File: 1604367855759.png (522.17 KB, 2000x3400, 10:17, 132706214252.png) ImgOps Google
Either way, it's gonna suck. I guess the pink pussy hat libs can go back to comfortably eating brunch if Biden wins, but at the end of the day most of us will still be fucked. I'm telling my dad to vote for Biden (he's in PA) for harm reduction reasons, but I just know that our society will continue to spiral under him.
The positives we can expect under Biden are basically a better functioning administrative state. The NLRB will actually uphold what little labor rights Americans have, the EPA will enforces some environmental regulation, the FEC will be a little stricter on campaign finance violations, etc. And maybe we might get a public option for healthcare. However, we will also experience war hawkish foreign policy continue and likely expand, Cabinet positions being filled by Republican extremists like Kasich and corporate execs, capitalists will continue to dominate the Democratic and Republican Party platforms, climate change will get worse and worse each year, student loan debt will rapidly expand, and even if Congress is Democratic-majority in both Houses, I doubt they'll do anything substantial (they barely did in Obama's first two years). We'll probably just get four years of nice sounding platitudes and then Kamala 2024.
Dude, this guy got violently
angry at this topic. What's up with him?
File: 1604370660171.jpg (104.81 KB, 875x560, 25:16, Screen_Shot_2017-08-17_at_….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
This is the only correct answer.
File: 1604371275520.jpg (139.5 KB, 500x429, 500:429, the inner workings of a tr….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I predict that someone will win.
File: 1604371794960.png (252.19 KB, 905x898, 905:898, 21.png) ImgOps Google
All jokes aside I'm riden with Biden for harm reduction.
It is nice to think that he will follow through with some promises but I mean at least it is an improvement from an ethical standpoint. >>7517
You have to admire the French revolutionaries.
The solution was simple, if there are no people then there is no corrupt government.
File: 1604372040145.jpg (96.04 KB, 564x798, 94:133, d0846846069f1a173c8a6d1241….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
as someone who lives in florida
the odds of it going blue isn't very likely
but absolutely possible
so hey, who knows
File: 1604372463477.png (93.61 KB, 795x1024, 795:1024, 47.png) ImgOps Google
I'm not debating that we wouldn't be, but I also agree with you that it is a slow process that needed to have been started 100 years ago.
I suppose like everyone else I just know better than to expect anything past the bare minimum of what they played lip service to. >>7520
There is a pot among some DnD buddies on certain states.
Right now the big one is 100 on GA going blue.
File: 1604372855658.jpg (1.15 MB, 1028x1256, 257:314, Aqua.(KonoSuba).full.19675….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
GA i could actually see it happening
i cant foresee it
i really just cant
but if i do it, i will be very surprised because this place is very conservative
granted, south florida is much different than my area so that will be a key factor
File: 1604373143150.png (88.39 KB, 400x600, 2:3, 1571291888571.png) ImgOps Google
yeah, Robespierre was a little trigger happy with that national razor of his :PP>>7520>>7521
i hope sincerely that both florida and georgia go blue by the end of the night. that would easily show biden victory
i'm surprised NC is polling the way it is, but i welcome it for sure>>7522
most what i've seen is that florida is a toss up, and it's very strange compared to the rest of the country based on its turnouts. but it has turned out blue for obama, and can do it again
i'm not in florida, so you probably have better insight on that. but i think it has a fair shot of turning blue from everything i said, like at least 50%
File: 1604373184849.png (803.78 KB, 1076x628, 269:157, ay49pnmuzj441.png) ImgOps Google
I told myself that I would look at all of the policies that everyone running on.
But I didn't do that at all and I voted blue no matter who. What if I put a tyrant into the local office?!?
File: 1604373378614.png (28.44 KB, 300x225, 4:3, 1604132808182.png) ImgOps Google
I have bet $20 that Biden will win. I wish PredictIt didn't have so many limitations imposed on it by the federal government.
File: 1604373649028.jpg (1.38 MB, 1191x1684, 1191:1684, Aqua.(KonoSuba).full.30045….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
florida is a real tough to predict
our state is very how should i say?
finicky? i think thats the right word to use
though i didnt vote for either trump or biden
File: 1604373667756.png (242.97 KB, 870x888, 145:148, 75.png) ImgOps Google
Honestly I am waiting to see the write-ins. They are always good for a laugh. >>7523
As someone from NC it is less surprising when you remember that Raleigh, Wilmington, Durham, Charlotte, Chaple Hill, and Ashville are MASSIVE blue strongholds.
Not to mention with all the shit that has gone down in Wilmington with the BLM protest it has pushed a lot of people from the GOP into the DEMS.
The majority of the red vote comes from the piedmont region with was prominently textile and manufacturing. And the majority of that dried up at the end of the 90s and early 20s so the poverty in that area is high as well as the age demographics which just leads to a perfect storm of hardcore red liners.>>7524
Use the Robespierre razor.
File: 1604373903577.png (653.16 KB, 602x667, 602:667, 8D.png) ImgOps Google
Will a Schick razor work?
File: 1604374070288.jpeg (879.68 KB, 1280x911, 1280:911, 78.jpeg) ImgOps Google
I mean a stick will work if it is pointy enough.
File: 1604374127997.png (238.5 KB, 650x570, 65:57, EEjpV9IW4AE4xOQ.png) ImgOps Google
well it did gain quite a reputation after 2000 for sure. but i hope that they pull through
but won't know that until tomorrow it seems!>>7527
huh, that's kind of awesome actually! i didn't know that about NC
i have been there a total of one time, and had a carolina red hot dog.
anywho, i'm rooting for them!
File: 1604374318732.jpg (506.43 KB, 826x1169, 118:167, Aqua.(KonoSuba).full.28412….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
yeah they are
i remember the one there was that actually gained steam
was funny as ever>>7530
if we go red
please dont blame me lol
i didnt for red or blue
File: 1604374656083.png (227.05 KB, 922x1024, 461:512, 43.png) ImgOps Google
I mean Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill make up the research triangle. It is pretty much as left as the state can get with all the Unis there.
And Ashville is pretty much the same.
Wilmington has a lot of bad history when it comes to race relations, look up the Wilmington Race Riots if you are interested. So the public tends to favor very left policies that get stuck in executive hell because the city admin and police are....well they are not the brightest.
Think of it like have a couple of Austin TX rather than one in a state.
Again just the perfect storm of hard votes red appeared and it makes it hard for people to move the pendulum. >>7531
All we can do is laugh.
File: 1604374888017.jpg (336.16 KB, 1255x2461, 1255:2461, d3dfwyar70r31.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
i trust you voted in the way you saw best for the nation through your eyes
i make no qualms about saying i despise trump, and think that his presidency has harmed far more than any benefit he ever gave. you probably have heard more than enough arguments from others why, so i'll leave it at that
but what's important is that you used your right to vote to vote who you thought would be the best for the nation. and on that notion, i thank you
do i wish you had voted biden? i would have to say yes. but democracy is for the people to vote their minds and hearts on the ballot, and you did that, and that is ultimately what i want you to do, even if it isn't for biden in this case>>7532
hmmm that is interesting!
also seeing venus fly traps in wilmington was awesome!
well, i imagine as time goes on, those demographics will shift more blue. as it seems that is kinda what it's doing now
And have some nice juice. >>7534
Wilmington is going through massive growing pains right now.
File: 1604375105534.jpg (68.39 KB, 680x680, 1:1, Ecf9sRgU8AIio7L.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
no that's fair
i appreciate that a lot
i just dont align with trump or biden
it's our civic duty to vote anyway, right?>>7535
File: 1604376123860.jpg (53.15 KB, 563x467, 563:467, 2ec6fe5ccdf82c3048833d3018….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
i bet! well good on them, and i hope things pan out in that area!
i'm still surprised to see Georgia where it is right now. it's always seemed very mired in red as far as i could tell, but this year has shown interesting details!>>7536
exactly, and if we are to let democracy work, we must have faith in our people to make their choice. so i want to believe in you and your choice too
File: 1604376760679.jpg (164.78 KB, 801x895, 801:895, wooloo-70e-b.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7508>Either way, it's gonna suck.
I completely agree. I'm slightly leaning towards Biden, but his contempt for certain parts of the Bill of Rights deeply concerns me. And I really hope he doesn't succumb to any radical proposals from the extreme left.
I’ll eat my MAGA hat if he doesn’t.
File: 1604408042328.png (146.27 KB, 557x557, 1:1, 132599490139.png) ImgOps Google
Why was my name changed to Clever Walrus?
File: 1604410501868.jpg (11.69 KB, 425x332, 425:332, applebloom-beard.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Look at https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
. Straight from the horse's mouth, he wants to ban online ammo sales, the main way that I've acquired ammo this pandemic. Now, I don't think he'll actually accomplish this evil (otherwise I'd vote for Trump), but his call for another """assault weapons""" ban has enough chance of passing that I'd vote Republican if the Republican wasn't an unprincipled pathological liar.>your obsession with it is unsettling.
The founders of our country risked their lives for our rights.>>7544
Your IP address must have changed. On /townhall/, posters get pseudonymous animal names, but when a thread is moved from /pony/, their original names are grandfathered in.
File: 1604420111763.png (253.59 KB, 745x1024, 745:1024, Well aren't you just a tre….png) ImgOps Google
To weigh in, I'll be going out today to vote and I'll probably put blue down the line. Not out of any real solidarity with the democrats, but to punish Republicans for the last four years.
To weigh in on the gun thing, I can't see Democrats actually going full on gun bans successfully. I know the last four years have seen a lot of the "It can never happen here" happen, but I don't see that happening with guns. There's too many guns already out there in the country for any sort of government mandated confiscation to happen. It would just be a wasteful project.
Also gun laws are run by the states anyway. Concerns about gun laws should be directed at your state governments. The feds have their hands tied on the matter.
Seriously, though, it really sounds as if you'd be able to tolerate everything from transgender people being gathered into interment camps to every other single part of the Bill of Rights being exterminated as long as the lone exception of guns
are safe (presumably, of course, we're only talking about guns owned by straight white cisgender Christians, given that conservative Republicans aren't exactly cool with the untermensch being armed).
For the life of me, I will never understand that single issue voter mindset.
What's wrong with looking at the big picture?
>>7545>The founders of our country risked their lives for our rights.
Well first off, The "founding fathers" also risked their lives for the right for you to own me
as property, so that alone does not preclude something from being short-sighted or wrong.
Second of all, they did not die for your right to buy ammo online. Just to "bear arms". Which you do. You bear arms. I'm not sure what the scare quotes around assault weapons is supposed to mean because I don't hang out with gun-nuts so could you please refrain from using loaded jargon like that and just explain what you're trying to say?
Thirdly, I edited the post you are quoting literally hours ago to be more nuanced. Make no mistake, your obession with this topic IS unsettling, but why respond to the old post I realized needed re-wording instead of the newer one? It looks dishonest from this end and again, makes you look more unreasonable than I know you are.>>7547
I don't think there's ever been any danger of "banning guns". It's all just scare-mongering that limits our ability to pass meaningful gun control laws.
File: 1604429096513.png (655.57 KB, 549x909, 61:101, applejack_sweater_sketch_r….png) ImgOps Google
I voted this morning for Biden, on the grounds that he is likely better for the long-term health of the Republic. >>7549>it really sounds as if you'd be able to tolerate everything from transgender people being gathered into interment camps to every other single part of the Bill of Rights being exterminated
If Trump posed a non-negligible risk of either of those two things, I'd vote against him even if Biden would certainly ban AR-15s.>>7550>The "founding fathers" also risked their lives for the right for you to own me as property,
Which founding fathers fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War?>Second of all, they did not die for your right to buy ammo online.
Nor did they die for the right to desecrate the American flag as symbolic speech or the right to be free from warrantless thermal imaging of one's home (Kyllo
). But we should jealously guard our freedoms, lest they be chipped away piece-by-piece.>I'm not sure what the scare quotes around assault weapons is supposed to mean
The term "assault weapons" is an artificial category that basically boils down to "scary-looking rifle". Nobody with a good understanding of firearms technology would consider the category of 'assault weapons' to be something that is distinctly
worth banning due to their destructive power.>>7550>Thirdly, I edited the post you are quoting literally hours ago to be more nuanced. ... why respond to the old post I realized needed re-wording instead of the newer one?
Sorry, I hadn't noticed that you edited. Unlike on Ponychan, edits on this website don't show up unless you manually hit F5. So I was just looking at your old post, without any indication that it had been edited.
File: 1604430632096.jpg (96.04 KB, 564x798, 94:133, d0846846069f1a173c8a6d1241….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7551>I voted this morning for Biden, on the grounds that he is likely better for the long-term health of the Republic.
was it crowded?
you didn't have to fight for the confederacy to support slavery. The Civil War happened largely in part because slavery was allowed when the country was founded. The "founding fathers" allowed that to be part of American law when America was created.
Whatever you want to call the rifles that "shoot lots of bullets in a short amount of time", the argument of semantics is silly. We can specify how many "lots" of bullets is and how long "short amount of time" should be, but we are all pretty much in agreement that "quicky-shooty hundreds of bullets" types of guns need to be regulated.
File: 1604431257785.jpg (1.15 MB, 1028x1256, 257:314, Aqua.(KonoSuba).full.19675….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
ah man, you dont even want to hear my position on the 2nd amendment >>7554
well that's good
File: 1604431282019.jpg (21.29 KB, 460x295, 92:59, mini14-vs-ar15-on-carpet.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7553>we are all pretty much in agreement that "quicky-shooty hundreds of bullets" types of guns need to be regulated.
No, we aren't. Some of us would like to see the Hughes Amendment repealed. >>7553>Whatever you want to call the rifles that "shoot lots of bullets in a short amount of time", the argument of semantics is silly. We can specify how many "lots" of bullets is and how long "short amount of time" should be
The Ruger Mini-14 can by fired by a human just as quickly as an AR-15.  Yet nobody is clamoring for a ban on the Mini-14, because it doesn't look scary to soccer moms like the AR-15 does and because trying to ban the Mini-14 would get the Fudds mad.
 The Mini-14 typically has more muzzle rise, so if you want to shoot accurately at a long distance, the AR-15 might be somewhat faster. But if you just want to get as many bullets down the barrel as fast as possible, there's no real difference between them.
File: 1604434048611.png (555.46 KB, 791x1024, 791:1024, I figured why not loosen u….png) ImgOps Google
Anyway, voting done. Nothing too out of the ordinary at my voting location. It's small town voting, it's pretty quick and I go during the off hours.
File: 1604439416007.jpeg (1.35 MB, 1700x2000, 17:20, 1450809110248.jpeg) ImgOps Google
Not this time around, no.
File: 1604441919565.png (359.24 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, THE FUCK.png) ImgOps Google
>>7560>bringing back legalized racial discrimination (prop 16).
Hold on, what?
File: 1604442191604.jpg (221.41 KB, 806x1200, 403:600, 1604366907639.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Prop 16 would repeal California's ban on government institutions discriminating based on race, sex, or ethnicity. The most likely effect would be discrimination against Asian-Americans in university admissions.
File: 1604442457136.jpg (52.54 KB, 640x752, 40:47, Oh, he's restrained, I kee….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Fanfuckingtastic. Yes, that doesn't seem like it would shoot California in the foot. Not at all.
File: 1604442677163.png (37.25 KB, 824x837, 824:837, 1588134696064.png) ImgOps Google
Fortunately, polls indicate that that ballot question is headed for defeat, with a majority of people against it.
File: 1604442888721.png (512.51 KB, 724x1024, 181:256, The city will fall by sund….png) ImgOps Google
If it were me, I'd feel insulted it was on the ballot in the first place.
File: 1604455385178.png (128.44 KB, 347x495, 347:495, oh dear (2).png) ImgOps Google
whoever wins, i can confidently say that i have lost!
only... under one candidate, i lose much, much more than the other. so, i have... my hopes tonight.
not high hopes... but hopes. i think. oh boy.
>tfw you will never know what it's like to be as popular as either Biden or Trump
President Troll and his troll army of unholy monsters that've spent years sending death threats to synagogues, stealing personal information of transgender activists, running cars off the road for having unapproved political affiliations, and all the rest are about to face a gigantic defeat, though. I think. That seems more likely than that.
Living in a troll nation where hatred is the name of the game twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week sucks. There's no doubt about it. Yet that won't last.
File: 1604522311936.png (240.05 KB, 460x520, 23:26, image0-11.png) ImgOps Google
Crap like that is unfortunately too common. Just reinforces my growing hatred for my country's growing spinelessness for accepting reality when it's not what you want it to be.
I want to smash this person in the face repeatedly
File: 1604602490353.png (111.05 KB, 549x538, 549:538, imagen_2020-11-05_145708.png) ImgOps Google
OMG this is so funny
Politics in USA are nice.
People literally spamming this at Trump on Twitter.
File: 1604671936409.jpg (11.95 KB, 241x209, 241:209, Troll-Death-Is-Forever.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
So, after Joe Biden officially wins, how great will it feel to see the trolls sweat? See them cry? See them whine? See them throw tantrums? See them taste even 0.01% of the horribleness that they've made us non-psychopaths' feel the past four years?
They aren't going anywhere and if they want a civil war then at this point I am happy to oblige
We're infected with the cowardly collective self-defeating narcissism called nationalism. Sometimes the only cure for narcissism is extreme pain.
I've always found it humorous how those willing to assume the worst of their enemies, decry them as monsters, call them psychopaths, are the first to whine about "horribleness".>>7604
While I'm personally not one to oppose fragmentation and separation into smaller more locally controlled nations, I don't think it would quite serve the goals you're professing here.
You do realize it's the right that is more typically both armed, and proficient with said arms, yes?
File: 1604687646346.jpg (72.82 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, ff987c3b84aa5f1ddae9647f95….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
The trolls? It's true that Trump was a gift to trolls, but I'm sure the trolls will find something else to troll about. Rather, it's the true believers in Trump (e.g., most people at https://TheDonald.win/
) who will be so upset at Trump's defeat. As for schadenfreude, I guess I'm not really feeling it. I worry a lot about the increasingly vitriolic political polarization in our country.>>7604>if they want a civil war then at this point I am happy to oblige
It might be fun to larp for a few days with an AR-15 and a plate carrier, but actual war is hell. Especially nowadays, we are very dependent on infrastructure, and civil war will lead to many people dying of starvation and disease. Much more likely than actual civil war would be small-scale political violence like the Troubles in Ireland.
