Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 202: More Like Cesar Say-owned

(+) Yeah! (+)

Question

How would you guys go about moving the US away from a two-party system? Is it even possible?
---

Corrik if you actually believe lack of US citizenship implies inferiority then that is absolutely racism.

I suspect you're trying to say that US law should treat citizens and non-citizen differently (which is not necessarily racism), but it was somewhat ambiguously worded.
---

XIII_rocks posted...

Question

How would you guys go about moving the US away from a two-party system? Is it even possible?

Change voting from first past the post would be the first step.
---

Shaduln posted...

XIII_rocks posted...

Question

How would you guys go about moving the US away from a two-party system? Is it even possible?

Change voting from first past the post would be the first step.

Yup
---

Corrik, you LITERALLY claimed in THIS topic that Peaf (and other sunsets of Jews) were only upset about the embassy move to Jerusalem because a Republican did it instead of a Democrat. No proof, no consideration of other reasons...just straight up pushing your interpretation of events and putting words in Peafs mouth. Yet more than ANYONE else in this topic series, YOU are the FIRST person to automatically leap to the defense of any Republican voice whose words are being interpreted as racist or sexist or homophobic or whatever. So dont fucking pull that shit when you CLEARLY only give a shit about literal or figurative interpretations that make your guy look good or make the other side look bad.
---

I've pointed this out before and Corrik's response will be "lol".
---

XIII_rocks posted...

How would you guys go about moving the US away from a two-party system? Is it even possible?

I don't think either party would let a system that risks them having control in place.
---

The reason that minorities, or other people who the Democrats do nothing for, should vote Republican, is to get representatives that will do something for them. Republican politicians take care of their voters. They really don't care who you are - if you vote for them and your vote depends on them taking care of you, they will take care of you, to the extent needed to continue getting your vote.
---

red sox 777 posted...

The reason that minorities, or other people who the Democrats do nothing for, should vote Republican, is to get representatives that will do something for them. Republican politicians take care of their voters. They really don't care who you are - if you vote for them and your vote depends on them taking care of you, they will take care of you, to the extent needed to continue getting your vote.

Except the only people that benefit from GOP policy is rich white dudes.

Pretty sure that's not the only people voting for them. If it was they'd have exactly zero power.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

The reason that minorities, or other people who the Democrats do nothing for, should vote Republican, is to get representatives that will do something for them. Republican politicians take care of their voters. They really don't care who you are - if you vote for them and your vote depends on them taking care of you, they will take care of you, to the extent needed to continue getting your vote.

Except the only people that benefit from GOP policy is rich white dudes.

Pretty sure that's not the only people voting for them. If it was they'd have exactly zero power.

Loads of people benefit from GOP policies, who aren't rich or white. Myself included. Maybe as much as 47% of the country benefits, which is the target (since that's about how many people vote for Republicans).
---

Espeon posted...

Corrik, you LITERALLY claimed in THIS topic that Peaf (and other sunsets of Jews) were only upset about the embassy move to Jerusalem because a Republican did it instead of a Democrat. No proof, no consideration of other reasons...just straight up pushing your interpretation of events and putting words in Peafs mouth. Yet more than ANYONE else in this topic series, YOU are the FIRST person to automatically leap to the defense of any Republican voice whose words are being interpreted as racist or sexist or homophobic or whatever. So dont fucking pull that shit when you CLEARLY only give a shit about literal or figurative interpretations that make your guy look good or make the other side look bad.

Wrong. Denounced a ton of people as idiots who are Republican. But, nice try!

I absolutely ask for context in your claims of things, which can usually explain the intent or purpose of what you try to spin. Yes, that is true.

Also, noted that these racist things were not brought up. Probably because you know stations wouldn't even air actual racist ads and the ads are just something liberals are claiming to be racist when they likely aren't. Probably some racist dogwhistles that only liberals can hear again I guess.
---

pyresword posted...

Corrik if you actually believe lack of US citizenship implies inferiority then that is absolutely racism.

I suspect you're trying to say that US law should treat citizens and non-citizen differently (which is not necessarily racism), but it was somewhat ambiguously worded.

