Question for those Left of center and those in the Center.

I've never met a white person who hates himself for being white. I don't really know where all these crazy people are that sherdog is always talking about.

I have, however, met poor people who hate themselves for being poor. I don't feel anger or contempt for them as I imagine @LogicalInsanity does, but rather genuine, sad pity.
 
I have, however, met poor people who hate themselves for being poor. I don't feel anger or contempt for them as I imagine @LogicalInsanity does, but rather genuine, sad pity.

That's entirely different...

Growing up in poverty, or busting your ass just to barely make ends meet, or seeing your kids go hungry because you can barely provide for them is one thing...
I can feel empathy for someone in that regard...

The new left...especially wpem is completely different
 
That's entirely different...

Growing up in poverty, or busting your ass just to barely make ends meet, or seeing your kids go hungry because you can barely provide for them is one thing...
I can feel empathy for someone in that regard...

The new left...especially wpem is completely different

But what I'm saying is that a lot of them hate themselves for being poor. Economic class-masochists.
 
Yea something about the new left, especially the white progressive self loathing kind that really trigger me...

I have no respect for anyone who hate themselves and have no self respect...

I have never met a white person who is ashamed of being white or who hates themselves for being white. I have met plenty of intelligent and emotionally mature white folks who can discuss issues of race, economy, and history without impulsively becoming defensive or projecting their own identity on the basis of the color of their skins.

The fact that some persons think that it's more likely that millions of white people think like what you say (hate themselves on a basis that they freely know and argue to be in itself arbitrary) than that those persons are just being more objective and not impulsively defensive of their own self interests is just weird.

Either that, or the group of people that you're referring to does have some type of belief system consistent with what you're saying, but is so obscure in numbers that representing them to be any kind of meaningful voting block or reason to oppose (basically the entirety of) sensible policy in other areas is also just weird.

Like....that you could point to a white person like @Fawlty, compare him to a person such as yourself or further on the crazy scale to Soul Crusher, and think that he, Fawlty, is the one who is irrational about his racial identity. Just blows my mind. You are someone who is completely intellectually able to appreciate (and probably do in fact realize) the objective fraudulence and insincerity of right-wing policy in areas like campaign finance, macroeconomics (financial regulation/deficit spending), consumer protections, environmental regulation, and a myriad of other issues where the policies of the two sides aren't even in the same ballpark. Yet you'll align yourself with the right wing on the basis that there is some amount of people on the left who "hate white people," many or most of whom are white themselves. That's really fucking crazy to me.
 
How about the notion of presumption of innocence being unapologetically thrown away by high ranking Democrat Senators?
https://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/chuck-schumer-theres-no-presumption-innocence-brett-kavanaugh/
What confuses you about that? Words mean things. “Presumption of innocence” is specifically related to the burden of proof that is placed on the prosecution at a criminal trial, which the Kavanaugh hearing was not.

In a criminal trial, I have to presume someone is innocent until proven guilty past a reasonable doubt— even if he is serial offender. In everyday life, no such constraint exists. I am free to believe whomever I judge to be more truthful in any situation. More people (48%) thought Blasey Ford was being honest than Kavanaugh (42%).

Please watch the exchange starting at 2:00, and tell me why I should believe a man who answers questions in that manner when under oath.
 
Last edited:
Won't vote for either party in the upcoming midterms. Will have to (unfortunately) vote for the Dems in 2020 just bc I'm strongly against the Supreme Court being dominated by one party.
There might be another vacancy before...

... just kidding Breyer, you look great!
 
Last edited:
There might be another vacancy before...

... just kidding Breyer, you look great!

Anyway, the GOP has controlled the SCOTUS since Clarence Thomas. Garland would have made it 4-4 with a moderate.
 
Anyway, the GOP has controlled the SCOTUS since Clarence Thomas. Garland would have made it 4-4 with a moderate.
People have been arguing that Gorsuch wasn't important to the Democrats because the whole Garland situation didn't represent a shift in power, and that's why the Democrats #metoo'd Kav and not Gorsuch.

I don't see how I can be expected to peacefully share a planet with those people.
 
People have been arguing that Gorsuch wasn't important to the Democrats because the whole Garland situation didn't represent a shift in power, and that's why the Democrats #metoo'd Kav and not Gorsuch.

I don't see how I can be expected to peacefully share a planet with those people.

Yeah, those people are idiots.

I think the Democrats were certainly right to play nice on Gorsuch. There was nothing to be won and someone had to agree to focus on the actual job of governing the country instead of constantly electoral politicking (the only focus of the Republican Congress for the previous 8 years). Also, Gorsuch was a decent nominee: firmly one of the farthest right in recent history, but at least he wasn't a complete incompetent like most of Trump's executive branch appointments.

Kavanaugh got "#meetoo'd" because he's a piece of shit human being and likely a rapist. Furthermore, the Democrats were certainly more receptive to playing hardball on him because he was a significantly more worrisome appointee, regardless of the configuration of the Court, due to his open partisanship in the DC Circuit and his fucking involvement in both the Starr investigation and the legal defense team for the GOP in opposing a Florida recount in 2000.
 
People have been arguing that Gorsuch wasn't important to the Democrats because the whole Garland situation didn't represent a shift in power, and that's why the Democrats #metoo'd Kav and not Gorsuch.

I don't see how I can be expected to peacefully share a planet with those people.

Yeah, I've seen that too. Crazy. It's 5-4 so obviously any of the 5 switching would equally make it 5-4 the other way. Partisanship shouldn't override such basic logic.
 
Yeah, those people are idiots.

I think the Democrats were certainly right to play nice on Gorsuch. There was nothing to be won and someone had to agree to focus on the actual job of governing the country instead of constantly electoral politicking (the only focus of the Republican Congress for the previous 8 years). Also, Gorsuch was a decent nominee: firmly one of the farthest right in recent history, but at least he wasn't a complete incompetent like most of Trump's executive branch appointments.

Kavanaugh got "#meetoo'd" because he's a piece of shit human being and likely a rapist. Furthermore, the Democrats were certainly more receptive to playing hardball on him because he was a significantly more worrisome appointee, regardless of the configuration of the Court, due to his open partisanship in the DC Circuit and his fucking involvement in both the Starr investigation and the legal defense team for the GOP in opposing a Florida recount in 2000.
I wouldn't say that he's probably a rapist. He was clearly a stumbling drunk shitbag though.

I also think the Democrats should have raised hell nonstop over the stolen seat, from day one all the way to Gorsuch and after. They should have stopped the government dead in its tracks. Just imo.

Yeah Kav would/should have been strongly opposed no matter what, because he's fucking garbage.
 
How about the notion of presumption of innocence being unapologetically thrown away by high ranking Democrat Senators?
https://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/chuck-schumer-theres-no-presumption-innocence-brett-kavanaugh/

As opposed to the Republican president running on a campaign slogan of "Lock Her Up"? With his current rallies applying the same slogan to Feinstein now on the basis of what?

And this is the same president that bemoans convictions and pleas earned through due process and meeting the proper standard of evidence when applied to people in his sphere.

But no you're worried about applying a standard of evidence related to criminal proceedings to non-criminal proceedings.
 
Last edited:
Is it really that surprising? How many right wing posters make statements that follow this format:

Liberals want...
a) to flood the country with illegal immigrants
b) to steal your money and give handouts to lazy welfare recipients
c) to force your precious daughter to use the same bathroom as a potential rapist in a dress
d) to steal your guns so you can't defend yourself when they come to chop your dick off

How are you supposed to have good faith discussion with a person like that?
+1
 
With the Democrats going even farther Left, the unfounded rape accusations of Kavanaugh, and doubling down on #MeToo, fighting the patriarchy, LGBTQ+agenda, fighting white privilege. Even actions of Leftist protestors lately. How is this got you thinking about your votes in November? Does all this concern you and will it possibly impact your vote?

Nope. I am going to vote out my congress member that votes with Trump about 90% of the time. She pushed how great the Trump's tax plan is but for me and many in her district we got our taxes raised and the budget deficit it much higher than make any sense when the economy is growing at a high rate. That is not a good combination.

Trump and his administration now have much too much power and still always pretend to be a victim.

The far left are loud and I don't approve much of what they are doing. But they are few. They aren't even much interested in trying to gain institutional power. They seem more interested in expressive theater protest than anything. There are some in New York who seem to want to get power but not around me. They want to fight the man, not be the man.
 
Why aren't they all turned over, though? Why do sanctuary cities even exist? How are they even a thing? If you're an illegal immigrant, you're not supposed to be there, regardless of your criminal history. Dems trying to argue that they aren't for illegal immigration, but are totally supportive of sanctuary cities, just doesn't add up.

Lol, you snipped out the exact bit that answered your question!
 
No, you weren't.

You know that your post history can be searched, right?

It's like Scalia's daughter in law #walkingaway from the Dems because of the Kavanaugh stuff, despite having posted stuff like this in 2015 "A better question might be why do democrats hate babies so much?".
 
Last edited:
The far right has adopted this ultimate victim mentally and sees themselves as victims and at threat of everything. A laughable position considering they hold all the power (House, Senate, Presidency, Courts) and yet cry and cry and cry about how hard done by they are.

<Dany07>

The far right hold absolutely no power.

Just because you call people "far right", that doesn't make them so.
 
As someone generally in the centre, centre/right on this forum who gets grief from those on the far Right and far Left regularly I can say the whole affair i witnessed as an unbiased spectator certainly has led me to believe that US politics is corrupted badly and broken from within.

The far right has adopted this ultimate victim mentally and sees themselves as victims and at threat of everything. A laughable position considering they hold all the power (House, Senate, Presidency, Courts) and yet cry and cry and cry about how hard done by they are. The Party who once screamed about un-elected officials (courts) making law now supports the courts making law as one of their first principles. The far Right found love of Putin and Kim , when they prior decried the very idea of Obama meeting without agreed to concessions would be laughable if it was not so pathetic. What I have seen from the Far Right is that they hold zero principles or ethics and can accept any position that gains and keeps them power and that is scary as they hold nothing sacred by power.

On the far left you see principled stands, that have just been taken over by the nutty wing of the party and the moderates have been brow beaten into keeping quiet lest they be branded on the right, shouted down and shamed. The Far Left have shown they have no hesitation to eat their own even some of the strongest progressive voices if you do not tow the line. Scary as well but you can definitely identified their ethics and principles and therefore make a plan to engage them, even if you do not agree with how they go about things.


Both sides decays are problematic but the decay in the Far Right is far more dangerous IMO. People like TS who show they have zero moral fiber will always worry me the most.

This has to be one of the best posts I have read in a while. They are rare, the ones where I agree with the full content. Oneliners are excluded.

Bravo Sir!

What do you think of Trump being more comfortable with dictators and not leaders like May and Merkel? On the global scene I think it´s alarming to see total dictators such as the one in China and Saudi Arabia having open work-out outside their borders without the rest of the world condoing their actions. Is it soley becuase it´s all economical and the consequense would be to great? I think this is a bad trend where you get more and more suspect leaders that don´t give a damn what the rest of the world has to say.

How big portion of US population would you say is the far left? From my knowledge they are not that many, but how has it come so far where they choke their own camp that aren´t extreme enough?
 
I'm not voting for any Democrats or Republicans. Moderate and left leaning independents only.
 
Back
Top