Lurker > Inviso

HeroicCrono posted...

Inviso, that is not what I said. Feel free to debate strawmen all you want though.

Not debating a straw man. You're trying to argue that discrimination against gays is okay because it's on a small scale, whereas "discrimination" against violent terrorists is bad because it's on a large scale.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

HeroicCrono posted...

More like, if you're small you can do less damage. And less damage is better than more damage.

"It's okay to discriminate, so long as you're small enough to avoid negative attention for it."

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Raven (DC Comics)
Cheetah (DC Comics)
Gamora (Marvel Comics)
Spidergwen (Marvel Comics)

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

red sox 777 posted...

The situation isn't really the same as with the bakeries. It would be more like if there were a handful of bakery companies that made 99% of cakes in the country, and all of them refused to make cakes for a certain class of people. Or, I suppose, if there were a great many bakeries, and again bakeries with market share adding up to 99% refused to bake cakes for certain people.

When a company or a group of companies form a monopoly/duopoly, they have a much greater impact. An extreme example would be the East India Company, which was effectively the government of India and had a legal monopoly. The South Seas Company was granted a similar monopoly for trade with South America, except that in their case it was useless because there was no trade.

I think what I'm getting out of this is that large corporations in the US are too powerful and they should be broken up. Some of you will favor regulation but I don't think that will ever really work, and is a pathway to even more danger, if the regulator is the one screwing things up. The best way is aggressive use of the anti-trust law to break up corporations with excessively high market share.

"It's okay to discriminate, so long as you're small enough to avoid negative attention for it."

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

6 movies left to watch.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

I think they went VERY wrong with James Spader as Ultron, personally. Spader is an intimidating and imposing presence, and they plastered over him with layers of CGI to make him into an expressionless robot, relying entirely on voice acting to carry the character...which even James Spader couldn't do.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

As happy as I am that Twitter is finally banning the leader of a right-wing terrorist organization that has been allowed to openly foment violence and hate speech for four years...this really should've happened a LONG time ago, rather than in a cowardly fashion, only after his coup attempt failed, with less than two weeks left in his presidency.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1347521407463415808

I know I shouldn't be surprised by the shit Fox News says (I mean, Tucker and Sean tried to blame everything on Antifa, didn't they?), but this shit is still infuriating. Insurrectionists broke into the Capitol and tried to deny the rightful winner of the presidency because 75 million people are SCARED, and we should feel bad for them.

1. What about the 81 million people who turned out in terror to vote out the asshole that inspired these psychopaths? You do realize that their insurrection was meant to overrule the will of those 81 million, right? How come those big numbers don't matter when it's the other side, Ainsley?
2. Maybe not as big as 75 million, but I seem to recall that 65 million people voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and despite winning the popular vote by 3 million, she was locked out of the presidency by, and I must emphasize this again, the asshole who incited those psychopaths on Wednesday. Those 65 million were terrified too, but I don't recall them storming the fucking Capitol building to try and stop Trump from getting certified as president. I DO recall a large protest against him around the time of his inauguration that result in little to no violence. It might have been overlooked by Fox since they were busy trying to tie it to the inauguration crowd size, but yeah, the response was not the same.
3. Most importantly, perhaps those 75 million people are terrified of JOE BIDEN, a man so milquetoast that he has infuriated the progressive wing of the party since BEFORE HE ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY, because you have devoted the resources of your media empire to building up the Democratic Party as a collective entity hellbent on destroying the American way of life. Your entire business model is based around ginning up the fears of easily-susceptible people whose brain chemistry makes them terrified of change. And you just kept pushing the narrative and ramping it up again and again, because you have to. After all, when nothing REALLY negatively impacts people under a Democrat, and nothing REALLY positively impacts people under a Republican, people might start to get wise to your grift. So you keep making up blatant lies that, even if you later retract them, have burrowed their way into the collective consciousness. They grow more and more outlandish, to the point where a racist conman becomes their voice and he's the only person they trust anymore. That's a REAL slippery slope, Fox News, and it's YOUR fucking fault. But of course, no one will ever hear that side on your network, because none of you have the desire to lose revenue by announcing your complicity in the swirling storm of chaos and violence wrought by the GOP voters.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

I think foolmo is referring to a similar, but different experience he himself has had.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

masterplum posted...

