Blue Terrorists Try Again

[gatomontes99]

Here is Krugman calling for the extermination of anyone claiming to be MAGA:

 

In case you are thinking I am being hyperbolic, pay close attention to the use of the word "purge". Then the direct correlation to denazification. The uneducated left (so most of them) will think denazification warranted murder of people in the Nazi party. So they will use that as justification to kill anyone they see as MAGA. 

Even if we treated MAGA like Nazis, we would have to suspend the first amendment and disregard all democratic principles. Yet, that is exactly what the perpetually wrong Krugman wants to do. He wants to force the populous to declare their loyalty to the Democratic party or be jailed for their political beliefs. He wants their political beliefs to be disqualifying for office.

Of course, he wants these things. he is losing in the realm of ideas so he wants to win in the realm of force. He would rather have an authoritarian, communist uniparty over a Republic that adheres to democratic principles and norms. 

[Nationalist]

8 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Here is Krugman calling for the extermination of anyone claiming to be MAGA:

 

In case you are thinking I am being hyperbolic, pay close attention to the use of the word "purge". Then the direct correlation to denazification. The uneducated left (so most of them) will think denazification warranted murder of people in the Nazi party. So they will use that as justification to kill anyone they see as MAGA. 

Even if we treated MAGA like Nazis, we would have to suspend the first amendment and disregard all democratic principles. Yet, that is exactly what the perpetually wrong Krugman wants to do. He wants to force the populous to declare their loyalty to the Democratic party or be jailed for their political beliefs. He wants their political beliefs to be disqualifying for office.

Of course, he wants these things. he is losing in the realm of ideas so he wants to win in the realm of force. He would rather have an authoritarian, communist uniparty over a Republic that adheres to democratic principles and norms. 

Krugman is a Tweenkie-Ass jack-off.

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. It's a generalization. Do I need a link to show you the definition of generalization? 

It's a generalization? You mentioned a specific "grandma who stood outside with a sign" and a proposed prison sentence as an example of "insane" prosecutions. But it never happened.

The fact is that nobody, grandma or otherwise was prosecuted for standing outside. The only people who were prosecuted were people who occupied the capitol and a handful of violent people or instigators who did not go in. 

 

My best guess is that you "remembered" it from Twitter and tried to look it up, found there was no such thing, and are now trying to pass it off as a generalization. But fabrications with no relationship to reality are not generalizations. They are not generally representative of anything whatsoever. They are simply lies. 

 

Now this "Maga Granny" is worth applauding. 
 

Former ‘Maga Granny’ refuses to accept Trump’s pardon for actions on January 6

Pamela Hemphill insists on taking responsibility for role she played in trying to overturn the 2020 election results

“Absolutely not,” Hemphill, 71, told the Guardian on Thursday.

“It’s an insult to the Capitol police officers and to the rule of law and to the nation. It contributes to the propaganda that it was a peaceful protest, that the DoJ is weaponized against them and against Trump.”

During the Capitol riot, Hemphill said she was pushed down, trampled on, and had her glasses smashed. She credits the Capitol police for saving her life.

...

Hemphill, who has been sober since 1979 and is now a substance abuse counselor, compared her addiction to alcohol to the Maga ideology. She said undergoing therapy shifted her perspective; she now sees herself as a volunteer, not a victim.

“This Maga cult and these J6 criminals and all their family are very upset that I am bringing the facts when they say something,” Hemphill said.

“It’s just like working with an alcoholic – when you’re in denial, you get real upset.”

Edited yesterday at 03:31 PM by Hodad

[User]

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

The fact is that nobody, grandma or otherwise was prosecuted for standing outside. The only people who were prosecuted were people who occupied the capitol and a handful of violent people or instigators who did not go in. 

This is an outright lie. 

I mean, this is what you do here. You lie and hide like a coward from being called out for your lies. 

People were prosecuted, vindictively so, for doing little more than wandering around and leaving. They were not "occupying" the Capitol. 

The government went after folks outside, too.

[gatomontes99]

19 minutes ago, Hodad said:

It's a generalization? You mentioned a specific "grandma who stood outside with a sign" and a proposed prison sentence as an example of "insane" prosecutions. But it never happened.

Yes, it is a generalization. The Grandma represents harmless people and holding a sign represents a harmless thing. Most of the "convictions" involved harmless people doing harmless things and getting the maximum penalty. 

