Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

[goDel]

Well, I wouldn't be too cynical. Good examples about the Dems using available tools are the vote on the national emergency (basically forcing gop to take a position on this issue) and the various committee calling people in for hearings. and forcing evidence to become available to the general public. But it always comes back to the voters. without voters, democracy will be nowhere.

[sweepstakes]

I cannot overstate how badly I want to kick McConnell in the balls

[chenGOD]

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTB3KGitKWo

https://www.reddit.com/r/nattyorjuice/comments/avrg80/young_alex_jones/

 

fav comment: 'guess we know who's turning the frogs gay.' lol

 

I watched most of the recent (2nd) Rogan podcast with Alex Jones, mostly for lulz but he had some good points. Recanted his Sandy Hook views. He is still pretty far out there, though, was really worried about humanoids lol: 'Bladerunner is a preparation for what's coming.'

Aren’t you an educator?

[zlemflolia]

I dislike Joe Rogan because any time I find a good interviewee on his show, he talks over them and it's 75% Joe and 25% of the interviewee

[joshuatxuk]

 

 

 

 

I like Rogan, but he has some questionable friends.

 

Rogan's biggest fault is ironically his objective ethos. He's let on left-wing people and given them equal opportunity. If he coupled his openness to let anyone on with far more hard-hitting and thorough questions and discussion I would have no qualms with who he lets on. I think unfortunately he's enabling certain questionable guests and their questionable audiences more than even he realizes. He's like a bro enlightenedcentrist

 

Who are the left-wing people he has had on there? Seems to me he just has every flavor of right-wing over there to speak? Giving a platform to these people is reprehensible.

 

 

he's had Abby Martin on a few times

 

shit, that's the only one I can think of offhand - he does seem to have right-wing nutters on more often 

[joshuatxuk]

I saw a clip where Joe Rogan casually asked about JBP’s idea of mandated monogamy. He wasn’t even trying to make him look stupid, merely pointing out that if that was a rule, then equality of outcome would’ve something JBP actually does encourage. It was the most innocent, sincere pwn I’ve seen and it made me kinda like Joe Rogan tbh

 

Sometimes Rogan's super chill softball style actually sets up these guests to look like the complete dipshits they are. 

 

[zlemflolia]

 

I saw a clip where Joe Rogan casually asked about JBP’s idea of mandated monogamy. He wasn’t even trying to make him look stupid, merely pointing out that if that was a rule, then equality of outcome would’ve something JBP actually does encourage. It was the most innocent, sincere pwn I’ve seen and it made me kinda like Joe Rogan tbh

 

Sometimes Rogan's super chill softball style actually sets up these guests to look like the complete dipshits they are. 

 

 

 

Wow I'm embarrassed for her, especially since she's saying it all so confidently.  You can tell Joe thinks she's mentally disfigured

[zlemflolia]

"The full podcast is basically Joe slowly realising how stupid she is."

 

completely accurate holy lmao

 

she's responding way too defensively and acting as if he's attacking her personally

 

she sounds like a propaganda victim to me not a person genuinely mentally convinced of a certain view

Edited March 10, 2019 by Zeffolia

[joshuatxuk]

^ same lady

 

I actually don't have any problems at all with the word 'nationalism.' I think that it gets, the definition gets poisoned by elitists that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I don't want. So when you think about, whenever we say 'nationalism,' the first thing people thing about, at least in America, is Hitler. You know, he was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay fine. The problem is ... he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German. Everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. ... To me that's not nationalism.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/08/candace-owens-clarifies-hitler-nationalism-remark-after-backlash/2818679002/

[Guest]

 

Aren’t you an educator?

 

indeed. I quoted Alex Jones once when talking about how medieval and renaissance artists sometimes presented themselves hidden in their own artworks, like how Shakespeare sometimes uses the word 'will' in choice lines of the sonnets and Troilus. Dante does this a lot as do many renaissance painters, putting their shadowed face in the corner of a canvas with many other faces foregrounded. As Dante says, god's works are 'concealed in his own shining.'

 

Jones said 'god knows everything except where god came from.' Very thought-provoking, almost Spinoza. 

 

Back to the thread, though. I actually think Trump has been doing a decent job all things considered. He hasn't done anything truly reprehensible or destabilizing like Bush2, Obama, or that lil jabroni bitch Polk. Fuck Polk! We're still cleaning up the mess he made in Mexico.