It's definitely not something anyone ought to wish, if they'd think of the consequences rationally.
Rural areas are going to be predominately right wing, as I understand. Meaning you're knocking out your farmers and ranchers, whom are less likely to suffer the same logistical issues given their territory produce it.
If it comes to a long war, it's not going to end well.
I'm skeptical of your personal experiences, but I guess there's not much we can do with that.
Opposition to ownership of firearms seems to be a predominantly left wing thing, and again as rural areas are more commonly towards the right, and they're going to be more commonly possessing firearms, I find it doubtful the idea that somehow the balance is as least even, let alone greater.
It just doesn't seem logically feasible.
Especially given the few left wing groups I've seen have been hilariously incompetent. Mostly looking at the "Not Fucking Around Coalition", for that one. Two NDs last I had heard, with one of their supposed leaders calling an AR15 a bulpup, whilst claiming dropping the bolt somehow makes it fire.
Why should those who show no mercy to those that they perceive as their enemies (aka people who happen to be born transgender, born disabled, born Jewish, et cetera) receive any mercy back from them? Serious question. I'm only halfway serious but still.
If I'm only meat with eyes and lack any basic humanity in the eyes of the Trumpists, with them thinking that I don't even have a right to life let alone basic civil liberties, then why must I be on a higher moral plane than them and somehow be nicer back to them? I know the arguments. But they ring rather hollow.
Realistically, the most likely outcome of a new American civil war would probably be that the Trumpists succeed with their dream of 'the day of the rope' and everybody who happens to be, say, in an interracial relationship swings from the nearest lamppost and the like happens all over. The KKK is armed to the teeth. Similar groups are the same. Jewish communities are more or less as unarmed populace. Same story for transgender people, mixed race people, disabled people, and so on.
The hardcore Trumpists are only something like 33% to 25% to 10% or whatever of the population, true, but they do punch far above their weight. No question. I get it.
At the same time, though, there's something to be said for ripping off the band-aid. Being brutally honest. Grabbing the bull by the horns.
I mean, well, when a Trumpist calls me a n*gger-lover and whatnot, there's already an obvious implication of at least a desired violence in the rhetoric. It's easing down the path of dehumanization. If we're at the point of no return, then keep going?
I really don't think that I even agree with what I just typed, honestly, but it needs to be said. Things can't go on as they are. We can be a troll nation under a troll leader where a troll army rules all with an iron fist, or we can be a democracy under the rule of law based on classical liberal principles devised during the Enlightenment. Either/or.
Oh man, I didn't want to jinx it before it was official. But... does >>7539
want his hat medium or well-done?
File: 1604792236218.png (318.82 KB, 330x245, 66:49, 1490300361498.png) ImgOps Google
Four years ago, Donald Trump tweeted:>Vladimir Putin said today about Hillary and Dems: "In my opinion, it is humiliating. One must be able to lose with dignity." So true!
Sad that Trump himself is not able maintain dignity when losing.
File: 1604802896959.jpg (239.07 KB, 1818x1818, 1:1, 20201107_113355.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I appreciate that Biden is a rough spot. He can't go out there and starts screaming about making people pay... because he'd sound like Trump.
It is our job now to make sure we stay on Biden and make sure he delivers on the things that need to happen. Things like... motherfucking consequences.
File: 1604807719441.jpg (38.06 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 1604521415183.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Eh, for the good of the nation, I hope that Biden can unify us or at least reduce political polarization.>>7635> make sure we stay on Biden and make sure he delivers on the things that need to happen
The Senate is going to be either controlled by the Republicans (75% chance) or 50-50 (with Kamala breaking the tie) (25% chance). So, except for Article II powers, Biden isn't going to be able to do anything that doesn't have fairly broad support. (Keep in mind that Joe Manchin and Jon Tester are moderate Democrats from red states.)
There's the complication that centrist and moderate-to-left ideas are
broadly popular. Far right ideas aren't
. That's why key Republican priorities such as exterminating Obamacare, cutting or ending food stamps, expanding coal production while winding down natural gas, solar, wind, etc, gutting Roe v. Wade or overturning it completely, ensuring that LGBT people can be discriminated against in the workplace, and so on haven't ended up coming true even with both a Republican Congress and Presidency.
If the Republicans are going to move on ahead with the exact same ideological agenda of big government corruption mixed with racial and religious nationalism, then they're going to have a pretty hard time of it since the broad overall populace of the country just isn't on board. When Biden talks about something like, say, preventing the LGBT from being kicked out of housing, then he's representing the 2/3 to 3/4 consensus of America. The Republicans in Congress can give their constituents the middle finger a bunch of times, sure, but that only will last so long.
File: 1604835501438.png (172.35 KB, 1024x934, 512:467, large (3).png) ImgOps Google
Those things didnt come true cuz there was only HALF a republican congress and a balanced court.
The number of votes Trump received proves those things ARE popular and with a 6-3 conservative court and a scant majority in one house only you can be sure Joes gonna be hard pressed to stop them
File: 1604845872418.jpg (173.51 KB, 600x600, 1:1, Chen.full.1072142.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7638>Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.
Huh? I don't understand what you're saying.
Not talking about just
Well, who are
you talking about? Other than Trump, the Republicans didn't do too badly in the election.
File: 1604890723188.png (545 KB, 1034x862, 517:431, c47e078ca5656f6d92cc380488….png) ImgOps Google
Trump's impeachment trial is water over the dam now. This month, the people had their say and are booting Trump from office. If Republican congressmen want to reject Trumpism now and work with Biden on bipartisan solutions to our country's problems, they should be welcomed IMHO. And Biden is going to need 10-12 Republican senators to agree to at least avoid filibustering legislation.
File: 1604897012842.jpg (46.4 KB, 488x480, 61:60, eggplant-imposter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump quits a day early and gets Pence to pardon him. But even if he doesn't, prosecuting him would be an enormous distraction. And as for the Republicans in Congress: The time to punish them was on Nov 3. The American people evidently disagreed with punishing them, though.
How would it be a "distraction"? It's possible to do two things at once, you know. And if Donald Trump committed crimes, he should be held accountable for those crimes. Wait, did I say "if"? Because I meant "because".>The time to punish them was on Nov 3.
Well 1. That's not what elections are for and 2. Simply not electing them is not the same as holding them accountable for allowing crimes to happen. You can do that second thing with or without them being in office.
>>7659>How would it be a "distraction"?
E.g., if Trump is still popular among the constituents of Senate Republicans, they might threaten to filibuster various Democratic-supported legislation unless charges against Trump are dropped.>>7659>Well 1. That's not what elections are for
Well I guess that's a matter of semantics.>2. Simply not electing them is not the same as holding them accountable for allowing crimes to happen. You can do that second thing with or without them being in
How else would you hold them accountable?
>>7660>>7660>if Trump is still popular among the constituents of Senate Republicans
I don't think any of them are willing to risk their careers for him after he's already out of office. None of them actually LIKE him. He's useful for holding onto power, but they know he's a buffoon. >How else would you hold them accountable?
Hopefully jail. But barring that, telling them to go fuck themselves instead of trying to make concessions with them.
>>7661>I don't think any of them are willing to risk their careers for him after he's already out of office.
The risk to their careers would be letting Trump get convicted, if their constituents still support Trump, especially for those senators up for re-election in 2022. But again, if there is a high likelihood of federal criminal prosecution, Trump will probably just get himself pardoned. >Hopefully jail.
Congressmen have absolute immunity for legislative acts. Article I, Section 6, Clause 1. United States v. Brewster
, 408 U.S. 501 (1972).
Don't Congresspeople lack immunity when it comes to actions undertaken in the process of
legislative acts? Such as receiving leaked classified information and also leaking it more themselves? Lying under oath? Hacking into other people's online accounts? I genuinely aren't quite sure, but I'm under the impression that the answer is "no".
File: 1604929051690.jpg (331.96 KB, 1440x1881, 160:209, 20201109_073620.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Not just talking about politicians
File: 1604931553230.jpg (98.16 KB, 1200x936, 50:39, JC7ORMZW7VCOZAYQJJ6HR5IS6Y….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Here's a nice statement from President George W. Bush that's well worth reading and then thinking about.
Once upon a time, it was widely believed that just because you were a conservative and/or a Republican that that didn't mean that you surrendered your basic humanity, with the expectation of showing common decency and grace being everywhere.
Maybe those good old ways can return.
I edited that comment. >>7664
Well I'm not sure what we could do to Trump supporters other than viciously mock them. Which I have been doing. Because they lost. They are losers.
But other than that, we should also keep calling them out for being the ridiculous bigots that they are and we should absolutely not offer them any sympathy after they acted like such selfish ghouls for years. But Biden isn't in a position to tell 700 million people to go fuck themselves like we are. He has to be their president too, and he's aware that they have guns. Like, a lot of guns. An unhealthy, clearly-compensating-for-something amount of guns. I'm sure he feels like telling them to fuck off as much as the rest of us, but he can't. So we need to do it for him.
I would say that was never the case, just awful people who were more than happy to assume awful things started saying they had.
But, yes, hopefully the left wing toxicity of presuming everyone you speak to right of your position is the devil will decline now.
>>7663>Such as receiving leaked classified information and also leaking it more themselves?
Revealing the classified information on the floor of the Senate is protected, but publishing it via a private publisher is unprotected.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel_v._United_States>Lying under oath?
If done in Congress, it is immune from criminal prosecution. (The only punishment available would be expulsion from office.) But I don't think that Congresspersons testify under oath at Congress anyhow.>Hacking into other people's online accounts?
That would not be protected; it is not part of the role of a legislator.>>7665>Maybe those good old ways can return.
I agree 100%. Trump's habit of vilifying his opponents and refusing to gracefully accept criticism or loss -- this is detrimental to the fabric of our republic, and it's one of the major reasons why I decided to vote against Trump this year. I much prefer the approach Biden stated and exemplified in his acceptance speech:>It’s time to put away the harsh rhetoric... we have to stop treating our opponents as our enemies. They are not our enemies.
File: 1604936517907.jpg (96.86 KB, 900x720, 5:4, 1486057407844.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7666>>7661>But barring that, telling them to go fuck themselves instead of trying to make concessions with them.
Well, it's not like they'll have a choice, at least in the Senate. The Dems will need some amount of Republican buy-in in order to pass legislation.>Well I'm not sure what we could do to Trump supporters other than viciously mock them.
The image in >>7664
seems to be suggesting nothing other than viciously mocking them? Insofar as they continue to make unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, I guess that's fair game.> An unhealthy, clearly-compensating-for-something amount of guns.
What exactly do you mean by that?
And the log in the right-wing eye also concerns you? Compared to the splinter in the left-wing eye?
It's rather rich after four years of people who happen to be born gay, born Jewish, born mixed-race, et cetera having to live in fear due to the 24/7 torrent of vicious, seething hatred from the Trumpists to somehow pretend that there's an issue with "toxicity" from the non-far-right side, honestly.
Yeah, the radical Christian elements who pushed for "UR BAD BECAUSE GEY" are garbage.
They are also hardly the majority, and that nonetheless didn't refute what I was saying.
Then again, I'm inclined to suspect that fear wasn't actually the result of any supposed "trumpists", but rather, you listening to other people insisting that's what they're actually saying.
I would suggest your fear and paranoia is unjustified, and the result of bad influences around you.
When you say someone is "compensating for something", it means that their actions are clearly trying to make up for or distract from some sort of insecurity they feel. More often than not, the phrase is used to imply someone has a small penis, but it can be used to describe other causes of feeling inadequacy too.
I very much meant the penis thing, though.
Uh, no, I don't care about your delusions and projection. This has nothing to do with paranoia. It's completely justified fear.
I have to go through a police presence in order to attend an event at a local synagogue, for one, to pick a semi-random example. Why? Shouldn't we live in a world without Trumpists in which nobody had to worry about violence against themselves due to their ethnicity and their religion?
Suppose I'd said: "Shouldn't we live in a world without ISIS in which nobody had to worry about violence against themselves due to their ethnicity and their religion?"
Would you then say back: "I feel like ISIS members aren't responsible for all ethnic and religious prejudice in the world.", maybe?
The majority of Trump supporters do not dislike jews
You talk of delusions, then cite something as nonsensical as this... where even is this happening?
If anyone seems to be attacking the Jewish people's right to worship, it's democrats enforcing draconian lockdown policies that that, it should be noted, you don't seem to have to follow if you're BLM.
No, what would be equivalent is saying all Muslims.
That is the closest to what is being done here.
It would be morally wrong to assume everyone who is Muslim supports terrorism
Oh, I'm done with conservatism and the Republican Party for good as long as I live.
Once upon a time, I thought that it was just a matter of changing one's mind, yet I know now that it's more than that.
Being a former conservative and former Republican now feels like being a former child trafficker or a former arms dealer, honestly.
I don't believe you, simply put.
That may well be what you think is occurring, thanks to dishonest people lying or overblowing a microscopic minority that had always existed, but nonetheless, I do not think it is true.
They aren't racist. You assume they are because you need to justify why you hate them.
This is plain bigotry, and nothing more.
I would say the same to you
I'm afraid that you're simply wrong. I suggest actually speaking to Jewish people and/or reading Jewish publications. Seriously.
I know that this isn't a productive discussion, but the objective fact is just that what's happened to me has happened to a lot of people. That's why Trump lost. That's why Biden is President.
That's why John McCain's widow and daughter endorsed Biden a bit ago in particular. Times have changed. Completely.
The Republican Party used to be a center-right organization. It is now a white nationalist cult. That's just how it is.
Objecting to other people's bigotry doesn't make you a bigot.
To claim otherwise is empty trolling.
It's morally wrong to assume everyone who is Muslim supports terrorism.
It's blindly obvious and reasonable to assume everyone who supports a bigoted leader and a bigoted organization is either a bigot themselves or okay with bigotry.
The valid comparison is "all ISIS members" and not "all Muslims".
Trump was a symptom, not the cause. The root of the problem is the mindset of his followers that allowed him to come to power in the first place.
I'm not sure how we deal with that issue as a nation, but I suggest we start by viciously mocking them for losing. Because they did. They are losers.
No, it quite simply is not.
This is just what you believe, either because you've been lied to, or because you are blinded by your hatred. >>7695
And you are?
"They are evil because they are evil"?
What argument would you propose to me if someone simply repeatedly insisted black people are all predisposed to murder and rape?
What is a practical argument against someone who believes you are purely an evil monster unworthy of consideration?
Come, now, you can't expect much the way you are behaving here.
Once again, experiencing hatred and asking for it to stop doesn't mean that you, yourself, are feeling hatred.
I've not been lied to. I'm not living in a bubble. I'm not basing things on mere belief.
I live in objective factual reality. I want the bigots to stop being bigots. I don't want them to suffer. I don't even want them to be inconvenienced. I just want them to be better people.
Presuming people are bigots when they aren't, is. >>7698
So you claim. Given your behavior here, I do not believe you. >>7700
Then should we say all democrats support pedophilia?
You know full well this is a stupid argument. It's guilt by association, and nothing more. A tactic I'd call fascistic, personally, as its entire point is to ensure supporting a dissenting opinion is equated to villainy.
I see plenty of reason to mock them about it, as outlined in >>7664
. They spent 4 years being complete insensitive pricks to everyone who didn't think like them. A taste of their own medicine might be humbling.>>7704>And you are?>"They are evil because they are evil"?
A...Are you even listening? I never said they are evil because they are evil. I said that they are willing to ignore racism and support a racist. Which they are. They are currently doing that. You are trying to set up strawman arguments and it's ridiculous.
If you live in reality, you would not be acting as though every right winger is the devil.
I do not care what you claim to have lived. I have lived my own experience just as well, and they run contrary to what you claim.
It is why I am inclined to say you're full of it. Because you're not claiming this is a part, but rather the whole.
I know for an objective fact what you are claiming is false. I live it each day after all
Your blind hatred changes nothing
No. That's flatly wrong. Calling out somebody for being a bigot when they're a bigot isn't bigotry.
Stop trolling. Seriously. It's not helpful.
Even if I was making a mistaken identification, which I'm not, that still wouldn't be bigotry. It would simply be a mistake. That's all.
You know full well that you're grasping at straws. I used to be a conservative. I used to be a Republican. Then they went fascist. I'm now going to be a moderate Democrat until the day I die. That similar things happened to thousands of others is why Trump lost.
Then democrats are bad because they are willing to ignore pedophilia abs support it.
Guilt by association is a shit argument.
What's true is true. What's false is false. I know that this isn't a productive discussion, but that's that.
I don't hate anyone. I experience hatred. I want it to stop. That desire isn't hatred.
When they are not actuality bigots, it is.
If anyone is trolling, it's probably going to be the guy insisting everyone who disagrees with him is evil.
Guilt by association is usually something like "John is a Texan. This one Texas shot up a high school. Therefore John is a potential mass murderer."
That's not at all the same thing as "John says that he's obsessed with school shooters and keeps a hard drive full of material about them. I'm worried about John. He's making me fearful."
I was thinking more Joe Biden and his child sniffing ways. >>7713
Yes, what is true is true, which is why I can personally confirm what you say is bullshit.
I live it every day after all.
I'm gonna need you to clarify who and what exactly happened before you make any accusations of actual pedophilia.>>7720
I know you guys seem to think this, but declaring something doesn't make it true.
You're just plain wrong. That's all.>>7722
Your example has literally no relationship to objective factual reality.
This is counter to the hundreds upon hundreds of very real examples of bigotry from Trumpists and Trump himself.
You accuse them of what they have not done. Nobody can improve on something they've never done. It's absurd.
You hate them without justification, as you presume they all are guilty.
That you made a mistake means that you made a mistake. That doesn't make you evil. That doesn't make you a devil. That just means that you made a mistake.
Please don't support a bigoted leader of a bigoted organization in the future.
For the umpteenth time, I experience hatred
and that's not the same thing as feeling hatred
I want the bigotry to stop.
I want to be able to, say, walk into an LGBT support group meeting without being afraid of the building being shot up at some point. That doesn't mean that I hate anybody.
True. Could argue then, given the standard for Trump, all democrats support rape. >>7726
There's Plenty of YouTube compilations of Biden groping, sniffing, and rubbing young girls in a particularly creepy manner.
I'm sure you can find it. Point being it's shit to judge everyone who voted for him off of that.>I know you guys seem to think this, but declaring something doesn't make it true.
