• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

We are not all cultists or Trumpets

BlueElk said:
Jesse Booth - Another stereotypical Socialist/Communist Democrat ad hominem attack.

China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam are the current Communist Countries. None have a guaranteed right to posses firearms. All are undesirable.

Maybe they should have listened to Marx.

NEVER give a gun to a Socialist/Communist.
Click to expand...

First off, I'm not a Democrat. Second off, judging a country's access to firearms by whether or not they have a constitutional right to bear arms is an unreasonable standard to judge whether or not a country's people may own guns. Only Mexico and Guatemala have those, besides America. So, looking at the actual regulations in place for firearms can be a bit more helpful.

I won't defend North Korea or China, but I also don't have to; The former is a fascist ethnostate masquerading as a socialist one, and the latter is a capitalist hellhole with a supposedly communist party in charge. Of the three actually socialist countries, not a single one forbids citizens from owning firearms, although few will give you as much leeway as America does with your gun right extending all the way up to tanks. Cuba requires one to get a gun liscence, which neither entails interviews nor background checks, only an educational course to ensure proficiency and familiarity with firearm safety. Laos is stricter, as they require a background check that looks into one's criminal history and mental health, but firearms are available for purchase there as well. Vietnam requires both the proficiency test of Cuba and the background check of Laos, which arguably makes it the strictest of those three.
 
Jay59 said:
I did. There are Proud Boy posters on this board.

This is not an organization that raises a red flag to me. They claim to be a response to SJW activity, which seems entirely reasonable. Look at ADL on Antifa. There is not a word about violent tendancies. Yet, when Proud Boys encountered Antifa last spring, Antifa initiated the violence.
Click to expand...

Don't write checks you can't cover.
Name names or retract.

I think your claim is pure partisan poppycock.
 
trixare4kids said:
Don't write checks you can't cover.
Name names or retract.

I think your claim is pure partisan poppycock.
Click to expand...
Here you go.

Oborosen said:
You're pretty much on point. But good luck not having someone try to claim more without any evidence to back it up.

I've been a member of the proud boys of six years now, ever since my brother and I joined.

A number of them can be over chauvinistic. But that's about it.
Click to expand...
 
Jesse Booth said:
First off, I'm not a Democrat. Second off, judging a country's access to firearms by whether or not they have a constitutional right to bear arms is an unreasonable standard to judge whether or not a country's people may own guns. Only Mexico and Guatemala have those, besides America. So, looking at the actual regulations in place for firearms can be a bit more helpful.

I won't defend North Korea or China, but I also don't have to; The former is a fascist ethnostate masquerading as a socialist one, and the latter is a capitalist hellhole with a supposedly communist party in charge. Of the three actually socialist countries, not a single one forbids citizens from owning firearms, although few will give you as much leeway as America does with your gun right extending all the way up to tanks. Cuba requires one to get a gun liscence, which neither entails interviews nor background checks, only an educational course to ensure proficiency and familiarity with firearm safety. Laos is stricter, as they require a background check that looks into one's criminal history and mental health, but firearms are available for purchase there as well. Vietnam requires both the proficiency test of Cuba and the background check of Laos, which arguably makes it the strictest of those three.
Click to expand...



Jesse Booth -

In response, I have discredited your allegation of libel and I try not to read Socialist thoughts, but here you are, claiming not to be a Democrat.

"Another stereotypical Socialist/Communist Democrat ad hominem attack.", was a statement of fact, and Party affiliation is irrelevant to me. Walks like a duck.

Then you introduced Marx Communist Manifesto into the dialogue so you can dispute the existence of Communist countries, including China.

Note: Philosopher Marx spent 30 years in stateless exile writing how nice it would be to have a gun.

NEVER give a gun to a Socialist/Communist Democrat. Last word is yours.
 
trixare4kids said:
Don't write checks you can't cover.
Name names or retract.

I think your claim is pure partisan poppycock.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is one self-proclaimed PB here.

Very nice guy.
 
BlueElk said:
Jesse Booth -

In response, I have discredited your allegation of libel and I try not to read Socialist thoughts, but here you are, claiming not to be a Democrat.

"Another stereotypical Socialist/Communist Democrat ad hominem attack.", was a statement of fact, and Party affiliation is irrelevant to me. Walks like a duck.

Then you introduced Marx Communist Manifesto into the dialogue so you can dispute the existence of Communist countries, including China.

Note: Philosopher Marx spent 30 years in stateless exile writing how nice it would be to have a gun.

NEVER give a gun to a Socialist/Communist Democrat. Last word is yours.
Click to expand...

The cake is a lie. Liberals get sent to the gulag for being class traitors and fascist collaborators. Bush did 9-11. Stalin's only mistake was not killing all of the bureaucrats he sent to the gulag. The narwhal bacons at midnight. Kill all sparrows, because the birds work for the bourgeoisie.