The government's main purpose is to be for the citizens of it's nation. Yes, every other person is not the priority of the government. Just the citizens. At no point should people of other nations be put above that of a citizen.

If you are doing something that benefits another nation or people if another nation , you better believe it in the end is benefitting your citizens to do so. The government's sole existence is to protect and serve it's citizens.

If you call that inferiority, then so be it (though it doesn't make them inferior as people - it makes them inferior of importance to.oir government) What it means is that our government is out for it's citizens above all.

If you see that as racism, then you should learn the definition.

Our country is a nation of many races across the entire globe. And each member of said races as citizens are equals under our government.
---

Also, I find it kind of weird Republicans are using "Other than Canada, the US is the only first world country that has birthright citizenship"

How many first world countries have the right to bear arms in their constitution?
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Also, I find it kind of weird Republicans are using "Other than Canada, the US is the only first world country that has birthright citizenship"

How many first world countries have the right to bear arms in their constitution?

United States has very forgiving birth right citizenship laws. I pretty much agree someone flying over the country and emergency lands who isn't a citizen to have a kid shouldn't make that kid itself a US citizen. But, I mean, while I do think it is debatable enough to enact into law and let the supreme Court rule on it as far as the jurisdiction of part, I think the US Supreme Court very well could rule in favor of the current interpretation.

You have a lot of conservatives on the court who like to rule on past precedent.

You could argue they might use past precedent of how the 14th amendment was intended. But, I think they likely would go with the most recent interpretations.

Thus, I think it is something that will not happen.
---

Which is why I made the joke about how you would claim an ad of Trump dancing and singing in a circle with Klansmen and Neo-Nazis was just him highlighting how much unity hes creating. No matter the circumstance, you CONSISTENTLY defend blatant dog whistles as not being racist (which is the whole damn point of dog whistling...to create plausible deniability while still getting your point across...hence Richard Spencer being able to come out and say Trump supports his cause after the whole both sides are equally bad fiasco).

Now Im not saying that there arent instances of liberals overreacting to minor things. But you CONSTANTLY jump to the immediate conclusion of liberals are overreacting and immediately justifying even the most racially abhorrent incidents.
---

Espeon posted...

Which is why I made the joke about how you would claim an ad of Trump dancing and singing in a circle with Klansmen and Neo-Nazis was just him highlighting how much unity hes creating. No matter the circumstance, you CONSISTENTLY defend blatant dog whistles as not being racist (which is the whole damn point of dog whistling...to create plausible deniability while still getting your point across...hence Richard Spencer being able to come out and say Trump supports his cause after the whole both sides are equally bad fiasco).

Now Im not saying that there arent instances of liberals overreacting to minor things. But you CONSTANTLY jump to the immediate conclusion of liberals are overreacting and immediately justifying even the most racially abhorrent incidents.

Yeah. I only agree with people when they are right. Not when they are trying to twist things to what they want to be as right.

For example, people complaining about Donelly saying racist shit because of how he phrased stuff is stupid also. It wasn't racist. And it wasn't dogwhistles to racists in Indiana to try and get their votes or whatever else.
---

yo if any of you arent watching this Jacob Wohl press conference you are missing out on comedy gold
---

You people can't help yourselves.

Can't believe I used to be the same.
---

Link
---

The Mana Sword posted...

yo if any of you arent watching this Jacob Wohl press conference you are missing out on comedy gold

Is he holding it in a liberal coffee bar?
---

dang it just finished, sorry

was watching here

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1MYGNyrreaQKw

but they left
---

Corrik posted...

pyresword posted...

Corrik if you actually believe lack of US citizenship implies inferiority then that is absolutely racism.

I suspect you're trying to say that US law should treat citizens and non-citizen differently (which is not necessarily racism), but it was somewhat ambiguously worded.

The government's main purpose is to be for the citizens of it's nation. Yes, every other person is not the priority of the government. Just the citizens. At no point should people of other nations be put above that of a citizen.

If you are doing something that benefits another nation or people if another nation , you better believe it in the end is benefitting your citizens to do so. The government's sole existence is to protect and serve it's citizens.

