cancel reply
Posting mode: Reply


Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
name e-mail subject pw(deletion)
Post and go
Bump thread?

  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Javascript must be enabled for all of our addons to work.
  • Come chat and see that we're all a bit crazy on IRC!
  • Do not post any artwork from sexyfur.com and/or
    Jeremy Bernal. This is now a bannable offense.
Flockmod!

File: hillarycard1.jpg - (12.89 KB, 371x222) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
13201 No.3485098

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/01/michael-flynn-pleads-guilty-to-false-statements-charge-in-russia-probe.html

Feeling the Heat yet trumptards?

No.3485106
File: Let_Me_Tell_The_future_For_You.png - (387.79 KB, 992x558) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
397095

If Donald Trump had a lick of sense he would veto the Republican Tax plan because the moment it passes and the donors get what they want, the entire GOP is going to turn against him. He will become the scapegoat they can pin everything on. "We were told to do it by the president. He was our party leader and we felt we had no choice. Now we have to cut social security to pay for his insane greed. What can we do? We were the real victims here. "

No.3485137

Nope. As the only thing illegal was lying to the FBI here. Flynn gets to twist for that, but it's really just his problem.

They're letting the low level man hang, typical government behavior.

No.3485149

The latest -- Flynn got permission from President Obama to talk to the Ambassador of Russia in this case. Whoopsie. Looks like the trail ends here, hombre.

No.3485187

>>3485149

According to who?
according to "foxnews agent"?

I've been reading foxnews and is nothing but excuses by some twats of all kinds.
Somehow they always redirect it to Obama and Hillary.

Funny thing is, its very well reported that Obama warned Trump about flynn.. and he(Trump) didn't give a damn.

No.3485193

>>3485137
Apparently you missed the memo that one of the accusations leveled at Flynn was a fucking "conspiracy to commit kidnapping" scheme where the Turkish Government allegedly offered him and his son $15 million if they helped extradite a cleric who's been living in Pennsylvania since the late '90s that the Turkish president believes organized a coup recently.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/10/michael-flynn-trump-turkish-dissident-cleric-plot
And the original source was the fucking Wall Street Journal - https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller-probes-flynns-role-in-alleged-plan-to-deliver-cleric-to-turkey-1510309982?mg=prod/accounts-wsj - which isn't exactly considered "liberal".

Meaning that if all Flynn got slapped with was "Giving false statements", odds are Mueller's team got some very juicy info in exchange.

And on that note, Mueller also swiftly dismissed a top FBI agent from the investigation when it came to light that he'd posted anti-Trump messages to his twitter account - http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/362932-mueller-removes-fbi-agent-from-investigative-team-over-potential - in a good move that should speak to how non-partisan he intends to keep all this, but will instead be taken as "See?! We knew he was in Clinton's pocket!!!!!" by the die-hard Trump supporters.

No.3485219

>>3485193
You win no credit being fair or non-partisan towards rightwingers. The correct response is to stomp on them, grind your heel, and then laugh when they complain about it.

Because if you don't do all that, they'll act as if you had anyway, except without any of the benefits of actually doing it.

No.3485226

>>3485219
Except when it's a fucking criminal investigation, you have to be damned-near spotless in your conduct to avoid giving credibility to accusations that it's just a partisan witch-hunt.

No.3485228

>>3485226
And to back that up, I'll mention one particular case where impropriety on the part of officers led to a full-on acquittal - the OJ Simpson case.

No.3485229

>>3485098

You make me ashamed to be a liberal.

No.3485230

>>3485226
They won't care how credible your investigation is, but you're in luck. The rightwingers got their disastrous tax bill rammed through, so they don't need Trump anymore. You can anticipate seeing him kicked to the curb real soon now that he's served his only purpose.

No.3485237

>>3485230
Except Trump, for God knows why, is genuinely more popular with the Republican base (and thus the Primary voters) than most of those in Congress are, barring a few States.
And Mueller being on the up-and-up matters because if he isn't by-the-book, the entire case could get tossed out due to prosecutorial misconduct.

No.3485240

>>3485237
You keep thinking that shit matters. If the orange fool decides that he's going to blow off the courts and all his flunkies let him get away with it, nothing will ever be done. We are currently living in a lawless world now where ideology is the only thing that matters, and you're clinging to arcane court proceedings like a chump.

No.3485243

>>3485240
...I'm just going to reference >>3485229's statement to "logic" like this.

No.3485244

>>3485243
You can try to deny it, but it's the actual truth. These fuckers literally do not care about anything but getting their way. There is nothing so sacred that they won't stomp on it to get what they want.

And I'm not a Liberal thank christ, I'm a Communist.

No.3485315

>>3485244

Funny, the three studies I've seen show that conservatives are more likely to seek out opposing media than liberals, and just a smudge less likely than libertarians.

How's it feel to live in a communist echo chamber?

No.3485318

>>3485315
You say Communist echo chamber like it's a bad thing. We should help rightwingers and libertardians find opposing media through free reeducation camps.

No.3485321
File: collusion flag.png - (4.01 KB, 665x398) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
4111

The new collusion flag for the crazy peoplez

No.3485322

>>3485318
https://youtu.be/Iyy7cP8jZb4
"German... or else!"

No.3485327

>>3485322
I'm told rightwingers love the great outdoors. Why wouldn't they want a free, all-expenses paid camping trip?

No.3485372

>>3485327
Because Nazis are leftwingers.

No.3485376

>>3485372

Wrong, Fascism and Nazism are more related to the right as they lean on a oligarchy pseudo totalitarianism.

No.3485403

>>3485376

Pretty sure they had national socialism in the moniker my dude. Also pretty sure Hilter said he wanted to destroy the private sector because it gave democratic power to the people through spending, and such a market has the long term behavior of a Toddler.

Nah, Nazi were leftists. Claim to the contrary all you want. Go link all the wikipedia pages you want. Wave around dictionaries printed after 2008, I mean, I know you want to.... But before President Obama, most people graduating college knew that the Nazi held socialism dear and near to their hearts.

No.3485405
File: cult-news.png - (85.92 KB, 476x141) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
87984

>>3485403

>Ignore all facts and history, believe me instead.
No.3485406

>>3485403
I see. So Antifa are right-wing in that case. Because they have a diametrically opposed ideology. Antifa is on the conservative side!

No.3485409
File: Goering_Anti_Vivisection.jpg - (82.10 KB, 500x603) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
84069

>>3485376 - Wrong.
Let's see - the Fascists wanted a minimum wage, an eight hour work day for all workers, government-run health care, a huge progressive tax on capital amounting to a one-time confiscation of excess wealth from the rich, abolishing the stock market, a government takeover of all arms manufacturers, state-run "rigidly secular" schools with no religious influences, and universal voting rights for everyone at age 18 - including women.

The Nazis were first and foremost socialists - The National Socialist German Workers Party. "We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today's capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!"

The Nazis also championed animal rights laws (some of which are still in use), made vivisection illegal, and ended fox hunting. They outlawed child labor, demanded free higher education at state expense, discouraged smoking and junk-food, and promoted physical fitness through a legal "sports obligation".

Most leftist of all, the Fascists and Nazi did not want people to be individuals. Their people were part of a village, a society, a people, that owes what it has to everyone, and must work for (and if necessary, die for) the common good. None of this "working for yourself and your family" selfishness. The government will take care of all your needs. That's what totalitarianism means. And it is the basis of leftism.

No.3485412

>>3485406

The mental gymnastics to make everything bad in life fit under the conservative brand is hilarious.

>>3485405

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/google-redefines-the-word-fascism-to-smear-conservatives-protect-liberal-rioters/

Well when you change the definition of fascism to have a political bias it's quite easy to change the Nazis from left to right. Everything fits down the memory hole, right?

No.3485415

>>3485412
If Antifa and Nazis both agree with one another why does Antifa bash Nazis?

Also, why does /pol/ like Nazis so much? Is /pol/ a leftist communist group? If so, why do they like Pinochet so much? Why isn't Antifa in favor of /pol/?

Why are you so full of shit?

No.3485416

Fact is that the Dinesh Disouza historical revisionism about "leftist Nazis" can't work anymore. Modern rightwingers openly and unapologetically endorse Nazism, why aggressively condemning liberals, communists and Antifa. Meanwhile, more and more leftists are coming around to Marxism, and they aggressively condemn rightwingers and Nazis.

There's no way to square that circle if you're a rightwinger revisionist. Your bullshit is drowned out when your own side goes on camera to wave the swastika.

No.3485419

>>3485416
Rightwingers don't support Nazis. The originals were far-left totalitarians. The ones calling themselves Nazis now, along with /pol/-types are doing it because they are trolls who like the attention and can't resist triggering the retarded antifa drones, who have no idea what a fascist even is. I don't know what 3rd rate community college you learned history from, but they must still be employing the same Stalinist rejects they had in the 1950s who have been weeping over the failed Soviet Union for the last 25 years. Try learning history from someone with something better than an associates degree.

No.3485423
File: 1408508502680.gif - (2017.62 KB, 254x204) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
2066042

And this thread, ladies and gentlemen, is why USA is now a joke.

No.3485426

>>3485423
I know this is just a troll board and all, but that actual debate seen around the country looks exactly like this - this may as well be just as depressing as the real thing.

I think that if anyone finds themselves debating a topic that is already understood crystal clear on a global scale, they really should take a quick double-check to find out what the story is. There's no need to debate, just go read about it and let it go.

Seriously, if you're debating in this thread and you're being honest, go do it right now. Google "nazi left or right". Click every link. Take a good 15 to 30 minutes, sit down with your favorite drink, and spend some time reading.

No.3485427

>>3485423
Do you think he would let me cum inside his plush after he's done with it?

No.3485428
File: Know_Your_Place_Earth_Pony_.png - (1849.57 KB, 1345x2482) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
1893960

>>3485409

>Nazi are socialists...

Clearly, that is why they were marching and yelling "Unite the Left!" in Charlotsville.

Oh, wait...

No.3485432

>>3485428
They were socialists until Hitler came along. See Röhm and Strasser - up until the night of the long knives, when Hitler had them all killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism

Like in all socialism, national socialism got up-ended and turned against itself by a powerful demagog.

No.3485433

>>3485428
From the roots of German socialism, Nazism is best understood as socialism without Marxism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preussentum_und_Sozialismus

>Spengler claimed that Marxism sought to train the proletariat to "expropriate the expropriator", the capitalist, and then to let them live a life of leisure on this expropriation.[11] In summary, Spengler concluded that "Marxism is the capitalism of the working class" and not true socialism.
>"true socialism" in its German form "does not mean nationalization through expropriation or robbery."
>True socialism according to Spengler would be in the form of corporatism, stating that "local corporate bodies organized according to the importance of each occupation to the people as a whole; higher representation in stages up to a supreme council of the state; mandates revocable at any time; no organized parties, no professional politicians, no periodic elections."
No.3485434

>>3485428

> "Unite the Left!"

Proletarian Internationalism is a feature of Marxism, not socialism in general. Marx recognized that socialism would lose in the competition between states to capitalism, because the latter is more effective and efficient in producing material wealth, armaments and so-on, so he called for abolishing states alltogether and removing borders. Basically, remove competition by removing the competitors. Hence why the Soviet Union, though ironically it did end up with lots of internal borders and an internal passport system for the purpose of keeping the people in their places and prevent them from leaving - but that's just an example of how the theory and reality of socialism usually differ drastically.

So socialism according to Marx is international - there cannot be socialism in one country alone - it has to spread to the whole world. Socialism according to the Germans and the Nazis on the other hand could be had in one country alone, and the rest of them could go fuck themselves.

The latter form of socialism is btw. the one that you, 3B, are advocating. You've on numerous occasions made the appeal that society should look for the interest of the state and through the state, the people, which is basically national socialism, or nazism as Strasser would have understood it. You are a proto-nazi.

No.3485436

In general, it is a question not of nominal possession but of the technique of administration. For a slogan’s sake to buy up enterprises immoderately and purposelessly and to turn them over to public administration in the place of the initiative and responsibility of their owners, who must eventually lose all power of supervision—that means the destruction of socialism. The old Prussian idea was to bring under legislative control the formal structure of the whole national productive force, at the same time carefully preserving the right of property and inheritance, and leaving scope for the kind of personal enterprise, talent, energy, and intellect displayed by an experienced chess player, playing within the rules of the game and enjoying that sort of freedom which the very sway of the rule affords….Socialization means the slow transformation—taking centuries to complete—of the worker into an economic functionary, and the employer into a responsible supervisory official.

True socialism according to the national socialists wasn't about naively seizing control of the means of production and redistributing everything to the common. It was about creating a rational hierarchy of power where access to rank was available to anyone and everyone according to their ability, not by inheritance or political populism, or by revolutions and violence of the Marxists and the proletarian dictatorship.

"The meaning of socialism is that life is controlled not by the opposition between rich and poor, but by the rank that achievement and talent bestow. That is our freedom, freedom from the economic despotism of the individual."

That's the basic difference. According to the German idea, democratic socialism basically ends up being Marxism by the back door - you vote to redistribute wealth until enough people are dependent on the redistribution that they cannot vote otherwise, and so the society ends up in a state where the productive and able people end up exploited as slaves by those less able and less willing to work for their own upkeep, who can simply vote themselves more wealth.

No.3485437
File: 453005__safe_solo_trixie_vulgar_reaction+image.jpg - (71.79 KB, 778x689) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
73518

>>3485434

> You've on numerous occasions made the appeal that society should look for the interest of the state and through the state, the people ... You are a proto-nazi.

Not wanting people to die from illnesses that we have cures for makes me a nazi? Wow, your head must be so far up your own ass you hear an echo when you speak.

No.3485445
File: 05ab27c8e477f715e054e00a93e1525afc3e29d2_hq.gif - (185.09 KB, 500x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
189535

>>3485437 It's more than "public health care" Trixie. That's not why you're being compared to a Nazi.

No.3485448
File: Come_On_Twi_Youre_Being_Gullible.png - (213.16 KB, 811x984) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
218279

>>3485445

What he's doing is a typical right-wing tactic. He makes an argument with no basis in fact over and over again because he knows that at least a few of you are so fucking stupid you'll start to believe something if you hear it enough. That's why the media runs the same stories over and over and over.

That's why you can't go five minutes online without hearing the left rant about the fake Russia conspiracy or why the right wouldn't shut up about Benghazi and Obama being a Muslim.

He's not here to argue, not really, he's just here to hammer crazy right wing propaganda into your brain. He probably learned it from watching me skull fuck this board for years slowly drawing you all left.

