The Politics Megathread

[Tamerlane]

I don't want a revolution, but it looks like one is going to keep brewing and will only compound as time goes on. This isn't advocacy; it's a warning that what is happening is blatantly unsustainable.

My beliefs are that I abhor violence and that it should only ever be used as an absolute last resort, but that I value that we should uphold the constitution, the rights granted within, and that those liberties are demanded of the government and any entities seeking to impose themselves. Violence or revolution must be avoided at all costs, but if it is inevitable, it should only be used in self defense against specific entities in order to preserve the republic and the union. Any wanton violence or destruction is not only pointless, but counterproductive.

I don't think we're to that point yet in society, and that we can still peacefully protest or show other signs of wanting change, but if nothing happens in the upcoming years, I fear society will fall apart before then.
@Halo

 

[Ceildric]

@Tamerlane

Today the media and politicians have over and over used phrases like "deadly mob violence", "violent mob", "terrorist mob", "insurgents", "sedition", etc etc to describe the largely peaceful protest yesterday. Some have even been trying to paint this as somehow tied to "white supremacy" and "systemic racism."

This is not just an issue of electoral disenfranchisement and distrust in the electoral system, and I would argue never was simply that. Identity politics and ever-increasing amounts of widely accepted double standards and hypocrisy have led to an increasing feeling among a large portion of the population that there are no consistent standards, or principles that all are equally held to.

One need only compare the phrasing used to describe yesterday's events and the desecration of the victims to the way the extensive destruction of BLM this past summer is still being spun as "peaceful protests", with the "victims" of police violence in those incidents treated as the saints they never were.

I disagree, and I think you even may contradict yourself, with your statement that "violence and revolution must be avoided at all costs." There are some costs too great, including the surrender of freedom, and nearly as close the misery of living an irrational and inconsistent existence devoid of justice.

A look at history shows quite clearly what anyone could quickly reason out themselves: those with power never give it up willingly, just for the hell of it. Power only bends to power. We have only had so-called "progress" because it was politically expedient to one person or another at some point.

Playing by the rules that your opponent sets, while they are not constrained by any of them, and in fact are changing them whenever it suits them, is a fool's game. You will never win that way.

And as for still being able to peacefully protest... no. As above, they will spin it in the worst possible ways. They will attempt to deplatform, cancel you, get you fired (and in many cases will succeed, as has happened to some of the protesters from last night already). There was an incident where a plane with Trump supporters was due to leave DC and they deplaned them because the flight crew did not want them on board (they were doing nothing other than singing the national anthem).

There have been at least 15 arrests, and I don't see any politicians or celebrities campaigning to bail them out. Meanwhile the police that murdered people are free.

Only some people have the "right" to peacefully protest without consequences; only those that suit the elite's agenda.

Edit: Just one bit of further evidence that there's no hope for peaceful protest by anyone on the right.

 

[Halo]

I don't think we're to that point yet in society, and that we can still peacefully protest or show other signs of wanting change

Indeed. 🙂

 

[Mr_Detective]

@Ceildric Image not showing.

 

[Tamerlane]

@Ceildric

To be fair, me saying "violence must be avoided at all costs" was meant to stress that I detest violence and used less literally as the phrase "at all costs" tends to indicate that I'm really, really serious in that I don't want violence.

I still believe that peaceful protest and civil disobedience are valid means of combating tyranny, as even if it is spun and characterized in the worst possible way, will remember that the people are not rampantly and indiscriminately violent. The media has less and less power in society, and soon the fourth estate will only remain as the old elites that were meant to gatekeep the truth from society, and their voices and power will no longer matter when they are known only as habitual lairs and charlatans.

And as for still being able to peacefully protest... no. As above, they will spin it in the worst possible ways. They will attempt to deplatform, cancel you, get you fired (and in many cases will succeed, as has happened to some of the protesters from last night already). There was an incident where a plane with Trump supporters was due to leave DC and they deplaned them because the flight crew did not want them on board (they were doing nothing other than singing the national anthem).

This is what will ultimately backfire. You isolate people from society, take away everything they have, make it impossible for them to operate as a normal person, and you ultimately make someone with nothing to lose and everything to gain. When people have nothing left to lose, that is when bad things happen, people radicalize, and do whatever it takes to enfranchise themselves.

Nothing is more terrifying than the natural end result of isolating people from society en masse, as it will lead to you forging your own worst enemies.