What evidence do you have of this? The current situation is completely unparalleled. We have seen Democrat turnout decline but we havent ever seen surges in Republican turnout. Usually republicans are the reliable voters

Exactly. Republicans are the reliable voters. Give this a year of Biden and I see no reason to believe that all these people handwringing over Trump's coup attempt won't immediately start sweating bullets over the possibility of more liberalism and progressivism. Whereas Democratic enthusiasm is a lot harder to maintain.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

masterplum posted...

I dont think there is any reason to assume new Republicans stay and New Democrats go away. That feels like baseless conjecture.

Have you...FOLLOWED politics...ever?

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

masterplum posted...

If every Trump voter is anti liberal (They arent) and if demographics dont keep changing (They will) Trump still lost the election.

2020 was peak hysteria. There werent any more converts Trump could win over.

I think the democrats are in a damn good position as long as they dont blow it by fracturing themselves which will require compromise by their tent poles

The problem with this logic is that "Trump lost the election, therefore the GOP is dying" is not what's being argued. Trump lost in a massive defeat because of him specifically driving turnout among Democrats. But Trump still got more votes than any other presidential candidate in history, save for one. He managed to turn out 10 million NEW voters, AFTER four years of his incompetence and divisive rhetoric.

I guess what I'm saying is that Trump managed to turn out, what, 15 million more Democratic voters to vote against the kind of man who we've seen very much in action this week. But at the same time, he managed to turn out 10 million Republican voters to either vote FOR him, or vote AGAINST Joe Biden...which hardly seems comparable, even if you dislike Joe Biden. I just don't have faith that those Democratic voters will stick around now that they've voted out the "threat", whereas I believe GOP voters have every reason to double down, since the thing they're voting for (NOT THE LIBS!) hasn't changed.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

LapisLazuli posted...

It depends on the state of the GOP in 2 years. Not impossible they won't still be at war with eachother.

Honestly, they're only at war with each other now because they lost. One year from now, with an election looming, their voters will realize that despite their differences, they'd rather have Nazis storming the Capitol than progressive policies, and they'll come home to roost.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Crescent-Moon posted...

The Senate will likely flip back. The Dems wanted not just a majority here, but a cushion, since they expect to lose seats in 2022.

This ending was basically the miracle the Democrats needed for this to not be a massive failure in Congress, but I suspect both of those seats will flip back so this win is ultimately only temporary.

Dems didn't flip a single house seat, if I remember right.

It looks like they flipped 3 seats, including the seat Ossoff lost when he ran in 2018.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik, you're opening up a very slippery slope.

Say, for example, that you had a good cop. He's with his partner and they've pulled over a black man. The black man is complying with their demands and keeping his hands on the steering wheel, but the partner is just getting more and more agitated and has removed his sidearm from its holster. Now, in this scenario, the good cop is calm and able to see that the black driver is not a threat, but his partner is rapidly escalating the situation. By your logic that it is acceptable for the police to shoot and kill a person who is posing an immediate threat to public safety (without having harmed anyone yet), would the good cop be justified in shooting and killing his partner in order to protect the black driver from potential harm? Note, I say cop because we all know that the rules don't apply to civilians, and if a civvie killed a cop, that civvie would receive life imprisonment if LUCKY.

At what point does "fear for the safety of the public" become irrational enough that a shooting is no longer justified?

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

No. Jump to conclusions mat for you on that one.

It's your words, Corrik. Jakyl talks about how you shouldn't shoot someone because they MIGHT become a threat, and the FIRST example that you thought to respond with was "What if you didn't arrest (sic) a terrorist just because they hadn't bombed anything yet?" The first example that popped into your head was specifically NOT one in which someone had to die for a crime they hadn't committed. That's how Freudian slips work, when the thing you're really thinking just slips out and overrides what you're trying to say.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

If you have reasonable and justifiable suspicion to believe they are a threat to society, you act. You don't wait til lives are being lost to do so.

Can you imagine not picking up terrorists who plan to bomb public centers because they haven't done it yet? Lmfao.

Corrik, looking at the way you just framed your own example. "Can you imagine not picking up terrorists?" Not "Can you imagine not shooting terrorists?" That's a Freudian slip of the highest degree, because even you realize deep down in your brain that a person should perhaps not be executed without a trial for a crime they MIGHT commit.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

Cuz they failed to do their job properly. Just like they failed to be prepared. Just like the president failed to have the national guard come. They failed.