Orange man bad.
 
Jesse Booth said:
The cake is a lie. Liberals get sent to the gulag for being class traitors and fascist collaborators. Bush did 9-11. Stalin's only mistake was not killing all of the bureaucrats he sent to the gulag. The narwhal bacons at midnight. Kill all sparrows, because the birds work for the bourgeoisie.

Orange man bad.
Click to expand...

I SOOOOOO love that you went all Portal on his ass....point for you!
 
gdgyva said:
If you disagree with anything that a progressive/liberal/democrat writes or thinks you are usually labelled a cultist or a Trumpet....
Click to expand...



Calling a Trump supporter a "cultist" is just plain silly.

If that is true, then those supporters of President Obama were also "cultists."

I remember how during the 2008 campaign his supporters (especially the young ladies) would look at him with adoring eyes.

And how the media covered his every move, including coverage of him and his wife entering fancy restaurants.

If there is a Trump cult, then there is an Obama cult as well.
 
JasperL said:
So you're trying out the "I'll ignore the comment then pretend I don't know what Quid Pro Quo means" argument. Hint: It's a bad one.

Would you like to try to answer my question? Here it is again.

"The story is Joe corruptly (and with the cooperation of Obama, the State dept, ambassador, IMF, UK, reformers in Ukraine, etc.....) pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin to protect Hunter Biden, but we never hear from what prosecution. What crime did Hunter allegedly or possibly commit that put him at prosecutorial risk should Shokin continue the investigation he was not-doing when Joe got him fired?"
Click to expand...








JasperL -

To ignore requires concern. The standard "Do not insult intelligence", answer was provided.

Quid Pro Quo Joe withheld a loan guarantee of $1,000,000,000.00 of United States Taxpayer dollars in order to get someone fired. Quid Pro Quo.

Regardless of who, it requires enough investigating to either dispel or consume the other investigation.

At a glance, the fired party happens to be the prosecutor of a company that employs a U.S. citizen riding around on Airforce 2 with his father, Quid Pro Quo Joe Biden, the Vice President of the United States.

"If the prosecutor is not fired, your not getting the money." (US TAX Dollar) Quid Pro Quo
 
Nalu said:
I can't speak to DP, but I sense what you're describing in the larger society. I seem to be younger than most DP members, but most of my political disagreements don't seem to be generational in nature. (Except for civil rights. My disagreements over civil rights are almost always generational.)

What strikes me the most about the past several years is not what the average person thinks but what people I've known my entire life think. More accurately, how the behavior of people I've known my entire life has changed. For example, some of my uncles came to my college graduation almost 15 years ago. It was a liberal university in a city internationally known as liberal. More of my friends than not were liberal. My uncles were conservative. We all spent a week together celebrating, getting drunk, playing cards, sharing meals, hiking, river rafting, talking, and listening. I can't remember a single moment of political discomfort. I'm less liberal now than I was then (in measurable ways), but they're about as conservative as I think they always have been. So we've moved closer together on the political spectrum, but we agree less. That is obviously a counterintuitive proposition.

Of course, this is a personal anecdote, so it's far from objective, but I don't quite recognize my uncles anymore. I find them saying the exact same things as the others sometimes (and as brothers, they have never all agreed on anything ever). I find them less reasoned and less persuasive than they used to be. I find them to be more dismissive of my ideas than they used to be, even when I was less moderate than I am now. To be fair, it could be me. I think I'm pretty realistic in my self perception, but aren't we all? My point in all of this is that I think our differences, on DP and in the real world, have been weaponized against us. I think they've been sharpened, encouraged, and exaggerated. I think we've been carefully and intentionally manipulated to get along less, to see disagreements in more dire terms than the exact same disagreements 15 or 20 years ago. Why I think that's happened is for another post, but that might speak to the degradation of the atmosphere that you're describing.
Click to expand...

hadnt thought of this in those terms

that long term programming from both sides maybe has contributed to this in some way

i will think a lot more on this....thank you for bringing this up
 
Mr Person said:
If I page through the thread, will I see that you called out rhetoric like this:





How about this?



This?







No?

Well, then maybe you really should take a good long look in the mirror. If you're OK with all the hateful and dishonest rhetoric coming from the people who are Trumpists, which deny being, and you never appear in threads criticizing anything Trump has said or done, what is the practical difference between you and a Trumpist?

All the people who consider themselves the site's "reasonable conservatives" spend their days here keeping their heads down and picking side-fights with left-lean posters. Never once do they of their own accord (that is without this kind of prodding) voice an objection to something Trump has said or done. Never once do they attack Trumpist posters the way they might left-lean posters. But they don't want to be considered Trumpists.