I would say the same to you. After all, since I know my own beliefs, I know what you claim is false.
Then, by all means, call me a racist. It'd be great to hear how a radical individualist is somehow a monstrous bigot who hates minorities. >This is counter to the hundreds upon hundreds of very real examples of bigotry from Trumpists and Trump himself.
So you claim. But I believe there's just as much evidence for rape and pedophilia in the Democrat party as there is for racism of the right.
So I get the benefit of the doubt but nobody else does?
Why is that?
Just can't stand saying it to someone, as face to face as this is?
You experienced hatred and assumed this is the way for everyone of a group.
This is moral equivalent to those who assume because they were mugged by a black man, all black people are thugs and criminals.
You just don't get it.
I think that you're wrong
because you made a mistake
That's not hatred
. That's not even negativity
Not only do I not feel any hatred in terms of you and your life, but I don't even want you to experience any shame or guilt for your actions. Guilt and shame are bullshit emotions that rarely help one improve. In fact, I don't even want to inconvenience your day.
I just want you to be be better.
File: 1604940442058.jpg (248.77 KB, 1378x2039, 1378:2039, 1507242820327.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I think this depends on what one means by "supporter". There are people who post on TheDonald.win, who attend Trump rallies, who are rabidly pro-Trump. And then there are people who reluctantly vote for Trump as the lesser of two evils. Antisemitism and anti-LGBT sentiment seems somewhat prevalent among the hardcore Trumpists, but they are a minority (although a very vocal one, at least online) of Trump voters.
And you don't understand my issue.
I don't mind that you think I made a mistake.
I mind that you presume everyone who voted Trump is a racist.
It bothers me that you also changed that the moment I told you I did, and do. But that's not my major contention, that's just hypocrisy. >>7738
I'm more in the support camp than necessary evil. I voted for him in the primaries too after all.
It would be one thing if we were talking about an abstract idea or position (such as, say, making assumptions about the Mormon Church or the Boy Scouts). Then, an esoteric dividing up of viewpoints would make sense. Natural disagreement.
However, Donald Trump is an actual flesh-and-blood human being who has dedicated his life to the furtherance of bigotry and hatred. He promotes that through his words. And his deeds.
Supporting him either means signing on to the white nationalism or, alternately, playing some kind of a game by ignoring it or otherwise coming up with unreasonable justifications. That's a fact. Just the way that it is.
As has been pointed out multiple times, expressing a bad viewpoint or even undertaking bad actions doesn't make one a 'bad person'. Broadly speaking, 'bad people' don't exist.
However, 'flawed people' obviously do exist, and there's nothing bigoted or hateful about calling out those who make terrible mistakes. They need to be better. That's that.
It's not a presumption. It's reality. And there's no hypocrisy either.
Donald Trump is a hateful bigot. That's objective factual reality as akin as saying that the Pope is Catholic and that water is wet. The Republican Party is a bigoted organization. Their policies are objectively based on bigotry.
If you vote along those lines, then you are either a)100% supportive of and signed on to the bigotry or b)making some kind of an excuse, pleading ignorance, or otherwise offering some kind of false supplication as to why his bigotry is acceptable.
That's just the way it is.
I understand that you may not consider yourself a bigot and that you may very well not be one. I've no access to your life and don't even know your name. I can't tell either way.
What I can tell is that you're awfully tense and worried about bigots getting called out, and that's concerning. And, frankly, frustrating. Honestly.
Yes, obviously there's a difference between expressing bigotry yourself, being supportive of others' bigotry, and otherwise dismissing bigotry altogether. I get that. No question.
However, it's still all wrong
. And all of it
involves making the country way, way worse. Bigotry is evil. It must be fought. Period.
File: 1604941935983.jpg (189 KB, 900x720, 5:4, 3rei-ep04-0954.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7740>Supporting him either means signing on to the white nationalism
I disagree with that. Supporting Joe Biden doesn't mean signing on to banning so-called 'assault weapons'. You can vote for a candidate without endorsing their whole platform.
And although Trump (whether purposely or due to incompetence) failed to clearly denounce white nationalists at some points, later, when push came to shove, he finally did denounce them.
The hypocrisy I accuse you of was in relation to not calling me what you call others, despite my falling into the same group.
The equivalent to a racist who says all black folk are thieves, except of course the black man interviewing him. >Donald Trump is a hateful bigot.
I disagree, and even if he personally was, that doesn't mean all his supporters are. >The Republican Party is a bigoted organization.
I disagree. I do not belive all Republicans are bigots, nor even the majority, nor do I believe as an institution it is bigoted. >Their policies are objectively based on bigotry.
There are plenty of policies that have nothing to do with race, whatsoever. To claim that they all are bigoted is impossible. Thus it certainly couldn't be objective. >If you vote along those lines, then you are either a)100% supportive of and signed on to the bigotry or b)making some kind of an excuse, pleading ignorance, or otherwise offering some kind of false supplication as to why his bigotry is acceptable.
Or your narrative could be false. One point for certain is absolutely false, even if we assumed everything else was true, and Republicans were run by Hitler himself.>What I can tell is that you're awfully tense and worried about bigots getting called out,
Would you accept a lynch mobs' argument of "you're awfully worried about criminals getting called out", as they string up a man you think did nothing wrong?
Trump's so-called "denouncing" was empty. Him and his organization already based their operations on white nationalism no matter what flimsy words get offered. Seriously.
As for your other point, it's like I said: you either sign on to the ideology through your support or you signify that you're willing to ignore/tolerate/otherwise-dance-around the ideology. Either/or. That's how it is.
Also, Biden's gun policy is a minor element of his campaign. Trump's bigotry is the exact centerpoint of why he even ran for office in the first place. No comparison.
There's no hypocrisy. I suggest that you try actually reading though my posts before you reply. Seriously.
As for the rest of what you said, again, the objective factual reality that people live in isn't a narrative or whatever. It is what it is. You can look outside at the sun shining and say "I disagree", but that doesn't change that it is, indeed shining.
Also, and for the last time, opposition to bigotry and hatred doesn't make you a bigot and a hater
I understand that you believe that principle as an absolute undying rule, but it's simply not true.
To be frank, as somebody of multiple minorities it's actually rather horrifying that you're psychologically incapable of drawing the line between somebody being victimized for who they are
based on somebody expressing highly polite and measured intellectual criticism
for what they did
. It's beyond apples and oranges. It's like apples and space probes.
Again; if you would call an entire group racist bigots, but fail to do so on an individual level, you are a hypocrite.
Well, you could be a coward, I suppose, but that accusation would be impolite and overly hostile, so I'm uninclined to call you it.
One of your points would be objectively false even if Hitler himself were leading the party.
Your lived experiences do not change that.
Reality isn't whatever you feel like it is.
Assuming somebody is when they haven't done anything bigoted, is bigotry. >To be frank, as somebody of multiple minorities it's actually rather horrifying that you're psychologically incapable of drawing the line between somebody being victimized for who they are based on somebody expressing highly polite and measured intellectual criticism for what they did.
And to me it is horrifying that you hide behind tragic experiences to lash out and attack people who have not done anything to you.
Collective guilt is wrong. Bigotry is wrong. It's sad that your experienced have blinded you to this
You can disagree with reality all you want. It will never make Trump not a racist. Whereas you only have hearsay and assumptions to back up what you are claiming.
But there's something Trump supporters say that I think you'll find helpful here. If you don't like the president, you can leave the country.
Again I would call that a fascistic standard.
Label your enemies as evil and dangerous, insisting to give them the benefit of the doubt is too great a risk, and you can excuse some terrible stuff.
And you can say what you want, it will not make your claims true.
As to heresay, again, there are videos of his behavior. >But there's something Trump supporters say that I think you'll find helpful here. If you don't like the president, you can leave the country.
Sure, I don't disagree.
That is why I'm in favor of secession.
States who do not like the current standard of the union ought be free to peacefully leave said union
I'm not labeling "my enemies" as "evil and dangerous". I'm saying ignoring or excusing racism is dangerous. If Trump supporters stopped doing that, there would be no issue. Like, you could stop doing that right now. >>7756
There are videos of Biden rubbing women's shoulders in a way that violates most people's ideals of personal space. But it is an insane leap of logic to jump from that all the way to "Biden is a pedophile" based on this.
It is such a wild leap of logic that it should not even be entertained without any actual further evidence and it's clearly motivated by your own personal dislike of Biden. It's grasping for straws in a pathetic way.
Whereas Trump's racism is clear and apparent to anyone actually paying attention, has been documented and compiled into several lists that HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU IN THE PAST (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump
) And you have deflected, excused and/or outright ignored this evidence repeatedly. At this point there's really no good that can come from expending the energy to convince you anymore, as Trump has been soundly defeated. But for you to try and claim that we are being unfair for pointing out Trump's racism is asinine.
Objective factual reality simply isn't the same thing as your ideological and political preferences. I'm not sure what else to say. You're already well past the point of pretending that I'm something that I'm not, particularly escalating to the point of "coward", "hypocrite", "liar", et cetera. My personal experiences are what they are, and there's no reason for me to even be dishonest about them in the first place. It's all rather interesting since I've clearly been nicer and more reasonable to you then you've deserved.
To the main point, though: are you really this blind to the different between opposition to bigotry and hatred versus the expression of bigotry and hatred from the beginning?
If you are, then this conversation should probably end as there's no force on earth or heaven that can change you from your preferences and more discussion will just mea you insulting me more.
That's what you presume they're doing.
Ironically, I would say much the same for the democrats.
But unlike you, I wouldn't presume they're all racist bigot supporters.
I would give them the benefit of the doubt.
I certainly wouldn't accuse your skepticism of excusing pedophilia. >There are videos of Trump rubbing women's shoulders in a way that violates most people's ideals of personal space.
Hardly the equivalent of sniffing hair.
But, sure, if he did that to young girls as Biden had, I would agree there seems to be evidence he might be a pedophile.
If he started sniffing their hair I'd say somebody ought to investigate that. >It is such a wild leap of logic that it should not even be entertained without any actual further evidence and it's clearly motivated by your own personal dislike of Biden
I would say the same about your accusations of trump.
Especially when the evidence seems to be from people who hate him, out of context snips, hostile interpretations or assumptions, and so on, as opposed to what's been said or done during his presidency.>But for you to try and claim that we are being unfair for pointing out Trump's racism is asinine.
This is what is commonly referred to as a straw man.
But then I guess I should not be surprised people who think I'm evil do not interpret my positions as are writ.
Easier to rely on the hostile presumption
Again, one of your points was flat out not possible. I am not the one who literally believes impossible things.
You have your personal experiences, but that doesn't mean literally impossible things are true. >To the main point, though: are you really this blind to the different between opposition to bigotry and hatred versus the expression of bigotry and hatred from the beginning?
My family are not racists nor bigots, yet you would treat them like they are, despite the fact that they have never done anything to you.
Why is that acceptable to you? Why do you think I ought to agree with it?
File: 1604945319810.jpg (77.68 KB, 483x589, 483:589, 1471673336002.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7745>Him and his organization already based their operations on white nationalism
A large part of Trump's 2016 campaign was based on hostility to immigration, especially immigration from Latin American countries and from Muslim-majority countries. But he never called for or even insinuated that whites should have their own ethnostate or that whites should have special privileges under the law.
You can claim based on your own ideology that Trump and the Republican Party are squeaky clean, but the reality that exists otherwise just is the way that it is, certainly not being "literally impossible".
Honestly, I guess that this conversation is over, then.
As an ending note, I really plead with you to try talking to different minorities from Jews to Muslims to transgender people and others with an open mind, being willing to understand what it means to us to have America go from a flawed yet hopeful place to a troll nation lead by a troll tyrant with a troll army.
So I take it that you're going to be one of those obsessively extreme nitpickers who pretends that 'bigotry', 'racism', 'white nationalism', and so on are wholly unrelated and therefore somebody can cross line after line without being called out because technically they're not an "X" before a "Y", then?
Yeah, well, I guess that conversation with you won't be fruitful either, sorry.
Who said they're squeaky clean? Of course they're not
Nonetheless that doesn't change the fact that claiming every republican policy is bigoted, is plain nonsense.
It's the delusional conspiracy theory I would expect from /pol/, insisting that everyone's in on a great grand conspiracy to get rid of the white race.
No. Plenty of policy had nothing to do whatsoever with race. Acting as though it's all purely for bigotry is silly.
I have spoken to plenty of people from plenty of different walks of life.
Contrary to what you assume, they don't all think like you do.
Okay, before I step out, I'd like to point out that:>"claiming every republican policy is bigoted" / "as though it's all purely for bigotry"
Is a lie, and I'd rather you have not constantly lied in this thread, with that being just one example.
As well, it's also a lie to pretend as though I think that all minorities are the same. Come on. They obviously are not.
What I'd like for you to do is maybe consider that life exists outside of your bubble, to be frank at the utmost about it, and be willing to seek out alternate points of view.
Not everybody who dares disagrees with you is an evil bigoted hateful monster.
>>7764>So I take it that you're going to be one of those obsessively extreme nitpickers who pretends that 'bigotry', 'racism', 'white nationalism', and so on are wholly unrelated
Well, they're not unrelated
. But white nationalism is a rather extreme form of racism. I'd say that Trump is definitely guilty of race-baiting (which could be considered racism, but that's a question of semantics), but not guilty of supporting white nationalism.
"Their policies are objectively based on bigotry."
If you do not wish to be called out on something, I would advise not saying it. It certainly looks better than insisting somebody is a liar, for claiming that you said something you did
Yeah, because it's trolling to point out your argument is nonsense.
I guess everyone should just nod in agreement, lest they be an evil troll
Do you have some kind of a genuine learning disability or something else that prevents you from reading and understanding text the way that people regularly do, mister oh-so superior who can never be wrong about anything ever?
Obviously, the statement is/was "policies objectively based on bigotry". As in that's the core of their message and what they do. That's naturally not the same thing as the claim that "anywhere and everywhere, every single thing that a Republican does is bigoted in every context with every idea". Come on.
I shouldn't mention but I will right now that it's conversations like these that reiterate to me not only that being a conservative and a Republican was a mistake, but that it's something that I honestly need to spend the rest of my life atoning for (given how bad the movement and party has gotten). I don't feel guilt. I don't feel shame. But the country is at the bottom of a hole right now, and I may have helped dig it, unfortunately. Alas.
Okay, now we're completely done.
It's not even the majority of their policies, if that's what you're claiming was argued. It's not even a sizable minority of their policies.
But, yes, I am inclined to take things AS THEY ARE WRITTEN, because I AM NOT A MIND READER.
Considering the level of vitriol you have expressed up until this point, insisting that Trump supporters are racist bigots among other things, this hardly is a leap in logic.
Should I assume everything you say is hyperbolic and exaggerated? That seems a rather bad faith thing to do.
You keep saying you're done, but you're still here throwing insults.
I'll admit that I'm rather sick of the Trumpist double-standard in which they're allowed to be as mean and vicious as they want yet everybody who's not a Trumpist is supposed to walk on eggshells and be perfectly decent back... and I have somewhat allowed them to drag me down to their level in terms of talking. That dragging down happens too much. I'm only human. Yet that's no excuse.
So, yes, I'm sorry that I returned even the slightest bit of the horribleness that has been dished out back at you. That wasn't right. The non-Trumpists need to be the better people.
And I'm sick of having me, my family, and my friends, strung up for the crimes of someone else.
I'm fine with dickishness to people who deserve it. Hell, call Trump a buffoon all you want. I couldn't care less there.
The problem i have is when you attack innocent people because you've decided to generalize about an entire group.
For the same reason racism is wrong, that is wrong.
These people rub shoulders with Nazis. I'm not expecting them to learn their lesson or do any self-reflection. Joe Biden may publicly claim he wants to seek reconciliation, but I think he knows it's not going to happen.
Our job is to never forget who they are and what they do and have done.
What they have done, or what you've conflate to them?
Individuals like you will drive this country into destruction, as in your paranoia, you label all opposition monsters.
I can't say I mind. As said, I am a secessionist. Smaller nations i believe are better nations. It's still unfortunate, especially as I suspect people like yourself will make it a bloody affair, instead of letting us go voluntarily.
File: 1604947979268.jpg (148.03 KB, 390x600, 13:20, miyu_edelfelt_53130.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7777>Joe Biden may publicly claim he wants to seek reconciliation, but I think he knows it's not going to happen.
I'd say it depends a lot on who takes over as the leaders of the Republican Party. I hope that once Trump is out of office, the leaders renounce the worst aspects of Trumpism, although I fear they might not.
Personally, I expect a harder line populist than Trump was to crop up.
People are more than a little tired of the corporate politics running around. Maybe enough people didn't like Trump to keep him around, but the gains made elsewhere suggest it isn't like they've decided a return to the Obama era political standards is acceptable either.
Its a worrying issue. Part of why I hoped Trump would win. I thought he could delay the inevitable. Now, I'm pretty confident a splitting of the nation is inevitable, and likely not going to be allowed to be a peaceful affair.
Why shouldn't we be allowed to take what is ours with us?
Why do you get to steal it, in order for us to leave?
If the people of a state vote to secede, will you force them to remain? Murder them if they try to refuse you?
Who says they would get kicked out? They can remain if they want to. That is their choice.
They can also leave if they want to. Or even push to remain their section in the union. But it ought to be up to them, not mandated by federal rifles
As far as stealing land goes, isn't that what you're advocating for?
It's not "stealing" if you elect to leave the US and move somewhere else. You are free to do that. >>7788
Because succession takes every person in that area out of the US, even if they do not choose that. My house is in a red state, are you saying that I can choose to keep my property in the union? Or are you saying you're just going to make it part of your new country (which we will call "Racistan" for simplicity). If people can elect to keep their property out of Racistan, Racistan is going to be so nebulous and disjointed that it would be completely impossible to keep track of where it is and what is in it.
What you are actually saying is you want huge portions of the country, whole states I'd imagine, to be part of Racistan, and that any people living in the parts you claim who have no say in the matter can choose to abandon their homes. Which is much closer to stealing than telling you you are allowed to move to another country with most of your worldly possessions.
It's also an act of war. Do not try to pretend the other side is in the wrong when you propose forcing people out of their homes because they can let you take things without a fight. Fuck that. That blood would be on your hands.
If you're forced to, it most certainly is. >Because succession takes every person in that area out of the US, even if they do not choose that.