No.3485449

>>3485448>>3485445>>3485437
Two shitposters arguing with the use of horsepics.
This is it. Youve hit the near rock bottom of insane political internet discussion. the only thing that could send it deeper into the core of our planet is if you were both also physically 12.

I don't know about your quality as people but your posts are certainly a stain wherever they end up.

No.3485450
File: twilight_sparkle_by_oblivionheart13-d98blin.png - (82.80 KB, 772x1034) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
84792

>>3485448 you're kinda doing the same thing though. You keep spreading slanted propaganda in a back and forth hoping you'll successfully drill your views into people.

I normally skim past your political shit, but this is kinda the first time I've seen one compare your views to Nazism. So I kinda don't buy the "You believe x because it was """"" repeated """"" so many times". Have you ever considered the reason your so hellbent on "skull fucking" people into your way of thinking is because you know it's inherently flawed so you have to keep reminding everyone you're right to reaffirm yourself constantly?
The things I know to be true I don't have to keep reminding everyone of them.

No.3485451
File: full (2).png - (125.75 KB, 390x552) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
128771

>>3485449 if you don't like avatar posting boy have I got some bad news for you.

No.3485458
File: I_Must_say_that_is_a_wonderful_question.png - (248.95 KB, 1024x943) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
254923

>>3485450

>Have you ever thought the reason you keep pushing the left agenda is that you're wrong?

That, you see, is the major difference between the left and the right. We dictate our policies on facts and reality. The right dictates their polices on feelings and traditions. Just look at what's happening now. The left's major movement is to implement Ranked Choice voting so you don't have to always vote for the lesser of two evils. The right is pushing for women to stay in the kitchen and accept that they are made by God to be the servant of men.

I consider all the time if I am wrong about something and if I'm proven wrong, I admit it and I change.

The left works based on science and reason. The right is a series of beliefs that must be maintained at all cost in spite of science or reason like Trickle-down economics and blacks being violent because they are sub-human.

No.3485459

>>3485419

>rightwingers don't support Nazis

Yes they do. Big old Nazi flags in Charlottesville. Nazi chants and slogans. Open hatred of Jews all over the rightwinger internet.

>Actually /pol/ is just trolling and it's all just to trigger the essjews

We just had a Nazi terrorist attack murdering one leftist antifascist protestor and injuring others. They weren't both right wing.

>don't believe your lying eyes

You can't sell that bullshit talking point in 2017. There are Nazis in our streets, they will happily tell you that they are not leftists, and they have demonstrated that they are not "just trolling". Your talking point contradicts the obvious reality. You may as well be trying to convince us that up is down and black is white.

No.3485460
File: CrippleFight.jpg - (109.33 KB, 1440x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
111958

Wait, what happened?! I thought 3B and Aufy realized they had so much in common like ponies and autism and had come together as a couple of bernout bernie bros. Now they're against each other again?

No.3485461

[-]

No.3485462

So Trump's lawyer is seriously making an argument that the President simply can't commit an Obstruction of Justice offense - https://www.axios.com/exclusive-trump-lawyer-claims-the-president-cannot-obstruct-justice-2514742663.html

The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.

"Well when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." - Richard Nixon; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHN3IJ_j8A

No.3485467

>>3485458

Really? On facts and reality?

Then why are your people implementing gender and sexual policy on the basis of social construct reasoning, while at the same time, asserting that these are biological artifacts? You can't have it both ways.

Why are your people anti-gmo? Why are your people the whole-foods-no-vaccination birthplace? Why do you prefer toxic naturally occurring pesticides like copper sulfate as organic?

Why can't you accept that freaks aside, there are only 2 genders in mammals?

Why do you go ape-shit over the google memo despite numerous male and female PhD holders coming forward to say that anthropologically speaking, he was correct? Or that based upon studies, he was correct?

Science my freaking ass. You guys just like to pretend you're enlightened, but you're the ones applying the labels racism, sexism and trans-phobia to real world data.

No.3485469

Or hell, how about the NIMBY behavior of leftists over the idea of having a nuclear power plant near them? Let's cook birds or chop them up with windmills and solar installation because we have an irrational fear of fallout!

No.3485470

And I mean... arn't you the group of people twice as likely to believe in astrology? http://www.pewforum.org/2009/12/09/many-americans-mix-multiple-faiths/#3

I mean holy shit... Mars must be sending me to fuck with you today.

No.3485471

>>3485467
Strawmanning: The Post

No.3485473

>>3485471

>>That, you see, is the major difference between the left and the right. We dictate our policies on facts and reality.

Leading sentence in his entire diatribe was "Hurr, durr, we is faktchul, you is not!"

Nah, bullshit. Everyone has a blindspot.

No.3485474

>>3485471

To actually strawman someone, I'd have to address something other than what was said. What was said, was that facts and reality separate the left and right. I directly addressed how that was bullshit.

You should learn your debate flags before you go throwing them around. :)

No.3485476

>>3485473

>left wing political policies are based on facts
>oh yeah, well all liberals are irrational! you believe in astrology! gotcha!
>wtf I wasn't strawmanning
No.3485477
File: liberals-yup-theyre-that-dumb-liberal-logic-makes-me-laugh-13294579.png - (140.07 KB, 500x465) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
143434

>>3485476
He's right though. You can't claim to be objective and fact-based when you are anti-GMO, anti-vax, anti-wifi, a parrot for the wage gap myth, etc. Having those positions is a direct contradiction to the idea that you operate in fact-based reality.

No.3485478

>>3485477
He's not right though. Left wing political policies are consistently more fact based. Finding some particular example where some liberals hold unscientific beliefs is not relevant to the discussion.

It's a strawman.

No.3485479

>>3485477

>anti-vax

Pretty sure it's the ultra-religious Conservatives who are against vaccinations, not liberals.

No.3485480

>>3485479
It's some of both. People in general are emotional and irrational. That's why it isn't relevant to bring up human irrationality when discussing political policy.

No.3485481

>>3485480
This. The religious types for equal parts "It's against God's plan!" and "The gubmint is tryin' to control us!", the hyper-liberals for "It's unnatural!", which is remarkably close to the aforementioned "against God's plan" bit. Horseshoe effect in action, I suppose.

No.3485483

>>3485478

>Left wing political policies are consistently more fact based.

There's a slight difference. Left wing political policies are based on logic derived from basic axioms, that happen to be bullshit. It just seems like it's based on fact because the bullshit is buried deeper in the system.

No.3485484

>>3485437

>Not wanting people to die from illnesses that we have cures for makes me a nazi?

That's not what you do, but how you're proposing to accomplish it: by national socialism.

After all, Hitler just wanted to build autobahns and free the German people of the 1% capitalist robbers of their time - and what's bad with that, right?

No.3485485

>>3485437
Or should we remind ourselves of your brilliant social ideas again, mr. "let's put all southern culture into a museum of bad ideas".

No.3485488

>>3485477
You don't really have to look for the crazies to point out the folly of liberalism - from the basic point of how socialist ideas always sound good until they backfire because they're mostly nirvana solutions that require the system to work perfectly - or they can't think far enough to see the foreseeable consequences of society adapting around their rules and poking holes in them.

And when liberals deal with facts, they tend to be one-sided facts or slights of hand, always drawing the conclusion that we need more state control, more public spending. Like, what's the answer to climate change? Socialism. Why not technological development, nuclear power, directing funds to adapt society to changing conditions and making use of new resource - nope, socialism, ban lightbulbs and private car ownership, and raise the cost of energy to force people to live in poverty.

No.3485492
File: Young_People.jpg - (138.92 KB, 512x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
142254

>>3485483

>Left wing political policies are based on logic derived from basic axioms, that happen to be bullshit. It just seems like it's based on fact because the bullshit is buried deeper in the system.

Name one. Give us an example. I dare you.

No.3485494

>>3485492
"bullshit buried deeper in the system" is code for "conspiracy theories," but I'm betting you're well aware of this

No.3485495
File: Twilight_Sparkle_%5C-I_can_do_this%5C-_S4E26.png - (383.75 KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
392958

>>3485458 I call bullshit... that's not true at all trixie. It's why I walked out of the occupy movement, it's why stopped identifying as left. Because I found out the hard way being based in "facts and science" was just what they tell people for publicity but not really the truth.

I'm not far left or far right, but it's gotten to the point where sometimes it seems like they want us to be so open minded our brains are practically falling out.

I have to go to work in few minutes but I'm coming back to this because this "left : good , right : bad" "left : science and reason, Right : religion and feelings" Paradigm is overly simplistic as it is wholly inaccurate.

Either way the left blatantly ignores facts in favour of thier own personal agendas as much if not even more than the right.

>>3485467 a lot of the right are also anti gmo and there's actually a lot of scientific evidence that suggests it's really unhealthy.

>>3485460 Yeah well that doesn't mean we have agree on everything

No.3485497
File: 123997608691.gif - (34.74 KB, 336x336) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
35577

>>3485492 For starters that communism is superior to facism. They both stink and but death toll numbers indicate communism is decidedly worse.

Then there's allowing Muslim "refugees" pretty much free reign in "sanctuary cities" and pretending they're being the perfect house guests. Despite the glaring flaws in allowing hordes of militants to do pretty much whatever they want

Then there's the matter pf the LBGTTTHFINGICMFIRNNSKALMSIVNRNIDIENTTRRY alphabet soup.

Then there's matter of removal and censorship of free speech on the grounds of being "offensive" I could go all day but I'm going to have to come back because I really got to go to work here soon.

No.3485505

>>3485492

>Name one. Give us an example. I dare you.

I'll name several.

That the point of the state is to save the people from themselves and help everyone whether they want it or not, rather than just exist as a means to settle differences and arrange common rules among people.

That the people are one with one unified or common will and interest, and we (the left) get to define it.

That the future of human kind has a point and an aim, and we (the left) get to define it.

That you can examine history to know the future in a rational scientific fashion even though history is a non-repeatable experiment.

That "freedom" has the self-contradictory meaning of getting to tell everyone else what to do and how to behave.

It's pretty hard to put these in any order of importance, because whenever you point one out, the leftist falls back on another even though any one would be enough to destroy most liberal politics.

No.3485507

>>3485505
Point being that when the leftist makes a logical argument in the form of "this is true/happening, therefore we need to do that" - they're typically simply begging the question that one of the above are true.

Like health care. Sure, it's in everyone's interest that we don't get another plague or polio, or swine/bird flu, but why give a shit if somebody eats themselves ill?

The leftist cares, because in identifying this problem - and observing that it's nearly impossible and generally futile to solve - they've just found themselves a new gravy train in attempting exactly that. The left gains their power and their money by making people believe they have a problem, and are in need of assistance. It's not much different from a tv-evangelist convincing people that satan is coming if they don't donate to the church.

No.3485511
File: getabrainmorans.jpg - (79.21 KB, 320x311) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
81116

>>3485477

Were you saying?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/60/d3/28/60d32897c341f231906ac47585196067.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/84/36/d4/8436d41810cefd8354c3142b74b76693--the-clouds-racist.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/93/fa/9f/93fa9fe7c29c2554423228223510e891--donald-trump-republican-donald-trump-quotes.jpg

http://thestir.cafemom.com/politics_views/109323/top_50_dumbest_conservative_quotes

No.3485512

>>3485494

>"bullshit buried deeper in the system" is code for "conspiracy theories," but I'm betting you're well aware of this

It's actually code for "lacks a solid moral philosophical foundation". Answer me for example this: what compels all people to equality?

How would you answer from the leftist point of view? Notice that this isn't a naive question that you can just hand-wave away along the lines of "well then we'd all be happier" etc. Mind, you have to find a reason that even the most emotionless self-serving psychopath will find compelling enough that they find it irrational not to follow your rule. In other words, why not just cheat?

(of course you don't need to convince the pathologically stupid or the insane - that much I give you)

No.3485513

"My side's based on reality and fact, blah blah blah"

Everyone is, left and right. The absurdly obvious problem is that identifying truth from misinformation is genuinely, extremely difficult. Everyone fails at this, and it's nobody's fault.

You don't even need to go into politics to see this. People have been confused about food's effects on health all our lives and longers. Biased interests overwhelm the voices of knowledgeable individuals, and everything blurs together. Who do we trust? It's not an easy question at all.

Instead of fighting one another, you should be asking yourself how truth can be made to cut through the bullshit. Imagine how much better the world would be if we could figure that out.

No.3485514

>>3485462

I seen that, so fucking funny.

Unbelievable how they are now waving away pure outright crimes.

No.3485515
File: italianmeme.jpg - (19.60 KB, 600x548) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
20074

>>3485469

Any smart person would be worried about nuclear faullout when a power plant is being managed by the lowest bidders with the lowest levels of security they can get away and with the lowest replacement parts and management they can get away with.

This same behaviour has caused incidents in the US before and in other countries.

If each power plant followed their own standards as they should with no lobbyists demanding to lower said standards.. there would be no real catastrophic or damaging accidents that could have exposed the general public to radiation.

In other hilarity..

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/04/national-park-lovers-should-applaud-trumps-monument-decision.html

Can anyone explain how after slashing the parks budget.. they claim slashing now the monument'ss size somehow benefits the average citizen and not those corporations seeking to drill around these monuments for gas and oil?

No.3485516

>>3485515
That's why nuclear power has the strictest liability rules of any industry. In reality the rules are hysterically strict, and they force the nuclear industry to spend all the money on first-line security with massively complex systems around the reactor under a no-fault-permissible system. So of course it eventually fails, catastrophically, because all systems fail and fail-safe systems fail by failing to fail safe!

Better designs would be possible, but they don't get the time of day from the powers that be.

No.3485517

>>3485515
Reminds me though.

>>we can't have nuclear power because it makes all this waste
>well, let's put the waste away then
>>nooooo! can't put the waste away! Defund disposal now!
>uh... we need to put the waste away anyways
>>nope, let's keep it forever, it's safe how it is now
>um... then what was the problem in the first place?
No.3485518

>>3485507
Like health care. Sure, it's in everyone's interest that we don't get another plague or polio, or swine/bird flu, but why give a shit if somebody eats themselves ill?

Except you're looking at the problem from the wrong direction with that particular example. With the idea of universal healthcare, it's getting it so that people can see the doctor, not forcing them to do so.

No.3485519

>>3485505
The point of the state has always been to benefit the public at large. There is nothing irrational about wanting to expand the scope of the services the state provides. You are irrationally claiming that this must be immoral and/or illogical just because you disagree.

The people are all governed by a single government and are all equally subject to its rules. It makes sense to refer to the public as a monolith when talking about the rule of law. In a Democracy, the left can not only logically and morally claim the right to interpret what is good for the public, they have an obligation to do so. Why would they not want to do what is best for the public? That would be irrational and probably immoral.

Next point is edgy nihilist bullshit. You just asserted a philosophical claim that is hotly disputed and decreed that it is fact. Very irrational, and demonstrates a very ugly agenda. Poster appears to believe that everything is pointless, nothing matters, and it's wrong if you don't believe that.

Examining history to gain a sense of perspective and try to get some sense what the future will be like is perfectly rational. This is called "extrapolating from existing data". Nobody claimed that studying history is a science, and discrediting the work of historians just because they can't make scientific predictions is a great example of scientism. Also, this is a bizarre thing to attack. Historians are generally well respected. Possibly this poster is going for an insane anti-communism tangent?

Liberals rarely bother trying to define Freedom, and instead tend to recognize it as an amorphous, meaningless buzzword. The commenter is being irrational anyway: who said that? When? Why do they speak for all Liberals?

In conclusion, Mr. Extra Rational Rightwinger is projecting and engaging in all sorts of faulty logic and half-baked misreasoning. This should be surprising to no one.

No.3485521

>>3485518

>With the idea of universal healthcare, it's getting it so that people can see the doctor, not forcing them to do so.

Now you're looking at it the wrong way. Everybody can see the doctor, but under universal health care you have to pay for the other guy - or - the universal health care won't cover it and other common ailments because they have to make limited funds meet demand and the quality of service drops.

What they usually don't tell about countries with universal health care systems is that they also have thriving private health care and insurance markets to cover for what the public system cannot. Usually the facts are presented one-sided such that the US private market is compared to others' public but not private health care market, hiding part of the costs to make the comparison more favorable for the leftist.

No.3485524

>>3485519

>The point of the state has always been to benefit the public at large.

That's a truism. The question is, benefical how?

>There is nothing irrational about wanting to expand the scope of the services the state provides.

Justify that.

>You are irrationally claiming that this must be immoral and/or illogical just because you disagree.

No. I'm simply asking for why it is moral and rational.

>The people are all governed by a single government and are all equally subject to its rules.

Factually untrue.

>It makes sense to refer to the public as a monolith when talking about the rule of law.

Practically untrue. Philosophically ill-founded - not all people are the same.

> In a Democracy, the left can not only logically and morally claim the right to interpret what is good for the public, they have an obligation to do so.

Bare assertion fallacy; needs justification.

>Why would they not want to do what is best for the public? That would be irrational and probably immoral.

1) Because "they" are not ideal people: "they" are the same irrational, self-serving people as you and me.

2) If you are self-serving, cheating the system is rational from your point of view. You are begging the question that there exists objective morals.

3) What's "best for the public" assumes again that the public is a borg hivemind with no differences among individuals.

>Next point is edgy nihilist bullshit. You just asserted a philosophical claim that is hotly disputed and decreed that it is fact. Very irrational, and demonstrates a very ugly agenda.

Appeal to motives fallacy. Bare assertion fallacy. Dispute does not mean the nihilist is wrong! Give me your objective moral philosphy to prove the nihilist wrong.

> Poster appears to believe that everything is pointless, nothing matters, and it's wrong if you don't believe that.

No evidence to the contrary exists. If you have a point, it is subjective, not objective, and therefore you cannot assert it universally. That isn't to say you are wrong in your opinions and preferences - you simply aren't right either and your demands hold no power.

>Examining history to gain a sense of perspective and try to get some sense what the future will be like is perfectly rational. This is called "extrapolating from existing data".

Extrapolation is a heuristic method, not a logical argument. It is not "rational", but merely a guess. Karl Popper would point out that your predictions are inaccurate at best because you 1) mis-identify what has actually happened, 2) mis-interpret the causes and effects, 3) mis-interpret past society based on current knowledge (historian's fallacy) 4) cannot subject your predictions to experimentation - therefore what you're doing is conjecture and bullshit. Future doesn't have to happen like the past, especially when all you've got to go with is hearsay and third-hand accounts.

> Also, this is a bizarre thing to attack. Historians are generally well respected. Possibly this poster is going for an insane anti-communism tangent?

Anti-communism is not insane, considering how terrible communism has historically been - unless you want to argue that history is nothing to go by!

>Liberals rarely bother trying to define Freedom, and instead tend to recognize it as an amorphous, meaningless buzzword. The commenter is being irrational anyway: who said that? When? Why do they speak for all Liberals?

That's because they don't bother to examine what they're trying to do in the first place. They might find themselves ill-supported by their own tenets. The concept of freedom, or liberty, is a cornerstone of all western socio-philosophy.

>In conclusion, Mr. Extra Rational Rightwinger is projecting and engaging in all sorts of faulty logic and half-baked misreasoning. This should be surprising to no one.

That's a long way to say "NO U!"

No.3485525

>>3485521
Everybody can see the doctor,

Okay, I'll rephrase - everyone can afford to see the doctor, but they're never forced to go under the Universal rules. Under the old setup, that wasn't the case, and even infants born with, say, a congenital heart defect would get denied any coverage related to it because it'd be too risky for the insurers' liking.

No.3485528

>>3485519
Also, not a right-winger.

Confuscian at best, and that's also stretching it.

My ethics derives from an approximation of the original position principle. You should read it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position

That is what compels me to resist a power hierarchy structure that places undue emphasis on either the collective or the individual. I can find myself oppressed under both a leftist and rightist (and "centrist" etc.) society, therefore I cannot recommend either.

No.3485530

>>3485525

>Okay, I'll rephrase - everyone can afford to see the doctor

I'll re-phrase myself then: everyone can seek health advice. Doesn't need a doctor to say: "You got gout, lay off the cheese".

No.3485531

>>3485530
But not to actually get that shit treated. "You got cancer - sucks to be you, I guess!" isn't exactly a great system.

And the aforementioned - kid born with a congenital heart defect gets told "Welp, guess you lost the genetic lottery. And no, we aren't going to allow your parents to abort you because that'd be cruel."

No.3485532

>>3485525

>but they're never forced to go under the Universal rules

Also, you'll find that not the case in practice as the universal health care system takes on the task of keeping the people healthy - it starts to act proactively without being asked to because public health becomes a question of cost to the public, and the public demands to lower the cost they're forced to pay, so the health care system demands for you to stay healthy so they wouldn't have to treat you.

So it's no longer about your choice to seek health care when you need it, but about everyone else demanding you to live in certain ways so you wouldn't end up in the hospital on their dime.

No.3485533

>>3485531

>But not to actually get that shit treated.

That's what health insurance is for. The system could use a reform, but surely you need to have some responsibility yourself?

No.3485537

>>3485528
On the original position point, I'd like to make the amendment that the veil of ignorance isn't absolute. I can't deny who I really am, knowing what I know, thinking what I think, so while the thought experiment is nice I can still always gamble on it knowing that I will never be a crippled child born with ichtyosis. Not is this life anyways. I can get cancer, I can be poor, or rich, but I probaly won't end up as a bum in rural India, so that's not a concern I need to have.

So if I can, everyone else can, and therefore the min-max principle doesn't really hold in practice. The help principle mentioned in the criticism makes more sense: help if it's worth the effort.

That also means you can't have someone else judging whether it's worth it, because if I found myself in that position, I'd be liable to abuse it to my own benefit.

No.3485540
File: DQO0JfzXUAEjTaO.jpg - (50.95 KB, 600x593) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
52171

>>3485505

>That the point of the state is to save the people from themselves and help everyone whether they want it or not.

False: The purpose of the state is to do things for people which would be to complicated for people to do without one singular form of organization. Why do you think governments are famous for being full of red tape? We use government to do the things that would not be served well by multiple smaller organizations.

Do you want your drinking water to be kept safe by the standards of 99% of scientists or do you want to drink the water Jo-Bob the redneck down the street says smells ok? Some things require a large functional structure to maintain. That is what government is for.

>That the people are one with one unified or common will and interest, and we (the left) get to define it.

Bullshit! If the left thought everyone was unified with a common will why would we be out protesting and making noise every day? We do believe that America is far more liberal than the media is telling us it is but that is because of EVIDENCE not opinion. That isn't to say everyone thinks like Bernie Sanders, but that instead very few people think like the Koche brothers.

>That the future of human kind has a point and an aim, and we (the left) get to define it.

As opposed to... just letting shit happen randomly? As opposed to anarchy? Are you saying you are upset with the left because we don't want anarchy and chaos in the streets? I don't understand why this is a complaint.

>That you can examine history to know the future in a rational scientific fashion even though history is a non-repeatable experiment.

I'm not sure what you mean by that but if you mean like the economy crashes and crime goes up, then yes we can learn some things from the observation of history and make predictions. Unless... do you think Liberals think they are all psychic? Do you think we all sit and stare into crystal balls trying to see the future?

>That "freedom" has the self-contradictory meaning of getting to tell everyone else what to do and how to behave.

Again, you really seem to be upset that Liberals are not in favor of complete anarchy. What specific things do you think we are stopping you from doing?

No.3485543
File: Goat-Kid-Scattered-4.jpg - (554.69 KB, 1000x1545) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
568001

>>3485507

>but why give a shit if somebody eats themselves ill?

Because fat people are horrible workers and disgusting to be around. They end up unemployed and in the hospital living off the government dime when their bodies inevitably collapse.

Isn't it better to spend $20,000 once to put them in a program to help them kick the over-eating addiction and lead a happier, healthier life being a more productive member of society rather than spend $20,000 a year for 30 years while they live on disability running up hospital bills?

It's better for them and for the nation if they never become terminally obese. Is that your problem with liberals? We make you feel bad for being a land whale?

No.3485548
File: Goat-Kid-Scattered-5.jpg - (246.24 KB, 828x1280) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
252146

>>3485512

>Answer me for example this: what compels all people to equality?

Wait, wait. Before you get into equality arguments please define what you think it means because I'm going to take a wild guess that it isn't what the rest of us think it means.

No.3485551

>>3485524
Goddamn are you hurting for a trip to the gulag. It'd be worth it just because we wouldn't have to put up with your inane wall-of-text rambling.

Uphold Communism so we can put smug pricks like this fuck in the gulag.

No.3485556
File: fatties-on-scooters.png - (660.30 KB, 851x473) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
676143

>>3485543

>Isn't it better to spend $20,000 once to put them in a program to help them kick the over-eating addiction and lead a happier, healthier life being a more productive member of society rather than spend $20,000 a year for 30 years while they live on disability running up hospital bills?

How about neither, you worthless shitstain? Why should I have to pay for some fat fuck to lose weight and why should I have to pay if that fat fuck can't work? How about just fuck 'em?

And now with the Republicans about to put through their tax break for the middle class (like me) and the wealthy at the expense of the unmotivated, entitled people who refuse to work for their keep, that's about to happen.

No.3485557

>>3485533
That's what health insurance is for.
Except people couldn't afford it, that was the whole point of the tax subsidies and Medicaid expansion, and the Southern States that rejected the latter? Guess what happened with their healthcare compared to the States that accepted it - https://www.kff.org/uninsured/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap-uninsured-poor-adults-in-states-that-do-not-expand-medicaid/

The exact same situation as prior to the ACA - people making too much for assistance, but too little to afford insurance privately.

Though for my part, I'd prefer just seeing a larger tax and have everyone be covered by the Federal government like the majority of the First-World nations. The private insurers can hang around too for those that want to have quicker access, but a minimum baseline is desirable.

No.3485559
File: CBO_score_tax-plan-2017.PNG - (344.88 KB, 899x669) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
353162

>>3485556
By "middle-class", I hope you mean making more than $75,000 a year, otherwise you'll wind up paying more by the end of it due to the loss in deductions.

Reposted to add the link - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-the-senate-tax-bill-affects-rich-and-poor-in-three-charts

No.3485562

>>3485524
It's not a truism, it's the basic purpose of government.
Being able to push for an expansion of government services is a foundational feature of democracy.
Wrong. Your post suggested that expansion of services is irrational and immoral. You are now moving the goalposts.
Our system of government is predicated on the concept of equality under the law. "Nuh uh" is not a sufficient counter argument.
I was not arguing that all people are the same, I was arguing that the public must be treated as a single entity since they are all subject to a nation's laws. You implied that this is immoral and illogical, which makes no sense.
Now he begins criticizing the idea of a government serving the public. This is irrelevant intellectual masturbation. We have a system in place, and working within that established system is neither irrational or immoral.
Demands that I prove that nihilism is wrong, uses debate buzzwords. He forgets that he needs to prove that nihilism is right. This is obviously not possible, because philosophy is not scientific.
More nihilistic wanking. Poster is okay with unscientific ideas when they support his beliefs, but not when they disagree with him.
Subject continues his raving about the evils of studying history. Attacks historical study as "conjecture and bullshit" based of philosophical ideas of Karl Popper- ideas that can't be falsified and therefore must by defyby unscientific. Does not see the irony. Proceeds to admit that he just does this to attack Communism.
Now he goes full circle- Appeals to "cornerstone of all western socio-philosophy" right after attacking the very idea of democratic rule, equality under the law, lawmakers serving the public, the study of history, liberalism itself, and the entire concept of believing in anything.
Illogical is an understatement, this person is twisting himself into an endless fractal-like pretzel of cognitive dissonance. The mind reels at all the misreading, contradictions, and cognitive dissonance in this post. This person is not worth debating. I have wasted my life debating with a gibbering fool.

No.3485563
File: n_ruhle_brk_taxplan.jpg - (120.82 KB, 1067x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
123722

>>3485559

>By "middle-class", I hope you mean making more than $75,000 a year

I've got 2 graduate degrees in engineering, a salary that's comfortably in the six figures and a retirement account that's well on it's way to a million dollars with Trump in the White House. Thanks.

>otherwise you'll wind up paying more by the end of it due to the loss in deductions.

That's heavily dependent on where you live. If you live here in Texas then you're pretty much guaranteed to get more money back regardless of how much you make. For morons like you who live in New York or California and consistently support far-left, socialist, "tax 'n spend"-type liberals so that you have to pay state and local income taxes, then yeah, you're pretty much fucked.

No.3485564

>>3485563
For morons like you who live in New York or California and consistently support far-left, socialist, "tax 'n spend"-type liberals so that you have to pay state and local income taxes, then yeah, you're pretty much fucked.

Better "tax 'n spend" than "cut taxes 'n spend" - in case you missed the memo, both the CBO and JCT estimate that the proposed bills will add at least $100 Billion per year onto the Deficit - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-tax-plan-cbo-estimates-deficit-would-increase-by-1-4t-over-next-decade/
And this at a time that we're trying to rebuild in 2 States and one US Commonwealth (Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico, now on its third month without power), and Congress approved a $60 Billion increase to DoD spending this year.

Pardon me for thinking that this isn't sound fiscal policy.

