Total posts: 8,696
The Royal Castle in Warsaw
Warsaw, Poland
5:39 P.M. CET
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Poland! (Applause.) One of our great allies. President Duda, Prime Minister — Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Mayor, and to all the former ministers and presidents, as well as mayors and Polish political leaders from all across the country: Thank you for welcoming me back to Poland.
You know, it was nearly one year ago — (applause) — nearly one year ago I spoke at the Royal Castle here in Warsaw, just weeks after Vladimir Putin had unleashed his murderous assault on Ukraine. The largest land war in Europe since World War Two had begun. And the principles that had been the cornerstone of peace, prosperity, and stability on this planet for more than 75 years were at risk of being shattered.
One year ago, the world was bracing for the fall of Kyiv. Well, I have just come from a visit to Kyiv, and I can report: Kyiv stands strong! (Applause.) Kyiv stands proud. It stands tall. And most important, it stands free. (Applause.)
When Russia invaded, it wasn’t just Ukraine being tested. The whole world faced a test for the ages.
Europe was being tested. America was being tested. NATO was being tested. All democracies were being tested. And the questions we faced were as simple as they were profound.
Would we respond or would we look the other way? Would we be strong or would we be weak? Would be — we would — would we be — all of our allies — would be united or divided?
One year later, we know the answer.
We did respond. We would be strong. We would be united. And the world would not look the other way. (Applause.)
We also faced fundamental questions about the commitment to the most basic of principles. Would we stand up for the sovereignty of nations? Would we stand up for the right of people to live free from naked aggression? Would we stand up for democracy?
One year later, we know the answers.
Yes, we would stand up for sovereignty. And we did.
Yes, we would stand up for the right of people to live free from aggression. And we did.
And we would stand up for democracy. And we did.
And yesterday, I had the honor to stand with President Zelenskyy in Kyiv to declare that we will keep standing up for these same things no matter what. (Applause.)
When President Putin ordered his tanks to roll into Ukraine, he thought we would roll over. He was wrong.
The Urai- — the Ukrainian people are too brave.
America, Europe, a coalition of nations from the Atlantic to the Pacific — we were too unified.
Democracy was too strong.
Instead of an easy victory he perceived and predicted, Putin left with burnt-out tanks and Russia’s forces in delay — in disarray.
He thought he’d get the Findalization [Finlandization] of NATO. Instead, he got the NATOization of Finland — and Sweden. (Applause.)
He thought NATO would fracture and divide. Instead, NATO is more united and more unified than ever — than ever before.
He thought he could weaponize energy to crack your resolve — Europe’s resolve.
Instead, we’re working together to end Europe’s dependence on Russil [sic] fo- — Russian fossil fuels.
He thought autocrats like himself were tough and leaders of democracies were soft.
And then, he met the iron will of America and the nations everywhere that refused to accept a world governed by fear and force.
He found himself at war with a nation led by a man whose courage would be forged in fire and steel: President Zelenskyy. (Applause.)
President Putin — President Putin is confronted with something today that he didn’t think was possible a year ago. The democracies of the world have grown stronger, not weaker. But the autocrats of the world have grown weaker, not stronger.
Because in the mo- — moments of great upheaval and uncertainty, that knowing what you stand for is most important, and knowing who stands with you makes all the difference.
The people of Poland know that. You know that. In fact, you know — you know it better than anyone here in Poland. Because that’s what solidarity means.
Through partition and oppression, when the beautiful city was destroyed after the Warsaw Uprising, during decades under the iron fist of communist rule, Poland endured because you stood together.
That’s how the brave leaders of the opposition and the people of Belarus continue to fight for their democracy.
That’s how the resolve of Moldovan people — (applause) — resolve of the people of Moldova to live in freedom gained them independence and put them on the path to EU membership.
President Sandu is here today. I’m not sure where she is. But I’m proud to stand with you and the freedom-loving people of Moldova. Give her a round of applause. (Applause.)
One year in- — one year into this war, Putin no longer doubts the strength of our coalition. But he still doubts our conviction. He doubts our staying power. He doubts our continued support for Ukraine. He doubts whether NATO can remain unified.
But there should be no doubt: Our support for Ukraine will not waver, NATO will not be divided, and we will not tire. (Applause.)
President Putin’s craven lust for land and power will fail. And the Ukrainian people’s love for their country will prevail.
Democracies of the world will stand guard over freedom today, tomorrow, and forever. (Applause.) For that’s what — that’s what’s at stake here: freedom.
That’s the message I carried to Kyiv yesterday, directly to the people of Ukraine.
When President Zelenskyy said — he came to the United States in December — quote — he said this struggle will define the world and what our children and grandchildren — how they live, and then their children and grandchildren.
He wasn’t only speaking about the children and grandchildren of Ukraine. He was speaking about all of our children and grandchildren. Yours and mine.
We’re seeing again today what the people of Poland and the people all across Europe saw for decades: Appetites of the autocrat cannot be appeased. They must be opposed.
Autocrats only understand one word: “No.” “No.” “No.” (Applause.)
“No, you will not take my country.” “No, you will not take my freedom.” “No, you will not take my future.”
And I’ll repeat tonight what I said last year in this same place: A dictator bent on rebuilding an empire will never be able to ease [erase] the people’s love of liberty. Brutality will never grind down the will of the free. And Ukraine — Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia. Never. (Applause.)
For free people refuse to live in a world of hopelessness and darkness.
You know, this has been an extraordinary year in every sense.
Extraordinary brutality from Russian forces and mercenaries. They have committed depravities, crimes against humanity, without shame or compunction. They’ve targeted civilians with death and destruction. Used rape as a weapon of war. Stolen Ukrainian children in an attempt to — in an attempt to steal Ukraine’s future. Bombed train stations, maternity hospitals, schools, and orphanages.
No one — no one can turn away their eyes from the atrocities Russia is committing against the Ukrainian people. It’s abhorrent. It’s abhorrent.
But extraordinarily, as well, has been the response of the Ukrainian people and the world.
One year after the bombs began to fall and Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, Ukraine is still independent and free. (Applause.)
From Kherson to Kharkiv, Ukrainian fighters have reclaimed their land.
In more than 50 percent of the territory Russia held last year, the blue and the yellow flag of Ukraine proudly waves once again.
President Zelenskyy still leads a democratically elected government that represents the will of the Ukrainian people.
And the world has already voted multiple times, including in the United Nations General Assembly, to condemn Russia’s aggression and support a just peace.
Each time in the U.N., that vote has been overwhelming.
In October, 143 nations in the United Nations condemned Russia’s illegal annexation. Only four — four in the entire U.N. — voted with Russia. Four.
So, tonight, I speak once more to the people of Russia.
