Jump to content

GOP's midterm losses were 100% Trump's fault. What say you?


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

 

Interesting.

 

How many Nazis and Russians do you count as friends and neighbors.....? 

I lived in Germany while in the military. The residents there despise Nazis and their politics. 

I have friends and neighbors from Russia and China. And yes they hated the politics thus their desire to relocate to the US. 

That these people see similarities to their former countries politics and ours should be alarming. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

I lived in Germany while in the military. The residents there despise Nazis and their politics. 

I have friends and neighbors from Russia and China. And yes they hated the politics thus their desire to relocate to the US. 

That these people see similarities to their former countries politics and ours should be alarming. 

It’s all relative. I’ve got a German born coworker  whose father was conscripted into the German army in WW2. Shes religious and not all that liberal socially, but still views the Republicans in a negative light and Trumpism as authoritarian. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

It’s all relative. I’ve got a German born coworker  whose father was conscripted into the German army in WW2. Shes religious and not all that liberal socially, but still views the Republicans in a negative light and Trumpism as authoritarian. 

Nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, government censorship, weaponization of intelligence apparatus, and having the media as an arm of government is concerning to them and familiar. That should be eye opening, yet hardly discussed, hardly considered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing Nazi Germany to modern America…ffff.gif.3a048a53b48ab2c8634be2ca9b57c9e4.gif

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Didba said:

Comparing Nazi Germany to modern America…ffff.gif.3a048a53b48ab2c8634be2ca9b57c9e4.gif

Apparently someone stayed up past the comprehension hour. :laugh:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the OP -- Nope! It's not all on Trump (although I agree a big portion is on him). But a big portion is on the GOP messaging -- (1) Stomp on women's body rights, (2) actually advertise CUTS to Medicare and Social Security, and (3) run absolute retard/morons/crazoids.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2022 at 2:29 PM, I_M4_AU said:

You really are Godless aren’t you.

The family structure has been the foundation of civilization for centuries, since the begging of time.  Biden is desperate to control the narrative and purposed the Ministry of Truth by another name and would have had media buy in if allowed to actually implement his Ministry.  I’m sure you remember that.  In case you forgot:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-establishes-a-ministry-of-truth-disinformation-governance-board-partisan-11651432312

The LGBTQ coalition is just a subset of this.  You are like the quintessential leftist.  *Its not happening and if it is, its a good thing*.  

 

I was making a snarky attack regarding your writing.  Go back and read it.

And stop lying. No one has said your conspiratorial fantasy's would be a good thing if they were happening, just they aren't happening.     

And "Godless"?  :rolleyes:

You are :ucrazy:

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2022 at 4:05 PM, CoffeeTiger said:

Yes, I am speculating. 

We do know that his grandfather has been a longtime Republican politician that has claimed that the Republican party is too 'liberal' and that supported the Jan 6 attack on the Capitol.....so a connection does exist between this murderer and  far-right Conservativism. 

We'll see what the investigation turns up. 

Here’s an interesting twist:

The suspect in the shooting at Club Q, a Colorado Springs LGBTQ nightclub, is now identifying as non-binary, according to court filings filed Tuesday.

"Anderson Aldrich is non-binary. They use they/them pronouns, and for the purposes of all formal filings, will be addressed as Mx. Aldrich," a footnote in a court filing reads.

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-springs-lgbtq-club-shooting-suspect-identifying-non-binary-court-documents/

It remains to be seen if this is some lawyer ploy or straight up (no pun intended).  He is being represented by a pubic defender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2022 at 2:42 PM, I_M4_AU said:

Are you anti-family?  Should the nucleus of the family be destroyed?

There are various forms of family. Would you eliminate any form that doesn't comport with your ideal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, homersapien said:

There are various forms of family. Would you eliminate any form that doesn't comport with your ideal?

I didn’t specify a form of family; what are you talking about?

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I didn’t specify a form of family; what are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

You asked "should the nucleus of the family be destroyed?"

What's the "nucleus" of the family? 

Who or what is threatening it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Here’s an interesting twist:

The suspect in the shooting at Club Q, a Colorado Springs LGBTQ nightclub, is now identifying as non-binary, according to court filings filed Tuesday.

"Anderson Aldrich is non-binary. They use they/them pronouns, and for the purposes of all formal filings, will be addressed as Mx. Aldrich," a footnote in a court filing reads.

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-springs-lgbtq-club-shooting-suspect-identifying-non-binary-court-documents/

It remains to be seen if this is some lawyer ploy or straight up (no pun intended).  He is being represented by a pubic defender.

 

heh, how convenient. Wont help him much against any possible hate crime charges I don't think. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Here’s an interesting twist:

The suspect in the shooting at Club Q, a Colorado Springs LGBTQ nightclub, is now identifying as non-binary, according to court filings filed Tuesday.

"Anderson Aldrich is non-binary. They use they/them pronouns, and for the purposes of all formal filings, will be addressed as Mx. Aldrich," a footnote in a court filing reads.

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-springs-lgbtq-club-shooting-suspect-identifying-non-binary-court-documents/

It remains to be seen if this is some lawyer ploy or straight up (no pun intended).  He is being represented by a pubic defender.

 

AND this isn't even the weirdest turn of events. SO:

His granddad (his moms father) is a MAGA Republican politican in California 

His mother is a former drug user and mental patient who is active in the Mormon Church 

His DAD is a former professional MMA fighter (apparently a decently good one too),a porn star where he went by the stage name 'Dick Delaware',  AND appeared on reality tv shows Divorce court and 'Intervention' for his meth addiction.

 

You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried. 

Edited by CoffeeTiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

AND this isn't even the weirdest turn of events. SO:

His granddad (his moms father) is a MAGA Republican politican in California 

His mother is a former drug user and mental patient who is active in the Mormon Church 

His DAD is a former professional MMA fighter (apparently a decently good one too),a porn star where he went by the stage name 'Dick Delaware',  AND appeared on reality tv shows Divorce court and 'Intervention' for his meth addiction.

 

You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried. 

That’s one crazy side of the family.  The suspect even threatened his mom with a home made bomb and the police evacuated houses within a half a mile.  He didn’t go to jail and he was still allowed to purchase a gun.

Thanksgivings must be a hoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

That’s one crazy side of the family.  The suspect even threatened his mom with a home made bomb and the police evacuated houses within a half a mile.  He didn’t go to jail and he was still allowed to purchase a gun.

Thanksgivings must be a hoot.

Kid was also apparently pretty heavily bullied through school. 

Here's an interview from yesterday a news station had with his dad. It's interesting...

https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/im-sorry-i-let-my-son-down-father-of-accused-colorado-club-shooter-speaks-out/509-6c4ad66e-35ef-41a5-9255-bca31cea3a73

SAN DIEGO — Until six months ago, Aaron Brink thought his son died by suicide.

Brink said his ex-wife called him from Colorado in 2016 to tell him their son, Nicholas Brink, had changed his name to Anderson Aldrich, and had killed himself.

“I thought he was dead. I mourned his loss. I had gone through a meltdown and thought I had lost my son,” Brink told CBS 8.

When Brink asked his ex-wife why their son had changed his name, she blamed it on the father’s involvement in a reality TV show called Intervention, as well as his acting career in the adult film industry.

“His mother told me he changed his name because I was in Intervention and I had been a porno actor,” said Brink.

For six years Brink believed his son was dead, until Aldrich unexpectedly called his father in 2021, and started arguing with him over the phone.

“He’s pissed off. He's pissed off at me. He wants to poke at the old man,” Brink recalled.

Then, two days ago, Brink got a call from his son's defense attorneys, telling him Aldrich was involved in a shooting at an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs.

Brink said he's a Mormon and his first reaction was to question why his son was at a gay bar.

“You know Mormons don't do gay. We don't do gay. There's no gays in the Mormon church. We don't do gay,” Brink said.

But when the 48-year-old learned more details of the deadly shooting, he said he was shocked.

“There's no excuse for going and killing people. If you're killing people, there's something wrong. It's not the answer,” he said.

Brink told CBS 8 his son was born in San Diego in 2000, at Sharp Mary Birch Hospital for Women. The couple lived in Cardiff by the Sea at the time, but soon separated about a year later and got divorced.

He said his ex-wife, the daughter of California State Assemblyman Randy Voepel, and his son moved to Colorado around 2012.

Brink currently works as a mixed martial arts coach. He says he taught his son how to fight.

“I praised him for violent behavior really early. I told him it works. It is instant and you'll get immediate results,” the father said.

But in the wake of the violence at Club Q, Brink apologized to the families of the victims.

“I’m sorry for your loss.  Life is so fragile and it's valuable. Those people's lives were valuable. You know, they’re valuable. They’re good people probably.  It's not something you kill somebody over. I'm sorry I let my son down,” he said.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Apparently someone stayed up past the comprehension hour. :laugh:

Your bedtime sure is early!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What's the "nucleus" of the family? 

This answers all your questions.  Note: BLM (the organization) is actively trying to destroy the nucleus of the family as it has been in their literature.

Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are “trained Marxists” – making clear their movement’s ideological foundation, according to a report.

Cullors, 36, was the protégé of Eric Mann, former agitator of the Weather Underground domestic terror organization, and spent years absorbing the Marxist-Leninist ideology that shaped her worldview.

https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/

In an article about Marxism:

Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism – the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.

Something else Marxists suggest about the family (like the Functional Fit theory) is that the family type generally changes with society – more specifically, the nuclear family emerges not because of the needs of industrialisation, but because of the needs of the capitalist system.

According to Engels, the monogamous nuclear family only emerged with Capitalism. Before Capitalism, traditional, tribal societies were classless and they practised a form of ‘primitive communism’ in which there was no private property. In such societies, property was collectively owned, and the family structure reflected this – there were no families as such, but tribal groups existed in a kind of ‘promiscuous horde’ in which there were no restrictions on sexual relationships.

Ultimately what this arrangement does is to reproduce inequality – The children of the rich grow up into wealth, while the children of the poor remain poor. Thus the nuclear family benefits the Bourgeois more than the proletariat.

https://revisesociology.com/2014/02/10/marxist-perspective-family/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

This answers all your questions.  Note: BLM (the organization) is actively trying to destroy the nucleus of the family as it has been in their literature.

Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are “trained Marxists” – making clear their movement’s ideological foundation, according to a report.

Cullors, 36, was the protégé of Eric Mann, former agitator of the Weather Underground domestic terror organization, and spent years absorbing the Marxist-Leninist ideology that shaped her worldview.

https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/

In an article about Marxism:

Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism – the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.

Something else Marxists suggest about the family (like the Functional Fit theory) is that the family type generally changes with society – more specifically, the nuclear family emerges not because of the needs of industrialisation, but because of the needs of the capitalist system.

According to Engels, the monogamous nuclear family only emerged with Capitalism. Before Capitalism, traditional, tribal societies were classless and they practised a form of ‘primitive communism’ in which there was no private property. In such societies, property was collectively owned, and the family structure reflected this – there were no families as such, but tribal groups existed in a kind of ‘promiscuous horde’ in which there were no restrictions on sexual relationships.

Ultimately what this arrangement does is to reproduce inequality – The children of the rich grow up into wealth, while the children of the poor remain poor. Thus the nuclear family benefits the Bourgeois more than the proletariat.

https://revisesociology.com/2014/02/10/marxist-perspective-family/

 

 

Just fyi, that most liberals don’t describe themselves as Marxist and Marxism as a political ideology is best thought as the father of communism, socialism, and the grandfather of democratic socialism.
 

Frankly, if a person introduced themselves to me as a Marxist 9/10 I would presume they were an idiot that didn’t actually know what that means, entails and/or just saying it to be edgy. 
 

IMO, this BLM person would be classified as an extremist on the far left of the political scale in the same sense that Neo-Nazis are extremists on the far right of the political scale.
 

As such, their views do not represent the majority of LGTBQ liberals, progressives, or moderates. 

Edited by Didba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So, are BLM and Marxists part of the LGBQT coalition?

Which one of those are after our precious bodily fluids?

 

You asked and I answered.  Are yon now asking about LGBTQ coalition being Marxist or Communist?

I don’t know, but the CPUSA believe they should be:

Marxism holds that people make their own history, even if they can’t always choose the timing or the nature of their battles. They have to work with what they’re given, what they’ve inherited. But if the oppressive structures that we face were constructed by humans, then we can also tear them down and build something new in their place.

With recent Supreme Court decisions, and others clearly coming down from this Trump-dominated Court, progressive Americans, including the CPUSA, are forced to devote a tremendous amount of time and treasure to defending and restoring what we had already achieved. Ideally, this struggle will bring us into close partnership with many other allies from whom we will learn and grow, and who will also learn and grow from us. We will be there!

In many ways these will be defensive fights. But these new movements will prepare us, steel us, for the longer struggle to create a different kind of society, one that is based fundamentally on human need and not profit, not the privilege of the few, and that has the potential — the potential, not the guarantee — of putting an end to modern sexual and gender definitions and limitations. And that would be a victory for everyone, because it’s not just Queer people who are held back by capitalism and its restrictive social norms and roles. The free development of all people is repressed by this socioeconomic system.

As we said earlier, neither Marx nor Engels was a paragon of enlightenment when it comes to LGBTQ issues or sexual liberation. But Marxists have always believed that only a socialist revolution could open the way to sexual freedom and equality. Despite the limitations of his own 19th-century understanding of sexuality, Engels went right to the heart of the matter in The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State.Listen to this — he’s speaking to every future generation:

What we can conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up. When these people are in the world they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the sexual practice of each individual—and that will be the end of it.

Earlier I spoke of my friend and mentor Betty Millard. I also knew Harry Hay. I sure wish they were still with us. I’d be the first one to try to recruit them back into the CPUSA!

Marxism, as developed by generations of activists and analysts, gives us the tools to understand where LGBTQ oppression comes from, how capitalism benefits from it, and a strategy to fight back and win. It’s up to us to take those lessons, apply them in action in the struggles and organizations we’re a part of, and keep updating them—because as the material conditions of society change, our theory has to keep up. You can be absolutely sure that whatever is in the vanguard today will tomorrow be old news.

https://www.cpusa.org/article/lgbtq-theory-history-and-the-cpusa-part-2/

bodily fluids?  What???

