Tucker Carlson on what the Left has become
- Thread starter BIGOSUFAN
- Start date
It's true. I dumped the Democrat party when I was told I was racist for disagreeing with Obama. They aren't interested in a representative government any longer. They want sole power to create and enforce laws based on their agenda. It's become a sad day when a black man can say publicly that whites might have to be killed and his speech is "protected." A conservative gets threatened with violence and riots break out for simply scheduling to speak to a group of like minded people and the authorites just shrug their shoulders.
I had a debate with @GL97 over this the other day.
Cliffnotes: he doesnt give a shit about listening to the voice of the voters, only acquiring power.
That's the only thing those jackholes want. Too bad they aren't smart enough to see why the rest of us vote their ilk out of office. Easily I might add. Trump.
I had a discussion today with someone who said that police with their guns drawn and pointed at person should expect to have a conversation with that person before they fire their weapon. He did not understand what I was talking about when I said that the act of pointing the gun at the person is all the conversation needed. The police have said everything they need to say when the gun comes out of the holster and that statement is "follow my instructions now or die." He went on to say that he and his children should resist the police because there is chance the police officer is corrupt and will lie to throw them in jail. He would put his own children at risk to make the point that all police officers are corrupt. He was a leftist and angry about the officer in Tulsa that in his words got away with murder. I believe him in his conviction that he believed what he said was right. There was no change in his heart or the ability to listen to reason and he was eager to sacrifice everything for his belief. The left will soon be all in. Will the right as well?
Say Trump is removed from office. What does that accomplish? Further division, more anger, emboldening of an already emboldened left wing and right wing. What would that do to America? If Trump is removed what happens to our electoral system? It would certainly signal that it will not be followed. It would signal that the law and elections don't need to be respected any more as change can be effected by screaming as loud as can about nothing and you will get what you want.
Sorry about the length. Just wanted to get that off my chest. I won't bother with replying. I don't believe the left or right is interested in debate anymore so why bother.
Say Trump is removed from office. What does that accomplish? Further division, more anger, emboldening of an already emboldened left wing and right wing. What would that do to America? If Trump is removed what happens to our electoral system? It would certainly signal that it will not be followed. It would signal that the law and elections don't need to be respected any more as change can be effected by screaming as loud as can about nothing and you will get what you want.
Sorry about the length. Just wanted to get that off my chest. I won't bother with replying. I don't believe the left or right is interested in debate anymore so why bother.
If removed it would presumably mean even DJT isn't above the law. Not sure why your panties are in a wad over that. Drama queens...
First of all of you have done nothing that is against the law and you get convicted of something it just shows how far the left will go to overturn an election they do not agree with. Nothing more.
Anyone remember what prompted the WJC independent counsel? Do you also recall the basis for impeachment?
What is your level of confidence that DJT can withstand similar scrutiny?
What is your level of confidence that DJT can withstand similar scrutiny?
Last edited:
That depends on what the definition of is is.
And you continue to misrepresent what I posted. I clearly posted that the representation of the public will is very important...
You were arguing for Democrats to become more like Republicans, which would be completely foolish.
The notion that only the Democratic Party wants sole power to create and enforce laws based on their agenda is absurd. As if the Republican Party doesn't want power to also create and enforce laws based on their agenda?
The point of American political parties is to advocate for certain policies and hopefully obtain the support of a majority of the American people to push those policies forward.
Just be honest that your issue with the Democratic Party is their policy commitments, not that they shockingly act like all other political parties.
You editted this post by you after it sank in (I called it out to you) that the optics were bad.
Which was in response to MY post:
So, you see @GL97 , you blurted out your truth, then went back to polish up your truth knowing it's a pretty abhorrent (yet, not uncommon...particularly for leftists like yourself) position to hold.
Context means everything. I've misrepresented nothing. You're just bailing water bc you got caught in a truthful moment.
No, I did not edit the post I just quoted above. I edited the post before that.
You stated this...
I then responded with to your impression with this...
So yes, you are clearly misrepresenting what I posted regarding your "impression" that the representation of the will of the people is secondary to what a political party wants/dictates.
I will state my position very clearly once again: Political parties in the USA exist to advocate for shared policies beliefs among Americans. They hope to obtain electoral success so that they can have the power to act upon these policies beliefs. Yes, politics deals with power. But in our system, supposedly (we can debate if this is actually true), the power resides with the people who choose which political party to give it to.
Last edited:
I believe you are largely correct. But it appears to me the left as represented by the Democratic Party is no longer concerned with obtaining the support of a majority. As governmental agents they do not seem to be afraid of any pushback. They have reached a point of power where they feel they can dictate.
The right, as represented by the Republicans, is not far behind in this attitude. But it is behind, trying desperately to catch up.