Secession doesn't necessitate a property rights violation. Especially if, as you claim, it's not one to force people to remain in a nation at gun point.
Moreover, if it's done through legitimate democratic process, why should a minority of voices wishing to remain force others? And why couldn't the same argument be used against elections?
Why is it acceptable to ignore a minority when electing someone to position of power over them, but not when we choose whether or not to remain under that thumb?>My house is in a red state, are you saying that I can choose to keep my property in the union?
If you can convince enough people in your local area to, sure.
Or if it's close enough to the boarder.
If it's just you in the middle, probably not. You will be stuck just as much as people who hadn't been able to get enough votes for Secession.
Are those people robbed as well?>What you are actually saying is you want huge portions of the country, whole states I'd imagine, to be part of Racistan, and that any people living in the parts you claim who have no say in the matter can choose to abandon their homes.
Personally, I would want many smaller nations.
But in the same way as you'd be "forced" to remain in the greater United States, sure. Are you opposed to all nations because of this? >Which is much closer to stealing than telling you you are allowed to move to another country with most of your worldly possessions.
You can still do the exact same. You're saying it's stealing, because it's exactly the same as something else that isn't stealing?
How absurd.>It's also an act of war.
Why? Says who?
Why is that just?
And why couldn't they leave it alone?
Murdering people for voting democratically to leave is a horrifying and disgusting act. I am surprised you would support such a thing. >Do not try to pretend the other side is in the wrong when you propose forcing people out of their homes because they can let you take things without a fight.
That is not and has never been what I advocate for.
That seems to be expressly your own position.
Why do you accuse me of what you advocate for, yet insist it is wrong?
>>7790>If you're forced to, it most certainly is.
No one is forcing you to leave the US. I said you had the freedom to move away if you don't like the president.
But hang on to your succession fantasy. I doubt you could even get everyone who voted for Trump to go for that idea, and that is already the smaller group of people, in case you forgot Trump lost. Because he did. By a lot. I don't have to convince you, but the fact that because you didn't get your way you are talking about leaving the US like a child threating to run away from home because he didn't get to watch a 19th episode of Paw Patrol says more about your side than it does anything else. Please, stay angry. Never forget you lost. By a lot.
Then nobody is forcing you to leave the US with a secession. You can always choose to go there instead. >I doubt you could even get everyone who voted for Trump to go for that idea,
It's not like either every single, or exclusively, Trump supporters. Just a majority of the local areas voters.> in case you forgot Trump lost.
And in case you forgot, there are still a lot of votes for him that hardly constitutes a small group.
Especially as it pertains to specific areas. The whole country is not going to be asked. Just those where secession would take place. Regardless of the election results, you ought be able to see there are more than a few states in which Trump won. >I don't have to convince you, but the fact that because you didn't get your way you are talking about leaving the US like a child threating to run away from home because he didn't get to watch a 19th episode of Paw Patrol says more about your side than it does anything else.
I would not advise accusations of childishness when you're the one jumping to insults.
Especially when that's hardly an uncommon sentiment on the left. Quite a few people said as much in 2016, after all.
And I'm not planning on running away. I'm advocating formation of a new, separate nation, if the greater whole is going to push for something radically different from our desires. >Please, stay angry. Never forget you lost. By a lot.
Do you expect that to constitute an argument? Again, if you're going to go the route of thumbing your nose and saying "HAHA TOO BAD U LOSE", you really shouldn't call other people "childish".
Especially when you seem to be the only one who's upset here.
>>7790>Secession doesn't necessitate a property rights violation. Especially if, as you claim, it's not one to force people to remain in a nation at gun point.>Moreover, if it's done through legitimate democratic process, why should a minority of voices wishing to remain force others? And why couldn't the same argument be used against elections?
did you know the largest lynching in the history of the south was in Texas shortly after Texas succeeded from the Union?
They lynched people trying to flee the confederacy who opposed the confederacies conscription into the confederate army: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hanging_at_Gainesville
States rights to succesion means that the state has a right to throw out the bill of rights, it means the state having tge right to oppress and tyranize it's own minority.
Fuck your hypocritical succession fantasies
Yeah, but anyone who would resist having their rights taken away are the real bad guys! Just like anyone who resists bigotry is a bigot!
I don't think this guy is a real person, I think he's a MAGA hat that gained sentience under the light of a full moon.
Sure, nations can do some nasty stuff if they choose to not bother respecting human rights. What of it?
Do you presume nations that didn't have a secession are safe from that?
You do realize that the Nazis didn't secede, yes?
You've been calling people in this thread bigots for literally hours now.
Also, you wouldn't be talking about succession right now if Trump had one. You are entirely hypocritical and ridiculous. Please stay angry.
Oh and don't forget this massacre either: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nueces_massacre
"States rights" was always
If my state succeeded, tgere wouldn't be any guarantee I would be allowed to leave, cause I would be in the minority in this state.
The federal government's primary purpose is to enforce the bill of rights.
Also, where the fuck are the successionist crying about "county's rights" and "cities rights" to succession from the states? Where were they when Greg Abbot tried to overrule city ordinances in Texas to make up for state ordinances he refused to make to handle this pandemic? This rhetoric stinks of hypocrisy and an insincere
appeal to democracy, when the call for succession is a rejection
of the democratic process?
I have been calling people who would call me come on my family, and my friends who have done nothing to them bigots, bigots, yes.
That is not quite the same as arguing rights shouldn't exist, and people who fight for them should be shot.
Perhaps you like to assume the worst in people, and so it's easy for you to misinterpret things in that way, but nonetheless, what you have said is not something anyone here believes or had advocated for.
Plenty of massacres have been committed by the US government as well. Again, this demonstrates nothing.
Secession does not inherently mean your rights will be violated, and acting like it does is plain and simply delusional paranoia. >The federal government's primary purpose is to enforce the bill of rights.
I would call you naive for believing so, but nonetheless, you do realize there is nothing whatsoever preventing a new nation from having a bill of rights, yes?
You merely assume it wouldn't, I would suggest foolishly. >Also, where the fuck are the successionist crying about "county's rights" and "cities rights" to succession from the states
Do it. I don't give a fuck. I never suggested at any point i would be against it.
Perhaps if you made a token effort to honestly engage in this conversation instead of quiping from the sidelines, this would be something you're aware of.
Unfortunately, you've started off with the supposition i am some irrationally evil lunatic.
I am not, and could have told you so had you simply asked. >Where were they when Greg Abbot tried to overrule city ordinances in Texas to make up for state ordinances he refused to make to handle this pandemic?
First of, let's give a salute to your insincere appeal to the bill of rights, as evidently you are fine with violations of them so long as it's done for reasons you agree with.
This said, did they try to secede, or simply put in place undemocratic policies violating people's basic rights without any consideration for people's livelihoods?
Because I am pretty sure you're really pushing the envelope of misrepresentation with this one.
>>7800>my family, and my friends who have done nothing to them bigots
You don't... have to actively do something to someone else to be a bigot... You just have to hold bigoted views. Do you know what a "bigot" is?
Calling out bigotry does not make you a bigot. If your "friends and family" are acting like bigots, you don't get to just say "their not bigots, you're the bigot!" like a child. >Perhaps you like to assume the worst in people
Oh, I'm not assuming anything about you. I'm judging you based on your actions and statements here. Quit trying to play the victim, it's ridiculous.
Yes, I would, as unlike you, I do not have so little faith in my fellow man that a secession would not also create a constitution in our new nation.
I have no cause to assume so, any more than I have cause to assume Biden will line Trump supporters against the wall after he packs the Supreme Court, as had been suggested.
Nonetheless, they have not done, said, or advocate for anything that would make them a bigot.
Yet people would label them such regardless.
It's wrong. Ironically, it's bigoted itself. >Calling out bigotry does not make you a bigot.
You are correct. Bigotry makes you a bigot, which is why I call you one.
Assuming someone is a bigot because of who they supported politically is wrong, and evidence of one's own bigotry.>Oh, I'm not assuming anything about you. I'm judging you based on your actions and statements here.
What you infer from what has not been said, you mean. If it was actually what I said, you wouldn't simply be strawmanning, you'd be an objective liar. >Quit trying to play the victim, it's ridiculous.
I am not playing the victim. I am combating bigoted individuals who would use their bigotry to justify cruel behavior and misrepresentations of those they disagree with.
I do not believe combating immoral people is "playing the victim"
I don't think you're evil, but when you accuse me of naivete you seem to be woefully lacking in self awareness of your own naivette considering the history of succession as apparent in the very rhetoric you're using.
You're talking about hypothetical while ignoring the realities of the political landscape as it currently is.
You're pretty fucking transparent in what is motivating your reasoning here. Advocating for succession of a state while ignoring how that just replaces a federal government with a state government that can be just
as hypothetically oppressive as the federal government.
So why not take it to it's logical extreme and advice for an anarchist revolution?
>>7801>I am not, and could have told you so had you simply asked.
And youd honestly expect me to trust you?
You think everyone is that naive?
I'm just learning from history instead of denying it for petty narcissist reasons like tge rest of you succesion fanatics.
>>7804>Nonetheless, they have not done, said, or advocate for anything that would make them a bigot.
Yes they have. They have supported Trump. This, at the very least
makes them complacent and/or willing to ignore bigotry, if not making them bigots themselves. It is not bigoted to call out bigotry. As hard as you are wishing that was the case.
Again; it isn't unique to secession, nor is it any kind of guaranteed linked outcome.
I am more than a little confident that, if they secure the votes, they won't have in their charter a clause that says "we're going to get rid of rights and start lining everyone who doesn't want to work in the coal mines against the wall".
There seems to be nothing whatsoever to suggest this would be the case, again, any more than would Biden start doing so with Trump supporters.
I assume you would call me irrational if I said we need to violently remove Biden from office now before he starts throwing us in gulags, yes?>You're talking about hypothetical while ignoring the realities of the political landscape as it currently is.
The reality according to the people who would label me and my family bigots, or the reality we actually live in?>Advocating for succession of a state while ignoring how that just replaces a federal government with a state government that can be just as hypothetically oppressive as the federal government.
So why on earth are you acting like they're different?
Just as saying Biden will line us against the wall is nonsense, assuming secession will result in lynchings of people who try to leave is nonsense.
>>7806>And youd honestly expect me to trust you?
Of course not. I have not been given the slightest modicum of the benefit of the doubt since I got in to this thread.
Doesn't mean that's how it ought to be. >I'm just learning from history instead of denying it for petty narcissist reasons like tge rest of you succesion fanatics.
So you hold me guilty of the beliefs of other people, yet you insist I'm the bigot, not you...
Voting for Trump doesn't mean you're a bigot or support bigotry.
Assuming everyone who voted Trump either is a bigot or supports bigotry, however, is definitely bigoted.
If I said to you, I believe that the left is the biggest threat to E quality in this country, would that mean I am justified in labelling every single Democrat voter who supported Joe Biden a bigot?
Or would you agree that's an absurd standard?
Trump is a bigot, so yes. Voting for Trump means you support bigotry, because you are supporting a bigot. At the very least it means you are willing to ignore bigotry. Which is just as dangerous.
This conversation keeps going in circles because you keep ignoring this fact. I'm getting a little tired of it. If your friends and family voted for Trump, it means one of two things.
1) That they are bigots and/or support bigotry or
2) They are willing to ignore bigotry for their own gain.
Both of these things are bad, and it is not bigotry to point out that they are bad. Do you follow now or do I need to break it down for you again? I can use smaller words if it would help.
Hell, let's do one better:
Does every single left Winger who voted for Joe Biden Support murder, vandalism, terrorism, and assault?
Or would it be wrong of me to presume their motives in favor of blaming the worst of the left wing's excesses on therm?
We are only using the things Donald Trump himself has said and done, not the full extent of evil the Republican party has done. So this analogy makes no sense even before you point out that you didn't actually give any concrete examples of "murder, vandalism, terrorism and assault".>>7814
If you support Trump, you support a bigot. You can't claim you don't support bigotry while actively supporting a bigot.
I would hope everyone recognizes this, which is why such arguments of it are nonsense.
Most of the country, most of any state, don't like bigotry.
Not everyone who voted Trump is bigoted.
Hell, plenty of people of minority races voted Trump.
I do not think those minority voters are all bigots, right?
File: 1604959982065.jpg (128.04 KB, 800x600, 4:3, 1439932231470.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7811> Voting for Trump means you support bigotry, because you are supporting a bigot. At the very least it means you are willing to ignore bigotry. Which is just as dangerous.
Does voting for a hair-sniffer mean that you support hair sniffing or at least are willing to ignore hair sniffing?
I voted for Trump in 2016 (but not in 2020). I viewed Trump's race-baiting and bigotry against immigrants as a negative, but there were other factors in the presidential race too, and ultimately I decided that Trump was the lesser of the two evils in 2016. Accusing Trump voters of being bigots is bad in the same way as accusing Hillary voters of wanting to start World War 3 by shooting Russian jets.
Black Lives Matter.
Given its actions, calling it a terroristic organization seems more than legitimate to me.
Unfortunately, I doubt Joe Biden will ensure those who would use the soapbox of equality to trample the rights of others are appropriately punished.
But in any case as another had suggested prior, I do not think it's fair to say everyone who voted Biden supports violating the Bill of Rights, as he seems to.
Sure. That doesn't mean they all are. Again, assuming they are is evidence of your own bigotry
Being a bigot is wrong, you know. I sincerely hope one day you realize the error of your ways before you hurt someone. Although, given your name appears to be visible, I suspect you've already done that to more than a few people.
Maybe we can hope for it not happening again, though. Everyone can change, after all.
Except one of those never happened. Hillary never started WW3 and there was no guarantee she would. That was mostly imaginary fear-mongering whereas Trump's bigotry is very real and well-documented.
If you voted for Trump in 2016, you chose to ignore bigotry. Pure and simple. You ignored bigotry because the bigotry would not directly affect you and you stood to gain from Trump's other proposals. Does that make you a "bigot"? Debatable. But it is still not a good thing. It is a BAD thing that you were so willing to ignore bigotry because it did not affect you. >>7819
Black lives DO matter. If you feel the people who are advocating for that are terrorists, then we are right to fear for our rights in your fictional new nation.
There was plenty of evidence to suggest she wanted to start a war, though.
Are all Hillary voters war supporters?>Black lives DO matter
I agree. All lives matter.
That's no excuse to destroy people's livelihoods. >If you feel the people who are advocating for that are terrorists, then we are right to fear for our rights in your fictional new nation.
I feel that people who engage in terrorist activities are terrorists.
If you have to harm innocent people to make your political message, that makes you objectively a terrorist.
Not everyone who fights for equality are terrorist, and not every terrorist fights in the name of equality.
Terrorism is an action. People who commit acts of terrorism are despicable people.
Most people don't like bigotry. Many do. That's why surveys find that something like 1/3 of Americans broadly self-identify as holding racist positions. Why something like 1 out of 6 will tell the ADL in polls that they think that Jews are inherently untrustworthy. Why something like 1 out of 5 hold that homosexuality should be a criminal offense again. Etc.
Like bad breath, car accidents, pancreatic cancer, and other such social issues, bigotry is a serious problem that requires actual effort to fight instead of casual dismissal.
>>7825>There was plenty of evidence to suggest she wanted to start a war, though.
Only if you believe in shit like Pizzagate and listen to Alex Jones.
So let me get this straight. Protesting police brutality makes you a terrorist, but throwing a hissy-fit and trying to leave the country because your guy didn't win the election makes you the good guy? Do you listen to yourself talk?
To clarify, my hope is a secessionist movement would result in a more locally controlled nation where people can personally influence the vote as they need in their area, as opposed to the massive beurocratic lockup that seems to persist federally.
I want a stronger constitution that ensures people's rights are protected and institutions like law enforcement who violate those rights are treated harshly for it, to greater extent if possible than regular citizens.
I do not, nor have I ever advocated for, a fascist ethnostate.
I don't think I am even white enough to survive that.
I am very skeptical of those polls. But then I am skeptical of all polls.
Nonetheless, if that's true, that sucks, but they're still a minority, fortunately, and I suspect those who would act on those beliefs are an even greater one.
I don't think that's required, but I understand why someone like you would immediately assume so. >So let me get this straight. Protesting police brutality makes you a terrorist, but throwing a hissy-fit and trying to leave the country because your guy didn't win the election makes you the good guy?
If BLM shot at police instead of terrorizing innocent people, i wouldn't care.
If BLM advocated for secession, I would have no complaints.
My problem is the attacking innocent people.
I realize that this is a strained analogy, but if I gave you a parachute and ordered you to jump after telling you that one in six fail to open... would you?
If not, then can you at least begin to see why bigotry, and I mean real hatred against minorites instead of your imagined fantasies about hate against the right-wing, is a big deal?
>>7831>Why are you advocating for secession then?
I think more local governments are better governments.
Otherwise, see my prior post. >You bring it up in the first place because it appears that you don't like the pro-small-government and pro-individual-rights side having won in contrast to the statist nationalist side.
I disagree with your characterization.
I don't believe anyone has ever characterized Biden as small government, nor do I consider his stance on firearm ownership or covid regulations, pro- individual. >And you advocate it while screaming about how bigotry and hatred isn't so bad.
I never did that.
Please try to go by what I have actually said, instead of other people's mischaracterizations.
I do not believe bigotry is fine. I have expressly stated the opposite multiple times.
Since you're asking as opposed to just saying, I presume it isn't your intention to dishonestly misrepresent me here, and are simply lead astray by others.
Bigotry is bad.
Racism is bad.
I don't belive voting Trump makes you a racist.
Hopefully that explains it
As I have repeatedly said to you and provided piles upon piles of evidence for, target is not the only place attacked.
You repeatedly ignore this. Do you genuinely have a blocker that filters out information you don't like?
File: 1604961621382.png (156.76 KB, 300x345, 20:23, nora.png) ImgOps Google
>>7821>If you voted for Trump in 2016, you chose to ignore bigotry. ... It is a BAD thing that you were so willing to ignore bigotry because it did not affect you.
If I believed in that sort of logic, I would say something like: "If you voted for Hillary in 2016, you choose to ignore her contempt for certain portions of the Constitution. It is a BAD thing that you were so willing to ignore this because it did not affect you."
We can all find bad things about candidates for office and accuse our political opponents of supporting those bad things. But that isn't a healthy way to run a democracy. We can criticize the candidates without also vilifying their supporters. >>7824
I think that is enough evidence to credibly claim that members of Black Lives Matter engage in unlawful use of force against persons or property to further political objectives.
