“Republican Party is a domestic terror group”

OH u mad because I saw you for what u are?

Am I wrong that both parties are responsible for the expedited export of manufacturing jobs in the USA?

But hey ad long as you get to stay on your high horse and be a good errand boy for the political system. They may even pat you on your smart little head of yours, maybe even let you sit at the end of the grown up table.

lol

Okay, guy. Keep on being the poster boy for Dunning-Kruger and spellcheck while deluding yourself into thinking you're sitting on the sidelines because you're principled and understand the game better than everyone else.

I'll keep fighting for wages of working class citizens and being a productive member of society.
 
They can and should keep their social conservatism for one. And even as a leftist I don't think every idea that comes out of the left is great so the GOP could always be the sensible voice for the market and market based solutions.

That doesn't sound like an alternative or much of a difference compared to the current USA Democratic party, which is more center right than left as it is.

The US democrats are already mostly to the right of UK Conservatives for example.

I mean even Thatcher didn't sell of the NHS and Bernie is considered far left for wanting an American version.
 
Last edited:
Have to agree with this. What i don't know is what possible "fixes" there are that can be done to the GOP that basically doesn't turn them into another version of the Democrats.. If the GOP suddenly became the party of high taxes and massive welfare spending, then what exactly separates those beliefs from those of the Democrats?

First, taxes and welfare spending in the U.S. are currently very low. So both parties are to some extent parties of low taxes and low welfare spending (and even that is inflated by the high cost of healthcare in America relative to places with more rational systems--an issue that was partly corrected by the ACA). Obviously political constraints factor in there, but that's part of the reason the current GOP is so crazy--they've gotten what they've wanted for 30 years starting in 1980, but they can't just sit back and say that everything is good now if they want to keep winning elections.

But even at that, a GOP that was for immigration restrictionism (that is, not only supporting strong borders but also supporting less legal immigration), stronger defense, less regulations (note that what Trump has done is keep regulations in place but selectively enforce them laxly, which is very different), free trade, balanced budgets, and being tough on crime, but not separated from reality (illustrated by climate science denial, belief in fantasies about regressive tax cuts paying for themselves or generally super-charging growth, and belief in various batty CTs) and cruel would be opposing a very different Democratic Party than it is now, as Democrats would move left in that scenario.

What about under Dem leadership? 80% of drone strikes killed innocent people. 20% were the actual targets (allegedly). You ready to recognize they're both assholes yet?

That's an absurd lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes

According to the Long War Journal, which follows US anti-terror developments, as of mid-2011, drone strikes in Pakistan since 2006 had killed 2,018 militants and 138 civilians.[4] The New America Foundation stated in mid-2011 that from 2004 to 2011, 80% of the 2,551 people killed in the strikes were militants. The Foundation stated that 95% of those killed in 2010 were militants and that, as of 2012, 15% of the total people killed by drone strikes were either known civilians or unknown.[5] The Foundation also states that in 2012 the rate of known civilian and unknown casualties was 2 percent, whereas the Bureau of Investigative Journalism say the rate of civilian casualties for 2012 is 9 percent.[6] The Bureau, based on extensive research in mid-2011, claims that at least 385 civilians were among the dead, including more than 160 children.[7] The Obama administration estimated in June 2016 that US drone strikes under Obama had killed 64 individuals conclusively determined to be non-combatants, in addition to 52 individuals whose status remained in doubt.[8]

It has been reported that 160 children have died from UAV-launched attacks in Pakistan[9] and that over 1,000 civilians have been injured.[10] Moreover, additional reporting has found that known militant leaders have constituted only 2 percent of all drone-related fatalities.[11] These sources run counter to the Obama administration's claim that "nearly for the past year there hasn't been a single collateral death" due to UAV-based attacks.[12]

The New America Foundation estimates that for the period 2004-2011, the non-militant fatality rate was approximately 20%.[13]

Follow the links for more.
 
lol

Okay, guy. Keep on being the poster boy for Dunning-Kruger and spellcheck while deluding yourself into thinking you're sitting on the sidelines because you're principled and understand the game better than everyone else.

I'll keep fighting for wages of working class citizens and being a productive member of society.

Wow you can type when u are in full costume? With the spandex and the cape?
 
Trotsky,
The great martyr. Willing to be crucified on that cross while letting everyone know how smart and how willing he is to sacrifice himself.
 
I suppose it has its uses but I think its also a bit too broad and strays too far from what the average person conceives as terrorism, which is generally political violence by non-state actors.

I think chomsky' definition is better because it holds everyone responsible for their actions. But even if we go by your's you get hilarious conclusions like 'america was founded by terrorists'.
 
I think chomsky' definition is better because it holds everyone responsible for their actions. But even if we go by your's you get hilarious conclusions like 'america was founded by terrorists'.

They were by today's standards. That's the problem with using modern standards on history. All we can do is judge actions by their historical contemporaries. In the US, we never learn about the africans who were willing and able to sell off africans to the new world for almost 300 years and anywhere from 10~20 million slaves. We are selective with how we judge.
 