WHY did they fail? C'mon Corrik, you're smart enough to constantly find verbal loopholes to drag out arguments, you're smart enough to know that they didn't just "fail". Hell, they've managed to call in suited-up national guardsmen to protect THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL when the opposition in Black Lives Matter. Yet they couldn't foresee THIS coming? I mean, even if they thought "This is just going to be a peaceful protest", we've had four years of right wingers getting into protest clashes with left wing counter protestors. But still, no preparation whatsoever. Just let it happen.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

Yes the shooting was justified and they would have been justified to have shot more. There was terrorists storming the Capitol. You have zero reason to assume they are not their to harm innocents.

And. They. Didn't.

Consider WHY that might be.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

President sowing racial discord in a time of chaos is ridiculous. I am expecting better from it regarding this. Obama sowed so much racial discord during his presidency it is ridiculous. I am expecting a Biden presidency. Not an Obama 2.0 presidency.

Obama only sowed racial discord in that he was a black man who demonstrated to other black people that "hey wait a minute, we can really become the President of the United States and we're STILL getting treated like shit by the systems and establishments of this country?" Oh, and of course the angry white people who feel threatened by the concept of a minority holding power over them in any way.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

No there isn't. And, it would completely destroy the country. You can't fiscally support that many that quickly. Logistics for food would be insane and starvation would happen. Complete collapse of infrastructure and lack of it in areas. Social nets would collapse. It would be insanity.

Why is it a utopian dream when we say that we should just let in anyone who wants to come in, but when you make the case that the U.S. would immediately be flooded with millions of people all at once, completely turning our country into a devastated hellscape, that's realistic? C'mon man, be consistent.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

https://news.trust.org/item/20210107174207-tr623/

Good of her to put in her two weeks' notice...*checks calendar* two weeks before being fired.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

It's impossible to let anyone you want in. Another utopian dream.

We LITERALLY did this just over a hundred years ago. My point is that we've now made the decision to arbitrarily limit immigration from specific groups in a way that our ancestors (who HAPPENED to be white Europeans) were not limited. Can you not at least understand that it looks fucked up to essentially pull the ladder up behind you after you've already gotten into the clubhouse?

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

lolwhat

The DNC cultivated Trump. Let's hope that current 2021 DNC isn't so stupid.

You're making a big assumption that the DNC was competent enough to put forth a strategy that succeeded (getting Trump the nomination, not beating him in the election).

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

Honestly the legal immigration and illegal immigrations may be linked. It may be a chicken and egg scenario. Does increasing legal immigration reduce illegal immigration? Not entirely sure it matters. Does more illegal immigration mean more reluctance towards legal immigration because what is slotted for immigration is being taken up illegally? Possibly.

Obviously we want a nice determined number for legal immigration that makes the most economic and moral sense. It doesn't have to be a low number. However, there is nothing wrong also with weighting it towards immigrants that can provide more societal benefit to the citizens in the United States, such as able to hold a steady job, education, lack of criminal history, etc.

Can you at least understand the argument of how that's fucked up? Like, America is literally a country founded on immigrants, and throughout the mid-late 1800s into the early 1900s, our whole thing was opening our doors to accept anyone who wanted to come here (and then they were allowed to succeed or fail on their own merits). Yet nowadays, now that the immigrants are brown (maybe it's coincidental that the policy harms minorities or maybe it's intentionally racist...we're obviously going to disagree on that), we need to have restrictions as to who is allowed to become an American?

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

If that's your argument, then I just don't think we're ever going to see eye-to-eye. I mean, my next point would be that your views on crime are similarly instilled by your environment and that we don't live in a fantasy world where all crime is stamped out. Rather, the only crimes that are punished are those committed by those not powerful enough to fight them, and the fact that we focus on victimless crimes by the poor and powerless rather than going after the powerful speaks volumes about what our ACTUAL priorities are when it comes to criminal justice.

Furthermore, we've dramatically restricted options for people to LEGALLY immigrate to this country which directly leads to MORE illegal immigration, which seems like it should be a problem. Which again, really makes it feel like it's less about protecting sovereignty and our borders (and maintaining law and order, since we could easily just loosen restrictions), and more about making sure very specific people can't get in.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

It shouldn't be. You said this is about what I believe. You are making it about what others have done.

It is about what you believe. I'm making the point that perhaps your beliefs are based upon a foundation of people providing you with inaccurate or outright false information that masks the true nature of the policies they're pushing. You've made quite a few posts in recent months about how you're the only sane person in your current sphere; that your co-workers and your fiance and your family have all bought into the Trump cult hook, line, and sinker. My argument is that this isn't a NEW thing. Trump didn't just magically transform the Republican Party into some new form. It's the same as its always been...just more aggressive.

