Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401
Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
2017-08-19, 12:20 AM #3721
Originally posted by Reid:
In that case we're ****ed, because, Trump's complete incoherent ideology, and his ties to crime and backdoor dealings make it pretty clear that he's just like previous fascist rulers. He lacks the overbearing nationalist rhetoric of Nazi Germany, but I guess getting Tweets from the Drudge report isn't much crazier than the Bolshevik Jewish conspiracy.


It's been happening for a long time before Trump was ever elected.
2017-08-19, 12:21 AM #3722
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Things are rather murky right now. There was a backlash against it, but it appears to be reversing course into a frontlash.


When Prophecy Fails - often when people have their world view sufficiently challenged, they just get deeper entrenched, they don't deconvert *cough*.
2017-08-19, 12:23 AM #3723
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
'owning' the word is literally how people talk about black people taking back the N-word.

The S-word is a slur in America

Which makes sense and is why I quoted myself about how the 'left' is a meaningless catch-all used as a slur here.


Socialist is a slur in America.
2017-08-19, 12:27 AM #3724
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Just don't punch anybody partaking in Nazi cosplay.


My biggest regret from the rally is that I didn't get violent. In retrospect, it would have been more rewarding.

Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
What's stupid is when people like Bill Maher (who I admit a soft spot for, but man is he smug) rant about how the Right has it all figured out in terms of propaganda, and that all we need to do is copy their nastiness and sink as low as they do.

The trouble is, that will only work on people dumb enough to only vote Republican anyway.


He's not wrong that the right have figured out propaganda, but I don't see the reaction as one of nastiness - if anything, the left needs to become an unsmug banner of decency. Not smug liberal "decency" - true compassion. The hard part is getting visibility - like I said, the peaceful socialists of various groups were some of the biggest groups at the Charlottesville protest, yet nobody gets attention but Antifa - and half of what's said about them is false, anyway.
2017-08-19, 12:32 AM #3725
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
I still think this entire election was rigged.

Rigged, in the sense that Trump signed a backroom media deal to increase ratings. I am certain that when this is all over he will go on national television to stand on the stage with CNN and take bows as he thanks the nation for being party to an enormous ruse.

(Oh, and a few of his friends outside the media also got rich(er))


Why do people care about CNN? I've been puzzling for a year why people care so much about what they do/say.

Originally posted by Jon`C:
It's been happening for a long time before Trump was ever elected.


I guess Reagan was the start.
2017-08-19, 12:34 AM #3726
I never got to talk about this here. I love this clip for how sensible Corbyn looks, and his reaction to the ****ing audience. They're all gung ho about shooting nukes first at North Korea, and his stance is just "no, that's actually ****ing insane".

2017-08-19, 12:37 AM #3727
Quote:
Why do people care about CNN? I've been puzzling for a year why people care so much about what they do/say.


I used that particular network in my joke because of their very public feud with the president.
2017-08-19, 12:55 AM #3728
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
I used that particular network in my joke because of their very public feud with the president.


Ah, yeah, I forgot about that. It's really a pathetic fight.
2017-08-19, 12:57 AM #3729
So I have completed Victory of Faith and Triumph of the Will. Nazi propaganda films are ****ing boring. The speeches don't have much content either, it's just, "lol be ready to suffer, but it's K since it's for Germany" and "rah rah we're really big and tough".
2017-08-19, 12:58 AM #3730
There is some real confusion surrounding the circumstances about Bannon leaving the WH.

On the one hand, The Weekly Standard (a neocon rag started by Bill Kristol, arch-enemy of Trump), interviewed Bannon following his departure, with the headline, "The Trump Presidency That We Fought For, and Won, Is Over.". Which sounds pretty darn negative.

On the other hand, if you go to The_Donald, you'll see nothing but celebration, with statements from Bannon himself given in an interview with Bloomberg, where is quoted as saying, "If there’s any confusion out there, let me clear it up: I’m leaving the White House and going to war for Trump against his opponents -- on Capitol Hill, in the media, and in corporate America." This sounds pretty positive.

