US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

 

[General Emílio Médici]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4824207-biden-bill-eliminate-tipped-wages-tax/

"I am totally gonna sign it, just bring it to me!" has been the go-to mainstream party grift for what, 40 years now? Isn't this what they have said about Roe v. Wade since the day it was passed to the day it was overturned?

It's code for "just keep voting for us". They aren't gonna do it.

 

[Harvey Danger]

Yes, rights don't emanate from individuals. Without a state those rights are just lofty ideals that don't actually exist. You can say your house is your private property but if I go there with a group of buddies and occupy it, who's going to interject on your behalf?
If those rights are violated, who intervenes? It's the forces of the state.

You're mistaking rights with enforcement.

If you occupy my house, and I go to the neighbors and complain, they'll agree my rights were violated (in different words). If they're strong enough to kick you out, they will help me do so; State enforcement isn't necessary. If they aren't strong enough, they'll tell me I have to put up with my violated rights. This becomes an issue of justice, or, if you prefer, rights naturally arise from that sense of shared justice.

If I were to walk up to you on the street and shoot you in the head for no reason, bystanders would agree your right to life was violated. But there would be no fix, since you're dead. They might shoot me in response, but that isn't enforcement since your life no longer exists; it would however be justice, messily meted out. Again, no State is required.

(We can go in circles for a while over how universal beliefs on justice are shared, but there's already another religious debate brewing and it's pointless. TL;DR culture matters.)

Because the state recognizes your right to private property, it can also punish me when I violate that right by stealing your property. Rights don't make sense outside of the state.

Both rights and justice pre-exist the State, exist in greater or lesser forms with a State in place, and will continue to exist when the State collapses. We agree to submit to the State to have nicer enforcement mechanisms, not to birth the very idea of rights.

You seem to think it's a stumbling block if we don't have an ironclad, objective, 100% agreed upon version of rights floating around without State force to show us its outlines. However, such a thing is not "rights", that is "law". In an ideal world the two become identical, in the real world they never are. But in our rhetorical argument here, it's enough to point out neither one requires the other to exist.

 

[Day of the Cope]

Yes, rights don't emanate from individuals. Without a state those rights are just lofty ideals that don't actually exist. You can say your house is your private property but if I go there with a group of buddies and occupy it, who's going to interject on your behalf?
If those rights are violated, who intervenes? It's the forces of the state. Because the state recognizes your right to private property, it can also punish me when I violate that right by stealing your property. Rights don't make sense outside of the state.

You're conflation of "laws" with "rights" tells me everything I need to know.

Never mind that, in many states, castle doctrine means that anyone who tries to break into your home can be met with deadly force.

 

[HOMO FOR LIFE RETURNS]

Did people notice how they specify service and hospitality workers. Trump will end all tax on tips.
also he will fire 80% of the IRS workers.

 

[Sekirodiealot]

"Lol, that was Vietnam."

"That doesn't change that orange man dodged the draft. He's a traitor for that."

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

Did people notice how they specify service and hospitality workers. Trump will end all tax on tips.
also he will fire 80% of the IRS workers.

The IRS should do double duty as security. It's not like they're worse than the Secret Service anymore.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

As opposed to what? Not expanding it? Not continuing the practice started before the founding of the nation?

Literally yeah. The Founding Fathers generation mostly wanted to constrain it to the Atlantic South with an understanding that it would die out on its own (this was an accurate prediction until the cotton gin). There was a huge abolitionist push during the Revolution, pretty much all of the Northern states abolished it (through gradual emancipation) and some of the Southern states had heavy pushes for it.

The Fire Eater ideology of the Civil War was something that developed later.

Abolitionist types such as John Brown?

Or William Lloyd Garrison (pacifist), or Lysander Spooner (pacifist/anarchist that supported both slave revolts and the Confederacy), or a million others.

I know what you mean and I agree that John Brown was a problem. Was a huge problem. He had been funded and supported by a cabal of Northern elites and so was proof, to the Southern public, that their situation was intolerable. Having John Brown's Raid meant that secession was inevitable.

But John Brown and radical abolitionism like that was also a response to the way the South had tried to muzzle discourse on far more moderate abolitionists earlier on. They passed a gag rule to prevent even talking about it in Congress, censored the mail, often lynched abolitionists and suspected ones regardless of whether they were inciting insurrection or not.

It was a massive campaign of constitutional rights violations that, to Northern audiences, made the Fire Eaters look (correctly, in my opinion) like massive hypocrites.

A majority of counties in Kentucky supported the confederacy. Should the wishes of those not be supported? And at what point does the one have a right to leave? I not aware of a right of the place like Nickajack to leave their states, and if they have an inherent right to go against their wider polity, does that not also grant the confederacy a similar right.