With that in mind, I'm asking you to consider that perhaps your beliefs on immigration are based on information originally imparted unto you by a culture of people couching racism in this idea (which sounds fine, as dogwhistles usually do) that our borders need extreme protection from outside threats. That perhaps what you view as threatening has been blown out of proportion in order to trigger more of a fear response and get you onboard with racist tactics in the name of national security.

My points of the GOP ignoring certain aspects of illegal immigration in favor of others is meant to indicate where their REAL focus is. If their focus is entirely on keeping Mexicans from crossing the border rather than instead of (or in addition to as the case may be) more prominent forms of illegal immigration, perhaps their goals are less about national security and are more racially motivated. And if their goals are racially motivated enough that they're not ACTUALLY worrying about national security, perhaps there ISN'T really a threat to our sovereignty that requires constant vigilance and additional efforts towards border protection.

All I'm saying here is that your beliefs may be a product of your environment. I know mine were. I voted McCain in 2008 after all and was a Republican well into my years at college, because that was the familial environment I lived in. Those were the influences I had. There was a time when I was pro-life (for fucked up reasons, too). Again, I don't know how many of the people you've mentioned in recent months have been a part of your life for a long time, but if you've been surrounded by these people and a similar culture for long enough, perhaps you've adopted certain beliefs based on that influence that are not based in reality.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

They should be taking care of that also. It's a part of our border, even if inside the United States already. That's an additional thing not an instead of thing.

And again, I'm asking WHY it's currently an "instead of" thing instead of an "additional" thing?

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

Stronger borders was a priority if I think every single president in the last 20+ years, probably way longer. I feel confident to say there is actually a sizable issue with illegal immigration going on that all those in power recognize with their informed position. You keep saying you don't think there is and it's not worth it, etc. However, you really don't have a reliable position on it, especially when you allude to racism at the top of the decision making when this is a pretty shared view from our presidents regardless of party.

Note, I never said illegal immigration wasn't a problem. I said that the focus seems to be entirely on the minimal amount of illegal immigration across our southern border, rather than the far greater problem of illegal immigration in the form of people overstaying legal visas. But we don't invest nearly as much time or energy into fixing THAT problem as we do in making sure that Latin Americans can't get into this country. And the reason I call out the GOP rather than the Democrats (and I fully admit that Obama deported MASSIVE numbers of undocumented immigrants) is because the GOP openly supported and elected a president whose immigration policy involved calling Mexicans murderers and rapists and drug dealers (and some good people as well), which really pulled back the curtain and the quiet part out loud, as it were.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

You are changing the discussion, Inviso. I didn't say a single thing about our southern border specifically. And, yes, we should be cracking down on those things also. It's why I said we need to have a strong border everywhere.

I'm not changing the discussion. I'm making the point that you can say, all you want, that you want stronger border protections because you think it keeps us safer (I'd argue it really doesn't, and there's not a whole lot we can do about that, but that's neither here nor there), but the fact is that the people in power (Republicans and Trump, for whom I'm sure the argument of border security was a major selling point of your vote in 2016) who are using that argument as a central part of their platform...don't really care about border security. If they actually care about protecting our sovereignty, they clearly don't care about protecting against the real threats...I mean, they're putting a lot of emphasis in places that are ineffective if so.

With that in mind, I'm asking that you question what motivations THOSE people have for pushing for "border security", since they seem to have a very narrow focus on what that constitutes. And once you've examined THEIR motivations, I'm asking that you reevaluate your own stance. Note, I'm not trying to say YOU are a racist or anything. I'm making the case that the people in charge of this whole debate have taken a baseline level of racial animus and wrapped that up in the safe packaging of "border security". And then they've sold you, a person who wants the country to be safe and secure, a bill of goods that makes you think that A. our country is far more endangered from outside threats than we actually are, and B. increased border security will protect us more than other methods.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

All borders should be secured as best as we possibly can. Doesn't matter what direction. If there is a place that requires more help in order to achieve that, then those areas should get it.

And again, we're NOT adding extra security to the places where we actually need it. We're adding border security to prevent the most minor of issues, which has the added benefit of blocking out Latin Americans from potentially immigrating to the United States. You can say all you want that things SHOULD be happening one way, but they're clearly NOT. Just like your argument that the insurrectionists SHOULD have been treated as harshly and severely as BLM protestors. Yes, they SHOULD have. But they weren't. And saying "well things should be this way" instead of questioning "Why AREN'T they that way?" just leads to the same shit happening again and again.

