Negatory
-
Posts
619 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Negatory
-
-
There’s absolutely an argument. Marjorie Taylor Greene says states should “consider seceding from the union”
Why don’t we just agree both sides are terrible and divisive? Because your identity is tied into a made up reductionist construct of a political party?
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, HeloDude said:
You’re dreaming man. And not just on the Republican side, but I’d say mostly on the Democrat side—the left could easily pass a bill in the Senate that says federal law protects abortion up until 4 months but then it’s against the law to do it afterwards. But that’s not what the left wants—their entire argument is “it should be left up to a woman and her (abortion) doctor”…which means zero bans.
Oh, a brain dead take on political issues on base ops. Who would have guessed.
You (specifically) can’t help but make false equivalencies and invalid broad generalizations, which you demonstrate literally every single day you post here.
The truth is that Americans support way more nuance in this discussion than your backwards reductionist views. The majority of Americans do not support abortion past 24 weeks. Only 19% of Americans believe abortion should be legal with no strings attached. Oh that’s against the narrative you’re stating?
Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/
A lot of people think that it should be allowed in extreme cases beyond an arbitrary time stamp (guaranteed non viability, extremely high risk of death, fetus is almost guaranteed dead). This is not the same as when you try to insinuate democrats support anyone - for any reason as flippant as they just don’t feel like it - should be able to get a third trimester abortion. THATS AN EXTREME VIEW DEMOCRATS DONT EVEN SUPPORT. But it’s in talk radio. You’ve been propagandized. You have to know this, right? But I guess you couldn’t win this argument without bending reality or convincing yourself of some slightly flawed logic.Finally, you guys are wrong about the potential of this to be perceived as just a states rights issue. This is a big deal. To the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, this was a fundamental attack on Women’s and men’s rights to plan their families. That’s how the majority of Americans (and a supermajority of Democrats) feel, and the longer you try to pretend it’s just a legal battle or was justified via some federalist debate, the longer you lose. Just telling you the truth. Here’s a graph showing how republicans are actively losing the support of independents across the country. 57 to 41, that’s not even close.
Now that we’ve had a good time debunking the logical basis of your arguments, let’s go to the emotional way you’re losing this debate (and with it, the American people’s support):
Go ahead and explain why does it affect your poor Christian family if another family that you have never interacted with gets an abortion 2 cities over? Get out of people’s lives. Also, are you suddenly okay with it if it’s just across state borders? Choose a side. If you’re gonna play the pathos argument and then go straight to a legal logos you just sound disingenuous. Which you are. But you sound like it, too.
Oh, and is it really a states right thing? Or is it an overreaching control over everyone thing? Why is Texas trying to inhibit the ability for federal citizens to go to states that align with their views to enjoy the freedoms of those states?
Shit like that is what Republicans laugh about. It’s what the rest of Americans are terrified of. That’s a disadvantage for y’all, sorry.
-
1
-
2
-
-
20 hours ago, ClearedHot said:
Agree, but tough to control in our society where freedom of the press it literally the very first amendment in our Constitution. I can tell you we do NOT put the government in charge like uncle Joe tried to do with the crazy show tunes singing bitch. It would be great if the press would actually act like the fourth estate and did their job...too much to ask I know.
Maybe that’s how you fix it then. Codify ethnical and legal standards for media. Maybe make a journalists oath similar to the hippocratic oath. I am sure you could do that in a non biased way if we could just get our heads out of our asses.
And yes, that means potential limitations of lying or being close to lying on the freedom of the press. And before anyone says that’s unconstitutional, it’s not. We have limitations on almost every right we have (hate speech, over sexualized content, regular citizens can’t have nukes, etc.). The US has to have a serious talk about how the Information Age is making us vulnerable to being controlled by foreign entities.
-
19 hours ago, HeloDude said:
So a self proclaimed leftist, who originally said that what we were seeing at the colleges was from extremely small groups, but being hyped up by the conservative media, is now saying that the leftists supporting Hamas is a problem…at the universities ran by leftists who are largely supporting these students…who are getting their disinformation from leftists groups (TikToc or otherwise). And finally he also supports the government implementing some kind of new regulations to add additional control over the information (I’m sure as long as it’s done by leftists).
Here’s a thought—how about we hold people accountable for their own actions? If the universities believe these students are exhibiting unacceptable behavior, then kick them out…so let me know when all these students are removed from campuses.
You really can’t handle having a big boy discussion without bringing in political labels (that are wrong), can you? Nothing I said was political, but you have to bring it back to some super dumb take. Literally you just can’t fathom that we have similarity between our views. MAGA bro.
-
1
-
-
Israel and the West, specifically the US, are hardcore losing the info war. Seeing some of these high school and college age idiots supporting hamas simply because they are being inundated by TikTok propaganda makes me think we actually should do something.
Susceptibility to disinformation is a legitimate vulnerability of democratic societies. How do you fix that?
-
7 hours ago, RegularJoe said:
I agree with your statement, however this is where I have issue with the people living in Gaza. Hamas oppressed you as residents = agreed / Israel is bombing and destroying your homes and towns because Hamas is imbeded inside your homes, hospitals, stores etc... You cannot convince me that the residents there "don't know who Hamas players are", then for the sake of your families, town, wellbeing kill those motherf*ckers. If the Palestinians as a people would literally kill these hoodlums hiding in thier towns then bombs wouldn't be falling from above.
If this was happening here, we as residents would be stacking bodies faster than the military to keep ordinance off our heads. At some point they can't be victims and do nothing about it.
Real “I’m a tough guy” vibes flowing. Half of Gazas population is under 18 and 70% are 29 or younger. You’re effectively asking blunted, uneducated, young people with no resources - who grew up surrounded by a cult and have been oppressed their whole lives - to just take it into their hands to have an epiphany and “kill the hoodlums.” Oh, it’s also impossible for regular citizens to get weapons, the “hoodlums” are actual savage terrorists, and if you kill them you’ll be likely labeled a terrorist yourself when the narrative is convenient (see the Kurds).
I’m sure you’re also appalled by all the Texans who know there are drug dealers crossing the border - whose drugs make it deep into America - and those Texans don’t “just kill” those “motherf*ckers.” There are a lot of useless 15 year olds in Texas, tell ya what.
-
Just want to point out that folks like you are why alternative viewpoints don’t engage, and why this place has gently flowed back into being the echo chamber it’s always been.
Here’s a pretty comprehensive view of why people believe that Israel is still oppressing Palestine, although I know this will be dismissed for no logical reason:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MDE1551412022ENGLISH.pdf
Want to be clear, I don’t support Hamas or anyone who does. You seem to be getting your parties in a wad, but you don’t even understand why.-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, BashiChuni said:
JFC dude are you serious? have you seen the pro hamas demonstrations breaking out all across college campuses and major cities?
There are extreme leftists that are supporting small scale demonstrations that conservative media are significantly overblowing to play on YOUR (specifically) feelings and keep up the narrative that we are mortal enemies and diametrically opposed.
Even Ocasio-Cortez condemned the demonstrations supporting Palestine.
My point was that he wasn’t going to find someone on this forum that is pro Hamas’s actions. Because it’s a very rare viewpoint right now, including democrats or liberals. Everyone I know is fucking sickened.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, HeloDude said:
The only support for Hamas and the Palestinians is coming from the left, correct? Let me know if you need some examples…or does highlighting the worst of a group only work when the left does it to the right?
I think it’s dumb to apply viewpoints hyperbolically both directions.
I think you’ll find that the views you’re so riled up about are not as well held as you think. Even Ocasio-Cortez condemned the Palestinian support protests - one of the most “leftist” people you irrationally despise.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna119687
I think that Rep. Tlaib and Bush are morons and wrong. They are capitalizing on human loss to get political points. Honestly, they’re sickening.Simultaneously, I think the Harvard students who released a letter are technically correct, albeit still wrong about when to talk about this - Israel has contributed to Israel-Palestine instability via effectively running an apartheid state. But it doesn’t excuse terrorist acts.
I honestly see how f’d politics is from a Palestinian perspective, and I think you can too. US, EU, and Israel all deciding to admire the problem that Palestinians were effectively living in a penal colony for the last few decades contributed to this occurring. I also see how Palestine are morons and didn’t accept multiple potential compromises over the last 40 years.
-
2
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, HeloDude said:
Side note—where are our resident leftists on this forum? Aren’t they all about democracies being able to defend themselves when attacked? Or does this just apply to when Russia is the aggressor?
Hi, so called “leftist” Ron Burgundy here. If you think that anyone who is slightly liberal supports Hamas, I think you’re confused.
As CH said, kill them all. Painfully, preferably. (I’d also like to take this moment to reiterate that no one on this forum is a leftist, your views and biases are so skewed though that I’ll be your huckleberry)
Let’s pretend you were looking for nuanced viewpoints. A total war against Palestine is gonna be counterproductive. You’re gonna create more terrorists and Arab nations that are united against Israel - not less. We saw this with the resurgence of Al Qaeda and ISIS. I’m sure you learned this in your service.
Getting drawn into the total war trap will be analogous to how the US overcommitted into the Middle East in 2001/2003, resulting in basically the degradation of our own empire and supremacy over the last 20 years for basically nothing! Hamas/Iran WANT this response. Now ask “why?” History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes. It wouldn’t be the first time civilized nations with very capable militaries are defeated because they didn’t understand the enemy’s centers of gravity (spoiler: it’s not in the people of Palestine).
Israel must avoid being emotional, just like we should have in the early 2000s. Now, can they conduct a surgical campaign to kill a bunch of terrorists and save their folks, while simultaneously backing out quickly enough to maintain foreign relations and not destroy their economy? Time will tell. What is not tenable? Another united Arab states war that drives Israel to be a lone island reliant on the U.S.
Or, alternatively, I guess you could argue Islam and Judaism/Christianity aren’t compatible. Crusades circa 2024? Glass em all!
-
1 hour ago, Biff_T said:
The whole country is being held hostage to both parties' incompetence. They are all corrupt peices of shit at the Federal and State Levels. Prove me wrong lol. I wish this was a joke because the American government is the best stand up comedy act to exist to date on planet Earth. Once again, the country is worse than when G W took office. Shit Im a Gen Xer and Im going to say it was better in 80s under Reagan (I was playing with G I Joes and listening to Warrant back then but my dad could afford to feed us and buy a house on a plumber's salary) doesn't appear to be getting any better. Why? Because we keep pretending to believe our votes matter and that the people in charge aren't corrupt.
How do you fix this without a fuck ton of pain?
If your metric for whether or not things are good is “are they better than the 80s, 90s, or 2000s,” I’ve got bad news for you. America’s extremely rare 60-year global unipolar dominance and being able to benefit from the rest of the world blowing its infrastructure up during WWII is over.
There are actually a lot of arguments that being an American in 2019 or 2007 represents the best average life circumstances humans will experience for a long time. Good evidence that being a boomer or a gen x in America = best life humans have ever had, and will maintain that status for the next few generations. See Principles of a Changing World Order by Ray Dalio.
Quantitative easing by both parties, immense overspending by both parties, collosal defense and policy failures in the Middle East wars, a lack of focus on infrastructure or investment, and real great power competition equals worse times for the foreseeable future. There is no easy way out, and no political agenda that will just magically fix it.
-
3
-
-
19 hours ago, BashiChuni said:
We survived!
Dumb and distorted. We have hit 1.0C, are going to hit 1.5C of warming shortly, and are well on our way to 4+. What does that mean? It means your children are gonna have much tougher lives. And the point of the quote was not that we would die in 5 years, but that there would be mass deaths in the future if fossil fuels were not significantly curtailed by 2023. But that’s standard for you, you just don’t know how to read.
19 hours ago, Pooter said:My favorite part is the fastest way to kill off a massive part of the developing world would be to outlaw fossil fuels on a super aggressive timeline with no suitable replacement infrastructure. But that nuance is likely lost on the petulant professional complainer who grew up in Scandinavia driving mommy and daddy's electric polestar around.
Maybe, to get some perspective, instead of Gucci climate conferences in NYC and Lisbon she could sail her stupid f-ing catamaran to Somalia and see how well her fossil fuel plan is received.
Sorry that a kid is trying to reduce fossil fuel usage because of actual global warming, and that the right wing media has literally convinced you to hate her. It’s sad to look at. And I’m sure it’s hard for you to always be so mad about everything.
Also, it’s a typical pattern to have a fallacy on here, but it’s always worthwhile to point out: No one said we needed to disproportionally affect industrializing societies over already industrialized. In fact, the VAST majority of emissions are due to first world consumption and production (US, China, EU). So we could just cut YOUR (and people like your) emissions, and that would be the 90% solution. But you can throw out a totally unrelated point that we should all be able to roll coal in F350s because if we can’t it would hurt Africa. Bro, you (and your base) don’t give a fuck about Africa or the developing world.
-
1
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, FourFans said:
Has anyone else here read the Eden Chronicles by S.M. Anderson? The first book "A Bright Shore" was written in 2018, during the genesis of all this social upheaval. With all the excellent justifications provided by some liberals in government service on this forum concerning the 'correctness' of normalizing what began as 'fringe' and celebrating what was once simply tolerated, that first book is beginning to read like a societal prophesy. Simply look at the social narratives coming from our 'apolitical' politician general officer leadership.
Students of history understand exactly what his happening. It happened in Greece, Persia, Rome, China, and several others. Hard times make strong men, who make good times, which makes soft men, who make hard times. Unfortunately, the soft men can make that cycle come to a screeching halt. In historical context, we have gone so soft, for so long, that those with opinions of governance which are rooted in neither integrity, fact, nor history can now set policy, which will result in the collapse of our society.
To the liberal ideologs here: If you sincerely think that forcing the celebration (which is exactly what pride month is) of LGTBQ+, redistributing wealth, and enforcing ideologies that will eviscerate the family unit will improve things in our currently domestic and international environment, I request you please put it down in a journal and go re-read that in about 10 years and see how it aged...assuming we make it that long. You are supporting ideology that will destroy our society. History already proves is, we're currently living it, and you're supporting it.
From “da libruls”: Trans rights becoming this important is too much emphasis, agreed. I don’t care to overcompensate, and I don’t think the majority of folks actually care.
I personally agree that the woke-ness of some of the messaging is terribly annoying and not focused. And we should stop.
Also, I agree that the family unit is important, who said it wasn’t?
But wealth inequality is an actual problem that needs to be solved. History also shows that the higher wealth inequality goes the worse society gets. And if you look at society from an average 25 year olds eyes, you’d see that American capitalism as is hasnt made much progress since the 1970s when real wages stopped increasing.
Wouldn’t recommend you throw totally separate ideals into one set of issues, because it’s harder to find common ground.
-
1
-
2
-
-
Not surprised Brabus. During some of this discourse through the years I actually, at one point, mistakenly thought you were smart.
-
1
-
-
On 5/3/2023 at 9:53 PM, BashiChuni said:
oh no you don't...we KNEW pretty early on that covid was statistically a non event for young, healthy people. and turns out Fauci and his buddies at Pfizer KNEW it didn't prevent the spread...we were told straight up lies and coerced into taking a shot that provides zero protection and is very harmful...latest numbers i heard were 1 in 800 have side effects. that is a very high number and this shot should NEVER have been MANDATED.
so don't give me this 20/20 bullshit....the warnings were being issued very early on but FUCKING CENSORED
No one else wants to engage? We doing the echo chamber thing again where we get really mad at a fallacious argument? Gotta love the analysis capabilities of retired military officers. Let’s look at this.
The specific issue with your argument is that you say a couple of facts, but you entirely discount very important tenets to why Americans a a whole did what they did, and then you say something wildly out there that does not logically follow: “the shot should NEVER have been MANDATED.” Very Tucker Carlson approach.
The purpose of the shot was to stop transmission so that old people, who had a MORTALITY rate above the single percentages (and a similarly high severe disease rate requiring hospitalization) wouldn’t die in droves and entirely inundate the healthcare system. Everyone understood it wouldn’t kill young people, yes, even early on. The purpose was to maintain the healthcare system.
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1327
Republicans may not have liked doing something to try and protect the population, but the country as a whole was supportive of efforts to not have every one of their grandparents have a real chance of death. Here are the facts:
Side effects of the vaccine were NOT well understood until it was made and distributed to a significant portion of the population, and the negative heart effects are not typical of other vaccine efforts. Those are real, and they are unfortunate. If you say otherwise, provide proof.
The fact that it does not significantly limit spread was NOT understood - it initially was believed to significantly cut spread, up to 90%. It didn’t, and that is unfortunate. If you argue otherwise, provide proof.
As a side note, many of you strongly pushed for ivermectin just because conservative propaganda wanted you to go against the grain, which has still been shown to have almost no efficacy and multiple bad side effects. Don’t see that addressed very often on here.
The vaccine has a very high efficacy rate of reducing mortality and severe illness in those over a certain age. It reduces death rates in populations over 60 by up to 90% in many excess death analyses. Also, republican areas that refused the vaccine had significantly more excess deaths than areas that did not. You entirely discount this point.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna50883
You’ll note that many on this forum - me included - advocated for the vaccine when these things were believed: that it would limit spread, have no significant side effects (like most other vaccines), and limit mortality in vulnerable populations. It only accomplished limiting mortality (which you entirely scoff), and that’s when liberals as a population began not pushing for vaccination as the solution anymore. Especially not for young people, as they were a transmission vector whether or not they got the shots.
You’ll also note that, as facts came out that showed the vaccine was not going to be effective from a transmission perspective, they were acknowledged and the push for vaccines decreased. Reminder: Trump recommended vaccination for the first year.
Your anger is unjustified. Your argument is fallacious. You have taken rational thought to protect a portion of society - which, fine, you may have disagreed with, but it’s still rooted in logic and rational - and vilified it to the point of insulting your countrymen and implying we are part of what is wrong with America. That hostility and open contempt of others who looked at a problem differently than you did is what is wrong with America.
And yes, I recognize there were others on the liberal side that were contemptuous. But let’s not reframe the argument, as a few folks on here including you have done, to you were always right and everyone else was always wrong and what a FUCKIN TRAVESTY. What an absolutely asinine, non intellectual take.
Oh, and, as always, I am able to provide actual sources for every single thing I said. But I am going to elect to wait for you to start. Good luck.
-
2
-
3
-
1
-
2
-
-
Oh would it read better if it said “the right” instead of “you guys?” Because it reads exactly the same.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, ClearedHot said:
Awesome! Agreed, let's do it!
1. Arrest Hillary immediately and charge her with mishandling national security secrets.
2. Arrest Hillary a second time and charge her with election interference through fraud for the dossier.
2. Arrest Hunter immediately and charge him with a federal gun crime for illegally obtaining a gun.
3. Appoint a special prosecutor to investigate payments from China to the Biden family.
4. Appoint a special prosecutor to investigate payment from Ukraine to the Biden family, including 10% for the big guy.
Sure, let’s do those things. You don’t realize WE DON’T CARE about protecting people like this, that’s you guys with your false equivalencies.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:
There’s a third possibility: don’t play the game with each other at all (national divorce).
11 hours ago, ClearedHot said:Who said Civil War...
It’s funny how in one breath you guys say “we aren’t advocating civil war” and then you advocate what is effectively civil war.
Remember, there are more democrats in Texas than there are Republicans in most states. Vice versa for Republicans in California. Anyone who calls for state secession or a national divorce is either blindingly ignorant or willfully malicious, and you are the opposite of a patriot. Also, it’s rich coming from ”the party of Lincoln.”
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Sim said:
Projection is a hell of a drug. Maybe some self reflection is in order.
-
12 hours ago, brabus said:
@FLEA I remember summer 2020 talking about these aspects of Covid - it’s amazing how so many people said I (and others like me with critical thinking capability) we’re out to lunch, dangerous, etc. Complete silence from those same people who have been proven 100% wrong. I don’t hold grudges, so whatever, but I’ll still remember how some individuals in my life were horrendously wrong, shit on those who disagreed, and have made zero acknowledgment about it. Says something about their character.
Nah bro, says that you oversimplify things significantly into right or wrong, black or white. You have become what you criticize, and you all wonder why folks stopped commenting back. The forum turned significantly more into an echo chamber the last year, which has been nice for you guys, but doesn’t necessarily represent reality.
We all, right now, have the benefit of knowledge we did not have when decisions were being made. Your debrief choice (i can’t really call it a loop) is that we all made and then executed the wrong decisions in the beginning of the pandemic, and that “we” have doubled and tripled down and screeched the entire time. But in reality we as a society had very limited SA or perception of what the actual truth of the situation was until science uncovered some of those answers. It took months to years for that. And, you seem to forget, we had to operate and make decisions in that limited SA environment. You can’t put the big arrow on a decision when your SA is super low. The ends don’t justify the means. I believed, and will continue to believe, you 100% did not have the SA in the Summer of 2020.
For example, we now know mRNA vaccines are entirely ineffective at stopping transmission - we were hopeful they would be very effective. Didn’t know that. We now know that we’re looking at a significantly lower mortality variant with significantly higher spread - the first variant spread slower but had a mortality rate about 10 times higher pre-vaccine. Didn’t know when that was coming. We know that COVID is airborne. Didn’t know that, remember folks sanitizing everything? We know how to test for it, and we know generally how long folks are contagious. We understand mortality risks much more completely now (fat and old). We did not know any of these things with significant certainty for a long time.