Jesus, is it so hard to be civil? Your post is lacking any content. I mean, I get that it's not intended to be literally true, but in what sense is it figuratively true? None that I can see.



Hmm, perhaps you missed the TS's other thread on how he always has piss dribbling down his pants?

Now Jack, do you think it was right for the left to throw themselves behind Michael Brown? Do you think it was right to have his mother speak at the convention? Where was she while her son was out throwing his life away?


How about the Pulse nightclub shooters father? Remember the left trying to tell us he wasn't a terrorist?

I don't think even you would deny the left is now in full support of illegal immigration.







So, everything in my post was factually based.
 
They were by today's standards. That's the problem with using modern standards on history. All we can do is judge actions by their historical contemporaries. In the US, we never learn about the africans who were willing and able to sell off africans to the new world for almost 300 years and anywhere from 10~20 million slaves. We are selective with how we judge.

Meh europeans sold eachother into slavery too. If there is a market for it, people will sell people. But i agree judging the past through modern views limits your understanding of it.
 
Hmm, perhaps you missed the TS's other thread on how he always has piss dribbling down his pants?

Now Jack, do you think it was right for the left to throw themselves behind Michael Brown? Do you think it was right to have his mother speak at the convention? Where was she while her son was out throwing his life away?

How about the Pulse nightclub shooters father? Remember the left trying to tell us he wasn't a terrorist?

I don't think even you would deny the left is now in full support of illegal immigration.

So, everything in my post was factually based.

Nothing in it is fact-based. The left never "threw themselves behind Michael Brown." The DOJ report showed major problems with policing in Ferguson, and Brown was just the last straw for the people in the town. Further, what is the policy angle here? The reason people run for elections ideally is to be able to influence policy-making. Your view seems to be that it's about giving symbolic support/opposition to people you don't like (minorities, the press, entertainers, etc.).

Also, the left is very obviously not in support of illegal immigration. That's a crazy statement, and it's mind-blowing that you'd think any sane person would agree with it.

Ed: I'm not familiar with this Pulse story you're referring to, which itself tells me that you're getting your idea of what the left thinks from Breitbart or something rather than from people who are actually on the left.
 
They were by today's standards. That's the problem with using modern standards on history. All we can do is judge actions by their historical contemporaries. In the US, we never learn about the africans who were willing and able to sell off africans to the new world for almost 300 years and anywhere from 10~20 million slaves. We are selective with how we judge.

Huh? Maybe not you but I sure was. Read "People's History of the United States" or really anything about colonialism in Africa
 
Nothing in it is fact-based. The left never "threw themselves behind Michael Brown." The DOJ report showed major problems with policing in Ferguson, and Brown was just the last straw for the people in the town. Further, what is the policy angle here? The reason people run for elections ideally is to be able to influence policy-making. Your view seems to be that it's about giving symbolic support/opposition to people you don't like (minorities, the press, entertainers, etc.).

Also, the left is very obviously not in support of illegal immigration. That's a crazy statement, and it's mind-blowing that you'd think any sane person would agree with it.

Ed: I'm not familiar with this Pulse story you're referring to, which itself tells me that you're getting your idea of what the left thinks from Breitbart or something rather than from people who are actually on the left.




LOL at this whole post.



1hy5.jpg
 
I was a factory worker for 5 years before and throughout college. I worked representing indigent criminal defendants throughout law school. I work representing labor unions for a living, not just citing to them to call other men not manly or pretentious.


I am truly sorry that you are so insecure about your shitty level of intelligence, but merely being unintelligent doesn't place you in solidarity with the working class and it doesn't make your (lack of) policy positions more principled: it just makes you a fucking moron. Yes, even in Trump's America, being willfully ignorant still isn't a virtue to adults, in the working class or otherwise.

But, yes, keep forming your positions around your white victimhood and claiming solidarity with the working class while you further policy (like virtually everything the GOP does) that directly works against them because you're trembling like a little bitch thinking about black people.
<Moyes5>
 
Yes, I didn't expect an intelligent response.



What am I supposed to respond to?


"I'm not familiar with the Pulse story"... LOL


"Muh police brutality"... he was a gentle giant, right Jack?


Remind me, which party in 16 was marching with Mexican flags while burning American flags?
 
Hmm, perhaps you missed the TS's other thread on how he always has piss dribbling down his pants?

Now Jack, do you think it was right for the left to throw themselves behind Michael Brown? Do you think it was right to have his mother speak at the convention? Where was she while her son was out throwing his life away?


How about the Pulse nightclub shooters father? Remember the left trying to tell us he wasn't a terrorist?

I don't think even you would deny the left is now in full support of illegal immigration.







So, everything in my post was factually based.
Hmmmm, care to link or quote that?
 
They are terrorists now? Well that is a great way to come together as a country. This kind of nonsense is why we will always be at each other's throats. Oh well, I suppose.
 
Back
Top