If you call that inferiority, then so be it (though it doesn't make them inferior as people - it makes them inferior of importance to.oir government) What it means is that our government is out for it's citizens above all.

If you see that as racism, then you should learn the definition.

Our country is a nation of many races across the entire globe. And each member of said races as citizens are equals under our government.

I more or less agree with you. (at least in an ideological sense. I expect we would disagree over actual policies for which we were trying to apply these principles) I just wasn't clear on whether or not you were saying in your own eyes or in the eyes of the government.

Saying that US citizens are better than people who aren't US citizens is inherently racist.

Saying that the US government should treat US citizens better than non-citizens is not inherently racist.
---

pyresword posted...

Saying that US citizens are better than people who aren't US citizens is inherently racist.

It is extreme nationalism. Not racism.

It is a step further than I am willing to go being a nationalist myself.
---

American exceptionalism is one of our worst ideas
---

Corrik posted...

pyresword posted...

Saying that US citizens are better than people who aren't US citizens is inherently racist.

It is extreme nationalism. Not racism.

It is a step further than I am willing to go being a nationalist myself.

Nationalism is an inherently racist ideology. Nationalism is the reason radical Islamic extremists think they need to murder Americans.
---

fuck Corrik
---

Corrik, would you be willing to entertain an argument that illegal immigration makes America better for everyone?
---

Espeon posted...

Corrik posted...

pyresword posted...

Saying that US citizens are better than people who aren't US citizens is inherently racist.

It is extreme nationalism. Not racism.

It is a step further than I am willing to go being a nationalist myself.

Nationalism is an inherently racist ideology. Nationalism is the reason radical Islamic extremists think they need to murder Americans.

Wrong. Nationalism is not inherently racist.

The fact you are applying nationalism to a nation of all races should easily point that out for you.

If you treat all races the same under the same circumstances, you aren't racist. It is literally that fucking simple.

What you mean to say is that extreme nationalism has been naturally coupled with racism in the past.

It is not inherent and it does not apply to a nation that is not from a singular ethnicity or race.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik, would you be willing to entertain an argument that illegal immigration makes America better for everyone?

I don't agree with the argument, but it is one some can believe, yes. I would assume people in favor of illegal immigration have to believe that to be true for the most part. I can't think of many people who purposely want to tear their own country apart. That is why, unlike many in here, I don't call you names and belittle you for your views. You can want the same thing and have different ideas of how to get there.

And one can be right. Both can be right. Or none can be right.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

The Mana Sword posted...

yo if any of you arent watching this Jacob Wohl press conference you are missing out on comedy gold

Is he holding it in a liberal coffee bar?

I think it was a hipster coffee bar.
---

it was actually just a holiday inn
---

It DOES apply to a multi-cultural nation when, how convenient, the portion of the country that would openly consider themselves nationalists also happen to be overwhelmingly homogeneous in their demographics, while overwhelmingly excluding those other races from the democratic process. Youre trying to I cant be racist, I have a black friend an entire country, just because we havent outright genocided all non-whites.
---

The Mana Sword posted...

it was actually just a holiday inn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9LY9wJU8gM" data-time="
---

Espeon posted...

It DOES apply to a multi-cultural nation when, how convenient, the portion of the country that would openly consider themselves nationalists also happen to be overwhelmingly homogeneous in their demographics, while overwhelmingly excluding those other races from the democratic process. Youre trying to I cant be racist, I have a black friend an entire country, just because we havent outright genocided all non-whites.

If you treat all those of all races the same under the same circumstances, you are not racist. End of story.

You are trying to equate white nationalism, a form of extreme nationalism, to nationalism itself.

It is like trying to equate an extremist sect of Islam to all of Islam.
---

Corrik posted...

I can't think of many people who purposely want to tear their own country apart.

Well it looks like vlado finally got through to corrik, I hope he's keeping track of this so he can get a gold star from his supervisor.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Corrik posted...

I can't think of many people who purposely want to tear their own country apart.

Well it looks like vlado finally got through to corrik, I hope he's keeping track of this so he can get a gold star from his supervisor.

? Doesn't Vlado argue regularly globalists are trying to tear their countries apart?

What?
---

Corrik posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

Corrik posted...