If instead of just saying "Well it SHOULD be this way", you ask yourself "Why DOESN'T border security focus more on the prevalent issues, like overstaying legal visas, or drugs getting through legal border checkpoints?", you might start to wonder just what EXACTLY if the reason why the debate seems so laser focused on keeping poor Mexicans out of this country. YOU may think border security is vital to protecting our sovereignty, but I'd argue that our sovereignty is pretty well-protected as is, or that we're putting emphasis on the wrong places if that's what we REALLY care about protecting.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

A person who is not supposed to be here cannot be accounted for and can take from the system economically that hurts an American citizen. Whether they would or not doesn't matter, it is that they can and we can't account for it. If drug traffickers want to cross a border, they can. These are all ways citizens can come to foreign harm by not having strong borders. You don't need walls. But, if walls are needed to help you with the problem, then you should have them.

I'd just argue that the only way this would ever work is to completely close off the country from ALL outsiders. After all, the majority of foreign drugs get into the country through legal points of entry, and there's really nothing stopping foreigners from legally entering the country via tourist or education or work visas and just overstaying their limit (which is the majority of illegal immigration in America).

Time and time again, it seems like the only reason there's such a strong focus on border security in particular is because it's meant to target a VERY SPECIFIC group of people from being allowed access to America. And again, I'd like to point out that Trump was EXPLICIT in explaining this back in 2016, and he was elected president after saying it.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

Terrorism isn't the only foreign threat.

Then what is? Again, you're telling me that the most powerful country in the Western Hemisphere is in danger from foreign attackers, yet all we need to do to prevent that is lock down our borders a little more. Surely that will deter people who have the capability to inflict tremendous harm on our country, yet can't fathom a way to circumvent our border security.

It just...there isn't any logic there that makes sense to me. The only people who are going to be stopped by border security are those too weak to find a way around border security, and those people aren't really threats. Nominally, yes, border security protects our country. But the thing it's nominally MEANT to protect us from is minor at best, which then begs the question as to what reason is there for making such a mountain out of this molehill.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

Our government has responsibility to protect American citizens from foreign threat. It is one of the utmost priorities of our government's existence. If it cannot even try to provide that, it shouldn't even exist realistically. The everyone can be happy and love together lah dee dah take is not realistic and a hopeless utopian dream.

We have multiple agencies tasked with overseeing our national security, and honestly, if the only stopgap we have to foreign terrorist attack is "don't let them get into the country in the first place", then that's a really sad indictment of our country as a whole. It just seems like an extreme fix to a minor problem at best, that ultimately has far greater repercussions in other areas. It's kinda like people who want stricter voting ID to combat the near-nonexistent problem of voter fraud, which serves the greater purpose of preventing more legal voters from being able to vote.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

Obviously protection of our citizens. Economically and physically. Stability. Structure.

We have sovereignty over our land, not other countries. And, we have status that makes us desirable to both those who are less fortunate (which is unfeasible for us to take in en masse), for enemies go our country, and for those who see opportunities to take advantage of the economic commerce within it.

And how does any of that change with lax border protections or more freedom of movement (which, keep in mind, we had no problem with our Canadian border for YEARS without issue...didn't even need a passport)?

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

You need strong borders, a proper system of immigration in a legal manner, and proper enforcement of illegal immigration. Strong borders are important to our sovereignty.

First off, I agree that we need a proper legal immigration system in place. However, as it stands (and this is not just a Trump thing, I will admit), our country has, in recent years, made it far more difficult than necessary for people to legally immigrate to America. Given how America is supposed to be the greatest country on the planet, it makes sense that people would want to live here, yet we've very much taken an approach of "no no, country's full".

But moving on to your "strong borders" point...why? With the POSSIBLE exception of Canada, the United States is the sole superpower country on the combined North/South America landmass. Every other superpower (or at least first world nation) is across the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean from us. Hell, this is part of how we became so dominant in the first place: because we were allowed to thrive without competition for so long. Our sovereignty is not in question. What exactly are "strong borders" supposed to do?

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

My views aren't a product of my environment, imo. Maybe. But, my views have predated knowing most of all these people. My family was Democrats when I was younger. This area has become increasingly republican. It wasn't always so.

Let's start smaller then. You're from Pennsylvania. I'm from Connecticut. In both of our cases, the only immigration we REALLY need to worry about is those darn Canadians sneaking over the border to tempt us with their hockey and syrup. So what exactly would you say are your views on immigration?