[joshuatxuk]

You should actually look into his absurd corruption and policies instead of this lazy "look I can quote classic literature" whataboutism horseshit.

 

Trump is full-blown populist authoritarian and you are eating it up without questioning.

 

Fuck Polk! We're still cleaning up the mess he made in Mexico.

 

 

The actual fuck are you talking about? He maintained the Texas annexation in US conrtol and after the treaty the US gained all of present-day California, Nevada and Utah, most of Arizona, and western portions of New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming. 

 

Stick to teaching high school literature, though if you have time you should probably sit in on a AP US History lecture.

[Guest]

You should actually look into his absurd corruption and policies instead of this lazy "look I can quote classic literature" whataboutism horseshit.

 

Trump is full-blown populist authoritarian and you are eating it up without questioning.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

 

 

You should actually look into his absurd corruption and policies instead of this lazy "look I can quote classic literature" whataboutism horseshit.

 

Trump is full-blown populist authoritarian and you are eating it up without questioning.

 

Fuck Polk! We're still cleaning up the mess he made in Mexico.

 

 

The actual fuck are you talking about? He maintained the Texas annexation in US conrtol and after the treaty the US gained all of present-day California, Nevada and Utah, most of Arizona, and western portions of New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming. 

 

Stick to teaching high school literature, though if you have time you should probably sit in on a AP US History lecture.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=3&psid=3672

[ambermonk]

Who needs words to debate when you can use URLs and memes? Or quote boxes like Compson circa 2013?

[goDel]

^ same lady

 

I actually don't have any problems at all with the word 'nationalism.' I think that it gets, the definition gets poisoned by elitists that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I don't want. So when you think about, whenever we say 'nationalism,' the first thing people thing about, at least in America, is Hitler. You know, he was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay fine. The problem is ... he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German. Everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. ... To me that's not nationalism.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/08/candace-owens-clarifies-hitler-nationalism-remark-after-backlash/2818679002/

 

I kinda get confused by your notions of nationalism and globalism, I have to admit. To me, it's essentially about open or closed borders. Conquering Europe like Hitler is in no way a form of globalisation, I believe. I don't see how eradicating perceived threats in the world and conquering territory can be a form of globalism. Globalisation is more a form of lowering borders instead of conquering the world.

 

In a way Brexit is a good example of this. Put simply, Brexit was about closing borders and regaining a sense of sovereignty. It was part of an inward focus. Both the EU and refugees were perceived as outside causes for national problems. And Brexit was the solution. But the real problems will come when the UK - after a hard Brexit - have to reinvent their economy because of having lost direct access to the EU single market. And now, with a hard Brexit actually being a threat, the realisation has come - or hopefully will come - how much British society depends on having current lowered borders. As it makes importing products (eg. food and medicine) and services so much more easy. There actually are good features attached to globalisation. More than people realise, I believe.

 

Although I do agree there's also a couple negatives that come along with the current globalisation. One of them being, that it creates loopholes for the elite to hide their wealth in a shadow economy outside of the classic national economies. The increasing wealth inequality seems very much a side effect of current globalisation. But that doesn't imply it's an inherent property of globalisation, though. A form of globalisation without current issues seems like a possibility to me, at least. And in a way a necessity. Especially if you want to deal with global issues like climate change. So to me there's a bit of an irony in anti-globalists preaching about climate change, for instance.

 

And I do agree that nationalism in and of itself is not that big of a deal. It's mostly populism which seems to be tightly connected to the current forms of nationalism. That I do have problems with. Nothing wrong with putting the sovereignty of nations on the political agenda. As long as the populist nonsense doesn't distort the political dialogue.

[Guest]

 

I kinda get confused by your notions of nationalism and globalism, I have to admit. To me, it's essentially about open or closed borders. I don't see how eradicating perceived threats in the world and conquering territory can be a form of globalism. Globalisation is more a form of lowering borders instead of conquering the world.

Interesting points. I agree with your assessment of economic assumptions and borders in defining globalization, but would add that with borders it also means having the US manage security in global terms. Trump seems to make a point in changing this so that NATO members pay comparable rates for security. This is all very ironic, though, given the fact that global security concerns (and those of the EU in particular) are a direct result of america's incompetent foreign policy over the last 20 years; in a very large measure, the US has created the instability which it now feels responsible for managing (cue the salivating defense contractors). 