I can't think of many people who purposely want to tear their own country apart.

Well it looks like vlado finally got through to corrik, I hope he's keeping track of this so he can get a gold star from his supervisor.

? Doesn't Vlado argue regularly globalists are trying to tear their countries apart?

What?

No, he argues that globalists are brainwashed by the Illuminati to think that they are doing good
---

Corrik posted...

Espeon posted...

It DOES apply to a multi-cultural nation when, how convenient, the portion of the country that would openly consider themselves nationalists also happen to be overwhelmingly homogeneous in their demographics, while overwhelmingly excluding those other races from the democratic process. Youre trying to I cant be racist, I have a black friend an entire country, just because we havent outright genocided all non-whites.

If you treat all those of all races the same under the same circumstances, you are not racist. End of story.

You are trying to equate white nationalism, a form of extreme nationalism, to nationalism itself.

It is like trying to equate an extremist sect of Islam to all of Islam.

Thats a big if. No wonder you deny racism exists whenever your party fucks up the narrative.

You are trying to equate patriotism, a peaceful pride in ones country, to nationalism, which is inherently exclusionary and inevitably violent, as evidenced by Nazi Germany, ISIS, and European imperialism.
---

Is it possible to be racist against the French for example? Specifically against the French, not against all predominantly white nations.
---

JeffreyRaze posted...

Is it possible to be racist against the French for example? Specifically against the French, not against all predominantly white nations.

Yep
---

How though? You've just been arguing that saying Americans are better than citizens of other nations, such as France in this example, cannot be racist by definition.
---

Espeon posted...

Corrik posted...

Espeon posted...

It DOES apply to a multi-cultural nation when, how convenient, the portion of the country that would openly consider themselves nationalists also happen to be overwhelmingly homogeneous in their demographics, while overwhelmingly excluding those other races from the democratic process. Youre trying to I cant be racist, I have a black friend an entire country, just because we havent outright genocided all non-whites.

If you treat all those of all races the same under the same circumstances, you are not racist. End of story.

You are trying to equate white nationalism, a form of extreme nationalism, to nationalism itself.

It is like trying to equate an extremist sect of Islam to all of Islam.

Thats a big if. No wonder you deny racism exists whenever your party fucks up the narrative.

You are trying to equate patriotism, a peaceful pride in ones country, to nationalism, which is inherently exclusionary and inevitably violent, as evidenced by Nazi Germany, ISIS, and European imperialism.

Patriotism and nationalism are very similar terms.
---

JeffreyRaze posted...

How though? You've just been arguing that saying Americans are better than citizens of other nations, such as France in this example, cannot be racist by definition.

That is not what I said. If you think I said that, you are failing at reading.
---

"Tell me exactly where in this ad (I haven't looked at it) where he says someone is inferior because of their race (not their lack of citizenship - their race)"

You were arguing that for the ad to be racist, it needed to be about skin color and not nationality.
---

JeffreyRaze posted...

"Tell me exactly where in this ad (I haven't looked at it) where he says someone is inferior because of their race (not their lack of citizenship - their race)"

You were arguing that for the ad to be racist, it needed to be about skin color and not nationality.

Citizenship. Not nationality. Nice try.
---

Corrik posted...

JeffreyRaze posted...

"Tell me exactly where in this ad (I haven't looked at it) where he says someone is inferior because of their race (not their lack of citizenship - their race)"

You were arguing that for the ad to be racist, it needed to be about skin color and not nationality.

Citizenship. Not nationality. Nice try.

Citizenship just means nationality is not us in this scenario, so despite your typical I didnt say that! argument, hes not wrong.
---

Corrik posted...

JeffreyRaze posted...

"Tell me exactly where in this ad (I haven't looked at it) where he says someone is inferior because of their race (not their lack of citizenship - their race)"

You were arguing that for the ad to be racist, it needed to be about skin color and not nationality.

Citizenship. Not nationality. Nice try.

XD
---

Guys it's not nice to make fun of children.
---

Heres a question Ive posed in the past to Vlado:

Corrik, as a nationalist, do you fully support a complete investigation, with the full support of the U.S. government, into Russia interference in our elections?
---