You know what? I think Bannon is deliberately putting both narratives out there, as a diversionary tactic. The man loves to play these double games. If the liberal media outlets can garner clicks by enticing people with stories that follow the Weekly Standard narrative that depicts Bannon as a loser, then they will do it, and his political opponents will be duped into thinking he is a neutralized threat. On the other hand, Bannon can speak directly to his supporters and (very easily, I may add) convince them that he is on their side, he can drive traffic to Breitbart.

And here is what /pol thinks:

2017-08-19, 12:58 AM #3731
Also a bunch of "higher purpose" bull****. Everything was transcendental to Hitler, apparently.
2017-08-19, 1:01 AM #3732
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
There is some real confusion surrounding the circumstances about Bannon leaving the WH.

On the one hand, The Weekly Standard (a neocon rag started by Bill Kristol, arch-enemy of Trump), interviewed Bannon following his departure, with the headline, "The Trump Presidency That We Fought For, and Won, Is Over.". Which sounds pretty darn negative.

On the other hand, if you go to The_Donald, you'll see nothing but celebration, with statements from Bannon himself given in an interview with Bloomberg, where is quoted as saying, "If there’s any confusion out there, let me clear it up: I’m leaving the White House and going to war for Trump against his opponents -- on Capitol Hill, in the media, and in corporate America." This sounds pretty positive.

You know what? I think Bannon is deliberately putting both narratives out there, as a diversionary tactic. The man loves to play these double games. If the liberal media outlets can garner clicks by enticing people with stories that follow the Weekly Standard narrative that depicts Bannon as a loser, then they will do it. On the other hand, Bannon can speak directly to his supporters and (very easily, I may add) convince them that he is on their side, he can drive traffic to Breitbart.

And here is what /pol thinks:



The /pol/ post sounds surprisingly accurate.

Also, who is Bannon? I don't actually know. I kind of stopped following or caring in February.
2017-08-19, 1:11 AM #3733
Steve Bannon? He's a either a cokehead who married a methhead or a "Leninist":

Originally posted by The Daily Beast:
Why has the Trump campaign taken as its new head a self-described Leninist?

I met Steve Bannon—the executive director of Breitbart.com who’s now become the chief executive of the Trump campaign, replacing the newly resigned Paul Manafort—at a book party held in his Capitol Hill townhouse on Nov. 12, 2013. We were standing next to a picture of his daughter, a West Point graduate, who at the time was a lieutenant in the 101 Airborne Division serving in Iraq. The picture was notable because she was sitting on what was once Saddam Hussein’s gold throne with a machine gun on her lap. “I’m very proud of her,” Bannon said.

Then we had a long talk about his approach to politics. He never called himself a “populist” or an “American nationalist,” as so many think of him today. “I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.

Shocked, I asked him what he meant.

“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.

I emailed Bannon last week recalling our conversation, telling him that I planned to write about it and asking him if he wanted to comment on or correct my account of it. He responded:

“I don’t remember meeting you and don’t remember the conversation. And as u can tell from the past few days I am not doing media.”

Riding on the Metro to the party, I read an article that had just been posted on National Review Online and in TownHall.com by Thomas Sowell, the conservative economist, in which he opposed the tactics used by the Tea Party in shutting down the government. He favored the intent of the Tea Party, but strongly opposed its tactics. "The only question," he wrote, "is about the tactics, the Tea Party's attempt to defund Obamacare." Their actions did not fit the standard set by Edmund Burke, he wrote, of a "rational endeavour." There was no chance of making a dent in ObamaCare or defunding it when Democrats controlled the Senate. and the public created a "backlash against that futile attempt," so that "there was virtually nothing to gain politically and much to lose."

I then asked Bannon whether or not he had read Sowell's piece, since Bannon was in favor of the very Tea Party tactic that Sowell had criticized.

“National Review and The Weekly Standard,” he said, “are both left-wing magazines, and I want to destroy them also.” He added that “no one reads them or cares what they say.” His goal was to bring down the entire establishment including the leaders of the Republican Party in Congress. He went on to tell me that he was the East Coast coordinator of all the Tea Party groups. His plan was to get its candidates nominated on the Republican ticket, and then to back campaigns that they could win. Then, Bannon said, when elected they would be held accountable to fight for the agenda he and the Tea Party stood for.