The United States and the nations of Europe do not seek to control or destroy Russia. The West was not plotting to attack Russia, as Putin said today. And millions of Russian citizens who only want to live in peace with their neighbors are not the enemy.
This war was never a necessity; it’s a tragedy.
President Putin chose this war. Every day the war continues is his choice. He could end the war with a word.
It’s simple. If Russia stopped invading Ukraine, it would end the war. If Ukraine stopped defending itself against Russia, it would be the end of Ukraine.
That’s why, together, we’re making sure Ukraine can defend itself.
The United States has assembled a wor- — worldwide coalition of more than 50 nations to get critical weapons and supplies to the brave Ukrainian fighters on the frontlines. Air defense systems, artillery, ammunition, tanks, and armored vehicles.
The European Union and its member states have stepped up with unprecedented commitment to Ukraine, not just in security assistance, but economic, and humanitarian, refugee assistance, and so much more.
To all of you here tonight: Take a moment. And I’m serious when I say this: Turn on and look — turn around and look at one another. Look at what you’ve done so far.
Poland is hosting more than 1.5 million refugees from this war. God bless you. (Applause.)
Poland’s generosity, your willingness to open your hearts and your homes, is extraordinary.
And the American people are united in our resolve as well.
All across my country, in big cities and small towns, Ukrainian flags fly from American homes.
Created:
DebateArt added a HISTORY category to the Forum on Feb 16th with this announcement
Minor changes- Removed letter spacing in multiple places, now the "fonts" may look a bit better.- Added "History" category to the forum, as it's been requested by several people on several occasions.-Further optimized performance, the website should feel more snappy now.PS The history category is empty, but I am sure we already have some existing topics that would fit into that category, so the mods please feel free to move some stuff around :)02.16.2023 12:21AMPublished by@DebateArt.com
While not inaccurate textually, this announcement certainly fails to acknowledge the long journey this category took to inception.
- Let's recall that DebateArt offered to create a HISTORY category June 14th, 2021 stating that it only took 10 minutes worth of effort and agreeing to deliver in the next few days.
- After no follow up for the next 13 months, I decided to test Whiteflame's claim that any user could precipitate a functional change on DART with a successful MEEP demonstrating popular support. For the first two week of August 2022, I conducted an election on the proposition of a HISTORY category and at the end announced a successful campaign, receiving more populat support than the latest presidential election.
- I submitted a formal request documenting overwhelming popular support and requesting that 10 minute piece of work be completed sometime in the last 20 weeks of the year.
- DebateArt, WF, and Vader never made any reply or acknowledgement of the MEEP simply ignored the request for the rest of the year.
- Therefore, to now characterize that popular campaign by the DebateArt community as "requested by several people" without any acknowledgement of the Democratic seems downright petulant if not outright contemptuous.
- In spite of their roles as moderators, neither Whiteflame or Vader ever made the least acknowledgement of this, the first user initiated MEEP.
- To the extent that it took more than two and one half years to effect a popular 10 minute change, I think we have give DebateArt a failing grade for effort.
- To the extent that part of my intention was to test Whiteflame's claim that anybody can effect a change on DART via a MEEP, I think Mods complete dismissal and lack of attention to this democratic effort transformed another very positive community-based project into another humiliating farce.
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Oromagi, what subjects are you most knowledgeable in?
- I know a little about a lot of different topics. I tend to get very interested in a specific topic and go deep. I studied history, Eng literature, technical writing in college.
Was wondering if you’d be down to debate sometime. I can be Pro or Con.
Probably not. I don't think I could win another debate on this site except for full forfeits, whatever the relative quality of arguments.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I never claimed Covid alone was the cause of his death.
- No, you claimed COVID contributed directly to Floyd's death. No rational opinion agrees with your faith-based assessment.
I never claimed video showed him using a speedball. Reading comprehension matters.
- So try harder to comprehend what you wrote.
- You made up a fucking lie out of thin air when you claimed Floyd "consumed the speed ball right there in the car just before police made contact."
- I pointed out that you are a fucking liar.
- You claimed "It's on the body cam video"
- I said, here's that exact video, show me where
- You claimed, "I never claimed video showed his him using a speedball."
- Thus establishing you a coward as well.
It’s not academic regarding his enlarged heart and hypertension being a contributing factor. It was a contributing factor.
- If Chauvin's unwarranted assault had only lasted for a minute or two and Floyd' heart still stopped, perhaps. It is only academic because everybody's dead after being strangled for 8 minutes.
Your just as annoyingly wrong as Mos1213 is with his banal retorts.
- Your feelings are not relevent here. Please supress them and focus on your problem with facts.
Created:
And yet it goes beyond that with the other very real and complicated health factors Floyd was afflicted with that contribued directly to his death: heart disease, hypertension, Covid-19, excited delirium, AND speedballing.
- No medical expert agrees with your wishful thinking. Floyd's enlarged heart and hypertension may have reduced the amount of time Floyd could survive Chauvin's attack but the question is strictly academic since few humans could survive 8+ minutes of oxygen deprivation. All 5 experts, including Chauvin's paid expert, specifically refute your baseless assertion that COVID-19 caused Floyd's death, no expert accepts your lies that drugs or excited delirium directly contributed to Floyd's death. Your irrational, unwarranted claims are strictly faith-based artifacts from your irrational fear of black people.
PS. He consumed the speed ball right there in the car just before police made contact.
- No testimony supports that claim. You are just making up lies.
It's on the body cam video, which was introduced at trial. Floyd can be heard saying he was having trouble breathing as the initial officer approached his car on the driver's side.
Thomas Lane was that initial officer, on the job less than week after falsifying his own prior criminal record, and here is that body cam video.
- Please identify the timestamp that shows Floyd consuming a speedball, as you claim
- Please identify the timestamp that shows Floyd saying that he is having trouble breathing, as you claim.
Created:
-->
@Mps1213
-->@oromagiAs much as i support what you’re claiming you’re still wrong about the Ng comparison you made. That measurements was ng/ml not just the amount of ng of a drug found in his system. That’s a different measurement.But the claim he made about the 2mg lethal dose is also wrong. Because lethal doses aren’t measured that way. They’re measured in the way of mg/kg meaning the lethal dose for the average person will increase as their weight increases. So he is also completely wrong about whatever he is trying to say. And is a perfect example of a person who is uneducated about pharmacology and toxicity trying to make claims.
- you missed this sentence by me in post #15: "Multiplied by Floyd's body weight we are talking about thousandths of a potentially lethal dose."
Created:
@oromagiAre you daft?
- ad hom
The subject of this debate has nothing to do with just fentanyl being the cause of death, but everything to do with the “speed ball” mixed drug cocktail he took. Reading comprehension matters.