No.3485565
File: 13740975_1798492563721685_694290691_n.jpg - (0.00 KB, 480x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

>>3485564

>Pardon me for thinking that this isn't sound fiscal policy.

Oh no, I agree, this is really stupid. That's what makes your little "douche vs turd sandwich" shenanigans all the more baffling when it's you bernouts who are about to get fucked in the ass while simultaneously making your socialist fantasies that much more of a delusion. I mean, do you fucking realize just how hard it is to raise taxes as opposed to cutting them? Do you realize how hard you'll have to fight just to raise taxes to where they were before? Much less raise taxes to pay the current deficit and much, much less raise even more taxes to pay for all the things on your bernout wishlist.

I wanna feel bad for guys like you, 3B, nobu and the rest of the Bernie Bro Brigade, but I have to admit it's a little hard to do that when I'm looking at an extra $5k or $6k each year from the tax plan you've worked so hard to bring to fruition.

No.3485566

>>3485565

>do you fucking realize just how hard it is to raise taxes

Obviously not that hard since the both of the current bills do raise taxes on certain (lower income) people.

No.3485567

>>3485565
Quit lumping me in with 3B's deluded antics. I voted for Clinton, and said multiple times that while I wasn't fond of her, she was far better than Trump's wanna-be war criminal ass.

No.3485568

>>3485516

yeah right, you mean those studies that found that ANYONE could easily get inside power plants and nuclear power plants because they had almost null security? lol

No.3485569

>>3485517

Considering most plans were for using ancient Gen2 style heavy water boiling reactors instead of pushing forward for Gen4 and Gen5 style reactors..

Yeah.

"because its cheaper, even if it contaminates more.. but who cares, as long it keeps our shareholders happy!"

No.3485570

>>3485567
No, even as recently as that #metoo thread you double-downed and didn't hesitate to compliment Trump's showmanship and all that bullshit but you refused to say a single positive thing about Hillary. You spent more time during the general election bitching about Clinton (who would've been working for your ungrateful ass) than Trump (who's now fucking your ungrateful ass). Her emails, fake accents, hot sauce and of course, who could forget "Pokemon Go! to the polls"? Certainly not you, because it's such a critical qualification to being president and that's gettin' a giggle out of GoogleFuFaggot.

Oh, how I am going to enjoy watching you bernouts (and yes, this includes you and your like-minded buddy 3B) squirm under Trump's boot while my wallet gets fatter. For once, you can actually say that you've earned what's coming to you.

No.3485571

>>3485565 You moronic Shillbots are just as retarded and delusional as Trump supporters. How many times were you told that you don't get votes by belittling the left while kissing the boots of Wall Street and Mega Corporations. Here- maybe this will clue you moronic Hillbots as to what the world thinks of you: https://youtu.be/3lvTSss9KkE?t=1m22s

No.3485572

>>3485521

Oh its sure is "thriving" in prices.

People cant afford to get to see the damn doctor because it costs a fortune to get anything fixed.

Got hit by a car? congrats, thats 100,000 of random bogus claims and common medicines and equipment being sold to almost 10 times the average price!.

>>3485524

Wow, talk about begging the question and pull strawmans from every side.
The Government is supposed to be a platform so a conjunction of resources could be used in group to give a service the people need. (Like police, etc..) in a broad way that everyone who is part of the group receives such benefits.

That includes also building infrastructure and services and protecting its citizens.

>>3485524
Colonialism and imperialism also has been insanely bad for certain groups of unprotected human beings that gave away for also barbaric actions.
Blaming Communism alone which is just a form of government is stupid. Because by itself communism is not the problem. But those who corrupted the system.

Take Mexico for example, its a perfect dictadorship by a few rich groups of oligarchs and the political segment of the population. They pretty much corrupted the principles of a democracy by cheating in state levels and execute pillage at national levels. (something that seems to be happening a lot lately to Americans thanks to the GOP)

Imperialism also had its goods and bads examples.. from golden ages to absolutely abhorrent imperials who murdered or let millions die of starvation.

The main culprit in either government types is the greed and addition to power.

>>3485531

Also this.. Its a gorgeous example of hypocrisy and tainted by supposed "Christian Values" corrupted by greed and savage capitalism run strictly on convenience of those with resources and positions of power.

No.3485574

>>3485564

I actually laugh my ass every time a hardcore GOP smoocher still believe that the GOP plans are "fiscal conservative". The last real fiscal conservative was Eisenhower if I remember correctly. All the members of the GOP after Eisenhower... have done, is try to cut taxes to the rich now that oligarchs have grabbed them by the "pussy" and corrupted them for the money.

Lets be honest, that clown who is defending the current GOP plan just does because its just CONVENIENT for HIM.
And like all good 'ol conservatives.. will say "FUCK EVERYONE ELSE" as the nation crumbles to dust. Not understanding that if the nation crumbles.. he will have NOTHING.
And the rich will probably flee with the gold reserves to another nation to mooch and leech just like they have been doing all the time in the fiscal paradises (like Apple) use to avoid taxes and other payments.

No.3485575
File: SvyIN9S.jpg - (263.32 KB, 1160x629) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
269636

>>3485574

>Lets be honest, that clown who is defending the current GOP plan just does because its just CONVENIENT for HIM.

Uh, no shit Sherlock. Let's be honest, you're just whining about the GOP tax plan because its just INCONVENIENT for YOU. You turds wanted your bust, well here it is.

>And like all good 'ol conservatives.. will say "FUCK EVERYONE ELSE" as the nation crumbles to dust.

I'm not a conservative, I'm a proud neoliberal and supporter of Hillary from the start of the primaries. Also, what the fuck do you want me to do? I worked to prevent Trump and his billionaire friends from taking over the federal government. So now what, you want me to turn down a tax refund from the government?

No.3485577

>>3485575

>I'm not a conservative, I'm a proud neoliberal

the GOP is the party of neoliberalism though

No.3485578
>you don't get votes by belittling the left while kissing the boots of Wall Street and Mega Corporations.

Worked for Trump. That and allying with Russian criminals.

No.3485581

Got news for all you assholes, letting the orange moron take over is the only way any real change was ever going to happen. His endless fuckups will help pave the way for actual Marxism, and that's the only thing that's gonna make things better for normal, everyday workers.

Bernie is a nice old man and he's like 75% Comrade, but he was never going to fix the system. He would've gotten into office, and there would've been a bunch of fucking Bourgeoisie cocksuckers opposing his every move. Bloodthirsty capitalist vampires on both sides of the aisle would have united to defeat all of his policies, and a complacent media would have exaggerated and manufactured flaws to discredit him. This would pave the way for even worse fascists to emerge, offering to "fix" the country after the "failed" Sanders administration.

Failed because the Capitalists would have undermined him and foiled all his efforts to fix things, of course. But they wouldn't ever tell you that, and they would hire an army of shills to spread throughout the net and parrot fascist talking points.

No.3485602

Bernie had no real chance because they very people who could have played him like a harp form hell and done just that were too stupid to figure out they could do that and instead made sure he wasn't elected in the first place.

I suspect one main goal of this is for Trump to eventually resign, planting Mike Pence in office. Someone is playing Trump like a puppet- not only Russia. Mike Pence is what they want- smiling good buy conservative who hates gays and has traditional values, but generally unelectable because of his strong homophobia. But as a VP? Well Americans regard the VP as a nobody entity these days, a guy who sort of does stuff. He's there to replace the president in case of death/illness/incapacitated/resigning but that's not happened in a very long time so Americans don't expect it.

I'm surprised Trump hasn't resigned yet, maybe his puppet masters don't feel Pence has his time just yet or something. Or they want Trump to screw up more so that even his supporters turn on him, then he can get thrown out in disgrace and Pence can be a hero to "undo" what Trump did.

The major clue to this is that Trump has always been a dirty liberal, was friends with the Clintons and openly expressed disinterest in being president before. he didn't just change his mind, he's been forced into this by someone higher up. He's skirting by on numerous bankrupticies and bad things, someone has real dirt that's not come out yet and is blackmailing his ass. Russia is at least involved, Pence's anti-gay policies are certainly in line with Putin's own homophobia, but plenty at home are in on it. Russia doesn't have the power to do it alone.

No.3485603

>>3485495

GMOs that are set up for pesticide? Sure. But GMO in and of itself does not equate to being unhealthy. I mean, that's like doing a study on e-Cigarettes for big tobacco and only testing liquids made in china that're known for being full of lead.

I'm sure if you did a baby formula study based on chinese formula, you'd find it toxic due to a surprisingly high amount of melamine.

But nah. Drinking 15 dollar aspergus water to alkalize your chakra is super healthy bro.

No.3485605

>>3485572

>The Government is supposed to be a platform so a conjunction of resources could be used in group to give a service the people need. (Like police, etc..) in a broad way that everyone who is part of the group receives such benefits.
>a platform

Way to go re-stating what I just said, in slightly different wording. The point of the state is to be a tool of the people to use to arrange their common matters, it's not supposed to do shit of its own, and it's not supposed to be the end of means itself.

You don't want your hammer to go around hammering shit while you're not looking. That's the problem with the leftist idea of the government, because as soon as you give it any power, it stops listening to you and starts thinking and doing things for you, "for your benefit". Once it has served its task, it starts to define more tasks for itself, and grows and encroaches, and becomes filled with people who couldn't give a shit about what you wanted in the first place because it's now about what they want, what they think is "the best", or just about enjoying a free lunch as a political elite.

No.3485608

>>3485575

Yeah, except your "bonus" will last at much a few years, then good luck picking up the scraps as the country crumbles.

Good luck also finding jobs as you get "too expensive" to maintain and executives demand you work twice for the same money so they can get a nice bonus.. or get replaced by Indians or Chinese.

Good luck when the next recession caused by personal little greed hits everyone.

BUT HEEY! GOOD FOR YOU TO GET A NICE TEMPORAL BONUS!

No.3485617

>>3485562

>It's not a truism, it's the basic purpose of government.

Yes it is. Any government justifies itself as being "for the benefit of the people", otherwise why would you have it? You think they're going to say, "Look, we're going to screw you up, so vote for us!"?

>Being able to push for an expansion of government services is a foundational feature of democracy.

Being able to is not the same thing as it being rational. You're just shifting goalposts.

>Wrong. Your post suggested that expansion of services is irrational and immoral. You are now moving the goalposts.

No, I was suggesting that expanding government for the sake of expanding government is pointess. You are making a strawman.

>Our system of government is predicated on the concept of equality under the law. "Nuh uh" is not a sufficient counter argument.

Again, you're talking about theorywhile the practice is that the law treats people differently according to their social, economic, ethnic, etc. disposition. Take VAT for example, or progressive taxation. You make the mistake of thinking that the system is doing what it says it's doing, which is rarely the case.

>I was not arguing that all people are the same, I was arguing that the public must be treated as a single entity since they are all subject to a nation's laws.

Which is basically saying, "I know what really is, but I will ignore it". You didn't actually justify why the public must be treated as a monolithic entity, and saying "because it's the law" is a circular argument.

> You implied that this is immoral and illogical, which makes no sense.

I did not imply it was immoral or illogical, but simply that it's untrue. The public is not a single monolithic entity.

>Now he begins criticizing the idea of a government serving the public.

You're abstracting the argument too much. "Serving the public" is again a truism that would apply to any government - the question is, serving the public how? Unsolicited service is not necessarily a service - like a bum trying to clean your car window at a stop light for a dollar. If the government behaves like that, you're right to tell them to fuck off.

>This is irrelevant intellectual masturbation. We have a system in place, and working within that established system is neither irrational or immoral.

If the system is irrational, working within it is also irrational. Just because there's a system doesn't logically meant that a system must be followed.

>Demands that I prove that nihilism is wrong, uses debate buzzwords. He forgets that he needs to prove that nihilism is right.

You forget that nihilism is pointing out that nobody else has any proof for their positive moral claims, so you're actually asking me to prove that nobody else has any proof: you're the one demanding me to prove everybody else wrong.

>This is obviously not possible, because philosophy is not scientific.

Of course it's not scientific - it's philosophy. Science deals with knowledge, philosophy deals with logic.

>More nihilistic wanking. Poster is okay with unscientific ideas when they support his beliefs, but not when they disagree with him.

You're misusing "unscientific" as if it meant something. Look who's using buzzwords!

>Subject continues his raving about the evils of studying history.

I did not criticize studying history, or historians, but people who make extrapolations and treat their extrapolations as undisputable fact.

>Attacks historical study as "conjecture and bullshit" based of philosophical ideas of Karl Popper- ideas that can't be falsified and therefore must by defyby unscientific.

The philosophical ideas of Karl Popper just happen to be the basis of the modern scientific method - it's about the philosophy of science. You're simply making the confused assertion that "unscientific" means "untrue"

>Does not see the irony. Proceeds to admit that he just does this to attack Communism.

Strawman. Communism is criticized because it is part of the same unsupportable spectrum of left wing philosophies.

>Now he goes full circle- Appeals to "cornerstone of all western socio-philosophy" right after attacking the very idea of democratic rule, equality under the law, lawmakers serving the public, the study of history, liberalism itself, and the entire concept of believing in anything.

I was merely pointing out a hypocrisy. The left (and right) wing sociopolitical philosophy is rooted in part on examining the concept of liberty and how it applies to the society, so it's totally daft to claim that it is now somehow irrelevant. If you abandon the core points of your moral philosophical system, then you just admit that you're flying blind and doing whatever for no reason. Whatever you do, you do "just because", and if that is the case then we can do the opposite "just because".

>Illogical is an understatement, this person is twisting himself into an endless fractal-like pretzel of cognitive dissonance. The mind reels at all the misreading, contradictions, and cognitive dissonance in this post.

It seems you are projecting yourself there.

>This person is not worth debating. I have wasted my life debating with a gibbering fool.

Says the gibbering fool.

No.3485622

>>3485540

>False: The purpose of the state is to do things for people which would be to complicated for people to do without one singular form of organization.

That's answering past the point. The point was about who gets to define what needs to be done - the people or the state? You did not answer the point, therefore your answer is invalid.

>Bullshit! If the left thought everyone was unified with a common will why would we be out protesting and making noise every day?

Because you don't practice what you preach. The left is well known for double-thinking like that. What you don't recognize is that your protests are about the society not doing what the people want, which is fundamentally claiming that you know what the people want. Well, if the people are not unified, then how do you know? If they are unified, who exactly are you protesting against? Not-people?

If on the other hand you are protesting simply because the society isn't doing what we the particular people want, then you're just trying to bully the society into obeying your little special interest group, and therefore you're no better justified than the lobbyists on wall-street. You've just turned socialism into social-capitalism where the one who whines the loudest gets the power.

>We do believe that America is far more liberal than the media is telling us

That's totally irrelevant to the point. Ad populum fallacy.