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Didba said:

As such, their views do not represent the majority of LGTBQ liberals, progressives, or moderates. 

I would agree, but for the LGBTQ Coalition, I’m not sure.  I don’t think a LGBTQ liberal would have sued a cake maker for not baking them a cake, they just would have found a LGBTQ friendly baker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I would agree, but for the LGBTQ Coalition, I’m not sure.  I don’t think a LGBTQ liberal would have sued a cake maker for not baking them a cake, they just would have found a LGBTQ friendly baker.

I’m not sure I follow you entirely, you can explain further if you’d like.

as for the bakery case:

Well, they did find another bakery to do it, however, they were completely within their rights under the Colorado law to sue the bakery.

And I disagree. I think any minority person would have done the same had they been discriminated against in the same way. The baker broke the law and the gay couple were exerting their rights against him because of that. 
 

its important to note, for this case, SCOTUS ruled on a technicality and didn’t decide the actual issue at hand or strike down the Colorado law. SCOTUS didn’t hold that freedom of religion clause allowed christians to refuse service to lgbtq people. 

it simply held that the judge overseeing the case at trial violated the defendant’s right to exercise religion by making fairly hostile remarks during trial and failing to remain religiously neutral in conducting the trial. Thus, the judge as a state actor, violated the free exercise clause. 

they essentially punted on the main issue in the case. Pretty frustrating. 

Edited by Didba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Didba said:

I’m not sure I follow you entirely, you can explain further if you’d like.

as for the bakery case:

Well, they did find another bakery to do it, however, they were completely within their rights under the Colorado law to sue the bakery.

And I disagree. I think any minority person would have done the same had they been discriminated against in the same way. The baker broke the law and the gay couple were exerting their rights against him because of that. 
 

its important to note, for this case, SCOTUS ruled on a technicality and didn’t decide the actual issue at hand or strike down the Colorado law. SCOTUS didn’t hold that freedom of religion clause allowed christians to refuse service to lgbtq people. 

it simply held that the judge overseeing the case at trial violated the defendant’s right to exercise religion by making fairly hostile remarks during trial and failing to remain religiously neutral in conducting the trial. Thus, the judge as a state actor, violated the free exercise clause. 

they essentially punted on the main issue in the case. Pretty frustrating. 

People get discriminated against on a daily basis, most people just shrug if off and continue on.  Did those that were offended get any help from the LGBTQ Coalition or similar financial backing?  We’re they that offended?  How about the transgender reveal party that wanted the same baker to go back on his beliefs?

Sure they have a right to sue, but why is the question?

The SOTUS did take the coward’s way out.  I wonder if the present SCOTUS would do the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

People get discriminated against on a daily basis, most people just shrug if off and continue on.  Did those that were offended get any help from the LGBTQ Coalition or similar financial backing?  We’re they that offended?  How about the transgender reveal party that wanted the same baker to go back on his beliefs?

Sure they have a right to sue, but why is the question?

The SOTUS did take the coward’s way out.  I wonder if the present SCOTUS would do the same?

I agree that many non-minorities shrug it off and move on. Perhaps, some minorities do as well; however, many are not in a position to sue even if they wanted to.  I'd bet many don't just shrug off discrimination even though they move on without pursuing litigation even though they could. 

To answer your why - Discrimination, no matter the form, makes those people feel inferior, like they don't belong, like they are dirt to be cast aside, etc simply because of an immutable characteristic about themselves. 

Quoting from Brown v Board, while not entirely on point but does have some substance on the matter: discrimination "generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone."  I know, Brown was referring to segregation, but discrimination does the same thing maybe to a lesser extent, I don't know, I am not a minority.

At the end of the day, the why comes down to; the law was broken, a person was wronged by the act of another, and if their feelings of anger, shame, and inferiority caused by the wrong is so great that they decide to sue then there's your reason.

Of course, they could also do it to try and further the civil rights movement by securing equal rights for themselves as people.  Attempting to secure equal rights for yourself is totally a fine reason to sue.

As for your bold questions,  frankly I have no clue and no desire to look it up LOL

Edited by Didba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Didba said:

At the end of the day, the why comes down to; the law was broken, a person was wronged by the act of another, and if their feelings of anger, shame, and inferiority caused by the wrong is so great that they decide to sue then there's your reason.

But the law wasn’t broken as the SCOTUS determined.  The baker had to push it that far to get satisfaction.  We didn’t know that until that ruling came down, but *at the end of the day* the law was not broken.  Why activists keep after this baker is anybody’s guess and I’m sure you don’t want to know.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...