- Agreed. You have failed to comprehend the findings of every single medical expert who looked at Floyd's toxicology- the amount and interaction of drugs in Floyd's system did not kill him, was a tiny fraction of typically lethal doses. The norfentanyl conversion ratio in Floyd's system proves that Floyd was long past high.
PS. He consumed the speed ball right there in the car just before police made contact.
- No testimony supports that claim. You are just making up lies.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
- There were two autopsies of Floyd yeilding four expert opinions- Dr. Andrew Baker, Dr Michael Baden, Dr. Allecia WIlson, and it was latter revealed that Bill Barr quietly ordered a review by the Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner. All four expert opinions were in agreement that Floyd's death was homicide by asphyxiation, no expert thought that Floyd died of a drug overdose. Even at trial, Chauvin's own hired forensic pathologist did not try to argue that Floyd's death should be ruled an overdose but only argued that Floyd's cause of death should be considered "undetermined."
- We should note that a nanogram is one one-millionth of a milligram. Although 2mg is a potentially lethal dose, 11ng is .0000055% of that potentially lethal dose. Multiplied by Floyd's body weight we are talking about thousandths of a potentially lethal dose.
- Susan Neith, a forensic chemist who testified that three pills found inside the SUV and squad car contained a fentanyl concentration of less than 1% and a methamphetamine concentration of 1.9 to 2.9%, whereas "the majority of time" Neith sees "90 to 100% methamphetamine"
- That is, the pills Floyd were taking were less than 5% typical street strength- stepped on weak shit.
- Daniel Isenschmid, a forensic toxicologist who testified that the ratio of fentanyl to norfentanyl in Floyd's blood was 1.96 ng/ml, below the average of 9.05 in postmortem cases and 3.2 in DUI cases, adding that overdose victims rarely have norfentanyl in their blood. He also testified that Floyd's level of methamphetamine was in the bottom 5.9% of a sample of DUI methamphetamine cases
- That is, Floyd was long past peak toxicity: if the far less than lethal amount of drugs in Floyd's system were going to kill him, they would have killed him many hours before the cops arrived.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
McKenzie Sadeghi
USA TODAY
The claim: The cause of George Floyd's death was a drug overdose
Following weeks of testimony in a closely watched case, a 12-member jury found former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin guilty on all counts in the death of George Floyd, a 46-year old Black man who died while being restrained by Chauvin in police custody last May.
As Americans flooded the streets to mark the verdict, misinformation erupted on social media.
Despite video evidence of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck for more than nine minutes, a viral social media post claims Floyd's death was the result of a drug overdose.
"Derek Chauvin is not responsible for George Floyd's drug overdose," reads a screenshot of a tweet shared to Instagram on April 20 with more than 5,000 likes.
In the photo's caption, the user added other misleading claims such as: Floyd had COVID-19; had no injuries to his neck, muscles, esophagus trachea or brain; he went into cardiac arrest from drug overdose; and his lungs were three times normal size, "indicative of opiate overdose."
Similar versions of the claim have been shared across other platforms. One Facebook page wrote on April 20, "Science says Floyd died of an overdose & also says he wasn't suffocated."
USA TODAY reached out to the Instagram user and Facebook page for comment. The Instagram post has apparently been deleted.
Autopsy cites 'restraint and neck compression'
The Hennepin County medical examiner's office ruled Floyd's death was a homicide caused by "cardiopulmonary arrest" complicated by "restraint, and neck compression" while he was being subdued by police.
Medical Examiner Andrew Baker testified that the way officers held Floyd down and compressed his neck while restraining him "was just more than Mr. Floyd could take," given the condition of his heart.
Similarly, an independent autopsy commissioned by Floyd's family ruled "asphyxiation from sustained pressure was the cause" of Floyd's death.
Floyd family attorney Benjamin Crump said at a news conference in June 2020 that Dr. Michael Baden and Dr. Allecia Wilson performed the autopsy, finding there was "neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain."
Dr. Martin Tobin, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist of Loyola University Medical Center, also testified during Chauvin's trial that Floyd died of a lack of oxygen from being pinned to the pavement with a knee on his neck. He added, “A healthy person subjected to what Mr. Floyd was subjected to would have died."
Tobin noted Floyd's body position – officers lifting up his handcuffed arms, Chauvin's knee on his neck, back and sides – are what led to his low oxygen levels, resulting in "low tidal volume, which gives you shallow breaths."
Experts agree Floyd did not die of overdose
While findings from Floyd's autopsy revealed 11 nanograms per milliliter of fentanyl in his blood, medical experts called as prosecution witnesses agreed the amount of fentanyl was not enough to be considered fatal.
Dr. Daniel Isenschmid, a forensic toxicologist at NMS Labs in Pennsylvania, testified and presented data showing the levels of methamphetamine found in Floyd's system were lower than the average amount found in 94% of DUI cases in 2020.
Cardiologist Jonathan Rich told the court: "I can state with a high degree of medical certainty that George Floyd did not die from a primary cardiac event, and he did not die from a drug overdose."
Rich added had it not been for Chauvin's restraint, he believes Floyd would have lived.
Dr. Lindsey Thomas, an expert witness who has reviewed documents and videos in the case, echoed Tobin's testimony and noted the slow nature of Floyd's death supports the conclusion that he did not die of a fentanyl overdose.
USA TODAY has previously debunked the claim that Floyd had enough fentanyl in his system to kill three grown men.
Other false claims surrounding autopsy
Aside from falsely claiming that Floyd died of a drug overdose, the Instagram post makes other inaccurate claims regarding the autopsy report.
While Floyd's autopsy showed he had been infected with the coronavirus when he died, it was not listed as a factor in his death. The medical examiner said Floyd tested positive for the virus on April 3, 2020, and he was likely asymptomatic when he died on May 25.
Further, it is false to claim that Floyd had no physical injuries. Tobin said Floyd straightening out his legs after about five minutes was a signal that he was having a type of seizure caused by a brain injury from oxygen deprivation.
The autopsy did not find any "life-threatening" injuries in Floyd's neck near his head, spine, chest, brain or skull, however, the report identified blunt-force injuries to his face, shoulders, hands, arms and legs, a broken rib and bruises on the wrists from handcuffs.
Additionally, the report does not say Floyd's lungs were three times normal size, as the post claims. The autopsy states sections of the right and left lung showed "generally normal overall architecture."
Our rating: False
The claim that the cause of Floyd's death was a fentanyl overdose is FALSE, based on our research. The medical examiner's autopsy and an independent autopsy done at the request of Floyd's family both ruled his death a homicide. Floyd's toxicology report revealed fentanyl in his system, however, experts agree it was not enough to be considered fatal. COVID-19 was not listed as a factor in Floyd's death, and claims that Floyd didn't have any life-threatening injuries are misleading. Floyd's lack of oxygen during his arrest resulted in brain damage and caused his heart to stop.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The newest update ignores sacred MEEPs and undermines democracy on DART.
