Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 359: Two Scoops of Impeachment

(+) Yeah! (+)

I really don't think you get the difference between media and culture

Most media creators are left-wing, and most audiences eat up left-wing themes and aesops. Then those audiences turn around and act conservative and vote conservative. Star Wars is massively popular but the vast majority of its audiences are, for example, incapable of realizing that in a real-life analogue America would be the evil empire.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

one million cop shows, Call of Duty

a bunch of the really mainstream stuff our culture produces is conservative. All the cool award winner stuff tends to be more liberal oriented, but even within that we have like American Sniper sometimes

This is true too

---

Our art and culture leans big L Liberal, but that's true of most art and culture everywhere throughout the modern world, relative to its home country. Most artists lean that way.

I wouldn't really say our mainstream art and culture is small-l liberal though, and it's been drifting further away since the '70's.

---

Also I GUARANTEE everyone who said COVID was a hoax, refused to wear a mask, didn't social distance ect. is going to watch their next zombie movie and complain that its characters are stupid for being so careless and hiding their symptoms

To be a conservative you have to have a degree in cognitive dissonance, which is a nice silver lining for them because it's the only degree they'll ever get lmao got em

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

one million cop shows, Call of Duty

a bunch of the really mainstream stuff our culture produces is conservative. All the cool award winner stuff tends to be more liberal oriented, but even within that we have like American Sniper sometimes

Ok we have to establish this right now or the discussion is going nowhere: If you think the existence of guns or military in something means its inherently "Conservative", well uh I guess we're not going to have a productive conversation, because you're arguing every leader on Earth who isn't actively dismantling their military while also banning guns is Conservative, and words have no meaning in that discussion.


---

Its not the EXISTENCE of guns. Its the glorification of guns, of the police, of the military.

---

Yeah okay American Sniper and Call of Duty are liberal
---

KamikazePotato posted...

I really don't think you get the difference between media and culture

Most media creators are left-wing, and most audiences eat up left-wing themes and aesops. Then those audiences turn around and act conservative and vote conservative. Star Wars is massively popular but the vast majority of its audiences are, for example, incapable of realizing that in a real-life analogue America would be the evil empire.

I've already established, and as far as I know, no one in this topic disagrees, our government STRUCTURE is setup to be Conservative.

It's baked in, the politics look far more Conservative than they are because small states with 500,000 people have as much political power as states with 10's of millions.

Also I think you're wrong about the last part.

The Left, and most Liberals probably definitely understand the US is the Evil Empire, see basically any music that mentions the government, most TV and movies show the Government as a big bad in the way of the hero, etc, indeed, many Conservatives also understand it and in their case--they revel in it.

---

Gun and military worship is absolutely a Conservative ideal.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Ok we have to establish this right now or the discussion is going nowhere: If you think the existence of guns or military in something means its inherently "Conservative", well uh I guess we're not going to have a productive conversation, because you're arguing every leader on Earth who isn't actively dismantling their military while also banning guns is Conservative, and words have no meaning in that discussion.

the newest Call of Duty has you legit hanging out with Reagan so it goes beyond just the presence of guns
---

Glorification of police, weapons, and military is absolutely conservative, not the mere existence of them.

In a truly liberal country, if a movie had Seargent McBadass show up to save the day, that would be taken VERY DIFFERENTLY than it is IN America.

Even the messaging of show takes second fiddle. Brooklyn 99 has tons of liberal messaging. It has a gay police chief. The inherent basis of the show is conservative.

---

HashtagSEP posted...

Gun and military worship is absolutely a Conservative ideal.

Tony likes to pretend this is false because he's hard right on guns.

Leafeon13N posted...

Tony likes to pretend this is false because he's hard right on guns.

No, I'm not.

"I disagree with Tony, he must be Republican!"
"I disagree with Tony, he must be hard right!"

Your horseshoe theory bullshit is fucking killing me.

Literally Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels supported gun ownership for the proletariat.

I think common sense gun laws make perfect sense, but there's no reason to (setting aside that it's impossible at this point) to ban them.

---

If you're in support of ownership of assault weapons, then yeah, you're pretty hard right on it.

---

Me and Karl Marx, historic Alt Right hero.

---

No civilian should own an assault weapon under any circumstance.

I don't even know how anybody who claims to be a liberal could think otherwise.

---

The entire MCU is essentially a reinforcement of the military industrial complex, and that's the biggest franchise right now. Even when liberals are typically in charge of Hollywood, they are still making movies for a largely conservative American audience.

Like, which blockbusters display liberal ideologies? Most land firmly in a politically neutral territory, which itself feels like a concession to conservative values. When a company like Disney can act like they're breaking boundaries by having a minor character allude to her wife, it's clear mainstream American culture has been largely trapped in trying to appease a conservative base. They only take that minor risk because they think it's now safe to do so without scaring away their audience.

