The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Also, not to put to fine a point on it, but Jesus - kind of a commie! I'm pretty sure the conservatives go out of their way to claim him as one of theirs.

Charity and communism are not even remotely the same thing.

 

[Harambe]

The mentally derelict leader is Johnny on the Spot

No one would call me a leader...

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Maybe you should clean up your house before bitching about dems?

How does this comment relate to my post?

 

[Harambe]

How does this comment relate to my post?

Maybe Frankie can tell us about mentally derelict again...

Instead of bitching about opposing viewpoints, which you can't control, perhaps you should consider fixing how bad yours can be.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Maybe Frankie can tell us about mentally derelict again...

Instead of bitching about opposing viewpoints, which you can't control, perhaps you should consider fixing how bad yours can be.

You might want to consider reading my post before you respond. Your reply has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.

 

[fishonjazz]

Wait, JF still believes Trump was calling Nazis in Charlotte good people? This place has devolved into a collection of moon bats. Where did all the rational posters go? Trout? Stoked???

He didn't call them good people. He just didn't want to single them out and hurt their feelings (they are big time supporters after all) so he lumped them in with everyone else.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Harambe]

You might want to consider reading my post before you respond. Your reply has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.

So far removed from considering there could be a different perspective you can't even see when you're throwing shade.

Perhaps you should step away, drink yourself into oblivion, and give this another read on the 2nd

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

So far removed from considering there could be a different perspective you can't even see when you're throwing shade.

Perhaps you should step away, drink yourself into oblivion, and give this another read on the 2nd

Go ahead and describe the perspective you're talking about. For fun see if you can somehow relate it to the point I was discussing.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

He didn't call them good people. He just didn't want to single them out and hurt their feelings (they are big time supporters after all) so he lumped them in with everyone else.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

I think you ought to listen to what he said (not some extract designed to ignite hatred or contempt). When you listen to this clip in it's entirety it is very difficult to come to the conclusion that he said what you are claiming he did. I know you despise the guy, but a lot of it is because you buy the media narrative where they parse his statements in an effort to make him look as bad as possible. It is quite clear that he is condemning certain people on both sides, and he is also claiming that not every person on both sides was bad. I think his claims were very correct and reasonable:

 

[Jazzta]

Could you guys stop! The year is about to end ffs!

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

He didn't call them good people. He just didn't want to single them out and hurt their feelings (they are big time supporters after all) so he lumped them in with everyone else.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Haha, sure. I think you've watched to many power rangers movies. "Trump is a villain. We must vanquish him or the realm will be destroyed forever!"

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

I think you ought to listen to what he said (not some extract designed to ignite hatred or contempt). When you listen to this clip in it's entirety it is very difficult to come to the conclusion that he said what you are claiming he did. I know you despise the guy, but a lot of it is because you buy the media narrative where they parse his statements in an effort to make him look as bad as possible. It is quite clear that he is condemning certain people on both sides, and he is also claiming that not every person on both sides was bad. I think his claims were very correct and reasonable:

That's not Trump, it's Kimberly Hart. She ate a morphing crystal and turned into Trump in our attempt to sabotage his reign of terror.

 

[sirkickyass]

All I had to do was read the headline to learn the reason that this guy wanted Trump was he believed it would push the Dems far enough to the left for his liking.

I understand all you did was read the headline, but I think you're missing the forest for the trees here.

For example, this is a fuller explanation of his position at the time.




I think the conservatives agree with literally every piece of this:

1. Clinton was the problem more than Trump.
2. The Welfare state is collapsing.
3. Liberalism is the root cause of the rise of the right in Western Democracies.
4. The problem with "liberals" is that they unthinkingly accepted the underlying social and political system that had emerged.
5. That the dems are currently at each others' throats with some trying to pull the party farther left.

He can disagree about the ultimate implications of what those factors mean, or about his desired resolution. But it's essentially a fact that the premiere Communist alive espouses fundamental observations that align with a conservative descriptive viewpoint of what is happening in the world. That's precisely what you implied would never occur, because you're not actually following what people in that part of the social political spectrum say.

I can give you lots of other examples. Zizek also describes some of the problems of immigration from the middle east and africa in terms that would be very generally agreed upon by conservatives.



If you've ever read the Communist Manifesto, you may recall that Marx specifically identifies people who try to work from within capitalism to bring everyone up as the social force that keeps the capitalist system afloat. They are identified as worse for the revolution, over all, because they perpetuate the myth that capitalism can eventually create enough wealth to eliminate the struggles caused by social classes entirely. That's precisely the indict that this spectrum levied at Clinton and those they term "neo liberal" in the first place. That's not particularly different from the right wing railing against "elites" who have entrenched control of sectors of the global economy and try to paternalistically guide society away from the conservative vision.

Joe, I don't mean to always pick on you, but you seem willing to acknowledge that there's stuff outside your knowledge base when you're presented with it in detail. Read more widely man. It will change your life and you won't make claims like the one above that feel very weird to people who aren't encapsulated inside your bubble.

 

[sirkickyass]

Charity and communism are not even remotely the same thing.

Might wanna brush up on your bible dude. Jesus was a political radical who was a fundamental threat to the Roman state.

“Each of you who does not give up all he possesses is incapable of being my disciple” (Luke 14:33).

The Book of Acts describes the early Christians as selling all their things, living in one shared dwelling, and redistributing their wealth. All of which you'd describe as a communist hippie commune.

Early Christians were relentlessly prosecuted, at least in part, because they advocated for some pretty radical changes to the economic structure of the state itself. Contemporary accounts through the first several centuries AD indicate that the concept of personal property was anathema to worship of christ.

