Last edited:
US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians
- Thread starter SeniorFuckFace
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2016
Are those who still listen to Howard Stern already going to vote for Harris? It's not like she is going on SiriusXM Patriot.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2023
I’m gonna go on a little abortion tangent just because I haven’t seen my perspective reflected much and I’ve never really talked about it.
To briefly powerlevel, I’m kind of a sperg and never felt much inclination to have kids. Didn’t have a baby doll as a girl, didn’t play house, was too busy taking all the electronics in the house apart. Even as an adult, never really was into it. My view was always this:
- use birth control
- use plan B when you have any doubts
- be responsible about taking pregnancy tests and get an abortion early if you must
- available in extreme cases, life of the mother, the usual
I thought this was pretty reasonable. I understand people who don’t want to have kids but still want to enjoy life with a partner, and would like a failsafe as a last resort. But that’s not what’s being pushed anymore. Slowly, instead of, you should be able to avoid pregnancy if you wish, it’s starting to sound more like….you shouldn’t get pregnant at all. Pregnancy is terrifying, You shouldn’t have a family. First trimester isn’t enough, we have to go further. And not only should blue states offer it, the whole country must bend to their will. And abortion is now a rallying cry that’s expected to draw women in, and it does. Even though for something that should be so rare you’d think most women wouldn’t worry about it. The ‘choice’ has turned into full-on implicit pressure. The slippery slope seems fake until you feel your feet sliding out from under you.
It’s so sinister to be pushed away from motherhood it kind of makes me want to have a beautiful family out of spite. I think I’d be good at it, too.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 16, 2019
This is the problem with "package politics", it's not a single issue party. It's a single issue driver for one segment of a political coalition.
Democrats pitch abortion to women generally. They also pitch gibs to blacks, immigration to Hispanics, cultural acceptance to Asians and Jews, anti-racism to all of the previous. Plus "civil rights" to LGBTQIAP+, sexual license to degenerates, socialism to underemployed midwits, communism to wannabe radicals, etc.
Any one of those groups vote for what they think is important, but putting the party in power drags in all the rest alongside it. The key is to keep each group focused on ONLY their pet issue, and provide an ideological justification for allying with the other groups they would normally hate. Intersectionality was hugely important in keeping this together over the last 15 years; it let people who fell into multiple categories craft a political identity that covered multiple party planks.
So when I say "90% of women" would leave Democrats without abortion, I really mean their other planks are incredibly weak. Even if women identified with another catered-to group, they would eventually have to move to the right. White women who don't have another special interest minority would instantly switch over. All the others would have to weigh the strength of their categorized identity against their identity as a woman with inherently female interests.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2020
"drops of 100% Dem ballots"
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2019
The last time, they came out and said those were mail ballots that hadn’t been opened and that it was logical they were 100% for Biden because Trump told his base that mail voting was ridiculous. If Republicans use various means to vote then it’s harder for them to conjure up new ways to get enough votes for Kamala.
There was an article posted here a few pages back where a journo is seething about the Republican early vote turnout. They KNOW why it’s not good for them, and it also shatters the “red mirage” narrative that they’re trying to push, where all in-person votes are Republican until eventually, weeks later, they open the mail votes and they’re all Dem.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2019
I disagree. The more I read about Lincoln, the more I actually like him (reading David Herbert Donald's book right now and have read two other biographies). I'll explain why.
First, I will have to point out that different human societies in different parts of the world developed in different ways. The US government thinks every third world dictatorship in the desert somewhere needs democracy, but the truth is they're just fine without it* - one form of government will work for one people; you can't plug in what makes Country A work and expect it to work in Country B. The US was formed in 1776 as a democratic republic founded by WASP Libertarians supporting Enlightenment political stances. During the Colonial period, you had the development of two distinct societies in the north (Plymouth Rock) and south (Jamestown) which would later lead to the development of an industrialized and urban north and a rural and agrarian south. 4/5 of the Founding Father Presidents (think Washington and Jefferson among them) came from Virginia. Because of the states rights issue**, many southern governors and state legislatures and elites who owned plantations saw the abolition amendment coming and moved to secede (Jefferson Davis himself had Libertarian politics), though in the eyes of the men fighting the war, the lion's share of them did not care about slaves. The Union soldiers wanted to hold the Union together, and the Confederates thought they were fighting a second American Revolution. Abolition was not even Lincoln's main concern during the war.
So enter Lincoln, who as POTUS has an authoritarian streak. He inherits a secession crisis, which bleeds into a civil war. Lincoln used whatever was at his disposal to stamp out the rebellion. Lincoln drafted a lot of people, though the south was more brazen about it and drafted even more people. All of the above being said, it would be preferable in a major crisis like that for a man who considered himself an American Nationalist like Lincoln to use this kind of authority-driven leadership to stamp out a rebellion incited by Libertarians. Because of the way the American society and government had developed since 1776, an American in a dictatorial role like Lincoln would be necessary in order to stop the rebellion and restore order after the war was over given Lincoln was dealing with a bunch of hostile Libertarians trying to balkanize. As horrendous as American race relations are now, you can ultimately blame Booth. Booth killing Lincoln made things twenty times worse; the sad irony was that Lincoln as POTUS in a possible second term would have been the best possible option for the south following the war heading into Reconstruction.
Donald notes in his biography that Lincoln was opposed by federal Democrats because they were opposed to "Caesarism". Thinking of my own political development, as I have said earlier in this thread, I am done with both democracy and the American government system. My thought reading that when I saw Lincoln being likened to Julius Caesar by political opponents of the time was "based". Lincoln arresting state legislatures and journos of his day? If we had an American Caesar in power now, I figure a lot of people in this thread would cheer it on if the military was sent into the House and Senate to preform mass arrests of corrupt politicians, and they'd also cheer it on if both MSNBC and CNN went out of business tomorrow. But apparently a lot of people in the e-right in general want to draw the line and cry the blues about "Lincoln was a dictator".***
The way Lincoln put down the rebellion through Grant and Sherman was one of the nicest ways to put down a rebellion throughout human history - even for his day, Lincoln treated them with kid gloves and let the southerners keep their homes, and the Lincoln Administration gave the Confederate soldiers free meals as well after the war. If the CSA had rebelled against, say, any figure like Julius Caesar or Augustus or Hadrian, then Davis, Stephens, Lee, Toombs, Longstreet, and the rest of them would have been stripped bare and crucified on a road from Richmond to DC, their plantation homes burned to the ground and their lands salted, and their wives and children ironically sold into slavery themselves.
* When I was a young adult and volunteering with Habitat, we had a group of college students come work with us one day, and one of them was a girl whose family was from some Middle Eastern country (I think Syria or Lebanon or Iran or one of those; my memory is sort of foggy - I'm leaning Iran though) who pointed out why do you care "who gets to sit in the chair" and for how long if the country and its people are doing well? That stuck with me.
** The Nullification Crisis was a precursor to this sort of thing; Andrew Jackson (proto-Trump in a way) threatened to hang someone from South Carolina over secession.
*** And a lot of these same people will adore Franco and Hitler as well as Julius Caesar himself. But not Lincoln?
Escaped Abortion
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2020
Humans have always wanted to solve the problems of too many kids by dehumanizing babies and even small children. Like in Rome or Japan where you could just "send babies back" that were unwanted. It didn't count as murder, because they were allowed to do it, but it clearly was taking a human life that already displayed independant will. Sometimes that was even seen as okay up through toddlers. Just like how you could de-person slaves and then killing them wasn't murder, just disposing of some unwanted farm equipment.
It's an inconvenient truth that a developing human displays signs of being a self-animated, independent being earlier than the pro-choice side would like. It should be obvious, look at even a kangaroo fetus which is able to take on its epic journey to the pouch when it's basically still at that nub phase. Europe seems to get that, and this is why abortion is limited to 15 weeks. Once it's developed a brain and is moving and stretching its limbs, doing basically small scale stuff as what a newborn would do, it's clearly independently alive and not just an extention of the mother.
