Total posts: 2,799
Personally, I don’t see it as who the right wing will ‘join’. The real question seems to be if the feminists will be willing to work with right wingers.
Because the right is against most positions held by both groups, and they will continue to be so. And by holding these positions, they will generally team up with who will fight those with them.
If feminists want to help achieve a mutual goal of not having women get annihilated in sports, not have creepy guys with wigs in women’s restrooms, etc.
To sort of answer the question you asked, I think it is infinitely more possible that there would be a feminist-rightwing alliance, since transgenderism has many positions of feminism with a few sick twists like outright denying realities of sex (with the implications you note regarding being able to take all of the benefits set aside for women)
Now while there might be some agreement with feminists on things like transgender sports, on the other side, I don’t believe there is any transgender issue that right-wingers would also believe in that feminists wouldn’t.
Created:
Posted in:
Would you like to elaborate to me on what you do for people born into poverty? As in what do you vote for with regards to helping them out.
I don’t generally vote for people that want to massively expand spending programs to solve issues your policies caused.
The great society welfare programs and similar laws, the “sexual revolution”, and getting rid of fault divorce are just a few of the causes of your “single impoverished mother” problem. I vote right-wing to cure the illness, rather than trying to feed and treat the cancer simultaneously as you do.
Created:
Posted in:
@cowardly guy that blocked me for being "Illuminati"
And the typical cuntservative reply is 'sure, I care about the baby... Until it's born then it can rot in the poverty I forced it to be born into'.
Source?
Because charitable giving stats show that even though conservative households make 6% less on average, they give 30% more than the average household.
All the top 15 donating states voted Republican in 2012, while 13 of the bottom 15 voted Democrat
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Would you prefer Trump of DeSantis as the Republican nominee?
Are you asking which he would prefer in order to give Dems the best chance to win or who he would mind less as POTUS if he had to choose between the two?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Your posts killed my erection completely last night.
> Talks about big meat
> Has erection
Golly gee willikers, Batman!
O_o
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s a constant state of denial. Any other opinion besides your own is bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, you name it.I once joined this political chat and sheer amount of radicalization just astonished me. How could anyone live in a community without police officers for example. It’s such a disgrace.
Probably why they all have some mental disorder like depression. When you think that half or more of the country (depending on the issue) is literally a 1930s German or a Southerner in white robes, life must be very stressful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I bet. It is really beyond parody lol. Everyone of a specific demographic must subscribe to the beliefs they think they should or else they short-circuit
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Others have pretty much touched on it, but I'd say it is for 3 reasons:
1. Localization increases the likelihood that you'll be pleased with the policies enacted and you have more power over your destiny.
2. As Wylted said, it helps give insight into what types of policies will work better under different circumstances.
3. I also think that the people in the local community just better know how to fix local issues than a conglomeration of 50 states' representatives. They are more able to be held accountable for failure (ex. a local community group that gives out aid will probably better monitor its use than the massive, slow Social Security Office that paid $46.8 million to dead people in 2015 https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/audit-dead-people-have-been-collecting-billions-from-social-security-as-it-goes-bankrupt/article_c3a1878c-fb4f-11e9-968e-231021b4c2aa.html)
Notice I don't include "muh constitution" (admittedly a fairly common argument in Congress on this issue). I don't think most Congressmen actually care about federalism being in the Constitution, and I don't really think that that argument resonates with voters. There are pretty serious merits to federalism, which is why I'd support it even if it wasn't in the Bill of Rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Nope. My experience this type of women have decided a man gets to tell them what to do with their life and because of it you should let a man tell you what to do with your life. They think they're second class citizens and therefore all women are second class citizens.
The typical shitlib response to any wrongthink from a group they pretend to represent "I am a voice for women. Oh you don't think babies should be murdered on a mass scale? You just think you're a second-class citizen" "I am a voice for blacks #BLM #BIPOC. You don't like affirmative action? You're a white supremacist, and you are like that guy from a cabin book I never read!"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I think Meat will always be a problem. It doesn't matter how big Big Meat really is, seeing as they know how to use it.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Do you have some examples of how he has voted against your wishes and those of the Republican Party?
That comment was more for humor.
He’s historically been very pro-war and wants to increase immigration just to name two.
