Trump defenders have a full time job
(ibb.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (59)
sorted by:
It's not so much Trump. He's just a useful and willing tool.
The "commie version of the people" is literally the working class. Read the Communist Manifesto.
I 100% agree with this goal. But what does building a wall, etc, have to do with that? What Trump actually does is divide the working class (and ok, the small businessman). His policies threw crumbs to us but totally enriched the corporate elites. The crumbs were just the bait for us to swallow the whole package.
And on the flip side, throw up some red, white, blue background, with stars and stripes and the Trump crowd is fine with it. Big Pharma makes the vaccine, but also makes ivermectin (for example).
You are stereotyping an entire religion. Islam has ruled areas for long periods of time and was mostly tolerant. That hasn't been the case lately, but I would argue that colonialism created the merger of authoritarian government with Islam in order to control those populations to enable the continued extraction of resources. For example, the Saudis are our friends but are just as brutal as any other Islamic state in the region.
I also don't think the left "embraces" Islam. I'd say they believe in freedom of religion. Big difference.
Your fear of the Muslim Brotherhood is much like my fear of Christian Identity in this country. We aren't much in danger from the Muslim Brotherhood. Christian Identity is bigger threat here.
I don't understand completely what's happening. Maybe this is just something that's been suppressed for a long time, but it isn't just like parents or liberals forcing kids to change sex. My own former nephew now niece identifies as female. I don't know why. It certainly wasn't because of her parents. My brother is a farmer and is befuddled and it's been hard for him to accept. I used to play Magic, Minecraft, D & D, build lego robots with my now niece who never seemed particularly feminine. So I don't understand completely either. But it came from her. That's all I know.
Nobody is going into Christian homes and changing children's sex or gender.
Tell me how liberals trample all over the first and second amendments? (Remember, those are amendments to the original Constitution, so they were changes made to the Constitution, which can be done, the Constitution allows for that).
So do Christians. 200 years of slavery here in the United States, by and large, condoned and even justified by Christians.
Islam has banned slavery, but, yes, it is still practiced even when officially abolished. I'm not a fan of Islam. I am merely saying that liberals haven't "embraced" Islam. In the US, we practice freedom of religion. That includes all religions, including Islam. Those religions though still have to follow our laws. So what we need to maintain and fight for is democracy. And I would be willing to bet that the vast, vast majority of Muslims in the US want democracy and don't support slavery.
Again, you say "they." It certainly isn't Muslims in the US killing Christians. And remember, Muslims are also persecuted in some parts of the world. Let me be clear: I oppose Muslims persecuting Christians, Buddhists persecuting Muslims, Christians persecuting Buddhists or whatever. I also 100% oppose any religious state. Religion and government should be entirely separate. You cannot have a democracy if there is a state religion or a religion based on a state. In those cases where Christians are persecuted, generally speaking, there is an Islamic state. Any authoritarian state scapegoats and murders minority populations. Germans killed Jews, Guatemala killed indigenous people, Vietnamese Christians killed Buddhists, Chinese communists kill Muslims, et etc etc. This is an aspect of authoritarianism. Take state power away from religions and they can't do that. (I know some of those I listed weren't theocracies, per se.)
Most liberals are Christians. 44% of mainline protestants are Democrats. 44% of Catholics are Democrats. 44% of Orthodox Christians are Democrats. 80% of Black Christians are Democrats. You need to use facts, not just whatever you think is true.
Under Islamic law as practiced by Islamic fundamentalists. But I agree there are some horrific Islamic states out there. I wouldn't say liberals "embrace" those states. In fact, it's conservatives who embrace states like Saudi Arabia, not liberals. It was Jared Kushner who cut a deal with Qatar to save his ass on the 666 Park Ave property. It's Trump and family who are literally friends with MBS who had a journalist, an American resident, hacked to pieces. I don't see liberals "embracing" Islam at all, other than to say we practice religious freedom in the United States and people should be persecuted based on their religion.
I don't know what you mean. The first part: no, I don't think that was much of a problem and isn't what has led us to where we're at. What's led us to where we are it is the marriage of conservative Evangelical Christianity with the Republican Party.
I don't know what you mean about the intolerance on the left. Can you be more specific?
Aborting a fetus isn't harming a living being, at least if we follow Roe v Wade guidelines. At that point, the fetus isn't a separate living being. I remember when I was a young Catholic arguing with Protestants about this from the other point of view. I remember them saying it was "just a bunch of cells." But when the GOP starting pushing abortion as a wedge issue, protestants switched their position on it. They did convince me first though.
Everything else I agree with, except the caveat of children who want to transition. I'm still not sure what to think about that.