How so?
They sought the support of the majority of Americans in 2016. They did the same in 2014, 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, etc. They are preparing to do the same in 2018. Sometimes they are successful, other times they aren't. Just like Republicans.
I don't see the Democratic Party advocating doing away with representative democracy and embracing a dictatorship where they are the only party that exists. Do you?
Well, to begin with they didn't get the support of the majority of the voters and they have behaved very badly ever since, attempting to obstruct every move the opposition has made. They have lost power because of the arrogance of their leaders, their headlong drive toward socialism, but they have shown no desire to pull back. Full steam ahead!
Actually, **Clinton won a plurality** (edited) of the voters. She didn't win the majority of the electoral votes though.
In terms of the House and Senate, the GOP was able to maintain control of both. But that doesn't mean as the party in opposition, the Democrats should just roll over and allow the Republicans to have what they want. Many Americans voted for and put members of the Democratic Party in Washington D.C. to move forward on the policy commitments of the Democratic Party.
And Republicans didn't seek to obstruct every move of the Democrats from 2009 through 2017? You want to talk about how the Republican Party obstructed the nomination of a U.S. Supreme Court justice?
When a party is in opposition, that is what they do. They seek to obstruct where they can. To limit the power of the party in control. This is nothing new. This is American politics.
See, this is where your opinion and your policy commitments come into play. You believe the Democrats are out of power because they aren't doing what you like . . . or embracing policies that you like (i.e. "socialism").
However, perhaps that has nothing to do with it. I would argue that if the Democrats had nominated Sanders (a democratic socialist), there is a good chance he would have beat Trump in a one-on-one matchup. Clinton isn't a democratic socialist.
I agree that if the Democrats want to win in 2018 and 2020 they need to have a winning message. However that message isn't to be Republican-lite.
Last edited:
I might add Bill Clinton got, what?, 48% of the vote, and yet he attempted to ram through HillaryCare. At least he was shrewd enough to pull back once he got his ass handed to him in the next election. Obama gave us ObamaCare in spite of huge majorities being opposed. He and the Democrats forced it on an unwilling public, got clobbered in the next election, and even then doubled down on their policies. They were convinced the American public was blind to their superior intelligence and would thank them once it had been forced on them long enough. There's more, obviously, but I think you get the point I'm trying to make. The Democrats don't fear the public's approbation. They think they have reached a tipping point where they don't have to be concerned with what the public thinks.
Yes he did. He tried to do what 48% of the voters wanted him to do. And Republicans, as the opposition party, tried to stop him.
But a majority of Americans voted for Obama in 2008 knowing what Obama wanted to do. And now, Obamacare is more popular with the American people.
I would argue that Obama didn't force anything on an "unwilling" public. Was there strong opposition to Obamacare? Sure. But there was strong support for it too. And even more so today.
The Democrats do what the Republicans do . . . they pursue their policy commitments once elected. Sometimes they are rewarded, sometimes they are not in subsequent elections. This is politics. The Democrats aren't doing anything that the Republicans don't do (except in terms of what policies they push, which seems to be one of your concerns).
btw, it almost seems like what you have an issue with is representative democracy. Do you prefer a direct democracy system?
I'm pretty sure Hillary got a plurality of the vote, 48.2% vs Trump's 46.1%. 48.2% is not a majority.
You are correct (I stand corrected). But Trump didn't get a majority of the voters either and he didn't even get a plurality of the voters.
Yet, isn't he trying to force his agenda through (mainly with executive actions)? Is he wrong for doing this since he didn't have majority or even plurality support? I don't think so. He is doing what one expects a President to do . . . push his agenda. And the Democrats are doing what an opposition party does . . . opposing that agenda.
In 2018, the American people will get to have their voice heard once again.
So the American people's voice hasn't been heard?
Doubling down on your lying?
Your NYTimes overlords are pleased.
Your use of words above "No, I did not edit the post I just quoted above" is noted. You redirect from my original citation and speak to your newly cited quote, as if that is the topic I'm addressing.
You haven't disproven my assertion bc you can't. And that citation underwrites my initial statement about you ITT...you care about POWER. Voice of the people is secondary.
Here's the tape, complete with the timestamp of your edit and before and after context.
Pence
In conversation and debate you're no different than this guy....relying on slight of hand. I'm going to call you on it every time you try to pretend otherwise.
We seem to have gotten off track. Let me explain: I am a libertarian (small l), greatly influenced by the writings of Murray Rothbard, Albert J. Nock, Robert Higgs and others. A philosophical anarchist in other words. I hate them all. Let me repeat: I HATE them all. Every diatribe you might make against Donald Trump, conservatives, the Republican Party, the political right wing, I'm right there with you. What absolutely baffles me is how you can be so clear-eyed when it comes the Republicans, but seem to be so blinded by equal - if not more - evil advocated by Democrats.