@Halo

Pretty sure that was an art piece, because it's definitely not structurally secure enough to support any weight.

@Mr_Detective

It's this tweet.

 

[EOTFOFYL]

phrases like "deadly mob violence", "violent mob", "terrorist mob", "insurgents", "sedition", etc etc

Gee, I wonder why? Maybe it had something to do with trespassing, looting, and destruction while screaming about the recent election?

Or maybe the destruction of media equipment gave it away.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/trump-supporters-press-ap-cnn-capitol-riots-b1783555.html

Some have even been trying to paint this as somehow tied to "white supremacy" and "systemic racism."

Gee, I fucking wonder why?

Our education system is clearly failing if people can't even use the correct American flag /s.

 

[Halo]

@Tamerlane

Pretty sure that was an art piece, because it's definitely not structurally secure enough to support any weight.

Yeah, but what does it mean? What is the hidden and undoubtedly profound meaning for this modern masterpiece?
I guess we'll never know. 😔

 

[Mr_Detective]

@Tamerlane There's a hanging noose in the middle...?

@EOTFOFYL Sure, you can use those words to describe them. But I should be able to say the same thing about their counterparts in June. Either condemn both or neither. I can clearly see who has caused far more damaged and still got away with it. Again, it's about who's being backed and protected by the mainstream media and big tech companies. Americans from this point on really should shut the fuck up about other countries' affairs because it's clear that too many of them have a broken moral compass and that they just can't judge themselves. I don't get it. These fuckers are full of hypocrisy and they want to teach everyone else a lesson on morals and freedom.

Also, I don't like the Confederate flag and don't care much for it. But the accusation that Trump supporters are white supremacists goes out the window when you also have minorities supporting him as well. Sure they are among the mix, but it doesn't make sense and is even foolish to simply label them as such.

 

[wowfucktron]

Here's a fun history lesson I'm going to share with you all because CNN is spouting nonsense about voter suppression only affecting nonwhites, again.

In 1797 after George Washington left office, John Adams was elected to the office of President. Way back then only land owning white men could vote. But what was the definition of land owning? Land owning meant owning property (such as a business) beyond a plot of land that your house was on. Unsurprisingly enough, only the wealthiest of men could vote.

But here's the fun part: elections were held in warehouses and churches. Why? So officials could manipulate vote counts by locking people out of these buildings until voting windows had passed and hiring/forcing those who couldn't vote to play the role of security.

Chicanery like this still goes on to this day in other forms, it just affects mainly the young now because suppression was just expanded to others when they got the right to vote.

So when anyone says voter suppression has been a tool of "racial disenfranchisement" just remember they're pushing an agenda willfully ignoring the past. Why? Mental gymnastics to avoid holes being poked in arguments because no one these days is interested in dialogue of any form. Everyone wants their own "Ben Shapiro moment" of 'owning the libs/cons' with cherry picked facts and pruned historical context that appeals to Americans' obsessions with underdog stories.

------
Meanwhile in the media, BLM is getting its own spinoff: Black Women Matter. This is all happening because some random black woman's corpse was just identified and activists are pushing the difficulties with her corpse's identification as being ignored due to prejudice. You know who's corpse is actually being ignored? The unarmed woman who was killed by DC police ON CCTV IN THE CAPITOL BUILDING. That footage is protected by multiple laws from being doctored. Whether it'll come out or not is another matter but whatever it's not like we live in the era of consistent morals.

 

[Halo]

@EOTFOFYL I can see more American flags from my balcony than they had on that whole rally.
Cringe.

 

[Ivegotnolife]

 

[Mr_Detective]

Is that picture real?

 

[Ivegotnolife]

Yup, there was actually a live broadcast with the mobs rioting in the background, while the pundit played it off as mostly peaceful! If you want violent riots, anarchy, and chaos just look at the precedent set by the media for Peaceful Protests! 😅

I think a few nuts that showed everybody their lack of sense, and moral boundaries running amok don't even fall into the same level of dragging people from their vehicles and beating them. Or as in another peaceful demonstration, barricading the doors of a police station while attempting to set it on fire! 😤

That's also giving into the premise the jackasses were part of the Trump supporter group, and not infiltrators wishing to discredit the whole demonstration of solidarity for open and untainted elections, and the man even the media admits got nearly 75 million votes! 😳

 

[EOTFOFYL]

@Mr_Detective

Also, I don't like the Confederate flag and don't care much for it. But the accusation that Trump supporters are white supremacists goes out the window when you also have minorities supporting him as well. Sure they are among the mix, but it doesn't make sense and is even foolish to simply label them as such.