- Let's face it, Whiteflame and Supadudz now sport a pretty substantial record of contempt for democracy or any democratic source for determining order and direction on DART
- I would only add that by continuing to ignore our popular initiative from last summer requesting a HISTORY forum while blithely introducing other forum changes without the least gesture towards democratic consultation, Mods demonstrate further contempt for far more that was DART than just two MEEPs
Created:
Posted in:
Right there between the chicken protein and deer protein
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AleutianTexan
-->@oromagiBefore I waste my time answering everything you said, are we just playing a game of semantics? Like, it seems the question of "what is communism" is more about trying to see how far we can stretch a label as opposed to meaningful theoretical conversation, no?
I don't think I need any answering. My only point was to note some historical inaccuracies:
- Communism is an authoritarian state
- Marx created communism under the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat"
- Lenin created the Bolsheviks to protect a democratic system
- Communism is a nationalist description for how to structure society
- Communism hopes to turn individual nation states into one world government
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AleutianTexan
You describe the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the issue with your description is that only works if the entire world transitions at the same time.
- In fact, it doesn't work at all. Hence utopia. By definition, Communism depends on the "withering away" of dictatorships and the peaceful widespread evolution of anarchy, which this reader of history considers a lovely fantasy.
If North Korea doesn't have a totalitarian state that devotes so much time to the military, then the US would regime change.
- After winning World War III presumably, no foregone conclusion there.
This means that, unless the world becomes communist at the same time, communist nations have to remain, at the very least, under the dictatorship of the proletariat
- And therefore, to the mind of Marx and Engels, never become Communist. To Marx's thinking, you could either be Communist or you could be a nation but not both. There's no point to discussing the dictatorships of Stalin or Castro or Mao or Kim as examples of Communism since none ever seriously attempted to implement Marx's theory or even attempted Weydemeyer's theory of a dictatorship by the proletariat.
until global communism is achieved.
- You mistake Communism as a plan to acheive globalism rather than as a counter-reaction to the inevitablility of globalism in the wake of the discovery of the Americas, which is how Marx put the case.
As Lenin with the vanguard correctly identified, this then has to be authoritarian to combat against reactionary elements, internally (white army) and externally (the literal invasions that happened right after the revolution).
- Identified "correctly" to the benefit of Lenin's career, and very definitely not correctly when one considers the well-being or welfare of the Russian people.
Any example of this in the text?
- The word "communism" refers to the French concept of the commune, which were those villages which sucessfully separated from the oversight capacity of the local baron, noble, or magistrate, the same word from which community is derived. The local community was envisaged as the fundamental structural element of Communism:
- Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each.
- Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
- A corollary of this is that the difference between city and country is destined to disappear. The management of agriculture and industry by the same people rather than by two different classes of people is, if only for purely material reasons, a necessary condition of communist association. The dispersal of the agricultural population on the land, alongside the crowding of the industrial population into the great cities, is a condition which corresponds to an undeveloped state of both agriculture and industry and can already be felt as an obstacle to further development.
- No capitol cities, no centralizations of distribution or power, Communism envisions a landscape of equally distributed suburban communities with a community center making local decsions and promoting local interests.
I would argue that, even if he defends worker councils, there's no reason this can't federate into a national democracy.
- Well, then you would argue without complete comprehension. Marx and Engels believed in Democracy as the core dynamic of local decsion-making but Marx and Engels would have considered any "Federation" or "National" anything a failure to realize the promse of Communism.
Lenin is, if not a communist, not a fascist. These are literal polar opposites in cultural and economic practice.
- It is true that most definitions of Fascism include some declaration of anti-communist principle but, like Orwell, I fail to see any important distinction between Hitler's and Lenin's cultural or economic practice. Both achieved hyper-industrialization through mass slavery, mass murder of the ruling class, fetishization of bourgeoise nationalist culture, and hyper-industrialization by tanks, planes and machine guns at the expensive of proletariat blood, freedom, equality. If, for example, we use Umberto Eco's checklist for Fascism, we see that Lenin or Stalin qualify just as easily as Hitler or Castro or Mao.
- "The cult of tradition"
- "The rejection of modernism"
- "The cult of action for action's sake"
- "Disagreement is treason"
- "Fear of difference"
- "Appeal to a frustrated middle class"
- "Obsession with a plot"
- "Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" because "life is permanent warfare"
- "Contempt for the weak"
- "Everybody is educated to become a hero"
- "Machismo"
- "Selective populism"
- "Newspeak"
Lenin is the perfect instantiation of communism
- Upon arrrival in St. Petersburg Lenin refused any power sharing coalition with any Leftist or Socialist faction. Lenin assembled an army, appointed himself chief executive and within weeks began to reject the authority of any polticial entity in Russia, period. Just because Lenin used the word Communism a lot didn't make him a good practicing Communist any more than Lous XIV's use of the word Christian make that King a good practicing Christian. Every time Lenin faced a choice between sharing power with anybody and keeping power for himself, Lenin consolidated power under his dictatorship and like any perfect instantiation of Fascism, commenced to murdering everybody that held on to any power apart from his. There was never a moment in Lenin's life where it might be fairly said that Marx would have been proud of Lenin's work. Lenin betrayed every Communist principle the moment that principle slowed his rise to de facto Czar.
Lenin was just propping up the dictatorship of the proletariat to protect against reactionaries.
- Less than a year after making himself dictator, Lenin established the Cheka to dispose of all rivalries. By 1920, Lenin was mass murdering peasant uprisings demanding the right to publish their opinion. If Lenin was only propping up the proles until they could stand unopposed, then we should have seen Lenin begin to share power after he successfully mass-murdered hundreds of thousands of poltical rvials but Lenin only consolidated power. If Lenin was ever sincere about Communism, he would not have snapped up the fanciest palace in Moscow as personal residence while millions of proles starved homeless.
The CIA admitted that the Soviet Union was much more democratic than they propagandized, even saying Stalin (leagues more authoritarian than Lenin) was merely the leader of a strong party.
- I am not aware of the CIA making such an admission. The CIA has a history of providing intelligence to the US government, but it also has a history of providing disinformation to foreign governments and organizations. Additionally, the Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership was a one-party state with limited political freedoms and widespread repression of dissent. While it's true that the Soviet Union had some elements of democracy, such as elections, it was a highly authoritarian state.
The soviets (worker councils) elected leaders that went to regional areas and it federated up.