But Congress doesn’t usually vote specifically on these issues, so it’ll take a lil sifting through his voting record
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Dude is a Democrat.
Probably a shapeshifting lizard, too. I’ve seen how he votes!
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Not really "yelling", but he did seem a bit peeved at getting exposed by a 14 year old lol.
Mentioning Jesus and Superman and directly juxtaposing that with "real" ones like 'Rosa Parks'
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
But yes. The realities of your post show that the Legislators at the founding KNEW a Nation without naturalization isn't really a nation at all. For a nation to exist there must be laws. For laws to apply there must be jurisdiction. For jurisdiction to apply there must be an established citizenry. It's an inevitable chain.
Well then, I have no problem with having laws or forcing naturalization. My issue is with how many and the characteristics of who is allowed.
But generally, people that say "fact that the U.S. is supposed to be a beacon of hope and opportunity for immigrants." are likely to quote one very specific thing. Supposing Danielle does respond, I'd like to see if the response is as expected.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Absolutely not anymore than the private colleges were held responsible for hosting the MSNBC hate speakers that Sandman sued.
First off, I'm pretty sure they didn't defame Sandman while speaking on the campus.
Second, posting something online where anybody with an internet connection can see (or cable in this case) it is much more damaging and thus more likely to result in a lawsuit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If your position is that 230 literally does nothing, then why does it matter if it gets repealed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
“I had always hoped that this land might become a safe & agreeable Asylum to the virtuous & persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong,”-George Washington
Let's see about that. *Checks notes*
Washington president during: April 30, 1789 – March 3, 1797
"The law limited naturalization to "free White person(s) ... of good character"
"The Act repeated the limitation in the 1790 Act that naturalization was reserved only for "free white person[s]"
I'm gonna have to press "X" to doubt on that one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think they are absolutely comparable. For example, MSNBC got the pants sued off of them for defamation while also having active Facebook and twitter accounts.The stories about how racist and white supremacist Sandman were circulated all over college campuses with some of the keynote speakers also working for MSNBC. There were a myriad of other venues in print and radio that also hosted the hate speech. None of those venues had nor needed section 230 protections.Facebook and twitter were never remotely considered a guilty party to the defamation Msnbc did to Sandman; nor were any other media hosting platform or any college. Section 230 wasn't needed, or necessary; and even if there was a need for legal protection, those private industries can and should have made their own legal disclaimers like the rest of private industry. You still have yet to make the case why Facebook and twitter are so special that the government just has to play favorites with those private industries as a unique case.It baffles me the mental gymnastics used to justify why government should be the entity picking the winners and the losers in a supposedly free market with free competition while also knowing full well government is the only sanctioned monopoly.
Twitter and Facebook were never remotely considered a guilty party BECAUSE of the broad 230 protections. If there was no 230, all sites would be liable for those things. Think of if a building owner let you put a giant sign with defamatory comments on his building. The building owner is responsible for the widespread character defaming because it occurred as a result of his help and not taking measures to stop it.
That industry is special in this regard because their entire business is the provision of a medium with which to speak with other people, hence why speech protections are particularly important.
There are no mental gymnastics, and there are no winners or losers being picked. There would be nothing resembling any social media we have today without 230. But let's assume you're right and Twitter and Facebook weren't sued by Sandman because of other reasons. That just would mean that 230 had no effect and it doesn't matter if it stays or goes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They are already doing that though. So what was the goal of 230 then?
They are purposely misinterpreting the law, which is why I think they should add very clear language. If they banned all censorship except those that violated any laws in order to receive 230 protection, that'd solve the issue.
Regardless, if you read the Scotus brief, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-968_8nj9.pdf it doesn't say it gave special consideration for the public or private or government status of the school as the basis for their decision. That's a big deal. Do a word search for "Public" or "government" and see for yourself.
They specifically mentioned that it was public. Are you saying that they specifically mentioned that the public/private distinction didn't matter or that they didn't mention it was public in their opinions?
Because the way the Constitution works is that it prohibits the government from doing things. That's why you can get fired from your place of employment for expressing political opinions after work on your private social media account, but professors can't be fired at public universities for what they say. I think personally that the Constitution should be applied more to the private sector (and it legally can), but that's not where we are now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
fact that the U.S. is supposed to be a beacon of hope and opportunity for immigrants.
