11.2 million. That’s the number of American citizens who rank climate change as their top issue but didn’t vote in the 2024 election, according to research by the Environmental Voter Project. For context, Donald Trump won the presidency in 2024 by less than 2.3 million votes. For a little over a decade, EVP has been [...]Read More... from If So Many Americans Care About Climate, Why Don’t They Vote Like It?
Yeah, I mean, you basically get it, you just think Trump is somehow special. Biden authored the Crime Bill, Clinton put it into law, they ruined millions of lives, mostly of black Americans. Obama/Biden and HRC created an absolutely massive crisis in Libya by funding, arming, training, and coordinating a terroristic “resistance” and then used NATO to bomb the most prosperous country in Africa into devastation where they now openly sell human slaves. The Ukraine situation requires you to imagine history started a few years ago - Bill Clinton openly and public wanted to include Russia in NATO, even after Putin took office. Hell, Clinton was instrumental in legitimizing Putin. The invasion of Ukraine is not something Trump caused and it’s not something he can end. If you have ever studied proxy conflicts like this one, the way you end the bloodshed is by surrendering and signing a treaty. The way you kill more people is by funneling more guns and mercenaries into the proxy. We’ve known this for decades. The US military literally justified some of its proxy wars with Youth Bulge Theory, stating that when there’s too many MAMs (military-aged males) that they could pose a threat to stability so it’s important to get ahead of youth bulges, create the conflicts before they become something we can’t control, and let the conflict kill off the youth bulge. The US is fucking sick.
As for everything else you listed, there’s an equally deadly Democrat equivalent. The embargo on Cuba means that the Cuban vaccine that prevents lung cancer is completely unavailable in the US. Democrats have deported/repatriated more people than Republicans have over the last 25 years. And the reason those immigrants are coming to us in the first place is because of bi-partisan destruction of South American and African countries.
I can’t respond to every conspiracy but, black communities supported the crime bill as well, when it turned out it was harming black communities it should have been repealed, but Biden doesn’t have the benefit of hindsight to know not to support the bill. It’s also much harder to repeal a bad bill than to create it.
I guess you can conveniently leave out why we and nato did all that, that’s pretty good faith
From Wikipedia
US foreign policy has always been atrocious, that has nothing to do with whether a party is fascist or not. If you want to say both parties have terrible foreign policy I would agree, but the Republicans canceling USAID, tearing up the Iran nuclear deal, and supporting Russia is clearly MUCH worse than what dems were doing.
Yes I agree legitimizing putin was a mistake, but you’re again using hindsight glasses, we didn’t realize he would be a warmonger dictator and thought we could open the door to good relations.
Weird how Russia still has not taken over Ukraine in what, 3 years? even without us aiding Ukraine. Imagine what it would look like if ukraine had US military tech at their disposal. I wonder if you’d have the same opinion that China should just surrender to the US if we invaded them unprovoked? They have no chance of winning so they should just give up, and anyone offering China aid is just causing needless death. The rest is a conspiracy theory so I can’t debunk it other than pointing to the actual reasons we went to war (propaganda, hating brown people, and a few times actual terrorism)
Oh wow true it would be really bad if the US stopped vaccines and also invaded a country and took their leader, like with government sponsored vaccine denial, the head of the DHS being a vaccine denialist, USAID being canceled, and the Venezuelan president being taken. Every example you have from the dems Republicans have done 10 fold, and at least with the dem policy there is a reason behind it, even if the result is disastrous. The Republican version is just “time to cut all research and foreign aid and vaccines and attack Mexicans because fox news told me to.” It’s like a vote between actual Hitler and George Bush, Bush sucks but this is not even a choice. The gutting of USAID alone will cause more deaths and suffering than anything the dems have done in the past 40 years.
US foreign policy has always been atrocious, that has nothing to do with whether a party is fascist or not.
This is essentially what it boils down to. You think that the citizens of the USA going through the oppression of domestic policy isn’t fascism, but making it worse is fascism, but whatever the US does to other people can’t ever qualify as fascism.
Essentially, you believe fascism is aesthetics. Why did Nazism emerge? To be evil domestically? No. The domestic policy of the Nazis was a specific strategy to create a strong nationalism that would motivate the people of Germany to energize the Nazi’s foreign policy. Demonizing undesirables wasn’t the goal, it was the means to the goal. The goal was to subjugate the Slavs under an American-style apartheid occupation where the domestic population was sufficiently bonded through nationalism and xenophobia that they would energize the policies of the Third Reich to dominate others.
