Jump to content

The Joe Biden Presidency Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 78.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mr. Hoopah!

    10046

  • AF89

    7025

  • WhenFalconsWin

    4543

  • Jdrizzle

    4139

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Seems like rescuing dogs during lockdown is a thing around here. It happened to us this past week. This guy wandered up dirty and skinny, playing with my daughter in the front yard. After a few days o

Posted Images

5 hours ago, Carter said:

There's plenty to bring up with Tulsi that I don't like and think she should be called out for.

Maybe I'm reading your post wrong but if you want to get defensive over Kamala Harris garbage record as a prosecutor and AG in California... I guess that's your prerogative. I'm glad someone on that stage had the spine to call her out. It's unfortunate imo that people actually expect her and Joe Biden to address criminal justice reform. She fought tooth and nail in California to uphold wrongful convictions and suppress stories from open records about how the state covered up police misconduct. But the important thing is to just shut up and support them I guess.

Isn’t that the job of law and order? 

And I don’t see a whole half a page talking about the record of Tulsi that you wrote her either. 

I am tired of folks looking for perfection on one side but not on the other especially after his last administration so forgive me for no longer giving a $hit like y’all always did. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ya_boi_j said:

I don’t know why I read that story. I don’t know what DM means, I have no idea what the fuss with her replying Aww is, and I don’t even see what “Jets” said to illicit said reply. Furthermore, I don’t know why the article then followed up with a bunch of selfies of the article subject with pseudo intellectual words of wisdom and/or support, I don’t think she’s a 10, and I really don’t understand why someone would name their kid after a color and grossly misspell it just to do so. 
 

Am I old?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Porkins said:

I don’t know why I read that story. I don’t know what DM means, I have no idea what the fuss with her replying Aww is, and I don’t even see what “Jets” said to illicit said reply. Furthermore, I don’t know why the article then followed up with a bunch of selfies of the article subject with pseudo intellectual words of wisdom and/or support, I don’t think she’s a 10, and I really don’t understand why someone would name their kid after a color and grossly misspell it just to do so. 
 

Am I old?

HeIl yea!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this copypasta on Reddit.

Trump is a conservative and republicans are the party of conservatism. Fascism is just conservatism with more violence. Here’s my copypasta analysis.

Conservatism has the singular goal of maintaining an aristocracy that inherits political power and pushing everyone else down the ladder to create an under class. Secondary to that is a morality based on a person’s status as good or bad rather than their actions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4CI2vk3ugk

https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/agre/conservatism.html

There is a key difference between conservatives and others that is often overlooked or not clearly articulated. For liberals, actions are good, bad, moral, etc and people are judged based on their actions. For conservatives, people are good, bad, moral, etc and such status of the person is what dictates how an action is viewed.

In the world view of the actual conservative leadership - those with true wealth or political power - , the aristocracy is moral by definition and the working class is immoral by definition and deserving of punishment for that immorality. This is where the laws don't apply trope comes from. The aristocracy doesn't need laws since they are inherently moral. This is also why people can be wealthy and looked down on: if Bill Gates tries to help the poor or improve worker rights he is working against the aristocracy.

If we extend analysis to the voter base: Conservatives view other conservatives as moral and good by the state of being labeled conservative because they adhere to status morality and social classes. It's the ultimate virtue signaling. They signal to each other that they are inherently moral. It’s why voter base conservatives think “so what” whenever any of these ******** do nasty anti democratic things.

To them Donald Trump is a good person. The conservative isn’t lying or being a hypocrite or even being "unfair" because - and this is key - for conservatives past actions have no bearing on current actions and current actions have no bearing on future actions. Lindsey Graham is "good" so he says to delay SCOTUS confirmations that is good. When he says to move forward: that is good.

To reiterate: All that matters to conservatives is the intrinsic moral state of the actor. Obama was intrinsically immoral and therefore any action on his part was “bad.” Going further - Trump, or the media rebranding we call Mitt Romney, or Moscow Mitch are all intrinsically moral and therefore they can’t do “bad” things.

While a liberal would see a fair or moral or immoral action and judge the person undertaking the action, a conservative sees a fair or good person and applies the fair status to the action. To the conservative, a conservative who did something illegal or something that would be bad on the part of someone else - must have been doing good. Simply because they can’t do bad.

A consequence of the central goal of conservatism and the corresponding actor state morality is that primary political goals are to do nothing when problems come up and to dismantle labor and consumer protections. The non-aristocratic are immoral and inherently deserve punishment. They want the working class to get ****** by global warming. They want people to die from COVID19. Etc.

Why do the conservative voters seem to vote against their own interest? Why do so many seem to dense? Why does /selfawarewolves and /leopardsatemyface happen? They simply think they are higher on the social ladder than they really are and want to punish those below them because being below them had made them immoral.

Absolutely everything conservatives say and do makes sense when applying the above.

 We also need to address popular definitions of conservatism which are personal responsibility and incremental change: neither of those makes sense applied to policy issues, especially incremental issues.

This year a few women can vote, next year a few more, until in 100 years all women can vote?