That's like saying "I can't be racist, I have [Insert group] friends!" It doesn't detract from what it is in any shape or form, racism is racism no matter how you try to paint it. And the Confederate battle flag is almost akin to the swastika without the international stigma and level of horror... on top of being a symbol used by literal rebels.

All these comparison to the BLM really does it a disservice. Too many people here say "but look at them too!", nobody is saying why BLM happened... again. Tamerlane has it right albeit off target and without the wonky history reference; how many of these racial protests have we had and how much has actually changed since?

As for why BLM didn't get painted the same way, it's because they didn't fucking pillage the Capitol like a golden horde, never mind their intent for a moment. The BLM protest in D.C was joke in comparison and I can't believe I had to repeat this.

 

[Mr_Detective]

@EOTFOFYL Racism against... who? I mean, if you want to accuse these people of hating themselves, well, I don't know what else to say. Seriously, the word racism/sexism/whateverthehellitisyouwanttouse-ism has been overused so much that it feels so meaningless when you use it. I'm against illegal immigration, and as a non-white. Guess what accusation gets thrown at me immediately? Next step will be changing the definition of some words to suit their agenda.

BLM is a political movement founded based on a lie. Fuck what the media says about it. It's like a bunch of kids who don't get what they want so they throw tantrum and set some random people's house on fire. You can repeat that all you want and I am still not going to buy it because I can see with my own eyes who deserve my utmost contempt and disgust. (Hint: more than one.)

Well, like I said, maybe they should learn to loot elsewhere or set the local malls on fire. Just do what BLM did but with a different message. Where did the "rioting is the language of the unheard" people go?

 

[Tamerlane]

@EOTFOFYL

But can you truly call it sedition if the people want to uphold the constitution and want the people in charge to be held accountable to the laws of the nation? It's not the same as the South wanting independence in the 1860s, or the Civil War over slavery. This is not treason because the people swear to uphold and protect the constitution of the United States and the liberties within, which is clearly the intentions of the protesters given they believe that much of the election was unconstitutional and subverting the will of the people. Whether or not you agree with that is another matter, but if we are to take intent within the law, they can not be charged with such a crime.

Whilst I have no sympathy for the confederates as someone who is a yankee in my heart, I don't think these people generally are people that want to overthrow the United States constitution or establish a different system of government, nor do I think they wish to strip Americans of their civil liberties, and I think in their minds they view the confederate flag as something fundamentally different, which, even if I personally object to the confederate flag and that nation, I must recognize that they are operating on viewing it to hold another symbolic value, which due to its subjectivity I can not objectively call right or wrong as an interpretation.

I will condemn the CSA as an ultimately futile hissy-fit by the South that sealed the fate of slavery within the nation and ultimately lead to the rise of a much stronger federal government, which are things I support.

As for why BLM didn't get painted the same way, it's because they didn't fucking pillage the Capitol like a golden horde, never mind their intent for a moment. The BLM protest in D.C was joke in comparison and I can't believe I had to repeat this.

This is where you're objectively wrong through hyperbole. The capitol building is still mostly intact, albeit with some broken doors and windows. The only thing I know for certain that was looted was probably the speaker of the house's podium, and several hard drives, which may be in the American peoples' interest to see the same way that the Pentagon Papers were/

It's nowhere near the approximately $1-2 Billion Dollars the recent BLM riots caused, which does not include all of the damages. It's not only a false equivalency, it's almost a vindication of the Trump protests and condemnation of the BLM protests.

@Halo @Mr_Detective

To be fair, there's a difference between an imminent call to violence and reminding politicians that they are meant to be held to account by the people, and for the people. It's the same as showing a guillotine or referencing the French revolution. It's not a direct incitement to violence.

It's more comparable to the sword of Damocles, reminding those who have power that they are foremost accountable to the people of the nation before their own interests and not to let their own ambitions exceed what is good for the nation. It is undeniable that the founding fathers intended this to be the case in the US given that the Glorious Revolution and Cromwell were within living memory of their parents and grandparents, and that they, themselves, overthrew the shackles of England.

Hell, Federalist 28 covers this idea.

Independent of all other reasonings upon the subject, it is a full answer to those who require a more peremptory provision against military establishments in time of peace, that the whole power of the proposed government is to be in the hands of the representatives of the people. This is the essential, and after all the only efficacious security for the rights and privileges of the people which is attainable in civil society.

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence, which is paramount to all positive forms of government; and which, against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success, than against those of the rulers of an individual State.

In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power became usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions or districts, of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defence. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, cloathed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition; and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements; and the military force in the possession of the usurpers, can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation, there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to ensure success to the popular resistance.

So yes, even if I am firmly against violence and wish it to be avoided, it is not inconsistent due to the exception of self-defense which is near universally considered to be justified. If the founding fathers intended it so that the people had a right to revolution as a means of self dense. That is consistent, though I still advise against wanton violence.

 

[EOTFOFYL]

BLM is a political movement founded based on a lie.

What is this lie then, explain. We all know who is the target of racism, it's not a secret; you hear it ad nauseam because nothing changes. Being against illegal immigration does not make one racist, but the policies and ideas you support can. You can believe in whatever opinion you want but facts don't change. Content people don't riot.

You seem to be upset about the looting that occurred during BLM for which the two are not directly connected in any shape or form other than the fact that they occurred at the same time unless you can show otherwise; obviously criminals would would choose to strike at the most opportune time.

And the Stop the Steal people have had their voices heard, they're angry because they're not getting the results they want. The only difference is instead of burning random houses they decided that city hall is a better target and they decided to pick the time when the mayor would be inside.

 

[Tamerlane]

What is this lie then, explain. We all know who is the target of racism, it's not a secret; you hear it ad nauseam because nothing changes. Being against illegal immigration does not make one racist, but the policies and ideas you support can. You can believe in whatever opinion you want but facts don't change.

The lie likely that the black population of America are being killed by police officers at an unjustified rate, when the actual rate of fatalities is more consistent with proportion at which certain crimes are committed by an extreme minority of black people, at which racism is more the immediate assumed answer when the realities of the situation is much more complex. A very small minority of people in general commit crimes, and an even smaller minority are killed by the police, a but because race baiting and outrage from injustice is good for views, the media disproportionately reports on questionable circumstances before all the information comes out, the outrage comes before the truth can put its shoes on.

It is an issue that has been artificially inflated, not one that which would have arised naturally by chance alone.

You seem to be upset about the looting that occurred during BLM for which the two are not directly connected in any shape or form other than the fact that they occurred at the same time unless you can show otherwise; obviously criminals would would choose to strike at the most opportune time.

Horseshit and you know it.

I don't mean to come across as so invective but this is probably the height of ingeniousness. When you have riots from people shouting "defend the police," "all cops are bastards," etc., talking about reparations and how they're being unjustly kept in poverty by the system, and spearheaded by openly Marxist groups (As Patrisse Cullors, herself, said) whose goals it is to redistribute and accord more material, it only makes sense that looting is the natural end result of that chaos, as people both see the ideology and use it to justify their deeds.

To say that one didn't directly cause the other, or disconnect them, is not only blatantly faulty, but outright dishonest.

And the Stop the Steal people have had their voices heard, they're angry because they're not getting the results they want. The only difference is instead of burning random houses they decided that city hall is a better target and they decided to pick the time when the mayor would be inside.

Did they have their voices heard on the media platforms that censored them?

Did they have their voices heard by the media who disregarded what they had to say out right?

Did they have their voices heard in the courts who dismissed their cases through procedural grounds and not on the merits of the case?

@EOTFOFYL

 

[YumoYumo]

You seem to be upset about the looting that occurred during BLM for which the two are not directly connected in any shape or form other than the fact that they occurred at the same time unless you can show otherwise; obviously criminals would would choose to strike at the most opportune time.

@EOTFOFYL so that's what BLM-tards tell to themselves. IT'S ALL COINCIDENCE! Lol. Such denial.
But this human sample at least tries to look civil and condemn crime. I spoke with people who seriously stated that looting and burning down someone's property is a legitimate way to fight racism, lol.

We all know who is the target of racism, it's not a secret

Yes. It's pretty easy. The only target of discrimination is everyone who disagree with american agenda.

 

[Halo]

To be fair, there's a difference between an imminent call to violence and reminding politicians that they are meant to be held to account by the people, and for the people. It's the same as showing a guillotine or referencing the French revolution.

Or bringing zip tie cuffs, pipe bombs and Molotov to the Capitol. 🤡