America is and always has been a fascist state. If you think Trump is bad you should study Jefferson. The entire American project is a genocidal Christian nationalist apartheid occupation of land they took by force. In so far as the Democrats continue mass murdering and genocidal policies, they are administering a fascist state. In so far as Republicans are purging the military of people who aren’t sufficiently willing to commit violence for the shared foreign policy aims of the elite, they are administering a fascist state. Obama is and was a fascist, and just like every politician before him, the good things he gave the people were a concession from the elite to the working class in exchange for their passivity and their willingness to energize the fascist state that is the USA.
I guess you can conveniently leave out why we and nato did all that, that’s pretty good faith
I need you to understand that this [the destruction of Libya] was illegal under international law and entirely illegitimate. There is no doctrine, except imperialism and fascism, where it is acceptable to destroy an entire country because a leader was behaving in a way domestically that we find morally objectionable. We don’t even need to get into the constant manufacturing of consent and how the assessment of Gaddafi’s actions may have been the result of propaganda. Even if we accept literally everything as true, it’s still a fascistic move to do what the US did. It’s literally unjustifiable. The fact that a liberal like you is willing to defend these actions is a sign of just how powerful the fascist propaganda is.
And it’s not like this wasn’t the analysis even before Obama. Clinton’s decision to use NATO to attack Yugoslavia was the world’s first ever “war for humanitarian intervention”. It was never acceptable to do that, and when Clinton did it there was a huge contingent of us that screamed that this was expanding the remit of the fascist USA to launch preemptive wars. And then what happened? Bush 2 expanded the remit even further and we screamed that this was bad. And what were we told? That this was a “Republican” problem and that we just need to vote D. And we didn’t believe it then either. So Obama gets elected and what happens? He goes even further in expanding the remit of the mass murder machine of the fascist empire of the USA.
It’s a non-stop death march. It’s been a non-stop death march since before the founding of the USA. It’s the same unending genocidal death march of European empire. It will never stop until we stop it. And we don’t stop it by voting in the controlled opposition that continuously expands the fascist state and enlists the citizens in energizing its fascist project.
It is is a dismissal of the others arguments based on nothing but the perceived character of the arguments/the person making the argument. It is an ad hominem. You are in no way engaging with anything the other says, instead you are relying on a simple attack on character. That is an ad hominem.
If the statements are conspiracy theories then it would do well to prove such an assertion. By simply stating it and then fleeing from any reasonable discussion makes you appear as a fanatic cultust that cannot handle challenge. This is not good optics for you
Ad hominem literally means against/to human, if I said “you are brainwashed so you believe a conspiracy theory” then I am dismissing their argument based on a personal aspect. I was stating what I believe to be a fact about their argument, not anything related to them as a person. I said many of those arguments are conspiracy theories, the implication being it would take 200 hours of research and a dissertation to disprove them, so I just responded to the things I had evidence on hand of.
Go watch someone debate a flat earther, something that we have mountains of evidence to disprove. Anyone who has not spent massive amounts of time researching will make the flat earther seem like they are 100% correct. I know those are conspiracies the same way I know the earth is not flat, but I’m not willing to spend 200 hours researching it for no actual gain in knowledge.
The fact that several things I did know were misrepresented to me (Biden supported the crime bill, but leave out that black Americans also supported it) makes me highly skeptical of everything else, which further proves to me that the rest were conspiracy theories. If it’s correct why the need for misrepresentation?
Thanks for starting out with showing you’re arguing at the level of Jordan Peterson, so I know I dont have to waste my time reading the rest of your drivel. We all know what the words mean, you need to learn what the fallacy is.
You are doing the thing little children do of going “Uhh i didnt specifically say the thing” but in your case its even more pathetic because you did and it has been explained to you.
Idk what to tell you ad hominem is a strictly defined fallacy, Jordan Peterson redefines common words to mean something completely different, this is something with a very narrow definition. Ask a philosophy major, I can ask my philosophy prof from 10 years ago if you want.
Why does it not surprise me youre the type to rely on Googles AI summary?
Buddy I dont know how to spell it out more clearly than this: “you are saying conspiracy theories” and “you are a conspiracy theorists” are functionally the same statements when they are not supported by any evidence. You are like a child trying to argue that you didnt call someone ugly, you just said they looked ugly.
Your statements have the function of attacking some imaginary moral value of the argument, rather than attacking the arguments content.
You are arguing like a terminally online pill-addict because you, like him, try to argue out from what the words mean in a literal translation, rather than engaging with the meaning of the concept. Instead of asking a philosophy prof, go talk to someone who does rhetorics.
Of course you study philosophy, it would make sense that an idiotic halfwit farthuffer like you would study such a thing. Hopefully you one day actually manage to move on from your terminal reddit-brain. And in case you’re in doubt, this was not an ad hominem, its just an insult. Im not attaching the value of your character onto the argument, im just calling you stupid.
Yeah, I mean, you basically get it, you just think Trump is somehow special. Biden authored the Crime Bill, Clinton put it into law, they ruined millions of lives, mostly of black Americans. Obama/Biden and HRC created an absolutely massive crisis in Libya by funding, arming, training, and coordinating a terroristic “resistance” and then used NATO to bomb the most prosperous country in Africa into devastation where they now openly sell human slaves. The Ukraine situation requires you to imagine history started a few years ago - Bill Clinton openly and public wanted to include Russia in NATO, even after Putin took office. Hell, Clinton was instrumental in legitimizing Putin. The invasion of Ukraine is not something Trump caused and it’s not something he can end. If you have ever studied proxy conflicts like this one, the way you end the bloodshed is by surrendering and signing a treaty. The way you kill more people is by funneling more guns and mercenaries into the proxy. We’ve known this for decades. The US military literally justified some of its proxy wars with Youth Bulge Theory, stating that when there’s too many MAMs (military-aged males) that they could pose a threat to stability so it’s important to get ahead of youth bulges, create the conflicts before they become something we can’t control, and let the conflict kill off the youth bulge. The US is fucking sick.
As for everything else you listed, there’s an equally deadly Democrat equivalent. The embargo on Cuba means that the Cuban vaccine that prevents lung cancer is completely unavailable in the US. Democrats have deported/repatriated more people than Republicans have over the last 25 years. And the reason those immigrants are coming to us in the first place is because of bi-partisan destruction of South American and African countries.
I can’t respond to every conspiracy but, black communities supported the crime bill as well, when it turned out it was harming black communities it should have been repealed, but Biden doesn’t have the benefit of hindsight to know not to support the bill. It’s also much harder to repeal a bad bill than to create it.
I guess you can conveniently leave out why we and nato did all that, that’s pretty good faith
From Wikipedia
US foreign policy has always been atrocious, that has nothing to do with whether a party is fascist or not. If you want to say both parties have terrible foreign policy I would agree, but the Republicans canceling USAID, tearing up the Iran nuclear deal, and supporting Russia is clearly MUCH worse than what dems were doing.
Yes I agree legitimizing putin was a mistake, but you’re again using hindsight glasses, we didn’t realize he would be a warmonger dictator and thought we could open the door to good relations.
Weird how Russia still has not taken over Ukraine in what, 3 years? even without us aiding Ukraine. Imagine what it would look like if ukraine had US military tech at their disposal. I wonder if you’d have the same opinion that China should just surrender to the US if we invaded them unprovoked? They have no chance of winning so they should just give up, and anyone offering China aid is just causing needless death. The rest is a conspiracy theory so I can’t debunk it other than pointing to the actual reasons we went to war (propaganda, hating brown people, and a few times actual terrorism)
Oh wow true it would be really bad if the US stopped vaccines and also invaded a country and took their leader, like with government sponsored vaccine denial, the head of the DHS being a vaccine denialist, USAID being canceled, and the Venezuelan president being taken. Every example you have from the dems Republicans have done 10 fold, and at least with the dem policy there is a reason behind it, even if the result is disastrous. The Republican version is just “time to cut all research and foreign aid and vaccines and attack Mexicans because fox news told me to.” It’s like a vote between actual Hitler and George Bush, Bush sucks but this is not even a choice. The gutting of USAID alone will cause more deaths and suffering than anything the dems have done in the past 40 years.
This is essentially what it boils down to. You think that the citizens of the USA going through the oppression of domestic policy isn’t fascism, but making it worse is fascism, but whatever the US does to other people can’t ever qualify as fascism.
Essentially, you believe fascism is aesthetics. Why did Nazism emerge? To be evil domestically? No. The domestic policy of the Nazis was a specific strategy to create a strong nationalism that would motivate the people of Germany to energize the Nazi’s foreign policy. Demonizing undesirables wasn’t the goal, it was the means to the goal. The goal was to subjugate the Slavs under an American-style apartheid occupation where the domestic population was sufficiently bonded through nationalism and xenophobia that they would energize the policies of the Third Reich to dominate others.
America is and always has been a fascist state. If you think Trump is bad you should study Jefferson. The entire American project is a genocidal Christian nationalist apartheid occupation of land they took by force. In so far as the Democrats continue mass murdering and genocidal policies, they are administering a fascist state. In so far as Republicans are purging the military of people who aren’t sufficiently willing to commit violence for the shared foreign policy aims of the elite, they are administering a fascist state. Obama is and was a fascist, and just like every politician before him, the good things he gave the people were a concession from the elite to the working class in exchange for their passivity and their willingness to energize the fascist state that is the USA.