If they didn’t, “we would force them out of office and oppose them when the next election for their seats came around.”

That, essentially, was the tactic employed when Eric Cantor was ousted by a far right candidate, virtually unknown college economics professor Dave Brat, in his Virginia district’s primary. It was also the path Donald Trump’s supporters took in Wisconsin, when hoping to duplicate their successful tactics in Virginia, they ran a candidate in the Wisconsin Republican primary against Speaker Paul Ryan in his own district. There are a few Republicans that Bannon does respect. One of them is Rep. Louis Gohmert, the fiery congressman from Texas, who was also at the party. Gohmert, who is part of the self-proclaimed anti-establishment wing of the Republican Party, was an ally of Cruz in the government shutdown.

Trump’s decision to take on Bannon indicates that he wants to wage his campaign along the lines laid down by him—that of destroying the Republican leadership and the Party as we know it. Trump’s behavior thus far has been compatible with Bannon’s belief in Leninist tactics. As the Bolshevik leader once said, “The art of any propagandist and agitator consists in his ability to find the best means of influencing any given audience, by presenting a definite truth, in such a way as to make it most convincing, most easy to digest, most graphic, and most strongly impressive.”

Only one question remains. Knowing this, why do leaders like Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and others, who regularly condemn Trump’s statements but yet still endorse him, stick with such a self-defeating approach? They will only end up helping Bannon and company cast them into oblivion and finish their hostile take-over of the GOP.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/steve-bannon-trumps-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist

What's weird is how, in this 2016 interview, he expressed his loathing for The Weekly Standard, and how he sought to destroy it, but then gave it an interview just today following his departure from the W.H., for no other apparent reason than to put a statement on the record in which he appeared to be at war with Trump (and then directly contradicting this in an interview with Bloomberg, in which he promised he was going to war for Trump).
2017-08-19, 1:17 AM #3734
Originally posted by Reid:
So I have completed Victory of Faith and Triumph of the Will. Nazi propaganda films are ****ing boring. The speeches don't have much content either, it's just, "lol be ready to suffer, but it's K since it's for Germany" and "rah rah we're really big and tough".


Leni Riefenstahl went to town when she made Triump of the Will, and Hitler was sure to give her all the resources she would need to do so. The film is widely cited as a landmark in cinematography.

Of course when I took film studies in college my professor turned it off after five minutes because he couldn't handle watching a propaganda film that led to the slaughter of his distant relatives.

Check out her website, though. She only died in 2003, and she has Triump of the Will listed in the filmography section with the rest of her C.V. :o

http://www.leni-riefenstahl.de/eng/film.html
2017-08-19, 2:03 AM #3735
Originally posted by Reid:
I guess Reagan was the start.


Nixon certainly deserves some credit. Many of his anti-democratic policies continue to this day, most notably the War on Drugs, which was originally created to persecute his political opponents*. He's also responsible for the employee health insurance mandate - which forces employers to buy health insurance - on the recommendation of his close friend, Edgar Kaiser (of the Kaiser Permanente Kaisers).

Nixon's graft and anti-democratism must have been shocking back then. I doubt it would elicit more than a shrug today, though. When they added the individual mandate to PPACA they didn't even try to hide the fact that insurance companies asked them for it.


* ref:

Quote:
The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.


- Quote John Ehrlichman, domestic policy advisor to the Nixon administration
2017-08-19, 2:06 AM #3736
Quote:
He's also responsible for the employee health insurance mandate - which forces employers to buy health insurance - on the recommendation of his close friend, Edgar Kaiser (of the Kaiser Permanente Kaisers).


wtf
2017-08-19, 2:07 AM #3737
hmmm

2017-08-19, 2:27 AM #3738
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
wtf


Oh, it gets better. Employee mandate and HMOs was a compromise to keep a bipartisan single payer healthcare reform bill from passing. lol.

