The Many Faces of US Politics...

[J70]

And that, Whitey, underscores your moral bankruptcy. When people appear in court, they swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, when a man who interviews to be a justice on the the country's highest court lies openly and obviously, you have no problem with that. Any reference to Ford is irrelevant.

The Democrats were willing to assassinate the character of a man who had never set a foot wrong in his entire adult life.  He was a drunken ass in his teenage years, but my God to accuse him of attempted rape with that pile of utter horse $hit was evil personified

And we've seen this playbook before from the Democrats

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/us/politics/years-later-a-prep-school-bullying-case-snares-romney.html

What are you on about?

That Romney story was perfectly legitimate, especially given the GOP's hostility, both policy and dogma-wise, to gays.

That Romney moved on from his idiotic conduct in his youth is documented in the piece.

And spare us your "Democratic playbook" bollocks. All sides in US politics go digging for dirt to put the opponent on the defensive. The GOP and Fox News and the rest of the right wing machine spent more than a year on Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers during the '08 campaign. Or how about the Swiftboat bullshit? Or back to Obama and the whole birther thing, tacitly endorsed all the way up to Speaker of the House. I can go on...

Your bullshit victimhood crusade is nauseating.

[Dolph1]

"Grab 'em by the pussy" would have been too...

They were words said in jest in a private conversation. No actions.
Tell me that you've never said anything off-color in your entire life regarding females.
Ellison physically attacked his girlfriend. There is no comparison.

But democrats didn't discard him.

[Dolph1]

I see RBG missed the opening session of the Supreme Court


Wishing her a very speedy recovery and long and healthy retirement

I've said it before, they should fingerprint/dna test her regularly  to ensure the democrats don't try put in a stunt double.

[J70]

"Grab 'em by the pussy" would have been too...

They were words said in jest in a private conversation. No actions.
Tell me that you've never said anything off-color in your entire life regarding females.
Ellison physically attacked his girlfriend. There is no comparison.

But democrats didn't discard him.

How do you know there were no actions?

Women have made allegations of assault against him.

And now he's king of the American right.

[Dolph1]

"Grab 'em by the pussy" would have been too...

They were words said in jest in a private conversation. No actions.
Tell me that you've never said anything off-color in your entire life regarding females.
Ellison physically attacked his girlfriend. There is no comparison.

But democrats didn't discard him.

How do you know there were no actions?

Women have made allegations of assault against him.

And now he's king of the American right.

I notice you're capable of engaging in whataboutery yourself whenever you're in a tricky spot and don't want to address the initial question about Keith Ellison.

As for Trump - They were gold diggers all looking for a payout. Nothing substantial that they could actually bring to court. If the democrats had anything on him you can be sure it would have surfaced by now. Stormy Daniels was their money shot.

[whitey]

And that, Whitey, underscores your moral bankruptcy. When people appear in court, they swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, when a man who interviews to be a justice on the the country's highest court lies openly and obviously, you have no problem with that. Any reference to Ford is irrelevant.

The Democrats were willing to assassinate the character of a man who had never set a foot wrong in his entire adult life.  He was a drunken ass in his teenage years, but my God to accuse him of attempted rape with that pile of utter horse $hit was evil personified

And we've seen this playbook before from the Democrats

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/us/politics/years-later-a-prep-school-bullying-case-snares-romney.html

What are you on about?

That Romney story was perfectly legitimate, especially given the GOP's hostility, both policy and dogma-wise, to gays.

That Romney moved on from his idiotic conduct in his youth is documented in the piece.

And spare us your "Democratic playbook" bollocks. All sides in US politics go digging for dirt to put the opponent on the defensive. The GOP and Fox News and the rest of the right wing machine spent more than a year on Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers during the '08 campaign. Or how about the Swiftboat bullshit? Or back to Obama and the whole birther thing, tacitly endorsed all the way up to Speaker of the House. I can go on...

Your bullshit victimhood crusade is nauseating.

Don't take my word for it!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/opinion/campaign-stops/crying-wolf-then-confronting-trump.amp.html

[easytiger95]

People need to realise what free speech and the first amendment actually mean - Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc are all private, commercial forums, subject to user agreement. Their owners have every right under the American Constitution to censor what goes on their own, commercial platforms.

Now, if you wanted to guarantee free speech on these platforms, under the Constitution, you would have to nationalise these platforms. Which is a policy I would support, and, coincidentally, it is really hilarious to see right wing, small government, libertarians being forced to use this argument, thus essentially nullifying their world view of "government - bad! Market - good!"

So, as you can see Dolph, Whitey et al, the "speech police" are actually mall cops. Perhaps you should change where you shop.

These are publicly traded companies that should be enforcing their standards uniformly. What's good for the left should be good for the right. Their "enforcement" seems to be very one sided and overly restrictive on points of view that are right leaning.In time these platforms will evolve and maybe even face competition from other sources. Eg I now use Twitter much more than Facebook

Facebook has free speech rights as well you know, or don't you remember Citizens United? Online commercial platforms can enforce any editorial line they like, it's there in their user agreements.

The market has chosen Whitey - stop whinging like a snowflake.

BTW a Trump supporter banging on about left wing bias on Facebook, given what all US intelligence bodies have confirmed went on there during the 2016 campaign, is a bit much.

Eh...you.

Absolutely not

I already knew they were biased

If an spokesperson for a publicly traded company knowingly makes materially  false statements they could be charged with any number of violations

Well said, I would say that Zuckerberg was definitely evasive about what they did to combat the use of their platform by Russian and Trump campaign conspirators to push false and misleading stories promoting Donald Trump in the 2016 election.

Pesky right wing bias, eh?

I'm more interested in Sheryl Sandberg having secret meetings with Hillary and handing  over "research" to her campaign


Believe what you want

And I'm interested in unicorns...doesn't make them real.

Love your signature - believe what you want. I suppose that is how you square rigorously supporting a Trumpian, authoritarian agenda without actually supporting him.

There's a verified email from John Podesta detailing the meeting

Believe what you want

I will believe what I want - the great thing about your stance is that facts and evidence mean nothing. I won't ask you to link to the evidence, or read it to see if what you claimed happen within the meeting actually happened - because you wouldn't ever extend the same duty of care to the truth to anyone else.

So I'll believe that you are a mendacious actor, who won't even fess up to his own political prejudices, whilst displaying all their worst aspects, smug in your rhetorical position but absolutely ignorant of the completely corrosive effect that rhetoric, that you and other trolls employ constantly, has on our societies.

And you can believe whatever you want, because, as we both know, it doesn't really matter either way. It's just the internet, right?

[seafoid]

People need to realise what free speech and the first amendment actually mean - Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc are all private, commercial forums, subject to user agreement. Their owners have every right under the American Constitution to censor what goes on their own, commercial platforms.

Now, if you wanted to guarantee free speech on these platforms, under the Constitution, you would have to nationalise these platforms. Which is a policy I would support, and, coincidentally, it is really hilarious to see right wing, small government, libertarians being forced to use this argument, thus essentially nullifying their world view of "government - bad! Market - good!"

So, as you can see Dolph, Whitey et al, the "speech police" are actually mall cops. Perhaps you should change where you shop.

These are publicly traded companies that should be enforcing their standards uniformly. What's good for the left should be good for the right. Their "enforcement" seems to be very one sided and overly restrictive on points of view that are right leaning.In time these platforms will evolve and maybe even face competition from other sources. Eg I now use Twitter much more than Facebook

Facebook has free speech rights as well you know, or don't you remember Citizens United? Online commercial platforms can enforce any editorial line they like, it's there in their user agreements.

The market has chosen Whitey - stop whinging like a snowflake.

BTW a Trump supporter banging on about left wing bias on Facebook, given what all US intelligence bodies have confirmed went on there during the 2016 campaign, is a bit much.

Eh...you.

Absolutely not

I already knew they were biased

If an spokesperson for a publicly traded company knowingly makes materially  false statements they could be charged with any number of violations

Well said, I would say that Zuckerberg was definitely evasive about what they did to combat the use of their platform by Russian and Trump campaign conspirators to push false and misleading stories promoting Donald Trump in the 2016 election.

Pesky right wing bias, eh?

I'm more interested in Sheryl Sandberg having secret meetings with Hillary and handing  over "research" to her campaign


Believe what you want

And I'm interested in unicorns...doesn't make them real.

Love your signature - believe what you want. I suppose that is how you square rigorously supporting a Trumpian, authoritarian agenda without actually supporting him.

There's a verified email from John Podesta detailing the meeting

Believe what you want

I will believe what I want - the great thing about your stance is that facts and evidence mean nothing. I won't ask you to link to the evidence, or read it to see if what you claimed happen within the meeting actually happened - because you wouldn't ever extend the same duty of care to the truth to anyone else.

So I'll believe that you are a mendacious actor, who won't even fess up to his own political prejudices, whilst displaying all their worst aspects, smug in your rhetorical position but absolutely ignorant of the completely corrosive effect that rhetoric, that you and other trolls employ constantly, has on our societies.

And you can believe whatever you want, because, as we both know, it doesn't really matter either way. It's just the internet, right?

The US is polarised. So is the UK. This means there are 2 sides who believe in different things that cannot be reconciled.
Polarisation is magic vs reality because you cannot stand in polar opposition to reality with a separate reality. Something has to give.
Whitey's "believe what you want" is magic because magic  is whatever you want it to be,  like Brexit.

There is no point in engaging with him because he isn't tuned in to reality.

[sid waddell]

"Polarisation" and "both sides" is the language of legitimisation, though.

There are two sides alright - the side that has a reality-based worldview and the side whose worldview is based on outright denial of reality.

These "two sides" can also be described as "non-fascist" and "fascist", respectively.

Only one "side" is legitimate.

The other "side" needs to be faced down ruthlessly and defeated, because its aim is to destroy democracy, destroy the concepts of knowledge and truth, and to destroy ordinary people and societies.

[seafoid]

"Polarisation" and "both sides" is the language of legitimisation, though.

There are two sides alright - the side that has a reality-based worldview and the side whose worldview is based on outright denial of reality.

These "two sides" can also be described as "non-fascist" and "fascist", respectively.

Only one "side" is legitimate.

The other "side" needs to be faced down ruthlessly and defeated, because its aim is to destroy democracy, destroy the concepts of knowledge and truth, and to destroy ordinary people and societies.

"Polarisation" and "both sides" is the language of legitimisation, though.

There are two sides alright - the side that has a reality-based worldview and the side whose worldview is based on outright denial of reality.

These "two sides" can also be described as "non-fascist" and "fascist", respectively.

Only one "side" is legitimate.

The other "side" needs to be faced down ruthlessly and defeated, because its aim is to destroy democracy, destroy the concepts of knowledge and truth, and to destroy ordinary people and societies.

"Polarisation" and "both sides" is the language of legitimisation, though.

There are two sides alright - the side that has a reality-based worldview and the side whose worldview is based on outright denial of reality.

These "two sides" can also be described as "non-fascist" and "fascist", respectively.

Only one "side" is legitimate.

The other "side" needs to be faced down ruthlessly and defeated, because its aim is to destroy democracy, destroy the concepts of knowledge and truth, and to destroy ordinary people and societies.

"Polarisation" and "both sides" is the language of legitimisation, though.

There are two sides alright - the side that has a reality-based worldview and the side whose worldview is based on outright denial of reality.

These "two sides" can also be described as "non-fascist" and "fascist", respectively.
Only one "side" is legitimate.
The other "side" needs to be faced down ruthlessly and defeated, because its aim is to destroy democracy, destroy the concepts of knowledge and truth, and to destroy ordinary people and societies.

Magic is not real
In polarisation one side is bullshit. The GOP went over to the dark side a while ago. 
I would say that the 2 sides can be described as "decent" and "fascist"

There was no polarisation between 1946 and 1979
It's a feature of debt expansion systems. They also feature bank collapses, plutocracy, deflation and big surges in homelessness

[J70]

And that, Whitey, underscores your moral bankruptcy. When people appear in court, they swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, when a man who interviews to be a justice on the the country's highest court lies openly and obviously, you have no problem with that. Any reference to Ford is irrelevant.

The Democrats were willing to assassinate the character of a man who had never set a foot wrong in his entire adult life.  He was a drunken ass in his teenage years, but my God to accuse him of attempted rape with that pile of utter horse $hit was evil personified

And we've seen this playbook before from the Democrats

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/us/politics/years-later-a-prep-school-bullying-case-snares-romney.html

What are you on about?

That Romney story was perfectly legitimate, especially given the GOP's hostility, both policy and dogma-wise, to gays.

That Romney moved on from his idiotic conduct in his youth is documented in the piece.

And spare us your "Democratic playbook" bollocks. All sides in US politics go digging for dirt to put the opponent on the defensive. The GOP and Fox News and the rest of the right wing machine spent more than a year on Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers during the '08 campaign. Or how about the Swiftboat bullshit? Or back to Obama and the whole birther thing, tacitly endorsed all the way up to Speaker of the House. I can go on...

Your bullshit victimhood crusade is nauseating.

Don't take my word for it!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/opinion/campaign-stops/crying-wolf-then-confronting-trump.amp.html

Take your word for what?

That both sides try to dig up dirt and hype it up?

That's exactly what I said.

YOU'RE the one whining about the "Democratic playbook".

That in Trump there was actually candidate so extreme that the earlier hype seems foolish or naive in retrospect doesn't change anything.

[J70]

"Grab 'em by the pussy" would have been too...

They were words said in jest in a private conversation. No actions.
Tell me that you've never said anything off-color in your entire life regarding females.
Ellison physically attacked his girlfriend. There is no comparison.

But democrats didn't discard him.

How do you know there were no actions?

Women have made allegations of assault against him.

And now he's king of the American right.

I notice you're capable of engaging in whataboutery yourself whenever you're in a tricky spot and don't want to address the initial question about Keith Ellison.

As for Trump - They were gold diggers all looking for a payout. Nothing substantial that they could actually bring to court. If the democrats had anything on him you can be sure it would have surfaced by now. Stormy Daniels was their money shot.

I did address Ellison. The woman put out an allegation and did nothing to substantiate it despite the supposed existence of a video. He denied it. It was he said/she said. Given that, what else is there to say? If you can find something I've said here that is inconsistent with that, bring it up by all means.

As for whataboutery, EVERYONE engages in it. Its absolutely appropriate, especially when it comes to politics.

But if your side is so righteous on this matter, then I expect lots of women to be making the move over to the GOP side.

And back to Trump, what exactly would some woman who was felt up by Trump against their will on a plane or in a night club or at Mara Lago and so on and on bring to court twenty or thirty years later?

You're so positive he's an innocent victim of numerous "gold diggers", yet equally positive Ellison is guilty?

[Hardy]

"Polarisation" and "both sides" is the language of legitimisation, though.

There are two sides alright - the side that has a reality-based worldview and the side whose worldview is based on outright denial of reality.

These "two sides" can also be described as "non-fascist" and "fascist", respectively.

Only one "side" is legitimate.

The other "side" needs to be faced down ruthlessly and defeated, because its aim is to destroy democracy, destroy the concepts of knowledge and truth, and to destroy ordinary people and societies.

The thing is, though, that the great majority of foot soldiers and useful idiots, like the lads here, don't really understand that this is what they're supporting. Their votes are being harvested by monsters who feed them tales of monsters.

Democracy is being subverted by Fear, Ignorance, Stupidity and Hatred. Who'd have thought the next holocaust might be caused by FISH?

[J70]

"Polarisation" and "both sides" is the language of legitimisation, though.

There are two sides alright - the side that has a reality-based worldview and the side whose worldview is based on outright denial of reality.

These "two sides" can also be described as "non-fascist" and "fascist", respectively.

Only one "side" is legitimate.

The other "side" needs to be faced down ruthlessly and defeated, because its aim is to destroy democracy, destroy the concepts of knowledge and truth, and to destroy ordinary people and societies.

The thing is, though, that the great majority of foot soldiers and useful idiots, like the lads here, don't really understand that this is what they're supporting. Their votes are being harvested by monsters who feed them tales of monsters.

Democracy is being subverted by Fear, Ignorance, Stupidity and Hatred. Who'd have thought the next holocaust might be caused by FISH?

On the bright though, they're having fun watching the nasty libtards flipping out.

[Dolph1]

Democracy is being subverted by Fear, Ignorance, Stupidity and Hatred.

Exactly. Donald Trump won the election fair and square yet his opponents have tried to subvert since that day.