No. I never said anything to suggest that.
Please read what I actually say, and not simply go off of people who have lied about me.
That is, if you're actually interested in honestly engaging with me.
I'll be truthful with you, it's hard to tell.
No, that's not it at all...
I'm sorry, but it's really hard to deal with this when you seem to have started with a completely false narrative of me...
Racism is bad.
Bigotry is bad.
Opposition to bigotry is fine, but when it becomes bigotry, that's bad.
Calling my family, who are not bigots, bigots purely for the candidate they chose to vote for, is wrong.
Did this explain it enough for you? I admit, I'm having a hard time.
If they attack innocent people to push a political agenda, that's the textbook definition of terrorism.
I would say though, it isn't purely about law. Just who force is directed to.
I wouldn't call BLM terrorists if they shot at police, as they are legitimate government enforcers, not innocent unaffiliated citizens.
That makes it more understandable, perhaps, but not moral.
I might well understand why someone is afraid of black people after being raped by a black person, but that doesn't mean it's okay, and we should try to aim for better.
Assumptions like that shouldn't be made at all.
That's not what I said.
Please listen to what I actually said.
Do you think it would be acceptable for me to assume every single Jewish person is a bigot?
Or would such an action be bigotry on my part, given I assume something about the whole I cannot know?
Would you then be okay if I said "you believe opposition to bigotry is bigotry"?
In this context, regular citizens.
Any citizens who has not directly harmed you in any capacity. Hell, I'll even give you anyone who doesn't work in the judicial or prison market, if you like.
It wouldn't change anything in this regard.
File: 1604962388045.jpg (33.95 KB, 500x510, 50:51, babysnek.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7843>Quite a gigantic difference between "I disagree with this person's viewpoints" and "I'm genuinely afraid physically because this person's hatred is going to actively harm me".
In 2016, 46.1% of voters voted for Trump. Do you honestly believe that all of these voters would physically harm you on account of hatred? I can understand being afraid of the most vocal and vicious Trumpists, but simply supporting Trump as a lesser of two evils shouldn't inspire that kind of fear.
Has he attacked innocent people for a political agenda?
If so, sure
That's not what I said, and I just explained this to you.
Honestly asking: are you seeking discussion and understanding here, or are you hoping to attack someone you politically disagree with?
I am sincerely trying to be patient. But you've done this multiple times now, and it's really hard.
Would it be reasonable for me to fear the same from democrats, given the actions of antifa and BLM?
I don't think it would be.
That's too bad. Given this statement, I presume it wasn't your intention to repeatedly misrepresent me.
It's a shame politics is so polarized people find difficulty in understanding one another.
I hope you'll lurk and maybe keep an eye on what I, personally, say, rather than what some wish to claim i mean.
Maybe you will understand that way.
File: 1604962822485.jpg (245.52 KB, 709x520, 709:520, holo-0fk16xq93k2rk.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7857>No, just like how 99 percent of Klan members have never and will never hurt anyone.
Is that really true? At least historically, I thought most Klan members engaged in violence against black people? I certainly would be afraid of Klan members back when they regularly engaged in violence.
It's BAD that you chose to protect guns over the rights of people. Especially when the threat to guns was blown out of proportion by right-wing fear-mongering and paranoia.
There is no equivalency here, dude. You sided with a bigot to protect your own interests and ignored all the harm he was going to do to other groups. To other people
. It's not on me to forget that, it's on YOU to face that reality and reflect on why you made that choice. THAT'S how we move forward.
Also "members of Black Lives Matter" is a nebulous thing. It's not a group like ISIS, you don't "join" BLM and anyone can claim they are part of BLM because it's a protest movement, not a group.
Violence being the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived, protection of the individual's right to keep and bear arms is the very best way to ensure the right to the rest of their rights.
Those are only ever respected when the state fears the consequences.
>>7803>Yes, I would, as unlike you, I do not have so little faith in my fellow man that a secession would not also create a constitution in our new nation.
I recognize motivated reasoning when it's transparent, people get real hypocritical when there is a lot of power to be had, especially if that power isn't checked by a federal government.
I recognize the hypocrisy of how they want succession when they are in the minority but accept it only when it works in their favor. That hypocrites telegraphs a lack of sincere
valuing of the process of democracy. Democracy is only a means to an end for a successionist. It's a narrative for useful idiots. >>7808>I am more than a little confident that, if they secure the votes, they won't have in their charter a clause that says "we're going to get rid of rights and start lining everyone who doesn't want to work in the coal mines against the wall".
And why do you have that confidence? Blind faith? I am basing my view on the hypocrisy
in their rhetoric, and their inconsistencies. All red flags of insincerity. I am basing this on what would have to be the logical outcome of economic concerns of any state that would cut itself off from interstate commerce. Cut yourself off from the rest of the union and then you have to do something
about brain drain or you've screwed yourself. >I assume you would call me irrational if I said we need to violently remove Biden from office now before he starts throwing us in gulags, yes?
I'd say so given the fact that Bidens platform is just more bullshit neoliberalism. I might call you a sucker for demagogues, believing this McCarthyistic bullshit that the GOP engages in when they don't have other ways of getting elected. >>7808>The reality according to the people who would label me and my family bigots, or the reality we actually live in?
The reality I've grown up in surrounded by the hypocrisy of southern right-wingers who say one thing in public a then go full mask off 8n private when they think
you agree with them.
It's a culture that only embraces democracy when it gets them what they want, one that is still stuck in leftover civil war propoganda deliberately designed to maintain the position of power of what was left of the plantation and slave owning class, with denominations of Christianity deliberately corrupted to maintain slavery and a racial caste system during the Jim Crow era. It's a recipe for all sorts of moral hypocrisies that one has to be blind to if one is to maintain their loyalty to it. >>7808>Yes!>So why on earth are you acting like they're different?
Just as saying Biden will line us against the wall is nonsense, assuming secession will result in lynchings of people who try to leave is nonsense.
That's disingenuous as fuck. I stated you wouldn't be guaranteed the right to leave. My point was to point out the hypocrisy
of past successionist you disingenuous piece of shit. Modern successionist romanticize the confederacy with their "lost cause" narrative, when the reality was that succession was all about rejecting democracy when they weren't willing to accept the results of an election and feared losing their extreme wealth and power over others in their home states. It's hypocrisy
it's a useful bit of emotional manipulation. This isn't based on history in other countries, but our history right here
and how romanticizing and whitewashing
that history is the root of modern successionist movements. >>7809>I have not been given the slightest modicum of the benefit of the doubt since I got in to this thread.
You're right, I wasn't born yesterday, I've been around this block many
times for the past few decades. >>7809>So you hold me guilty of the beliefs of other people, yet you insist I'm the bigot, not you...
I hold you guilty for being a useful idiot. I hold you guilty for being a fucking coward. I hold you guilty of having a spinelessness for history. You disingenuous piece of shit.
>>7842>Opposition to bigotry is fine, but when it becomes bigotry, that's bad.
There is a limit to tolerance. If the intolerant are tolerated, intolerance dominates tolerance.
>>7867>especially if that power isn't checked by a federal government.
As is the case with literally every single government in the world today, many of whom are not massacring their citizens.
Yes, what i propose has no federal government checking its power... just like the United States federal government. >I recognize the hypocrisy of how they want succession when they are in the minority but accept it only when it works in their favor.
I have maintained my support for secession long before this election. I supported it when California threatened it.
You assume I wouldn't because you know nothing about me, yet are more than willing to assume the worst of me.
That is your own moral failure, however, and not representative of reality. >That hypocrites telegraphs a lack of sincere valuing of the process of democracy. Democracy is only a means to an end for a successionist. It's a narrative for useful idiots.
What have I ever said to suggest that is the case?
Or is this another charge you simply apply to me?
I can't imagine you'd be pleased if I started doing the same to you, would you?>And why do you have that confidence? Blind faith?
Simply dealing with my own fellow man and knowing full well they would not sit idly by while other's rights are violated.
Perhaps it is different where you live. I can't say it would shock me to find out you live in a moral cesspool, where basic decency is a rarity, given your behavior here. >I am basing my view on the hypocrisy in their rhetoric, and their inconsistencies. All red flags of insincerity.
Given your conduct with me, I have no reason whatsoever to trust you're capable of representing their beliefs or values honestly, and consequently have absolutely no cause whatsoever to trust your judgements of the likely outcome.
Moreover, it has absolutely fuck all to do with me or my own beliefs on the matter, which have nothing to do with your ghosts you're evidently so terrified of. > I am basing this on what would have to be the logical outcome of economic concerns of any state that would cut itself off from interstate commerce. Cut yourself off from the rest of the union and then you have to do something about brain drain or you've screwed yourself.
Perhaps, but that doesn't require violating basic human rights as your doommongering assumes.>I'd say so given the fact that Bidens platform is just more bullshit neoliberalism
Cool. In that case you're a hypocrite, as you're fine with your own delusional fantasies of paranoia, but not others.
>>7867>The reality I've grown up in surrounded by the hypocrisy of southern right-wingers who say one thing in public a then go full mask off 8n private when they think you agree with them.
So then nothing but your own bigotry, used to defame anyone you dislike because of a few bad personal experiences.
Not unlike what I hear from actual racists, funnily enough.
You would get along with them, I bet. Just don't use names for your given group bigotry, and I bet you'd both completely agree >It's a culture that only embraces democracy when it gets them what they want, one that is still stuck in leftover civil war propoganda deliberately designed to maintain the position of power of what was left of the plantation and slave owning class, with denominations of Christianity deliberately corrupted to maintain slavery and a racial caste system during the Jim Crow era
Cool, now I know you're full of shit since my family isn't even from the south.
But, hey, keep going on your bigoted rant.
I'm sure eventuality one of those lines will stick.
And, hey, if it doesn't, you can just do your usual thing, insist I'm saying something I'm not, and call me an evil monster.
That will surely convince me!>That's disingenuous as fuck
Oh please. Do you honestly think that with the way you have been behaving, you have the right to bitch at me for that?
No. You're going to get no s sympathy from me. Not until you at least apologize for the shittiness you've already exemplified. >I stated you wouldn't be guaranteed the right to leave. My point was to point out the hypocrisy of past successionist you disingenuous piece of shit.
Please. If you were just trying to say it was a possibility, you're one awful communicator. I would've agreed with you. Just as its entirely possible Joe will line dissidents against the wall.
Doesn't mean it's likely. and again, calling me disingenuous is damn hilarious coming from you.
Unless you apologize for what you've already done and said to me, i do not give a flying fuck how you feel.
What i proposed had absolutely fuck all to do with the confederacy.
You lump that on me and then whine about disingenuousness? Fuck off. You're the single most disingenuous person I've had the displeasure to speak to. You're bitching at me for what you're literally doing as you whine. Take a look in the goddamm mirror some time
File: 1604973711653.jpg (15.38 KB, 236x214, 118:107, time-for-obama-to-put-idea….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7865>It's BAD that you chose to protect guns over the rights of people.
That's like saying I chose bacon over pork or that I chose milk over dairy. The right to keep and bear arms is
a right of the people. "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
>>7867>You're right, I wasn't born yesterday, I've been around this block many times for the past few decades
Good for you, you're a bigoted old man. That's no excuse for your absolutely disgusting behavior here. >I hold you guilty for being a useful idiot. I hold you guilty for being a fucking coward. I hold you guilty of having a spinelessness for history. You disingenuous piece of shit.
Big words for a hypocrite who knows absolutely nothing about me.
Maybe I would give a shit if you gave a single modicum of empathy in this entire conversion.
Given your inability to even do that much, I don't give a damn about your accusations. Especially when it's quite blatantly not true. >>7868
Intolerance to the intolerant is fine.
That's why I am intolerant to you.
That does not excuse your blatant bigotry. Nor does it justify treating others cruelly for crimes they did not commit, as you seem bent on doing>>7869>Says the guy who believes in the possibility of a completely peaceful and bloodless succession from the US...
Sure. The US would not let us leave if we weren't. This proves my point, not disproves it.
>>7865>You sided with a bigot to protect your own interests and ignored all the harm he was going to do to other groups. To other people.
Not just my own interests. Yes, I enjoy the shooting sports as a hobby, but my main interest in RKBA is to prevent tyranny. By protecting the Second Amendment, I am helping to protect the rights of all Americans. See also >>7866
:> protection of the individual's right to keep and bear arms is the very best way to ensure the right to the rest of their rights. >Those are only ever respected when the state fears the consequences.
You ignored the middle part: "Especially when the threat to guns was blown out of proportion by right-wing fear-mongering and paranoia.
is advocating succeeding from the Union because Trump lost the election, and is ignoring the fact that despite "violence being the ultimate authority", he believes that they should just be allowed to do that without anyone objecting. He's also a hypocrite because he doesn't think destruction of property is a valid form of protest and makes you a "terrorist", despite believing all that stuff about violence and guns.
But you're not like that guy. Atleast, I don't think you are. You need to accept what you did. You sided with a bigot because his bigotry did not affect you. You ignored his bigotry and real people got hurt. Accept that. Reflect on that. It's not on us to pretend you didn't do it.
In case you haven't noticed throughout this thread, my hatred for you isn't personal at this point. It's for all the hypocrites in this country. I have no love left for any living generation of Americans and their preferences for custom nade realities.
But go ahead and pretend like you're the better person, your no different than any other delusional spineless narcissist blind to your own hypocrisies, including your hypocritical disengenuous accusations about what I believe.
At this point I take glee in my abusiveness to these generations of Americans who just fucking love denial about their own falibilities. >Good for you, you're a bigoted old man. That's no excuse for your absolutely disgusting behavior here.
implying I give a fuck anymore. >>7870>Yes, what i propose has no federal government checking its power... just like the United States federal government.
I mean, that's what state governments are for >>7873>Big words for a hypocrite who knows absolutely nothing about me.
Ironic, the hypocrisy of this statement. >>7873>Maybe I would give a shit if you gave a single modicum of empathy in this entire conversion.>Given your inability to even do that much, I don't give a damn about your accusations. Especially when it's quite blatantly not true. >implying I am incapable and not being deliberate >implying you would have ever given a shit in the first place>>7873>That does not excuse your blatant bigotry. Nor does it justify treating others cruelly for crimes they did not commit, as you seem bent on doing>implying I am accussing you of crimes I didn't explicitly state. >>7871>So then nothing but your own bigotry, used to defame anyone you dislike because of a few bad personal experiences. >implying it's just a few>>7871>Not unlike what I hear from actual racists, funnily enough.>You would get along with them, I bet. Just don't use names for your given group bigotry, and I bet you'd both completely agree
so by "actual racist" do you mean whichever definition is convenient for you? >>7871>That will surely convince me!>implying I am trying to convince you of anything >>7871>Oh please. Do you honestly think that with the way you have been behaving, you have the right to bitch at me for that?>implying I give a shit. >>7871>No. You're going to get no s sympathy from me.>implying you ever would>>7871>Not until you at least apologize for the shittiness you've already exemplified.
die in a fire.>>7871>If you were just trying to say it was a possibility, you're one awful communicator. I would've agreed with you. >implying you ever would
or, maybe you're just a dishonest piece of shit. >>7871>Unless you apologize for what you've already done and said to me, i do not give a flying fuck how you feel.>implying you ever would in the first place
also, die in a fire. >>7871>What i proposed had absolutely fuck all to do with the confederacy.>implying session has nothing to do with the states that succeeded.
yeah, you're another worthless narcissist. >>7871>You're the single most disingenuous person I've had the displeasure to speak to.
Thank you, unlicked that achievement! >>7871>You're bitching at me for what you're literally doing as you whine. Take a look in the goddamm mirror some time>implying I give a shit anymore.
I've advocated it before he lost too.>and is ignoring the fact that despite "violence being the ultimate authority", he believes that they should just be allowed to do that without anyone objecting.
Should is different from will.
We shouldn't require any violence.
We should be able to govern the entire world peacefully.
That is not how it is, however.
I wouldn't even consider secession possible if it weren't for civilian armaments.
File: 1604977221681.jpg (173.43 KB, 640x480, 4:3, cat-1388259730465.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7876>You ignored the middle part: "Especially when the threat to guns was blown out of proportion by right-wing fear-mongering and paranoia."
Beto O'Rourke, one of the contenders for the Democratic nomination, called for confiscation
of AR-15s. Hillary would have appointed anti-2A justices to the Supreme Court. Biden wants another 'assault weapon' ban.>he doesn't think destruction of property is a valid form of protest
You left out an important qualifier: "destruction of innocent people's
property". And I agree with him that destroying the property of innocent people isn't a valid form of protest. If you want to protest police brutality by destroying the police department's
equipment, that's one thing, but it's an entirely different thing to destroy the property of innocent third parties.>>7876>You sided with a bigot because his bigotry did not affect you.^(emphasis added)
No, that's not true. I would risk my own life to preserve the Republic and its Constitution. In 2016, I predicted that Hillary would pose the greatest risk to them. (In hindsight, I underestimated the risk that Trump would pose, and I might come to regret my 2016 vote for Trump in the coming weeks, but I still hope he will eventually concede defeat and stop throwing a temper tantrum about unsubstantiated claims of fraud.) This year, I predicted that Biden would be better for the republic and voted accordingly.
My man Beto coming through for us again. First off, citation needed on him saying that. Second, Beto's anti-gun stance was in the wake of one of the deadliest mass-shooting in the country in his district. It would have been cold-hearted of him to ignore that and the people who died. Thirdly, Beto did not win the nomination, so his stance on ARs would not affect the actual presidential election. There's no reason to bring him up.
And don't you dare bring up the supreme court and protecting guns
after real people and their rights are in danger now in part because of you.
You don't have the right and that makes me genuinely angry.
You should NOT value these peices of plastic and metal over real human lives and livelyhoods. You are being ridiculous. You don't need an AR, but minority people need to feel safe. What you are saying is the height of selfishness and white privileged, and you NEED to see that. Because I know you're not a bad person on the inside. You've just let bad people use you and lie to you so much you can't tell what's real anymore. When you're willing to break out of that mindset, then we can talk about reconciliation.
File: 1604978294476.jpg (60.96 KB, 851x489, 851:489, image0 (1).jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
This isn't the time for "reconciliation".