>>That the future of human kind has a point and an aim, and we (the left) get to define it.
>As opposed to... just letting shit happen randomly?

Yes. You have no claim over what should happen. You can only say what you wish to happen based on your personal reasons, but those are not universal reasons and nobody else has to agree with you. Hence, let the new generations decide what they want to do and where they want to take the system. They're going to do it anyways after you're dead.

> As opposed to anarchy? Are you saying you are upset with the left because we don't want anarchy and chaos in the streets? I don't understand why this is a complaint.

It isn't a complaint, but a strawman you just made up.

>>That you can examine history to know the future in a rational scientific fashion even though history is a non-repeatable experiment.
>I'm not sure what you mean by that but if you mean like the economy crashes and crime goes up, then yes we can learn some things from the observation of history and make predictions.

Yes, over trivial things, and on the very short term. We can't plot the course of history 10 years forwards - even next month is really stretching it unless you're talking in very broad strokes - so how do you plan for the ultimate society that would last you to the end of eternity?

>Unless... do you think Liberals think they are all psychic? Do you think we all sit and stare into crystal balls trying to see the future?

Nope, but you might as well be trying to, for the way you assert that you know what is right and what is wrong regardless of the ever-changing conditions of human life.

>>That "freedom" has the self-contradictory meaning of getting to tell everyone else what to do and how to behave.
>Again, you really seem to be upset that Liberals are not in favor of complete anarchy. What specific things do you think we are stopping you from doing?

Again the same strawman. I was pointing out the ill logic behind the liberal concept of liberty, where people are defined free only if they can control themselves, by controlling others, through the state. The other side is defining liberty as being free from coercion, so you are allowed to make rules - you don't have to have anarchy like you're trying to project.

The point is, the philosophical foundations of the left identify liberty as the freedom of the state because it understands the individual only as a non-separable part of the collective, like saying that a forest is a real entity instead of being an arbitrarily circumscribed collection of trees.

And that is the stupid bit, because the forest isn't a real entity - it depends on who's drawing the map and saying "here is a forest". In reality there's just trees, like there's just individual people. The left is mistaking the map for the territory, eating the menu instead of the dinner, and using the word "people" when they mean "Me".

No.3485623

>>3485622

>And that is the stupid bit, because the forest isn't a real entity - it depends on who's drawing the map and saying "here is a forest". In reality there's just trees, like there's just individual people. The left is mistaking the map for the territory, eating the menu instead of the dinner, and using the word "people" when they mean "Me".

Now, having said that - the logical way to see the situation isn't then to jump to the other conclusion and say that there are no forests.

Subjective reality is still reality to the subject who experiences it, so if you consider that there exists a society, it is real to you. All you have to mind is that other people's subjective realities will differ, and you need to have the debate with them to settle down what parts of it you can all agree with.

But then, you can again make a mistake in thinking that once you've agreed on what the forest, or the society, is - you still have to remember that a collective subjective hallucination is still not real. It is simply an abstract you make up to make thinking about it easier - like a physicist who cannot calculate the position of every atom in the universe, so he takes a sufficient approximation and simply accepts that his representation of reality is fundamentally flawed but useful enough for some particular limited purpose.

He's not going to make a fundamental philosophy out of his approximation - only crank scientists, and crank politicians do that.

No.3485643
File: Nope.jpg - (659.97 KB, 660x660) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
675809

>>3485617

>Yes it is. Any government justifies itself as being "for the benefit of the people", otherwise why would you have it? You think they're going to say, "Look, we're going to screw you up, so vote for us!"?

Your entire argument is flawed because for your logic to be true all governments must be evil, vile, horrible things that work against the will of the people and that just isn't true in most civilized parts of the world. Look up the happiness index of nations and it's clear the more responsive any government is to the will of it's people the better it functions, the happier, healthier and more productive those citizens are. You are assuming that the worst outcome is the only outcome.

Your argument would be like someone saying, "Some cars explode when poorly designed or maintained and if some cars explode, we should blow up all cars because all cars are out to kill you."

No.3485647
File: It_Was_Her_Turn.png - (294.92 KB, 858x330) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
302003

>>3485622

> Well, if the people are not unified, then how do you know? If they are unified, who exactly are you protesting against? Not-people?

Now you are just trying to weasel your way out of an argument you know you have already lost by clinging to absurd absolutes. Yes, it is true that no large body of people will ever be 100% in agreement on any issue. That doesn't matter though, because we aren't trying to do what everyone wants, we are doing what the MAJORITY wants. Society is based on the idea of making the most people possible happy and healthy. It's never going to be perfect but we do the most good we can for the most people we can. That is the goal of liberals.

The goal of conservatives is to do the most good for the "deserving" or "special" people in their tribe. White people, rich people, whatever their social tribe might be. Conservatism is the logic of spear wielding primitives out to protect their own at the expense of everyone else.

To be fair, so is neo-liberalism.

No.3485659

>>3485524

>you're not allowed to critique anything through a historical lens, that's unscientific and I am far too rational for such foolishness. Popper sez that you can't judge what will happen based on what has happened.
>you can't support communism, just look at history! Didn't you see what happened in the past? That will definitely happen every time in the future?

But seriously, Stalin invented gulags precisely for dumbfucks like this guy.

No.3485734

Now that Trump has acknowledged Jerusalem as Israel's capital, you fucktards finally willing to admit Trump is a kike that only works for kike interests? His Jewish puppet master Putin tells him what to do, and Putin's Israeli masters tell HIM what to do.

Nah, you'll still insist "he's a white man with a big dick who serves the Nazi way of life" and ignore the facts, like always. You are either retarded or so unwilling to admit he fucked you over that you are in full denial mode. "Duh durr he only did that to make Muslims mad, he's got a plan". Yes, good kike, insist all Muslism are bad yet not all whites are bad for dong the same acts of violence. Bring up the Holocaust every time someone critiques you as well, it's your free ticket to behave the same way Hitler did.

What will you do when Trump outlaws Holocaust denial?

No.3485740

>>3485643

>for your logic to be true all governments must be evil, vile, horrible things

Non-sequitur. Pointing out that "all governments are for the benefit of the people" is a truism does not require that. The point is that all governments and their supporters say they are for the people whether or not they actually are, and it doesn't require them to be evil: merely incompetent, ignorant, and under illusions about their condition.

>that work against the will of the people and that just isn't true in most civilized parts of the world.

It is true in all of the civilized world. All governments corrupt, and they all end up doing at least some evil things that go against their people.

No.3485746

>>3485659

>>you're not allowed to critique anything through a historical lens, that's unscientific and I am far too rational for such foolishness. Popper sez that you can't judge what will happen based on what has happened.

Popper says you can't have scientific evidence without replication of results, and as the observable history that has already passed is a one-time event, it does not fill the criteria. You can't take history alone and draw any certain conclusions about it. Mere extrapolation is not science - it's guesswork.

>>you can't support communism, just look at history! Didn't you see what happened in the past? That will definitely happen every time in the future?

What Popper does say is, if you have a falsifiable hypothesis (e.g. communism works) and a repeatable experiment or a recurring phenomenon, like implementing Marxist-Leninist communism in different societies at different times over the course of some 80 odd years, you can draw valid conclusions about history, but only relative to that particular hypothesis - not about history as a whole.

The Marxists and the communists on the other hand employ what Popper identifies as historicism: the idea that there exists laws of historical destiny that can be found by studying history. Marx made communism "unbeatable" by defining socialism as the inexorable end state of human history, so no matter what would happen he could not be proven wrong by any observed evidence (unfalsifiable = unscientific), as any twists and turns in history were interpreted as just backwards and forwards loops in the spiral of Hegelian negation of negation. This he justified by making up his own philosophy of science called "dialectical materialism", and the rest is as they say - history.

No.3485749

>>3485659
But sure. Communism can work - there's no evidence it couldn't work - as long as the conditions are right and everything goes perfectly to plan.

Though, what is the plan?

No.3485764

>>3485647

>Now you are just trying to weasel your way out of an argument you know you have already lost by clinging to absurd absolutes.

No, that was just your strawman,

>Yes, it is true that no large body of people will ever be 100% in agreement on any issue.

You're still begging the question that the government should force a compromize based on what the government believes is right, rather than the people themselves settling out their differences.

>That doesn't matter though, because we aren't trying to do what everyone wants, we are doing what the MAJORITY wants.

So it's the tyranny of the 51%.

>Society is based on the idea of making the most people possible happy and healthy.

No it's not. Society can be based on such utilitarianism, but it is not necessarily so, and that's just you forcing your opinion on society by pretending that it's some fundamental property of societies.

>It's never going to be perfect but we do the most good we can for the most people we can. That is the goal of liberals.

And in doing so, you throw a whole lot of people under the bus, sacrificing them for the "good of the many", and in the end it doesn't even matter because you live in your own la-la-land completely disconnected from the people as a political elite and no longer even know what the people truly want.

>The goal of conservatives is to do the most good for the "deserving" or "special" people in their tribe. White people, rich people, whatever their social tribe might be.

Conservatives are just liberals without the pretense of do-goodery. Fundamentally, it's supposed to be about liberty and equality, but in practice again a government run by conservatives, as by liberals, becomes self-serving.

No.3485765

>>3485764

>we do the most good we can
>That is the goal of liberals.

Most importantly: that is the problem of liberals. You can't define what "good" is for all the people, or even most of the people, yet you still try to do it - so you end up doing what you think is good which is often completely the opposite.

"Please let me help you, said the monkey to the fish, as he was carrying the fish up a tree - so you surely wouldn't drown."

That's liberalism.

No.3485774

>>3485746
You're a disingenuous piece of shit and nobody is reading your idiotic walls of text. Get a job.

No.3485780

>>3485774
http://blog.dilbert.com/2015/09/03/the-tells-for-cognitive-dissonance/

>The Tells (for cognitive dissonance)
>Lone Penguin: The Lone Penguin is the person you see on the Internet imploring others to stop listening to person X. The usual phrasing looks like “Why is anyone listening to that terrible person X?”
>The tell is that the Lone Penguin will offer no data or reasoning to back up the emotion. At most, the Lone Penguin will offer a link to a story in which a journalist got something wrong or out of context.
>Example:
>Economist: Here is my data showing that capitalism is the best system for everyone, even the poor. (This is just an example.)
>Aged Hippy: “Why are we listening to this fascist? He said in an interview ten years ago that his favorite color is blue.”
>Interpretation: The Lone Penguin hates person X because the argument made by person X is persuasive, and that violates the Lone Penguin’s identity as a person who always disagrees with person X and similar lines of thinking.
No.3485781

>>3485780
Here's the article that explains the point about historicism. It's a compelling argument, but ultimately bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

"Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand."
—  Karl Marx, Grundrisse, 1858

One could equally well claim that a forest does not consist of trees, but of the sum of the interrelations of the individual plants in it. That's one way of looking at it, as it is saying indeed, a forest does not exist as trees but in how trees appear to be related to one another. Indeed the forest doesn't exist as a real entity at all - it's something you just made up!

No.3485782

>>3485780
tl;dr

No.3485783

>>3485782
Cognitive dissonance: the mental stress in a person discovering a persuasive argument against their strong established belief
One possible tell of someone who is experiencing cognitive dissonance: they get really angry and start throwing insults and accusations without offering a counter-argument

No.3485787

>>3485783
Autistc, pseudo-intellectual attention whoring: See all your posts.

No.3485803

>>3485643

fucking this.

Still, if you keep voting for toxic shit, you will get only toxic government shit.

It's an hilarious self prophecy made by the GOP followers.

No.3485815

The GOP believes god is real, you expect them to make rational decisions?

"If we let fags marry god will destroy us with natural disasters, a woman's place is to serve her husband, prayer is more effective than medicine, and we are honest".

That's the average Republican voter.

No.3485816

>>3485815

Democrats think there are an unlimited number of genders among humans. We all have irrational beliefs :-)

No.3485829

>>3485816
It is absurd. Everyone knows that gender is a spook.

No.3485844

>>3485816

>I'm more frightened of someone not being a boy or girl than people who's mission in life is to leave me broke, silent and dead

you show them libs, you big beautiful retard

No.3485850

>>3485844
But then people will wear glasses with thick rims, and invent pronouns, and make angry posts on Tumblr. It'lol be the end of civilization or something.

No.3485852

>>3485815

>That's the average Republican voter.

70 years ago, maybe.

No.3485854

>>3485852
You're right, now it's the same shit, except with more incel whining, edgy neckbeards and open, unapologetic Nazism.

No.3485864

>>3485852
Nope, still the same.

Idiotic republicans claiming that baking a cake to gays will make themselves gays and how its a sin towards their religious freedom.

No.3485888
File: 85058835.jpg - (32.57 KB, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
33348

>>3485864
MFW I'm a satanic gay republican

No.3485894

>>3485852
Nah, the hardcore religious right was largely apolitical until desegregation happened.
https://youtu.be/Yz4AmUaLbUQ
Though they didn't sell it that way - they latched onto the abortion issue and rode it to political success.

No.3485914

>>3485816

>Democrats think there are an unlimited number of genders among humans. We all have irrational beliefs :-)

Actually, the point they're trying to make is that gender is a social construct - aka. it's about how we choose to bin people into categories. It's perfectly possible that we didn't give a shit about whether you have XX or XY chromosomes, or which genitalia you have.

The real fault is in thinking that just because something is socially constructed should mean that you can arbitrarily change it to be whatever you like. That's again a manifestation of the fundamental hypocrisy of the left, where the liberal is saying the collective has the ultimate right to wield power, while excluding everyone who disagrees out of the collective. In other words, people have the power, but if you don't agree with me, you're not "people".

No.3485936
File: 127024-126515.jpg - (76.40 KB, 425x399) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
78235

>>3485740

>All governments corrupt, and they all end up doing at least some evil things that go against their people.

So your argument is that because people are not perfect no government can be perfect so good governments can't exist because there will always be corruption from the imperfect people in government?

Again, you are presuming that governments need to be perfect. All they need to do is be better than nothing. That is a test that America's government is actually failing right now because it is actively working against it's own majority. There are many nations where this is not true.

No.3485939
File: jared_fogles_irony.jpg - (42.40 KB, 487x350) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
43418

>>3485914

>The real fault is in thinking that just because something is socially constructed should mean that you can arbitrarily change it to be whatever you like. That's again a manifestation of the fundamental hypocrisy of the left, where the liberal is saying the collective has the ultimate right to wield power, while excluding everyone who disagrees out of the collective.

... said everyone who didn't want women to vote, wanted to keep slavery, wanted to be allowed to beat their wife legally, wanted to keep child labor, thought eugenics was a great idea, or didn't want to drink from the same water fountain as niggers.