This year a few kids can stop working in mines, next year a few more...

We should test the waters of COVID relief by sending a 1200 dollar check to 500 families. If that goes well well do 1500 families next month.

But it’s all in when they want to separate migrant families to punish them. It’s all in when they want to invade the Middle East for literal generations.

The incremental change argument is asinine. It’s propaganda to avoid concessions to labor.

The personal responsibility argument falls apart with the whole "keep government out of my medicare thing." Personal responsibility just means I deserve free things, but people more poor than me don't."

Which is in line with the main body of my comment. Look: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U

 And for good measure I found this guys video and sources interesting on an overlapping topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vymeTZkiKD0

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Porkins said:

I don’t know why I read that story. I don’t know what DM means, I have no idea what the fuss with her replying Aww is, and I don’t even see what “Jets” said to illicit said reply. Furthermore, I don’t know why the article then followed up with a bunch of selfies of the article subject with pseudo intellectual words of wisdom and/or support, I don’t think she’s a 10, and I really don’t understand why someone would name their kid after a color and grossly misspell it just to do so. 
 

Am I old?

Yeah you're old as ****

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Carter said:

A lot of people are going to know someone who died from covid before this is over. :( 

 

6 hours ago, AF89 said:

I mean like the SEC is bout to cancel it's entire weekend but on the other hand the election is over so this is all "going away"

Sooooo...... you guys didn't get the Biden supporter antifa email? Covid is over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, lostone said:

Found this copypasta on Reddit.

Trump is a conservative and republicans are the party of conservatism. Fascism is just conservatism with more violence. Here’s my copypasta analysis.

Conservatism has the singular goal of maintaining an aristocracy that inherits political power and pushing everyone else down the ladder to create an under class. Secondary to that is a morality based on a person’s status as good or bad rather than their actions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4CI2vk3ugk

https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/agre/conservatism.html

There is a key difference between conservatives and others that is often overlooked or not clearly articulated. For liberals, actions are good, bad, moral, etc and people are judged based on their actions. For conservatives, people are good, bad, moral, etc and such status of the person is what dictates how an action is viewed.

In the world view of the actual conservative leadership - those with true wealth or political power - , the aristocracy is moral by definition and the working class is immoral by definition and deserving of punishment for that immorality. This is where the laws don't apply trope comes from. The aristocracy doesn't need laws since they are inherently moral. This is also why people can be wealthy and looked down on: if Bill Gates tries to help the poor or improve worker rights he is working against the aristocracy.

If we extend analysis to the voter base: Conservatives view other conservatives as moral and good by the state of being labeled conservative because they adhere to status morality and social classes. It's the ultimate virtue signaling. They signal to each other that they are inherently moral. It’s why voter base conservatives think “so what” whenever any of these ******** do nasty anti democratic things.

To them Donald Trump is a good person. The conservative isn’t lying or being a hypocrite or even being "unfair" because - and this is key - for conservatives past actions have no bearing on current actions and current actions have no bearing on future actions. Lindsey Graham is "good" so he says to delay SCOTUS confirmations that is good. When he says to move forward: that is good.

To reiterate: All that matters to conservatives is the intrinsic moral state of the actor. Obama was intrinsically immoral and therefore any action on his part was “bad.” Going further - Trump, or the media rebranding we call Mitt Romney, or Moscow Mitch are all intrinsically moral and therefore they can’t do “bad” things.

While a liberal would see a fair or moral or immoral action and judge the person undertaking the action, a conservative sees a fair or good person and applies the fair status to the action. To the conservative, a conservative who did something illegal or something that would be bad on the part of someone else - must have been doing good. Simply because they can’t do bad.

A consequence of the central goal of conservatism and the corresponding actor state morality is that primary political goals are to do nothing when problems come up and to dismantle labor and consumer protections. The non-aristocratic are immoral and inherently deserve punishment. They want the working class to get ****** by global warming. They want people to die from COVID19. Etc.

Why do the conservative voters seem to vote against their own interest? Why do so many seem to dense? Why does /selfawarewolves and /leopardsatemyface happen? They simply think they are higher on the social ladder than they really are and want to punish those below them because being below them had made them immoral.

Absolutely everything conservatives say and do makes sense when applying the above.

 We also need to address popular definitions of conservatism which are personal responsibility and incremental change: neither of those makes sense applied to policy issues, especially incremental issues.

This year a few women can vote, next year a few more, until in 100 years all women can vote?

This year a few kids can stop working in mines, next year a few more...

We should test the waters of COVID relief by sending a 1200 dollar check to 500 families. If that goes well well do 1500 families next month.

But it’s all in when they want to separate migrant families to punish them. It’s all in when they want to invade the Middle East for literal generations.

The incremental change argument is asinine. It’s propaganda to avoid concessions to labor.

The personal responsibility argument falls apart with the whole "keep government out of my medicare thing." Personal responsibility just means I deserve free things, but people more poor than me don't."

Which is in line with the main body of my comment. Look: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U

 And for good measure I found this guys video and sources interesting on an overlapping topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vymeTZkiKD0

Reddit is rotting your mind from the inside out.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...