Says who, if I might ask?
Created:
Posted in:
After breaking into all the candidates’ party headquarters, my campaign staffers have discovered that airmax is the best choice. Arooooooo!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
“My opponents are weak and insecure people who resent the strong and the beautiful based on their own inferiority complex” is a nice story. Maybe a little too nice. While I think his analysis is 1000% on the money when it comes to the type of people who are in antifa or something like that it misses the mark when it comes to normal libs, who are a majority
I think he makes that distinction by using the term “leftist” instead of liberals. He points out specifically activists for causes like feminism, gay rights, etc.
People who identify with a cause as a false means of identity and path to power
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I hold that America is the silliest nation in the entire world
No need to worry about that, chap. It'll sort itself out
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
They’re is nothing valid about bringing up the summer riots *in response* to the question of what your views are regarding January 6th. Nothing.
I disagree. You can't view view this rare case of right-wing rioting without considering the massive left-wing rioting that occurred less than a year before. They saw rioters 1) getting what they demanded and 2) for the most part having no backlash.
So they mistakenly thought they would also get what they wanted and not suffer consequences.
There is also nothing valid about comparing them. The summer riots were a period of national civil unrest over a longstanding contentious issue, the final straw of which being sparked by a video taken by bystanders and spread over social media.January 6th was the culmination of a political plot to steal an election.In other words, the summer riots was an uprising from the bottom up, Jan 6th was pushed from the top down starting with the president of the United States.
The riots throughout the summer were 100% forced from the top-down. The cause was less rapid than the singular event on Jan 6, but the lies spread in the media about high-profile cases over a course of about half a decade led to that rioting.
Moreover, when we talk about January 6th we’re not talking about property damage, we’re talking about the security of the US Capitol and of our democracy. So this is not even the same conversation.These two things do not compare in any way.
But exactly how was democracy threatened? These people were clearly not involved in an attempted coup (without any weapons and the only killing being against the rioters). They were a bunch of MAGA boomers who saw shady stuff going on in the election and were showing off how pissed they were. They broke the law by breaking and entering, as well as trespassing. They should be prosecuted to the extent they are guilty.
However, any attempt at framing it as a coup or insurrection just seems disingenuous to me.
Ok, it was “somewhat bad”. Thanks for that.
You're welcome.
On January 6th the US Capitol was taken over by a hostile force, forcing congress to have to evacuate in the middle of certifying the next president, the people who carried this out overwhelmingly stated that they were there on behalf of the sitting president of the United States who didn’t do or say anything about it till three hours into it, and to this day he has never given any serious condemnation of it.What part of this is factually wrong?
Sounds only somewhat bad to me. That hostile force? No guns, no killing. Delaying certification of a president by what? A day? The president told them to go home on the day of. I'm failing to see how this could in a genuine and serious way appear to be an attempted overthrowing of an election. The only bad part was high property damage. But again, that damage and the death toll are negligible compared to... you guess it!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I’ll get back to ya soon, just been slammed with work 👌
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's a ridiculous statement. Colleges aren't sued for defamation when students yell nigger on their campus. They have a code of conduct like any other speech venue that protects them from liability for defamation.
Those aren’t comparable for two different reasons. First, yelling slurs isn’t defamation. That’s just saying something rude and isn’t illegal or a violation of civil law.
Second, a social media platform that hosts posts online is different from a student on a campus saying words. The school is in no way promoting what they say unless they printed it in a school newspaper, whereas a social media company aids in spreading information from posts.
When colleges start censoring is the point at which they get sued.
That’s because public colleges are forced to respect free speech rights because they are government institutions.
The entire 230 deal is one big marketing scam; that's all it is. Period.
Absolutely not. Without protection from being sued for what people say on your site, companies will act more like publishers than platforms, meaning more control over content
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's a fundamentally dumb philosophy to think private business needs the government's intervention to protect them from liability lawsuits. Private industry is far more capable at protecting itself on an individual basis than any government agency, no matter what the promises are.
We aren’t talking about needs. It is just a good idea for the government to forbid lawsuits in this case. Otherwise, you could not have any website that allows individuals to post their thoughts without thousands of lawsuits being filed every time someone says something defamatory or false about another.