Dude, if you are making this argument you're probably on the wrong side of history. This argument is "It's unfair that the majority gets to tell me, personally, that things I want to do are wrong."

If this shit show we call humanity can stop ripping each other apart long enough to agree what you are doing is bad, you should probably listen because it probably is.

No.3485944

>>3485936
Sorry, but Republicans are by far the LEGAL majority.
Hey, how is it you are still alive and spreading your vile lies and half-truths here, I heard you killed yourself. Door to Mommy's basement slammed you in the head or something

No.3485947

>>3485936

>So your argument is that because people are not perfect no government can be perfect so good governments can't exist because there will always be corruption from the imperfect people in government?

Yep. That seems to follow naturally. I've yet to find a real counter-example. The fewer the people you trust your power in, the more power you trust in them, the more competent they need to be to wield that power and responsibility, but since democracy isn't very good at selecting competent people, and dictatorships are too dangerous to have, a good government is rare as teeth on a hen.

The point of democracy isn't to select the best possible people to do the job in the first place, but to select a representative group that acts and chooses like the population at large would, so if the people are to some extent stupid and self-serving, so will their government be.

>Again, you are presuming that governments need to be perfect. All they need to do is be better than nothing.

Nope. I'm not demanding governments to be perfect, all i'm doing is pointing out that the leftist needs their government to be perfect, for all the trust and power they are investing in the government. When you're attempting to define your whole society through the state, placing the government as the prime actor and arbiter of social relations and justice, you better make damn sure the government is as perfect as it gets because once you elect them there's no takebacksies.

>That is a test that America's government is actually failing right now because it is actively working against it's own majority. There are many nations where this is not true.

1) Name one.
2) That's again begging the question that society is supposed to be about the tyranny of the majority opinion, rather than a compromize between all opinions.

No.3485951

>>3485939

>... said everyone who didn't want women to vote, wanted to keep slavery, wanted to be allowed to beat their wife legally, wanted to keep child labor, thought eugenics was a great idea, or didn't want to drink from the same water fountain as niggers.

It works both ways. Just because many people think something is right or wrong doesn't make it so. You think your ideas can't turn out to be misguided atrocities later on? Ah, but I forget who I'm talking with: of course you don't. You think your ideas are absolutely perfect and your policies can't be wrong - like putting other people's culture into museums of degenerate art to mock them for having wrong opinions.

>This argument is "It's unfair that the majority gets to tell me, personally, that things I want to do are wrong."

Argument ad populum actually is a logical fallacy. It IS unfair. Let's suppose you were a muslim in Myanmar right now, where the majority Buddhist population is trying to kill you - oops, but you can't go against the majority!

No.3485952

>>3485939

>Dude, if you are making this argument you're probably on the wrong side of history.

Actually, I'm on that side of history which argues that minorities have rights too, which is supposed to be your side of history as a leftist.

You are actually picking and choosing which minorities and which opinions you are willing to let stand, but you appear to have no point or principle guiding your operation - you're just being arbitrary. That means you lack justification, other than "I'm right because I say I'm right", which is an argument the other guys can make just as well.

No.3485962
File: Marvel_Miravi_She-Venom.jpg - (243.16 KB, 597x850) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
248992

>>3485944

>Sorry, but Republicans are by far the LEGAL majority.

Um... not even a tiny bit true. America is WAY more liberal than you think it is. America, the majority of America is BERNIE SANDERS levels of liberal according to every poll for decades the fact of the matter is after the Clintons were in office what the American people wanted stopped mattering because the Clintons and the Bushes set it up so that bribery was legal.

America stopped being a democracy and became an oligarchy.
http://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congress-doesnt-care-what-you-think

TLDR: A video explaining it here...
https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig

The media, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, they all tell you that America is "Center right" but that's not at all true.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/opinion/democrats-economic-policy.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/despite-americas-temper-t_b_735466.html

The media keeps asking people, "Do you consider yourself someone on the far left, on the far right, or a moderate." and most people answer that they are moderates because most people consider their core belief's to be pretty common sense but if you ask them about the individual issues, they are way more to the left than our government is.

No.3485964
File: 14v3fi0.png - (64.93 KB, 549x83) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
66485

>>3485952

>Actually, I'm on that side of history which argues that minorities have rights too, which is supposed to be your side of history as a leftist.

Actually, you are confusing the left for social justice warriors. I'm not a Clinton-cultist or a speshal snowflake. I want goverment that works.

That being said, what rights do you think are being taken away from you?

No.3486005

Every time I hear "Wrong side of history" I swear I get the same twinge as hearing christians say "Git rrrr-white wit god."

Stupid is what it sounds like, that's what I'm saying.

No.3486007

>>3485962

>America stopped being a democracy and became an oligarchy.
>http://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congress-doesnt-care-what-you-think

And you want to hand full control to said congress, thinking, "When we do it, this time it'll be right!". Protip: you will not escape the reasons why the congress has become as it is. Swapping the rulers just puts different people into the moneyed and political elite.

>>3485964

>Actually, you are confusing the left for social justice warriors.

The left is about social justice war - that's the whole point: social justice over the supremacy of the rule of law, customs, traditions, or generally the will of the people. The left is about "righting the wrongs of society" by dispensing arbitrary justice and redistribution, and the SJWs are merely the tip of the iceberg of that logical progression because they see an opportunity to make use of the leftist system, by making up martyrs of others and of themselves. In other words: "I'm the victim, now give me cash and social power."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice#United_Nations

>The United Nations’ 2006 document Social Justice in an Open World: The Role of the United Nations, states that "Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth..."
>The report concludes, "Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies."

A patently leftist point of view.

>and most people answer that they are moderates

Most people don't know what the fuck the question is about. They say they're moderates because the public media puts a stigma on both far right and far left, thanks to the far right and far left flinging shit at each other and presenting strawmen of each others points. Most of the people can't even identify what ideologies and ideas belong to either.

No.3486008

>>3485964

>I want goverment that works.

Then you have to become the whole government yourself, because otherwise you have to deal with people within and without trying to abuse the system every way till sunday - and succeeding.

The only system that actually works is a no system, not left, right, center or anything. Each of them are arbitrary, merely pretending to have a point and a justification, which makes all of them fail horribly. The only way to have a stable system is to aknowledge that you are indeed being arbitrary, that you have no point and your ideas are no more right than the other guys', and only then you can have an honest discussion about what should be done.

No.3486027
File: 2010-07-19.gif - (12.62 KB, 199x293) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
12919

>>3486007

>The left is about social justice war...

No, that is neo-liberalism. The left is about fairness which means you get to be a bigot flying your rebel flag and wearing your Nazi arm band if you want and the people who don't like it will have the right to tell you you're an idiot. The left defends free speech for everyone. Neo-liberals want there to be a war over gender politics and identity politics because that is what they use to distract you while they steal your money and pass it to the 1%.

The right does the same damn thing. It's two sides of the corporate whore coin. If you had one single lick of sense you would be standing with us to support Sanders and the people in the revolution who refuse big-donor money from corporations. The majority of the left wants corruption out of politics. It is the number 1 issue because no other issue can be resolved until we take control back from the 1%. You should be on our side against the 1% puppets but you are too busy being butt hurt and defending your freedoms from people who have better shit to do than care if you fly your rebel flag or not.

No.3486028

Smart leftists have already realized that the neoliberals are fucking Bourgoise trash and the "progressives" are weak, pathetic losers. If you want anything to get done, you send all the fascists and fascist sympathizers to the wall, you gulag the neoliberal kulaks, and you set up reeducation camps for misguided progressives who whine about "muh freeze peach for Nazis".

No.3486032

>>3486028
b8 detected

No.3486039

>>3486027

>No, that is neo-liberalism.

No, you just don't know what you're talking about. Neoliberalism makes no difference to liberalism/leftism over what should be done, the point where they disagree is how it should be done.

>The left is about fairness

A pile of shit by any other name still smells the same. The question is about what the left defines as "fair", and that is the primary component of social justice.

>The left defends free speech for everyone.

No they don't. Free speech is thrown out the window the second it threatens to out-argue the leftist sense of "fairness". You yourself were more than ready to put other peoples' whole culture into quarantine just because you disagree with what some stupid statue means.

>If you had one single lick of sense you would be standing with us to support Sanders and the people in the revolution who refuse big-donor money from corporations.

Revolutions always fail on one point: without leadership, they dissolve into nothingness because nobody can agree on what they should be doing. See the Occupy movement. If they do find themselves a leader in some powerful demagog, that person will start to steer the peoples' opinions for their own personal or special interest group benefit without fail, and when the mob sees what's happening and starts to go home, it's already too late and the establishment has been replaced with a different group of elitist assholes.

No.3486040

>>3486027

>You should be on our side against the 1% puppets but you are too busy being butt hurt and defending your freedoms from people who have better shit to do than care if you fly your rebel flag or not.

You think you're going to get rid of the 1% by becoming the 1% in a different way?

The problem is not in the fact that the society has run into great disparity, but in why it has reached that point. The problem is a direct result of the concentration of social power in such a small number of people that they can be efficiently lobbied and controlled - the state, the government, and the 1% are the same damn thing, and if you don't change what the government is and what it's supposed to do, if you merely replace the people in it, you're just going to repeat the same faults over and over.

All thought the last century, the government has been granted a greater and greater role, more power and more responsibilities in regulating and controlling the economy and peoples' social matters, and consistently it has gone worse and worse regardless of who's in power. Maybe it's time to realize the common denominator of the issue.

No.3486043

>>3486032
Facts detected. /pol/ and its allies should be lined up and shot. People who don't like that should go to the gulag.

No.3486046
>You should be on our side against the 1% puppets

You should learn the concept of the wisdom of the crowd: nobody knows the full truth, many are completely off the mark, but as some people veer off to one side of the issue, others do the same on the opposite side, and by listening to everyone it balances out to a better approximation. If you demand that "obviously wrong" answers and opinions are eliminated out, you shift the window of discourse to one side because you don't eliminate those opinions that kinda-sorta agree with yours but are taking it too far on the opposite end of the spectrum. You can't, because they're on your side and you need them to form the majority against those people who you consider to be wrong.

So the average opinion among the people you're willing to listen to shifts, and then again from that collective point of view the previously moderate point of view starts to look slanted and wrong, and again the frame of politics shifts, over and over, until the whole society runs to absurdity with fewer and fewer people arguing in more and more exclusive echo chambers. The majority of the majority of the majority is actually a minority of the total, but in the end they get full control.

So when the leftist says "freedom of speech", he means "I'll let you talk, but I'm going to ignore your opinion anyways because I think it's dumb", which is the same thing as denying you the freedom of speech. Same end result. The same thing then happens within the left, and results in a new minority rule, a new oligarchy that does its best to silence all opposition with any means they can get away with.

No.3486047
>which is the same thing as denying you the freedom of speech.
>waah I'm being ignored by someone, my rights are somehow violated

That right to free speech is not a right to be fucking listened to or agreed with. That attitude of yours tells me you like cub porn because that's common among cub fanatics when they find out someone doesn't like cub.

No.3486048

"Free speech" is bullshit liberal claptrap.

Nazis and Nazi sympathizers, for example, don't deserve speech. Or other rights. Or life.

No.3486049

Well letting them have speech does ultimately give them power, to indoctrinate, to spread lies and to gain followers. It's not like they'd allow the same courtesy if they were in charge.

The confederacy and the Nazis lost their wars, they don't need their hands held or acknowledgement.

No.3486050

My favorite bit of conservative hypocrisy recently

>teen makes video suggesting that CNN reporters should be physically assaulted for not kissing Trump's ass
>FREE SPEECH, TOTALLY HARMLESS
>CNN finds out who made the video, gets on his ass
>FASCISM AT WORK, SO MUCH FOR THE TOLERANT LEFT!
No.3486059

>>3486050
Thank god the left is starting to get over this "tolerance" shit. Even the most retarded liberal should recognize that some things shouldn't be "tolerated". In the past, leftists freely recognized this obvious truth. Only neoliberal Bourgeoisie brainwashing was insidious enough to convince them otherwise.

No.3486065

>>3486059

Hu, the left never were for tolerating the nazism or similar hatemonger groups.

It was the GOP, Trumpists and alt right who keep pushing for "basis of free speech".

No.3486066

>>3486065
In typical cowardly fashion, so-called "liberals" clutched their pearls and cowered in fear every time the fascists whined about "intolerance".

Felt like every other fucking day that we had to sit around and listen to a bunch of retarded "progressives" wring their hands and tremble in fear as some pedophile with an anime avatar lectured them about the "precious freeze peach rights".

It was nauseating enough that some leftists got real, at least. Hopefully not too late, but at this point we might just be fucked permanently thanks to liberal weakness.

No.3486072

>>3486050

One is doxxing, one isn't. Sorry you're so myopic.

No.3486073

>>3486072
Doxxing is critical to bashing Nazis. How are we supposed to beat the shit out of them if we can't even dox them?

No.3486075
File: virginhorseshoechadquoit.jpg - (188.71 KB, 2048x836) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
193244
No.3486077

>>3486075
Discussions about "horseshoe theory" are liberal bullshit. The only true conflict is between the worker and the exploiter.

No.3486079

>>3486077
Who do you want to exploit today?

No.3486080
File: 87-19-4-48.jpg - (91.43 KB, 571x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
93624

>>3486079
Capitalists and their lapdogs, of course.

No.3486083
File: what.jpg - (69.33 KB, 657x282) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
70989

>>3486080
You can tell what leftists are doing by what they accuse conservatives of doing. Or anyone they don't consider left enough.

No.3486085
File: swissarmybait.jpg - (174.66 KB, 2000x2143) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
178856
>>ITT
No.3486086
File: stupid viewpoints.jpg - (39.20 KB, 620x448) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
40145

Masters ITT

No.3486087
File: PXUjSnooZhCc6LXUfQmgpGRpTlHmOE9uvLQDrUT8RTQ.jpg - (38.46 KB, 450x450) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
39382

>>3486083

No.3486089
File: roads.png - (480.39 KB, 610x422) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
491917

>>3486087
WOT?

No.3486090
File: the-proletarian-who-defends-the-bourgeoisie-works-against-his-own-13338254.png - (49.32 KB, 500x396) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
50507

>>3486089

No.3486092

>>3486073

We were discussing hypocrisy, idiot.

No.3486094

>>3486092
Where's the hypocrisy? Nazis and Nazi sympathizers deserve to get the shit beat out of them, while normal people do not.

No.3486096

>>3486094

That's a non-sequitur. Regardless of that being true, it has no impact on discussion.

No.3486098

>>3486096
Still not seeing any hypocrisy.