[joshuatxuk]

 

^ same lady

 

I actually don't have any problems at all with the word 'nationalism.' I think that it gets, the definition gets poisoned by elitists that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I don't want. So when you think about, whenever we say 'nationalism,' the first thing people thing about, at least in America, is Hitler. You know, he was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay fine. The problem is ... he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German. Everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. ... To me that's not nationalism.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/08/candace-owens-clarifies-hitler-nationalism-remark-after-backlash/2818679002/

I kinda get confused by your notions of nationalism and globalism, I have to admit. To me, it's essentially about open or closed borders. Conquering Europe like Hitler is in no way a form of globalisation, I believe. I don't see how eradicating perceived threats in the world and conquering territory can be a form of globalism. Globalisation is more a form of lowering borders instead of conquering the world.

 

In a way Brexit is a good example of this. Put simply, Brexit was about closing borders and regaining a sense of sovereignty. It was part of an inward focus. Both the EU and refugees were perceived as outside causes for national problems. And Brexit was the solution. But the real problems will come when the UK - after a hard Brexit - have to reinvent their economy because of having lost direct access to the EU single market. And now, with a hard Brexit actually being a threat, the realisation has come - or hopefully will come - how much British society depends on having current lowered borders. As it makes importing products (eg. food and medicine) and services so much more easy. There actually are good features attached to globalisation. More than people realise, I believe.

 

Although I do agree there's also a couple negatives that come along with the current globalisation. One of them being, that it creates loopholes for the elite to hide their wealth in a shadow economy outside of the classic national economies. The increasing wealth inequality seems very much a side effect of current globalisation. But that doesn't imply it's an inherent property of globalisation, though. A form of globalisation without current issues seems like a possibility to me, at least. And in a way a necessity. Especially if you want to deal with global issues like climate change. So to me there's a bit of an irony in anti-globalists preaching about climate change, for instance.

 

And I do agree that nationalism in and of itself is not that big of a deal. It's mostly populism which seems to be tightly connected to the current forms of nationalism. That I do have problems with. Nothing wrong with putting the sovereignty of nations on the political agenda. As long as the populist nonsense doesn't distort the political dialogue.

Yes, nationalist populism really is the core of the problem, and it's oft slick rhetoric makes people not just encourage authoritarian laws but encourage them. The ignorant will gladly give up personal liberties and rights so long as it's at the expense of someone else. Just look at the typical gun nut in the US who spout paranoia about big government looming to take their guns, limit their rights, and infringe on their property. They act like civil war is coming yet they fervently defend cops and military personal who putting immigrants in cages, killing unarmed civilians without consequence, and raiding homes with armored vehicles and assault rifles for non-violent drug offenses. We have a goddamn taxpayer supported private prison system and so called anti-big government opt to throw blue lives matter stickers on their trucks instead.

 

Pre-9/11 the anti-globalist discussion was far more broad ideologically. Plenty of leftists still point out issues with the World banking system and multinational corporate clout encouraged by globalist policies. Post-9/11 protests had a similar diversity, albeit this was downplayed heavily by the media. In the US at least the Tea Party era completely co-opted and deluded the discussion altogether. Instead of a bilateral, board response to the 2009 financial crisis by the left and right the right-wing hardened their base to completely anything left-of-center, despite the fact that the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street supporters had the same basic issues with big banks. The GOP literally causes financial meltdowns, successfully blames the Dems as they clean it up, and the repeats the process. They've been doing it since Reagan and they've managed to become so good at their deceit and ploys that they ran a failed tv personality who is an elitist pathological liar, sexist, bigot, debtor, scammer, and vaguely centrist as some kind bullshit "outsider." Because doublespeak is pretty much tried and true tactic of theirs, they've managed to warp "globalism" as a catch-all boogeyman word for anything progressive and opposed to their platform.

 

One of the ironies of the discussion of "globalism" is the term has become seemingly co-opted as a new alternative to "new world order" as well as "communism" or "socialism" and in nastier circles a dog whistle for anti-Semitic conspiracies. The Candance Owens quote was alarming to me not because she's anti-globalist, it's because she's pivoting a new angle to deflect from contemporary alt-right parallels to 1930s fascism. Nazis and brown-shirts in Italy, Spain, etc. always touted being anti-globalist (and therefore pro-nationalist) and were popular for their dumbed down anti-communist rhetoric. It's how they won office before the war and it's what bitter veterans deluded themselves into thinking they fought for after the war. "We weren't trying to exterminate the Jews, we were trying to beat the Soviets, they are the true totalitarians." That kind of revisionist horseshit.