File: 1604979179631.jpg (179.32 KB, 550x777, 550:777, kitsune_in_kimono_by_alyso….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7880>And don't you dare bring up the supreme court and protecting guns after real people and their rights are in danger now in part because of you.
I feel like you haven't fully absorbed the import of my earlier post >>7872
.>You should NOT value these peices of plastic and metal over real human lives and livelyhoods.
I value guns precisely because
they protect real human lives and livelihoods. If you're implying that I value guns so much just because I like them as a hobby, you're really doing me a disservice. >You don't need an AR, but minority people need to feel safe.
If minority people need AR-15s to feel safe, I 100% support them in their right to have AR-15s. Hell, I'd even support federal financial support to help the disadvantaged to purchase arms and become trained in their use.>What you are saying is the height of selfishness and white privileged
How so? Do you think that whites are more likely than blacks to need to resort to arms to fight oppression? I personally don't even really like AR-15s all that much. I much prefer the aesthetics of the Mini-14.
>>7880>Second, Beto's anti-gun stance was in the wake of one of the deadliest mass-shooting in the country in his district. It would have been cold-hearted of him to ignore that and the people who died.
Sometimes obedience to the Constitution requires politicians to be cold-hearted in upholding the Bill of Rights.>Thirdly, Beto did not win the nomination, so his stance on ARs would not affect the actual presidential election. There's no reason to bring him up.
That he received applause instead of booing is indicative of the problem.
>>7877>In case you haven't noticed throughout this thread, my hatred for you isn't personal at this point. It's for all the hypocrites in this country. I have no love left for any living generation of Americans and their preferences for custom nade realities
I understand that, but nonetheless, it's being thrown generally, and that means it goes to me, my family, and many who I know.
Your bitterness is no excuse, nor should you expect it to appease me. >But go ahead and pretend like you're the better person, your no different than any other delusional spineless narcissist blind to your own hypocrisies, including your hypocritical disengenuous accusations about what I believe.
And you, who started throwing mud at the very beginning, are somehow pure?
You, who insisted I and others be held for that which we didn't do, are somehow the honest one?
You, who at every turn forced me to repeatedly say "that's not what I said?
Once again, I can care little for your condemnations. Your actions have eroded any consideration i might have for them. >I mean, that's what state governments are for
Yes, that's right.
And so it would be present in a created state.
Thank you for proving my point. It's nice to know we can occasionally agree. >Ironic, the hypocrisy of this statement.
I'm pretty confident you've made far more assumptions of me than I, you. >implying I give a fuck anymore.>implying I am incapable and not being deliberate>implying I give a shit anymore.
Just going to combine these here since it's the same reply;
You sure bitch a lot for someone who doesn't care. >implying you would have ever given a shit in the first place
If you behaved with a modicum of decency, I certainly would have.
Perhaps you're okay with just treating others like trash.
I am not. >implying I am accussing you of crimes I didn't explicitly state.
Those are the ones I mean, yes. >implying it's just a few
The number doesn't justify it.
Someone could be robbed by a hundred black men, assuming that all black folk are robbers is immoral.
Bigotry is wrong. >so by "actual racist" do you mean whichever definition is convenient for you?
No, just the actual definition.
Prejudice based on race.>implying I am trying to convince you of anything
Then why reply? Just to vent?
Just to scream angrily and unproductively at people?
Doesn't seem healthy. >or, maybe you're just a dishonest piece of shit
I'm sure you would feel that way.
I could hardly give a shit about the moral condemnations of someone calling for my death. >>implying session has nothing to do with the states that succeeded.
It doesn't as far as how I would hope things to go, any more than it does from any other departure from a nation, no.>also, die in a fire.>die in a fire.
If you've gotten to the point in a conversion where you are calling for the fiery death of the person you're arguing with, you've spent too much time online
That, or you have serious problems, and should probably be seeking help, not wasting your time online.
Either way, literally calling for the death of others is a terrible thing to do. Especially a painful one.
Maybe go out and start reflecting on what kind of person you are, instead of punishing others for your own lack of self control.
Ah, yes. Only the government should be allowed to own weapons.
It's so much better if the police have rifles to shoot at unarmed black teens, and any protesters wanting justice, right?
File: 1604985715283.png (207.64 KB, 820x640, 41:32, 142759252157.png) ImgOps Google
>>7885>That sound tell you that YOUR stance is wrong if people support the idea of limiting the sales of dangerous weapons.
On the contrary, many provisions of the Constitution were designed to restrain the rash impulses of the uninformed masses. Most people give little rational thought to the gun bans and arrive at conclusions based in ignorance. Before banning particular kinds of guns, a legislator should become informed (or at least seek the advice of informed people) and ask whether a particular category makes sense to ban and whether banning it is permitted by the Constitution. (The answer to both is negative in regards to so-called 'assault weapons'.)
It's clear I'm not going to get you to reflect on any of the views you hold so I'll save my breath. But it should bother
you to find yourself siding with bigots and supporting bigots. If it doesn't, then I don't think there's anything I can say to you to make it bother you.
Guns should not matter to you more than the lives and rights of marginalized people, and if they do then maybe I've made the mistake of trying.
File: 1605013515996.jpg (90.15 KB, 629x718, 629:718, ayano-f2195744.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7892>But it should bother you to find yourself ... supporting bigots.
Well, yes, it does bother me. I took no joy in voting for Trump in 2016. Please do not mistake me for someone who celebrates Trump 'owning the libs'. >>7892>Guns should not matter to you more than the lives and rights of marginalized people
Did you read my post >>7882
? I have already explained to you multiple times that I support guns exactly because
they protect the lives and rights of marginalized people.
It's clear that you and I disagree on the efficacy of RKBA to protect the lives and rights of marginalized people. But please try to at least recognize that that is the source of our disagreement and don't act like I value guns only as hobby.
And if Trump is even half as bad you think he is, you should be very glad that the people of our country have the capacity to remove him from power by force of arms if he tries to illegally retain power after being voted out.
If the sky rained donuts, if the streets were literally paved with gold, if the rivers flowed with sparkling champagne, if the beds always felt comfy and easy no matter what they were made of, if no disease ever got worse than the sniffles, if every romantic relationship lasted with the perseverance and strength of hardened steel, and...
I'd genuinely be interested in the impossible fantasy world that you describe in which gun rights weren't bullshit because groups such as Jews and the LGBT were armed so much that bigotry were a thing of the past.
I'm coming across as bitter and sarcastic, but I really don't feel that way. I'd be really interested. Same thing as living in a world in which My Little Pony
characters were real. And Doctor Who
characters. And more.
But, to the point, it's clear: your hypothetical is impossible, and that's that.
>>7886>Your bitterness is no excuse, nor should you expect it to appease me
Hilarious that you still think I want to appease you. My
first response to you in this thread was to criticise your pipedream belief in peaceful succession and this naivette given the current political landscape that any succeeding state would ever actually ensure a bill of rights to protect the minority who didn't
vote to succeed.
In response you accused me of "accusing you of crimes you didn't commit" just like every other asinine, narcissistic and hypocritically conservative Ive ever run into in the past 22 years I've legally been allowed to vote.
So no, I have no
desire to appease yet another piece of shit 21st century American conservative. >>7886>And you, who started throwing mud at the very beginning, are somehow pure?>You, who insisted I and others be held for that which we didn't do, are somehow the honest one?
You keep asserting that I accused you of more than I did. Pretending like I wrote things between the lines I never did in yet another display of hypocritical conservative victimhood mentality as a knee jerk response to having your beliefs criticized. I am bitter and cynical and disillusioned as fuck with this rhetoric after having grown up with it sure, and I will bitterly attack these ideas, and I am disillusioned with people who regurgitate it. But I
never once accused you of racism. I accused you of being a useful idiot, a narcissist who invest way to much of your sense of self worth in your beliefs that you could just simply be wrong about, that narcissism is what typically informs that knee jerk response to play the total victim when your ideas
So no, I have no desire to appease you. And the fact that you would even believe that telling me that I would even want
to appease you is just a huge red flag that shows off how muchbof a narcissist you are if you believe that I would even want
your appeasement. >>7886>Once again, I can care little for your condemnations. Your actions have eroded any consideration i might have for them.
OK>>7886>Yes, that's right.>And so it would be present in a created state. >being this naive. >>7886>I'm pretty confident you've made far more assumptions of me than I, you.
hypocrisy ontop of hypocrisy? Impressive! >>7886>You sure bitch a lot for someone who doesn't care.
God damn you're such a fucking narcissist if you think this is about only
you right now.
also >implying the only two possible reasons are to convince you or vent at you>>7886>I could hardly give a shit about the moral condemnations of someone calling for my death.>implying telling you to die in a fire is an argument. >not recognizing a deliberate rejection of civility or a demand for an apology. >pretending being civil will make any difference at this point>>7886>If you've gotten to the point in a conversion where you are calling for the fiery death of the person you're arguing with, you've spent too much time online
I'm disillusioned as fuck for reasons far beyond online interactions.
You telegraphed you had no intention of engaging in my response to you just because I passionately attacked the idea and you played the victim as if I were accussing you of things that I wasn't accussing you of. That shows cowardice. >>7886>That, or you have serious problems, and should probably be seeking help, not wasting your time online.
I don't give a shit anymore. Maybe I once did, but all that's done for me is left me disillusioned and bitter as hell. You're acting entirely like everyone whose left me bitter, what with this seeming sense of special entitling knee jerk victimhood when someone criticizes an idea without the proper decorum. >>7886>Either way, literally calling for the death of others is a terrible thing to do. Especially a painful one.>Maybe go out and start reflecting on what kind of person you are, instead of punishing others for your own lack of self control.>implying that it's my lack of self control I am "punishing" you for.
It's called harassment. And I am willing to ban evade to keep this up as long as I can.
File: 1605025698466.png (352.56 KB, 648x626, 324:313, 1460342515951.png) ImgOps Google
>>7898>your hypothetical is impossible, and that's that.
What's so impossible about it? If Jews or blacks or LGBT people wanted to arm themselves, nothing is preventing them from doing so. The main reason why so many of them don't arm themselves seems to be disdain for the right to keep and bear arms (and that applies to straight white Christian liberals too). I see plenty of black folks at my local range, and nobody antagonizes them or tells them they're unwelcome.
Yes, all of this. Although I find it strange you didn't mention people in racial minorities are included in this, despite mentioning "mixed race" people. After "Jews", it would be black and brown people. Trans people would be third or fourth on the list.
But the point remains the same, I feel. The people who need protecting the most are the ones in danger because of the second amendment and the people least needing protection are the ones benefiting from it.
Also, we've already seen that the "protect against tyranny" thing is just a fantasy. When Trump turned the military against American's own civilians, none of these 2A gun-nuts cared or acted. In fact, they did the opposite. They excused the action, they called the victims "terrorists". So don't buy for one second that this is about protecting American from dictators. That has always been a farce. If anything, they'd be the first boots on the ground to execute the brutality.
>>7902>That offers me no comfort because his supporters are the biggest purchasers of guns.
See >>7874 >>7897
:>It just means we have to work harder to arm BLM. >>7902> At BEST, it would mean a bloody civil war,
No, at best, it works the same way that the nuclear strategic deterrent works: Nobody wants a bloody civil war or for people to start sniping at whoever is de facto
in control of the executive branch, so they do whatever they can to avoid such a scenario. And I do expect over the next few weeks that the Congressional Republicans will act if Trump still refuses to concede defeat.
>>7900>"nothing is preventing them from doing so"
Modern American gun culture is, at the very least. That's why senior leaders of the NRA openly make fun of transgender people in their speeches. That's why even people within the NRA itself stated that they felt uncomfortable with the explicitly racist messages of NRA TV. That's why /k/ on 4Chan is crammed to the brim full of bigoted nonsense. Not to mention that the overall premise is still flawed.
That the American Nazi Party is way more armed than the American Jewish Committee is, say, basically an unchangeable fact of U.S. culture. It's just how things are. Those who are obsessive and paranoid about their fellow man will always be more armed than those who have hearts filled with compassion and love.
And, to be brutally honest, I'd like to suggest that you're projecting your own individual experiences outward too much. I'm sure that your specific range is a nice place filled with cool people. That positivity can't be applied to the country as a whole, particularly when the A-#1 custodian of gun rights that determines gun culture is a bigoted group like the NRA.
I probably should've thought a bit more about the far right ranking of hatred, but then the exact drawing of the lines is rather pointless, anyways. Almost every single anti-Semite hates brown-skinned individuals as well. Almost every single homophobe dreams of a world without Jews as well. Etc.
And, yes, I totally agree with everything else that you posted. Absolutely. That's just how it is.
>>7904>>It just means we have to work harder to arm BLM.
And do you think that the people like the delightful gentleman in this thread who is wants to succeed from the union and calling the people protesting police brutality "terrorists" would be OK with that?
All that is going to do is enrage the people who already have guns. This has already happened. In the 1970s, Ronald Regan rushed new, restictive gun laws into effect when the Black Panther party started to arm themselves. There's a reason gun culture is the way it is in this country. They only want certain groups of people to have guns.
>>7908>"I guess we've already lost so let's just kneel down really low and hope they stop killing us."
Not to trigger a whole other conversation, but isn't this exactly the point?
Isn't that exactly what Jesus Christ preached?
If you want the cycle of seething bigotry, hatred, and oppression to end, then you kill it all in your own heart before lying down and choosing to passively accept the beatdowns, whether metaphorical or real.
I fantasize about sauce for the goose becoming sauce for the gander and, say, the after Trump supporter on Reddit or Stormfront or whatever website having to taste even a fraction of what they've dished out... but it's still not right. Fire is stopped by water. Not more fire. You know?
At a profound level, though, isn't the principle universal?
Compassion is a weakness that bigots of all stripes as well as, in general, bullies of all stripes don't share.
But it's our weakness.
It's what separates us from them.
The American Nazi Party has the oodles of guns. The high morale. The strength of raw conviction. The blowing wind of history on their side, at least in their own minds, due to anti-gay, anti-Hispanic, anti-Jewish, et cetera propaganda ever expanding. They have profund confidence. They have the ability to look at the mirror and see underlying beauty without flaws back. And so on.
What does the American Jewish Committee have? Heart. And soul.
In the end, we have to be believe that heart and soul wins. We have to. It's what we have.
>>7912>In the end, we have to be believe that heart and soul wins. We have to. It's what we have.
Would it really even matter at a practical level?
How many millions upon millions of right-wing nuts exist in the U.S.?
Compare that to however many Jews, and then... well, seriously, what do you think?
The "right wing nuts" just lost, and most of those aren't even "nuts". I think it's safe to say that we
File: 1605041628513.jpg (216.19 KB, 700x700, 1:1, 1446931345273.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7905>Modern American gun culture
Just like you can enjoy playing video games without partaking in 'gamer culture', you can purchase firearms and train in their use without being part of 'gun culture'. And 'gun culture' skews right-of-center precisely because
so many left-leaning folks eschew firearms. If more left-leaning folks get into guns, they'll create a rival left-leaning gun culture.
Of potential interest: https://old.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/>>7907>And do you think that the people like the delightful gentleman in this thread who is wants to succeed from the union and calling the people protesting police brutality "terrorists" would be OK with that?
I'm 95%+ certain that Magnificent Goat will be perfectly okay with BLM exercising their Constitutional right to purchase arms and training to use them safely and proficiently.BTW, it's "secede from the union", not "succeed from the union".>In the 1970s, Ronald Regan rushed new, restictive gun laws into effect when the Black Panther party started to arm themselves.
Yes, much of gun control is rather racist in origin.>They only want certain groups of people to have guns.
Well fortunately the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, so people who don't want minorities to have guns can go pound sand. >>7914>>7916
If Trump refuses to quit the White House despite losing, citing unsubstantiated claims of fraud that are rejected from the courts -- in such a case, I'm pretty sure that a significant fraction of right-of-center folks will be on the same side as left-of-center folks, or at the very least not oppose them.
They're not that
silent. We're also not that
unarmed. Also, we've mentioned how the 2A guys didn't really come to our defense en masse during the protests, but there were
some, and I think we could get a few more if we just switched our gun stance to one of support rather than persecution. BLM doesn't have to be anti-gun. Ending police brutality doesn't have to be anti-gun. The movement could, in fact, be pro-gun, and achieve all of its goals.
This is a battle that can not only be won, but can be portrayed as being won so hard that the actual battle is avoided.
>>7917>The Bill of Rights applies to everyone, so people who don't want minorities to have guns can go pound sand.
You keep pretending as if somehow the gigantic right-ring movement that denies all this and works their utmost hardest to make sure that gun ownership is for non-minorities only doesn't exist. That's really, really
At a fundamental level, still, don't you see a basic unfairness in what you're demanding?
Why should transgender people, for instance, be expected to go to places from firearm stores to gun rages to shooting events and more where they're very clearly unwelcome and have direct reason to expect verbal hostility if not outright attack? Isn't that rather unreasonable? Shouldn't those places stop being shitty in the first place, without any prodding?
>>7919>the gigantic right-ring movement that denies all this and works their utmost hardest to make sure that gun ownership is for non-minorities only
Those guys can fuck off? We're not pretending they don't exist, or that they weren't the ones to implement gun laws in the first places. We're saying they shouldn't exist and shouldn't be obeyed.>>7920>Why should transgender people, for instance, be expected to go to places from firearm stores to gun rages to shooting events and more where they're very clearly unwelcome and have direct reason to expect verbal hostility if not outright attack? Isn't that rather unreasonable? Shouldn't those places stop being shitty in the first place, without any prodding?
Should they stop being shitty? Yeah. But the nazis didn't stop being shitty the first time, either. We had to prod them. With guns.
>>7918>BLM doesn't have to be anti-gun. Ending police brutality doesn't have to be anti-gun. The movement could, in fact, be pro-gun, and achieve all of its goals.
I think it's difficult when the narrative usually goes like this: Black man gets killed by police unjustly. People protest the unjust killing. It is then uncovered that that Black man took a picture with him holding a gun once. The narrative shifts to that man now being a "thug" and essentially deserved to be killed.
Would be great if that weren't the case but I dunno how that could be changed.
>>7899>In response you accused me of "accusing you of crimes you didn't commit" just like every other asinine, narcissistic and hypocritically conservative Ive ever run into in the past 22 years I've legally been allowed to vote.
If you think it was in response to just that, you weren't paying attention.
The issue was your hounding me for the actions of the civil war.