What I asked for was that you point to where Marx ever mentioned the government controlling all power.
The creation of federal public lands occurred even under the Articles of Confederation and continued on under the Constitution. If anything, there has been a long process of ceding public land to private hands. For history of acquisition of public lands see Table 1-1. In fact, since 1990, a net 31 million acres of public land has been lost. [see page 15]
In other words, federal public lands were created before Marx even lived and was instituted by the Founding Fathers of the USA. Were the founding fathers actually communists?
Where in the Manifesto is this? In Marx's view, the rich themselves would be abolished. This appears to be utter nonsense. I do support progressive taxation, why wouldn't I? It isn't at all a communist position. This is actually just an absurd position to hold. You can't say that Marx wanted to abolish private property and tax the rich more than the poor. It's absolutely a contradiction. This should indicate to you that this source is not well-thought out nor is it reliable.
I don't have a personally strong position on estate taxes. But ideally we live in a country where everybody should have equality of opportunity. If rich scions just live off the fruits gathered by their ancestors, that isn't actually in keeping with that ideal. So by saying you oppose heavy estate taxes, you are essentially saying you don't believe in equality of opportunity and actually support a system of rich and poor. Because as we know, the rich get richer without doing anything at all, they don't have to work at. The poor get poorer or stagnate even if they do work hard. That appears to be the system you support. I don't have that much sympathy for griping about estate taxes, nor do I want to go out and advocate for them. But philosophically, they are entirely in keeping with often proclaimed American ideals. And again, this would be irrelevant in a Marxist system, so this isn't a tenet of Marx.
As is stated here, this isn't a particularly Marxist position. Since Marx believed in public control of all property this also seems to be irrelevant. But I'm not sure there's a place on Earth where the property of rebels isn't seized. As far as emigrants go, does that happen here? I don't think so. I am opposed to the drug war, by the way, and I believe there's a lot of corruption behind the Blue (we support the Blue, right?) seizing property. This has zero to do with Marxism. I have never heard Trump say he wants to end this policy. Has he?
The Government doesn't directly manage credit. Banks, credit unions, etc, are still by and large private entities.
So far this list is 0/5 on what it sets out to prove. And nothing really from the Communist Manifesto at all. I don't believe you've read it. I think you've read about it. That's why instead of pointing me to direct quotes from it, you link to wingnut websites about it. Nothing you say, nothing in this list, suggests you've actually read it.
There are private roads and bridges (which are not free to use). Licensing is a far cry from "centralization in the hands of the state." It's not like Russia where a station can be shut down because of what it says. It isn't like North Korea where broadcasting is actually done by the state. The most direct connection we have is PBS and NPR and actually, I like a lot of that programming, but I don't watch for the news mostly. And it's usually conservatives who try to influence programming by threatening funding.
What businesses does the government run?
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with "escaping" this one. No one has even attempted it or expressed any desire for it. Mostly people want jobs and during the New Deal, welcomed public works jobs run by the government. Nobody opposed that with their gun collections. I will point out though that for the first century of US existence we literally practiced slavery. With the abolition of slavery, we gone pretty dramatically in the opposite direction on this one.
All you have to do is look at red versus blue counties to see that cultural differences have not been erased. 100% false. I do agree that big corporations dominate agriculture and that it's a bad thing. But, note, "big corporations" are capitalist entities. They are a natural consequence of capitalism, especially unregulated capitalism, pretty much the opposite of Marxism.
100% support this. Not at all a Marxist idea and, even it were, not necessarily a bad one.
Are you for child factory labor? Really? I 100% support this. If this is part of the Marxist agenda, score one for Marx. I'm down with this. I am frankly surprised that you favor child factory labor and oppose free public education. (Don't say you don't, you were the one who told me to read this as a warning of the dangers of communism).
Not done at all. I mean, ok, there are apprenticeships run by unions to help young workers get into the occupation. There are vocational school programs (but mostly were substantially cut back in the push to make all kids go to 4 year colleges), but are those bad things? Are they Marxists? They seem to benefit both industry and young workers who want a job out of high school. Are you against that?
I don't see where you're coming from. This entire thing, which I spend quite a bit of time and energy responding to is junk. The items that are actually true, I agree with (abolition of child factory labor, universal free public education). If it isn't junk, please show me how it isn't.
And I repeat: where in the Communist Manifesto does Marx say the government should control everything?
Here is a link to a research article about gender dysphoria. I think this issue is more complex than you think.
[Factors Associated With Desistence and Persistence of Childhood Gender Dysphoria](Factors Associated With Desistence and Persistence of Childhood Gender Dysphoria)
Can you site in Marx where he says "the government owns everything?"