Edited March 10, 2019 by joshuatx

[ignatius]

Oof.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rubin Farr]

https://www.thinkprogress.org/illegal-crossings-from-canada-rising-nearly-as-rapidly-as-at-us-border-with-mexico-942fd8d98941/amp/

[chenGOD]

Damn, the comments section on that YouTube that josh posted.

[joshuatxuk]

Damn, the comments section on that YouTube that josh posted.

Yeah it's about as disheartening as they can get. Not just edgelord shit and sloppy bits but upvoted slick quotes of holocaust deniers, hardcore wehrbaroos, etc. I read the comments to that bro dancing to idioteque as a palette cleanser.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[ignatius]

 

Damn, the comments section on that YouTube that josh posted.

Yeah it's about as disheartening as they can get. Not just edgelord shit and sloppy bits but upvoted slick quotes of holocaust deniers, hardcore wehrbaroos, etc. I read the comments to that bro dancing to idioteque as a palette cleanser.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

 

 

"global warming is a conspiracy to tax us and keep us poor"

[chenGOD]

 

 

Damn, the comments section on that YouTube that josh posted.

Yeah it's about as disheartening as they can get. Not just edgelord shit and sloppy bits but upvoted slick quotes of holocaust deniers, hardcore wehrbaroos, etc. I read the comments to that bro dancing to idioteque as a palette cleanser.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

"global warming is a conspiracy to tax us and keep us poor"

And here’s the thing about that. If gov’t really wanted to keep people poor, they wouldn’t need a comspiracy.

[joshuatxuk]

 

 

 

I kinda get confused by your notions of nationalism and globalism, I have to admit. To me, it's essentially about open or closed borders. I don't see how eradicating perceived threats in the world and conquering territory can be a form of globalism. Globalisation is more a form of lowering borders instead of conquering the world.

Interesting points. I agree with your assessment of economic assumptions and borders in defining globalization, but would add that with borders it also means having the US manage security in global terms. Trump seems to make a point in changing this so that NATO members pay comparable rates for security. This is all very ironic, though, given the fact that global security concerns (and those of the EU in particular) are a direct result of america's incompetent foreign policy over the last 20 years; in a very large measure, the US has created the instability which it now feels responsible for managing (cue the salivating defense contractors).

I agree about the irony of demanding more money from NATO members to deal with American involved conflicts, that's a good point. I've always been skeptical of the argument that Trumps lies out regarding the 2% goal (which is a very recent pledge BTW) for a number of reasons. Historically the much higher personal, materials and spending contributions came from a prosperous postwar America assisting war torn Europe.

 

More notably European countries have carried the burden of potential war with the Warsaw Pact/USSR and now Russia. Germany would have been the big tank showdown, Scandinavia in close airstrike distance, North UK and Iceland in the submarine gap.

 

The legacy if that build up is the US still heavily relies on Western Europe for logistics and forward bases: Spain and Italy host major naval bases, Germany and UK hosts multiple air bases, the USMC has bunkers with thousands of vehicles and support equipment in Norway. Its a major commitment, especially since by default it means nukes are targeted on these by default. On top of all of this the only authorization of article 5 by NATO was on behalf of the US after 9/11. The 2% increase should be brought up but its hardly a snub to the US by the rest of the alliance.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[sheatheman]

I do think it’s interesting that YouTube has seemingly reduced and or frozen views on the Alex Jones jre.

 

I’m afraid joe is going to get blacklisted pretty soon.

 

What a great podcast that is.

 

The stuff he said about post birth abortions is 100% fact btw.

 

I used to think Alex Jones was totally insane, like hannity and Glenn beck on speed, but he honestly says a lot of stuff that’s true, and he isn’t so beholden to the right.

 

I’m not going to discount someone’s views just because they say or do bad things. You have to separate the art from the artist.

 

But yeah...

 

Like, we already know plannned parenthood harvests organs from abortions. It’s not a huge leap to think that tbey want live babies outside the womb, probably floating in a pod or something.

[usagi]

I’m not going to discount someone’s views just because they say or do bad things. You have to separate the art from the artist.

 

lol, fuck off.

 

that was a worthy 20,000th post.