In this case, the private companies defending themselves would mean constantly racking up legal costs
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Is your issue mainly with the concept of qualified immunity or how it is applied?
Because you give a couple examples that might be bad (haven’t looked at them quite yet, as I want to know your problem with it), but those might not be representative of how it is usually applied.
Conversely, if you don’t think public officials should have any special civil lawsuit protections, then I can see that as a more problematic position
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
I think that repealing section 230 would lead to way more censorship and would hurt smaller alternatives. The way to solve censorship does not in any way include a repeal of section 230. Might include some changes to the law, though
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
It was a great campaign. Thanks for not splitting the vote! A truly selfless and mature move by you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I don’t know anything about this guy. Did he in some way organize the protest on Jan 6th or coordinate anything with the rest of the people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
This is from Jose Padilla's Grand Jury indictment.Padilla also publicly stated his objective at the Capitol on January 6 in no uncertain terms: to "dissolve the legislature, and replace it with Patriots who were there. Then simply re-adopt the Constitution with amendments added to secure future Federal elections." See SOF at 9. He told a police officer that he sought to destroy the "machine" that governed within the U.S. Capitol. See Hr'g Ex. 2. His comments take issue not simply with the 2020 presidential election, but regard a broader years-long struggle against a government he perceives to be illegitimate. See id. ("This war has been upon us for years and we've just been wringing hands about it."); see also Hr'g Ex. 10. And he demonstrated a belief that force is justified to counteract government measures that he personally considers unlawful. His words, as well as the nature of his actions, thus create "ample reason to believe that [the] fight is not finished for [Padilla]," even though the transition of power to the current administration has come and gone. See Sabol, 2021 WL 1405945, at *18. Indeed, Padilla's own statements suggest that his fight has just begun.
Is this in response to something I said, or did you mean to send it to someone discussing Jose Padilla?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
An unsurprisingly irrelevant throw away comment. You picked out one person out of literally tens or possibly hundreds of thousands who took part in the protests over the summer. Congratulations.
Actually, that was referring to three people shot in one event and how shockingly all of them were scumbags. Either there was some serious luck involved there or the crowd was made up primarily of scumbags and the chances of shooting a bunch of felons was quite high.
But that comment was mainly for humor. No need to take it quite so seriously.
Now perhaps you’d like to address the actual point - that whatever your personal view on the police killings were, the protests were a result of individual Americans looking at the video footage for themselves and coming to their own conclusions about what they saw with their own eyes. Not one single rioter went out and smashed windows claiming that they were there because Biden told them to be there.
I don’t think they were there because Biden told them to be there. There were a handful of Democrat politicians that implicitly or even somewhat explicitly supported the rioting, but I don’t think Biden really did so. That lack of willingness to condemn it and a lack of willingness of primarily Democrat-run cities to support their police in squashing riots or calling in the national guard very likely did embolden rioters, though
My point with bringing up the other BLM riots was because those are in the back of the minds of a lot of people because the lies surrounding them circulate a lot. You’ll still find people believing in “hands up don’t shoot”. So when they think that the lies told over the years are true and that instances like those are commonplace, I think that increases the chances of erupting violence are much higher than if this was some out-of-the-blue, un-contextualized video.
And of course the righties would never just address January 6th. Every single time the attack on the US Capitol comes up all we ever get is “but BLM!”
And you can claim that is a “whataboutism”, but it’s a valid point. Do I support breaking into the Capitol? Absolutely not. But does it even remotely compare to the riots of the summer in terms of damage or death toll? Not even close.
And the overall reluctance of lefties to condemn that violence outright leaves me in quite an unfortunate position. If they try to minimize the much worse things their side does, why should I waste my time condemning my own side who did something relatively minuscule in intensity?
But since the post is reflecting on Jan 6th, then I suppose I’ll say this: it was somewhat bad. It wasn’t an insurrection or an attempted coup. It’ll be blown way out of proportion like Charlottesville and become this kind of weird lefty anti-holiday. The worst part about it is that now libtards will use this one instance of right wing rioting in decades to say “but muh right wing extremists riot tooooo”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You know damn well that if Jill Biden has said Joe kept an Adulf Hitler book by his bed you and every right wing cable pundit would be talking about it all the way through 2024.