Can you explain Marx's theory of capital accumulation and what do you think about it?
Both sides are corrupt, I agree. So is Trump. Trump is an utter fraud. Look, his "university" got shut down and he had to pay out $25 million to students he defrauded. His "charity" got shut down for misusing funds. He has a history of cheating workers. Why would you think Trump isn't as corrupt as anyone else?
But following Trump doesn't get the country back. What precise step has Trump taken to take power out of the hands of the corporate elite? He gave them a huge tax break, his advisors were full of Goldman Sachs types. Trump is like the Pied Piper and you are all conned by his false promises. He just says whatever he thinks will rile people up by "owning the libs." That's all he does. If people are woken up and herded off the cliff, that's not helping much.
Have you looked into this? I did because it was extremely concerning. It could be that here we have a mother trying to force her son to be a girl. I don't know. Apparently, it's difficult to assess what the child wants. But this is one case that's being litigated and is also part of a complex custody battle. It's not typical. There aren't liberals going into that house making the boy a girl. The mother herself claims the boy wants to be a girl. The father denies that. I don't have special insight into who is right and who is wrong.I can see where the child could be manipulated by either parent while in that parent's custody. Obviously with the father, I'm sure there's massive approval when boy behaviors are selected.
Do you have any sources for this. I don't believe there is a single school in the USA trying to talk kids into transitioning. Not a single one. If there were, that staff would be immediately fired (rightfully so).
Can you give me one example of schools pushing kids into transitioning?
I'm not sure about cartoons. Would you consider having trans characters in a cartoon "pushing kids into transitioning?" I am unaware of cartoons with trans characters and highly doubt that there are mainstream cartoons that encourage transitioning. I could imagine that there are cartoons that show it's ok to transition. I think that is important for kids who really do want to transition, they should be supported and not ostracized, don't you think?
Yeah, I'm concerned about kids making those choices so early in their lives. But then, when are they supposed to make that choice? I don't know. I don't have the answers. I know people who transitioned and are very happy with their choice to do so. So what's the big deal? It's their life, not mine. But, yeah, as far as kids making that decision, I'm not an expert but I think that there really have to be really careful steps to take or guidelines to follow or something to assess if the child really does in their heart identify as the opposite sex. I don't know what that process is. My own nephew/niece hasn't transitioned yet but apparently wants to. I said earlier that they weren't particularly feminine, but I do remember that in Minecraft, they (I should say "she" because she does want she/her pronouns, I guess) always chose a female avatar. I didn't think that much about it, but now thinking back on that, it might have meant something that I missed.
What do you that it is "even in the tablets they are given?" You mean it is part of the classes that do through their tablets? I don't understand. I can assure you that there is nothing that "pushes" students or encourages them to transition. If you can find something, a primary document, showing opposite then I will believe it. But I won't believe it just from someone saying it's there.
What is taught to them? Would it be wrong to teach kids about trans people? Trans people are people, still deserving of respect and love just like anyone else. In most states, pre-k isn't even public, so if it is in pre-k, that's something to do with that particular pre-school. In public school, I do not believe there is anything "pushing" students to transition. I could see students at some level, particularly high school, being taught about trans people. It's part of the world we live in, so it probably should be addressed.
So you don't agree with red flag laws, but are they really trampling on the Constitution? Hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that, in both speech and right to arms, that the right isn't absolute.
I believe that the way the process works is that there is a hearing within 24 hours after a claim is submitted to the Court. A judge then makes a determination as to whether there is an actual threat. The onus is on the petitioners to present facts to support the claim that there is a danger to the individual or the public. Only then are the weapons turned over. So it's pretty clear there is a due process and it isn't as much of an overstep as you see to believe. If it saves lives, isn't it a good idea?
Also, not just anyone can file the petition. It has to be law enforcement, immediate family, or someone living in the household.
Here's an example: Oregon Red Flag Law
Here is a red state Red Flag law: Indiana Red Flag Law
In the case of Indiana, the petition comes from law enforcement only.
So what specifically do you think is wrong with these laws?
This isn't true at all. When "assault weapons" were banned, owners were allowed to keep their pre-ban weapons. The were even called "pre-bans."
Law enforcement could do that, yes, but we trust the Blue, right? Otherwise, the government would have to get an immediate family member or someone living in the house to do it. Also, there is judicial oversight.
Well, you could give me an example, which is what I asked for. If it's out there, then it shouldn't be very hard to demonstrate. It's not out there, that's why you resort to 'you don't know what to tell you' schtick. You just don't have anything to tell.
I'll look at that site. I'm not hopeful that there will be anything but propaganda there.