[User]

2 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Yes, it is a generalization. The Grandma represents harmless people and holding a sign represents a harmless thing. Most of the "convictions" involved harmless people doing harmless things and getting the maximum penalty. 

Not just the maximum penalty, but a vindictive prosecution that overreached to the point the Supreme Court had to intervene on some charges. 

I follow a lawyer who was a former federal prosecutor who represented some J6 folks for free (because very few would help them) and he documented the abuse they went through and how the DC courts were so skewed against them.

[Hodad]

51 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Here is Krugman calling for the extermination of anyone claiming to be MAGA:

 

In case you are thinking I am being hyperbolic, pay close attention to the use of the word "purge". Then the direct correlation to denazification. The uneducated left (so most of them) will think denazification warranted murder of people in the Nazi party. So they will use that as justification to kill anyone they see as MAGA. 

Even if we treated MAGA like Nazis, we would have to suspend the first amendment and disregard all democratic principles. Yet, that is exactly what the perpetually wrong Krugman wants to do. He wants to force the populous to declare their loyalty to the Democratic party or be jailed for their political beliefs. He wants their political beliefs to be disqualifying for office.

Of course, he wants these things. he is losing in the realm of ideas so he wants to win in the realm of force. He would rather have an authoritarian, communist uniparty over a Republic that adheres to democratic principles and norms. 

You are farking delusional. He didn't even remotely imply killing. And he's just a private citizen. 

Meanwhile your Orange Overlord has explicitly and actively tried to overthrow democracy and purged non-loyalists from government through extraordinary and unprecedented means.  I wonder what word they used?
 

• President Donald Trump: "We’ll seek ’em out. We’ll get rid of ’em. At every agency you have scum... We need to make it much easier to fire rogue bureaucrats who are deliberately undermining democracy." – MSN / HuffPost Reporting on Agency Purges 
• American Accountability Foundation Watchlists: "If you see yourself on this list and wish to be removed, please forward us evidence that you've resigned or been fired." – Reuters Investigation into the "Subversive Worker" Purge 
• Chris Christie (On early Trump administration proposals): "One of the things I have suggested to Donald is that we have to immediately ask the Republican Congress to change the civil service laws. Because if they do, it will make it a lot easier to fire those people... [and] purge government of Obama appointees." – Reuters

 

 

[Hodad]

7 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Yes, it is a generalization. The Grandma represents harmless people and holding a sign represents a harmless thing. Most of the "convictions" involved harmless people doing harmless things and getting the maximum penalty. 

Bullshit. You're lying on both counts. Nobody was prosecuted for just standing outside. Nobody. And you think that's a generalization?  -- The only people prosecuted were those who broke into and marauded around the capitol and those who were violent or instigating outside of the capitol. 

And those who were guilty of lesser offenses were NOT given maximum sentences. They were given things like probation or home confinement. 

You are lying because the facts make it clear that there was no vindictive prosecution.

[User]

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

Bullshit. You're lying on both counts. Nobody was prosecuted for just standing outside. Nobody. And you think that's a generalization?  -- The only people prosecuted were those who broke into and marauded around the capitol and those who were violent or instigating outside of the capitol. 

And those who were guilty of lesser offenses were NOT given maximum sentences. They were given things like probation or home confinement. 

You are lying because the facts make it clear that there was no vindictive prosecution.

You are full of shit as always and too big a coward to face me. 

Couy Griffin

He did little more than stand outside. He was prosecuted for trespassing because the grounds were "protected" because the Vice President was there. 

Then you leftists engaged in more lawfare and had him removed from his local office because he was part of an insurrection. 

For doing nothing more than being outside standing there. No violence. No vandalism. No attacking LEO. Just standing there. 

This is the kind of lawfare you people engaged in/

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

Bullshit. You're lying on both counts. Nobody was prosecuted for just standing outside. Nobody. And you think that's a generalization?  -- The only people prosecuted were those who broke into and marauded around the capitol and those who were violent or instigating outside of the capitol. 

And those who were guilty of lesser offenses were NOT given maximum sentences. They were given things like probation or home confinement. 

You are lying because the facts make it clear that there was no vindictive prosecution.

You are full of shit as always and too big a coward to face me. 

Couy Griffin

He did little more than stand outside. He was prosecuted for trespassing because the grounds were "protected" because the Vice President was there. 

Then you leftists engaged in more lawfare and had him removed from his local office because he was part of an insurrection. 