I was not alive back then. I had nothing to do with it. It was quite a different time, and I'd say society has definitely changed. I have no reason to believe we'd go back to the practices of a hundred odd years ago, nor do I see why it is justified for you to insist i answer for what some people in the past did that i don't support. >You keep asserting that I accused you of more than I did
Mate, you literally told me to die in a fire.
Are you seriously going to start pretending you're innocent?
Look at the other shit in your post.
Pretty sure only one of us had called for the death of the other here. >Pretending like I wrote things between the lines I never did in yet another display of hypocritical conservative victimhood mentality as a knee jerk response to having your beliefs criticized. I am bitter and cynical and disillusioned as fuck with this rhetoric after having grown up with it sure, and I will bitterly attack these ideas, and I am disillusioned with people who regurgitate it
You insist you're not accussing me or things I don't do, while repeatedly insisting I'm some big bad typical boogieman conservative.
This is the shit I was talking about.
You've just made assumptions about me because you're a bigoted old grumbler who doesn't have the capacity for basic human decency >You telegraphed you had no intention of engaging in my response to you just because I passionately attacked the idea and you played the victim as if I were accussing you of things that I wasn't accussing you of. That shows cowardice.
Look in the fucking mirror, man. Take a single fucking seconds to consider what you're at least typing, and how they literally refute themselves.
You openly admit that you made assumptions about me, not based on things I said, but also some sort of prejudice you hold.
When I told you that I don't believe the things that you claim I do, you went straight to personal attacks and literally fucking wished me to die in a fire
"Die in a fucking fire"
Do you really think that shit is acceptable? And for what, not accepting being told you're something you aren't?>You're acting entirely like everyone whose left me bitter, what with this seeming sense of special entitling knee jerk victimhood when someone criticizes an idea without the proper decorum.
You see it that way because I suspect you've made up shit about more than just me.
When you can just assume your enemy is the devil, any refusal to accept your narrative is just confirmation, right?
Maybe if you were capable of basic empathy, you could try to understand what people are saying, instead of projecting your frustrations at your dad on others. >It's called harassment. And I am willing to ban evade to keep this up as long as I
What, so you're literally going to harass me for the crime of not accepting being told I'm something I am not?
Dude, you need major mental help. If you're this bad online, I am genuinely afraid you're a threat to yourself and others. Who knows what delusional slight might set you off on the Starbucks cashier.
I'm not the one who told the other to "die in a fire".>>7902
So maybe that's a cultural thing that ought to change.
Maybe you ought to buy guns. Instead of complaining that the other side is armed and you are not, take steps to actually arm your side.
Bruh, /k/ is the most LGBT board on the site beyond the dedicated board for it.
I don't think you've ever actually been there, let alone posted enough to get an overview of the community.
As to the NRA, they aren't liked by most gun owners. For good reason. They're practicality anti gun. A bunch of corporate fuck ups who just want to keep their cushioned Washington job, over actually defending people's rights.
Even paying members will typically say "at least it's better than nothing".
Again, I do not believe you've experienced gun culture enough to make judgements.
Rather, it sounds like you are echoing bigoted things you've heard from other bigots about stuff you know nothing about
>>7907>And do you think that the people like the delightful gentleman in this thread who is wants to succeed from the union and calling the people protesting police brutality "terrorists" would be OK with that?
You could have asked me. The answer is yes, by the way.
Everyone ought to own a gun. It's your civic duty.
And I called terrorists terrorists.
Peaceful protest is fine, but when you attack innocent people, you're a scumbag of the highest order. Those thugs should be punished accordingly.
Ironically their actions are a great example of why you should have guns.
Government won't protect your rights when it's inconvenient.
As was learned by Koreans years ago, that has to come from you and your community.
He also crafted a whip and beat the shit out of everyone trashing his temple.
He wasn't a pacifist.
It's more he didn't blame the Romans
File: 1605110519136.jpg (109 KB, 640x960, 2:3, r960-3a7f21a94dd3510c1a062….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7922>It is then uncovered that that Black man took a picture with him holding a gun once. The narrative shifts to that man now being a "thug"
Nobody would infer that a black man is a thug on account of a photo of him safely
handling a gun, e.g., pic related.
A photo of a man irresponsibly
handling a handgun might lead to negative inferences about him. E.g., https://i.imgur.com/jSqPcq1.jpg
shows gratuitous violations of gun safety. Guns are not toys; they need to be treated with respect.
I would say a big reason that nobody else came, frankly, is because you started burning down innocent people's property.
That kind of stuff really turns people off. Especially when, often enough, as for example was the case with Kyle Rittenhouse, you'll be attacked just for being there.
I think when it's a choice between 2 terrible groups who want to violate our basic rights, a lot of people just say they don't want to have anything to do with it.
>>7922>Black man gets killed by police unjustly. People protest the unjust killing. It is then uncovered that that Black man took a picture with him holding a gun once. The narrative shifts to that man now being a "thug" and essentially deserved to be killed.
If you are referring to a prior thread, that argument was entirely disproven.
There was both video evidence of the particular case in the shooting, as well as the simple fact of reality in that it wasn't simply posing with a firearm.
Take an AR 15 to the range with your typical ear pro, and nobody would give a fuck.
File: 1605110985208.png (14.47 KB, 200x200, 1:1, 2020-11-11-1107.png) ImgOps Google
I'm pretty sure you meant to quote middle line here; probably would be a good idea to edit your post if so.
It's not really intended as a quote, but more emphasis of the prior paragraph.
I'll throw marks around it just in case some staffer only bothers to skim instead of investigate.
>>7921>Those guys can fuck off?
You can't just go to the 1/3 to 1/10 of Americans that are bigots and say "Fuck off!" and expect that that's the end of that. Come on. Live in the real world.>>7922^This.^>>7925
Goat, honestly, do you really not see how you're the exact mirror image of what you claim to see in Sage, here? You make assumptions. You hound people. You insult others. You believe that all that dare oppose your perfect wisdom is a horrible devil. You show no empathy. You psychologically project. You refuse to accept information outside of your ideological narrative. It goes on.
And, once again, your "anybody who opposes bigotry and hatred is themselves a bigoted hatred" belief is frustrating as all hell. It's simply not true. At all.>>7927
I don't care about your feelings. I care about facts. Reality exists outside of your political narratives.>>7928
Since you willy-nilly throw labels such as "terrorist" and "thug" around upon anybody whom you dislike, even slandering gigantic groups of millions of people for the actions of a tiny view, why should we believe you? Your words about non-minorities being allowed to have guns ring pretty Goddamn hollow. For real.>>7929
Read the Gospels. Your understanding is false. Again.>>7930>Nobody would infer that a black man is a thug on account of a photo of him safely handling a gun, e.g., pic related.
That's an objectively false statement and you know it. If you were right, then we wouldn't have, say, NRA TV making racist messages that even officials within the NRA itself object to. And that's just scratching the surface of the problems with 'gun culture'.
I want to be especially reasonable with you since you've avoided the kind of standard Trumpian vitriol that we've seen from Goat, but like... well... I can't even begin to understand how you can not understand what you're asking of people like me.
When you go to a public park, say, do you walk over to the one corner of grass that has dog feces all over and step right all over there? When you go to a laundromat, say, do you go to the one machine that looks janky and put all of your quarters in there? When you go to a public library, say, do you go to the one librarian who looks the most stressed out and ask them to help you put a 'hold' out on a full thirty different items?
Of course not.
It's really unfair to say the least to put on me and others like me this gigantic burden of having to de-contaminate American gun ownership by forcing ourselves into the able-bodied straight white Christian 'safe spaces' that we're clearly not welcome in. That aren't made for us. That are hostile to us at every turn.
Gun ownership by itself is already difficult. It requires time. Money. Resources. A social support network.
I'm not going to say that owning a firearm is always and forever a bad idea. I'm thinking that it's somewhat like owning a Ferrari. Know what you're getting into. Be safe. Be smart.
I don't need the burden of having to making American gun owners (and, to be clear, I mean some
owners and clearly not all
or even most
) less shitty people. It's a challenge that's not right. They should simply be better themselves.
Chill, let me ask you simply this:
Did I ever tell him to die in a fire?
I think it's safe to say that particular level of extreme hostility and hatred is something I've never "mirrored".>You make assumptions. You hound people. You insult others.
Prior to him doing so?
No. I did not. The very fact you are citing nothing helps demonstrate this.
I return as I get, certainly. An eye of an eye. Though even there, unlike him, I've not wished for the death of anyone here. I've told not a soul to die in a fire. >You believe that all that dare oppose your perfect wisdom is a horrible devil.
Bullshit. Again, you point towards nothing for this nonsense claim.
I've not said anyone is evil for their beliefs. I've not insisted anyone is the devil. I've called out a shitty person's shitty behavior, but that's not based on their values.
That's based on literally telling me to die in a fucking fire.>You show no empathy.
Unsubstantiated nonsense. I've plenty of empathy, which is why I took issue from the start with, as an example, the attacks on a generalized group of people for things that they had nothing to do with and did not believe. >You psychologically project. You refuse to accept information outside of your ideological narrative. It goes on.
Then point to it and call it out instead of just saying it.
Your refusal to back up your claims doesn't help your case.
I could just as well make baseless accusations of you, and they'd be just as valid with what you had given me. >And, once again, your "anybody who opposes bigotry and hatred is themselves a bigoted hatred" belief is frustrating as all hell. It's simply not true. At all.
Good thing that's not my fucking belief and I've said so multiple times you dishonest rat.
>>7939>"Nobody would infer that a black man is a thug on account of a photo of him safely handling a gun."
Dude, we live in an America where Oprah Fuckin' Winfrey and Barack Fuckin' Obama as well as Wayne Fuckin' Brady and Kanye Fuckin' West get called "thugs" on a clockwork like basis. The "thug" stereotype is a blanket expression of anti-black hatred that's contaminated an unfortunately large section of society. Any evidence that can be marshalled in support of the label gets used.
Obama used to smoke weed? He plays basketball? Evidence to the American far right that he's a "thug".
God forbid that we ever see a photo of Obama at, say, a skeet shooting event. You know?
That a place is only 25% anti-LGBT or whatever subset doesn't somehow magically make that okay. Any more than you'd be happy with me giving you a stick of cheese that's 25% mold and going "eat this". Come on.
And, look, I use 4chan constantly. Sometimes /b/. Sometimes /mu/. I understand that it's almost entirely 'no rules'.
My point is not and has never been "everybody who's a gun owner is a bigot". Not only that, I'd say that with near absolute certainly I'd propose "most gun owners are anti-bigotry". It's the minority that manage to distort and warp overall 'gun culture' and run the atmosphere for everybody else. Like the NRA. I'm well aware that plenty of peeps despise the NRA. Truth. They still pretty much call the shots in a lot of ways.
>>7937>I don't care about your feelings. I care about facts. Reality exists outside of your political narratives.
And I don't care about your feelings. I care about facts. Reality exists outside of your political narratives.>Since you willy-nilly throw labels such as "terrorist" and "thug" around upon anybody whom you dislike,
It's based on specific actions.
You can keep trying to jam words in my mouth, but that just means I'll have to keep pointing out your dishonest strawmanning.
Anyone who attacks innocent people to push their political ideology is a terrorist. It's a very simple definition. >why should we believe you?
Because your reasons for not are based upon a lie.
I don't expect you to believe me, of course. You're incapable of representing me honestly, so why on earth would you give me the benefit of the doubt?
Of course everything i say is going to be assumed to be a dark plot to decieve you. You already interpret everything I say to mean something completely different. Just look above here. >Your words about non-minorities being allowed to have guns ring pretty Goddamn hollow. For real.
To you, yes. You've already made up your own mind about me, regardless of what I have said or done.
In much the same way you can't convince a racist that despite being black you're not going to rob them, I don't expect to be able to convince you that despite voting for Trump I don't support discrimination. >Read the Gospels. Your understanding is false. Again
Are you saying Jesus never whipped people in the temple?
Owning and using a firearm requires no group participation.
Walmart sells them.
I can assure you, Walmart doesn't give a fuck about who they sell to.
And again with you pretending that being anti-bigotry and anti-hatred makes one a bigoted hater. With your narrative that as the Trump supporter you're the real victim in this world and that everybody who's a minority feeling scared should shut the fuck up because they don't feel the real oppression that you and those like you feel. Again.
I know that I can't convince you otherwise, but for the general threads' sake, well, I'm saying things again.
Opposition to somebody's beliefs and actions
in the context of wanting them to stop and be better
is absolutely not
bigotry and hatred.
Opposition to somebody's identity and nature
in the context of wanting them gone
bigotry and hatred.
I would say that being anted 25%, and pro 25%, balances things out.
While I would agree that the 25% is undesirable, it doesn't make the whole.
Much in the same way a bad group on the left, or of a particular religion, or race, don't make the whole.
Not every Democrat is a terrorist, for instance. I would bet plenty of them are anti terrorist. >>7945>I understand that nothing or almost nothing that I or anybody else says gets through that brick wall that you've built outside of your head, but I'd like to once again seriously beseech you to try and poke out a brick. Look at things outside of your narrative. Try to read your posts as an objective observer would. Seriously.
I do so each day. The trouble is, people who evidently seem to regard me as a terrible person from the outset resort to personal attacks and calling for my death when I point out something isn't always the case, or that I do not fit the mold they've created as a general idea for anyone of the right.
The majority of the population would not make that inference, yes. The hardcore right-wing side would. And that's... well, that's my point.
Are you conceding the argument?
The thing that's being debated, I think, is that we live in an America where a black man with a gun is automatically assumed by some gigantic group, maybe as high as 1 in 3, of being evil just due to his firearm possession. And that's terrible. No doubt. It's also... well, I guess, it is what it is.
Can you understand what you're asking of us minorities, really?
As has been pointed out over and over again, us carrying weapons puts a target on our backs. We're already despised by a great number. Being armed only amplifies that hatred. And it means that the bigots now have some practical cause to say why they fear us.
>>7930>Nobody would infer that a black man is a thug on account of a photo of him safely handling a gun
Are you sure about that? Maybe *you* wouldn't, but I'm sure plenty of others have and would.>>7932>If you are referring to a prior thread, that argument was entirely disproven.>There was both video evidence of the particular case in the shooting, as well as the simple fact of reality in that it wasn't simply posing with a firearm.
I'm not referring to any specific previous thing, and I'm not sure what thread you're talking about.
>>7950>And again with you pretending that being anti-bigotry and anti-hatred makes one a bigoted hater.
Never did that, and since I know I've already told you that, and you appear to be literate, I'm forced to assume you're aware of this and are just intentionally lying now.
Lying about others is a bad thing to do, you know. >With your narrative that as the Trump supporter you're the real victim in this world and that everybody who's a minority feeling scared should shut the fuck up because they don't feel the real oppression that you and those like you feel. Again.
Again, I never said anything like this
This is a plain fabrication on your part.
You're spending more time arguing with a ghost than you are with me. >Opposition to somebody's beliefs and actions in the context of wanting them to stop and be better is absolutely not bigotry and hatred.
I agree, and never said anything to the contrary >Opposition to somebody's identity and nature in the context of wanting them gone is totally bigotry and hatred.
I agree, and again, never said anything to the contrary.
If you tried to actually listen to what I say, instead of coming up with your own assumptions, I think you and I would largely agree.
There's a pretty gigantic difference between "In my ideological fantasizes, this group of X people are inherently Y because I believe that they've committed Z atrocities for bad reasons" and "I can't stand this place because something like half the people want me out, and it's just not worth it to say for my own mental health after getting these constant attacks".
I'm sure that if a member of r/TheDonald or whatever the hell it's called were here, well, he might claim that as a straight white Christian he must be armed in order to defend against the international Zionist conspiracy group aimed at turning his kids gay through molestation. That's his view. That's a reason why he's pro-Trump.
But his fear is nothing. A ghost. A specter. It's all based on lies.
It's quite a different situation talking to somebody on some random website who posts something like "I hate getting dirty looks for having a black girlfriend, and this nonsense has to end". That frustration is concrete. Real. Serious. Consequential.
In the same way that somewhere out there exists someone who would interpret Trump holding a pen as a death threat, or the OK sign as a white supremacists hand gesture, yes, I am sure there are idiots who would see any black man with a gun as a thug.
I'm not inclined to worry about such a small portion of very very stupid people
I suppose that such opposition can become
bigotry and hatred, yes, but it's not inherently
bigotry and hatred.>>7954^This.^>>7955
If you want to say that you agree now
, then that's fine, I guess, but that doesn't magically erase your previous posts. You can call me a liar all you want. You are what you are, yourself.
And, to be brutally honest, I feel that concepts such as "benefit of the doubt" and "trustworthiness being assumed up front" are great... but they're not set in stone and impossible to be torn apart. By this point, well, you don't seem to deserve either. Just how it is.
>>7952>I think, is that we live in an America where a black man with a gun is automatically assumed by some gigantic group, maybe as high as 1 in 3, of being evil just due to his firearm possession.
I can say with almost certainty that it's not as high as 1/3 of the population. I'd be surprised if even 5% of Republican-leaning gun-owners believe that sort of non-sense. (To clarify: I'm not saying that those people don't have negative views of black people in general. I'm just saying that the negative views aren't a result of
(responsible) firearm ownership.)
>>7956>But his fear is nothing. A ghost. A specter. It's all based on lies.
I agree. Again, why do you assume I wouldn't?>It's quite a different situation talking to somebody on some random website who posts something like "I hate getting dirty looks for having a black girlfriend, and this nonsense has to end". That frustration is concrete. Real. Serious. Consequential.
OK? What's the relevance here?
That's not that same thing at all.
Bigotry and hatred against minorities in America is an actual social problem with decades upon decades of bloody history that deserves to be treated with utmost seriousness the same way that we react to people being diagnosed with cancer and victims of car accidents (or whatever else).
That's not the same thing at all as paranoid delusions that Trump supporters have about the regular population that aren't with them on Trump.
And it's not a small portion
We're talking about millions upon millions of individuals. People with power. People who control American society. People like Trump himself, of course, who has spent his entire career proliferating bigotry and hatred.
Please try to see the log in the far right eye instead of focusing on specks in the eye of everybody who's not far right (liberals, libertarians, moderates, etc).
>>7958>If you want to say that you agree now
It's not now. I always have, contrary to your lies about me.
If you could stop the assumptions, you would have seen that. >but that doesn't magically erase your previous posts
Point to it.
