2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
I'm sure that Luciom votes in Italy, but I assume that he would prefer to live in an oligarchy where voting is greatly restricted or nonexistent (as long as the oligarchs were right-wing extremists, of course).
No need to assume:
I thought oligarchy was when a few of the rich (few like a thousand or hundred) control more or less the entirety of the country amongst themselves.
The US is kinda a corporate oligarchy, or maybe a complete one? I am not sure, but we have lots of oligarchs we just call them billionaires
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
ol·i·gar·chy
/ˈäləˌɡärkē/
noun
a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.
a country governed by an oligarchy.
"the English aristocratic oligarchy of the 19th century"
government by an oligarchy.
the rule of the upper middle class? I am not sure what govt that is
take it to the mussolini thread
actually, just contain luciom there
trump is completely unhinged and idiotic in both situations. he can't be trusted to read the teleprompter and when left to his own devices he shows he has the intellect, logic, and reasoning of a child.
I don't put the ability to read a teleprompter ahead of the ability to form coherent sentences.
Also, wouldn't you like to know who is putting the words on the teleprompter? We all know its not Joe.
Shoutout Luciom for uniting everyone regardless of color, politics and creed behind a common theme of ‘stfu you fascist lunatic’
I don't put the ability to read a teleprompter ahead of the ability to form coherent sentences.
Also, wouldn't you like to know who is putting the words on the teleprompter? We all know its not Joe.
but do you support the guy that can do neither? because that's trump.
did you just figure out that speech writers exist? did you think trump writes his own speeches and teleprompter that he uses at his rallies? lol.
That kimmel line pretty perfectly sums it up. Something along the lines of ‘just because Alfred is too old to run the batcave doesn’t mean you give the keys to the joker’
I don't put the ability to read a teleprompter ahead of the ability to form coherent sentences.
Also, wouldn't you like to know who is putting the words on the teleprompter? We all know its not Joe.
Wait, did you just suggest that Trump can form coherent sentences? Have you actually ever heard him speak?
he doesn't live here, he doesn't vote here, is against our system of government, yet somehow is allowed to flood the board in an attempt to turn people who do live here and vote here against that system of government.
gg
in B4 d2 says "Free Luc"
His last sentence isn't entirely false. As I said before, even if you somehow ended up at that rally without realizing that Richard Spencer and his ilk had organized the rally, it would have been immediately obvious to you after you arrived. At the point, you have two choices. Option 1 is to leave. Option 2 is to participate in a rally organized and led by white supremacists.
I'm not terribly concerned about the distinction between white
This was already covered on a previous thread- some of the attendees were non racist militias who are big on the first amendment and were there in a neutral capacity, purely on free assembly/speech grounds, so yeah his last sentence is indeed utterly false as not all attending were nazis/supremacists as he claimed.
He's attempting to create a distinction that doesn't exist. A false dichotomy. "Unite the Right" was a gathering of white supremacists. Being in those groups makes you very bad, not very fine. He implicitly affirms support for white power with this technique. Yes, he technically gave himself some layer of deniability with the qualification, but the general idea is: "I support you white bros". Same with the, "stand up and stand by".
It's a pa
No he doesn't as his condemnation, which I already provided verbatim, shows. You're conflating what he said with what you personally believe he secretly meant and that's just kool & the gang as everyone can have an opinion, but don't try pass off your subjective suspicion as fact. He clearly condemned the supremacists and wasn't referring to them with his fine people comment.
This was already covered on a previous thread- some of the attendees were non racist militias who are big on the first amendment and were there in a neutral capacity, purely on free assembly/speech grounds, so yeah his last sentence is indeed utterly false as not all attending were nazis/supremacists as he claimed.
If they were there in a neutral capacity then by definition they were not on either side so the fact that were there is irrelevant to the accuracy of the statement in question (which was about one side, not about all in attendance).