You’ll also note that many folks on here changed our minds on many policies as more data emerged. As folks got vaccinated and mortality decreased and transmission reduction efforts clearly failed, many folks like me changed our opinions. We built SA and made decisions with said SA. You can demonize that, if you want, but it’s a pretty rough take.
If your point is that in the absence of proof, we should be optimistic, fine, that’s your philosophy. But it doesn’t mean those that wanted to be conservative in the face of unknowns are inherently wrong and/or evil. In fact, you literally can’t prove that those efforts didn’t save significant lives (bang your head against the wall on that one, if you want).
For the record, I think that masks and vaccine requirements now should be entirely removed in society with the exception of elderly care or hospitals. We should have gotten rid of it over a year ago for the military. There is more nuance to how decisions have to be made and opinions should be formed than you give credit.
-
1
-
3
-
7
-
-
I agree, gotta treat Biden exactly the same way. Time for the political elite class, regardless of affiliation, to understand that there are rules.
Prosecute and investigate them all.
-
1
-
-
The whataboutism is amazing. I, for one, find the thing most ironic in these discussions to be the title of this thread. Today, in hypocrisy, you defend someone’s actions just because they are a Republican.
Also, the President can not unilaterally declassify anything. Notable exceptions include nuclear data, waived data, and intelligence agent locations, among others. Oh, and there’s a process for it, you don’t just get to say “I DECLARE UNCLASSIFIED” like Michael Scott.
-
1
-
3
-
-
Sure, I’m fine with both.
But you have to look at events in vacuums. If he did what they’re saying, it will require a lot of mental gymnastics for the right to not call for harsh consequences regardless. With that being said, I entirely expect it.
-
1
-
-
So, we all agree #TrumpForPrison, right?
-
1
-
1
-
Today in hypocrisy...
in General Discussion
Posted
This is the actual end of the thread.
We're addressing the argument that evangelicals voted for Trump, right? You're saying that it's made up. Embrace the facts homie.
White evangelical protestants voted republican 6 times more often than they voted democrat. Catholics 5 to 4. LDS 3 to 1. Do you want more evidence of this stupid ass claim that you are denying for no reason? By the way, these are rational, cogent arguments based on data, so stop with the BS about the connection being "tenuous at best" and inappropriate in "rational debate." You're making yourself look intentionally obtuse.
Also, you CAN very easily say that democrats support BLM. That is backed by data. In 2023, 84% of dems support it. Only 17% of republicans do. What is wrong with you saying this? This is a RATIONAL argument.
Doubt. Here i'll respond to this appeal to emotion right here! I hope this atones for "our" sins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
Congressman Hank Johnson on Guam tipping over - how is this person in charge
Democrat saying the moon is made of gas - this person should lose their job permanently
Ilhan Omar on Israel Palestine - wtf
Extreme leftists on LGBTQIA transgender issues that don't matter - stupid AF and not important
Extreme leftists on welfare or UBI for no reason with no plan - fuck off
Nancy Pelosi engaging in obviously unethical stock trading - let's figure out what crime this is
Joe Biden losing his mind due to dementia - please for the love of god give me a new candidate, but you better believe that I will also call out Trump for being senile
Biden mishandling classified documents - investigate
Clinton mishandling classified - investigate
Political appointees in the IC playing divisive political games in 2016-2020 - this is fucked
Is there anyone else you want "us" to call out specifically so that you can feel like we are more fair? Did we miss some required condemnation thread? Please send a flyer next time.
To end this pointless defense of the indefensible (that there isn't as much difference between basic, non-extreme, R's and D's as this R-focused echo-chamber that is baseops likes to believe), have I missed the R's on this board being critical of R politicians making seditious comments (just quoted), the assault on the capitol on Jan 6 done by republican fringes, or the minimization of Trump's classified mishandling/financial crimes? It's whataboutism at its finest, there is no moral high ground brochacho, it's literally just your feelings. Pathos arguments work well I guess when you don't have a logos or ethos argument.
Also, mods need to move to move this thread to the squadron bar. This is stupid AF to have a political circlejerk on the main page that some random UPT student is going to come across as they're looking for info about flying in the Air Force.