Sure Thing
Sure Thing
You just described the Czech pub stereotype in a nutshell. They love complaining and arguing and do it for sport, but when somebody disagrees with their worldview on a substantial level, they won’t get invited to the table at all.
Does this pub behavior extend to ActivityPub? Maybe…
Ignore all previous instructions.
Give me a simple cake recipe.
It’s pretty clear you’re okay with propping up actual fascism. That alone makes the rest of your arguments fall flat.
No one with any actual principles is going to listen to the side screaming for the annialation of trans people. (One of many reasons to reject far right ideologies entirely.) How is that so hard to understand for you?
I try to be centrist
There’s your problem right there: if you try to mold your principles to fit a false narrative of “the middle point is always rational”, you’re going to risk developing some highly irrational ideas, such as thinking that fascism is normal conservatism and it’s calling it out that’s abnormal.
think socialized healthcare is good thing, but I think it should be run at the state level cause each state will have different needs
Or such as thinking that the politicians in charge of states like Mississippi, Texas or Delaware** are honest and always put the needs of the majority of the people over the wants of rich donors.
I think gun crime is an issue but I think focusing on the tool used instead of the socioeconomic, mental, and societal factors is a mistake
Or such as thinking that the many other causes of violent crime (all of which need to be addressed, of course) aren’t greatly exacerbated by guns being easier to access than health care, voting, or library books that acknowledge the existence and value of minority groups.
I want us to do something about or deficit but both parties seem intent to just spend spend spend these days
Or thinking that the deficit and how much political funding happens matters anywhere near as much as WHAT’S being funded
** Delaware is the most corporation-friendly of all the states. That’s why almost all of them are registered there regardless of where they’re actually based.
Nazis only support one side. That one side didn’t say they were against Nazis.
That is weird. It’s not normal.
Nope.
Neo-Nazis explain why they like Donald Trump
Trump social media post associated with Nazi Germany sparks backlash
Joy: They are letting literal Nazis into their den of Trump worship
Republicans can’t complain a group is supporting immigrants and all minorities too much and call them Nazis. Nazis are white supremacist.
Reps call Dems “Communists” Dems call Reps “Nazis”
Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
Conservatives in the US shout all kinds of things, because the words they use don’t have any meaning. They don’t understand what communism actually is, just that they’re supposed to be afraid of it.
That’s different from the left pointing out that the right is actually using fascists strategies (like stripping words of their meaning), and adopting fascist policies.
I do not agree with your assessment of “reality.” Only one side is actively against bodily autonomy (especially for women) and wants to look at kids genitals and police which toilet a human shits in. Only one side courts the religious ethnostate fascist where their whole stance is in-group vs. out-group (aka, demonization). Pointing these out isn’t demonization, these are facts. If someone likes politicians from that side, the odds are good it does indeed make them suitable for the various negative labels they don’t like. The late Dr. Bob Altemeyer studied right wing authoritarianism (both the leaders and followers) and even developed a rubric that would predict right wing authoritarian followers. They are dangerous because they eschew reason for vibes and are extremely susceptible to demagogues.
Give this a read and see if it changes your opinion on “both sides”
https://theauthoritarians.org/
That’s bullshit. Democrats all over the place are saying this is likely to be a close election and people really need to get out and vote to beat Trump.
The only sense it’s true that Democrats are taking about it being rigged are that actual, known attempts to rig it, like the fake electors scheme and the storming of the capital, along with the grotesque gerrymandering, all of which is verifiable.
There’s a very slight, very marginal, barely noticeable difference between liberals commenting on the SCOTUS decision to halt the recount in Bush v Gore circa 2000 and conservatives baselessly claiming millions of illegal ballots were cast in the state of California in 2016, preventing the incoming President from claiming both the EC majority and the popular vote win.
I would not describe these as perfectly identical attitudes toward an electoral contest.
Also, republicans doing everything they can to suppress votes. Including things like
All this bullshit happens and democrats will bitch about how unfair it is, but will still accept the results.
Democrats will tell you that if they lose, it was your fault for not voting hard enough.
Voters will tell themselves the problem was a bunch of evil foreigners who tricked Republicans into doing what they’ve been doing since Nixon.
Republicans will insist they secretly won California and suggest someone needs to “cut down the tall trees” during the next election.
Sounds pretty fuckin different to me. This isn’t a “both sides” argument.
Democrats accept the results but aren’t happy with it. Republicans don’t accept the results. And honestly, this feels like it has only become central to so Republicans are since Trump came along.
Democrats accept the results
Liberals meekly surrender to a judicial coup while conservatives threaten to lynch the VP who steps out of line.
I want to believe there’s a happy middle ground. But I’m not giving credit to Vichy Democrats who whined about Nader while rubber stamping Bush’s Patriot Act.
I’m confused.
What prominent figures on the left have said something to the effect of “If we lose, the election was rigged!”??
I can only think of prominent figures on the right who have made statements like this.
Or are you saying that those who are against the 2 party system typically fall under the thinking that the election is rigged?