I could be mistaken but as far as I'm aware Kentucky was 2/3rds Unionist by population and 1/3rd Confederate, in contrast to Tennessee where the pattern was reversed. There were Unionists even in the deepest Deep South and Confederates in the highest mountains, but this lined up very heavily with

Not sure on the exact sequence of events, but as I understand Kentucky's state government declared official neutrality. The CSA (you might compare this to Germany invading Belgium in WW1) knew full well the Union would never respect it and so preemptively invaded. This triggered Kentucky to resist, but even before a pretender Confederate state government of Kentucky revolted.

What you ask about intrastate secession is a valid and interesting question. On constitutional principles I see no basis for a state splitting. The United States was created by the states, the State of Virginia created its counties, right? You might also argue over whether American secession (of America from Britain, of the South from America) is justified only when the government is tyrannical by a reason standard, when it is violating natural rights, or if it is dissolvable at any time by the will of the public, a more self-determination argument I prefer.

Either way, a huge chunk of the Confederacy was caught between loyalty to a federal government that they preferred and loyalty to a state government that they did not.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Or does the disenfranchisement of the confederates or the majority of the population not matter?

I've never cared for that cliche. Terrorist is a term that refers to the deliberate killing of civilians, usually in the modern day implied by non-state actors. That is an objective description of the strategy of the Redshirts and Klan.

Confederates were disenfranchised temporarily and quickly allowed back in. Tennessee and Louisiana, who didn't resist as much/were occupied faster, even got to vote in the 1864 election (though I assume turnout was extremely low among Democrats).

Old habits die hard as they say.

Pithy non-response.

The source for that is Slavery by Another Name by Douglas Blackmon, by the way. It was mostly done in Alabama. Teddy Roosevelt tried to get it shut down but got stonewalled Mississippi Burning style. It wasn't until FDR that, along with resolving the union problems in Appalachia, they forced through reform.

Actually would happen, as it often does, to poor Whites too.

Which men? Men like emmett till or leo frank? I won't say every act of lynching was justified, but a lot were justified.

Them and all the other men that were accused of a crime and never given the right to speak for themselves to a burden of proof consistent with what was given to their fellow citizens.

Lynching is never justified unless you have a complete breakdown of law and order/a lack of it to begin with to the point that lynching is the only way to restore order.

When you look at the patterns of lynching after Reconstruction across the South almost all of the Whites that were killed were in the Appalachians and Ozarks, where that kind of pattern existed. Almost all lynchings in the Deep South were Blacks, about a third of counties having a lynching, and most of those only ever having one, and many of them having them in the early 1900s. That's not consistent with some community policing thing and it, again, is a two-tier policing system even if it is. Someone's life is suddenly cheaper, just because they're a different person, to where you can kill them by the judgment of a few drunks that do what they do under the cover of robes for shame?

Where exactly do you come down on the segregation question? I take it from this post you don't believe in freedom of association. I can understand saying that black facilities should be just as well funded as white ones, but I don't believe blacks have some right to white people or our children. I really wish Lincoln had shipped them back to Africa.

I believe in freedom of association nowadays, I'm iffier on it back then and segregation trampled all over freedom of association. Firstly, we can distinguish between freedom to associate with someone and freedom not to. The Civil Rights shit we have now tramples over the latter, the segregation laws over the former.

There is also a WORLD of difference between the state segregating people and private individuals doing it. Now, I'll grant you this. If we're okay with allowing the state to fund private religious schools, we might ask why you can't have private ethnic schools too. But there shouldn't be some blanket ruling that we've got to have two schools, two bathrooms, two diners, two of every fucking thing just because one group doesn't want to share that stuff. And in doing so impose their tastes on everyone in the county. It was a minority position at the time, but plenty of Whites did not mind and most quickly adjusted to it when they realized it was not the end of the world.

The South had spent the past, like, 160 years on the verge of a nervous breakdown, first form terror that emancipation would result in a Haiti-like genocide and then from terror that integration - actually making good on the former - would result in some disintegration of their culture. Getting civil rights crammed through caused a sort of detente, to the point that the rural South now has a much more easygoing atmosphere and it is very common to see Blacks and Whites in the same churches, restaurants and breeding in mixed families (I am not a scientific racist/racialist, so I don't mind that).

Civil rights started to go horribly wrong when they started forced busing. It was foolish to force little kids to ride all the way across a city just to go to a worse quality school where they aren't wanted. Affirmative action and requirements to not discriminate in private businesses, much more iffy. I think there was a time when it could have seemed like a good idea - things like sundown towns imposed a very high burden - but given the way it played out in helping to create an anti-White system of segregation, I'd say it was probably a bad policy overall.

I don't like that the Federal Govt came in swinging its dick with things like Little Rock either.

It's interesting how you don't see the connection between these two? Do you suppose ever black man who ever looked at a white woman was strung up or that perhaps the modern liberal fantasy about the south is just that, a fantasy.