---

Forget reinforcement, the military literally cross promotes with Marvel. Captain Marvel was considered advertising for the Air Force internally.

---

You can be a leftist and hold individualized right wing beliefs. You like to pretend this isn't true.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

No civilian should own an assault weapon under any circumstance.

I don't even know how anybody who claims to be a liberal could think otherwise.

Would it blow your mind to know there's more than one "team"?

Also I'm still waiting on @Espeon to define Liberalism.

---

Leafeon13N posted...

You can be a leftist and hold individualized right wing beliefs. You like to pretend this isn't true.

Yeah, youre using the fallacy of IM progressive, therefore EVERYTHING I believe is emblematic of progressivism.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Would it blow your mind to know there's more than one "team"?

Also I'm still waiting on @Espeon to define Liberalism.

Progressivism. Easy. Same word.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Me and Karl Marx, historic Alt Right hero.

Nobody's seriously calling you Alt Right. They're just pointing out that you hold a few stances of the right. Just because you're left doesn't mean literally every stance you hold is automatically left. Things like glorification of guns and supporting ownership of assault weapons are hard right ideals. Doesn't mean you, yourself, are, but there's no point in denying it about the stances themselves.

---

This whole thing about dividing everyone into two teams is stupid.

---

Espeon posted...

Progressivism. Easy. Same word.

...

---

Progressive Democrats are liberals. Moderate Democrats are conservatives. Republicans are extremists.

Progressive Dems want change and they want it fast, no matter how liberal with spending and taxing they need to be to get it.

Moderate Dems want change, but theyre more conservative in how they want to accomplish it, moving slowly and trying to consider the fiscal impact.

Republicans are the opposition party in that they dont want any change at all, aside from regression, both fiscally and socially.

---

HashtagSEP posted...

Nobody's seriously calling you Alt Right. They're just pointing out that you hold a few stances of the right. Just because you're left doesn't mean literally every stance you hold is automatically left. Things like glorification of guns and supporting ownership of assault weapons are hard right ideals. Doesn't mean you, yourself, are, but there's no point in denying it about the stances themselves.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.

Also just from a common sense perspective, if you think far right wingers with guns are scary (they are), and that they're a threat to human lives and democracy (they are), and you think the police are on their side (they are), then why would you think the superior position is to have no guns? Just doesn't make sense to me.


---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Me and Karl Marx, historic Alt Right hero.

He was quite the forward thinker advocating for assault rifles a century before they existed.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Also just from a common sense perspective, if you think far right wingers with guns are scary (they are), and that they're a threat to human lives and democracy (they are), and you think the police are on their side (they are), then why would you think the superior position is to have no guns? Just doesn't make sense to me.

Far right wingers without guns are much less scary than far right wingers with guns.

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Far right wingers without guns are much less scary than far right wingers with guns.

That's a nice fantasy, not sure why you think it's possible without an unbelievable amount of bloodshed.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

That's a nice fantasy, not sure why you think it's possible without an unbelievable amount of bloodshed.

Australia did it.

---

Are you seriously trying to argue that your stance on guns isn't right-leaning?

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

Also just from a common sense perspective, if you think far right wingers with guns are scary (they are), and that they're a threat to human lives and democracy (they are), and you think the police are on their side (they are), then why would you think the superior position is to have no guns? Just doesn't make sense to me.

Okay but what does that have to do with assault weapons

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Australia did it.

Setting aside that their gun ownership levels have never been as high as ours, I'll give you that.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/more-guns-in-australia-now-than-before-the-port-arthur-massacre-report-20190327-p5188m.html

Except apparently it didn't stick!

---

HashtagSEP posted...

Okay but what does that have to do with assault weapons

For the record, you guys brought them up, not me.

Define Assault Weapon.

I'd be perfectly fine if we obliterated the existence of fully automatic weapons, and banning them from civilian ownership is fine with me as long as they ban them from cops too.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Glorification of police, weapons, and military is absolutely conservative, not the mere existence of them.

In a truly liberal country, if a movie had Seargent McBadass show up to save the day, that would be taken VERY DIFFERENTLY than it is IN America.

Even the messaging of show takes second fiddle. Brooklyn 99 has tons of liberal messaging. It has a gay police chief. The inherent basis of the show is conservative.

It's only conservative because of how conservative the structure of society is. We go harder on the glorification but liberals still love them a good troop. Other liberal countries still have patriotism without being aggressively conservative. That sort of thing.

B99 (and for that matter Schur's related stuff in general, yeah thats right The Good Place ain't safe either) is a great example of this- it's EXCEEDINGLY liberal in ideology. This is basically the liberal ideal police force. It's only conservative relative to ACAB, it takes a stance further right than total police disarmament ala some other countries, it's very reformist liberal. P&R is the same, but for government itself. This isn't Conservatism, which is just like, literally COPS and shit like that.