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

Listen. I don't think most people keep scorecard of violence on sides. I also don't think there is a place for condoning of violence and crime like your parenthesis likes to allude to.

If you aren't going to take your own advice seriously, you should just stop. You don't get to create qualifiers to not do so.

That said, I don't support the crazy stances that many have taken. Not do I feel like it is indicative of the Republican view, though I admit maybe the Republican party has fallen to it... In which I don't want to be a part of it. That doesn't change my economic, immigration, foreign policy, and etc views. I don't have my views because of a side.

I agree, there isn't a place for condoning of violence and crime. That's why when I think of BLM, I want the instigators of violence to be punished, and I want the rules to be changed so it'd not "legal" when they commit what would be a crime for anyone else.

As for your views though, they're very much right-wing, as much as you want to claim common sense and centrism, and perhaps a reexamination of those views, given with whom your share them (and given the environment that led to you adopting said views...an environment you have become increasingly aware is made up of insane people, if your stories about your girlfriend and co-workers are to be used as evidence) is in order.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

So do you reconsider them or not?

If violent extremists overwhelmingly supported my views, I would reconsider, yes. I know you're trying to "both sides" this, but there just ISN'T the same kind of insanity that we saw yesterday from people on the left. The worst you can find is BLM riots, and even that is a very narrowly-focused group attacking one specific issue (which you could similarly "both sides" by pointing out the violence and instigation of the police in those riots).

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

Do you say this with the extremists that believe your views?

If violent extremists had an overwhelming tendency to support my views, I would have to reconsider what exactly it is about those views that attracts violent extremists, yes.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

You don't have to be a nutjob to agree with economic, immigration, and trade policies.

You don't have to be...but perhaps if those policies are supported by violent, insurrectionist nutjobs...there is the POSSIBILITY that they're not as "common sense" as you treat them sometimes.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

I'm still a Republican... For now. We will see how they handle this mess though. It's a shame that Trump's policies were relatively on point, and his supporters are acting so fucking stupid and so is Trump that this is what happened.

Just, just a thought experiment...but maybe those "relatively on point policies" are exactly the sort of thing his supporters wanted, so maybe you should reconsider just how "on point" they really were.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Wanglicious posted...

well yeah on that end.
but the speed i mean is just that it went from protest to storming the capitol, bombs in both DNC and RNC, raid hard drives and other items, etc. all before curfew.

which has begun.
gas masks are on.

I mean, we've had instances of cities mobilizing the national guard in advance of the inevitable acquittal of a police officer who shot an unarmed black man. There should've been no problem preparing for this shit (since we all already know what they're capable of, and have demonstrated in the past).

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Corrik7 posted...

I am glad Trump lost and the Republican party lost all power. Courting these extremists is insane. We need to be rid of them. This isn't what the Republican Party is.

What do you think the Republican Party IS, exactly? Because the past twelve years have shown that this is very much what they are, or at least what they ideally wish to be. If you're a conservative (a genuine conservative and not just a conservatroll that wants to upset liberals), then the right wing of the Democratic party (aka centrists for the country overall) is wide open.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

My bad. I even double-checked to see that the picture wasn't shopped, but it didn't occur to me that the woman was Pence's wife and not Kamala >_>

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

https://twitter.com/Mike_Pence?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Note his Twitter background.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

NFUN posted...

I advocate for everybody to block Ulti. Vlado is ten times worse. I cannot fathom why anybody welcomes him at this point

Honestly, all Vlado does now is his pointless Babe Brawl series, and occasionally posting about how only people who don't care about modern gaming are smart.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Nanis23 posted...

Don't misunderstand,
And maybe it's my fault for not being clear and I will say this again-

I don't defend Trump supporters. Fuck them. They ARE terrorists

But I can't stand people that defended the previous riots this year suddenly going and saying how "violent riots are not ok"

The reason the Trump supporters are being called terrorists is because they incited violence. The reason antifa/BLM were not called terrorists (except by right-wing media) is because they were peaceful protestors who only became violent in self-defense when unnecessary violence was targeted at them.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Terrorist - Noun - "A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

In the BLM instance, the terrorists would be the armed officers inciting violence against peaceful protests in order to intimidate them into dispersing. In the current instance, the terrorists would be the MAGA brigade inciting violence against the government.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso

Terrorist - Noun - "A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

In the BLM instance, the terrorists would be the armed officers inciting violence against peaceful protests in order to intimidate them into dispersing. In the current instance, the terrorists would be the MAGA brigade inciting violence against the government.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso