The All Things Political Topic - As a Bright Lord bears Beacons of flame.

[majestic]

23 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Rhodesians never die.

 

[Zoraptor]

43 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting that tear gas is a "war crime". *sigh* What a world.

You're free to use it on your civil population though, you just can't use it on enemy soldiers.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

Rhodesians never die.

 

2 hours ago, majestic said:

I think you guys are misunderstanding this debate and its important because its linked to not just  violence in many countries but the violence in some protests. Now Im sure you guys will agree that is wrong and can destroy families and harm societies depending on the level of the violence 

This is basic SJ 101 which we all learnt  because I remember it so I assume that means most of know this  

So Gfted1 and I are really have an important debate on  a certain manifestation of violence which is known as violent protests and this a real  SA narrative. 

Do you guys think you can have protests without violence? Its a real question and I am asking  you  guys specifically because of your life and journey 

[BruceVC]

39 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

You're free to use it on your civil population though, you just can't use it on enemy soldiers.

@Gfted1If Zora is right then we must keep it , remember we must always be prepared to deal with violent protestors and you never its important 

 

But I am sure tear gas is used extensively ?

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Do you guys think you can have protests without violence?

Yes. There are many examples of this.

[BruceVC]

2 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Yes. There are many examples of this.

Absolutely and you see protests all over the world that are peaceful like in the EU

And that is why I wanted to confirm we all on the page. Now you can see why I keep making the points about some BLM marches. All the protests that object about someone's guilt can be peaceful and that is what I was talking about with Gfted1, in Wisconsin the governor has ordered the national guard on standby because if Kyle is found innocent then their violent protests and looting 

And then I ask a question, dont you think this should  be  called out by left\liberals\democrat or at least someone publicly says what you mentioned " you can have peaceful protests '" ?  Malc that is most of the point, you can more as the left to just allow it to happen ?

 

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Absolutely and you see protests all over the world that are peaceful like in the EU

You have some very strange ideas about Europe sometimes... and no, not even going to share pictures from The Troubles or the war in Bosnia as that was riots that turned into full scale wars. Just recent stuff across Europe from the last few decades... and that is post the 70's riots against war in Vietnam etc.

I think you exaggerate the peacefulness of European protests. Did I mention when the Danes rose up in riots against the government when they announced a second Maastricht Treaty referendum? 10 people got shot by police in the street fights in Copenhagen in the 1990's, as they lost control of the situation.

[BruceVC]

3 minutes ago, Gorth said:

You have some very strange ideas about Europe sometimes... and no, not even going to share pictures from The Troubles or the war in Bosnia as that was riots that turned into full scale wars. Just recent stuff across Europe from the last few decades... and that is post the 70's riots against war in Vietnam etc.

I think you exaggerate the peacefulness of European protests. Did I mention when the Danes rose up in riots against the government when they announced a second Maastricht Treaty referendum? 10 people got shot by police in the street fights in Copenhagen in the 1990's, as they lost control of the situation.

Gorthfuscious stop being fastidious !!! You missing the point but I should have been clearer  Are you suggesting that their arent peaceful protests in the EU ? Please dont make me research this but really I was making the observation that you absolutely can have peaceful protests over important issues ?
You must agree with this surly and then the next part of this great epitome is the most important. Why cant you have peaceful BLM protests.....you can if its what protestors want? 

 

[Gorth]

34 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

You must agree with this surly and then the next part of this great epitome is the most important. Why cant you have peaceful BLM protests.....you can if its what protestors want?

I didn't check, but if your claim is that, there are no peaceful "BLM", did you ever try to find an example of a peaceful demonstration. What does it take to be labeled a BLM protest anyway, the people participating or the cause they are championing, i.e. something needs to be done about systemic racism? Did Martin Luther King's demonstrations qualify as BLM riots in your view? Should he and his followers have been thrown behind bars right away. He would make a nice companion prison mate to Mandela I would think.

Did the protesters intend violence? You seem to take that as a hard fact without questioning it, they they can't demonstrate against a century of oppression and police brutality without getting violent.

Did other groups join the demonstrations despite regardless of what purpose they have, because they had their own agendas? Including political agendas and simple "smash window, grab all the iPhones" agendas because the demonstration provides cover for their actions? If you want, I can show other demonstrations, which got "infiltrated" by outside interests (Hong Kong springs to mind).

Not that that's the case every time by any means, but you seem to have closed your mind completely to the idea that black people can demonstrate peacefully even if they aren't co-opted by other groups (who have no interest in things remaining peaceful).

 

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

I didn't check, but if your claim is that, there are no peaceful "BLM", did you ever try to find an example of a peaceful demonstration. What does it take to be labeled a BLM protest anyway, the people participating or the cause they are championing, i.e. something needs to be done about systemic racism? Did Martin Luther King's demonstrations qualify as BLM riots in your view? Should he and his followers have been thrown behind bars right away. He would make a nice companion prison mate to Mandela I would think.

Did the protesters intend violence? You seem to take that as a hard fact without questioning it, they they can't demonstrate against a century of oppression and police brutality without getting violent.

Did other groups join the demonstrations despite regardless of what purpose they have, because they had their own agendas? Including political agendas and simple "smash window, grab all the iPhones" agendas because the demonstration provides cover for their actions? If you want, I can show other demonstrations, which got "infiltrated" by outside interests (Hong Kong springs to mind).

Not that that's the case every time by any means, but you seem to have closed your mind completely to the idea that black people can demonstrate peacefully even if they aren't co-opted by other groups (who have no interest in things remaining peaceful).

 

I see you  not aware of the problems with BLM and many of their protests, I assumed you did but I will explain  it as it not really about what you think. Also this post is unusual for you because you normally dont make assumptions about what I  know or think or what is  the issue. I will respond to these assumptions because each one is not related to the issue  .....in future just  ask me what you not sure about for example " do I think black people can protest peacefully ' 

Ironically its not about race, the violent BLM protests have plenty of white people who involved in violence and Antifa. The Kyle shooting was about white people but saying all that we wont know the racial demographics until the actual protest but I didnt think  this about black people until you mentioned it. And SA is 85 % black and for years we have had   thousands of protests and many protests arent violent so obviously I know you can have peaceful protests with black people. Please believe me when I am say I am not raising this because of any reason except for what concerns me 

The concern and issue is basically  how many BLM are started nowadays , they dont protest similar to any of the historical protests that you mentioned like Civil rights but thanks for unintentionally supporting my view because those protests were effective, they made sense and they had objectives that were achievable 

But many of the BLM protests dont have the same clear reasons and the fact that BLM has no leadership structure like Martin Luther King is part of the problem. How can you have an effective movement with no leadership because who drives the policies and who takes accountability for things

And the actual issue is BLM protestors decide before the jury have  even been created that someone is guilty of an accusation or crime. And this system of protesting makes no sense  because  I dont know  one example of anywhere  in the world where numerous verdicts in a court  you disagree with means you now can ignore how peaceful protests wok

 

 

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

[ComradeYellow]

https://eng.belta.by/society/view/russian-communist-party-condemns-polands-policy-towards-refugees-145206-2021/

Very interesting, and contrasts heavily with Die Linke (German communists).  Last I checked Die Linke actually took a more tougher stance against immigration, in an effort to curb the rise of right wing extremism.  Yet interestingly enough, Die Linke isn't doing so well in the German elections recently, yet the KPRF seems to be gaining steam so who knows.

Bad time to be a European all-around I guess xD

[Gromnir]

...

our response to senator kennedy and any republican (or anybody else for that matter) not condemning the politician from louisiana this day:

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by Gromnir

[rjshae]

On 11/16/2021 at 4:02 PM, BruceVC said:

But I am sure tear gas is used extensively ?

Tear gas was the first chemical attack used in WW1. It was deployed by the French in August, 1914.

[Gromnir]

HA! Good Fun!

[ComradeYellow]

4 hours ago, rjshae said:

Tear gas was the first chemical attack used in WW1. It was deployed by the French in August, 1914.

Yeah but the Germans were the first to deploy lethal chlorine gas.  It was so haphazard and prototypical at the time that the first attacks actually caused large amounts of friendly casualties when the wind shifted backwards.

And I have a hunch that if half of these Republicans actually knew what Communism was, they might be a bit more interested than constantly throwing the accusation at aging aging old fart Democrats.  It reminds me of someone calling everyone gay all the time, it comes to a point where it says more about them than the target...

[Gorth]

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

HA! Good Fun!

That video... my first response was a burst of laugh. But then realization sets in that this, is actually real, people like that exists and felt more like crying for humanity.

[Agiel]

 

Quote

 

The Republican Party Is Now in Its End Stages

The GOP has become, in form if not in content, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of the late 1970s.

by Tom Nichols

We are living in a time of bad metaphors. Everything is fascism, or socialism; Hitler’s Germany, or Stalin’s Soviet Union. Republicans, especially, want their followers to believe that America is on the verge of a dramatic time, a moment of great conflict such as 1968—or perhaps, even worse, 1860. (The drama is the point, of course. No one ever says, “We’re living through 1955.”)

Ironically, the GOP is indeed replicating another political party in another time, but not as the heroes they imagine themselves to be. The Republican Party has become, in form if not in content, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of the late 1970s.

I can already hear the howls about invidious comparisons. I do not mean that modern American Republicans are communists. Rather, I mean that the Republicans have entered their own kind of end-stage Bolshevism, as members of a party that is now exhausted by its failures, cynical about its own ideology, authoritarian by reflex, controlled as a personality cult by a failing old man, and looking for new adventures to rejuvenate its fortunes.

No one thinks much about the Soviet Union in the late 1970s, and no one really should. This was a time referred to by the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, as the vremia zastoia—“the era of stagnation.” By that point, the Soviet Communist Party was a spent force, and ideological conviction was mostly for chumps and fanatics. A handful of party ideologues and the senior officers of the Soviet military might still have believed in “Marxism-Leninism”—the melding of aspirational communism to one-party dictatorship—but by and large, Soviet citizens knew that the party’s formulations about the rights of all people were just window dressing for rule by a small circle of old men in the Kremlin.

“The party” itself was not a party in any Western sense, but a vehicle for a cabal of elites, with a cult of personality at its center. The Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev was an utterly mediocre man, but by the late 1970s he had cemented his grip on the Communist Party by elevating opportunists and cronies around him who insisted, publicly and privately, that Brezhnev was a heroic genius. Factories and streets and even a city were named for him, and he promoted himself to the top military rank of “Marshal of the Soviet Union.” He awarded himself so many honors and medals that, in a common Soviet joke of the time, a small earthquake in Moscow was said to have been caused by Brezhnev’s medal-festooned military overcoat falling off its hanger.

The elite leaders of this supposedly classless society were corrupt plutocrats, a mafia dressed in Marxism. The party was infested by careerists, and its grip on power was defended by propagandists who used rote phrases such as “real socialism” and “Western imperialism” so often that almost anyone could write an editorial in Pravda or Red Star merely by playing a kind of Soviet version of Mad Libs. News was tightly controlled. Soviet radio, television, and newspaper figures plowed on through stories that were utterly detached from reality, regularly extolling the successes of Soviet agriculture even as the country was forced to buy food from the capitalists (including the hated Americans).

Members of the Communist Party who questioned anything, or expressed any sign of unorthodoxy, could be denounced by name, or more likely, simply fired. They would not be executed—this was not Stalinism, after all—but some were left to rot in obscurity in some make-work exile job, eventually retiring as a forgotten “Comrade Pensioner.” The deal was clear: Pump the party’s nonsense and enjoy the good life, or squawk and be sent to manage a library in Kazakhstan.

Like Brezhnev, Trump has grown in status to become a heroic figure among his supporters. If the Republicans could create the rank of “Marshal of the American Republic” and strike a medal for a “Hero of American Culture,” Trump would have them both by now.