---

In actual news... the guy who was using the American flag as a weapon was arrested:

https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/1349843827880693760?s=21

---

And Biden has a new 1.9T relief plan:

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1349846143023407107?s=21

---

Another one:

https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1349832927106969600?s=21

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

And Biden has a new 1.9T relief plan:

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1349846143023407107?s=21

$15 minimum wage is pretty big if it can get through all the federal hurdles

---

Oh shit $15 minimum wage too?

Well that bill is already better than I thought it was going to be. Now we need Manchin or Murkowski to be cool.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

$15 minimum wage is pretty big if it can get through all the federal hurdles

Reeeeeally wish we won that NC race. Pretty sure they could get this through with reconciliation if they have 50 for sure votes.

---

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1349849526505504770?s=20

Ah I didn't see that. I'm not sure what cannot be passed through reconciliation is the issue and it would require Murkowski to cross over or Manchin to go back on what he already said.

---

these topics move so fast. red sox said last topic...

He is right though. The impeachment trial is Trump's last, best, chance to win reelection in 2024. I think right now he's done, he's lost just about the entire center and a big part of the right. If the election was held again now Trump loses in a landslide. And this is probably not something that is going to be buried under a new scandal and forgotten, because it struck at the heart of democracy itself.

But if the Senate acquits Trump - then it becomes substantially easier for him to proclaim his innocence and have people believe it. Of course if the Senate convicts Trump then that ends his political career by law. But he would lose anyway without the trial, so his best shot is probably to go to trial and hope 34 Republican senators refuse to convict.

how does that make trump right about what he said in the art of the deal, though? the senate acquitting trump would be GOOD press for trump. that doesn't prove "bad press is the second best thing after good press." that just proves... good press is good.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

these topics move so fast. red sox said last topic...

how does that make trump right about what he said in the art of the deal, though? the senate acquitting trump would be GOOD press for trump. that doesn't prove "bad press is the second best thing after good press." that just proves... good press is good.

Not Trump being right. I meant Scott Adams being right about the impeachment being a good thing for Trump. But that assumes Trump's top priority is to win the 2024 election, which is inconsistent with his actions the past 2 months.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Not Trump being right. I meant Scott Adams being right about the impeachment being a good thing for Trump. But that assumes Trump's top priority is to win the 2024 election, which is inconsistent with his actions the past 2 months.

oh ok. yeah, trump running again in 2024 (if he's allowed to) is highly unlikely.

---

tony said last topic...

I focus more attention on Dems because it's Dems jobs to focus on the GOP. If no one goes after the Dems, then you might get confused and think they're good enough.

as someone who doesn't mind your anti-dem posts, i'll say that i'm pretty sure the vast majority of us hate the dems, with exceptions being LotM (obviously) and suprak (maybe). the amount of people here who think the dems are good enough is minuscule.

before you reply "but if that's the case why is everyone bashing me for making anti-dem posts lol," that's probably because that's pretty much all you talk about, like LTM pointed out. it annoys people in the same way that people get annoyed that metal_dk posts about nothing about the casual revolution sucking (even if he may have a point in there).

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I'm not sure what cannot be passed through reconciliation is the issue

Broadly speaking, reconciliation is something that can only be used once per fiscal year when the House is working on the annual budget. They specify to one or more committees some instructions to follow in terms of targets in spending/revenue/deficeits and the committee has to make it work and the bill is privileged against filibuster. It also forces any Senate amendments to be germane to the bill instead of a free-for-all of jamming in stuff unrelated. And finally, though YMMV on whether this is a positive or not, the Senate can't throw in amendments that increase the deficit (though they can move to strike down House amendments that were saving money; they just can't offer their own that increase it.)

Reconciliation can't be used for things that have no effect - or incidental effect - on the budget, and can't increase the deficit for years outside the reconciliation window (I think this is typically a ten year window but may be subject to being defined by the House; this is also why a lot of Republican tax bills have tax cuts for the middle class - but not the wealthy - sunset after 10 years. The lock in the cuts for the wealthy and force Congress to face the choice of expiration or making permanent the cuts for most people at the end of that timeframe) If you try anyway, then in the Senate any such measures can be objected to and if the Senate parliamentarian finds it to be breaking one of those (or a few others but those are the main ones) then such a provision is struck from the bill and cannot be offered later as an amendment. You can bypass such a judgment by the parliamentarian with 60 votes but that defeats the purpose of using reconciliation to dodge the filibuster. Alternatively, I believe the VP can overrule them too. ...Or you can do what Republicans did in 2001 and just fire and replace them.

---

Tony is advocating for the United States to build more and bigger bombs without realizing it.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Literally Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels supported gun ownership for the proletariat.

this is such a weird talking point of yours. you're seriously arguing "marx and engels were pro-gun so guns are leftist"? i can just as easily say "ron paul is pro-gun so guns are libertarian." name-dropping famous dudes and saying "see? this proves everything!" is not a valid way of arguing.

---