Contradiction? Not a contradiction at all. Women aren't some pool of property for a group of men to hang onto. Making eyes/flirting at a woman, without harassing her, isn't a killing offense. And it sure as shit isn't justifiable when the same blowhards that would wave clubs around were drilling oil with their servants every night, or boogying down to Cuba to do legally what they may have been embarrassed in the States. Exotic pussy for me, but not for thee.

And as I said elsewhere in this response, lynching was very rare (in part because it was an effective deterrent). But it happened enough, in a very public way, with no justice done, to the point that it stained the reputation of the region for a very long time.

Edit: Forgot to address this point, I don't think it will or I hope it won't require that. I think the key deciding issue in this nation is immigration and voting access. If Trump can get in and deport enough of the illegals and/or tighten up election security than I don't think the Yankee tendency toward over bearing government will win out. Reason why mass immigration is a make or break issue for the democrats and it isn't because they love non-whites for the hell of it.

Eh. Maybe. The Democrats like immigration because they think they'll be socialist voters forever, but Progressivism itself came out of a White country. I also don't know that I believe Latinos will always vote the way they do. They're very similar to Italians in terms of sociological characteristics/assimilation patterns. Worse, actually (what Italian mobster ever skinned a man's face from his head and put it on a pole?), but still bearable.

These I don't know enough to about. Though some of these sound like actions by corporate knuckheads, something that isn't solely original to the south.

It's not purely Southern, the North also played a big role. Reason I include it is that it's still a case of Southern elites shitting on Whites and Blacks alike. If you're interested, what I'm referring to is the Battle of Blair Mountain. Matewan is a great Western (genre) movie set around the leadup to it. It's totally screwed up that nobody teaches it (except a handful of labor union communists) and I think the reason is because it doesn't serve the purposes of Conservatism Inc OR the anti-Southern, anti-White Left.

Specific other ones:

Wilson segregated the federal govt (not segregated before)

Wilson played some role in promoting the Second Ku Klux Klan's return

You could legally rape slaves. Under the One Drop Rule, a woman with any Black blood could be legally Black and therefore enslaved. In practice 1/8th is the least Black (octoroon) I've ever heard of and them not being free. Vice President Richard Mentor Johnson had an octoroon concubine who he scandalously married, don't know that it was coerced. Thomas Jefferson had a quadroon concubine and it seems she was coerced. In Louisiana they called the (discreet but legal) trade of sex slaves the "fancy trade" and it was mostly light-skinned quadroon and octoroon women, the Whiter the higher the price.

William Walker was one of several "filibusters," Southern men (or foreigners with Southern backing) who launched private invasions (think Viking adventurers) to conquer small Latin American countries and force them into the US as slave states. Mexico, Nicaragua, Cuba and other places were targets. Generally failures; Walker actually did briefly rule as leader of Nicaragua until Cornelius Vanderbilt (railroad/steamboat magnate) counter-filibustered him.

 

[HOMO FOR LIFE RETURNS]

"That doesn't change that orange man dodged the draft. He's a traitor for that."

The entire america wanted to dodge that draft. Lmao. The dumbfuck CNN.

 

[ShitLurker]

>be brown catboy faggot
>loves Muslims
>gets trump voters arrested by encouraging them to enter the capital
>laughs when white children are murdered and tells white people not to do anything about it
>tries to sabotage the right wing party in favor of the most radical leftist candidate in American history.

this fag glows more then my profile picture.

Never forget, we know who Nick is because we are terminally online, but he is absolutely irrelevant and should be ignored or at most mocked. The faggot not getting attention is the worst thing you can do to him.

And he's a fed asset anyway, even more reasons to just ignore him.

View attachment 6300110
View attachment 6300112

"TAAAAX FREEEEEEEEEE! SUPER CHAAAATS ARE TAAAAAAAAX FREEEEEEEE!!!"

Both are fighting hard for the pig monster demographic.

 

[Get the rope Macaulay!]

: Let's focus on actual cultur

you can blame a lot of it on pop culture as well for springing those ideas into people's heads. black tv shows feel like a parody in my white mind because they're all hilariously socially conservative. Like something out of pleasantville or Morel Orel. Even something like Girlfriends which is literally all about girlbosses is mostly them suffering for it and doing their best to try to keep their culture and make good families. same thing with Living Single.

was this always the case? can you see a similar percentile if you look at say 2001

The Don't Talk About Money & Politics rule is one that devastated society.