Like in that stupid "you are hooked up to a violinist" argument... while you can say that you aren't obligated to have your body be used to keep them alive. You could unhook yourself from the machine, but if you were to go over to them in their bed and smother them or stab them repeatedly, clearly you transgressed upon their being. Even if they were sick and would die soon without you, you don't have the right to dismember them, especially if they were unwittingly attached to you.
Although the expense of gestation outside a womb prohibits the most equitable way of separating these two beings, it's reasonable enough to say a woman has to come to that decision before it's able to be fine being adopted, and wouldn't even require a nicu stay. It's reasonable to set it where Europe does and does not require any application of soul, rather just recognized brain activity.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2020
I actually believe these numbers now.
Disaffected Coyote
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2024
FEMA abandons Bat Cave North Carolina.
Thwarted by a closed road sign. I'm sure this is just another MAGA chud conspiracy theory made to make poor little FEMA look bad.
New York Post story
Edit to clean up link to article
Thwarted by a closed road sign. I'm sure this is just another MAGA chud conspiracy theory made to make poor little FEMA look bad.
New York Post story
Edit to clean up link to article
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2021
@Null I should also add Kerry is not just some nobody. Even after his loss in 2004 he’s been appointed to a lot of roles by Obama and Biden. He’s not in any role currently, but he had one created under Biden, the US climate envoy, which had vague powers and a seat on the UN Security Council. John Podesta currently sits in that role.
He’s one of those faggots who’s a career politician and somehow a billionaire.
Also, I don’t know if it’s been brought to your attention, but Alex Jones is being sued in a way that might violate his 13th Amendment rights.
He’s one of those faggots who’s a career politician and somehow a billionaire.
Also, I don’t know if it’s been brought to your attention, but Alex Jones is being sued in a way that might violate his 13th Amendment rights.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2020
I can't even stand to look at this loser anymore much, but jeezus christ. Just charge your $350 per graph and go away finally.
ShapelyMutton
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2019
Bureaucracy creates vampires of us all. Beholden to arbitrary rules and unable to cross running water. If only bureaucrats would only come when, and if, invited.
I Hate The Disabled
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2024
It's safe to assume any celeb that doesn't endorse Kamala is silently supporting Trump. Just because if they say theyre voting for a Republican, they'll be black listed.
Bindo
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2024
Jesus the desperation in this tweet. He knows deep down Trump might pull this off and must of had tears in his eyes writing this.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2019
To be fair a Kamala interview on the old Stern Show would've been amazing.
"Yeah yeah whatever are you shaved down there? You don't look like you shave. What does Willie Brown taste like?"
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2019
The only people I respect there are Stevie Wonder and Joan Baez and even then I don’t give a fuck about their politics.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2024
I’ve been sick these past couple of days and I had a fever dream last night that Trump won and started saying the N-Word on tv.
I have no clue what this means
I have no clue what this means
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2024
Tyranny is a weapon. It can be used against those who deserve it - which is what Caesar, Franco, etc. did - or it can be used against those who don't deserve it - which is what Sulla, Robespierre, Mao, etc. did.
It's not hypocrisy that you're pointing out; it's merely a disagreement about who deserves to be poked with the pointy-end of tyranny and who doesn't.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Bruce Springsteen must mald savagely and furiously about "Born in the USA" and that makes me happy. Mark has been a joke for a very long time, he's still the best Joker but his levels of grovelling npc are outright disgusting.
Paternity leave has also been aligbed with maternity, so a team member can banish for 4 months. I get the whole "perks for families" but it's ballbusting when you happen to coincide with 2 having a baby back to back. Not like I have a solution or am against it, just wanted to whinge.
But yes, you are right that even with all those perks, natality is still a damn joke.
- Status