For doing nothing more than being outside, standing there. No violence. No vandalism. No attacking LEO. Just standing there. 

This is the kind of lawfare you people engaged in/

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

Bullshit. You're lying on both counts. Nobody was prosecuted for just standing outside. Nobody. And you think that's a generalization?  -- The only people prosecuted were those who broke into and marauded around the capitol and those who were violent or instigating outside of the capitol. 

And those who were guilty of lesser offenses were NOT given maximum sentences. They were given things like probation or home confinement. 

You are lying because the facts make it clear that there was no vindictive prosecution.

You are full of shit as always and too big a coward to face me. 

Couy Griffin

He did little more than stand outside. He was prosecuted for trespassing because the grounds were "protected" because the Vice President was there. 

Then you leftists engaged in more lawfare and had him removed from his local office because he was part of an insurrection. 

For doing nothing more than being outside, standing there. No violence. No vandalism. No attacking LEO. Just standing there. 

This is the kind of lawfare you people engaged in/

[gatomontes99]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

You are farking delusional. He didn't even remotely imply killing. And he's just a private citizen. 

Then why do we keep getting shot at? Why are leftists doxing ICE agents and going after their families? Why did Benny Johnson have to evacuate his home and get police protection? Why were there 4 (or is it 5 now?) assassination attempts on Trump? Why is Charlie Kirk dead and his widow in hiding? 

 

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

Meanwhile your Orange Overlord has explicitly and actively tried to overthrow democracy and purged non-loyalists from government through extraordinary and unprecedented means.  I wonder what word they used?
 

• President Donald Trump: "We’ll seek ’em out. We’ll get rid of ’em. At every agency you have scum... We need to make it much easier to fire rogue bureaucrats who are deliberately undermining democracy." – MSN / HuffPost Reporting on Agency Purges 
• American Accountability Foundation Watchlists: "If you see yourself on this list and wish to be removed, please forward us evidence that you've resigned or been fired." – Reuters Investigation into the "Subversive Worker" Purge 
• Chris Christie (On early Trump administration proposals): "One of the things I have suggested to Donald is that we have to immediately ask the Republican Congress to change the civil service laws. Because if they do, it will make it a lot easier to fire those people... [and] purge government of Obama appointees." – Reuters

Wow. That was a lot of desperation there. Do you really want to compare personnel decisions to assassination attempts? 

[gatomontes99]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Bullshit. You're lying on both counts. Nobody was prosecuted for just standing outside. Nobody. And you think that's a generalization?  -- The only people prosecuted were those who broke into and marauded around the capitol and those who were violent or instigating outside of the capitol. 

And those who were guilty of lesser offenses were NOT given maximum sentences. They were given things like probation or home confinement. 

You are lying because the facts make it clear that there was no vindictive prosecution.

Actually, there were. But, as they say, it was a mostly peaceful protest.

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

There was no double talk. He used the same literary devices every other politician uses. 

Far from it. His speach was nothing but DOUBLE TALK

7 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Right. Because the Grandma that stood outside with a sign deserved 5 years in jail. Some of those persecutions were insane and vile. The pardons prove the DOJ overstepped the bounds of normalcy. 

Prove a "Grandma that stood outside with a sign" got 5 years. You know that's a FELONY sentence? 

AKA you're LYING.

7 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

 

Do you even hear yourself? 

Of course. Do YOU HEAR ME or Trump, lDIOT.

[gatomontes99]

48 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Far from it. His speach was nothing but DOUBLE TALK

Prove it. 

 

49 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Prove a "Grandma that stood outside with a sign" got 5 years. You know that's a FELONY sentence? 

AKA you're LYING.

Omg...do you people not know....like....ok it's like this. Some times people...normal people...use examples that are not real but represent the absurdity of the real examples.

Do y'all not speak human. Is that like a foreign language or something? 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Then why do we keep getting shot at? Why are leftists doxing ICE agents and going after their families? Why did Benny Johnson have to evacuate his home and get police protection? Why were there 4 (or is it 5 now?) assassination attempts on Trump? Why is Charlie Kirk dead and his widow in hiding? 

Because you're raging a-holes, and some people's tolerance for abuse is low than the threshold of your a-holishness?

(I say it snarkily, but its also true. This is actually a phenomenon that's been studied by political scientists for decades. There are charts and graphs. -- The more authoritarian Trump becomes--the greater the threat to democracy and justice-- the more people will rebel and lash out.)