No.3486102

>>3486098
You're a hypocrite!

No.3486112

>>3486102
No I'm not.

No.3486116
File: DQqAburXcAAv0Ad.jpg - (110.48 KB, 666x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
113127

>>3486039

>Free speech is thrown out the window the second it threatens to out-argue the leftist sense of "fairness". You yourself were more than ready to put other peoples' whole culture into quarantine just because you disagree with what some stupid statue means.

Again, I'll keep explaining this too you like you're a child until you understand: You don't get to decide what the statue means, I don't get to decide what the statue means. We live in a society where the majority opinion matters and to the majority those statues are insulting.

Also you are assuming I personally find the statues offensive. I honestly couldn't care less. It's a statue about shit that happened a long time ago and isn't helpful at all. I care about the future not the past. Statues, no statues, we got more important shit to worry about. Let the mob do whatever it wants so we can get back to important business.

My point has always been that if you want the freedom to fly the flag most people link to slavery and betraying America, then freedom of speech means that they get to give you shit about what they perceive as you being a racist fuck nugget.

No.3486117
File: Oh-boy-here-we-go-again.jpg - (50.32 KB, 250x250) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
51523

>>3486040

>if you merely replace the people in it, you're just going to repeat the same faults over and over.

Yes, I agree. Which is why we are replacing them with people who don't take bribes and are running on a platform of making bribery illegal again. Changing government permanently so that this level of corruption can never happen again is the goal and why I keep telling you, you are on our side and if you stopped being an angry twit for 20 seconds you would see it.

No.3486118

>>3486039
All confederate statues should be melted down and made into new statues of Karl Marx. Children throughout the South should receive mandatory Marxist indoctrination, as well.

No.3486122

>>3486116

The majority deciding everything is called mob rule, and we're a republic, not a democracy, we do not have mob rule as a result.

If the majority decided everything, that would mean that the minority is never capitulated to, which would mean that words like nigger and lynching black people would still be considered civil society.

3B, Do you really think we live by the majority convention?

No.3486133
File: People-laughing-by-Tumblr.jpg - (28.57 KB, 500x750) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
29251

>>3486116

>Again, I'll keep explaining this too you like you're a child until you understand: You don't get to decide what the statue means, I don't get to decide what the statue means.

That's what I keep saying, that's what you keep saying, but when it comes to saying what should be done (if anything), you jump off to perfectly absurd conclusions that contradict your own stated opinions! You make no sense:

>We live in a society where the majority opinion matters and to the majority those statues are insulting.

"Your rights end where my feelings begin" - is what you're saying there. You are ready to throw other people's right of free speech and expression to the toilet over your claim that other people are being offended? That's an SJW argument, and you're claiming you're not, yet you continuously keep demonstrating the opposite.

>>3486117

>Which is why we are replacing them with people who don't take bribes and are running on a platform of making bribery illegal again.

Picture related.

No.3486134

>>3486116

>My point has always been that if you want the freedom to fly the flag most people link to slavery and betraying America, then freedom of speech means that they get to give you shit about what they perceive as you being a racist fuck nugget.

It also means that the state and the government have no business in people's business over the matter. If some town wants to have a statue, then it's up to their people to have it, not some liberal fuckwad from across the state who's simply looking for political brownie points by manufacturing outrage against such a "horrible" offense.

You don't get to define what the statue means, I don't get to define what the statue means, NOBODY gets to define it, yet anybody who finds it offensive and are requesting its removal on the sole point that they are offended are doing exactly that. They are demanding that everybody agrees that it's offensive, that their particular emotions matter more. They are demanding to create a national collective myth of right and wrong opinions and expressions, of what can and cannot say as a dogmatic pseudo-religious system based on the tyranny of the majority, that contradicts the very right to freedom of speech you are claiming to uphold.

If you can't see the sheer hypocrisy and dishonest double-thinking of your opinion, you're truly lost. What's worse is that you do, yet you continue to argue it.

No.3486135

>>3486118
Karl Marx should be exhumed from his grave and his remains cremated and scattered in the ocean, all his monstrous madman books and writings and ideas destroyed, his name erased from history and from the Internet and all records, because for the Earth to advance it needs to be as if that creature never existed.

No.3486136
File: tumblr_ozrphsvwtl1rnnjw1o1_1280.jpg - (514.42 KB, 1200x1375) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
526771

>>3486122

>If the majority decided everything, that would mean that the minority is never capitulated to, which would mean that words like nigger and lynching black people would still be considered civil society.

Yet that is obviously not true because the majority of people don't call blacks niggers. You don't know your American history or you would know that over time black people convinced whites that segregation was bad and as that opinion became the majority opinion the people in power, the 1%, literally went to war with it's own citizens to try and stop the majority opinion from becoming reality just like the democrats are doing now over single payer healthcare, taxing the wealthy, anti-corruption and banking regulations. One by one these issues will gain an overwhelming majority of the population's support and when they do the people in power will bow to the pressure or there will be internal war. Why do you think we had a civil war the first time? The majority wanted to end slavery even though it wasn't economically the best idea. The government in the north caved and the people in the south refused but the mob was angry and when the people in power resisted there was war.

Mob rule has always, always dictated policy eventually in every society. Even fucking Nazis had majority support across Europe when they first started carting off Jews, Gays and Gypsies. People were literally filling train cars with the unwanted and shipping them off to concentration camps because the mob thought it was the right thing to do.

Mob rule is the free market of ideas. Some times it goes wrong but market forces within the mob will self-correct given time, regulation and factual information.

No.3486138
File: tumblr_inline_opv9nbXD581rn192i_540_.gif - (161.16 KB, 452x297) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
165031

>>3486133

>"Your rights end where my feelings begin" - is what you're saying there.

No, I'm saying your rights end where society as a whole agrees they do. Just like anything else. You can't beat your children in public because the majority decided it was bad. You can't rob a bank because the majority decided it was bad. That's how societies function. The majority makes rules and judgements.

Those judgements can be influenced and changed over time but right now, in this moment, you be fucked bro.

No.3486139

>>3486122
Majority rule always leads to minority tyranny. Take a simple example. Should we reduce taxes, keep the taxes the same, or increase taxes? Let's make that the pivot issue of our government elections.

Let's suppose 1/3 of the people support each option, so nobody can get a true majority, but, the "keep" and "increase" camps are united in their opposition to the "reduce" camp which they both consider wrong, so they form a majority and win the elections. Now however, within the ruling majority, the opinion is split 50/50 between "keep" and "increase", and they have to come up with a consensus over what actually needs to be done - again on the same majority principle. Now the "increase" group starts to lobby their opinion and wins some of the "keep" group to their side, and forms a majority of the majority, which is actually a minority of the whole people, and the consensus opinion becomes "increase taxes", which goes against 2/3 of the people. Whoops!

You can let any of the groups win like that, and the result will be a tyranny of the minority, and what's worse, they are granted power not just over the tax issue, but every issue, where they will differ even more from the true popular consensus.

In a "majority always wins" system, everybody has to rally up behind the most powerful minority, or they have no chance of forming a majority. That's true even in the European multi-party systems with D'hondt method etc. because the actual governments are formed within the elected representatives such that the most popular party forms a coalition with one or more of the less popular parties to gain a voting majority over the opposition. In effect, you can get a 30% party forming a coalition with a 21% party, to get a 51% majority government, and then within that government the 30% party can outvote the 21% party in all the important matters. All they have to do is throw them a bone, a bribe or other bonus, to keep the goverment from breaking up.

No.3486140

>>3486138

>No, I'm saying your rights end where society as a whole agrees they do.

No you're not. You're saying your rights end where the government and the state decide they do. You conflate the people with the government.

Again, this goes to the fundamental role of the state: is it supposed to be an active element in society that guides and directs it, or is it supposed to be a tool for the people to settle their common differences. The leftist says the government should be proactive, and that automatically puts the opinions of the ruling class above the true common opinion.

No.3486141
File: DQaJpa8VoAAahH9.png - (2634.38 KB, 1400x1955) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
2697601

>>3486134

>They are demanding that everybody agrees that it's offensive, that their particular emotions matter more.

No, they aren't. That is you reading way too much into things. There have never been protest marches with protesters saying, "You have to hate General Lee to be American." and if there was we would laugh at them.

They won because they gathered in a big enough mob standing together to say, "We don't like seeing this it's offensive." and your side gathered in a counter protest mob that was smaller and said, "We don't care what you want!" but the people in power listened to the larger mob. No one is saying you have to change what you think, you can think anything you want and they will think anything they want about you, it's maximum freedom! If you could get a large enough mob together to out-protest them then you can get the statues put back. That's how it works.

No.3486142

>>3486136

>Mob rule has always, always dictated policy eventually in every society. Even fucking Nazis had majority support across Europe when they first started carting off Jews, Gays and Gypsies. People were literally filling train cars with the unwanted and shipping them off to concentration camps because the mob thought it was the right thing to do.

And all you're doing is a repetition of that.

The mob can decide to put the rule of law over themselves, and that's the basis of western civilization in the first place: to come up with basic rules and moral principles that serve as the foundations of society so the people wouldn't be subjected to arbitrary demagoguery and the whims of the few.

Those rules are always a compromize and result in some disparity. The leftist's problem here is that they won't accept this compromize, but would rather return to the mob rule because they believe they can do better - but that's a step back and results in worse outcomes.

No.3486144
File: Both_Sides_Are_United_Against_1percent.png - (214.89 KB, 554x311) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
220047

>>3486140

>The leftist says the government should be proactive, and that automatically puts the opinions of the ruling class above the true common opinion.

I swear someone needs to follow you around and squirt you with a squirt bottle every time you say stupid shit like that.

That is not what the left is. That is Neo-liberalism just like conservatism isn't about giving all the working classes money to the 1% like Trump is doing because he is a Neo-conservative. They are two sides of the same fucked up system that the left is trying to dismantle and you should also be trying to dismantle.

Even white supremacist get this! I don't understand why this is hard for you. It's 99% vs 1%. Not left vs right.

No.3486145

>>3486141

>They won because they gathered in a big enough mob standing together to say, "We don't like seeing this it's offensive." and your side gathered in a counter protest mob that was smaller and said, "We don't care what you want!" but the people in power listened to the larger mob.

You forget that previously, both sides had agreed to a point in principle that such matters should not be decided on mob rule: freedom of speech. Thereby, the government on siding with the larger mob ran afoul and betrayed the previous decisions made by the people.

>No one is saying you have to change what you think, you can think anything you want and they will think anything they want about you, it's maximum freedom!

No it's not. Maximum freedom would be to realize that if such large differences persist, maybe the people aren't one and maybe they should be doing their own thing separately where they live. It's maximum tyranny to force both under the arbitrary umbrella of "society" and treat it like it should have a single opinion and a single set of "right values".

The point of the US civil war was exactly that the North couldn't let the South go away, because the North was exploiting the South economically. They couldn't aknowledge that there's a fundamental rift in values between what were effectively becoming two different societies, so the more powerful and industrialized North went to war.

No.3486146
File: CdhmaksUIAEBm-g.png - (374.71 KB, 492x532) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
383706

>>3486142

>Those rules are always a compromize and result in some disparity.

Yes, I agree, in any form of society complete fairness is impossible but in civilized society we strive to come as close to it as is reasonable. There will always be a minority which doesn't have power, you are correct but those minorities are usually the most dangerous, deranged people who the rest of us don't want to have power. See: Hillary Clinton.

No.3486148

>>3486144

>That is not what the left is. That is Neo-liberalism

Again, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Neoliberalism IS leftism - they share fundamental values - they only differ in how it should be implemented.

Neoliberalism places trust on the market forces to perform the social justice indirectly, while basic leftism does the same by direct order. Both agree on the point that the government should have the final judgement on what should happen.

No.3486150

>>3486141
Also, you have a glaring contradiction in your theory:

>but the people in power listened to the larger mob.

Which implies the people in power have the power to demand the public to think and behave in certain ways

>No one is saying you have to change what you think, you can think anything you want and they will think anything they want about you

Which implies the peope in power DO NOT have the power to demand you to think and behave in certain ways.

You can't have your cake and eat it as well. In reality, in the question of racism, it wasn't the government that decided people should stop saying nigger, but the people themselves who listened to each other and decide that maybe it's not such a good idea. The government was totally irrelevant in the question, as again due to the freedom of speech they did not have the right to tell anybody to stop saying nigger.

No.3486151
File: Hillary_Cult_Feminism.jpg - (96.15 KB, 1535x889) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
98454

>>3486145

>Thereby, the government on siding with the larger mob ran afoul and betrayed the previous decisions made by the people.

Again, you are thinking in absolutes. You need to realize civilizations are like living things. They go through phases. What is considered normal today will probably be considered racist in 20 years and people may change their mind and say the word nigger isn't insulting any more because it's used so much on the internet that it just doesn't matter. We don't know what the future holds but the one thing we do know is that it won't be like today. Things are always changing because the will of the mob is always changing. Why do you think the 1% pay so much money to control media? If they can influence the will of the mob they have total control over the society. When they don't have control, assholes like Bernie Sanders come along and try to rock the boat.

No.3486154

>>3486150

>Which implies the people in power have the power to demand the public to think and behave in certain ways

The people in power don't have the right to tell you what to think, they do have the right to tell you how to behave. We call those "Laws" and if you break them, you get a punishment that the mob agrees to.

Of course this can change too according to the will of the mob. Right now we are seeing the war on drugs dismantled because the will of the mob is with the legalize it movement.

We see the private prison system under constant attack because the mob is angry about the way people are being used as slave labor.

Government, when it works properly, is responsive to the will of the mob. If the mob wants something that is a terrible idea then it's the job of the government to convince them it's a terrible idea, not to just deny them. That is what Neo-liberals/Neo-Cons do. That is why everyone hates them.

No.3486155

>>3486154

>Government, when it works properly, is responsive to the will of the mob.

No, that's a terrible idea, because the government isn't separate from the mob - it is the mob. The mob elects itself, and then does whatever the fuck it wants. If you put the rule of the mob above the rule of the law, you destroy civil society.

>If the mob wants something that is a terrible idea then it's the job of the government to convince them it's a terrible idea, not to just deny them.

Again, will not work in practice.

No.3486156

Again, the whole point is that the society cannot work by personifying the people into the government, by pretending that a small ruling class is truly representative of the people.

It always corrupts.

The mob has to deal with the mob, the people have to deal with the people. The government, when properly functioning, is a legal court that merely reflects the people's own opinions back to them and does not take part in the decisionmaking process. The government merely takes what was previously agreed to, such as the freedom of speech or the constitution, and applies it to the present case and gives the verdict - it does not and should not dispense arbitrary justice based on who currently happens to be elected into the government, because those elected are always partial to some people over others and thereby betray the true democratic process.