I need you to understand that this [the destruction of Libya] was illegal under international law and entirely illegitimate. There is no doctrine, except imperialism and fascism, where it is acceptable to destroy an entire country because a leader was behaving in a way domestically that we find morally objectionable. We don’t even need to get into the constant manufacturing of consent and how the assessment of Gaddafi’s actions may have been the result of propaganda. Even if we accept literally everything as true, it’s still a fascistic move to do what the US did. It’s literally unjustifiable. The fact that a liberal like you is willing to defend these actions is a sign of just how powerful the fascist propaganda is.
And it’s not like this wasn’t the analysis even before Obama. Clinton’s decision to use NATO to attack Yugoslavia was the world’s first ever “war for humanitarian intervention”. It was never acceptable to do that, and when Clinton did it there was a huge contingent of us that screamed that this was expanding the remit of the fascist USA to launch preemptive wars. And then what happened? Bush 2 expanded the remit even further and we screamed that this was bad. And what were we told? That this was a “Republican” problem and that we just need to vote D. And we didn’t believe it then either. So Obama gets elected and what happens? He goes even further in expanding the remit of the mass murder machine of the fascist empire of the USA.
It’s a non-stop death march. It’s been a non-stop death march since before the founding of the USA. It’s the same unending genocidal death march of European empire. It will never stop until we stop it. And we don’t stop it by voting in the controlled opposition that continuously expands the fascist state and enlists the citizens in energizing its fascist project.
Voting will not fix this
Sad to start out with an ad hominem. All of the things stated is verified, that you do not like facts do not make them less so
“Your statement is a conspiracy theory” is a true about what they said, not a statement about their character but alright.
It is is a dismissal of the others arguments based on nothing but the perceived character of the arguments/the person making the argument. It is an ad hominem. You are in no way engaging with anything the other says, instead you are relying on a simple attack on character. That is an ad hominem.
If the statements are conspiracy theories then it would do well to prove such an assertion. By simply stating it and then fleeing from any reasonable discussion makes you appear as a fanatic cultust that cannot handle challenge. This is not good optics for you
Ad hominem literally means against/to human, if I said “you are brainwashed so you believe a conspiracy theory” then I am dismissing their argument based on a personal aspect. I was stating what I believe to be a fact about their argument, not anything related to them as a person. I said many of those arguments are conspiracy theories, the implication being it would take 200 hours of research and a dissertation to disprove them, so I just responded to the things I had evidence on hand of.
Go watch someone debate a flat earther, something that we have mountains of evidence to disprove. Anyone who has not spent massive amounts of time researching will make the flat earther seem like they are 100% correct. I know those are conspiracies the same way I know the earth is not flat, but I’m not willing to spend 200 hours researching it for no actual gain in knowledge.
The fact that several things I did know were misrepresented to me (Biden supported the crime bill, but leave out that black Americans also supported it) makes me highly skeptical of everything else, which further proves to me that the rest were conspiracy theories. If it’s correct why the need for misrepresentation?
Thanks for starting out with showing you’re arguing at the level of Jordan Peterson, so I know I dont have to waste my time reading the rest of your drivel. We all know what the words mean, you need to learn what the fallacy is.
You are doing the thing little children do of going “Uhh i didnt specifically say the thing” but in your case its even more pathetic because you did and it has been explained to you.
Idk what to tell you ad hominem is a strictly defined fallacy, Jordan Peterson redefines common words to mean something completely different, this is something with a very narrow definition. Ask a philosophy major, I can ask my philosophy prof from 10 years ago if you want.
Why does it not surprise me youre the type to rely on Googles AI summary?
Buddy I dont know how to spell it out more clearly than this: “you are saying conspiracy theories” and “you are a conspiracy theorists” are functionally the same statements when they are not supported by any evidence. You are like a child trying to argue that you didnt call someone ugly, you just said they looked ugly.
Your statements have the function of attacking some imaginary moral value of the argument, rather than attacking the arguments content.
You are arguing like a terminally online pill-addict because you, like him, try to argue out from what the words mean in a literal translation, rather than engaging with the meaning of the concept. Instead of asking a philosophy prof, go talk to someone who does rhetorics.
Of course you study philosophy, it would make sense that an idiotic halfwit farthuffer like you would study such a thing. Hopefully you one day actually manage to move on from your terminal reddit-brain. And in case you’re in doubt, this was not an ad hominem, its just an insult. Im not attaching the value of your character onto the argument, im just calling you stupid.