- False. By September of 1917, Lenin was appointing Trotsky the Chairman of the Petrograd Soviet and Trotsky was declaring his contempt for Democracy as "bourgeoise." The Soviets were demonstrably more democratic under the Czar and in opposition to that Czar than under the Bolshevik's phony elections, managed by assasination.
Lenin built this system during his rule because he was doing what the dictatorship of the proletariat did, establish communism in a transition phase.
- False. Lenin brought a wrecking ball to the weak and ineffectual democratic processes of all prior existing Socialist and Liberal institutions in Russia. By the time Lenin gets sick in 1921, anybody publicly supporting any kind of real power for the people is dead or dying a concentration camp thanks to Lenin.
Marx is not the end all be all.
- Marx and Engels defined the Theory of Communism and remain the final authority on that concept's definition. If you think that Lenin or Castro or Mao followed the principles of Communism, you are quite desperately, objectively wrong. If you think that what harm those dictators inflicted in the name of absolute power should be called Communism anyway in spite of the absence of any application of theory, then you are setting up a straw man for easy condemnation. Communism is a silly fantasy that badly mistakes the primate's dependencies on leaders and authority but to say that Lenin represents the essence of Communsim is a ridiculous as citing the Spanish Inquistion as representative of the Sermon on the Mount. Yes, critics like to use the Inquisition as a critique of Christianity but those waves of genocide and torture had as little to do with Christ's original theory of salvation as Lenin's genocides have to do with the Communist Manifesto.
Liberals don't read Hobbes and then ignore the rest of the work that has been created in the philosophy, and to treat communism/leftism the same way ignores how ideas grow and get better.
- Unlike Marx, Hobbes did not coin the term LIBERALISM or set out in detail, as did Marx, the parameters of that concept's theory. There is a terrible tendency in the oversimplifications of polticial discourse by Twitter, to think of Liberalism, Leftism, Progressivism, Populism, Socialism, Communism, etc as one monolithic principle when they are in fact independent notions all, with contradictions aplenty and a much smaller Venn diagram of agreement than the pundits of FOX News dare suppose. Some ideas grow and get better but the defintions of terms and concepts should never be as fungible as the fashion of the season. We know what Marx and Engels called Communism and we know that Marx despised the violent opportunists who employed his name to their poltiical self-service. Some ideas grow old and get better but the notion of dictators is older than humanity itself and the dictator's use of fashionable theories and philosophies to justify coup is as old as words. We don't do anybody any favors by failing to recognize dictators by their deeds or justify any dictator by arbitrary reductions to label.
Looking at the ideas of Marx, the dictatorship of the proletariat can not be transitioned to a stateless society until after global communism is achieved, otherwise, there are still reactionary threats to the organization.
- Looking at the history of Mankind, dictatorships sporting fancy labels like proletariat are mostly indistinguishable from other dictatorships. A stateless society is a society that badly mistakes human nature, represents little more than provocation to better armed states, and has minutes left to live. All anarchists are clowns at heart and best left outside the city gates when night falls.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AleutianTexan
Communism, looking past different instantiations, is that an authoritarian state,
- False. If you read Das Kapital, you will discover that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels did not explicitly endorse autocracy in their writings. They believed that the working class, or "proletariat," would overthrow capitalist societies through a revolution and establish a classless, stateless communist society. They believed that the state would "wither away" in this new society, as there would no longer be a need for a governing authority to maintain social classes and enforce private property rights. Marx would spit in your eye for saying that Communism was a State and kick you in the balls for calling that State authoritiarian.
- There are no really sustained actual examples of a Communist economy as theorized by Marx implemented anywhere in the world since that Theory's publication.
which is a representative of the proletariat/working class, takes ownership of the means of production.
- Badly mistaken. Marx kept the commune small. Any kind of national anything or representative anything would not be Communism, by Marx's definition.
Marx created communism under the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat".
- False. Joseph Weydemeyer coined the term. However, Marx and Engels also believed that during the transition period from capitalism to communism, an interim state would be necessary to suppress the resistance of the capitalist class and to establish the new socialist system and both sometimes referred to that interim using Weydemeyer's terminology. The idea of dictatorship was not autocracy, but a temporary and specific phase of the transition period, where the working class holds the power and the state, to suppress the capitalist class and establish the new socialist system. This dictatorship was not meant to be permanent and authoritarian, but rather a means to an end, in order to achieve the classless and stateless society.
Lenin turned this into the vanguard party in the Soviet Union,
- Yes, Lenin exploited the utopian labels of Communism to implement his fascist dictatorship. That doesn't make Lenin or any of his comrades Communists in any honest way.
with a strong one-party state to protect the federated democratic system they had in place.
- Oxymoron. The Soviets themslves were not particularly democratic during the few months Lenin permitted them to live.
These have always been nationalist descriptions for how to structure society, hoping to turn individual nation states into a one world communist government eventually.
- Communism is a utopian economic theory with no substantial precedents in post-tribal civilizaton. If you think Marx was shooting for one world government, then you haven't understood the first thing Marx wrote. As Marx himself said, "if that what Marxism means, then I am no Marxist."
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
What are you even trying to do here?
This site makes three claims about its identity, all of which seems increasingly less true over time
- we have the ultimate freedom to set our own goals and priorities, that is why the community plays such an important role in the project's development
- a team of community-approved moderators works day and night to make sure that intellectual discussions stay intellectual
- we tirelessly work on adding new and improving existing features
I feel like moderators have demonstrated contempt for the opinion and voice of users of this site and view the website as a their personal dominion- a place where only their authority matters and we can all like it or lump it. It feels like the whole site is now like one of SupaDudz's Mafia games where nothing has been particularly thought out, every sincere effort wasted, and the whole project's identity lost to the ever increasing population of trolls barking for attention from the moon.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
-->@oromagiI am not digging for those details. You can look through the threads yourself the issue was brought up last year and dismissed.
- Fuck that. I have already printed here the actual current rules from the DART Code of Conduct demonstrating that you were never qualified to run. What rules are you relying on?
I PMed a mod about it before even deciding to run last time under the other wylted account.
- Well that conversation should be easy quite to reconstruct. Please cut and paste that entire conversation here. I'm sure the mods won't mind.
I think it was also brought up in a public conversation between me and RM
- I can't think of two opinions I could ever give less of a single fuck about. "You and RM had a conversation" carries as much authority on this site as Honey Boo Boo had a conversation with Malibu Barbie.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
->@ILikePie5There was a conversation and it was decided the rule was bullshit
Notice the use of passive voice- used for concealment.
Please identify
- the participants in the conversation,
- explain by what authority those particpants over-ruled a legitimately authorized MEEP, and
- the methods by which the DART community was notified of this over-ruling.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
There was never a conversation about ineligibility to my recollection.