 

[fishonjazz]

I think you ought to listen to what he said (not some extract designed to ignite hatred or contempt). When you listen to this clip in it's entirety it is very difficult to come to the conclusion that he said what you are claiming he did. I know you despise the guy, but a lot of it is because you buy the media narrative where they parse his statements in an effort to make him look as bad as possible. It is quite clear that he is condemning certain people on both sides, and he is also claiming that not every person on both sides was bad. I think his claims were very correct and reasonable:

Did he or did he not call out the white supremacists?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

Haha, sure. I think you've watched to many power rangers movies. "Trump is a villain. We must vanquish him or the realm will be destroyed forever!"

Actually never seen a power ranger movie. Didn't even know such a thing existed.
I vaguely remember the television show though.
And yes, I agree that Trump is a villain.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Did he or did he not call out the white supremacists?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

He did. He said specificically that the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists should be condemned totally. In other words, with regard to that subject he said the opposite of what you claim he did.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I understand all you did was read the headline, but I think you're missing the forest for the trees here.

For example, this is a fuller explanation of his position at the time.

View attachment 8688


I think the conservatives agree with literally every piece of this:

1. Clinton was the problem more than Trump.
2. The Welfare state is collapsing.
3. Liberalism is the root cause of the rise of the right in Western Democracies.
4. The problem with "liberals" is that they unthinkingly accepted the underlying social and political system that had emerged.
5. That the dems are currently at each others' throats with some trying to pull the party farther left.

He can disagree about the ultimate implications of what those factors mean, or about his desired resolution. But it's essentially a fact that the premiere Communist alive espouses fundamental observations that align with a conservative descriptive viewpoint of what is happening in the world. That's precisely what you implied would never occur, because you're not actually following what people in that part of the social political spectrum say.

I can give you lots of other examples. Zizek also describes some of the problems of immigration from the middle east and africa in terms that would be very generally agreed upon by conservatives.

View attachment 8689

If you've ever read the Communist Manifesto, you may recall that Marx specifically identifies people who try to work from within capitalism to bring everyone up as the social force that keeps the capitalist system afloat. They are identified as worse for the revolution, over all, because they perpetuate the myth that capitalism can eventually create enough wealth to eliminate the struggles caused by social classes entirely. That's precisely the indict that this spectrum levied at Clinton and those they term "neo liberal" in the first place. That's not particularly different from the right wing railing against "elites" who have entrenched control of sectors of the global economy and try to paternalistically guide society away from the conservative vision.

Joe, I don't mean to always pick on you, but you seem willing to acknowledge that there's stuff outside your knowledge base when you're presented with it in detail. Read more widely man. It will change your life and you won't make claims like the one above that feel very weird to people who aren't encapsulated inside your bubble.

 

[fishonjazz]

He did. He said specificically that the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists should be condemned totally. In other words, with regard to that subject he said the opposite of what you claim he did.

Edit: actually not so much. I just listened to this on my drive home from work.
He very quickly tossed his little condemn the neo Nazis comment in there and glossed over it as much as possible.
What he really wanted to talk about was the left (of course) and how Jefferson and Washington were racists and how the general Lee statue coming down was a worthy thing to protest and how the protesters (the conservative right) had permits.
Typical Trump lol.

Your boy is a dumbass piece of ****
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I understand all you did was read the headline, but I think you're missing the forest for the trees here.

For example, this is a fuller explanation of his position at the time.

View attachment 8688


I think the conservatives agree with literally every piece of this:

1. Clinton was the problem more than Trump.
2. The Welfare state is collapsing.
3. Liberalism is the root cause of the rise of the right in Western Democracies.
4. The problem with "liberals" is that they unthinkingly accepted the underlying social and political system that had emerged.
5. That the dems are currently at each others' throats with some trying to pull the party farther left.

He can disagree about the ultimate implications of what those factors mean, or about his desired resolution. But it's essentially a fact that the premiere Communist alive espouses fundamental observations that align with a conservative descriptive viewpoint of what is happening in the world. That's precisely what you implied would never occur, because you're not actually following what people in that part of the social political spectrum say.

I can give you lots of other examples. Zizek also describes some of the problems of immigration from the middle east and africa in terms that would be very generally agreed upon by conservatives.

View attachment 8689

If you've ever read the Communist Manifesto, you may recall that Marx specifically identifies people who try to work from within capitalism to bring everyone up as the social force that keeps the capitalist system afloat. They are identified as worse for the revolution, over all, because they perpetuate the myth that capitalism can eventually create enough wealth to eliminate the struggles caused by social classes entirely. That's precisely the indict that this spectrum levied at Clinton and those they term "neo liberal" in the first place. That's not particularly different from the right wing railing against "elites" who have entrenched control of sectors of the global economy and try to paternalistically guide society away from the conservative vision.

Joe, I don't mean to always pick on you, but you seem willing to acknowledge that there's stuff outside your knowledge base when you're presented with it in detail. Read more widely man. It will change your life and you won't make claims like the one above that feel very weird to people who aren't encapsulated inside your bubble.

Let's dissect this conversation. Another poster made the claim that white nationalists always align with conservative politics and challenged me to prove otherwise. Instead of wasting time on that I pointed out that communists align with liberal politics. Now it may be true that neither his statement or mine are 100% accurate because there might be occasions where communists pull for the conservatives because they believe their policies will collapse the system and bring about their utopia or where KKK members like Robert Byrd align with liberal politics, but I think it's a fair point that extremists can generally be found at the extremes. If you want to go down some rabbit hole in relationship to these arguments have a great time, but I'm not going with you.