EDIT: First thing I looked at was this: Russian Ammo Ban
First, I 100% support taking action against Russia and Putin for poisoning Aleksey Navalny. Why wouldn't we all support the democratic opposition to authoritarian and totally corrupt Putin? This isn't stopping anybody from purchasing all manner of ammo.
I'm turned off already. As if being able to by ammo specifically from Russia (shouldn't we support American manufacturers anyway?) is more important that human rights. Putin hasn't only poisoned and imprisoned Navalny, he has killed people on our soil and in Britain using poison. He's murdered journalists in Russia.
Here's a list of people probably killed on Putin's orders.
I'm disturbed by conservatives turning to eastern European dictatorships or authoritarians as role models, like Tucker Carlson going to Hungary and extolling Orban. Hungary is only considered "partially free" by Freedom House. Why would we want to be like Hungary? Yet that's exactly what Tucker said. CPAC is going to hold a conference there. Why? Why are conservatives attracted to these authoritarians?
Link to Freedom House. Interestlingly, for some reason Hungary was upgraded from 69 to 70 in this year's rating. When I checked a few weeks ago it was a 69 (partially free). Very interesting that it somehow bumped up to 70. ( I put in an inquiry.)
So, yeah, I don't have time for this sort of sensationalism. Embargoing Russian ammos isn't "trampling on the Constititution."
Christians were on both sides of this. Christians certainly supported slavery and used the Bible to justify it. Abolitionists, who were considered crazy radicals by the way, also opposed it largely on Christian principles.
I didn't single out the U.S.
But slavery is huge part of American history, which we teach in schools. Part of the history of the US, founded on principles of liberty and freedom, is that from founding until the 1860s, the most brutal, dehumanizing form of chattel slavery was practiced. Should that not be taught in an AMERICAN history class? The issue led directly to a Civil War which caused more wartime American deaths than any other armed conflict in our history. But we should for some reason try to soften the history lesson by saying, well, yes, we did do slavery but the Muslims also enslaved the Slavs for centuries. And so what? Does that somehow make it any better? Why would we teach about slavery in other countries when we are teaching American history?
And absolutely, I firmly support teaching human rights to students. Maybe we should have a human rights curriculum where students are exposed to the fact that slavery is practiced in parts of the world. I totally support that. Do you? I see that as a separate thing from American history , though. (By the way, it's not a defense for Ted Bundy to say, yeah, I killed a bunch of people, but so did Henry Lee Lucas.
They do, maybe you can get involved: Alliance to End Slavery & Trafficking Anti-Slavery International End Slavery Now Connect (list)
I mean, there are literally dozens and dozens of anti-slavery groups out there. I am surprised that you as an active person who is interested in political solutions and adamantly opposed to slavery aren't aware of that. Well, look, there are all kinds of opportunities for you personally to get involved and do something. Or are you just trying to weaponize the issue as a talking point? (My guess is the latter.)
First, who do we march on? The purpose of a march is to influence decision-makers. I didn't see Trump supporters marching on Trump when he talked about his special relationship with Xi. Did you? Did you march on that? Did you criticize his love for the North Korean dictator? He literally said he fell in love with Kim. Nothing from you?
Uyghur Human Rights Project
Another one to join. Also, you could support the cause by putting pressure on companies that produce clothing in China. Here's some info:
China Fast Tracked Ivanka Trump's Trademark Requests
I'm not programmed and I don't shut them down. I look into them and find them absolutely bogus. I detail my reasons for why they are bogus. All you do is gainsay that. You never present facts as counter-proposals. Just more junk links.
What if and WE are correct that YOU guys are bamboozled by rightwing propaganda? The so-called the "state media" are only PBS and NPR (I guess also Voice of America if that's still around). The first two are independent publicly supported corporations, but they are the closest we have to state media.
That argument works both ways. Deal with the facts, not the sources. If I present something as a fact and I'm wrong, call me out on it. That's what I try to do with these articles you say I shut down. I don't shut them down, I debunk them with facts. Fact: federal lands have been around since the beginning of the US and have only declined in total acreage since at least the 1990s (an example of debunking one of the talking points one of your sources claimed was true).
I'm not sure they are mentally ill. Do you know any trans people personally? I do. There's nothing overtly "mentally ill" about them. They are fine functioning people. They appear to be happy with their choice. Why should that matter to you or me? Now I do concede that kids are tricky issue. To what extent is a child able to make this decision? What is the process for determining if this is really something absolute, that it's not a mistake? I don't know those things, but I'm sure there's a process. Some way of making sure that a kid isn't just falling for some fad.
I'm waiting. Examples of schools specifically pushing kids to transition. That's what you said was happening. And, yes, cartoons. It's interesting that you said it was everywhere and yet you need some time to find something.