Democrats are doing a ‘very sinister thing’

Post Reply New Topic

Fact: trump is a pathological liar and believes conspiracy theory nonsense.

Fact: q is conspiracy theory nonsense.

People who support trump, still, after all the crazy he’s done, may also believe and support that q crap.

Wrong?

Prove it.

It's unhelpful to be part of a political side because in practice parties are known to have some history of acting and allying with certain parties or people, doing certain things to obtain power, then candidates have their own compass, if they're liberal they are not always ruling in liberal ways. They end up being up-tight and controlling communists instead of differences acceptance like lgbtq, religion and opinion freedom and fairness in obtaining goods if the state controls goods. Anyway the less control the state has the better it is. But that doesn't mean that the party you choose can control the law and freedom of people automatically while in position. But the person in command can make the rules and alter the meanings of their party as they desire or understand.

If you elect somebody it's possible you end up criticizing them and hating them, like it often happens and many lose their position.

So being against your own political party should be natural. It happens all the time even so far as to switch sides. That's why every year different political parties may win. People change their minds.

Then why sustain to be part of something if once something happens to that party such as mass corruption within the group with many arrested you will want to switch sides.

A country's needs shift in time, today it may need to fix the lgbt issues, or it may not be ready for change because of stressed population with different priorities, and tomorrow it might have different needs.
Will you go one line no matter the present time just because loyalty if the other party looks more ready to take lead and is decent?

Anyhow there sometimes is so little choice because there are only two big parties so election may not favor the small parties. So what happens if you have to choose, if you're not liking any. You might not care about either but still vote.

So reality of politics is much more than theory and picking sides.
And there are central parties because they can sometimes be elected and liked. But the central has as many negatives as either party. Because it's defined as actually not having any views either left or right it makes change even more limited. So you have a ruler which may be suppressed power-wise in that way, more than right and especially left which tends to want state in control. That's the scariest thing and yet people still have enough reasons to like and trust the left because of other benefits. And dislike center. Isn't politics strange? And doesn't it actually seem like the left is the only middle from that particular point of view?

Bump.

Last edited by Pepe on 10 Feb 2021, 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I mean I am not sure it's so inaccurate, I think anyone who still supports Trump now is at least a little bit of a lunatic or a traitor at the very least.

I believe Trump is a voluminous lier, as so many politicians are, yes.
The ability to lie is a key ingredient of being a politician.
It is also part of partisanism.
I was under the impression most knew this already.

I have said a number of times that I don't take anything Trump says seriously.
It seems we are on the same page here, but you can't see it.
Interesting.



I have said previously that I agree.
You must have missed it.



"You are barking up the wrong tree."
My mistake was not in underlining the part of the quote I was referring to.
I will do this now:

You said:


1. I am not supporting Trump.
I have said many times that I would like him to go, I don't want to see his face in politics again, he is a narcissistic ninny.
Please refer to one on the many posts I have made about this: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=394316&start=16#p8712910
People erroneously keep on calling me a Trump fanboy, simply because I am being objective.
"What part of 'no' don't you understand"?

2. I have already said I think "Q crap" was rubbish.
"What part of 'no' don't you understand"?

So, my answer is still "no, and no.

My mistake was not to underline the specific part I was replying to.
Your mistake was not considering I was referring to the last part of your post.
Simples.

Time to move on.

Gross generalisation.
The Republican party is more than Trump.

Had I mentioned the republican party you might have a point, but I said 'anyone who still supports Trump now' and that doesn't apply to all the republicans.

https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_623 ... n%20people

If the tar and feathers fit...

Anyone who believes every one of the 74 million Republican voters had the exact same reason for voting, needs a reality check.
It is self-evident nonsense and you are doing your credibility serious damage.

Maybe so. But there had still been plenty of them who had supported Trump out of fear of the their fellow Americans who they see as "the other."

That's incredibly naive, and therefore very dangerous.

What we're basically saying there is, we'll accept whatever choices we're given, and furthermore we'll accept that the existing political framework is, has always been, and will always be, The Only True Way.

So, any thinking outside of the predetermined limits is outlawed. If neither of the choices presented by the system actually work in your favour, tough luck.

Whoever controls the economy, education, policing, the courts and the media gets to dictate to you the choices that you can choose from. And more subtly, the background values and ethics you base those decisions on.

That gives an enormous amount of power to those already in charge, and those who shape the landscape for them, and almost none to those casting votes. It's a highly significant, totally artificial constraint on choice, debate and freedom.

If we obey those false conventions and false limitations, we're instantly suckered into the same position of unwitting helplessness as all those already trapped inside. There's no better way of instantly losing sight of what's actually going on.

A bit like going to the used car lot and believing everything the used car salesman says. You do realise he's got many, many reasons for lying, right? Step back a bit. Why does the wear on the seats and the pedals seem excessive for the mileage on the clock? How come none of the tyres match and the history file is missing? Why won't magnets stick to the cills? What are those red stains in the trunk?

This is like that, except with democracy.

There's a bit of selective editing gone on there, as my point about Bernie and AOC is I suspect they're being given lots of airtime to portray the Democrats (as a whole) as being far more left-wing - by American standards, at least - than they really are, as a way of discrediting the party. In the same way I'm sure some Democrat papers, TV stations, blogs etc. are trying to claim all Republicans worship Trump. Neither is true, but it makes for a sensational and clearly binary, simplistic debate, which all the media talking heads seem to love. It makes the shit-throwing a lot easier.

My point about media bias has been made elsewhere, but I'll repeat it here. America, culturally, has a much greater stomach for far-right ideology than far-left. Because the centre isn't actually the centre, it's a much smaller step from the artificial US political centreground to nationalistic extremism on the right, than it is from the same artificial centre point to an extreme, nationalistic left. As a consequence when you look at US analysis of media bias, the whole analysis is, in itself, biased.

Here's an example:

US media bias chart

In international terms, outlets such as CNN and the NY Times - shown on the far left of the table - are broadly Liberal / Social Democrat in outlook, i.e. centrist. However the Daily Mail, American Spectator and Fox News are most definitely right-wing. So effectively the whole political playing field stretches from the middle to the right. Which in turn means, if you seek true political balance, it's necessary to go fishing off the left hand side of that table to find opinions sufficiently left-wing to balance out any Fox News quotes. Stories that address individuals as "comrade", to balance out the stories that address individuals as financial fresh meat.

There's no US equivalent to the Morning Star, as far as I'm aware. Nobody reads it here, to be fair, but the point is - it's allowed to exist. And should you wish to read it, you won't get strung up from a lamp-post by rednecks, whose belief in democracy only extends to giving people the freedom to do as they're told.

Hidden, cultural bias is a lot more powerful than blatant tub-thumping. No-one questions why Fox is allowed to exist, but they sure as hell would if someone launched a Communism channel. So the limits of debate are being controlled, options limited, topics deliberately accepted or rejected long before they hit the public domain. Controlling the narrative. Same with education, federal and state bureaucracy, police and the courts, banks, churches.... They give some options and withold others. Basic ISA theory.