I said in the beginning I largely agreed with what you wrote. I'll say it again: I largely agree with you.
But from my perspective as a libertarian anarchist they're all corrupt, lying sons of bitches that deserve no respect, and most certainly do not deserve admiration. For the record I include candidates of the Libertarian Party in the mix.
You most likely haven't.
It's his conversation/debate style....
Shift meaning or citation whenever is necessary to gain advantage in a conversation or sidestep/pivot out of a position where you've gained the upper hand. Watch his edits, too.
Yes, it is heard every time there is an election.
I know it is hard for you Meds, but try to keep up.
Yes I can and I did. I never once posted that we or political parties shouldn't "listen to the voice of the voters." Not once.
Ok. I don't hate them all though. I guess that is the difference between you and I.
I disagree with the Republican Party, but I don't hate it. It is one of the political parties that play a role in our political system. I understand why the Republican Party does what it does just as understand why the Democratic Party does what it does. And yes, I know they both act the same. They are political parties. I am not one who wants to see the whole system burn. I just want to see reforms to the system.
As for the "evil" advocated by Democrats, you will have to be more specific. Are you speaking of policy commitments or political maneuvering?
It is totally understanding to me why you wouldn't hate the other party. As an avowed statist your only conflict is over who gets to rule over everyone else. The way it used to be was the right wing agreed to pay lip service against the welfare state wishes of the left wing, while the left wing did the same against the warfare wishes of the right. It was a neat little scam they had going. Nowadays they both collude to have it all out in the open. Neither party, truth be known, fears the public response.
A libertarian has as his paramount political policy the advocacy and protection of the rights of the individual. No, not really the paramount goal, the only goal. I don't see politicians or pundits from either side showing the slightest concern for liberty. What an outdated notion! It's all political evil to me. Case in point, did you see where Governor Brown in California blasted taxpayers who objected to his plan to raise taxes to support one of his projects, blasted the people he expects to pay for it, calling them freeloaders? He felt perfectly comfortable in his rhetoric. No concern for the opposition in the least.
If I am an "avowed statist" because I believe in our form of representative democracy, then so be it. And yes, I don't believe "government" is a bad word.
I by no means think our system is perfect though and I think we definitely need reforms. I just don't think we need to burn it all down.
That is what libertarians say (debatable if it is true though in every context), but what about the Libertarian Party? You don't think the Libertarian Party would love to have more electoral success? And if they were able to become one of the major political parties, you don't think it would act just as the Republican and Democratic Parties do?
I do. I also see them engaging in politics though. Both go hand in hand in our system of governance.
If the voters of California don't like what he says or is doing, they can vote him out.
However, the voters of California apparently like Brown. Could this perhaps be what you take real issue with?
My goodness, either I am really bad at explaining myself, or your reading comprehension is low. Let's assume it's me, and I'll try one last time before I have to shut it down for awhile.
Government is the agency that is used as a battering ram against disobeying sovereign individuals. Statists have no problem in employing the battering ram. There are countless philosophers, pamphleteers, pundits, etc. who offer justifications for such employment. The only argument between statists is who gets to make everybody else obey. In a democracy it becomes a game, a team sport if you will, each side vying for control. Eventually the sides coalesce into one unified front, leading to oligarchy and ultimately into outright tyranny. That's what we're seeing happen in America today. It is sad for me to see people like you so blindly and willingly (and stupidly in my opinion) play the game.
You asked about the Libertatian Party? A scourge on them as well. Of course it would evolve into the same corrupt entity as the others. In some ways it already has! Look at the clown they nominated for President! I said so in an earlier comment.
Your defense of Jerry Brown's remarks is it's OK since people voted for him? Really? You're OK with what he said? I'm disappointed in you.
And neither do libertarians when it suits their purposes.
First, I am not "blindly, willingly, and stupidly" playing "the game" as you assume. I have studied numerous political philosophies. I have even read libertarian philosophers and seriously considered the libertarian worldview. I even embrace some libertarian principles. Just because I have arrived at a different conclusion than yourself in terms of my political beliefs doesn't mean I haven't seriously considered the issues you speak of.
Also, I don't disagree that our current system has oligarchical qualities to it. That is why I support reforms to lessen this influence. However, our system of governance in this country has always had oligarchical aspects to it. We have eliminated some of these aspects but there is still room for improvement.
Did I post I was ok with what he said? I didn't give my personal opinion on what he said. I simply posted that if the voters of California don't like what he said or the policies he pursues, then they can vote him out.
Question for you: Do you support democracy? Representative democracy in particular?
Last edited:
Similar threads