A phrase about wanting to have your cake and eat it too comes to mind.
Click to expand...

so you want me to get into a fight that is no business of mine? or get into an argument i have no wish to discuss?

so when leftists/progressives/democrats post idiotic things on this board do you berate them for it? are you attacking their posts? are you getting into those battles, or as you say "keeping your head down"

what you are asking is crap and you know it....i have corrected posters when i was already in the thread and already a part of the equation....you are asking us to spend out time correcting them on things we care less about....

sorry if you dont think that is right....
 
Nalu said:
Sadly, I'm just a few paces behind you on that conclusion. I've been working for years with a group that wants to convene a constitutional convention of the states to save whatever is left of our political system. Several years ago, most people I talked to about it were casually supportive. Everyone knew that our government was broken. They were just unsure how to fix it.

When I talk about a convention now, most people dismiss the idea out of hand. They say it's too late. They say the existing ruling classes and maybe some even worse actors (if there are any) will just hijack the convention and make things even worse than they are today. In short, Americans seem defeated, hopeless, and helpless to me. It's just trench warfare now. Partisans will kill their opponents or die themselves trying. No, I can't imagine any of it will end well but hey. At least every American has 3 guns each for when it comes time to shoot our neighbors and families.
Click to expand...

I don't know why I even worry about it anymore because things are so horribly out of whack with government today, but there was a time when I objected to CC because it might allow the bad guys to hack the process, as you put it. Hell, the bad guys have been in charge for quite some time now.

We have abandoned our founding document under the leadership of our elected representatives, few of whom live up to their oath of office.

Who knows, perhaps a CC might be the answer, but it seems to me that the failure of government is NOT because of the document itself, but rather because of the humans in charge.
 
Nalu said:
The correct answer to that question would be worth its weight in gold. I've been discussing this with a lot of people this week. On the eighth day, when god created the internet, she created internet trolls too. I think we can all agree that at least that much garbage is unavoidable. What elicits the sigh from me are the people who aren't trolls. People who by any other measure except politics would be considered reasonable, thoughtful, and kind. Why are they going banana sauce on the internet and vandalizing campaign signs in their neighbor's yard? I have a lot of ideas about all of it and have posted some of them here and there. Despite my best efforts to understand the problem, I'm disappointed to admit that I don't know the solution.
Click to expand...

First, you have to understand the impetus. Not saying that I do....
 
BlueElk said:
JasperL -

To ignore requires concern. The standard "Do not insult intelligence", answer was provided.

Quid Pro Quo Joe withheld a loan guarantee of $1,000,000,000.00 of United States Taxpayer dollars in order to get someone fired. Quid Pro Quo.
Click to expand...

He didn't withhold a penny because the VP has no authority to withhold anything. He could have advised Obama to order it withheld, but he couldn't do it. And the point is he was pursuing the foreign policy of the WH, State dept, the diplomats in Ukraine, the IMF, UK and our European allies, as well as reformers in Ukraine. This was not a secret agenda by Joe Biden. It was the open agenda of the United States and our allies.

And if he got the entire western world to go along with his agenda to protect Hunter, what was he protecting him from? What crime did Hunter commit that would have put him at risk should some corrupt POS like Shokin investigated Hunter? No one has EVER accused Hunter of a crime - the investigations involve his boss/Burisma for actions dating to before Hunter was hired to the BOD.

Regardless of who, it requires enough investigating to either dispel or consume the other investigation.
Click to expand...

Fine, Trump should have ordered AG Barr or FBI Dir. Wray to get that done. If there's an investigation of the VP needed, we have people in the U.S. who answer to U.S. laws to investigation violations of U.S. laws. Ukraine is corrupt and inept, and we don't outsource investigations we CARE ABOUT of U.S. citizens to corrupt and inept foreign countries. Trump IS the executive branch per Barr's theory - he can order it done above board. Wonder why that didn't happen and he gave the job to Rudy, who also by the way was getting paid $500k by a couple of thugs, representing another thug, Firtash, who is still fighting extradition to the U.S.
 
Jay59 said:
Don't be a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

For pointing out hypocrisy?

Of course, doing so in this thread would be a full time job. :)
 
"Discussing differences as adults" is impossible when one side is fact and the other side is the irrational squealing of millions of dimwits bent on flushing their moral systems down the crapper in support of an orange imbecile who gleefully uses them as toilet paper.

We are babysitters. We will continue to be babysitters until they are dead.
 
Yakshi said:
"Discussing differences as adults" is impossible when one side is fact and the other side is the irrational squealing of millions of dimwits bent on flushing their moral systems down the crapper in support of an orange imbecile who gleefully uses them as toilet paper.

We are babysitters. We will continue to be babysitters until they are dead.
Click to expand...

Ever so ironic.

:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom