looking for the elements feeding into our present moment.

And that, sir, is a GOOD thing. It’s a HELPFUL thing.

Because, you basically are telling me that I should not raise issues that might better help us understand how we got to where we are. You are telling me that it is wrong for me to add context. To add historical context. To look for nuance. You’re telling me all that is wrong!

I’m only trying to help people understand better how we got here, and elements that are in play in our present moment. Again, you continue to broadcast the impression that you despise learning, by essentially saying: “stop adding your educated opinions. I don’t like it!”. Well, who cares what you like or dislike?

I will use my education to add anything I want to this subject, if I believe it offers some insight. But I cannot, and have not, used a crystal ball, or psychic abilities I lack, to know how the elements I’ve mentioned in these threads will play out in the future. And you really ought to stop claiming that that is exactly what I am doing.

You lied about what I said, and you’re lying in your response. Misrepresenting me entirely, because it suits you. That’s entirely on you, you cannot handle context and nuanced looks.
 
Last edited:
LogGrad98 said:
I've searched repeatedly and don't get anything on mandatory gun buy-backs. In the debate the moderator pointed out that that was not Harris' position and she said, we're not taking anyone's guns away, and wishes they would stop lying about it. Presumably Trump and his supporters, that is. Here is an article about it as well. There are many more. The only ones I can find with anything about mandatory are from Trump himself, his direct retinue, and the NRA. Am I missing something?

www.bbc.com

Why Kamala Harris is highlighting her gun ownership

The Democratic nominee for president has joked that anyone who breaks into her house is "getting shot".
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...

View: https://x.com/kelly4humanity/status/1833914431887343708?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ
 
TheStormofWar said:
Nah mate, it does. A specific, targeted tariff can be useful for a variety of reason. Blanket tariffs, like what Trump wants, do not work. That **** has been tried and tried again and all it does it manufacture economic problems. What you take from that is up you to, but when you are using a video of a Trump surrogate trying to thinking we should tariff everything that comes into the US? Yeah, you tell me.
Click to expand...
I will Venmo someone on the left $20, that will watch this clip and confirm to Stormofwar that this Trump surrogate didn’t not state that a blanket tariffs are a good thing and how to use them.

Just watch and report the details of this clip from the surrogate. What he actually said. I don’t want anyone from the right, so there is no bias. I will Venmo immediately after the report is posted.


View: https://x.com/squawkcnbc/status/1835712983713898609?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ


I need info about what car manufacturers, what countries, if it makes sense to tariff everything or use it a different way. Also a let me know if this surrogate is for a blanket 20% on everything or use it strategicly.
 
Bucknutz said:
I will Venmo someone on the left $20, that will watch this clip and confirm to Stormofwar that this Trump surrogate didn’t not state that a blanket tariffs are a good thing and how to use them.

Just watch and report the details of this clip from the surrogate. What he actually said. I don’t want anyone from the right, so there is no bias. I will Venmo immediately after the report is posted.


View: https://x.com/squawkcnbc/status/1835712983713898609?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ


I need info about what car manufacturers, what countries, if it makes sense to tariff everything or use it a different way. Also a let me know if this surrogate is for a blanket 20% on everything or use it strategicly.
Click to expand...

I will do it, although I do not consider myself as being on the left, per se, and I don't have time right now, but give me a bit and I will go through it.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Before or after the debate? Everything I can find published about this talks about optional buy-backs, and she denied it in the debate. That is the standard Trump followers are using for things like Plan 2025, saying that he denied it and published a different plan so we should ignore that 2025 thing. Same thing would apply here, right?
Click to expand...
She one time said she supported mandatory gun buy-backs. So now she can never change her mind on that. Granted she has probably "changed her mind" because analytics tell her it improves her chances of election.

It's a boogeyman. Even if mandatory gun buy-backs was the no. 1 most important thing to her administration it would never happen. Too many Democrat representatives would oppose it, along with pretty much all Republican representatives. It is a complete non-starter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top