I understand that under the current narrative racism and white supremacy are "the absolute evil" according to the "very intelligent people", but people can consider them far less dangerous evil than various forms of radical leftism including the "history should be canceled" radical leftist current, which was what the protest was against.
If you don't see how fine people could associate with white supremacists against even worse members of so
Wow.
A) The only people who would see how fine people could associate with white supremacists against even worse members of society, are other white supremacists.
B) It was a rally to highlight their umbrage at Jews replacing them, hence their chants that the Jews wouldn't replace them. Not against leftist attempts to rewrite history and even if tht ws true which it most assuredly isn't, then they of all people would have some effin neck even going there anyway considering their penchant for Holocaust denial.
there's no debunking. he said it and then he tried to change what he said later down the line.
there were also NO GOOD PEOPLE at the unite the right rally. not a single person that goes to a confederate statue protest on the side of the statue is a good person.
There is a debunking and again there were non supremacists there purely on first amendment grounds
No? They were probably there for the reasons they gave as well, ie trying to become relevant in national politics and whatnot.
And?
The "Jews won't replace us" idea isn't dangerous for society.
They are wrong because it isn't the Jews, and they are wrong because they don't want to replace whites but western civilization, but that the left is attempting (and somewhat succeeding) at destroying the west from within (with the help of unlimited lo
What the actual fu...heck? You taking the piss? 😵
No he doesn't as his condemnation, which I already provided verbatim, shows. You're conflating what he said with what you personally believe he secretly meant and that's just kool & the gang as everyone can have an opinion, but don't try pass off your subjective suspicion as fact. He clearly condemned the supremacists and wasn't referring to them with his fine people comment.
I think the most charitable interpretation of Trump's comments is that he was just very ignorant and was not aware that the rally was explicitly white supremacist. It stretches belief though, given they were made well after that fact should have been common knowledge.
It's an entirely reasonable position to think that it was at least a semi-deliberate dog whistle and the subsequent comment about condemning white supremacists and neo-nazis was to provide the sort of plausible deniabilty that causes people like you (meaning people hyper-focused on literal interpretations of his statements, I'm not meaning to imply anything about your beliefs wrt Trump/white supremacists generally) to defend his statements in this way.
If they were there in a neutral capacity then by definition they were not on either side so the fact that were there is irrelevant to the accuracy of the statement in question (which was about one side, not about all in attendance).
My comment was to correct lolwat's claim that the rally entirely consisted of neo nazis.
Secondly and yet again Trump condemned the neo nazis and claimed there were others who weren't supremacists
Thirdly, neutral within the context of the rally organisers and counter protesters. They wouldn't be neutral about the actual right to free assembly which would include counter protesting.
I think the most charitable interpretation of Trump's comments is that he was just very ignorant and was not aware that the rally was explicitly white supremacist. It stretches belief though, given they were made well after that fact should have been common knowledge.
It's an entirely reasonable position to think that it was at least a semi-deliberate dog whistle and the subsequent comment about condemning white supremacists and neo-nazis wa
I don't like Trump and stated earlier itt that there's a bunch of legit things to criticise him about, with specifics. Anyone is free to think and opine what they wish. Just don't assert as fact as it's false to do so.
My comment was to correct lolwat's claim that the rally entirely consisted of neo nazis.
Secondly and yet again Trump condemned the neo nazis and claimed there were others who weren't supremacists
Thirdly, neutral within the context of the rally organisers and counter protesters. They wouldn't be neutral about the actual right to free assembly which would include counter protesting.
The statement you are saying is false was "The one side was entirely white supremacists." He did not say everyone at the rally, he was saying those on the side marching against the statue being removed. The attendees you are talking about as being exceptions were marching in defense of the right to assemble - they were not part of the "side" that lolwat is saying was entirely white supremacists.
Given your insistence of pedantic literalism when talking about Trump's statements it's ironic that your argument here is stating as fact that lolwat is arguing a point that he never actually said.