Even then it wasn't true back then either. Sure it was for normies and the right, but the march through institutions was possible because of it. you really fucking think Bill Ayers or Alinsky or Engels weren't talking politics? And even if you go "well of course the upper class and college educated talked money and politics" Benito Mussolini's dad was just a working class socialist tradesman and was talking all about the need to crush capitalism back in the 1880s. Although when you really think of what liberals and conservatives are its rather fucking obvious why the libs gained such a strangle hold on institutions. a conservative doesn't give a fuck about helping others, he's the guy who just does his job and leave whereas the liberal is all about finding his degenerate friends positions at the place he works, he spends more time talking to managers than doing his work, he's planning outside of work activities with the managers and genuinely making himself more desirable and more likely to rise up the ranks. a conservative thinks people get promoted based on some bullshit number system, "do good work and get rewarded" a liberal understands how much arbitrage there is and will take advantage of how much of the system is based on people's judgement.

I know plenty of conservatives who basically kicked their own kids out of the house once they turned 18 or were done with school, whereas i know liberals who will give a job and a place to stay to literally anyone that asks, and while i'm sure people also have anecdotes about the opposite, when you really think of how conservatives "just want to be left alone" while liberals "help everyone" mentalities work its obvious why the libs win all the time.

Of course this is also why fascism is the end goal, the liberalism led to socialism and the reactionary movement to socialism was fascism which understood the best way to combat socialism and it certainly fucking wasn't "head in the sand" consertivsm.

 

[Sekirodiealot]

The entire america wanted to dodge that draft. Lmao. The dumbfuck CNN.

Which is why it almost annoyed me seeing Trump get shit on for it like they wouldn't call him baby killer had he served. I bet you they're the same people that shamed and treated the veterans horribly when they came home. Like i said a few pages back, these same people where talking about fleeing the country/dodging the draft should WW3 start under trump after he got that one isis general killed

 

[FrancineCansMcGee]

Democrats: "Yes, of course he's still Hitler, it's just that some of Hitler's ideas are really good!"

 

[Sekirodiealot]

 

[General Emílio Médici]

The IRS should do double duty as security. It's not like they're worse than the Secret Service anymore.

A ISR agent would have bravely climbed that slanted roof to personally demand to see Trump Shooter's tax receipts the moment Crooks got there.

 

[Hey Johnny Bravo]

>be brown catboy faggot
>loves Muslims
>gets trump voters arrested by encouraging them to enter the capital
>laughs when white children are murdered and tells white people not to do anything about it
>tries to sabotage the right wing party in favor of the most radical leftist candidate in American history.

this fag glows more then my profile picture.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Nick is a grass. How do you think he avoided jail time?

 

[More AWS-8Q Than You]

This extends to the children of Jewish converts like Joel Osteen

I didn't know this, this explains so fucking much. The king of the Health and Wealth self-help "churches," it all makes sense now.

 

[Zaryiu2]

Did Tim Walz ever claim he saw combat or did he never claim that, any source on that topic?

 

[Jet Fuel Johnny]

The entire america wanted to dodge that draft. Lmao. The dumbfuck CNN.

That's why you NEVER let a (D) talk about the draft or the military.

Clinton, Obama, all their heroes dodged the draft. Fucking Biden claimed asthma.

And you can tell the faggots who don't remember just how bad the climate was after The Nam.

Just like you don't let women try to shame you about the military or going to war.

The Left loves draft dodgers on their side and thinks that you should only hate the ones who dodged Vietnam when they're on the right.

But it was The Nam, and it was a special kind of fucked.

Hearing "My grandfather went..." is enough to make me want to smack the person who then spouts off about The Nam.

Goddamn, that war fucked up Americas brain.

Did Tim Walz ever claim he saw combat or did he never claim that, any source on that topic?

He claimed repeatedly to be a 'combat veteran' in interviews.

Edit:

Plus, Walz, who had his CSM rank stripped away and was retired as a Master Sergeant, did shit like this during his political career.

 

[Breadbassket]

Did Tim Walz ever claim he saw combat or did he never claim that, any source on that topic?

From an article on the matter:
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz “misspoke” in a newly resurfaced video from 2018 in which he said he handled assault weapons “in war,” a Harris campaign spokesperson told CNN on Saturday.

Walz’s military record has been heavily scrutinized by Republicans, including GOP vice presidential nominee JD Vance, after Walz was tapped as Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate on Monday. Vance has accused the Minnesota governor of “stolen valor,” pointing to a video from 2018 circulated by the Harris campaign this week of Walz referring to weapons “that I carried in war” while explaining his support for an assault weapons ban.

“We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war,” Walz said in the video.

Lauren Hitt, a Harris campaign spokesperson, said in a statement the governor misspoke in the clip.

 

[LurkTrawl]

The right has allowed the left to take complete control of education and pop culture, and that didn't happen "naturally". It was a long-term plan with a purpose, something completely alien to the right, it seems.

I love how when people say this shit they never consider that, similarly to how the same people were in office through the CRA era, that the same people were in control of mass media.

You were never in control in the first place.