US healthcare is the way it is today for the dumbest reasons. Employer subsidies only ever existed because they were once an executive income tax dodge, and it still exists through decades of pigheadedness and corruption of the absolute worst kind. And now it's a boat anchor hanging around your necks, a $3.8T annual hidden tax on US businesses. And you folks wonder why your jobs are going away. Hiring an American adds on average $7500 per year more than a Canadian just because of private health insurance.
2017-08-19, 9:51 PM #3739
Another good example of what I'm talking about: Carl Icahn.

Billionaire friend of Donald Trump who was ostensibly supposed to advise him on deregulation, but ended up using his position to spark a market panic so he could short sell a cap and trade credit.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-icahn-resignation-20170819-story.html

Edit: He got resig-fired after he and the administration were told that the New Yorker was going to publish an article about the fact that what he was doing is... like... very illegal.
2017-08-20, 4:55 PM #3740
I know you guys might not care too much, but from a sociological point of view, /pol is now subtly at war with itself on how to reconcile the firing of Bannon.

To be sure, the fact that Their Guy is gone from the W.H. is a point of pain for most of them. But /pol isn't just racist losers, but also sycophantic supporters of Trump of The_Donald variety.

So now you have the second group calling anyone lamenting the departure of Bannon a "Breitbart shill", who should go to that site instead and "shill over there". But the funny thing is that the site has so overwhelmingly been invaded by KKK types that these people get anti-Semitic slurs hurled at them.

So basically on /pol you have The_Donald at war with the KKK. :psyduck:

The funny thing is that their standard insult, that anything they disagree with is a concern troll, which they label as "Shareblue / CTR", is being equally applied to both sides of these arguments, and because of anonymity, it seems to have the same effect on opinion there when applied by either side against the other.
2017-08-20, 5:19 PM #3741
It seems that Poe's law works very well in trolling extremists, to the point that they can be goaded into backstabbing their moderate supporters.







Another thing that amuses me about the right is that they will ruthlessly attack their own moderates, all the while benefiting from them. I see this being played all the time on the AM radio band, with, e.g., Mitch McConnell being viciously attacked on almost a daily basis. It's either the nefarious "left" bogey man, or their own leaders that they unleash the fury of the base upon as both a distraction from the faults of their own scam, and as a unifying cry against the outgroup, all the while shifting the Overton window by radicalizing their supporters.
2017-08-20, 5:27 PM #3742
I feel like the right has the upper hand in being able to get away with this tactic because they've succeeded in controlling the language. If the left tried this (viciously attacking their own side anybody who wasn't far enough left, in the true sense of the word), they would just be painting a linguistic target on the backs of moderates for the right to hit them with and get them to stay home from the polls--admitting you are genuinely socialist is considered a death blow.

So basically because the Democrats still try to appeal to moderates, they are too afraid to scare them off the second they get branded socialist. As a result the "left" in the USA is hollow and toothless in ideology, and also very bad at the kind of rhetorical trench warfare that conservatives take as second nature. So they surrender the Overton window.

When Dems do dig in their heals and fight viciously, it's just to appeal to special groups in order to recover basic constitutional rights back from Republican encroachment, and this has the unfortunate side effect of turning off anybody remotely center who does not belong to such a group.
2017-08-20, 5:42 PM #3743
Tl;dr: the Republicans have succeeded in their trench warfare approach to winning back soverignty from the federal government by holding hostage the basic constitutional rights of minorities, tricking the Democrats into forming a loose coalition in fighting to restore these basic rights, while surrendering to Republicans on economic rhetoric and emphasis. Sun Tzu probably spoke of instigating a losing side war for your opponent in which you have the upper hand, while you make good on the distraction to go for the main goal. Even worse, they are trying to win back these hostages one by one, and in reaction to to conservatives making this an issue in the first place, which is always a losing approach to waging war.

