Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

US Politics Thread: Year 2 of 1000 of the TrumpenReich

Recommended Posts

In case anyone seriously thinks I'm full of shit about segregation being sold as not-racist, here's an excerpt from the Plessy decision:


The object of the [Fourteenth] Amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either.


So the stated criteria is to be not racist. The policy is retarded, but you can see the aim there plain as day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Here's the thing, most conservatives I know are ardent anti-racists and have been their whole life. Judging others as individuals is a core part of their morality since they were young, imparted to th

Finally,  a Trump proposal I can support.

I am saying that.  If the Democrats want to remain competitive, they need to dig out decades worth of Chicago machine apparatchiks and Clinton lackeys and send them to the salt mines.  If the Republic

8 hours ago, Sturgeon said:


Ah, shall we talk about how not impressed I am with your posting?

Maybe you receive nothing but memes because that's the extent to which I'm willing to engage with you on this subject at this time.


See? This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Engaging with you is like talking to some sort of insane parrot with dementia. I said nothing about having information. I highlighted how you said it was "just as plausible" that Trump as the Clintons did it. That's wrong by any objective measure of plausible. But regardless of how you argue that, saying it's wrong that it's just as plausible makes no claim whatsoever to any kind of special information that no one else has. Didn't stop you from leaping on it in a predictable way, though.

Every time I engage with you it's like this. You act as though you're talking to someone who is saying something completely different to what they are actually saying. You ignore the actual statements or claims, and address fabricated arguments they never made. Presumably it's because this is much easier for you than to directly address what they really said.

So, I give you a very simple statement. "Wrong". It can be expressed as a meme. The meaning is clear (far from meaningless!) - I think you're wrong about the equivalent plausibility of both theories. Yet even that you can't handle. You start making wild claims that I am positioning myself as having insider information or some such bullshit. It's impossible to engage with someone who acts like this. It's not a good faith discussion, and it never can be as long as the play is made this way. I advise you to stop doing it, but I think that will fall on deaf ears.


Please delete my account. And go fuck yourself.  




The demented parrot with dementia

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Priory_of_Sion said:

Is that not a strawman argument? 


Sorry, I thought you were able to understand which part I was dismissing out of hand as a strawman and what part I wanted to engage with. 


Yeah, it is almost like dictionary definitions of terms in social sciences are often pretty useless! 




That's because social science has had to make up their own language because otherwise their cognitive dissonance would kick in way too hard. A great example; they define racism as prejudice plus power. They do this because they needed the word racism to mean something different than what it means to most people while retaining the impact of the original word. In their definition, if you do not have the institutional power to act on racist intentions, then you cannot be racist. The inverse is that if you have the institutional power, anything you do can be racist, even if you do not have any racist intentions or motivations. This definition is completely illogical, and if anything, definitions of words are based entirely on logic.


There are two languages being spoken between the left and right in the US; English and newspeak. Most people speak English, and the identity politics obsessed left speaks newspeak.


Also, identity politics is just racism with more steps and a fresh coat of paint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beto O’Rourke:






But even though you’re going to die, you can’t have guns.


Such is the level of debate by responsible Democrat leaders...


Link to post
Share on other sites

A tale of two rallies.


(Soon-to-be) Democrat frontrunner Elizabeth Warren held a rally in New Hampshire to a “packed” crowd of 700.




This was the top story all day on Dredge...


President Trump just finished a rally with a crowd of 11,000 in a basketball arena in New Hampshire with “thousands” more in overflow outside.




But crowd sizes don’t matter...

Link to post
Share on other sites

FOXNews poll shows Biden leading Trump by 12 percent in the General Election. Oh noes!!!




Oh wait.


It seems Fox polled exactly 12 percent more Democrats than Republicans!




Biased polling is still biased.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

It's going to be Focahantus isn't it?

Does it matter? No matter what clown they run, they'll be propped up as the "Second Coming"  regardless of the skeltons in their closet.


And the band will play on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is the deal with the US wanting to buy Greenland again?


Is it to claim more of the arctic continental shelf?
To box in Canada?
To protect the northern atlantic sea route from invasoin?

Is it because of the raw resources found in Greenland with the ice going away?

To use Hans Island as a pretext to invade Canada? 
Or do Trump just want some ice for his beer? 


If we say that the Danes would sell Greenland to the US or the Greenland goverment voted to join the US, would it become a state or a terretory like Puerto Rico?





Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Xoon said:

So what is the deal with the US wanting to buy Greenland again?


I think it was an offhand joke.


3 minutes ago, Xoon said:

To box in Canada?


Yes, we're very worried they'll try to burn down Washington again and we need another location to put airbases and nuclear missile silos.

4 minutes ago, Xoon said:

To protect the northern atlantic sea route from invasoin?


Especially from the Canadians!

5 minutes ago, Xoon said:

Is it because of the raw resources found in Greenland with the ice going away?


If there's any real reason, it might be this.

5 minutes ago, Xoon said:

To use Hans Island as a pretext to invade Canada? 


I'd support it.

5 minutes ago, Xoon said:

If we say that the Danes would sell Greenland to the US or the Greenland goverment voted to join the US, would it become a state or a terretory like Puerto Rico?


Territory. Becoming a state is more involved (and would probably require a much higher population).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Belesarius
      Might as well start a thred for this shit.  Looks like there is gonna be enough stuff to keep a solo thred going.
    • By Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect
      After seeing the rampant crack down on speech in the UK, I decided that more should be done than just Thoughts and Prayers. 
      I know that it's a scary time for our UK members. Knowing that what you say on the internet can put you on the wrong side of a Bobby's nightstick, well, I find that despicable. 
      So I've created this place for all your impure or degenerate thoughts. Here's how it works. 
      Perhaps you want to say something "offensive". Instead of saying it yourself, you can message any US member of this forum and have them act as your avatar of avarice. 
      For example, say you had a particularly heinous fish and chips at the local pub. You may want to say, "Oi, that cheeky fucker Barnaby William can't do a proper chip if he had a fryer for hands!"
      This on it's own could send you straight to jail for defamation. Moreso, if instead of chips that sent you reeling it happened to be a kebab from Omar down the street. 
      Now your crime has gone from offensive to racially insensitive!
      Anytime such an urge comes along, call on your ex colonial friends. We will translate and post your complaint for all the world to revel in, free of charge!
      I personally think Omar should learn to pull the fucking kebab off heat before it's crisper than his wife's crotch and blacker than his beard. That tosser!
      See? Don't you feel better? And now, no one will be knocking on your door, serving you with a summons for being a racist git. 
    • By T___A
      Might as well make a new thread now that the election is over.
    • By Tied
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?

  • Create New...