Poor dawn falcon.
@preciousgollum1 I wish the forum had hidden text that could be revealed after x amount of time. In light of that, this is the best I could do. ie. your kind are so predictable. I donât know if itâs funny or sad.
How long are you guys going to argue with a Nazi?
The question is what would make them stop.
I really tried to reason with right wingers using facts but stopped when I realised that their entire world view is based on hate and made-up stories. Pretty much Trumpian âalternative factsâ. Save yourself some time and punch a nazi in the face.
Or just post otter gifs.
Welfare of The Future.
Left needs to argue again why welfare is a good thing, and why it brings security. It isnât enough to say âWell, it worked in the pastâ. Rich people are hoping that the ability to pay for private security will work out cheaper than any government bill for security. Hence, private security might be the reason that the rich can keep promising âlower taxesâ.
So, the poor end up as victims, of crime - the crimes of the poor. The vulnerable become more at risk of crime. So the poor end up paying for the crimes of the other people who might live around them, or from criminal element travels from place to place.
Money & Resources are siphoned OUT of a community. Or those resources gloat between owners - very little gets bought IN.
So, how will the poor convince the rich that the poor are worth investing in, when the rich see crimes happening and believe that the investment will go to waste? You have a system where there is no obligation to help out poor communities.
How would politics change this?
Tax the Rich?
Yea, thatâs a good option, but it means convincing enough people that the money & resources isnât being used to fund areas that could empower crime - the crimes âthat poor people doâ.
- Some of the Rich, Trump in particular, is very on-message at making poverty look like a crime, and in the past (in some countries) it was a crime, under law.
Remember, the Rich constantly promise that they will invest this money better then the Federal Government.
The other problem, is the compulsion to label people as âMisogynisticâ, âIncelâ, âMillenialâ, Anti-feministâ or the âgoodâ and âbadâ. It is a new fad that has become tiring, and these are all simply âBuzz-wordsâ for labeling and marketing purposes. They are slogans - nothing more.
And, as Trump pointed out âThere are bad people on both sidesâ. This puts all everybody in their place, and makes Trump appear the arbiter of morality, especially to those that donât identify as either left or right - I.e most people. Trump owns this message, and, through his rhetoric, communicates âleaving people aloneâ so long as they get on, and vaguely support him, even in the loosest sense.
(Trump actually is the Chief of US law, as President, according to his lawyer.)
So, yea, left wing politics, especially the more paranoid aspect, needs to stop fixation on âgood and evilâ as its prime counter-reaction, and it also needs to rethink its preoccupation with outsmarting the âdumb or dangerous, or the dangerously dumbâ, because it is like a matador waving a red-flag at a Bull - the instinct is to charge. It isnât difficult to outsmart poor people - the rich do it often enough. The Republicans out-maneuvered the Democrats, and straight into the white house. Most of the WORLD was shocked and surprised that Trump ACTUALLY got in. Congratulations, USA, you managed to surprise the world.
I think that the rhetoric of the left will probably change into something more positive, anyway, - it simply has toâŚ
⌠in order to be more appealing, and seem less like an exclusive group. (The oxymoron of an exclusive club for diversity).
But what would I know? If I were a paranoid leftie, I might be too paranoid to admit it.
Good luck.
Hey idiot, Trump actually said there are GOOD people on both sides. And one of the sides were actual Nazis.
Edit, sorry, his exact words were âvery fineâ people on both sides.
Wolfenstein II: âI ainât no Naziâ
Is that real? Did someone really make two spelling errors in a six-word sentence?
Discourse doesnât let me add gifs directly from Gboard, which is now its greatest failing.
This was good. And the answer to this is once Reagan became president âgreed is goodâ, âmoney for me and no sharingâ, âWe donât care about Americaâs health we care about ourselvesâ became the new mantra. Germany on the other hand went the opposite way. Many of the wealthy there during the great recession actually donated more than their very high tax rates proscribed because they wanted Germany, not just themselves, but their whole country to be strong.
Americans in the 1950âs paid a decent tax rate and people were fine with it. But once Grover Norquist finally gained traction it was all about them and not about the health of America. The transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to those who donât even need it, has been destroying this country ever since. SO the answer is common tax rates across all states and municipalities to get rid of the race to the bottom, and going back to tax rates of yesteryear.
The rest of your post is word salad nonsense.
This use of the term âLeftâ with no article or anything makes me think you are autistic or insane or something. This is like shit I might have written when I was in college, and super high on weed.
Trump also said there was âBlame on both sidesâ, so really, you are arguing that my quote was wrong, but then you got your quote wrongâŚ
So there is wrong⌠On BOTH SIDES đ
But we donât need to be taking sides.
What the actual fuck, dude? Yes we absolutely do need to be taking sides. One side is NAZIS. Remember that big war we fought to kill them a bunch of years ago?
Oh ffs. I meant that we arenât against each other on the issue. Jeez. We just perhaps disagree on how it might be handled.
In any case, if you are from the USA, well they mostly pursued an isolationist policy until they couldnât anymore, so donât use all that âBig Warâ nonsense.
Europe says thanks for the help that America provided. Eventually.