No.3486165
File: politicians-and-diapers_mark-twain.jpg - (46.87 KB, 850x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
47995

>>3486156

>Again, the whole point is that the society cannot work by personifying the people into the government, by pretending that a small ruling class is truly representative of the people.

So you don't want any form of government where any small group of people have any form of power what-so-ever then? Ok, what form of government do you propose? Because state level government is the same exact thing. You are always going to have the same problems and solutions.

No.3486175
File: we-wuz-krangs.jpg - (43.75 KB, 500x423) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
44802
No.3486178

>>3486165
Re-animated Mark Twain for president 2020

No.3486191
File: cpalhsfzyw201.jpg - (50.50 KB, 720x675) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
51715
No.3486239

>>3486191

Because of the brainwashing illusion that americans have been spoonfed since the industrial revolution.
That they too can become rich by "working hard".
When they somehow forget that almost everyone got rich by being dirty bastards who collected friendships for power and connections to ensure no competitors got the money. Or even going as far as outright murder, pillaging, corruption, etc.. to get to their objectives.
Or they just were born into riches by dynasties of accumulated wealth.

Exactly how people keep gambling as well. Human brain cant comprehend probability and "luck" and the keep insisting they CAN become rich.
Even if 99.9999999% of them will never win.

No.3486269

>>3486191

Greedy is protecting what you've built. Good to know.

No.3486277

Understand that most Americans, but conservatives especially, are indoctrinated, can't think for themselves and believe a higher power is always good for them.

Follow this bit of conservative logic-

>I'm glad Bernie Sanders didn't win, he'd use my tax money to feed the poor. I'm glad Trump is using my tax money to fund Israel, a strong Israel is good for America because Trump and Gene Simmons said all Muslims are terrorists!

Good goyim, hate your fellow Americans so much you want them to starve so a foreign country can prosper. A foreign country founded baselessly because "those Holocaust survivors have to go SOMEWHERE" and no other country would take them so they swiped a bit of occupied land because their ancestors 1945 years ago may have lived there.

Being allies with Israel has probably caused most of these problems to begin with and your dumbass rich Jew Yorker sucking up to them even more has made things worse.

The only solution to the ME problem is for the US to pull out. No alliance with Israel, no alliance with Saudi Arabia, no alliance with any of them. Let them blow each other up for all I give a shit, peace over there isn't happening. Once the others are done with Israel they will turn on each other, because all religion is a baseless lie and Islam, like Christianity, has multiple sects that can't agree on shit and they fight each other due to it. Guess what bitches, their issues are not our concern but politicians act as if they're somehow more deserving of it than actual American citizens, and you're fucking stupid enough to go along with it even though your leaders have mostly been failures.

No.3486286

>>3486277

>>I'm okay with sanders redistributing my wealth because it'll go towards helping people.
>>Goddamn Trump! My taxes went up because of how high my land is valued in Commiefornia and because I make more much more than the average American!

In otherwords, compulsory charity is right when your politics are right :->

No.3486287

>>3486286
Newsflash though - the wealthiest get the biggest tax break even by % of income, and the next thing on the legislative agenda is Entitlement "reform", according to the Speaker of the House.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/363642-ryan-pledges-entitlement-reform-in-2018
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Wednesday said House Republicans will aim to cut spending on Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs next year as a way to trim the federal deficit.
“We’re going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit,” Ryan said during an interview on Ross Kaminsky's talk radio show.

Which is fucking infuriating because the CBO and JCT both estimate that those tax cuts they're currently going in Reconciliation over will add $1 trillion to the Deficit over 10 years, and the Corporate cuts (35% to 20%) are permanent.

No.3486289
File: DQNqd9tWsAIrHyW.jpg - (78.06 KB, 720x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
79934

I would like to just point out that the person complaining how shitty government is was asked by me on Sun Dec 10 in >>3486165 "What form of government do you propose?"

Since then they stopped posting all together. They can't seem to come up with a single answer.

They have complained non-stop for 2 weeks that goverment can't work but have zero to offer in the way of actually constructive ideas. This, is what makes Trump's America possible, people like this tard who want to burn it all down and have no idea what to do afterwards.

No.3486290

>>3486277
I wonder how this conservative indoctrination thing occurs when most cultural forces at present are pushing progressive universalist ideology.

>Follow this bit of conservative logic-

That is not a bit of conservative logic. It's a straw man that you've concocted for your own rhetorical convenience.

No.3486291

>>3486287
Entitlement reform will blow your mind. Get this... You know all those people who rely on welfare to survive? They're going to be carted off to industrial settlements and expected to work to survive. Some will be incapable of adjusting and will simply expire. Those relying on government health care programs will instead need to rely on charitable organizations.

No.3486292

>>3486277
Islam is an enemy of all. It's even an enemy to Muslims. This is all you need to know about the Middle East. It must be pushed back, expelled, contained and maybe not in this order, reformed so it's peaceful. I think it's too ugly to survive, they should all ditch it. That's unlikely to happen.. However, it would be nice if Israel could stand on its own two feet and not require the US giving it handouts.

No.3486352

>>3486290

>facts are straw man

You forgot to accuse me of having cancer because someone pointed out things you disagree with.

>>3486292

Hitler loved Islam, so his followers hating it shows how little they know about their "hero". That said, I don't give a remote fuck if Israel thrives. They're a nation of blowhards that borderline behave like Hitler, thinking themselves immune to all criticism- because they accuse you of being a bigot and evoke the damn Holocaust every time someone calls them out. They're a tiny country the size of a small state that has just enough power to turn a large part of the world into their puppet, either because they have the money or because they accuse you of being Hitler if you don't play along.

So much for "make AMERICA great again" when Trump and many of his supporters out Israel above their own nation, while shitting on Bernie Sanders for wanting to serve American people. The rest of his supporters mean the Confederate States of America when they say that, too bad they're not getting it.

No.3486355

... and the sheer number of Jews that are sick of Israel's shit is astounding too.

Then again, the only ones with influence are rich Jews. The poor ones don't matter, and if the rich ones could get away with it they'd stick every poor Jew into an oven just to heat their homes.

Whenever you hear some rhetoric about Jews, it's not your struggling neighbor working 2 jobs to feed his family, it's the celebrity, the CEO or the politician that has enough money to live on for 100 years but demands more. Gene Simmons is almost like the happy merchant cartoon come to fucking life, the worst ones are so bad they reinforce every negative stereotype against the Jewish people by acting exactly like /pol/ wrote them. Like they give a shit, they have their money, they don't care if you hate them- but they'll slander you if you do.

No.3486362

>>3486352
Your face is a strawman.

No.3486363
File: Hitlers_Pope.jpg - (30.98 KB, 480x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
31720

>>3486352

>Hitler loved Islam

Hitler was Christian. He invited the Pope to visit him while he was burning Jews alive.

No.3486367

>>3486363
...and he admired Islam? Is that impossible?

No.3486376
File: 81007c4dd858e0f4652f181bfc67673b--berlin-olympics-jesse-owens.jpg - (20.06 KB, 474x379) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
20542

>>3486363
Hitler wasn't a Christian. He hated Christianity because it was an outgrowth of Judaism. He also was smart enough to know that instead of brutally erasing religion the way the Bolsheviks did, that it was much better to bend and control the church and it's charitable functions, and gradually replace it with worship of the Volk and Nazi ideals.

Also, his Konkordat deal with the Vatican happened in 1933, a long time before he went after the Jews (who were burned dead, not alive btw). At that time, he was all about being friends with everybody, at least though 1936 (see pic).

No.3486382

>>3486376

Hitler looks shopped into this. Something about him seems really off.

He -did- congratulate Jesse Owens, even if not in the open. Jesse himself said that Hitler met with him somewhat privately in person in the locker rooms after his gold medal finish. Clearly Hitler couldn't be seen championing a black man's win over his much-heralded Aryan folk in the grand public eye. Jesse however claimed that Adolf's gesture was sincere and his triumph was warmly received.

This, however, was not what American powers wanted to hear. Upon his return to the US, Jesse was ordered to never mention this again, for it would conflict with the propaganda machine that was already ramping up against Hitler. They wouldn't tolerate it from a white man, and they certainly wouldn't be upended by an uppity Negro, no matter how decorated he was. Jesse infamously remarked about how he was treated better in Nazi Germany than his own country.

It wasn't until many years after his death that this all came to light through his personal photographer and friend, who accompanied him to the Berlin games, was entrusted with seeing Owen's memoirs through, and was pretty much the last person alive who knew what happened that day.

No.3486383

>>3486382

Yeah, it's totally shopped. Look at Hitler's side between their bodies. You can see the clone tool was used badly. Also Hitler's hand has African American skin on it.

If there is one thing I know, it's bad photoshop.

No.3486387

>>3486383

Yeah, kinda surprised I didn't notice that before on Jesse Owens. His left arm looks badly scarred and amputated. Jesus, I can't unsee it.

No.3486391
File: ee593f97ded6cac4a72062078e6c62d9.jpg - (67.25 KB, 800x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
68864

>>3486387
Its almost like, walmart america is actively trying to pin everyone appart to make bigger profit off the christmas war, almost like when all the jews never showed up for work in the twin towers on 9/11

No.3486392
File: Trixie_gives_a_touched_half-smile_S6E6.png - (1005.38 KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
1029507

>>3486391
I mean its like a Jewish mirical you guys, and totally not a conspiracy or anything, we should all celebrate the magic of it all

No.3486483

And for the first time in 25 years, Alabama has elected a Democratic Senator - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/12/roy-moore-loses-alabama-senate-race-doug-jones-wins

No.3486484

The left isn't even excited about the win. They're just very tired. I'm not even seeing much gloating.

I'm sure everyone looks forward to all the sad tears from the fat orange and his pedo candidate of choice, though.

No.3486488
File: alabama-hot-pocket.jpg - (145.04 KB, 512x334) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
148518

There's a lot of celebration going on in the news. Maybe not Fox News. It's still a super close race with a difference of less than 10000 votes (out of about 1.7 million voters) -- but this is from a state that voted for Trump by over a half a million votes (out of about 2 million) just over a year ago.

No.3486494

>>3486484
To be fair, it could be a combination of shellshock/disbelief and hesitance to count the chickens before they're hatched - the votes were literally within 1% of each other, so you know that's going to trigger a recount or three.

No.3486502

>>3486494
Undoubtedly.
This could get fairly interesting before it's done...

No.3486532
File: daaamn.jpg - (51.58 KB, 640x346) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
52817

>>3486494

It is hilla-rious how Hillbots are celebrating the defeat of Moore as if being able to beat a racist, pedophile, cartoon of a man with a wife who makes jokes like, "The media says that we don't like Jews. I wanted to just correct that right now. Our lawyer is Jew." by less than 1% of the vote is somehow a good sign about your party.

No.3486537
File: how gerrymandering works in Alabama.jpg - (48.70 KB, 544x588) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
49867

>>3486494 Alabama apparently has an automatic recount rule that happens if the difference is less than 0.5% however the gap between Jones and Moore widened to quite a bit more than that. So if there's going to be a recount Moore's going to have to initiate some kind of challenge (I don't know AL's recount rules)

A note about the graphic -- this is how congressional seats are divided in the state. Good packing job.

>>3486532 I saw a vid of Moore's wife making that comment. Wow.. Whether it's a joke or not it was pretty insulting.

No.3486546

>>3486532
Well, seeing as Sessions won with 97% of the vote prior to getting picked as Attorney General...

No.3486550
File: write in for pony.jpg - (27.40 KB, 480x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
28055

>>3486546 He won by that margin in 2014 because he was uncontested except for write-in votes.

No.3486552

We get it, 3Bitch, you like Trump and want to blow him. You deny the Russian hacking despite piles of evidence and your hatred of Hillary is greater even though she's a non-entity.

>buh-buh-but she STOLE the nomination

the rich people were never going to allow Bernie to raise their taxes and feed poor people. I'm surprised they didn't shoot or poison him.

As for Moore, he's a bigoted pedophile and anyone who supports him is a piece of shit. Pedophilia is not normal, it's a mental illness, and he's guilty as fuck. I'm not surprised furries feel sorry for him, you are mostly pedos yourselves.

No.3486558
File: DEMPPOLL2.jpg - (888.33 KB, 864x747) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
909655

>>3486552

>the rich people were never going to allow Bernie

It was pretty much anybody with a job and a nonzero income that kept Bernie from the nomination, not just rich people (pic related). She also won women, hispanics, moderates, anybody over 50, African Americans, conservatives, neoliberals, registered Democrats...

No.3486561
File: aA1vV8o_700b.jpg - (23.35 KB, 380x387) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
23906

>>3486552 just because you don't like Hillary doesn't mean you Support Trump either.

No.3486562
File: d5a27fb7b32a5789e5f895.jpg - (253.13 KB, 640x618) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
259203

>>3486532

>Derp, Hillary supporters are celebrating a victory over a racist homophobic old, white man with a wife who makes jokes about Jews...in deep red Trump territory full of racist white people who love jokes at the expense of minorities and homos

Oh 3B, I can practically feel your jealousy and frustration through the screen. This win is important because we've shown that us Democrats have the power to win elections in Republican strongholds and without the support of Bernie Sanders, OurRevolution, Justice Democrats, TYT or any appeals to your socialist agenda. No single payer, no free college, no $15/hr, just classic moderate, centrist Democratic policies.

No.3486577

>>3486562
Yeah, even Republicans should be celebrating Moore's defeat, for the simple reason that he won't taint the GOP any worse than it already has been via Trump.

No.3486584

>>3486552

>You deny the Russian hacking despite piles of evidence...

Source? Where is this evidence?

No.3486586
File: DQ0K5HtUIAARu2P.jpg - (25.30 KB, 461x347) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
25908

>>3486558

>Let me site a poll conducted over 2 days in February 2016 where the Wall Street Journal contacted 400 registered democrats then act surprised that they favor Clinton...
No.3486587
File: WoWScrnShot_120417_201400.png - (1090.42 KB, 1109x693) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
1116589

>>3486562

>This just proves centrists can win...

As long as every other republican you run against has a documented history of pedophilia and sexual assault...?? Good luck with that.

No.3486714

>>3486287

Irony that republicans also complain about "wealth redistribution".

But they surely love to redistribute towards the rich and their lobbyists (aka their corrupters)

No.3486717

>>3486537

Those concentrations will be more and more common as smart intelligent liberal people leave the uneducated jesus shitlands of the bible belt to live in big cities.

The concentration will be harder and harsher as each group will try to weed the other out (specially the "tolerant" christians groups against non christians and minorities)


Delete Post []
Password