A GOP that once prided itself on its intellectual debates is now ruled by the turgid formulations of what the Soviets would have called their “leading cadres,” including ideological watchdogs such as Tucker Carlson and Mark Levin. Like their Soviet predecessors, a host of dull and dogmatic cable outlets, screechy radio talkers, and poorly written magazines crank out the same kind of fill-in-the-blanks screeds full of delusional accusations, replacing “NATO” and “revanchism” with “antifa” and “radicalism.”

Falling in line, just as in the old Communist Party, is rewarded, and independence is punished. The anger directed at Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger makes the stilted ideological criticisms of last century’s Soviet propagandists seem almost genteel by comparison. (At least Soviet families under Brezhnev didn’t add three-page handwritten denouncements to official party reprimands.)

This comparison is more than a metaphor; it is a warning. A dying party can still be a dangerous party. The Communist leaders in those last years of political sclerosis arrayed a new generation of nuclear missiles against NATO, invaded Afghanistan, tightened the screws on Jews and other dissidents, lied about why they shot down a civilian 747 airliner, and, near the end, came close to starting World War III out of sheer paranoia.

The Republican Party is, for now, more of a danger to the United States than to the world. But like the last Soviet-era holdouts in the Kremlin, its cadres are growing more aggressive and paranoid. They blame spies and provocateurs for the Capitol riot, and they are obsessed with last summer’s protests (indeed, they are fixated on all criminals and rioters other than their own) to a point that now echoes the old Soviet lingo about “antisocial elements” and “hooligans.” They blame their failures at the ballot box not on their own shortcomings, but on fraud and sabotage as the justification for a redoubled crackdown on democracy.

Another lesson from all this history is that the Republicans have no path to reform. Like their Soviet counterparts, their party is too far gone. Gorbachev tried to reform the Soviet Communist Party, and he remains reviled among the Soviet faithful to this day. Similar efforts by the remaining handful of reasonable Republicans are unlikely to fare any better. The Republican Party, to take a phrase from the early Soviet leader Leon Trotsky, should now be deposited where it belongs: in the “dustbin of history.”

 

On that note, I will addend this with a quote from Hyman G. Rickover, which is displayed on a plaque in (funnily enough) Rickover Hall at Annapolis:

Quote

"Any healthy organization can survive individual divergencies, and may even profit from them. Compulsory unification of opinion can only achieve the unanimity of the graveyard."

Edited November 19, 2021 by Agiel

[ComradeYellow]

Yeah but the Democratic Party is that same thing, there's the real kicker.

 as members of a party that is now exhausted by its failures, cynical about its own ideology, authoritarian by reflex, controlled as a personality cult by a failing old man, and looking for new adventures to rejuvenate its fortunes

Can that not also describe Biden and his cohorts?  Both parties are f*d tbh

[Gromnir]

12 minutes ago, ComradeYellow said:

Yeah but the Democratic Party is that same thing, there's the real kicker.

 as members of a party that is now exhausted by its failures, cynical about its own ideology, authoritarian by reflex, controlled as a personality cult by a failing old man, and looking for new adventures to rejuvenate its fortunes

Can that not also describe Biden and his cohorts?  Both parties are f*d tbh

good one.

obviously you are making a funny by suggesting  a mirror universe version o' the democrats, 'cause the real world version needed republicans to get infrastructure passed seeing as how progressives wouldn't fall in line and you is obvious referencing an alternate reality if joe biden is the head o' a personality cult. joe biden?

...

haven't checked in the last couple days, so perhaps joe is indeed sporting new facial hair. 

mr. comrade, present your agonizer.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Agiel]

@ComradeYellow

You perhaps live in some alternate reality in which two members of the Democratic Caucus in the US Senate refused to toe the line on the initial $3.5 trillion bill and the Biden administration had to forlornly acquiesce to their demands for a severely cut down bill, rather than having them airbrushed from party photos and sending a bill for the bullet to their widows. Or maybe you missed all the Bernie Sanders "Hindsight 2020" shirts out there.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Agiel

[ComradeYellow]

Eh, I just don't see much hope for either party tbh, at least alone.  I generally agree with Dems on social issues but not on issues like gun control and excessive government meddling.

So maybe that 3rd party I've been bringing up for *looks at watch* over 2 years now to form a reasonable coalition could actually get some things accomplished?  Yet people still seem to have partisan sticks up their butts.

[Gromnir]

am gonna concede am surprised by the alternate reality many democrats have been embracing since the 2020 elections. republicans, particular at state level, made significant gains down ballot. this shoulda' been recognized as a warning sign, but somehow many democrats thought they had achieved a kinda national mandate. when a law and order candidate became the democrat choice for nyc mayor, beating progressives, many democrats still failed to take heed. 

white women, particular educated white women, helped beat trump. independents in arizona and other swing states helped defeat trump. the thing is, dislike trump is not same as approval of democrats. 

contrary to comrade's belief, democrats are not holding tenacious to a bankrupt ideology while those who question the party leader are functional banished. the progressives who voted against infrastructure are not being singled out by fellow democrats for retribution. and part o' the problem for democrats is they don't have a leader and is no unified message they can sell to soccer moms, fence straddling independents and the increasingly rare open-minded moderate democrats and republicans. biden were a compromise candidate and not a unifying force.

recall that during the 2020 election we had hardcore trumpers posting frequent, and if you listened to them you would think the democrats were bsg cylons, intent on subverting all our institutions from within in an effort to bring about their apocalyptic vision.

utter hornswoggle. 

the thing is, the writers and producers o' bsg would later admit they never had a "plan." making it up as they went along. is the one way in which cylons and democrats is alike. the democrats is still trying to formulate an agenda but most 'o them want to do something to improve the lives of americans, they just can't agree on how to do it.

2021 republicans sell fear, embrace grievance and literal indulge idolatry. they don't have a plan for americans, but unlike democrats, they do have a plan... will get to that in a moment. 

an f'ing magic wand is so appropriate for their golden calf, 'cause only way to explain how trump would achieve his promises is if you also believed he could magic change the constitution and conjure up a new world economy. 

democrats can't get their act together? such is disappointing if you are a democrat and reassuring to gd, but is not the kinda thing which leads to insurrections and/or invalidates elections. unfortunate, too many people still haven't realized how close we were to having another 1876 crisis, but the republicans are aware, and they have a plan. a handful o' republican bureaucrats and judges kept faith and so the actual 2020 election results were ratified. obvious response shoulda' been to make sure such could never happen again, yes? never again would fair elections depend on so few to do right instead of doing political expedient.  unfortunate, actual response has been an effort to change a handful of laws and  to make certain the republicans in key positions are loyal to the party instead of the Constitution. 

is so not a they are all the same situation.

HA! Good Fun!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

7 hours ago, Agiel said:

 

On that note, I will addend this with a quote from Hyman G. Rickover, which is displayed on a plaque in (funnily enough) Rickover Hall at Annapolis:

If the Republican party collapsed today, it'd be over a decade too late. Unfortunately, I've been hearing pronouncements of the imminent death of the GOP sine at least 2012 and it hasn't stuck. I think those of yall who don't live in a Republican state don't really understand how entrenched they are. The GOP is more like a vampire than the CPSU, rather than collapsing because of contradictions within itself it's only going to be destroyed by figuratively driving a stake through its heart and cutting off the head. The Democrats aren't up to the task of disassembling the monster, even in the face of an attempted coup they are either unwilling or unable, so the Republican party will continue to rise from it's coffin to terrorize the world.

If the GOP does collapse in 20 years or so, it's more likely that it happens because climate change has pushed the world into dystopia than because the GOP's bull**** finally having consequences.

[Amentep]

I think the only way the GOP collapses is if a third party takes hold and is able to stake out an approach that results in their membership pulling heavily from the party.  Because as long as people keep pouring money into the GOP party, there's nothing that's going to stop it (it may be rendered inept by party infighting, but only lack of money to operate would really do anything, as I see it).

I may be misremembering, but I seem to recall that historically every collapse of a major US party has coincided with the rise of a new party that ends up replacing the former party (or an upstart party that gains major traction quickly then loses it a few election cycles later).