- Seems like a disqualifying admission right there
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
He obv did not know he was ineligible
- Doesn't seem possible. He dropped out suddenly last year after somebody explained the rules to him then and there's no way he forgot he banned for 1/6th of this past year.
Created:
-->
@Vader
1) I announced the permanent change in November that the election will look different. This was known MONTHS before the election date and there was adequate time for any candidate. This is not an issue as we changed it to the date sorted
- link please
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
copy and paste from last year's failed election
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
-->@oromagiHere are the election rules as voted on by the DART Community. Why don't we have any explanation about why Mods are consistently failing to ignore these rules?I agree, we should hold them accountable
actually, "consistently failing to ignore" would suggest mods were paying attention to the rules when I meant the opposite. Terrible writing on my part.
Created:
-->
@Incel-chud
This is a call out thread.
- Respond to the charge
- Why did you run for office knowing that you were not a legitimate candidate?
- Why did you knowingly betray all those who voted for you?
Created:
Wylted is trying to bury to the lead story of this campaign! Fucking censorship!
READ here the scandalous fact Wylted is shitting his pants over!
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
-->@WyltedCan we make oromagi a moderator?
- I was offered the position when Ramshutu stepped down but I declined
Created:
For a second year in a row, the Moderation team has ignored the democratically endorsed and enforced procedures for electing a user to the position of President and instead just did whatever the fuck they wanted when they wanted without explanation or apology.
I'll reprint the rules that we democratically agreed to abide by in October 2021 below.
Let's be sure to note:
- WyIted was banned for 60 days on April 3rd of last year, disqualifying him from running for this office.
- The rules clearly state that there is a designated nomination period but Mods never bothered, in spite of repeated admissions that such neglect interferred with the orderly conduct of last year's election.
- The rules clearly state that a new president will be announced on January 1st of the new year but Mods have never acheived this deadline
- The rules clearly state that there will be three weeks of campaigning followed by a week of voting but Mods have consistently, anti-democractically truncated this voting allotment that we DARTers decided for ourselves without apology.
- The rules clearly state that there is a nomination period/general election period/run-off election over the course of at least one month but this year, mods just announced two candidates and gave us two days to vote.
- seems like there was plenty of violation of rules prohibiting campaigning outside of DART, DMs, etc.
Here are the election rules as voted on by the DART Community. Why don't we have any explanation about why Mods are consistently failing to ignore these rules?
In order for a user to qualify for the Presidential position:
- The user’s account must be greater than 6 months old.
- The user must have been awarded at least one golden medal achievement.
- The user can not have been banned more frequently than once within the past year.
- The user can not have been banned for more than 21 days within the past year.
- The user must have abided by all campaigning rules.
- The user must agree to their role powers and limitations.
- The user can not have served more than 1 previous term as President.
- The user can not be currently serving on the moderation team.
ElectionThe President shall be elected for a yearly term each December, to be formally instated January 1st of the following year. The first three weeks of December will be dedicated to optional campaigning, and the rest of the month will be dedicated to the election process, all of which will be overseen and managed by moderation.The election process shall, largely, mimic the Hall of Fame process. First, users who wish to be President will nominate themselves during a designated nomination period. Afterward, the DebateArt user base shall vote for their favoured candidate within a preliminary polling stage. Finally, the top three most popular candidates from the preliminary polling stage will go to a final voting stage. During this period, one of the candidates shall be elected to become President by simple majority vote. Moderation will have the power to delay or extend voting periods as well as conduct tiebreaker rounds as deemed necessary.Campaigning Rules & GuidelinesDuring the designated campaigning period, users may advocate election for themselves or others by doing any of the following:
- Within any three day window, creating at most ONE non-spam campaign-related forum thread or debate.
- Offering non-spam contributions to the campaign-related forum threads or debates of others.
- Changing their profile picture or user biography.
ANY forms of campaigning outside of these sanctioned activities are prohibited.For extra clarity, prohibited campaigning methods include (but are not limited to):
- Any method involving spam, including mass private messaging.
- Any campaigning within unrelated threads or debates.
- Any campaigning within mediums other than DebateArt.com.
Moderation shall monitor and enforce the campaigning rules as necessary.
- Furthermore, I told you so
Created:
Obviously the bill is going nowhere but designed to identify the White Supremacists hiding among us by triggering their compulsion to play the victim. Thanks for your cooperation!
Created:
Posted in:
Stock Markets do better under Democratic Presidents but it would be a mistake to assume that the first two years are representative. If you went by the first two years, most Republican Presidents would look better than Democrats. Obama, Clinton, Carter, Roosevelt, Wilson would all look far, far worse than they looked at the end of their Presidencies. Likewise, if you just judged Republican Presidents by the last two years of their presidencies, all Republicans would be outperformed by all Democrats of the 20th and 21 centuries.
Created:
Posted in:
If left wing economics are very popular in even red states, why don’t red states have blue govorners?
- A number of reasons. Racism, sexism, massive amounts of misinformation are important factors.
Created:
Posted in:
There are millions of government employees, but there are about half a million government officials.
- 98.6% of ELECTED OFFICIALS (493,000) are local, low-paying jobs.
I don’t believe that poll is accurate. This is because most polls state the left wing position is the more popular one in America.
- If you don't believe the polls, believe the voters. 60% of voters in Nebraska voted in a $15 minimum wage last Novemeber, more than the number of voters that voted for a Republican governor.
Created:
Posted in:
1) There are over half a million politicians in the US
- 493,000 are local positions (98.6%) - school board members, dog catchers, etc.
Assuming each person gets paid $100,000 a year
- The average salary of a US poltician is $24,000/yr. Many politicians are paid far less than that, although the majority of elected political positions are not full time jobs, either.
and we cut their salary to minimum wage, this saves about $50 billion a year.
- Insanely wrong. Although the Federal min wage is $7.50, fewer than 250,000 (less than one tenth of 1%) US workers actually work for that wage. Democratic states pay much higher minimum wages and the average minimum wage worker makes about $12/hr- the same wage as the average US politician. The average pay in the US is $28/hr.
2) It lets our politicians live their values. If the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, that’s what our politicians get.
- Essentially, this is already true although Democratic politicians are paid much higher hourly wages than Republicans- this helps to explain why Republicans are so much more corrupt than Democrats- they don't take the elected position for the money because they couldn't live on that money- they take the position to leverage money corruptly. But right now, the average politician in the US does make roughly the average minimum wage.
This both would cause the minimum wage to rise to $15 an hour (maybe $20 an hour if our politicians want a higher salary) and this helps we the people.
- 70% of Americans and nearly every Democrat supports a $15/hr minimum wage The fastest way to raise the min wage to $15/hr is to never vote Republican ever again.