 

Quote

Wow. That was a lot of desperation there. Do you really want to compare personnel decisions to assassination attempts? 

I didn't compare personnel decisions to assassination. I compared Trumpco's use of the word "purge" to Krugman's use of the word "purge." You brought up assassinations in ^^this reply. 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Omg...do you people not know....like....ok it's like this. Some times people...normal people...use examples that are not real but represent the absurdity of the real examples.

Do y'all not speak human. Is that like a foreign language or something? 

YOU LIED, just as I thought.

Quote

A 5-year prison sentence was not given to a "Grandma" for merely standing outside with a sign. However, this sentence length closely matches the case of Rachel Powell, a mother of eight and grandmother of six from Pennsylvania. [1, 2]

• The 5-year sentence: Rachel Powell ("the pink hat lady") was sentenced to 57 months (nearly 5 years) in federal prison after she was convicted of leading a breach into the Capitol, destroying property, and using a battering ram to smash a window. [1, 2, 3]
• The "Praying Grandma": Another high-profile elderly defendant, 72-year-old Rebecca Lavrenz (known online as the "J6 Praying Grandma"), avoided prison time entirely. She was sentenced to six months of home confinement, one year of probation, and a $103,000 fine for her misdemeanor convictions. [1, 2]
• The "MAGA Granny": Pamela Hemphill, dubbed the "MAGA Granny," pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and received 60 days in prison and 3 years of probation.

Why do you have to LIE all the time?

[gatomontes99]

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

Because you're raging a-holes, and some people's tolerance for abuse is low than the threshold of your a-holishness?

But you aren't fostering an environment in which murder is a valid expression of anger? 

 

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

(I say it snarkily, but its also true. This is actually a phenomenon that's been studied by political scientists for decades. There are charts and graphs. -- The more authoritarian Trump becomes--the greater the threat to democracy and justice-- the more people will rebel and lash out.)

Do you not see how you continually excuse the violence? You literally quoted some uncited study that said conservatives just deserve it. 

 

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

I didn't compare personnel decisions to assassination. I compared Trumpco's use of the word "purge" to Krugman's use of the word "purge." You brought up assassinations in ^^this reply. 

Krugman said we are Nazis and need to be purged. Trump said you are not loyal and need to be purged. Krugman used inflammatory rhetoric to elevate the urgency which justifies more extreme measures. Trump used causatory labels that imply job actions over violence. 

You can try to equivocate the two statements based on the single word, but the totality of each statement, when taken in context, are vastly different. You can see that. That is why you are desperately trying to distract from the context and pushing to focus on a single word. 

 

[gatomontes99]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

YOU LIED, just as I thought.

Why do you have to LIE all the time?

Your inability to grasp simple literary concepts astonishes me.  

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

But you aren't fostering an environment in which murder is a valid expression of anger? 

Like the Münchener Post was responsible for creating an environment in which people tried to assassinate someone. 🙄

Again, for the hundredth time, calling out bad actions and bad actors does not "create" any kind of environment. The people doing bad shit create that environment. 

If someone says, "Boy, it sure is hot today," do you berate them for making the weather hot? Jeebus.

Quote

Do you not see how you continually excuse the violence? You literally quoted some uncited study that said conservatives just deserve it. 

Again, you are a shameless liar. I did not excuse violence. Nor did I quote any study that said "conservatives just deserve it." 

Quote

Krugman said we are Nazis and need to be purged. Trump said you are not loyal and need to be purged. Krugman used inflammatory rhetoric to elevate the urgency which justifies more extreme measures. Trump used causatory labels that imply job actions over violence. 

You can try to equivocate the two statements based on the single word, but the totality of each statement, when taken in context, are vastly different. You can see that. That is why you are desperately trying to distract from the context and pushing to focus on a single word. 

Look, I know you read something on Twitter, but this is dumb. And I can't believe it's dragged on this long. 

1. YOU are the one who focused on the word "purged," and asked the rest of us to focus on it as well: "In case you are thinking I am being hyperbolic, pay close attention to the use of the word "purge." 

2. The purge of the Nazi party was also NOT the extermination of members. You're talking about fantasy. 

3. There is nothing in Krugman's statement about swearing loyalty to the Democratic party, or any of that nonsense you're spewing. It's literally just you ranting and lying. 

WTF are we doing here? Argue against something real, not your whack job fan fiction. 🙄

[Hodad]

7 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Actually, there were. But, as they say, it was a mostly peaceful protest.

No, they weren't. -- Trumps mob attacked police, smashed it's way into the seat of our legislature and hunted our lawmakers.

Again, the only people who were prosecuted were those who occupied the capitol, were violent outside or were instigating the rest. 

Your made up grandma with a sign bullshit is just that: pure bullshit.

[gatomontes99]

35 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Like the Münchener Post was responsible for creating an environment in which people tried to assassinate someone. 🙄

Again, for the hundredth time, calling out bad actions and bad actors does not "create" any kind of environment. The people doing bad shit create that environment. 

If someone says, "Boy, it sure is hot today," do you berate them for making the weather hot? Jeebus.

A more apropos metaphor would be blaming a woman for being raped because she wore a short dress. 

 

40 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Again, you are a shameless liar. I did not excuse violence. Nor did I quote any study that said "conservatives just deserve it." 

Then what does this mean? 

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

This is actually a phenomenon that's been studied by political scientists for decades.

 

41 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Look, I know you read something on Twitter, but this is dumb. And I can't believe it's dragged on this long. 

Projecting much? I saw the video and thought it was a perfect example for this thread. Why do you think I can't think for myself? Are you projecting? 

 

44 minutes ago, Hodad said:

1. YOU are the one who focused on the word "purged," and asked the rest of us to focus on it as well: "In case you are thinking I am being hyperbolic, pay close attention to the use of the word "purge." 

I focused on the word in context. You tried to focus on just the word and change the context. 

 

44 minutes ago, Hodad said:

2. The purge of the Nazi party was also NOT the extermination of members. You're talking about fantasy. 

That is why I said that the uneducated left will use it as permission to use violence. I know how denazification worked. I said that your side won't and implied that they will assume that denazification was a legal form of extermination. 

47 minutes ago, Hodad said:

3. There is nothing in Krugman's statement about swearing loyalty to the Democratic party, or any of that nonsense you're spewing. It's literally just you ranting and lying. 

It is implied. He wants a denazification style purge. The denazification process included surveys that were designed to determine the political party. Those that were believed to be Nazis or sympathizers were purged. That is, effectively, exactly what his entire thesis was. 

 

51 minutes ago, Hodad said:

WTF are we doing here? Argue against something real, not your whack job fan fiction. 🙄

What you call "whack job fan fiction" is your strawman summary of my thesis. My thesis is very simple: Krugman's rhetoric will inspire violence. If implemented, his de-MAGA-ification would suppress speech and seriously damage, if not destroy, the democratic principles that our Republic is based on. If you want to debate that, rather than your strawman fallacies, please feel free. 

 

43 minutes ago, Hodad said:

No, they weren't. -- Trumps mob attacked police, smashed it's way into the seat of our legislature and hunted our lawmakers.

Again, the only people who were prosecuted were those who occupied the capitol, were violent outside or were instigating the rest. 

Your made up grandma with a sign bullshit is just that: pure bullshit.

Reality: You are losing, miserably, so you glom onto the hyperbole as if I presented it as fact so you can feel like you've won something. 

[Hodad]

10 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

A more apropos metaphor would be blaming a woman for being raped because she wore a short dress. 

 

Really? In your metaphor, who is the short dress oppressing?  🙄
I had the right historical parallell.

 

Quote

Then what does this mean? 

WTF kind of question is that? It means exactly what it says: there's a field of political science dedicated to studying the drivers of political violence, including backlash against authoritarianism. As government extremism goes up, so does the likelihood of violent resistance.

Quote

Projecting much? I saw the video and thought it was a perfect example for this thread. Why do you think I can't think for myself? Are you projecting? 

Because most of what you post here are dumb takes from Twitter randos. The outrage algorithm feeds you a steady diet, and you shit it out here. I'm 100% certain you weren't following Krugman's Substack. Somebody else had a reaction to that video and you forwarded it on here.

Quote

I focused on the word in context. You tried to focus on just the word and change the context. 

 

Guess what, the context is the same: the speakers point to a certain kind of politics and the need to get it out of the system. Trump isn't talking about purging the air from his brake lines. 🙄

Quote

That is why I said that the uneducated left will use it as permission to use violence. I know how denazification worked. I said that your side won't and implied that they will assume that denazification was a legal form of extermination. 

OFFS, do you really want to talk about the education gap between the parties? That's not going to work out for you. Nobody is getting "permission" for anything from Paul Krugman, let alone political violence. It's not like he's the the POTUS siccing a howling mob on our legislators.

