Why do progressives think they are the sole arbiters of virtue?

[Juxtapose]

They want to say Hitler is right-wing, they want to say everything wrong in the world is right-wing and they even say every single GOP operation is Russian funded.

What about Joseph Stalin and other communist dictators who killed people? Joseph Stalin killed more people than Hitler. Mao, Kim.. need I go on?

Meanwhile the Democratic party has elected a segregationist as president. But naaah only right wingers are racist and anytime the Democratic party has done a no no it was because they were actually conservative at the time guys!

The bias is so disgusting. And I am saying this as a classical liberal, a. k. a a non-authoritarian leftist who knows what a woman is.

[RavVid]

As a non US person I can't respond to US politics but the progressive left is FITH everywhere. I saw YT TIKHISTORY talk on this recently. His take was that the Marxist Left has nothing without changing the world - even if it is against basic biology. They can't really define anything - like what a woman is... or isn't. If women can have a penis and testicles why are we aren't all women?

There was a question recently on the book titled 'The Miracle of Male Birth'. Turned out the man who gave birth was a trans man who had a uterus, ovaries and vagina. Probably he got pregnant in the time honored tradition of taking it up her pussy.

My personal fav is a trans man insisting on buying male tampons.

And yes Hitler was a Marxist and so was Mussolini. All the mass murdering genocidists were Marxists except for Genghis Kahn.

[goaded]

Oh, bullshit.

[RavVid]

@goaded Musolini was the editor of Avanti the officiial communist newspaper. What of National socialism wasn't Marxist? Hitler said that he learned everything from Marx and that if it wasn't for race national socialism would be indistinguishable from Internationale Communism.

I'll concede there might be some other mass murders that weren't marxist other than Genhis but not mamy. Genhis, Hitler, Lenin/Stalin, Mao are the immediate mass murderers. Muso was quite nice in comparison.

[argot]

Since when do they think? By the way Nazis were National "Socialists". They were far left authoritarians.

[Lionman95]

What's your definition of far left? To me far left is an anarchist and that's definitely not true for the nazis. One can argue they used left ideas but they also used right wing ideas like a flag more similar to the German Empire, a focus on the family, tradition and religion. They were Nationalists.

[argot]

@Lionman95 All you're telling me is that you lack an education. The left right divide is based entirely on economic systems. Left-wing economics are socialist in nature. Right-wing economics are capitalist in nature. Socialist economics are state run centrally planed economics. Thus if the state runs the economic system via central planning they favor authority. Therefore they become authoritarian nations like Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR. In contrast laissez-faire capitalism is an economic system which is free from any form of economic intervention. Thus right wing beliefs favor liberty, and aim toward small government and anarchy at the extremes.

[argot]

The left wants everyone to belong to the state as a slave, thus they must be taxed and regulated heavily by the state. The state must control how they behave, what they say, how they think, etc. In trade the state offers social programs which party officials have deem serve the well being of the nation (group of people). Everyone serves the state and no one steps out of line. If they behave they are given their rations of healthcare, state approved education, food staples, state run media entertainment, public housing, etc.

The right wants a very limited central government and in general wants to be left alone. The very limited state that is to exist belongs to the people and exists only to serve the people and protect their freedoms from being trampled upon.

[argot]

You can't have centrally planned economies without central control or authoritarianism. It doesn't matter if they deem themselves National Socialists or Global Socialist. That is just a declaration of their intended territorial conquest. A National Socialist just wants to conquer what they see as their nation. They can have different definitions for that territory and it can lead to expansion over their current borders but they plan to have complete control over some region they have defined. Global Socialists want to have complete and absolute control over the entirety of Earth under a one world government with only one political party that dictates everything to everyone. In general National Socialists appetite for more territory increases with time and as they justify it under new pretexts until they have consumed the entire globe, making them globalists under a different moniker.

[argot]

Nationalism by itself in contrast to National “Socialism” just aims to promote the interests of a particular nation (group of people) with the aim of maintaining it’s own sovereignty. The goal is to be able to self govern their own homeland. So if a nation exists as a Republic, governance is a public affair. The power belongs to the people. This is in direct contrast to the goals of the Socialists who want total control. Thus they must take the power from the people in order to achieve their goal and they must “Socialize” men to mold them into the model slaves of the state. For Nazis, they were socializing men to become Aryans, that is people that had a racial soul of the Aryan. The same goes for Maoists that socialized men based on the Han ethnic group or the Marxist–Leninist Stalinists that were socializing people to become Soviets. Their aim is to strip people of their individual identity, their free will, their religious beliefs, and then to indoctrinate them into their system of control. All left wing ideology leads to dictatorship.

[Lionman95]

I agree with you in parts. But I don´t agree with your premise that the political divide is entirely based on economics. That might be the case for a country like the USA that has always been a republic but it´s not the case for countries like Germany because here being political right at least in the time of Hitler meant being pro monarchy. The idea that the political division is entirely economical is an American one.

[argot]

@Lionman95 What are you on about? The Weimar Republic (i. e. German Reich) was a “constitutional federal republic” from 1918 to 1933. When the socialists extremists took over they appointed Hitler the chancellor of Germany. It had nothing to do with monarchy. Kaiser Wilhelm II abidated in 1918 after losing WWI and the German revolution that followed. From the get go the revolutionaries were inspired by soviet style socialism, but Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) maintained a parliamentary system of government for 15 years with a goal of “social democracy". The Socialist had power within the Republic and that gradually escalated until the more extreme elements of the socialist party like Hitler who was an elected member of Kurt Eisner's Socialist Bavarian People's State and the Communist Bavarian Soviet Republic took power. Then, like all socialists governments they moved to dictatorship, began socializing the people toward Aryanism, and moved toward expansionism. It was never about monarchy. It was about socialism from the very begining.

[Lionman95]

The party Hitler went entered a coalition with 1932/33 was the German National People´s Party they were a pro monarchy and conservative party. There wasn´t a party more right wing than this. The German National People´s party programm was to reestablish the monarchy, dissolve the treaty of Versailles and get back German colonies. Hitler was appointed chancellour by Hindenburg a former German general in the First World War and an open monarchist. My point is that the definition of whether a party is right or left wing isn´t purely based on their economic system. Yes it´s a part of it but it´s not all. Though the Weimar Republic had a strong presidential system they had a variety of different political parties. Hitler himself tried to revolt and marched on a revolt trying to achieve a National revolution his partner on that march was Erich Luddendorff another war general of the monarchy. I don´t disagree that the Nazis used socialists ideas and some of them were probably socialists but they nonetheless created a society with social hierarchies and they used national and conservative ideas alike.

[argot]

@Lionman95 You're so full of shit, Hitler was flat out a extremist communist. Kurt Eisner was a Social Democrat that joined the SPD in 1898. It's well documented. What happened in Weimar Republic is exactly what is happening in America. When Barack Obama was elected to office a 16 year plan to destroy America was enacted by the "social democrats" of the United States that claimed they wanted European style socialism (i. e. Nazism). This is where ObamaCare and other socialist policies crept into American government, propaganda by the state against citizens of America was legalized under Obama, Domestic spying by the FBI (like what happened to Donald Trump with FISAgate) and censorship of conservative voices (i. e. social media policies, GoDadday freezing domains, etc.) was enacted across all media, attacks on the church began (i. e. can't go to church during pandemic), homosexuality, pedophilia, and sexual deviance was pushed (LGBTQ+ agenda) on the people of America, violent socialist riots and Black anti-colonialism was pushed on the Americans (i. e. Black Lives Matter/ANTIFA), so on and so forth.

[argot]

All these same sort of socialist patterns happen in the 1920s in the Weimar Republic. You had social democrats policies pushed in Germany via the SPD, you had the Black Communist (Black Berliners) pushing anti-colonialism, You had Antifaschistische Aktion clashing with right wing groups in street fights just like ANTIFA fighting Proud Boys today, you had the Wild Boys which were homosexuals that lived on the streets and in the woods like they LGBTQ trannies in Portland Oregon today that live in tent cities, the SA had their "A" anarchy flag just like specific cells of ANTIA today that fly the same A anarchy flag. The paralles are sickening. It's the same playbook and Hillary Clinton (Hitlery) was ment to carry out the second 8 years of the 16 year plan in the USA. Trump delayed their plan by 4 years and reversed some of their plans. This is why the 2020 election was blatantly rigged and many plans were accelerated to the point that they are bluntly obvious to the American public. The "social democrats" of America were shifting the Overton window in America just like the "social democrats" shifted the Overton window in the Weimar Republic with the ultimate goal of Nazism. You can even see how Nazis in the Democrat party of America called for the deaths of Americans that refused to take the COVID-19 experimental vaccines. It is all social engineering and the dipshit democrats went right along with the Nazi plans to install a Hitler like dictator in America and move toward genocide of the American public and destruction of the constitution.

[argot]

Everything is the same, with the exception that Donald Trump was able to take power in 2016 to break the rapid shift in culture preventing Hitlery from finishing the plan. They never thought she would lose.

[argot]

Other parallels like anti-Nationalism by ANTIFA were pushed in the Weimar Republic just like ANTIFA in America push anti-Nationalism with engineered illegal migration across the southern border. The Germany military was damaged and most of Germany was disarmed after WWI just like the Democrats are trying to sabotage the American military with budget cuts, sending funding to Ukraine rather than funding the American military, putting trannies in top positions and running marketing campaigns that are woke to destroy moral, kicking soldiers out over COVID-19 vaccine religious exemptions to remove massive amounts of officers destabilizing leadership along side a campaign to disarm the public via "anti-assault weapon" propaganda and engineered mass shooting false flags.

[argot]

*German

[argot]

They are using the same play book. The Weimar Republic and United States of America are on the same track in an echo of history in both cases under the Democrat party. The difference is that America First via Donald Trump is fighting back from within the country that is being subverted this time.

[argot]

Frankfurt School was in the Weimar Republic in the 1920s pushing "Critical Theory" up until the start of WWII just like the Frankfurt School is today in the USA pushing "Critical Race Theory" out of California and New York. I can go on with the parallels over and over and over again because the same political groups that started WWII are currently trying to start WWIII.

[argot]

h ttps://www. youtu be. com/watch? v=UpuGRO72GbA

[Juxtapose]

"All you're telling me is that you lack an education. The left right divide is based entirely on economic systems. Left-wing economics are socialist in nature. Right-wing economics are capitalist in nature. Socialist economics are state run centrally planed economics. Thus if the state runs the economic system via central planning they favor authority. Therefore they become authoritarian nations like Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR. In contrast laissez-faire capitalism is an economic system which is free from any form of economic intervention. Thus right wing beliefs favor liberty, and aim toward small government and anarchy at the extremes."

@goaded @OddBeMe this what I mean.

[Lionman95]

So your only source is a Youtube video on an entertainment platform? You´ve probably spent quite some time writing all this text. First of all I agree with parts of you said. I just think you mix something. So let me clarify something Kurt Eisner died 1919 so he died before the Weimar Republic was even established. So I don´t know why you bring him up? Though the SPD, the Social Democratic Party was in power most of the time they didn´t turn the Weimar Republic in a socialist state because different than the Democratic Party, the Social Democrats in Germany are not life wing but they are a moderate left party. What I first tried to explain that there were more than two parties in the Weimar Republic and there are more than two parties in the German parliament now. The Social Democrat Party only represents an aspect of the political left since there were also Socialist and Communist parties.

[Lionman95]

What´s happening now in the US isn´t the same as what happened in the Weimar Republic culturally but started in the West German in the 1960s and is happening in modern Germany. Sure there were groups also for a sexual liberation in the Weimar Republic but they haven´t had the impact of the sexual Revolution of the 1960s.. Back in the 1960s the CTR got pushed by academia and it´s correct that since then Germany radically left in politics, that´s scientifally established. The alphabet sexuality groups came up and all this sexual crap as during the time of the start of the Vietnam War.
The Weimar Republic on the other side had real problems since most people were poor or wounded from the war and there were extremist both the right and left attacking it. Though the Revolution had won politically there were still strong conservative and reactionist camps that waited for a moment to bring back the monarchy since they knew that many parts of German society back then were not all in favor of the Republic. One of the biggest groups that were against the Republic was Protestant Christianity. Yes the Frankfurt School developed in the 1920s but many of them left Germany when Hitler came to power. It´s well established that Max Horkheimer was in the USA from 1934 to 1947, Theodor Adorno left Germany 1934 and went to the UK till 1937 and later came also to the USA. Also Erich Fromm went to the US in 1934. These guys all came to the US after Hitler got to power and didn´t return until the Second World War ended. Their impact came up after the Second World War.

[Lionman95]

But yes what Hitler built up a police state where the state controlled the social life. People that were no members of his Hitler´s had social disadvantages. His party aimed to get votes from the working class but that does that make them communists? Because what they created wasn´t an egalitarian society comparing to today there were still social and economical hierarchies. The nazis also excluded everyone they considered not German like communists, Jews, Sinti, Roma, homosexuals. They also hated the Weimar Republic and fought against what they considered modern culture since the Nazis declared expressionist and impressionist art as the degenerate art, they burned books of unwanted authors. For Hitler the role model in terms of architecture was the antique version of Rome. He wanted to build a bigger copy of the triumph arche in Paris for instance. There are actually plans that survived of his architectual views as he for instance planned to rename Berlin to Germania.
That Germany military was damaged after World War One by the treaty of Versailles that ended the war. The treaty stated that Germany was only allowed to have an army of 100.000 soldiers including 15.000 marines. Also they were no longer allowed to have submarines or tanks. According to wikipedia they also were only allowed to have 100.000 riffles in the army but I´m not sure about that. But it´s true that Germans had to give their guns in the Weimar Republic since they wanted to prevent civil wars. Germans today can still have guns. They just have to be registred for public safety reasons and to prevent that a person that´s a psychological ill gets a gun.
Because according to German health you can´t keep a person against their will in a psychiatry without a legal verdict.

[argot]

@Lionman95 Your propaganda is a waste of everyone's time. First TikHistory references everything on all his videos, so you could have easily checked the sources, but you are a a lazy shit. You were given that as an introduction to the information so that you would go dig on your own under the assumption that you actually wanted to know the truth. It's easy to point lazy people like you to videos to get the ball rolling and then follow up with more sourced information if you understand what is handed to you. That's not my only source of information, but considering you sourced absolutely nothing at all and just talked out of your ass arrogantly I think that tells everyone everything they need to know about you. You're arrogant know nothing that likes to bloviate in favor of communist narratives. You're a useful idiot for the socialists.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

They're all pretty obviously brainwashed. I'm not saying it out of hate because of course there are republican equivalents.

Democrats are just the easiest to see because of how egregious their propaganda is and how far it takes some people from questioning anything at all.

But the rhetoric they listen too all day works in parts:

* Drum up anxiety about a topic which people can get emotional about

*Draw lines in the sand, force people into categories and display as much opposition between sides as possible.

* Feign a neutral standing (CNN is the king of this, they will usually start off with a guy who represents the opposing view in a good light and then the other hosts will say why the idea is ridiculous and the first guy will suddenly agree with the other hosts, occasionally using words like "but" "the other side" and other keywords that seem like impartial language but the substance of the conversation is incredibly one sided.)

This is the checklist but to really understand why it works so well, you have to take the political and sociatal climate into account.

When Anderson Cooper gets on TV he doesn't just tell you what he wants you to believe is happening in the world, he's building a rapport with you by teaching you how to navigate the woke corperate world the left has created.

He's made you believe that there's people who believe in gender nonconformity and everyone else are neonatzi's and colonalists and racists and we're the good guys and these other "groups" want to destroy the country.

The reason it works so well is because most people have a very deep subconscious fear of being left out from the pack. They value safety in numbers above all esle and are willing to completely abandon or adjust their morals in order to be with the one they see as the most powerful.

The parallels in how the left tries to get people to precieve them and how animals identify strength in the animal kingdom are striking.

It's a complicated topic with many avenues but in short, their leaders are very compitant in knowing what they need to do to get public trust and creating an "us against them" mentality.

Their success largely has to do with their good vs evil, hate/love framing which is used regardless as to whether it's appropriate for the given situation.

The brainwashing element largely takes place in the form of repetition over many years and having lots of people in powerful positions partake. Notice how they're all friends with eachother, they're all very wealthy, they all have questionable investments which mostly seem to have overlap and codependency.

[OddBeMe]

Funny I can say the exact same process of propaganda for right wingers. But at least my side gets agitated over important issues. Not bean sized fetuses or IVF.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

@OddBeMe I rest my case

[OddBeMe]

I will agree the us vs them mentality is on both sides. But not nearly equal

No one with a straight face could say republican religious fanatics aren’t worse.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

@OddBeMe what religious fanatics? You know something. Religion has predicted pretty much every modern thing we believe about how the world works right now. Did you know that?

The Bible teaches that everything is made out of the same stuff and what makes you up is what makes everything else up. Scientist used to say that was proof the Bible was wrong and misleading.

Turns out, the only thing that separates you from a thought in your head is the frequency the space you're taking up is vibrating in.

It predicted underwater volcanos which were thought to be impossible up till about a hundred years ago and there's actually a lot about life you could learn from it.

When you say religious fanatics that care about bean sized fetuses... I don't know what IVF is supposed to mean. It's an incredibly ignorant statement on so many levels.

Not the least of which being that the Bible is a legitimate source, which has been adulterated over thousands of years by politicians and rich people in exactly the same way liberals do it with science today.

Yes you can say that there's some religious fanatics and we could sit here all day talking in circles about why that is or we could stay on topic about how religious people aren't even a drop in the bucket in terms of the contributions to modern problems facing this country today.

[OddBeMe]

So has Star Trek and the Simpsons.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

@OddBeMe Right, because those shows predicting events is the same thing as a bunch of stories from before the age of iron spelling out how the universe works accurately to a point science is only just now catching up to are the same thing.

And even if it was, you're just trying to cop out.

Lame

[NYCQuestions1976]

Well at least all of the far-left liberals, socialists, and progressives in the government, mainstream media, and everywhere else were all correct about the connection between Donald Trump and the Diet Soviet Union, and he wasn't ever really spied on, as he claimed numerous times. Oh wait:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/lKZp36eZyZ0

https://public.substack.com/p/cia-had-foreign-allies-spy-on-trump

Seems like far-left liberals, socialists, and progressives can't get or do or say anything right. Oh well.

[goaded]

You realise that that article says that the author has only been told that those documents exist and hasn't seen them?

"*If* the top-secret documents exist proving these charges, they are *potentially* proof that multiple US intelligence officials broke laws against spying and election interference."

Really convincing.

Wasn't it you that was complaining about what you called hearsay evidence in the Jan 6 committee? That wasn't hearsay, but that article is, 100%.

I wonder if it was written before or after Tiabbi's breakup with Musk.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded The three reporters weren't giving testimony under oath about "something they heard from a person who heard a conversation about something that apparently happened somewhere else" (triple hearsay). They wrote that article based on what their research revealed to them. The people ("multiple credible sources", per the article) they spoke to apparently saw the binder themselves. That wouldn't be hearsay (because those sources would be the ones potentially testifying under oath, not the three reporters), and should, at the very least, inspire further attention and investigation. Also, all three reporters are registered Democrats, and no fans of Trump. They've got nothing to gain tangible to gain by doing this research and writing this article, because the more they pursue the story, the more they alienate themselves professionally from the mainstream media.

[goaded]

Once more: testifying that you heard someone say something is not hearsay when used as evidence that the person said it, only when someone tries to use it as evidence that what was said was true. (And there are multiple other exceptions.)

The three reporters (it was actually a "A guest post by Matt Taibbi", so two are probably just telling you what Taibbi told them) haven't seen the supposed evidence, only told it exists, that it's declassified, and it's proof. He (or even they) might have been told that, but that doesn't make it true, and that final paragraph says as much.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded That's not what happened. Hutchinson testified that she heard about something from a person who heard a conversation about something that apparently happened somewhere else. That's not just hearsay; it's triple hearsay. The Secret Service detail that was actually there offered to testify under oath, but Adam Schiff said no, because he didn't care about what happened. He only cared about putting on a sham production that wasted millions of taxpayer dollars.

You wouldn't put the three reporters under oath to testify (other than to confirm and corroborate that through their research for a story, they had contact with sources) for the same exact reasons I mentioned above; anything they testify to beyond that is inadmissible hearsay. You put their sources under oath to testify, because they're the ones that have the alleged direct knowledge. That's how it works. Or how it's supposed to work, anyway.

[goaded]

You'll have to give me the specific quote, because if you're talking about the grabbing the steering wheel incident, she related what she was told IN THE PRESENCE of the man who was in the vehicle at the time, and that he didn't dispute the events in question.

So, her testimony was that she was told the story (true, and not hearsay), and that a person directly involved in the story was there, listening, and didn't dispute it (also true, and also not hearsay). We're left to make up our own minds if the story is true.

"LIZ CHENEY: And was Mr. Engel in the room as Mr. Ornato told you this story?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: He was.

LIZ CHENEY: Did Mr. Engel correct or disagree with any part of this story from Mr. Ornato?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Mr. Engel did not correct or disagree with any part of the story.

LIZ CHENEY: Did Mr. Engel or Mr. Ornato ever after that tell you that what Mr. Ornato had just said was untrue?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Neither Mr. Ornato nor Mr. Engel told me ever that it was untrue."
www.npr.org/.../jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

By the way, you should read the interview she gave about the advice given to her by the lawyer she started out with: "I don't want you to perjure yourself, but 'I don't recall’ isn't perjury. They don't know what you can and can't recall." Ornato and Engel were interviewed before the committee heard the story from Hutchinson.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded The legal term "hearsay" doesn't mean a distinction between a truth and a falsehood. It's about whether or not you were there firsthand. Hutchinson wasn't in the car. Her testimony was, at the very very least, hearsay. Then again, maybe Hutchinson did lie:

"A source close to the Secret Service confirmed to CBS News after Hutchinson's testimony that Engel and the driver were both prepared to testify under oath that neither man was physically attacked or assaulted by Trump and that the former president never lunged for the steering wheel of the vehicle. The source did not dispute that Trump demanded to be taken to the Capitol or his language."

That's why Schiff and Cheney happily allowed Hutchinson to supply hearsay testimony without it being rebutted, because it supported their manufactured nonsensical daytime soap opera. It just adds to the fact that both Ornato and Engel (and the other two Secret Service agents in the car) offered to testify under oath to rebut Hutchinson's testimony, and further explains why Schiff said no, because the four of them testifying under oath would've made Schiff and Cheney look like even bigger dumbasses in front of the entire country.

[goaded]

Neither of them even claimed that her testimony was false in public, let alone under oath. Your consistent belief that statements not under oath (like "A source close to the Secret Service confirmed to CBS News after Hutchinson's testimony that Engel and the driver were both prepared to testify under oath...") are more reliable than actual testimony under oath is worrying.

Even Trump doesn't lie under oath.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Yes they did, and at what point did I claim that CBS News counts as testimony? It's just further evidence that shows the four Secret Service agents (who were actually in the car with Trump) wanted to testify after Hutchinson's testimony, but Schiff told them no, because Schiff didn't care about what happened. He only cared about putting on a sham production that wasted millions of taxpayer dollars.

[goaded]

Really? Link?

"Someone said Secret Service agents were willing to say something under oath" is not the same as Secret Service agents saying something under oath.

It's not even the same as Secret Service agents saying something publically.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Sure:

www.cbsnews.com/.../

It was very easy for Schiff and Cheney to discredit Ornato when they wouldn't allow him, Engel, and the other two Secret Service agents who were actually in the car with Trump to testify under oath after Hutchinson's testimony, who wasn't in the car with Trump. How convenient.

As for the Secret Service agents on any President's detail issuing direct public statements, I don't believe they're allowed to do that, but I've got to check in detail to be certain (a quick search didn't reveal anything specific either way). I'm pretty sure it's against Secret Service policy, and/or against protocol during an ongoing investigation... real or sham.

[goaded]

They're both (all four?) free to state their position in public, unless that would involve defaming Hutchinson. I wonder why neither of them have said anything in public.

[goaded]

Also, I notice you're not disputing that Hitler was right wing.

[goaded]

Sorry, I didn't follow your link before responding. I find it hilarious that it says "Anthony Ornato said he didn't recall", considering what I said earlier: "the interview [Hutchinson] gave about the advice given to her by the [Trump paid] lawyer she started out with: "I don't want you to perjure yourself, but 'I don't recall’ isn't perjury. They don't know what you can and can't recall.""

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Yes, four Secret Service agents. Engel, Ornato, and two others. Or Engel and three others. Ornato was the boss, and I believe he was in the car, but I'm not certain he was in the car.

The Secret Service agents in the car contradicting Hutchinson's testimony wouldn't be defamation in any way. She. Wasn't. There.

Also, everything you pointed out in these last three responses could've been more than clarified by Schiff having the Secret Service agents who were actually in the car testify under oath after Hutchinson's testimony, and they offered to do just that. Schiff told them no, because their testimony would've highlighted Schiff's stupidity.

[goaded]

Ornato wasn't in the car and no-one involved has defamed Hutchinson by denying her testimony publicly (except Trump, who doesn't have a stellar record when it comes to defamation cases or telling the truth generally), let alone under oath.

All you have is some unnamed person saying that some other people would deny the story under oath, if they were asked, honest.

Ornato passed on the story to Hutchinson on the day it supposedly occurred, in the presence of one of the people in the story (Engel) who didn't contradict it in any way at the time. This has been testified to under oath.

Why are you so keen to dismiss something said under oath based on hearsay?

A defamation case against Ornato or Engels would include the Secret Service agents who were in the car being deposed under oath. It would take only one of them confirming the story to give her a win and drop the others in deep trouble. I'm sure there are many lawyers would be happy to take the case on Hutchinson's behalf.

And they wouldn't be a keen as her original lawyer to protect Trump.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded "Why are you so keen to dismiss something said under oath based on hearsay?"

I explained this numerous times already. The Secret Service agents WHO WERE ACTUALLY IN THE CAR told Schiff that they were ready to testify under oath as rebuttal witnesses after Hutchinson's testimony, and Schiff told them no. Schiff had zero reasons to say no if he actually had a winning case. Instead, he said no because it would've proven that he's an idiot who wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on his daytime soap opera.

[goaded]

How do you think you know that? Particularly that they told a committee member they were willing to testify?

In fact Ornato, at least, was interviewed again by the committee, under oath, in November, and he did not deny anything about Hutchinson's testimony. If he had, it would have been all over right wing media, not just unsubstatiated claims that someone "would" deny it, given a chance.

He "couldn't recall" much about that day, which, if you'll recall, is what the lawyer told Hutchinson to say about anything he didn't want mentioned because it's "not perjury", even if you do recall.

ia904707.us.archive.org/.../...%20%281%29_text.pdf

"Q Do you remember talking to Mr. Engel the morning of January 6th?

A I don't remember any specific conversation that I can recall the morning of
January 6th...

and there's a phone call where Mr. Engel reaches out to you at 9:34 a. m. and you have a
12-minute conversation...

Just to follow up, Mr. Ornato, it's your longest call of the day. on your White House-issued cell phone...

And this is to Bob Engel, who at this point has just arrived back to the White House and who states is in your office at this time. while he's still in your office is, understood.

His response at 1:56, again, We are not doing an OTR

Was any of this discussed between you and Mr. Engel?

A Again, ma'am, have no -- I don't recall anything being discussed about a
movement to the Capitol."

Funny how his memory is so fuzzy about probably the most consequential day in his career, isn't it?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Name one Secret Service agent that was actually IN the car who Schiff called on to testify AFTER Hutchinson's testimony. I'll wait.

[goaded]

How about you answer some of my questions first? Like you could show me why you think that any of those agents told any committee member they were willing to testify. Or explain why the committee would expect to hear anything other than "I don't recall".

They could have pissed away another afternoon, like they did with Ornato, not getting meaningful responses when it's obvious to any reasonable person that Hutchinson was telling the truth, or they could pursue more meaningful lines of inquiry.

By the way, why do you keep harping on about Schiff, rather than any of the other committee members? He wasn't the chair.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Schiff, along with Cheney, were the ones who were front and center. It was their dopey dog-and-pony show.

So basically your position is taking testimony from people under oath who weren't in the car was an excellent use of time and taxpayer dollars, but taking testimony from the Secret Service agents under oath who were actually in the car would've been a waste of time and taxpayer dollars? Interesting.

I don't believe that you understand the legal definition of "direct evidence".

[goaded]

They did interview the driver, but kept his identity secret. This was not the most important aspect of the Jan 6 attack, but does indicate Ornato's credibility (he "didn't recall" talking to one of your colleages at all, nor the 12 minute telephone conversation with that person on the day the proverbial hit the fan?).

You still haven't shown any source that said any of the people in the car told the committee they wanted to be interviewed under oath, or that anyone publicly denied it happened, other than Trump. Just hearsay.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded CBS News isn't providing testimony under oath. Even without CBS News reports, four Secret Service agents were in the car, and Hutchinson wasn't in the car. Yet Schiff wouldn't allow any of those four Secret Service agents to testify under oath after Hutchinson's testimony. Why? Here's why:

Direct evidence (allowed and reliable) > circumstantial evidence (allowed, but not as reliable) > hearsay (not allowed, and unreliable).

Direct evidence = Schiff is proven to be stupid.

Circumstantial evidence and/or hearsay = Schiff gets away with being stupid, and wasting taxpayer dollars.

[goaded]

Your claim: "The Secret Service detail that was actually there offered to testify under oath, but Adam Schiff said no..."

Your "evidence": "A source close to the Secret Service confirmed to CBS News after Hutchinson's testimony that Engel and the driver were both prepared to testify under oath that neither man was physically attacked or assaulted by Trump..."

Note the massive difference between the reporting and your claim, the difference between someone telling a journalist that someone else is "prepared to testify under oath" and someone actually being prepared to testify under oath, and the total lack of the word Schiff in that article.

www.cbsnews.com/.../

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Here. Enjoy this while I find the other link (s):

www.wsj.com/.../all-the-adam-schiff-transcripts-11589326164

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Here's one. This was written after Hutchinson's testimony, but before Schiff said no to the Secret Service agents:

www.theguardian.com/.../secret-service-agent-testify-trump-wheel-jan-6

More to come.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded "On Tuesday, reporters swiftly relayed news that the Secret Service agents disputed Hutchinson’s account of events in the presidential vehicle."

"Carol Leonnig of the Washington Post, author of two books on the Trump administration and a history of the Secret Service, Zero Fail, said: 'Sources tell me agents dispute that Donald Trump assaulted any agent or tried to grab the steering wheel on Jan 6. They agree Trump was furious about not being able to go to Capitol with his supporters. They offer to testify under oath.'"

[goaded]

What does an early 2020 hit piece on Schiff about a Republican cover-up have to do with Jan 6 2021?

The Guardian link is not found. Here's one that works: www.theguardian.com/.../secret-service-agent-testify-trump-wheel-jan-6

Again, it's "reportedly prepared to testify", and no mention of Schiff.

Once more: Ornato didn't deny he'd told Hutchinson that story, he said he "couldn't recall". You can believe him, if you like, I don't. Wouldn't you remember what happened to you on Jan 6 if you'd been in the thick of it?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Hit piece? The whole collusion story was a hoax. It's already been proven, over and over again, even if you insist on keeping your head in the sand. Since you don't believe in proof, do you know how else you can tell it was a hoax? The mainstream media finally stopped pushing the story. With no apologies from anyone, I'll add.

Was Ornato in the car? If he wasn't in the car, then it's an irrelevant distraction, just like Hutchinson. There were four Secret Service agents in the car, and none of them testified under oath after Hutchinson's testimony. They were in the car, Hutchinson wasn't in the car. If you're so convinced that Schiff didn't tell the four of them no, then why weren't they called on to testify under oath themselves?

[goaded]

Oh goodie, a new tangent. Not playing, but you might like to read the actual transcripts they claim are exculpatory, here: www.pbs.org/.../read-newly-released-russia-probe-transcripts-from-the-house-intelligence-committee

"Was Ornato in the car?" No. Hutchinson testified that he related what he'd just been told by Engels, who was present and didn't dispute it. Ornato didn't deny they'd been there and told her, using the exact phrase that lawyers tell people to use to avoid being convicted of perjury: "I don't recall".

I believe the person with the working memory.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Ha! That PBS link is from 2020. All of that Hillary and Schiff crap has been debunked. Stop with the revisionist history.

Working memory of what? Hutchinson wasn't in the car.

[goaded]

Working memory of being told what happened in the car. The people who were there apparently can't remember anything.

The PBS link has all the transcripts the article you posted was talking about, which provide the context to the misinformation in the WSJ piece you posted from 2020.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded The Secret Service agents who were in the car weren't called to testify under oath after Hutchinson's testimony.

Well, since collusion was debunked, that means the Wall Street Journal article wasn't misinformation. You can't debunk truth (collusion was a hoax) with a lie (collusion happened), and time doesn't operate backwards in this universe.

[goaded]

The driver at least was. I told you.

The collusion was not "debunked". There wasn't enough evidence (probably because of all the obstruction of justice) of criminal conspiracy.

You're the one who posted a link to an early 2020 article that couldn't possibly have anything to do with Jan 6 2021, and it misleadingly quoted several officials to pretend exoneration. My link was to the actual transcripts that showed the article was biased.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded It seems like you don't understand the difference between being in a car, and not being in a car.

The common denominator is Adam Schiff. Like you, he can't accept the fact that he was duped by Hillary Clinton.

[goaded]

At least I know what hearsay is and can tell when someone's lying under oath, especially when the truthful witness told us she was explicitly told by a Trump-adjacent lawyer that she should claim to "not recall" embarrassing events, to avoid perjury indictments. The thing is, the events weren't embarrassing to her, just to Trump and his cronies (doesn't Ornato work for Trump now?).

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded It doesn't matter what Hutchinson has to say. She wasn't in the car. Those who were in the car offered to testify under oath after Hutchinson's testimony, and they were told no.

[goaded]

Of course it matters what she says, and please stop pretending you know "Those who were in the car offered to testify under oath after Hutchinson's testimony, and they were told no.", because all you've got is hearsay and rank speculation on that.

Somebody told reporters that the people who were in the car would be willing to testify, which may or may not be true, because hearsay, but you've got absolutely nothing to say that they actually offered and were refused. In fact, one of them was interviewed, and there would be nothing stopping that person denying the story publicly (which wouldn't, by the way, mean Hutchinson perjured herself, just that the story she'd been told was untrue, which I very much doubt).

Ornato had ample opportunity under oath to deny telling the story, or deny the details of the story, but chose to say he "didn't recall", instead. That tells me he probably did tell the story and that it was accurate.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Direct evidence (allowed and reliable) > circumstantial evidence (allowed, but not as reliable) > hearsay (not allowed, and unreliable).

Direct evidence = Schiff is proven to be stupid.

Circumstantial evidence and/or hearsay = Schiff gets away with being stupid, and wasting taxpayer dollars.

[goaded]

Indirect evidence > lies (or "don't recall").

You're remarkably naive, when you want to be, aren't you?

Hutchinson's evidence was that she was told this story about what had just happened in the presence of one of the actors who didn't deny it then and hasn't since. What did she have to gain, other than death threats?

Ornato, the person who she testified under oath told the story, and who is employed by Trump, supposedly no longer "recalls" even communicating with Engel on Jan 6, despite having logged a 12 minute telephone call, on the day of arguably the most important world event for decades.

You believe that, rather than accept that the story she was told (and instructed by a bad-faith lawyer not to reveal) was a true and accurate description of what had happened to one of the others in the room just minutes before.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded "on the day of arguably the most important world event for decades"

😂😂😂😂😂

Yeah it's right up there with many other important world events:

https://youtu.be/WfOVIH_ibGM?si=eSAuQvETREwLM8OV

You should take off from work:

https://youtu.be/opk4x7jzRS4?si=22jXllibIEXjyjVa

[goaded]

Ah, avoidance. Ornato basically claimed he didn't recall anything about the day the Capitol was attacked, not even that he hadn't related the story Hutchinson testified to. You might find that credible, I don't.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You still talking about people who weren't in the car.

[NYCQuestions1976]

*You're

[goaded]

If you're ever on a jury for a murder trial, the accused will be the luckiest person alive; you won't believe he's guilty unless he confesses, even if he told some people he did it right afterwards.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded That's not an example of hearsay. That's circumstantial evidence, and admissible (but not necessarily reliable). The Defendant is there on trial. You're allowed to ask a witness about direct conversations that witness had with the Defendant, and those answers are admissible evidence, that can be challenged on cross-examination. Now if your case is just that one person, that's not above and beyond all reasonable doubt (over 99.99%). No way you win that case. You need at least one more witness that can say the same thing (corroborating evidence), and also motive. Even then, that's still not a very strong case. You need a lot more circumstantial evidence. Any decent defense attorney will get an acquittal. For any real chance to win, you need direct evidence (the murder weapon with DNA, the victim's body with DNA, etcetera). Now that'd be a strong criminal case, and also how the law works.

[goaded]

I know it's not an example of hearsay, that's what I've been saying in every conversation we've had about this since mid-2022. The defendent doesn't have to say a word in court, or they can lie, while Ornato, Engel, and the driver can claim they "don't recall" whether there was an altercation with the POTUS.

You can choose to believe they might forget something like that, but then you'd be a fool.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Engel and the other Secret Service agents in the car never got to say anything, because they were never called to testify under oath after Hutchinson's testimony.

Hutchinson's testimony was hearsay, if not double or triple hearsay. The trial example you gave wasn't hearsay, because the person in that example had direct contact with the Defendant. The fact that you believe that those two examples are exactly the same from a legal and evidentiary standpoint is actually disturbing.

[goaded]

Oh, god, we're not back to that again, are we? You just admitted that a witness to someone explaining an event is "circumstantial evidence, and admissible (but not necessarily reliable)."

Engel, the driver, and Ornato had infinite chances to deny that the conversation took place, both under oath (they were all interviewed in November 2022) and in public. That they did not and at most claimed they did not recall tells me that Hutchinson's account is true and accurate, and that you'll twist yourself into knots in attempts to avoid admitting it.

If they'd called her a liar, they'd be both defaming her and admitting that they did recall the event. Having someone else tell reporters that they would deny it under oath (which is what hearsay really is) avoids defamation lawsuits in much the same way "I don't recall" avoids perjury charges.

You can't really be this naive.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded A witness giving testimony under oath about a conversation he/she had with the DEFENDANT HIMSELF/HERSELF! Hutchinson's testimony was not that! Hutchinson's testimony was HEARSAY!

You really have zero grasp on reality.

[goaded]

You still have zero grasp on the rules of hearsay. Go and argue with the rules of evidence. https://www.rulesofevidence.org/fre/article-viii/

I can't be bothered going round for a 16th attempt to convince you of reality.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Once again: A person testifying under oath in a case about a direct conversation with the Defendant in said case is admissible evidence. A person testifying under oath in a case about things they heard other people talking about who aren't the Defendants in said case is hearsay.

The fact that you refuse to understand the difference proves that there's something deeply wrong with you.

[goaded]

Let me ask you this: Why do you believe Hutchinson was lying under oath when neither of the other people in the room have publicly or in testimony claimed that she was lying or even mistaken?

Her impressions of Ornato and Engel when the story was told are definitely not hearsay, the story might be, but only because neither of them were being sued or accused of a crime (when it would have been an admission of a party-opponent). That said, there are no hearsay rules in the context of a fact-finding congressional investigation.

Ornato for sure and probably Engel and the driver, apparently have extremely selective memories. It beggars belief that they "don't recall" half the things that happened that day, of all days. "What were you doing at 6pm, three weeks ago?" compared to "what were you doing when your boss was ignoring the riot he started outside?"? Really?

If she'd have made it up, they would have simply denied the whole thing years ago. But they can't, because Ornato told the story he'd just been told by Engel, just the way it happened.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded It doesn't matter what you believe or what I believe. Totally irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the law.

People with TDS really make me laugh with their hypocrisy. During Trump's Presidency, they kept saying things like "he's 400 pounds", "he can't move", etcetera. Then those same TDS people want the rest of humanity to believe that this old, large, allegedly immobile person suddenly lunges like a puma from all the way in the back seat (it's a stretch limousine, not a standard sedan), grabs an arm of the driver or front passenger with force, while also simultaneously grabbing for the steering wheel. Classic! 😂😂😂

If I didn't have an amazing career, I'd love to just once try wherever it is you're smoking on a daily basis.

[goaded]

Well, the law says that in a congressional hearing the rules of evidence do not apply, so stop complaining about hearsay and answer the question!

Why do you believe Hutchinson was lying under oath when neither of the other people in the room have publicly or in testimony claimed that she was lying or even mistaken?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Don't you understand that no matter how you try to make Schiff's soap opera useful and important, it's never ever going to happen. This isn't a civil investigation. It's supposed to be a criminal investigation. An investigation that's supposed to lead to a criminal trial. A trial that's held in a criminal court of law. That's a court where HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS NOT FUCKING ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE! No matter what you say, do, type, hear, think, feel, blah, blah blah, WHATEVER, you CANNOT use hearsay evidence in a criminal trial in a criminal court! Hutchinson and her testimony were a COMPLETE AND TOTAL WASTE OF TIME AND TAXPAYER DOLLARS! SHE WASN'T IN THE DAMN CAR! She's a witness to NOTHING! I'm glad it made your tiny mind happy, but her and her testimony are USELESS. Get that through your thick skull. You're obsessed with stupidity.

[goaded]

No, no. Answer the question. Do you believe Hutchinson's sworn testimony or not? Was she told that Trump had lunged forward in the car (it was a Suburban, not a limo, by the way), or not? If not, why not? (It doesn't matter if Trump actually did, although it would be a strange story to make up.)

The investigation was to find facts, and it found tons of them. This, however, is the one you're intent on concentrating on, and it's obvious why: the evidence that Trump had planned Jan 6 is overwhelming. The evidence that he and traitorous, oath breaking, Republican congresspeople were willing to lie and cheat and steal the presidency from the rightful winner is overwhelming. And the evidence has only increased over time.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Only in your TDS plagued mind.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Stories posted on far-left liberal and socialist sites aren't "facts".

[goaded]

Have you ever noticed that you turn to insults when you don't want to answer a simple question? Do you believe Hutchinson was lying under oath?

I'm not talking about "Stories posted on far-left liberal and socialist sites", I'm talking about the findings of a congressional investigation; one that wasn't plagued by witnesses denying the allegations or "evidence" that turns out to be planted lies.

The Jan 6 committee was exactly what a congressional investigation should look like.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded That's an interesting observation. It's an interesting observation because it's wrong.

"You can choose to believe they might forget something like that, but then you'd be a fool."

That wasn't me, and because of your TDS, you continue to think that what you believe outweighs how the law works.

[goaded]

You believe her, don't you? She's certainly more credible than people claiming not to recall what happened in the White House on the day their boss caused an attack on the Capitol.

Keep hiding behind what you think should be allowed, but remember it was a congressional investigation, not a trial, and they're about finding facts, and it looks very much like Trump did try to force his driver to take him to the Capitol.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded A congressional investigation that's supposed to lead to... what, exactly?

Come on now... you know the answer.

[goaded]

The truth. Which is what you clearly know Hutchinson was telling. You've never once said she was lying, iirc.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded How is the truth found in the legal process?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Again, you know the answer.

[goaded]

I think you know the truth, and that Hutchinson told it. You're just unwilling to admit it, so you cling to irrelevant details. The rules of hearsay don't apply to congressional hearings, but the rules of perjury do. That's why her testimony is admissable and their lack of it indicates she told the truth. And you know it.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded There's nothing for me to admit. What anyone thinks or believes is completely irrelevant in a criminal court of law. No one important cares about Hutchinson's testimony, because none of it is admissible evidence. Only you care about this nonsense, because having TDS has made your brain soft.

[goaded]

Ah, you will keep pretending that this conversation (or a congressional investigation) is a court of law. Just to avoid answering whether you personally believe her testimony or not. I think you do, because you're not an idiot, but you won't admit it. Or, notably, say you don't. Just like Ornato and Engel won't say she was lying.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You claimed yourself that Ornato wasn't in the car. So anything he has to say is also irrelevant hearsay. Supply the rebuttal testimony transcripts of anyone who was actually *IN* the car. Otherwise you're wasting time believing nonsense, just like Schiff and Cheney.

[goaded]

I didn't claim that at all, and you're avoiding making a definitive statement about whether you believe Hutchinson's testimony. I think you do, because she's a credible witness speaking under oath and it's literally incredible that Ornato recalls next to nothing about the day his boss started an attack on the Capitol, as he claimed.

There's no reason to doubt that she was told the story by Ornato, and there's reason to believe that the story was accurate because it was told in the immediate aftermath of the events recounted and in the presence of someone who was in the car.

There ARE no "rebuttal testimony transcripts" because they never rebutted it, claiming instead not to recall the events of the day.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded No, the reason there are no rebuttal testimony transcripts is because Schiff deliberately never called on anyone who was actually in the car to testify under oath after Hutchinson's testimony. Schiff knew that if he did that, it would further showcase himself as a fool and his daytime soap opera hearings as a farce, which anyone with a properly functioning brain without TDS already knows that to be true and accurate.

[goaded]

Yes, he did. Engels and the driver both testified under oath, as well as Ornato who, as you know, "didn't recall" communicating with Engel on that day, even when reminded of a 12 minute phone call and, of course, in light of Hutchinson's testimony.

If I said you'd told me a story about something as dramatic as the president lunging for the wheel of a car, you'd have no problem denying it, would you? Ornato couldn't deny it because he did tell the story. There's no other reasonable explanation, which is why you're being so unreasonable, trying to distract.

Again, there's been nothing in the 18+ months since Hutchinson's testimony stopping Engels, the driver, or Ornato denying her account. Nothing except the possibility of a defamation lawsuit. They could have done so at any time, but haven't. I don't expect you to ask yourself why.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You keep droning on about the people in the car making public comments and/or comments to the media, where it doesn't matter. The people in the car offered to testify under oath to rebutt Hutchinson's testimony, where it does matter. Schiff told them no, because their testimony would make him look even more stupid, and prove that he wasted millions of taxpayer dollars.

[goaded]

They didn't "[offer] to testify under oath to rebutt Hutchinson's testimony", somebody else told the media that they would. Since both Engel and the driver testified under oath to the committee in November, well after the June testimony, it's both clear that your claim that "Schiff told them no" is bullshit, and reasonable to assume that they didn't rebutt the testimony, otherwise they'd be shouting to right wing media that they did.

But do please keep making incorrect assertions and unreasonable leaps of faith.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded They offered to testify, and Schiff said no. Your TDS and foolish faith in socialism makes you delusional.

[goaded]

No. The media said a source in the Secret Service told them that they were willing to testify to rebutt Hutchinson's testimony. Since they both testified in November, Schiff obviously didn't say no. Is this too complicated for you?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded They offered to testify the week after Hutchinson's testimony, during Schiff's Schit Schow. Schiff told them no. If there was testimony taken in November 2023 from the 4 Secret Service agents who were actually in the car, why wasn't it shown on television (like the rest of the Schiff Schit Schow), and where are the transcripts? Common sense dictates the answers to those questions. The testimony highlights Schiff's stupidity.

[goaded]

Show me an article that says Engels or the driver said they would testify, let alone refute Hutchinson's sworn testimony. Just one.

You're such an idiot you think that saying they didn't testify and the transcripts of their supposedly non-existant testimonies should have been released makes sense!

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You can't release something that doesn't exist, because Schiff told the 4 of them no when they asked to testify. He told them no because if they had testified, it would've highlighted Schiff's stupidity and his waste of millions of taxpayer dollars.

[goaded]

Four of them, were there now? Name two.

"Secret Service agent from Trump’s motorcade on January 6 interviewed by House committee" edition.cnn.com/.../index.html

Cue you claiming you're better informed than CNN.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded CNN is not a valid source, they're even worse than Fox News. They are a propaganda arm of the deep state.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Look at you, leaning into ad hominem.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded it is no more ad hominem than saying creationism is utterly preposterous and filled with lies 🤷

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded There are always 4 agents in the Beast. The driver and 3 other agents (one in the passenger seat, two in the back with the President. Secret Service protocol.

[goaded]

So you think Trump was in the Beast? Where can I find this "Secret Service protocol"?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded That's what they call the Presidential limousine. There are also Secret Service agents that run along the sides of the car when it's going slowly enough that it can be approached by pedestrians.

[goaded]

He wasn't in the presidential limousine. Please, feel free to twist yourself into knots trying to justify being wrong. Again.

Where can I find this Secret Service Protocol you're so sure of?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Oh yeah I forgot... Trump and the four Secret Service agents were all in an Uber that day.

You're an idiot. 😂

[goaded]

You're still claiming he was in the presidential limo, then?

[goaded]

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Was it Lyft instead of Uber? 🤔

[nonyabeez-wax]

Its simply because Hitler was a Nationalist, and so are America-first-patriots.

They dont understand that there is nothing wrong with nationalism itself, but rather what was wrong with Hitler was his antisemitic attempt at world domination, and formation of the National Socialist Germans Workers Party.

Nationalism is just being a patriot, and putting your own nation first, before the other nations of the world. Globalist wouldn't understand that.

So Hitler also owned a dog.

Dog owners are literally Hitler.

Just as bad as Hitler. Every dog owner everywhere.

Which is exactly their silly irrational "logic".

[handsomelad70]

They surely aren't but if I had to choose between a conservative's or a progressive's morality, I'd take the latter's at least 95 times out of 100.

[goaded]

Only nutcase right wingers pretend Hitler was anything but right wing. It's recent propaganda that bears no relation to reality.

Consider this well-known poem, written by a former Nazi supporting pastor who lived through the period and wrote it in 1946:

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

[goaded]

The author, by the way, was arrested in 1937 and eventually confined in Sachsenhausen and Dachau. He was released in 1945 by the Allies. But you know better what the Nazis were, right?

[NYCQuestions1976]

It wasn't really a composed "poem". At least not in the creative sense of, "I'm going to sit down and write some poems.", like Edgar Allan Poe, just as an example. It was a quote given in interviews after World War II from the Protestant Pastor Martin Niemöller, and he said a few different versions of that quote during a number of interviews, in both English and German:

www.goodreads.com/.../65103.Martin_Niem_ller

The different versions of the quote were written down (by him and others) and preserved after the fact. The only reason I remember any of this (or more accurately, triggered recall reading your post) is because any time anything "World War II" happened in the news when I was growing up in the 1980s, my father would talk to me about it in detail. I probably watched every World War II documentary in existence and every Nazi news story in the 1980s because of him. Anyway, Niemöller died in 1984, just before I turned 8. Thinking about it now because of your post, I remember watching it on the news with my father, asking him who he was, what he did during the War, why it was news, etcetera.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 True, and he said it in German. The point being that people making the claim that Hitler wasn't right wing have only appeared since the people who lived through that time and knew damn well that he came for the left wing first had died off.

I'd be happy to discuss how Stalin was a monster, but not with people who are pushing the absolute lie that Hitler was left wing; that takes priority.

[Juxtapose]

You do realize that the Nazis were socialist and not communists.. right?

[Juxtapose]

Right wing socialism, that's a funny one!

[Juxtapose]

And I suppose Joseph Stalin is too inconvenient for you to even bring up now is he? Was he magically conservative as well?

[goaded]

I did bring up Stalin, in the context of pointing out that your lie about Hitler being socialist is far more important than truths about him.

"Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist"

[Juxtapose]

One guy's poem where he fucks up a definition of the party killing people isn't evidence of anything lol.

[goaded]

That "one guy" was a pastor and a Nazi supporter until he saw who they really were and spent time in their concentration camps for denouncing them. But you pretend to know more about the Nazis than he did.

Nobody said the Nazis were left wing at the time or for decades afterwards, until some propagandists in the US came up with their ridiculous claim based on a few things they lied about to get votes.

[Juxtapose]

Yes, I do. Because he's wrong. Just like there are Jews from Nazi Germany who parrot Holocaust denier talking points. They're wrong, end of discussion lol.

Nazis are socialists, it's in the name. They are not capitalists.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Juxtapose @goaded Hitler and the Nazis weren't government socialists or financial socialists like Stalin and other communists. They were, however, like Stalin and other communists, media socialists. They definitely controlled what was said about them in the media within their own borders.

[Juxtapose]

Progressives love Wikipedia so..

"Large segments of the Nazi Party, particularly among the members of the Sturmabteilung (SA), were committed to the party's official socialist, revolutionary and anti-capitalist positions and expected both a social and an economic revolution when the party gained power in 1933."

And here's a more serious source:

lawliberty.org/.../

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Yeah, great, do you know what happened to them in 1934? They were purged, murdered, in the Night of the Long Knives, by Hitler's SS.

As to the link, Hitler "ruthlessly exploited both labour and capital to revolutionise Germany and prepare it for a war of racial conquest. His **propaganda** borrowed shamelessly from the Communists and Social Democrats". And, as I've repeatedly pointed out, they came for the communists and socialists and trade unionists. Hardly the actions of a socialist. (Nor, by the way, is the use of slave labour.) It's not like Hitler approved of Communism, either, just Stalinism.

"Not all socialists are Nazis, but all Nazis are socialists." is the kind of thing that leads to being rated like this:
"Overall, we rate Law & Liberty Right Biased based on an editorial perspective that aligns with conservative libertarianism. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record."
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/law-liberty-bias/

Here's a less biased link:
www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
"Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934."

"Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor Strasser, an act that was carried out on June 30, 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives. Any remaining traces of socialist thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished."

[Juxtapose]

All of your links are heavily left leaning towards progressives.

Hitler was a socialist and not conservative. There's really no way around that. Read passages from his book and you'll see he hates capitalism.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Juxtapose Hitler hated non-German capitalism. It's one of the fundamentals of fascism on a national level. Instead of "The rising tide raises all ships." (capitalism for everyone), fascism is "Once the tide raises us all, I'm taking all your shit." (capitalism for my country only, at your expense).

[goaded]

@Juxtapose "All of your links are heavily left leaning towards progressives."
You mean they're accurate. The Encyclopedia Britannica was first printed when America was still a British colony.

Hitler loved power; he admired Stalin for his iron rule over the USSR. Neither were working for the workers.

[Juxtapose]

So Stalin was a right winger to you?

And I don't care how old the publication is.

[goaded]

No, you fool, Stalin was an authoritarian, same as Hitler, Putin, Xi, Trump.

[Juxtapose]

He's a leftist authoritarian.

[goaded]

You think Stalin was against hierarchy?

Why don't you find me a definition of socialist. You won't accept any that I might post, but apart from conservapedia (which literally links "Right" to "conservative" and "Left" to "Leftist"), they say the left wing are against class-based hierarchies and for working and disadvantaged people.

"Leftists tend to be hostile to the interests of traditional elites, including the wealthy and members of the aristocracy, and to favour the interests of the working class (see proletariat). They tend to regard social welfare as the most important goal of government."
(Hint: "social welfare" doesn't mean just monetary support, but a fairer and more equitable society.)

[goaded]

You're tagging me on opinions by people who've blocked me. You can tell by noticing when they say something really stupid without a response from me.

Things like: "Socialist economics are state run centrally planed economics."

[Juxtapose]

"All you're telling me is that you lack an education. The left right divide is based entirely on economic systems. Left-wing economics are socialist in nature. Right-wing economics are capitalist in nature. Socialist economics are state run centrally planed economics. Thus if the state runs the economic system via central planning they favor authority. Therefore they become authoritarian nations like Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR. In contrast laissez-faire capitalism is an economic system which is free from any form of economic intervention. Thus right wing beliefs favor liberty, and aim toward small government and anarchy at the extremes."

"The left wants everyone to belong to the state as a slave, thus they must be taxed and regulated heavily by the state. The state must control how they behave, what they say, how they think, etc. In trade the state offers social programs which party officials have deem serve the well being of the nation (group of people). Everyone serves the state and no one steps out of line. If they behave they are given their rations of healthcare, state approved education, food staples, state run media entertainment, public housing, etc.

The right wants a very limited central government and in general wants to be left alone. The very limited state that is to exist belongs to the people and exists only to serve the people and protect their freedoms from being trampled upon."

[Juxtapose]

Socialism is where the government seizes the means of production. Hospitals and other crucial functions are made public, a. k. a under government control.

[goaded]

Where did you get that definition?

[OddBeMe]

I see socialism as anything the govt handles. Cops and Medicare are socialism.

Some socialists dictators seize private businesses. Etc. Right wing aholes sold public works to companies in the 80s for nothing.

[goaded]

@OddBeMe It doesn't occur to them that corporations and employers are quite capable of trampling on people's freedoms and government regulation is a way to mitigate that.

Nearly 45% of spending on health care in the US (so about 8% of US GDP) goes to middlemen; insurance companies, chemists, drug distributors and pharmacy-benefit managers sitting between patients and their treatments. Ten years ago it was 25%.

Americans go bankrupt from getting ill or being in an accident. That simply doesn't happen in most developed countries, even ones like Germany where the insurers, hospitals and clinics are private, just like in the US.

www.economist.com/.../who-profits-most-from-americas-baffling-health-care-system

[Juxtapose]

@goaded high school.

@OddBeMe you're right in my opinion.

[OddBeMe]

Wait we all agree? On what exactly. I have Guinness on the other line.

[Juxtapose]

@OddBeMe on what socialism is I think.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose OK, so what is a government that runs some things, but most things are private? Socialist, or not? What country doesn't do that?

[Juxtapose]

You really can't see the difference?

"In capitalist societies, the free market (and, therefore, supply and demand) determines production and pricing with no intervention of the government. In socialist economies, governments control production, distribution, and prices."

[NYCQuestions1976]

There's a difference between having a small limited non-intrusive government that runs necessary essential services for all its citizens, and big fat stupid bloated grim reaper bullshit socialism government that financially bleeds all its citizens dry while also limiting individual freedoms.

[Juxtapose]

@NYCQuestions1976 ^^ exactly.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose By your definition, there are no socialist or capitalist countries.

"In capitalist societies, the free market (and, therefore, supply and demand) determines production and pricing with no intervention of the government. In socialist economies, governments control production, distribution, and prices."

@NYCQuestions1976 Then why don't you have reasonable conversations, without all the hyperbole, about what "a necessary essential service" is?

Many people think health care is, for example, and with the current system bleeding off 45% of the total to insurers, distributors, and the like (and those massive companies buying up providers in order to boost the amount they charge in an obvious conflict of interest), your health care costs could be reduced by a huge amount by government anti-trust regulation, a single-payer option, or literally taking over the middle-man industries and negotiating with the providers on the people's behalf.

[Juxtapose]

You would have failed high school social studies if you said there are no capitalists or socialist countries.

[Juxtapose]

*capitalist

[goaded]

That's not what I said. I said that **by your definition** there are no capitalists or socialist countries. Every country has elements of both. Reasonable people can discuss what elements of society should be managed by individuals and which by the state, but that's missing whenever people start shouting "socialism!" about everything.

It's not a new phenomenon, either.

"Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.

Socialism is what they called public power.

Socialism is what they called social security.

Socialism is what they called farm price supports.

Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.

Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.

Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.

When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan "Down With Socialism" on the banner of his "great crusade," that is really not what he means at all.

What he really means is, "Down with Progress -- down with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal," and "down with Harry Truman's fair Deal." That is what he means."

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded "Universal health care" is a crock of shit for anything above and beyond routine basic crap:

uk.style.yahoo.com/...cancer-tumour-103232958.html

"At her appointment, Harrison was referred for further tests but was told there was a nine-month waiting list, so she decided to go private and paid £200 for an ultrasound."

news.yahoo.com/24-old-tried-pop-she-174509127.html

"Clinicians in the UK's public health system, NHS, referred her for further testing, but the wait list was nine months long. So Harrison paid £200, or about $250, for an ultrasound at a private hospital. The results indicated the lump could be cancer, so Harrison was bumped up the NHS waitlist for a biopsy, which she underwent in June 2021."

Same story, different articles. It's not just like this in the United Kingdom either. This is just one example of many in countries with "universal health care". It's nothing but another form socialism propaganda.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 funny Europeans that have it will fight to the death to keep it.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Yeah until they're faced with the fact that they have to pay out of pocket for a specialist or die waiting on line for over 6 months. The grass is always greener on the other side, until you go there and realize it's actually astroturf.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 it’s been 75 years. You’d think they’d realize that by now and are ok with it.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Guess how much the woman in the second article had to pay for the rest of her treatment.

[goaded]

Same woman. Guess how much she had to pay for the rest of her treatment.

Surgery, chemo, frequent check-ups...

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe If they want to wait in endless lines for specialists, good for them. Should we try to follow all of their stupidly ridiculous examples? There isn't a country in the Union Of European Socialist Republics where you can get an abortion after 14 weeks. Meanwhile, if you try to "be like Europe" and cap choice somewhere between 20 and 24 weeks in this country, socialists here go nuts.

We fought a big fat war to get away from them, and have generally had peace HERE since then. Meanwhile it hasn't been a century since they started the last World War, and they're on the brink of starting another one. Astroturf.

@goaded It all depends on whether or not she chose to stand in line with the rest of humanity, or pay through the nose for immediate treatment.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 She got immediate treatment, once it was disovered, and paid nothing. She started with what she thought was a pimple, then an inflamed pimple; if it had started to grow faster, even without the ultrasound, she'd have gone back to her doctor for a re-diagnosis before she got to the head of the waiting list for 24 year olds with a small bump.

In Germany, at least:
"Abortions are covered by public health insurance if the pregnancy was caused by sexual abuse, such as rape, or if the mother's health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy. For women with low income, the state governments pay for an abortion."
Women in the US sometimes have to save up for an abortion, only to find that the abortion costs more later, delaying it even further. Now, many states don't even allow for the removal of a dead fetus.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Excuses, excuses. If *this* would've happened, then *that* would've happened instead. If she hadn't paid for the private specialist, she would've been waiting an additional 9 months for treatment. That's not an excuse or a guess. That's a FACT. Other than basic nonsense, government sponsored "free universal health care" is a sham.

[OddBeMe]

Spoken like someone who’s never experienced it and is regurgitating bullshit from idiots who want to keep you poor.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 If she'd been one of 30 million (nearly 10%, and 10 million lower than before the ACA was passed) of the population of the US with no health insurance, she'd have done better? Get real.

And the fact that you had to post the same anecdote twice rather than multiple examples shows it's an anomaly. While, unfortunately, the NHS is no longer the best system in the world, it's still much better than the US non-system. 4 years longer life expectancy, lower infant deaths.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe My son needed an emergency appendectomy a few years ago. The bill before insurance was over $102,000. I paid only $600 out of pocket. Is it annoying paying co-pays for routine nonsense like prescriptions and regular checkups? Of course. However I'd rather deal with that instead of getting my routine crap for "free" but waiting 9 months to see a "free" specialist.

@goaded Excuses, excuses. You like your nonsensical socialism bullshit? Good for you. Keep it to yourself.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 The bill before insurance shouldn't have been anything like that, it's a routine operation. You paid nearly $600 more out of pocket than anyone in Europe would have had to, with no delays. Not everybody in the US has $600, even to save their own lives, let alone a hundred thousand. Tens of millions of Americans are uninsured, many more were underinsured before the ACA, which Republicans are still intending to repeal.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded It wasn't a routine operation. It was an emergency appendectomy. It had already burst. The $600 was the co-pay for the hospital stay (6 days, $100 per day). Observation to make sure he didn't develop anything like sepsis afterwards.

Anything that forces people to buy medical insurance or forces me to use my tax dollars to pay for others' medical insurance should be repealed. Any system that makes people wait 9 months for anything should be repealed, and stop lying and saying it's only happening in the United Kingdom, when it's also happens in other countries with "free" universal health care. It's a sham. If you want to pay for other people's medical insurance, good for you. Start a GoFundMe and donate your own money. Other than that, keep your bullshit socialism to yourself.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 What is it that keeps you from having a reasonable conversation about almost anything without crying "socialism!"?

One in a thousand Germans get an emergency appendectomy every year, that's over 100,000 a year. It's routine.

The national average price for an appendectomy in Germany is approximately €3,830 (covered by insurance). Excess for 6 nights stay in hospital: €60

www.mymeditravel.com/.../appendectomy-de1-182

I've never had to wait 9 months for anything, and 2022 was at the tail end of the pandemic; everything got delayed. Plus, as I said before, the Torys hate the NHS and underfund it whenever they're in power.

You're paying for "other people's" tanks and battleships, why not something positive like health care?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You enjoy big fat stupid bloated grim reaper albatross bullshit socialism government. That's stupid, but good for you. I don't, and rightfully so. Period.

"You're paying for "other people's" tanks and battleships, why not something positive like health care?"

I already addressed this in a response somewhere else on this site. It's ridiculous that far-left liberals and socialists in this country are far more concerned with Ukraine's borders than our own borders. Order of operation. I learned that in grade school mathematics.

Supporting Ukraine? Good.

Supporting Ukraine at the tune of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars? Bullshit.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Keep shouting. In the meantime, I'll enjoy living in countries with 4 year higher life expectancy than the US (rising, not falling) where nobody goes bankrupt from medical expenses.

I also approve of democracy. Putin is a direct threat to democracy worldwide. As is the Republican party which keeps getting caught using Russian misinformation.

The US has sent less than $100 billion in aid to Ukraine, mostly in the form of aging armaments that they'd have replaced anyway. They also get to test said weapons against real targets and see what works and what counters the Russians have.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded No one here is yelling, and keep your propaganda agenda and transference to yourself. Over 40% of your income goes to the government to pay for nonsense, and it's not my fault that you spent 8 years of your life believing Diet Soviet Union collusion bullshit engineered by Hillary Clinton.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Somehow I find it hard to imagine someone saying "big fat stupid bloated grim reaper albatross bullshit socialism government" in a reasonable tone of voice.

No, much less than 40% of my income goes to the government. You're misinformed.

45% of your health care spending goes to corporate middle-men who have a financial incentive to drive up prices, leading to $100,000 prices for $5,000 operations; is that better?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded That's because besides having a lack of a grasp on reality, you apparently also lack comedic timing and humor. A typical symptom of wokeism.

If that's actually true, and since you love socialism so much, why don't you voluntarily donate more of your annual income to the government, instead of forcing others to do so?

Bureaucracy, unfortunately, is the one common denominator in all forms of government.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Yeah, you're hilarious. Haha. Why should I give more than I owe, and how am I forcing others to do so?

Why are you suggesting that the corportations which are ripping off Americans are government bureaucrats? They're not. (And it's not so much the usual suspect of big pharma, either, although they don't help.)

If corporations are so great, why not let the government provide a public option to compete with them? It will be horribly inefficient and fail, right? There's no way it could spend less than 45% of the money it takes in on distribution and organisation.

You've got a system where it's in the interests of the insurance companies to push up prices, the health care providers obviously want prices high as well, the only people who don't want higher prices have a handful of insurers to choose from, which is no choice at all.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You not finding me funny proves that I am funny.

Part of touting socialism is forcing others to pay ridiculously high taxes for your bad far-left ideas. If you want bad far-left ideas, fund them yourself.

It's a bureaucracy because the limousine liberals in the government financially benefit directly from big pharmacy the same way they benefit from big technology and the main stream media.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Avoiding the fact that 45% of your health care costs are eaten up by insurers and distributors. That's about 8% of GDP. But you don't want the government to regulate them, or to replace them, or even compete with them.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded. Why? So the pharmaceutical industry becomes like the DMV or the Post Office? No thanks.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 I think a middle ground between private insurance and socialized medicine can be found. Like a public option.

USPS keeps FedEx from overcharging your ass.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Can you avoid accepting that insurers and distributors are eating up nearly half the money you pay for health care any more obviously? Do you really think that's a good model for a health care system?

[goaded]

@OddBeMe Exactly. Germany has it pretty well down, the NHS was good when it was properly funded, before the Tories came to power in 2010 and imposed "austerity". A public option shouldn't be a threat to the people who think the market can do everything better, but they're scared of it. I wonder why?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe No, UPS (Brown) keeps FedEx in check, and vice-versa. Free market.

@goaded My employer pays for my insurance, like it should be. Not the government via tax dollars.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 What happens if you lose your job? Aren't you upset about the waste involved in having middle-men take 45% of the money spent on health care?

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 no dumbass USPS is the postal service. Government keeping an anchor on prices is what we could use in the healthcare industry.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe No, DUMBASS. Not the "United States Postal Service" (USPS). United Parcel Service (UPS). As in, "What Can Brown Do For You?".

https://www.theupsstore.com/

They're a private company just like FedEx, and keep each other in check with competition. The free market and competition is what keeps prices down.

@goaded The "middle men" you keep referencing are limousine liberals in the government. As long as those limousine liberals in the government are making money off of political donations from big pharmaceutical (just like they do from big technology and the mainstream media), nothing is going to change.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 OMG, why are you pretending the insurers, chemists and so on are in the government? They're capitalist monopolies, they're taking a 45% cut of what people pay for health care, and they're busy buying up health care providers so they can jack up prices even further.

Vote for people who will take them on. The only reason there isn't a public option insurer is because of Joe Lieberman. The entire rest of the Democratic party would have voted to have serious competition to the corporations over ten years ago (during which time the corporations have gone from 25% to 45% of the takings).

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Oh bullshit. More than two thirds of campaign donations from big pharmaceutical go to the Democrats. They're not interested in changing a damn thing. Get your tiny head out of the sand.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 idk…donations seem pretty across the board.
www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=H04

And corporations don’t keep each other in check genius. Thats why Google is a fcking monopoly.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Even if that were true, and apparently it's not, Republicans' only desire is to repeal Obamacare and throw a few tens of millions of Americans back off insurance. They have no alternative plan. Mostly because the ACA was the Republican plan from the 1990s.

Democrats have started reducing prices of medications, they passed the ACA in the first place, and they almost passed a public option.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Is that Google's fault? Or the fault of their competitors for being terrible? It's not like Yahoo, AOL, and others never existed:

https://youtu.be/Bx9tJdU4y1w?si=VPueOhAilnMzYw1A

@goaded It's 100% completely true. Of the top 20 biggest cash recipients in 2022 from big pharmaceutical, 13 of them were Democrats:

www.opensecrets.org/.../recips?cycle=2022&ind=H04

It's even more lopsided when it comes to political donations from big technology and the mainstream media:

observer.com/.../

www.businessinsider.com/journalists-reporters-donating-money-democrats-biden-bernie-aoc-trump-politics-2020-10

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 No, that’s why a regulation government is needed dummy. Why was Microsoft broken apart and not Google?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe No, their competitors need to be better. The answer isn't more stupid liberals making innovation-choking regulations. Which won't happen anyway, because Google donates billions of dollars to Democrats. It's also the reason why Google won't ever be broken apart.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 or just be bought out. There’s a serious economic phenomena of too big to fail where Google can literally flood or starve markets to destroy competitors.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Maybe that's true now, but those other companies had their chances to be successful and competitive. Google only had 4.3% of the search engine foot traffic in September 1998, and when they reached #1 in September 2002, they still only had 22.4% of the search engine foot traffic. They didn't double their nearest competition (Yahoo) until February 2006.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 I don’t think they did. It’s not an even playing field at all. Look up every “successful” entrepreneur and they started out with someone loaning them $500,000. It’s weird how that’s the common amount…

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe What do you mean? Yahoo and AOL are still billion dollar companies. They're just not multi-billion companies any more. Why should Google be punished for that?

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 because it’s a monopoly. I’d be surprised if you disagree.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Yes Google is a monopoly now, but not from the beginning. They only became a monopoly after they beat out their competitors head-to-head, and those competitors were in existence before Google. Those competitors had their chances, and lost.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 You think this head-to-head match is fair and competitive? You’re that naive?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe I'm definitely not naïve, but it is fair, and here's why: Yahoo and AOL were already multi-billion dollar companies when Google started up as a tiny company. There was no government intervention that helped Google beat AOL and Yahoo. Google was, and has been, better than them. So Google won, and won fairly.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 you skipped over a lot of shit and tons of vulture capitalism. Business doesn’t regulate itself. A la 2007 crash.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe I'm not suggesting that it's a perfect system, but the free market is the best system. Consumers decided that Google was better than AOL and Yahoo. Also that crash was more about bad loans and bad investing than competition.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 actually I don’t know that consumers decided that. Just like Amazon became the leading online dealer by controlling markets.

Economics 101. It used to be colonialism. Britian controlled the sea lanes thus controlled what goods were sold at. If they had too much silk and were seeing a decrease in prices, they’d simply overtax silk dealers transporting it to Europe.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Amazon is definitely a better example than Google.

In your second example, you're leaving out the fact that at various points, Spain, Portugal, France, Netherlands, Sweden, and a few others here and there, were all competing against England, and over time in various points of history, England beat them all out. It's not like England was the only country in Europe in the 1500s and 1600s that started exploring the world unilaterally.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 So, I guess we’re at a point where we define “good business practice” versus “bad business”. Are you saying it’s still good free market for Google to cheat on taxes, control the market against smaller search engines, etc?

Or is it good that Amazon can raise prices or even crater prices on devices which they want the patent. Thus bankrupting the original inventor, forcing him to sell the rights to his device at a low cost and then jack up the price to make a souring profit?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe You're asking two separate questions about Google.

1.) If you don't want Google "cheating" on their taxes, then the tax loopholes they (and many other companies) use need to be closed.

2.) Yes, the free market determined that Google earned that right. Like I pointed out, Google was a tiny startup when AOL and Yahoo were already multi-billion dollar companies, and they fairly beat out those companies without government interference.

Amazon is different. Their practices bankrupt small family businesses all the time. Bezos is also a two-faced hypocrite. He donates millions to the Democrats, who are traditionally supposed to be pro-union, but he does every he can to prevent his own employees from unionizing. Then those politicians he donates to shrug their shoulders and look the other way. Many other companies are also guilty of this practice. Then Democrat politicians wonder why so many rank-and-file blue-collar union workers are supporting Trump, despite their unions' leadership telling them to support Democrats.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 that’s the problem. It’s the SAME issue.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Same issue? Google beating their competition fairly in the free market, closing tax loopholes, and Amazon doing what I explained are three different issues.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 how do you know it was “fair”? Who keeps watch?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe How do you know it wasn't fair? Google was basically a tiny company when AOL and Yahoo were already multi-billion dollar companies. Yet Google beat them both and won. Or more accurately, is winning right now. Maybe there's a tiny company starting right now that neither of us know about that one day will knock off Google. The answer to a potential problem isn't always "Nanny State". Not everything in existence needs to be watched at all times.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 because they’re a monopoly. And monopolies are illegal.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe They're a monopoly NOW, after they beat out two other gigantic companies who were their competition, and without government interference. The free market isn't perfect, but the free market works.

Even if we don't find any small bit of common ground on this, it wouldn't be fair if I didn't point out again you had a much better argument with Amazon. Computer and technology companies are different than other large companies. If you buy a "state-of-the-art" television or a laptop now, in under a year, they're obsolete. Even storage devices like micro SD cards and SSD are super expensive when they first come out with new storage sizes. As an example, not to long ago, an internal 4TB SSD was over $1,000. Now you can get an internal 8TB SSD for under $1,000.

My point is, Google is on top now, in a much more volatile industry than Amazon. Eventually, another company that does it better than Google will pass them by, just like Google passed by AOL and Yahoo. Also, Google may accidentally torpedo themselves. Have you been following the Gemini launch disaster?

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 This is an issue. You probably also think little taxes on top billionaires is best. They really brainwashed you.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe You're discussing two different things, and combining them into one thing.

There's nothing wrong with the current tax tiers. If anything, they could all be lower. The problem is the tax loopholes. If you want bag-ass companies to pay more in taxes, the loopholes being exploited need to be closed. That'll never happen, because big-ass companies give the biggest political donations, to both Democrats and Republicans.

You've got a legitimate argument with Amazon being a monopoly, but not with Google, because Google's competitors weren't tiny companies when Google beat them out. It really doesn't matter either way, because the government isn't going to do anything about Amazon or Google or any other big-ass company, for the same reason I just listed: Political donations to both parties.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 Amazon also had/has smaller competitors. I say “I don’t know if their rise was fair.” You seem to “know” it. Which also tells me you’re brainwashed into the Reaganomics of low taxes on the rich which is the dumbest thing America ever did.

Both are intertwined. You are arguing FOR a billion dollar company and for keeping their taxes low. The brilliance here was making this a political cult where you’d fight to remain poor.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe What I "know" is that Google was a startup when AOL and Yahoo were already multi-billion dollar companies, and Google eventually won. The Google story and the Amazon story are different stories.

If you want to close tax loopholes, I agree. However the government doesn't need more of our tax dollars across the board. The government needs to be smaller and less intrusive, not bigger and more in-your-face.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 Yes what you know is similar to me, not much. I only unregulated markets bring about criminal behavior like the 2007 crash.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Unfortunately for all of us, white-collar crime isn't really deterred by regulation, and politicians on both sides look the other way, because of big fat white-collar political donations. As long as there are humans, there's going to be crime. More/Over regulation means that there are more regulators on government salaries to bribe.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 How can you possibly know that? Are you at least being paid by Wall Street to suck their dick?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe I know that because there are always hands in the cookie jar, politicians on both sides benefit from those hands in the cookie jar, and having more government regulation employees means having to pay more government regulation employees with taxpayer dollars.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 so it comes down paying more taxes for more regs. Or losing money to powerful corporations. Look up Obama’s Consumer Protection Bureau and see how much they save you.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe I might believe you if they had properly regulated Solyndra. We'd be billions richer right now. Then again, they would've just wasted it somewhere else.

Right now it's a rare night out, and I need to regulate the pint in front of me.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 Funny because the Bureau came out two years after. And billions huh?
“$535 million U. S. Department of Energy loan guarantee”

Two oofs in one reply.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Yes billions. If properly taken care of, $535 million would be billions by now. At least a few billion anyway. Regardless it's splitting hairs, 'cause the money is gone.

So blow the tax dollars, then create an albatross bureaucracy afterwards? Those are two bigger "oofs"... and as President, no less.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 solyndra is still a company, you know. Like GM we probably got our money back.

Consumer protection has already been a success.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Probably? So a guess based on?

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 well I like facts and research on the CPB has shown millions saved by cutting idiotic fees and making banks be more transparent. But that info is googable. You just won’t do it.

Like solyndra, you just like the stupid storyline despite years of success of our govt investing in industries.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Years of success in blowing billions of taxpayer dollars, you mean. You've got this strange obsession with using tax dollars to endlessly grow the federal government when it should be as tiny, streamlined, and non-intrusive as possible.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 Because I’ve studied the effects and see the potential. We’ve cut back severely. Thats why college tuition is up because we aren’t funding scholarships as much, homeless are on the streets, and we’re more segregated as a society by skin color even more than before the civil rights era.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe That's because of liberals and their DEI bullshit, which focuses on race and sex instead of merit. If there's anything that actually requires annoying government regulation is the advanced education sector. Colleges and universities should have their ridiculous tuitions capped.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 so you have your regulation preferences. That completely debunks your entire arguments. Thanks.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe I prefer as little regulation as possible. Tiny federal government makes all lives better. However, since you're going to have regulation anyway, at least have it somewhere useful where it might actually do some good.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Instead of using regulation to stymie the free market and promoting stupid DEI ideas.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 your opinion. I’m exact opposite. Everything good in your life was provided by our govt or at one time funded by it. Thats what we pay taxes for.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Other than granting me a win in my custody and divorce trial years ago, there's nothing positive that the government has provided me. Everything positive in my life I provided myself.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 This is actually a researched phenomenon. Everyone likes to forget the time their parents were on unemployment. Or didn’t know they once lived in govt subsidized housing.

Hell I bet you enjoyed the Covid stimulus..

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Me personally? Nope. I worked through the entire pandemic shutdown. I was actually considered an essential worker. Who knew? 😂

The pandemic shutdown was an emergency, so the Covid stimulus was a necessary safety net. I only had two issues with the temporary Covid stimulus: A lot of it made it out to people who actually didn't need stimulus, and it lasted a bit too long.

I've never been against safety nets in society, as long as they're used as intended, which is temporary for most people. It's when the safety net gets abused as a never-ending carnival ride is when I've got a problem.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 I love it. Necessary safety net. Yet government shouldn’t be able to do the things you don’t think is necessary. Your problem is you.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Oh come on. Don't be obtuse. You know exactly what I mean. People endlessly living off the government's (taxpayers') dollars that have no business living off our dollars. Safety nets, not carnival rides.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 Again…if I only had access to your past to show where you or your family benefited from a govt handout.

I agree there are some welfare queens in a cycle of poverty living in squalor. I don’t understand it. But it’s not the majority.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Me and my family? Other than retirement benefits (which are paid into from a lifetime of work from the specific participant via deferred salary and the participant's employer, not the government), the answer is no across the board. No workman's compensation, no disability insurance.

Not the majority, but it happens more often than you realize.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 Obviously I can’t tell you how but I’m absolutely positive somewhere in a recent history maybe kept your parents from going homeless, the GI bill giving your grandpa college tuition. I don't know.

But the point is it helps in many ways and none of us like how the other uses “welfare”. lol

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe I'm a fair person. I'll ask some family members, but I'm probably not going to get anywhere. My grandparents are long gone, and my father (who was good with knowing family history like this) has been gone for just about 5 years now. If it's not about Walgreens coupons, phone screen cat screen savers, or slot machines in Atlantic City, my mom isn't going to know anything.

Since you happened to mention "grandpa", my grandfathers fought in World War II (paternal Navy, maternal Army, neither went to college), one of my maternal uncles fought in Vietnam (Air Force, no college), and my father fought in Vietnam (Air Force, no college). So they were *paid* by the government for their service, but no handouts as we've been discussing.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 I agree, they were owed for their service. So there is government help- just whether you think it’s owed or not.

I would just like to remind people (like our migrant convo) some need more help and their children could pay it back as high earners.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe That help was never meant to be a permanent solution. Hence one of the reasons I've using the terms "safety net" and "carnival ride" to explain what that help should and shouldn't be, respectively.

[NYCQuestions1976]

*been

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 agreed but we also aren’t providing the infrastructure for social mobility. I could agree on a 50/50 responsibility. Poor people do get used to being poor, but as a society, we don’t provide easier leg ups.

[OddBeMe]

Thus our middle class is disappearing

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe There's plenty of opportunities for all of the citizens of this country, but you need to rise up and take advantage of those opportunities. You also need drive, initiative, and determination. No amount of government intervention is going to generate that for someone. That's up to each individual, but not everyone is built like that. Is it laziness when opportunities go unutilized? Sure, maybe for some people. For most, I'd call it "unintentional stagnation".