Reference your evidence you're claiming.
If you're refusing to do so after I've repeatedly asked for it, you're a coward. >You can call me a liar all you want. You are what you are, yourself.
I call you that because you say things about me that are objectively a lie.
I call you that because you are incapable of backing up your claims.
If I am as you say, prove it.
I am not as you say, and you cannot. This is because you are objectively a liar.>And, to be brutally honest, I feel that concepts such as "benefit of the doubt" and "trustworthiness being assumed up front" are great... but they're not set in stone and impossible to be torn apart. By this point, well, you don't seem to deserve either. Just how it is.
Oh, okay in that case I don't care what a pedophile thinks.
I don't feel like I need o give the benefit of the doubt to a pedophile on whether or not they're a pedophile, so I'll just call you a pedophile.
Is that fair to you?
Once again, for the umpteenth time, minorities in American have actual reason to be afraid day to day
and particular reason to be afraid if they choose to be gun owners and therefore but a target on their backs to bigots more so than before
. This exists in addition to the fact that bigots are currently armed to the teeth
and that bigots have succeeded in turning 'gun culture' into something unwelcome for minorities in many circumstances
. That's how it is.
I genuinely think that you're not a bigot. Yourself. You're not.
However, you seem to be pathologically incapable of understanding that bigotry exists out there in the real world among others, and you appear hellbent to say the least on preventing opposition to bigotry from taking place. That's... unfortunate. And that's beyond your denialism about the bigotry and hatred expressed by Trump and his ilk.
You're a Donald Trump supporter, so you're allowed to call me a "coward", "liar", "pedophile", and the like without any context let alone evidence because that's that. You don't have to be fair. You don't have to even not be a sociopath. Being a supporter of the now ex-President gives you an absolute excuse out of basic morality such that you cannot get called for it.
I understand. That's how it's been for the last four years. That's the truth.
A Trumpist can issue a death threat online or run a car off a road, and nothing will happen. It's okay. They're a Trumpist. They don't follow regular people's rules.
Obviously, a liberal Democrat, say, can't do that sort of thing. They get banned from internet forums. Kicked out of social groups. Etc.
I do hope, though, that things change in the near future.
>>7961>Bigotry and hatred against minorities in America is an actual social problem with decades upon decades of bloody history that deserves to be treated with utmost seriousness the same way that we react to people being diagnosed with cancer and victims of car accidents (or whatever else).
Okay, but that's not the same thing as your prior claim.
Overarching bigotry may well be an issue. Acting as though that all means it's common to see a black man with a CCW as a thug is another matter.
If I told you "people will eat literal dog shit" and you said "what? No they won't", it would be incredibly stupid of me to say "humans eat all kinds of food every day as necessary for survival, and often eat things that will hurt our body"
That may well be true, but it's not evidence for the claim. >That's not the same thing at all as paranoid delusions that Trump supporters have about the regular population that aren't with them on Trump.
Considering all the assaults there's been over MAGA hats, and the recent cold blooded murder in ambush of a Trump supporter, I wouldn't call it delusions.
Perhaps, but considering I've repeatedly told him it's not true and challenged him to prove it, and he's so far refused to do so, I'm doubtful.
Either he's sincerely mentally ill, to the point of having full on fantasies during this thread he thinks have happened when they have not, or he's a liar.
I consider expectations of dishonesty better than regarding someone as mentally incapable.
File: 1605117015164.png (166.17 KB, 700x500, 7:5, 1453259232376.png) ImgOps Google
>>7965>particular reason to be afraid if they choose to be gun owners and therefore [p]ut a target on their backs to bigots more so than before.
Is this specifically in regards to the police? If so, I guess I can't deny it. Sadly, lawfully carrying a gun probably does put black people in greater danger from the police. And I would definitely support police reforms to address this issue.
For fuck's sake, I know Goddamn well that most gun owners are not bigots and clearly most gun owners don't see a fellow individual with a firearm don't automatically think something bad is up.
I know that. I've never said that.
What I'm saying, and what's the objective truth outside of the right-wing bubble that you appear to be inside of, is that being a minority and then choosing to become a gun owner puts a target on your back for even worse harassment from bigots as well as gives the bigots an excuse for their hatred.
This exists in the context that bigots are currently armed to the teeth
and they consider U.S. 'gun culture' to be theirs.
For me, I would get upgraded from "some random k*ke-loving, n*gger-loving tr*nny f*ggot" to "oh, sweet Jesus, this b*tch has a gun". Obviously, most gun owners would think something like "oh, hey, a new one's here at the range this Monday". They'd smile. Wave. Be decent. They're fine. I'm talking about the 1/3 or so that's ruining it all for everybody else.
The police, yes. And unarmed bigots. And armed bigots. I'm really thinking about all of them.
I'd genuinely and sincerely like to live in a world in which owning a firearm was treated logically. People exercised basic gun safety. They hung out and went shooting in a way that was fun. They felt safer knowing that criminals would have a harder time taking advantage of them. Etc.
And that would, of course, be a world in which all of the colors of the rainbow and so on carry. Which would be fine. We'd be armed and polite.
That world isn't present day America. Just... yeah. Not sure what else to say.
>>7968>You don't have to be fair. You don't have to even not be a sociopath. Being a supporter of the now ex-President gives you an absolute excuse out of basic morality such that you cannot get called for it.
That's a sad way to view it, if that's really how you think.
It's not how things ought to be. >A Trumpist can issue a death threat online or run a car off a road, and nothing will happen. It's okay. They're a Trumpist. They don't follow regular people's rules.
And this hasn't occurred on the left, with the understanding that if they're a Trump supporter, it's okay, they're not really human?
People cheered when antifa murdered a man in a cold blooded ambush, man. >Obviously, a liberal Democrat, say, can't do that sort of thing. They get banned from internet forums. Kicked out of social groups. Etc.
Uh, definitely not? Do you even live in the real world? Have you not seen the corporate internet reality?
Do you honestly think Twitter and YouTube are run by far right ideologues?
>>7973>For fuck's sake, I know Goddamn well that most gun owners are not bigots and clearly most gun owners don't see a fellow individual with a firearm don't automatically think something bad is up. I know that. I've never said that.
Oh, okay then. In that case they ought to have no trouble getting in to gun culture.
Which... I though was the whole argument. But whatever. >being a minority and then choosing to become a gun owner puts a target on your back for even worse harassment from bigots as well as gives the bigots an excuse for their hatred.
I'm skeptical of that. I would want to see the data.
A gun helps you protect yourself, after all.
It seems like something that would help make attacks reserved for the verbal, and no longer physical.
Though, maybe that's what you mean. >oh, sweet Jesus, this b*tch has a gun".
Sounds better to me.
Rights rarely are respected when they are not backed up by a fear of the consequences. >Obviously, most gun owners would think something like "oh, hey, a new one's here at the range this Monday". They'd smile. Wave. Be decent. They're fine. I'm talking about the 1/3 or so that's ruining it all for everybody else.
Sounds like you'd have that community support you were talking about
You can deny the Holocaust on Facebook. At least, well, until very, very recently. But that rule will be barely enforced.
What happens if you issue a death threat to the President on Facebook? A snap back. Immediately. As, I should say, it should be (of course).
And, seriously, take a look at the bigger picture, man.
Is there a Jewish version of the Klan? Is there a transgender version of the American Nazi Party? Is there a disabled peoples' version of 4chan's worst trolling cesspools within the broader website (not that, of course, the whole website is one thing, since it clearly isn't)?
Sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander in America. Someone like, say, David Duke is a wealthy man. He sleeps happily at night. He looks in the mirror and sees an internationally known celebrity. Of course, yes, he's despised for being a terrible moron. Does that matter to him, though?
Compare that to some random, scared Jewish kid who doesn't understand why he can't go online with a profile picture of him wearing a yarmulke with a torrent of hatred. He's living a different life. And that's... yeah.
I think if that's the case, it's escalated beyond that.
He's expressly refused to give me the benefit of the doubt, and had accused me of lying when I said I do not disagree on the whole bigotry thing
>>7977>"In that case, they ought to have no trouble getting in to gun culture."No.
Please read and understand my posts before you bother to respond.
For the umpteenth time, minorities face first, the fact that bigots are currently armed to the teeth
, second, that bigots consider 'gun culture' to be theirs
, and third, that minorities who are armed are explicitly putting themselves out there for even worse treatment than other minorities.>"I'm skeptical of that."
Of course you are. You live in a magical fantasy world without any bigotry or hatred existing except those directed at Trump supporters. Yet you could always enter the real world.>"Sounds better to me."
It's really not. And it's pretty fucking unfair to say the least for you and your ilk to demand that we minorities, just for being born different, have to undergo this long, painful process of converting bigoted spaces into non-bigoted spaces. They should just be better
without the sacrifice.>"Sounds like you'd have that community support you were talking about."
For fuck's sake, what kind of a social life do you have? Honestly? Really?
Do you not understand how incredibly fucking unreasonable
it is for you to just wave your arms and proclaim that us minorities should simply just 'deal with it', ignoring the 1/2 or 1/3 or whatever completely? How are you like this? I'm genuinely baffled.
How would you feel if you walked into, say, a church only to find that half of the pews have been filled with literal seething demons with horns and tails as well as everything else? And if you tried to hold a regular service, accepting the blood and body of Christ, with them screaming at you, spitting at you, and very much just causing a ruckus the whole time? How would you feel if I just said 'deal with it'?
This is a smaller point, but:>People cheered when antifa murdered a man in a cold blooded ambush, man.
Needs to be:>"Some people cheered when a neo-fascist extremist got killed while in the process of attacking a group, man."
Now, my personal belief is that violence shouldn't be met with violence. So, I'd object to even a genuine, no bullshit Nazi wearing a uniform and marching out with a flag getting punched, let alone killed. Even in those extreme circumstances, I'd say that the other cheek should be turned. Still, though, I'd understand the context.
>>7978>You can deny the Holocaust on Facebook. At least, well, until very, very recently. But that rule will be barely enforced.
Do you honestly think Zuckerberg is a far right neonazi?>What happens if you issue a death threat to the President on Facebook? A snap back. Immediately. As, I should say, it should be (of course).
Holy shit dude, a death threat is not equivalent to holocaust denial.
Saying you don't think something happened, and saying you are literally going to kill someone are far from equal. >Is there a Jewish version of the Klan? Is there a transgender version of the American Nazi Party? Is there a disabled peoples' version of 4chan's worst trolling cesspools within the broader website (not that, of course, the whole website is one thing, since it clearly isn't)?
Do you think that if there isn't, the internet as a whole is far right?
Raven may be right. It may well have been silly on my part to think you were lying.
You might actually be that delusional. >Compare that to some random, scared Jewish kid who doesn't understand why he can't go online with a profile picture of him wearing a yarmulke with a torrent of hatred. He's living a different life. And that's... yeah.
Yeah, because you're comparing one extreme to the other end.
I guess there's no racial inequality, because Kanye West is loaded, while Jerome McLegless has been homeless since the Vietnam War.
He wasn't attacking anyone, man. The guy literally was hiding until he showed up, walked out, and shot him dead.
Its seriously fucked up that you're okay with that kind of thing
Thank heavens you're not in charge, or we may well have need of the 2nd.
Yes, as I noted in >>7972
, I agree with your sentiment, I agree that something needs to be done to address it.
Yeah, murdered by that evil white supremacists Hispanic cop..
My opinion, though, if law refuses to provide justice, it's just for others to seek it out.
I would call it civic duty.
Maybe cops wouldn't be so jumpy if they knew shooting somebody unjustly may result in the local community gunning him down when they get the chance.
But I don't know much of this case to say
I mean, really, I still can hardly wrap my head around me posting "I'm against all violence to the point that I wouldn't even defend myself against a uniformed Nazi waving a banner coming at me" and then your response is "fuck you for supporting violence against innocents".
Not to mention your insistence on more denialism, which is honestly kind of pathetic when it's about something to which the details can be easily looked up. But... whatever. To be honest, I'm feeling kind of bad that I even assumed some basic decency from you and gave you the benefit of the doubt at first. Hah.
And it's also so rich that you're talking about '2nd amendment solutions' or whatever when I'm the near pacifist who wants a bigotry-free small government under classical liberalism and you're the violence-loving secessionist who wants to tear the nation into bloody pieces because his guy lost at the polls.
Dude , you literally made up something that evidence literally disproves objectively as a matter of fact, because the guy was right wing.
Evidence proves he attacked nobody.
You ignore this because he's right wing.
That's seriously fucked up.
I guess this isn't likely to be very productive further, though, if you're that level of mentally damaged.
I sincerely hope you get the help you clearly need
You are aware that other people can read these posts, right?
And so for you to point an accusing finger at the near pacifist who won't even defend themselves at a charging Nazi and somehow you go "fuck you, you mentally ill loser" or whatever... like... can you even begin to listen to yourself?
>>7990>Not to mention your insistence on more denialism, which is honestly kind of pathetic when it's about something to which the details can be easily looked up.
Which is why its fucking disgusting the way that you will completely fabricate an entirely new scenario not backed up by evidence!
That you do not see anything wrong with that disgusts me. >And it's also so rich that you're talking about '2nd amendment solutions
That doesn't mean cold blooded fucking murder, man.
Not to mention that, well, I should probably expect that as a Trump supporter you think that people with mental illness are inferior or whatever, with you throwing mental illness around as a casual insult for those who dare to disagree with you.
It's still somewhat of a surprise.
You've spent this entire thread wagging your finger at me and others by claiming that we're actually bigots and haters.
You are aware that mental illness is often a condition that somebody is born with and how horrible it is for a random person to use that as an empty insult, right?
>>7993>And so for you to point an accusing finger at the near pacifist who won't even defend themselves at a charging Nazi and somehow you go "fuck you, you mentally ill loser" or whatever... like... can you even begin to listen to yourself?
Bro, you're literally claiming that something for which there is plenty of evidence to demonstrably prove didn't happen, did.
The only reason for it i see is that he's right wing.
You may well be a pacifist, but that doesn't mean what you claimed occurred is supported by reality.
If you're incapable of perceiving that reality, yeah, you have major problems.
Same goes for you. Insulting another poster's mental faculties is not a sensible debate tactic, and is against site rules
Consider these both warnings
Are you referring to what sage posted >>7877
? Did you report that post?
Given that your reaction to a far right extremist being killed in self-defense is... like... honestly, I don't even know how to begin to characterize your reaction.
I... well... I can't say that you've come right out and said that you want other people to die yet
, but we're at that line and you appear to be crossing it right this second.
It's more while you're here as an important item that lead to this.
Because it's always an irritation when no history or backlog is so much at considered let alone investigated when you guys finally show up.
Might as well point out a flagrant violation while you're here.
He wasn't killed in self defense.
Again if you think that, you've not looked in to the matter.
You just said "oh, he's right wing. He must have deserved it"
First of all, you're the one claiming that I'm an evil, mentally ill creature that you would like the opportunity to have killed if I ever got to be in power. That's the context. That matters.
Second of all, like... okay... seriously...Anyone with eyes who reads what I've posted can clearly see that I oppose violence and that even in the specific case of self-defense against a far right extremist I stated that I wouldn't support that.
That's what I've said over and over again
And you, for God knows what reason, have chosen to interpret all that as me calling for violence. Which... yeah. I can't believe it.
To be honest, given what you've posted all of this time, I genuinely think that your statement that you oppose political violence is a blatant lie and that you'd relish the opportunity to kill those that you see as your enemies. You've certainly walked all the way up to that line. Why not cross it now?
>>8006>First of all, you're the one claiming that I'm an evil, mentally ill creature that you would like the opportunity to have killed if I ever got to be in power.
I was thinking more gulags. But I never called you evil, nonetheless, as I recall.
To be clear here, this is the event I was talking about.
It's pretty well documented at this point, and not at all as you described it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl
I'm not quite sure about the precise definition, to be honest. Am not a political scientist. I suppose that good people can disagree on that.>>8008
Yes, I've read the article. It's not how you've described the incident. At all.
And this is also getting besides the point... all indications are that you want violence, particularly in the context of killing me, and I don't (obviously, not in the context of my own death, but also not in the context of yours or anybody else's). That's... concerning.
To be honest, like... do you even want to continue this conversation?
I'm genuinely wondering if you insulting me and fantasizing about my death actually gives you joy or not.(User was briefly banned for this post (24h))
I have not fantasized of your death.
This appears to be another one of your ghost creations.
No. It sucks. It's damn tragic, and conversations like this really sap my hope for tomorrow. I'm afraid of the world people like you will create.
"Danielson was shot and killed at about 8:45 pm on August 29, near the intersection of Southwest 3rd Avenue and Alder Street in Portland. Reinoehl was identified as the shooter on social media within hours. A police affidavit requesting a warrant for Reinoehl's arrest, released after his death, included surveillance camera evidence showing that Reinoehl had spotted Danielson and Pappas and had hidden in a parking garage to let them pass, "reaching toward the pocket or pouch on his waistband." When Danielson and Pappas crossed the road, Reinoehl, joined by an associate, followed them, with the shooting occurring moments later. Immediately prior to the shooting, someone was heard to shout "We've got a couple right here", followed first by a warning that Danielson was preparing to use a can of mace and then two gunshots. The actual shooting was not recorded by the surveillance camera, but it was captured on videos recorded by bystanders that circulated online."
>>7922>I think it's difficult
Yeah, I can see that it's difficult. Getting rights for black people has always been difficult. It's like 200+ years of difficulty over here.>>7931
Yeah, unfortunately we can't really police (pun intended) who shows up to a protest, and people of all walks will gladly take advantage of the chaos to do whatever thye feel like. In a sense I'm actually opposed to protesting, I just feel like it hurts a movement more than it helps. That's a whole different topic, though.>>7937>You can't just go to the 1/3 to 1/10 of Americans that are bigots and say "Fuck off!" and expect that that's the end of that
Certainly not, no. Telling them that we disagree is merely the first step. It's after that when we have to try to wrestle power away from them.
Eh, I think you can at least police your own to some extent, even with the most simple of actions just condemning the violence, and of course physically stopping, documenting, reporting, all go a ways to help.
As is, it seems like nothing is being done.
I don't disagree with you in regards to the effect of protests. I don't think they typically build much support. Though they might still work well at lest for getting publicity from media types.
The people you're going to interact with, though, aren't likely to be swayed and are more likely I think to become bitter to your cause