Created:
More than 70% of all rape is done by a friend or relative. In the case of children, more than 90% of all rapes are done by a househeld member (father, sometimes brother). If you were raped by your father, brother, even a friend you might be willing to seek justice but how much less willing to seek justice might you be if you knew it would mean the death of your father? Seeking the death penalty for rape sounds tough on crime but such a measure would likely greatly increase the problem of underreporting. Besides, incidence of rape in the US has gone down by more 80% since these SC decisions. If a policy is working successfully to greatly decrease crime, why mess with it?
Created:
Alas that TWS is too dim-witted to appreciate the difference between law-abiding officials who immediately follow established protocols and criminal spies who hide what they stole from the government for years, lie for years about what they have and how important what they stole was and then repeatedly deny they are subject to same justice system as ordinary Americans, who they despise.
Created:
Posted in:
And when you’re a star, they let you do it.
- Exactly! denotes the power imbalance.
- And when you're the boss, they let you do it.
- And when you're a cop, they let you do it.
- And when you're a Senator, they let you do it.
- And when you're twice their size, they let you do it.
a male staffer for Herschel Walker’s 2022 Senate campaign alleged that Schlapp had fondled the staffer’s genitals repeatedly while being driven back to his hotel in Georgia. The staffer stated “Matt Schlapp of the CPAC grabbed my junk and pummeled it at length."
- At length. That poor staffer didn't fight back. Schlapp is a big man in the GOP so the staffer let him do it. You agree that the staffer was assaulted but forgive Trump for the exact same act
Created:
Posted in:
consensual pussy grabs
- False. The topic of the conversation was "moving on women like bitches." No woman consents to be treated like a dog.
TRUMP: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
GRAB [verb]
- To grip suddenly; to seize; to clutch
- (intransitive) To make a sudden grasping or clutching motion (at something).The suspect suddenly broke free and grabbed at the policeman's gun.
- To restrain someone; to arrest.
- The word GRAB brings with it the information that subject of the grab is non-consensual. You don't need to seize or arrest or restrain a consenting subject.
- All that 100% obvious in Oct 2016. Every American who voted for Trump knew he was a rapist and voted for him anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
Trump is a sexual assaulter who openly bragged of doing to women what Schlapp did that staffer. Trump was friends and neighbors with Epstein for 15 years. Epstein threw parties for Trump where it was just the two of them alone with 30 girls. At least one 13 year old claims to have been raped by both men. Certainly, we know the only reason Trump's appointment of Alexander Acosta makes sense is because he reduced Epstein's criminal charges, kept him out of prison and kept the whole thinkg out of the press in 2008. Schlapp is accussed of one grope and you're ready to condemn, Trump has at least 26 credible accusers- most far worse than a simple grope - so why isn't your opinion as at least as bad as Schlapp?
Created:
Posted in:
good luck with that.
I am still waiting for this addition: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7807-vote-the-meep-conspiracy-theories-and-or-history-as-new-forum-categories
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
If you keep to yourself than nobody has any reason to attack you at all.
- Tell that to the Abenaki, the Japanese, the Aborigines
How would dedicating a portion of everyone in a communities paycheck to disaster relief harm their ability to respond to disasters? Especially when you are pooling money from multiple communities who want to benefit from disaster relief?
- collecting funds is difficult since funds don't usually have eviction or enforcement powers, the best they can do is sue which quickly becomes a negative drain on fund. Adding to property tax is usually most efficient. Eventually all the Republicans don't pay thier dues and the Feds bail them out anyway.
- major target for fraud, abuse. Tend to have little state/fed regulation oversight
- distributions tend to be subjective and inequitable favoring trustees and board members' interests. Year-round residents favored over seasonal residents, etc.
- Hard to predict specific cases. Say, a beach house gets burned down by a forest fire and wants access to a disaster fun intended for hurricanes.
- Funds like this tend to get spent in courtrooms rather than rebuilding.
- A lot of disaster insurance funding tends to get wasted in the same way. BIg govt disaster funding tends to be more efficient, objective, equitable, and intelligently spent. Small govt tends to be very good at local response to repeated problems and mostly poorly prepared for unexpected events.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I know in theory it is nice to throw money at problems but it doesn't help.
- Scientists and rational people are only interested in the well documented results: Economic Security Programs Cut Poverty Nearly in Half Over Last 50 Years
If Laissez-faire capitalism were attempted it would virtually eliminate poverty. democratic rights are stupid
- Yes, we know you miss slavery but that institution is dangerously unstable and morally reprehensible.
How would that directly benefit the United States?
- peace, commerce, cooperation on global problems
We don't need to be a superpower we just need to make sure our people are living great lives.
- No but we'd be a little poorer and a little less safe, which you would be the first to bitch about.
Couod be accomplished better with a night's watchman
- Nightwatchmen don't build bridges, sewers, etc
We had more access to healthcare before government intrusion into it.
- Profoundly ignorant lie
I would rather have a community where you pay maybe a 10% fee to join the community and several communities pool funds together that would result in a type of disaster insurance that would kind of replace that and do the same thing.
- In other words, you'd rather most communities lie rotting in ruins
Created:
Of course, if McCarthy had just expelled the members of Congress who tried to overthrow government on Jan 6th, Republicans would be in power right now. Another lesson in appeasing violent fascists. If McCarthy had impeached Trump for the same, DeSantis would be running for President right now.
Created:
- Ensuring American political and economic superpower advantages
- Providing the basic public goods and services of 21 century civilization, such as clean water, sanitation, and education
- Protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens through democratic institutions and the rule of law
- Promoting economic development and job creation through fiscal and monetary policies
- Reducing poverty and inequality through social welfare programs
- Protecting the environment and natural resources for future generations
- Managing and regulating natural disasters, such as floods and earthquakes
- Maintaining infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and transportation systems
- Providing access to healthcare and addressing public health issues
- Promoting international relations and cooperation with other countries.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I'd be okay with it, but 95% of Conservatives would be outraged. The only thing worse than a Democrat is a RINO.
That's my point. Dems only need 6 GOP votes to put a stick in the eye of MAGA and McCarthy. 6 votes is less than 5% of the Republican caucus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
So just say you want corruption already.
- It just physics, human nature. You can't consume energy without pollution, you can't use power without corruption.
- Thank you for confirming that you are a fool
And also God rules the world. God is not corrupt.