Of course one might say that it was progressives who are the loony ones that so dared to extend rights to groups of people that cultural inertia didn't extend them to, but I guess this just goes to show how politicking via existing cultural inertia ("conservativism", at least of the social variety) gives you a bunch of free points in the game by tapping into existing prejuduces.
2017-08-20, 5:49 PM #3744
Of course you can argue that the Dems started all of this by making all that trouble to get the Civil Rights Act passed in the 60's, but what are you gonna do....
2017-08-20, 6:04 PM #3745
Which makes me wonder, if the South is so obsessed with civil war reenactments, then why do they so desperately want to deny the nefarious nature of the Confederacy and slavery? They are reenacting a loss, by traitors and slaveholders. Is this kind of like how anti-Semites simultaneously shriek that the Holocaust never happened, all the while celebrating that it did? :confused:

Anybody know a good book on the civil war and the issue of slavery? I am suddenly interested in this topic.

(And I wonder what has happened to the state of education that people can successfully fly the flag of traitors to this day and for the most part evoke only the stereotype of being a hick and not much else.)
2017-08-20, 8:49 PM #3746
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Another thing that amuses me about the right is that they will ruthlessly attack their own moderates, all the while benefiting from them. I see this being played all the time on the AM radio band, with, e.g., Mitch McConnell being viciously attacked on almost a daily basis. It's either the nefarious "left" bogey man, or their own leaders that they unleash the fury of the base upon as both a distraction from the faults of their own scam, and as a unifying cry against the outgroup, all the while shifting the Overton window by radicalizing their supporters.


Is this really a feature that's distinct to the right? Or isn't it just a way in which the conflict between establishment/elite Republicans and anti-establishment/anti-elite conservatives plays out? Because something similar is happening on the left.
former entrepreneur
2017-08-20, 9:00 PM #3747
Originally posted by Eversor:
Is this really a feature that's distinct to the right? Or isn't it just a way in which the conflict between establishment/elite Republicans and anti-establishment/anti-elite conservatives plays out? Because something similar is happening on the left.


I am sure it is happening on the left, since evidence of it at all on the right is probably evidence of the dynamic being universal in some sense.

That said, the fact that I observed it on the right as significant, either speaks to me unfairly scrutinizing the political movement of my opponents, or perhaps because the dynamic is more significantly expressed by the right, or finally perhaps (most likely), that the left doesn't have the equivalent of AM talk radio. Maybe that's what Twitter is? IDK
2017-08-20, 9:29 PM #3748
In the pipeline: a new network, a Fox News for anti-Semites, bankrolled by Robert Mercer, and run by Steve Bannon. Priority number one will be to undermine the "globalists" in Trump's inner circle: namely Gary Cohn, Jared Kushner (and Dina Powell).

Originally posted by Axios:
Unshaven and working from home in cargo shorts as he moves into "Bannon the Barbarian" mode, Steve Bannon is thinking bigger than Breitbart.

Axios' Jonathan Swan hears Bannon has told friends he sees a massive opening to the right of Fox News, raising the possibility that he's going to start a network.

Bannon's friends are speculating about whether it will be a standalone TV network, or online streaming only.

Before his death in May, Roger Ailes had sent word to Bannon that he wanted to start a channel together. Bannon loved the idea: He believes Fox is heading in a squishy, globalist direction as the Murdoch sons assume more power.

Now he has the means, motive and opportunity: His chief financial backer, Long Island hedge fund billionaire Bob Mercer, is ready to invest big in what's coming next, including a huge overseas expansion of Breitbart News.

On Day 1, Bannon declared he's taking his West Wing infighting to the outside, telling Bloomberg Businessweek's Josh Green that he's "going to war for Trump against his opponents — on Capitol Hill, in the media, and in corporate America."

The reality is that Bannon will go nuclear on former colleagues he calls "West Wing Democrats": economic adviser Gary Cohn, Jared and Ivanka ("Javanka," as he calls them) and Deputy National Security Adviser Dina Powell.

The revved-up Breitbart operation is also likely to target Speaker Ryan, as it did before Trump.

Why it matters: The country's national political conversation is about to get even uglier, if you can imagine. It's going to be dark, and toxic, with a fight on the right that may be more bitter and personal than hostilities between Republicans and Democrats.

Bannon signaled his subtle approach in a for-the-ages Weekly Standard interview: "The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over … I feel jacked up … Now I'm free. I've got my hands back on my weapons. … I am definitely going to crush the opposition. There's no doubt. I built a f***ing machine at Breitbart. And now … we're about to rev that machine up."

His restoration as executive chairman of Breitbart News was announced less than five hours after the White House confirmed his "mutually agreed" departure as chief strategist. (Translation: He was told he wasn't long for the West Wing.)

Bannon made a "conqueror's return" to a Breitbart editorial conference call last night, and laid out the battle ahead for the staff.

Josh Green — author of "Devil's Bargain," the book that helped get Bannon fired because Trump hates sharing the spotlight — tweeted: "Bannon sounded like he'd just consumed 40 Red Bulls … At least [he] didn't say he's leaving to spend more time with his family."

Around the corner: Expect Bannon to use Breitbart to engage aggressively in September's policy fights. Watch for Bannon to pressure Trump to veto any government funding bill that doesn't include money to fund the building of that big, beautiful wall he promised along the southern border with Mexico.

Watch for a real fight over the debt ceiling. In other words: Buckle up


https://www.axios.com/what-is-steve-bannon-doing-now-breitbart-network-2474727174.html

In other words: attack those nasty Goldman Sachs bankers in the W.H. until Trump capitulates and builds his wall.
2017-08-20, 9:50 PM #3749
"Build the wall or get impeached"

Originally posted by Vannity Fair:
Breitbart’s defense of Trump has so far helped keep the Russia scandal from gaining traction on the right. But that could swiftly change if Trump, under the influence of Kushner and Cohn, deviates too far from the positions he ran on. If that happens, said one high-level Breitbart staffer, “We’re prepared to help Paul Ryan rally votes for impeachment.”


https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/steve-bannon-readies-his-revenge
2017-08-20, 9:58 PM #3750
I am thinking that what we are witnessing is how Return of The Jedi would have played out if Jared Skywalker had turned to the dark side, and from the side of his father Donald Skywalker, thrown Emperor Bannon out of Coruscant, and ruling the galaxy as father and son-in-law.

But who really thought that Sheev "Palpatine" Bannon would go quietly... after all, whose empire is it if you don't have the loyalty of the Royal Guards, not to mention the likes of Sim Aloo and Janus Greejatus?
2017-08-20, 10:22 PM #3751
Just a few of Sheev "Palpatine" Bannon's homies, just back from a tour of his wife's meth lab in the bathtub of their Florida apartment.



If memory serves, that's good old Sim on the right there. He was quite the force-sensitive party animal in those days!
2017-08-21, 2:45 AM #3752
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
I am sure it is happening on the left, since evidence of it at all on the right is probably evidence of the dynamic being universal in some sense.

That said, the fact that I observed it on the right as significant, either speaks to me unfairly scrutinizing the political movement of my opponents, or perhaps because the dynamic is more significantly expressed by the right, or finally perhaps (most likely), that the left doesn't have the equivalent of AM talk radio. Maybe that's what Twitter is? IDK


The left has historically been much worse for this.

Keep in mind, the modern right wing is a coalition of incompatible factions: Christians and anti-interventionists and pro-interventionists and and white supremacists and anti-globalists and libertarians and yadda yadda yadda. Their infighting has been shockingly mild when you consider how little Republican voters have in common with each other. Mostly it's been doughy Vicodin addicts shouting "RINO" over each other.

The left, however, delights in being as fickle and fracticious as possible. Ever notice how there are always at least four far left parties wherever you go? Social Democracy, Democratic Socialist, Communist, and Communist (Marxist-Leninist). If you look back in their party history, there's a very good chance that they all started as one or two parties, but then broke apart because of in-fighting.

The only thing the left loves more than pointless ideological purity dick wagging is vote splitting.
2017-08-21, 5:31 AM #3753
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Just a few of Sheev "Palpatine" Bannon's homies, just back from a tour of his wife's meth lab in the bathtub of their Florida apartment.