Quote

It is implied. He wants a denazification style purge. The denazification process included surveys that were designed to determine the political party. Those that were believed to be Nazis or sympathizers were purged. That is, effectively, exactly what his entire thesis was. 

Kinda funny that you see the political spectrum as binary: Democrat or MAGA. There's ample room on the political right for sane, non-MAGA politics, just as there were conservative politics and parties in Germany after denazification. The sane right has just been marginalized for the moment. 

Quote

What you call "whack job fan fiction" is your strawman summary of my thesis. My thesis is very simple: Krugman's rhetoric will inspire violence. If implemented, his de-MAGA-ification would suppress speech and seriously damage, if not destroy, the democratic principles that our Republic is based on. If you want to debate that, rather than your strawman fallacies, please feel free. 

This is your thesis: "Here is Krugman calling for the extermination of anyone claiming to be MAGA"

Which you go on to immediately clarify is not meant as hyperbole. lol  

And now, just a few posts later you want to totally retcon your thesis and make an entirely new argument. Instead of just moving the goal posts, you want to commute to a different stadium altogether. 

Since you've abandoned your original argument completely, I can assume we're done here. 

Quote

Reality: You are losing, miserably, so you glom onto the hyperbole as if I presented it as fact so you can feel like you've won something. 

You were caught red-handed cooking up a whole bunch of lies and called out for it. If that feels like "winning" to you, you're welcome to it. 🙄

[User]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

You were caught red-handed cooking up a whole bunch of lies and called out for it. If that feels like "winning" to you, you're welcome to it. 🙄

You don't get to pretend you are some tough, logical, and honest person on here anymore when you ran away and hid like the coward you are because I was calling you out for the shit you posted. 

[CdnFox]

39 minutes ago, User said:

You don't get to pretend you are some tough, logical, and honest person on here anymore when you ran away and hid like the coward you are because I was calling you out for the shit you posted. 

Honestly He wasn't successfully pretending he was some tough logical and honest person long before that

[gatomontes99]

 

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

Really? In your metaphor, who is the short dress oppressing?  🙄
I had the right historical parallell.

No one is being oppressed in America. Unless you are counting the Blue Terrorists that are trying to KILL ICE agent families. I am happy to oppress them. 

 

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

WTF kind of question is that? It means exactly what it says: there's a field of political science dedicated to studying the drivers of political violence, including backlash against authoritarianism. As government extremism goes up, so does the likelihood of violent resistance.

You said it didn't mean that. Make up your mind.

 

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

Because most of what you post here are dumb takes from Twitter randos. The outrage algorithm feeds you a steady diet, and you shit it out here. I'm 100% certain you weren't following Krugman's Substack. Somebody else had a reaction to that video and you forwarded it on here.

I actually have a ton of left wing pundits from the Young Turks, to politicians to Krugman. That is how I understand what you are thinking. Because you come on here parrat them. 

 

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

Guess what, the context is the same: the speakers point to a certain kind of politics and the need to get it out of the system. Trump isn't talking about purging the air from his brake lines. 🙄

The context is not the same. No normal person can view those two statements and think they are the same. 

 

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

OFFS, do you really want to talk about the education gap between the parties? That's not going to work out for you. Nobody is getting "permission" for anything from Paul Krugman, let alone political violence. It's not like he's the the POTUS siccing a howling mob on our legislators.

Among the very liberal, 25% say political violence can sometimes be justified

That number goes up the younger they get. And they are using this kind of rhetoric to justify killing people. 

Mangione was inspired by the Unabomber and liberals "who liberate us from the outdated aspects of our society that prevent us from being greater". He bought into the rhetoric that health insurance companies were killing people and used that to justify killing Mr. Thompson. 

Then there is Tyler Robinson who spewed the same lies you posted above: "I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out." 

There are probably a dozen examples just like this. 

4 hours ago, Hodad said:

This is your thesis: "Here is Krugman calling for the extermination of anyone claiming to be MAGA"

Which you go on to immediately clarify is not meant as hyperbole. lol  

And now, just a few posts later you want to totally retcon your thesis and make an entirely new argument. Instead of just moving the goal posts, you want to commute to a different stadium altogether. 

Since you've abandoned your original argument completely, I can assume we're done here. 

My statements align perfectly. He is calling for the extermination of MAGA. He knows what he is doing. You know what he is doing. He is demonizing the right and hoping that one of the peons will give up their life in furtherance of the cause. 

 

4 hours ago, Hodad said:

Really? In your metaphor, who is the short dress oppressing?  🙄
I had the right historical parallell.

 

WTF kind of question is that? It means exactly what it says: there's a field of political science dedicated to studying the drivers of political violence, including backlash against authoritarianism. As government extremism goes up, so does the likelihood of violent resistance.

Because most of what you post here are dumb takes from Twitter randos. The outrage algorithm feeds you a steady diet, and you shit it out here. I'm 100% certain you weren't following Krugman's Substack. Somebody else had a reaction to that video and you forwarded it on here.

Guess what, the context is the same: the speakers point to a certain kind of politics and the need to get it out of the system. Trump isn't talking about purging the air from his brake lines. 🙄

OFFS, do you really want to talk about the education gap between the parties? That's not going to work out for you. Nobody is getting "permission" for anything from Paul Krugman, let alone political violence. It's not like he's the the POTUS siccing a howling mob on our legislators.

Kinda funny that you see the political spectrum as binary: Democrat or MAGA. There's ample room on the political right for sane, non-MAGA politics, just as there were conservative politics and parties in Germany after denazification. The sane right has just been marginalized for the moment. 

This is your thesis: "Here is Krugman calling for the extermination of anyone claiming to be MAGA"

Which you go on to immediately clarify is not meant as hyperbole. lol  

And now, just a few posts later you want to totally retcon your thesis and make an entirely new argument. Instead of just moving the goal posts, you want to commute to a different stadium altogether. 

Since you've abandoned your original argument completely, I can assume we're done here. 

You were caught red-handed cooking up a whole bunch of lies and called out for it. If that feels like "winning" to you, you're welcome to it. 🙄

The sad thing is, I believe that you believe that. 

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

 

No one is being oppressed in America. Unless you are counting the Blue Terrorists that are trying to KILL ICE agent families. I am happy to oppress them. 

 

Tell that to the brown people being dragged from their houses and cars or abducted on the streets and flown across the country--not because of their immigration status, but simply because of their appearance. Tell it to the children afraid to go to school. 

Tell that to Black Americans, who are statistically more likely to be stopped, arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced longer for the exact same behaviors. 

Tell that to Black and female military officers who are being fired or aggressively deprioritized for promotions under Pet Hegseth.

Tell that to the to the transgender military personnel who have devoted themselves to service and whom Hegseth is aggressively targeting. 

Tell that to the public figures upon whom Trump has turned the force of government simply for speaking out against him. 

Tell that to the people affected by disparate impact once the disparate impact standards were dismantled. 

You can't even say with a straight face that Trump is not actively and aggressively using government to promote a White, Christian, conservative version of America, at the expense of everyone outside of those categories. 

 

Quote

You said it didn't mean that. Make up your mind.

 

You're going to have to muster up a complete though here. You asked what it meant. I explained what it meant--though no explanation should have been required as the language was quite plain and direct. 

 

Quote

I actually have a ton of left wing pundits from the Young Turks, to politicians to Krugman. That is how I understand what you are thinking. Because you come on here parrat them. 

Sure you do. That's why you delivered a twilight-zone version of what he actually said. 🙄

 

Quote

 

Among the very liberal, 25% say political violence can sometimes be justified

That number goes up the younger they get. And they are using this kind of rhetoric to justify killing people. 

Mangione was inspired by the Unabomber and liberals "who liberate us from the outdated aspects of our society that prevent us from being greater". He bought into the rhetoric that health insurance companies were killing people and used that to justify killing Mr. Thompson. 

And? The number goes up the more authoritarian and oppressive the government in power. -- Health insurance companies are definitely killing people. But there are more civilized ways to address that. 

 

Quote

My statements align perfectly. He is calling for the extermination of MAGA. He knows what he is doing. You know what he is doing. He is demonizing the right and hoping that one of the peons will give up their life in furtherance of the cause. 

lol. No, they don't. 

In statement one you claim that he is calling for the literal extermination of MAGA--mass murder. 
In statement two, you claim that his rhetoric could inspire violence and in practice could oppress free speech, etc.
Wildly different claims. 

The first is obviously and verifiably false. Just a lie you concocted.
The second is highly unlikely, but you never know what will inspire a crazy person. Sometimes it's Jodie Foster. 

You're really should just stop digging.