I’m sure every right wing pundit would talk about it until 2024. It might score some minor political points, so why not? I wouldn’t care all that much because the books center around a major historical event and might be a worthwhile read. It’d be a little more scandalous for a sitting president to have it on their nightstand than a hotel chain owner to have it decades before they became president, but not really important news either way.
If the president was reading the Turner Diaries or White Fragility, then I’d start having some questions
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The good guys are the ones that compare you to Nazis for reading a book
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I don't have a book of Hitler's speeches, do U? I ought to get that printed on a coat.
I don’t. I don’t see why that matters. I have the communist manifesto. I’ve read it. Yet *gasp* I’m not a communist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Right, according to a 1990 Vanity Fair interview, Ivana Trump once told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that her husband, real-estate mogul Donald Trump , kept a book of Hitler's speeches near his bed.
Ah, the ex-president committed a thought crime by reading a book of speeches. I guess that makes him literally Hitler. What an insightful comment!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
@Double_R
The summer riots of 2020 were fueled by ordinary people tired of watching more unarmed black people being killed by those charged with protecting them with no accountability.
I don't know if those rioting were just ordinary people. If they were, I don't think Rittenhouse would have shot a pedophile, woman beater, and a felon burglar with all of his shots. But hey, that's probably a collection of the ordinary people rioting for that cause.
January 6th was fueled by a president and his associates blatantly lying to the American people about the outcome of the election.These are not the same thing. Anybody not entrenched in every day American politics of the moment understands that.
If you want to talk about people believing lies and committing violence as a result, look no further than nearly any case of BLM rioting. "Hands up don't shoot" was the lie. The truth? Michael Brown was a psychotic thug that punched a police officer and tried to take his gun, just as one example.
The real "big lie" is that cops or those in authority go around murdering blacks for no reason, and many more deaths and damage have been committed by the belief in that lie than in any lie about the 2020 election. The riots in 2020 were a result not only of the death of one drug addict career criminal, but as a result of the culmination of years of lying from the cases of Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Breonna Taylor, etc.
But of course, lefties are angels that would never believe lies, and the other side is basically a bunch of 1930s Germans, right?
Created:
@RM
I believe I even voted to add you to the HoF even after you blocked me.
Created:
@RM
Again, it isn't a personality thing, although I was a bit shocked by your hasty decision to block me.
I don't think restraining orders are worthwhile and that bans should be sparingly used. Wylted is more likely to bring about that type of advocacy.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
#BlockablesForWylted
Oh come ye' deplorables,
Those shunned by the man who is mad and debatably rational.
Gird your loins and vote for thine salvation!
Created:
@RM
You should know I care about policy, not character.
I voted for Trump after all 😇
Created:
I’m more inclined to vote for people that don’t block me for being “Illuminati”
:D
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Liberal and conservative may have similar meanings abroad, but the issues that are part of their respective platforms generally only have a little in common. Abortion and guns are the big conservative issues here, but I doubt that conservatives in Britain talk about either of those as a main issue, just as two examples.
What do you mean by 'rigid authoritarianism'? I suppose that could perhaps be construed as a right-wing institution, in the same way that complete anarchy could be construed as a left-wing institution. But I think that boiling it down that simply doesn't really help explain much of anything
However, a left-wing and right-wing dictatorship as well as right- and left-wing anarchist societies would look quite different in practice, which is why far right and far left are not the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Would you label them as Liberal or Conservative?
Those labels only really apply to American politics.
Of rigid authoritarian societies, they can be right-wing in some ways and left-wing in others.
All of them have some sort of hierarchy because that is the only way that any functional society can operate, but their degree of egalitarianism varies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I wonder what the right wing equivalent to San Francisco would be like.
If it had to be a major city, then probably OKC.
If you're speaking of one political party having complete dominance, you're going to find that in most rural towns and cities in the Midwest and South. Not sure if any in particular have that name recognition attached to them because of their low population and GDP, but in reality, most major cities have a lot of the same problems as SF, just on a lower scale.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Far Right is Far Left and Vice versa.
No it isn't, the horseshoe theory is nonsense. Only thing in common would be maybe tactics or authoritarian tendencies
Created: