MeanwhileMy Potions Are Too Strong For You Traveller, post: 1623649, member: 25415 wrote:No. "Minimizing crimes of the far right" is about your ignoring that they endorse the proliferation of weapons so they can stroke their rebel fantasies some more.
MeanwhileThey villify minorities and use extensive thought-traps to rationalize the maligning of anyone who does not fit the archetype of the fictional nuclear family unit.
All politicians do that if you're not looking.They claim that by reducing taxes on the wealthy, a class defined by their economy rigging and profit skimming, that they are creating economic growth, even while their mainline philosophy is the reduction of spending which decreases economic activity.
Because it was made by a Democrat. Let's not pretend there's some malicious intent beyond that or that the Democrats wouldn't be doing the same thing to a Republican Medicare Bill.They attack, reduce, and dismantle the public health care systems.
MeanwhileThey promote distrust and separatist ideals through media, including racial and nationalist segregation-ism.
This is a worldwide problem not exclusive to the United States or conservative beliefs. It's just observing what people do in desperation which happens everywhere and not just because the political party you like isn't in power.The result of policies is that you have an impoverished, unhappy bottom class with wholesale access to weapons and growth in mental disorders which go untreated both because they cannot afford to and because their social discordance is now the only conflict over which they have control. Conservative American politics foster an environment which causes psychotic breaks. Psychotic breaks result in public violence. Some people run out of choice and decide to mug someone or hold up a store. Some feel trapped and maligned and attack the public as they perceive it. This results in school shootings, workplace shootings, all manner of terror attacks, etc. Conservatism then promotes hostile response, which sustains the hostile environment.
They've been rather public in demanding punishment against Russia for something they have very little proof on.This is not an indictment of people who identify as conservatives. It is a big-picture assessment. Conservatism as it appears now in the US is narrowly focused, it is tunnel-vision, it is blinders-on. You cannot solve big picture problems like hostility by throwing hostility at it. A person cannot draw lines and say they are promoting peacefulness when all they are doing is stating their intent to attack someone who crosses it. Your assessment, while attempting to illustrate your lack of subjective bias, only makes your bias more obvious. American Liberalism is not a perfect philosophy. It's not even the opposite of Conservatism, save for it actually being based in some semblance of sympathy for the human condition. Conservatism says we must prepare for war at any moment. Liberalism says we must engage in peace at every opportunity or peace is already lost. These are not just differing philosophies, one has meta concessions for the very notions of philosophy and humanity. The people you consider 'Liberals' are often centrists with a skew toward conservatism. The Democratic party has become the centrist party.
I gave proof and you ignored it for some reason to call me a whiner. Glad to see we're on the same page otherwise though.I do not expect you to conduct large scale studies. I expect you to actually have evidence. I ask you to realise that your condemnation of the media as a whole is based on a false equivalence and a simplified notion of rights. You are being very very conservative with your application of Constitutionally guaranteed rights. It is not just a matter of press being honest or dishonest, that is ignoring the larger issue, and that is why I say it is about your feelings. I do not disagree that press is now, thanks to the internet, visibly dishonest and requires verification if we are to believe. It is a matter of the state department literally sponsoring the dishonest establishment they prefer, one which appeals to and panders to outright push a party agenda. A board founder is in the White House. This isn't something of which I'm exaggerating the urgency. Is it 'technically' legal? We can't even know until it's actually gone to the highest courts and the decision was upheld. I would argue that there is a huge precedence that it is not, but that is a whole essay for which I have no time.
Fair enough. You're allowed your opinions and deeply held beliefs even if I do not. If it affects you directly you have every right to side with a political party so long as you take everything they do into account. I can't stop you anyway. But I can't do that. Both sides (and I'm not making some lazy generalization when I say this) disgust me with their actions and their inability to negotiate when it comes to the people and how much you have to twist their arms to limit their power even a tiny bit. They can't work together even on the simplest task and the amount of people on both sides that openly speak of genocide and harming people then hide behind party lines is why I keep my distance. If there's a good candidate I vote for them. Simple as that. Everyone is going to have different beliefs and needs and I would rather they all have some amount of appeasement. That not only includes the poor barely making it by, but anyone with a legitimate issue that needs resolving.And you would be hard-pressed to find a major nation without some criminal activity in it, yes 'something' which the super-in-the-loop-but-playing-golf-and-bannon-will-take-care-of-it-anyway President of the U.S. won't even take the time to actually cite any bloody actual events. Yes, somebody fact-checked it. Yes he was lying. Yes, you don't like the media and they are an abstract entity known as 'the media' instead of accountable individuals in your head. Journalists can write in bias, but are they holding office? Do they dictate state policy? Understand the difference. I am sorry to have offended you if I did, but this is an important matter and I cannot allow myself to remain silent.
Do you want to know what my political bias is? Anti-authoritarianism. I even believe in Exceptionalism, but I do not agree with how it is employed. When I see authoritarian action becoming the prime policy of office, when I see nationalism being pushed as a solution, when I see the government being sold off, I am involved. Shane does not want to acknowledge that I do not care when an administration behaves in a vaguely dishonest way inherently, because I am not a bi-partisan and like most Americans he expects me to behave as though one dishonesty equals another. Let me tell you, if someone tells a lie because they do not want Walmart to destroy a local forest, I sympathize. When someone tells a lie because they want to destroy a forest to promote the growth of businesses which can be exploited, I take offense. When that someone is in office, I hold them to higher standards than the average citizen. They represent, by vote, an entire range of persons. If there is a faction of society that is against my interests, I take note. I am an immigrant. I intend to hold dual citizenship. I live in a high-density, peaceful, muslim neighborhood. I am no fool. What do you think is next after blacklisting countries? What information do you believe the US border control should rightly possess? There is an authoritarian political body stepping dangerously close to issues which directly and unjustly may affect me. You damn well better believe I'm interested in whether or not Islam poses a threat to me, in whether or not the government is going to wholesale write me off for interrogation for having sat in the wrong seat. Get numbers first, form ideas second.
Besides, if anything, the administration is so dishonest that its sponsorship of any media entity should actually prove that entity disreputable.
I'd keep going but I don't have all the time in the world. I'm just gonna post this now. If anything needs clarifying I'll be more than willing to speak further.