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 Yes and we need a govt that keeps opportunities on an even keel. They are currently not.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Not equal opportunities? Where, and against whom exactly? If anything, there are definitely circumstances where you're correct, but not for the reasons I'm pretty certain that you're going to claim. If and when it's happening, it's because of DEI nonsense.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 I’m not googling for you again. You can certainly find obvious research against POC, women etc…but also just poor people I general. Which is the point. The govt should be regulating the economy to keep it even.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe I wasn't looking for you to Google anything. Reality and results beat research. Florida currently has their largest minority population in their history, and DeSantis won reelection with nearly 60% of the vote. Nationally, Trump is currently AHEAD of Biden with Hispanic voters. AHEAD. Trump currently has over a 20% approval rating with African Americans. That's by far the largest any Republican has ever had... candidate or actively holding office. So if the groups you mentioned are so marginalized and disenfranchised, it's because of limousine liberals woke socialists in the government destroying their lives. If Trump had just a little bit Reagan's personality, he'd be getting 400 electoral votes in this upcoming election.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 Sorry…. just read your first line “Reality and results beat research.” How do you think results are found?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe By them actually happening and reporting on them actually happening with no editorial spin, not by being studied by someone who never leaves their office or laboratory or classroom and publishing "studies" based on pre-existing biased opinions.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 no…there was no commentary they reported the facts and that was it, @Juxtapose has the same problem of differentiating commentary from news.

Feel free to run through every point in that vid and see if anything is false or- hell- even hyped up. It’s all fact.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Well then if I play Devil's Advocate and agree with you that there's no biased spin, then the answer can only be incompetent research, because as I'm pointing out, the current reality doesn't match:

www.nytimes.com/.../...s-grows-new-poll-shows.html

www.cbsnews.com/.../

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 if you take polls as seriously as liberals did in 2016. Lol

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe That'd be a fair point, if the polls were reasonably close. Especially the poll of African American voters. A jump from 4% to 23%? It's really hard to explain that away with a "plus or minus X percentage points" excuse.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 us liberals said the same thing, sweety.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe None of the polls leading up to the 2016 election had a 19% point spread.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 pretty sure some did. There were specific polls asking if Hillary is blah blah, and there was some major spreads.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe My bad. I should've used "jump" or "change" instead of "spread". That's on me. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that none of the polls in the battleground states, even though they turned out to be wrong, leading up to the 2016 election had a spread of, or changed by, 19% in any demographic.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 anyway…all I’m saying is liberals got taught a lesson in 2016 and polling.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Fair enough, but it's still important to note that most of those wrong polls in the battleground states only had marginal single digit spreads in the first place. As a wise person once said, "We shall see."

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 there are polls that mimic the general election and polls about the candidates or current politics that usually skew results (causing the spread). So show me a poll that simply asks Biden or Trump with a 19 pt spread.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe As I corrected, I should've been using "change" or "jump" instead of "spread". Trump's support amongst African American voters has jumped from 4% in 2016, to 23% in 2024. That's too big of a change to be explained away with "margin for error".

As for a poll across the board? I take it you mean you're looking for a "spread" example in a battleground state? There's nothing with a 19% spread either way, but CNN recently conducted this poll in Michigan:

thehill.com/.../

An 8% spread is a lot. Especially for a battleground state. I don't recall Trump or Clinton leading by that much in any battleground state poll at any point leading up to the 2016 election.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 You are literally me in October 2016. Lol

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe It's possible that you might wind up being correct, but there are still significant differences that I've pointed out between 2016 and now.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 sure, but put those in contrast to a history of a sitting president being voted out by a radical.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe A radical according to liberals and socialists, and a sitting president that's been completely horrendous.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 oh no he’s far far right. Seen by centrists leaving congress en masse.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Well when someone's center is left of Marx, then of course Trump inaccurately in comparison seems far far right.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 so you think the “left” is Marx? No the left is actually center as the right wing was pulled far to the fringe.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe So the left hasn't moved far-left? Come on now. Bill Maher and other old-school liberals talk about it all the time. A reaffirmation of basing things on race and sex instead of merit, caring more about illegal immigrants than people with issues who are born here, putting climate change paranoia propaganda (yes there's climate change, no the world isn't going to end anytime soon) ahead if blue-collar working families, pushing DEI garbage, insisting that biological men be able to play women's sports, feelings over facts, and a host of other nonsensical insanity that does nothing but waste time, unnecessarily grow the government, and waste taxpayer dollars. It's definitely the left that has moved more to the far-left. Your just finally noticing the pushback from the rest of normal humanity.

[OddBeMe]

Nope. Or Bernie would be president

[OddBeMe]

Btw…all the issues you list as the “left” are right wing isssues. lol

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Everything I listed is the fault of far-left liberals and socialists in the government. Also, if you're mad about Sanders, blame Clinton and Wasserman-Schultz. They conspired to bury Sanders and his campaign during the primaries before the 2016 election.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 you think that. Because you’re fed that. Me being on the far left don’t give a shit. Besides just being cool with it,

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Well, people "being cool with it" and Biden's incompetence are going to get Trump elected again in November.

[Juxtapose]

@NYCQuestions1976 unless they cheat again or even assassinate him.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Juxtapose I'm sure there will be gaslighting going on again. It's been happening since 2008:

sentinelksmo.org/.../

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...ve-questions-Biden.html

[Juxtapose]

@NYCQuestions1976 oh don't worry, it's all part of some right wing conspiracy just like how CNN is apparently some right-wing conspiracy 😂🤣

[Lionman95]

Because most people are biased in modern days when it comes to their values. Progressives in particular since the core of their mindset is that they are the good guys. Questioning all values, traditions and fundaments only works if your reason is strong. What you describe doesn´t just fit on the US, it´s everywhere in the world the same that progressives they are the good guys and political right people are the problem while in fact left and progressive parties have the same problem.
by the way Hitler was right wing yes but that one can be conservative and not be a fan of Hitler or a successor of him. Nonetheless the segregation the Nazis used towards the Jews is something that the political left has used and can use too.

[normalice]

Same reason everyone does - no one is wrong on purpose. The only thing is progressives have facts to back the virtue of their goals where as you ragetards only have self indulgent hate.

[Juxtapose]

What is a woman?

[normalice]

How about I just say I 100% agree with your definition. It seems like its impossible to get how unimportant that is to me (compared to combating monopolies, tax cheats, and christian nationalists) through all that brain damage caused by your rage addiction.

[Juxtapose]

You seem angry. You might wanna work on that rage addiction.

[normalice]

I already pointed out your rage addiction, lol. Don't copy me, it's lame 😅

[Juxtapose]

Are you sure you don't wanna talk? You're always so paranoid too, must be from your rage addiction.

[normalice]

That's twice you copied me. You know what you sound like? You sound like a nail that got hit directly on the head, that's what you sound like 😂

[Juxtapose]

Do you want a pet cat to help with your rage addiction? You're so negative.

[normalice]

I'm positive you don't know what to do about being so transparent so you're just repeating what you copied to convince yourself that you aren't a rage junkie. But we both know you are so I don't see why you bother to deny it.

[Juxtapose]

Do I seem mad? Perhaps it is your own projection. Rage addiction is real man.

[normalice]

We both know all I have to do is suggest combating the global subjugation caused by monopolies might be slightly more important than stopping trans people from playing womens sports and you will lose your mind in a fever of rage.

[Juxtapose]

I am more than willing to work with people on stopping global corruption but I do insist they be able to live in reality.

[normalice]

Right and if they don't "live in reality" then you'd prefer to keep the global corruption.

[Juxtapose]

Well maybe you have a point because upon thinking about this some more, I do remember scientists who are deeply religious and how cognitive dissonance helps them.

They are perfectly capable of functioning as scientists even though they believe in something that seems so ludicrous to me, without evidence.

Humans are wild.

[normalice]

Jesus. I can't even coax you into lying that you think GLOBAL CORRUPTION is more pressing than dudes playing women's sports. Washed isn't the word. You are brain-pristine.

[Juxtapose]

Are you one of those people who think you can clean up the world if you have not even cleaned up your own room? You must learn to walk before you can run and people who can't define basic terms need to learn how to walk in baby steps.

You may want to get off social media for a little bit and relax. You have these awfully paranoid delusions and you have hostile language.

[normalice]

Yes yes I'm sure your excuses for why you should prioritize the things that make you feel good are endless. That's the very brain damage to which I refer.

[Juxtapose]

Your inability to see other people's perspectives isn't helping you.

Like I said, you're not going to clean the world if you can't even clean your room. And if you can't tell me facts of life that a five-year-old can tell me, you are compromised by ideology and I don't want to work with you. You don't know your left from your right if you can't tell me what a woman is. I would be just as flummoxed if you couldn't tell me what a cat is.

If you confuse the cat with a dog, I would not want to work with you in solving global corruption because I would believe you to be too incompetent and daft.

[normalice]

Eh, too long. Sorry, didn't read..

[Juxtapose]

Why do people apologize when they don't mean it? Is it meant as a dig? People are fascinating.

[normalice]

There is a spectrum of "meaning it" and I am on the "does mean it" side of that spectrum. But not by much, it's true..

[Juxtapose]

lol 🤣

[exitseven]

Progressives do not really care about right and wrong. They just are trying to cling to power.

[OddBeMe]

Right wingers just put everyone in boxes to label without any nuance.

[exitseven]

@OddBeMe so progressives are not crazy?

[OddBeMe]

They can be. Humans are humans.

[exitseven]

@OddBeMe you don;t have to be crazy to be a progressive, but it helps/

[KrakenAttackin]

Mental illness. Remember, Hitler was one of theirs as was Stalin.

[OtterMan68]

Why do conservatives believe only they are patriots and Christians?

[argot]

Right hand path vs Left hand path... Clearly you never read the Bible.

The Sheep and the Goats
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

[argot]

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

[argot]

People that follow the right hand path, worship the Trinity (mind = Father/body = Son/spirit = Holy Spirit) and follow and conserve the word of God.

People that follow the left hand path worship Baphomet (i. e. Satan). They question religious or moral dogma twisting and butchering it as they adhere to forms of personal anarchism. They embrace sexual perversion. They reject societal convention and the status quo...

[Sasahara]

@OtterMan68 Perhaps the Conservatives should concede that some Christians, for example priests who happen to be pedo and act on their pedo urges, could be democrats, and reflect just as badly if not more badly on democrats than conservatives.
And in exchange for doing you this favor, you you and democrats can consider conservatives sole arbiters of virtue in your personal opinions.

[Juxtapose]

@Sasahara yeeaaah!

[DJB72]

They're delusional. Plain and simple.

[Exterminatore]

That’s how gaslighting and propaganda work.

[DextroShade]

Leftism has become a death cult.

[OddBeMe]

We kinda are…

[OddBeMe]

Hate to say I told you so.

[Juxtapose]

People who are actually virtuous are not going to be arrogant enough to say they are the sole arbiters of it.

[OddBeMe]

(Shrugs) not sure on that. At least I’m hesitant to say it. But liberal lefties are behind every “progressive” step in the world.

[Juxtapose]

Progressives are not liberal. Being "progressive" isn't a good thing anymore than being "pro-life" is.

The Democrats are like if Bush-era Republicans became Marxists.

[OddBeMe]

Well that’s all opinion. But whatevs. I disagree.

Literally just right clicked and hit “look up”

Adjective: continual, liberal.

[Juxtapose]

The people who truly understand virtue are similar to Daryl Davis in my opinion. He convinced KKK members to give up the organization by using freedom of speech.

[OddBeMe]

Ok good. Weren’t you one of those fcks posting pics of Biden with that former KKK guy, Byrd? Little but hypocritical…

[Juxtapose]

No. I have called Biden a segregationist but I have not posted pictures of him with the KKK.

[OddBeMe]

Former kkk.

But we’re all segregationist. Just depends if we want it to change or not.

[OddBeMe]

Stalin, Mao and pol pot are far left, if we want to keep score. Ironically none of them read Marx. Thats a fact. Lol

[Juxtapose]

I am not a segregationist, I can exist among people who look different than me just fine. Sex, race, age.. whatever I don't really care.

Communism only works on paper. Someone has to decide what: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" PRECISELY means for each person. That necessitates a strong central authority that is inevitably abused.

[OddBeMe]

I meant we live in a segregated society. Just like we’re captialists whether we want to be or not. I do. And yeah communism (aka Leninism, Stalinism) doesn’t work. Neither does 100% capitalism.

[Juxtapose]

No, we don't. Black people don't have to drink from a separate water fountain.

[Juxtapose]

I don't remember Barack Obama being president of a separate people either.

[OddBeMe]

We’re a segregated society. It may be more blurred than before 1965 (thank progressives by the way), but we’re still segregated.