If memory serves, that's good old Sim on the right there. He was quite the force-sensitive party animal in those days!


He looks like Ralph Nader.
former entrepreneur
2017-08-21, 7:34 AM #3754
Originally posted by Jon`C:
The left has historically been much worse for this.

Keep in mind, the modern right wing is a coalition of incompatible factions: Christians and anti-interventionists and pro-interventionists and and white supremacists and anti-globalists and libertarians and yadda yadda yadda. Their infighting has been shockingly mild when you consider how little Republican voters have in common with each other. Mostly it's been doughy Vicodin addicts shouting "RINO" over each other.

The left, however, delights in being as fickle and fracticious as possible. Ever notice how there are always at least four far left parties wherever you go? Social Democracy, Democratic Socialist, Communist, and Communist (Marxist-Leninist). If you look back in their party history, there's a very good chance that they all started as one or two parties, but then broke apart because of in-fighting.

The only thing the left loves more than pointless ideological purity dick wagging is vote splitting.


Much easier to unite under one banner when your ideology is about law and order, worshipping industrialists, and strong leadership, than an ideology about no gods and no masters.
2017-08-21, 7:48 AM #3755
Originally posted by Reid:
Much easier to unite under one banner when your ideology is about law and order, worshipping industrialists, and strong leadership, than an ideology about no gods and no masters.


In my view it has more to do with the fact that the right can rally behind patriotism as a lowest common denominator that unites its various coalitions, while the left can't rely on patriotism as an instrument of unity because it's critical of the nation-state and national identity.

The left has always had plenty of its own "gods and masters".
former entrepreneur
2017-08-21, 7:58 AM #3756
Communism, Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism are all ideologies that demand very different understanding of who is the "we" whose liberation we're fighting for -- whether international workers (Communism), or the workers of the country in which "we" live (Democratic Socialism), or the country's citizens, with emphasis placed on those who are disadvantaged by capitalism (Social Democracy). On the right, I think most parties agree that, no matter what one's ideological bent, the government should advance the interests of the national group, or the country (although groups on the right may disagree on how those things are defined, at the very least they can rally behind national symbols that the perceive as unifying, even if they interpret them in different ways).
former entrepreneur
2017-08-21, 9:34 AM #3757
Originally posted by Reid:
an ideology about no gods and no masters.


I mean I appreciate how highfalutin and lofty your rhetoric is here, but you really don't have to look very far to see how the most noble and idealistic left-leaning ideologies can produce the exact opposite of freedom and emancipation.

And if you look at American politics especially, if you look at the rhetoric of the Republican party and take it at face value (and ignore all of its hypocrisy and the ways that it doesn't actually live up to its ideals, which is what you just did with the left), you see that Republican politicians and pundits invoke abstract ideals, such as freedom, much more than Democrats do. I'd hardly say that conservatives are incapable of being freedom loving, or something like that.
former entrepreneur
2017-08-21, 10:17 AM #3758
No gods, no masters is an anarchist/labor slogan, I was being cheeky. So the opposite of highfalutin and lofty.

There is a really interesting author, Max Stirner, who writes about the "pious" left-atheists and the idols they set up to replace God. And how even abstract ideas like "Mankind" can serve as stand-ins for totality, God or whatever. The end result is something of a base materialist egoism. I agree and the left needs to drop the ideologies and fight for concrete changes.
2017-08-21, 11:27 AM #3759
Originally posted by Jon`C:
The left, however, delights in being as fickle and fracticious as possible. Ever notice how there are always at least four far left parties wherever you go? Social Democracy, Democratic Socialist, Communist, and Communist (Marxist-Leninist).


And then there's the United States, where we have none of those parties. Maybe this is why you'd say we don't have a "left".

Quote:
If you look back in their party history, there's a very good chance that they all started as one or two parties, but then broke apart because of in-fighting.


I guess I'll have to go searching six feet under to look for evidence that these parties even existed here....
2017-08-21, 11:32 AM #3760
We're the socialist smashing country.

If you don't love America, then you can geeeeet out!

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401

↑ Up to the top!