- Who made corruption? Who made the devil? Who created the eternal suffering of hell? God did. Who made pain? God did. Who punished humanity for eternity just because Eve wanted knowledge? God did. Who murdered everyone on Earth for displeasing him execept one little ship? God did. Who murdered the first-born sons of an entire nation just to punish one stubborn king? God did. Who founded a religion by demanding Abraham sacrifice his only son? God did. Who nuked two cities for excessive partying? God did. Who turned a good woman into salt just for looking over her shoulder at her home which he just burned to the ground? God did. Who nailed his only son to a cross as a symbol of forgiveness rather than simply forgiving? Who watched his son suffer for a couple of hours before deciding he was satisfied? God did.
- If the Bible speaks true, then YHWH is the one and only and everlasting source of all corruption on Earth. All corruption seeps from shit that God made. I don't know what book you're reading but YHWH is the most corrupt motherfucker of all.
- YHWH is also a classic example of the Conservative impulse to follow kings. Liberals assume we are free to act and everyone shares like resposiblity for human happiness on Earth. Conservatives fail to take responsibility for their actions and manufacture invisible kings in their white male likeness, sitting on invisible thrones, with invisible superpowers and then use that invisible king to justify all kinds of nasty shit- let's enslave women because our invisible king told us to, let's enslave Black people because Ham saw his Dad naked and the invisble king was much displeased. Let's hate the gays because the invisible king sanctions our hate.
- It's all just phony bullshit Conservatives tell themselves to excuse their abuses of power and cover the pleasure you take in that abuse.
Notice I didn't say perfect, but I DID say non-corrupt. There's a MAJOR difference.
- And then you end up following Trumps and Putins and David Koreshes and never understand why it always ends in tears and rubble.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
-->@oromagiObjectively, choosing the least corrupt party because it is less corrupt is by itself a very excellent reason.1: they are both equally corrupt.But even if I grant you, for the sake of argument, that the GOP is more corrupt, then why even accept corruption at all?It sounds to me that you want corruption no matter what.The lesser of two evils is still evil. The lesser corrupt of two parties is still corrupt. Why accept either one?
- Only a god-damned fool supposes there is such a thing as power without corruption.
- As Lord Acton succintly said, ""Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men…"
- We Liberals understand there no such thing as purity in politics. The trick to good and sustainable government is to spread out the power as much as you can and remain effective. Conservatives always want a king and always seek to pool power towards some new coronation and therefore Conservatives in every society ever built have always been the more corrupt. Liberals always seek to spread the power around and therefore in every society ever built the Liberals are always the less corrupt. This is just basic politics 101. There is no such thing as no corruption and applying such a black & white purity test always leads to greater corruption. We fight corruption by fighting for maximum equality, maximum human freedoms, maximum power sharing across the diverse interests and talents of community.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
-->@oromagiAnd yet none of that addresses the point that you want the Democrats, who are just as corrupt, to stay in power.Democrats are just as corrupt. The whole party is bankrolled by the CCP.If you hate Trump for selling out, then you should hate Democrats too.
- You asked my reason for supporting Democrats and it is only your poor reading comprehension that prevents your from being answered:
- As I already said:
- In every negative respect you can think of, from pedophilia to highway robbery, from promoting medical disinformation during a pandemic for personal profit to cheating on their taxes while raising taxes on the middle class, modern Republicans are fifty times worse than modern Democrats. Outgoing Republicans describe their party as given over to a cocaine-fueled orgy.
- Objectively, choosing the least corrupt party because it is less corrupt is by itself a very excellent reason.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
- Far from it but it's not like Dems are going to get that alignment as long GOP outnumbers Dems in the House, right?
- I say that but now I'm hearing that at least some of the holdouts will vote Jeffries before McCarthy. Dems only need six so that seems at least at the margin of possibility right now.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
She still isn't aligned with the Democrats in policies/values.
- Far from it but it's not like Dems are going to get that alignment as long GOP outnumbers Dems in the House, right?
- Besides the obvious nod to bi-partisanship, it would be seen as a reward for courageously demanding the truth about the Jan 6th and putting American Democracy before personal poltical profit. I doubt Cheney would appoint radicals to chair committees but she would certainly appoint solid pre-Trump style Republican conservatives. Cheney's appointment would certainly gain some good will from the Romney/Bush wing of Republican politics.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
He will resign like Boehner for sure. But if he’s still the Leader of the Party, then it’ll be hard
- Sounds like Jim Jordan is a goner too after this Sports Illustrated/HBO documentary comes out detailing what he knew when about at least 350 sex assaults on male athletes at Ohio State while Jim Jordan was coaching there for 8 years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Now why would you want a party that investigates their political opponents,
rigs votes,
and actively partners with enemies of the state like China
- Forbes Estimates China Paid Trump At Least $5.4 Million Since He Took Office, Via Mysterious Trump Tower Lease
- China grants 18 trademarks in 2 months to Trump, daughter
- Jared Kushner reportedly was warned that his close friend Wendi Deng Murdoch may be a Chinese spy
- What’s going on with Mar-a-Lago and Chinese spies, explained
- Trump Had Hidden $19.8 Million Loan From North Korea-Linked Company As President: Report
- ‘Red-Handed’: 23 Former U.S. Senators and Congressmen Who Lobby for Chinese Military or Chinese Intelligence-Linked Companies
- 18 of 23 are Republican including former Speaker Trent Lott, former SecDef William Cohen, Connie Mack, David Vitter, etc.
Republicans are objectively far more corrupt than Democrats in every aspect. You can't name a Democratic sin that isn't committed fifty-fold times worse on the Republican side.
Right now, you literally have a dude who lied about his criminal record, lied about his education, lied about his job history, started a fake charity and kept it all for himself (a la Trump), spent millions last year while getting evicted from his apartment (which wasn't even in the Congressional district he was supposed to be in) but doesn't seem to have any legal source of income, lied about being divorced, lied about his current marriage, who Republicans are 100% supporting as a legitimate Member of Congress. Republican corruption is out of control and far in excess of any Democratic failings.
A Russian dictator invades Europe and the Republicans corruptly side with the dictator.
When radicals tried to overthrow the US governement, the Republican Party actively supported and provided cover for the terrorists. The Republican Party is not a particulary pro-American or pro-Democracy party. Why should any loyal American suffer the Republican Party to continue plaguing our Nation?
To quote Jesus on the subject, "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You don’t want to be the enemy of Kevin McCarthy
- McCarthy doesn't seem like much of a threat.
- We have him on tape in 2015 telling Paul Ryan that he thinks Donald Trump is a Russian agent and what did he do about it?
- We have him on tape on Jan 6th blaming Trump for the attack and stating that he's no longer fit to lead. A week later he's down in Mar-a-Lago begging for his support.
- McCarthy can't even bring himself to condemn the insurrectionists who tried to overthrow his govt and now are trying to overthrow him. That seems quite soft.
- Pundits are saying that if McCarthy doesn't make Speaker, he doesn't plan to server out the rest of his term.
Created: