You’re a feckless piece of shit and your opinions are worthless right-wing talking points; fuck off.
Coming from you that means…absolutely nothing. It’s the background noise I expect from you, to be ignored unless it’s unintentionally hilarious.
Not ‘Us’. I can’t stand Trump. But some of us could see that trainwreck coming, because we actually read Republicans as well as Democrats and could see the anger brewing and the moderates getting shunted aside for the angry right.
And one of the reasons I hated Trump was exactly the same - I became persona non grata on several Right-wing sites because I told them that among his many other failings, Trump’s constant poking of the bear was going to lead to an even angrier left, who can and would respond in kind.
A point you are spectacularly missing is that I never thought you were saying that any specific person was a fascist. I thought you were defining “fascist” as any style of thinking which exhibited that one element. What I was, and am, disagreeing with is that every style of thinking which exhibits that one element is “fascist”.
Which meets about 20% of my point.
Wow, one would have to be a pretty delusional extremist to regard the Tea Party as “good conservatives” of bygone days. Real conservatism in America, in the sense of rational policies and moderate ideology, became extinct well before the end of the 1970s.
The Tea Party was a bunch of populist libertarian nutjobs and radical far-right extremists whose primary purpose was to oppose anything and everything on Obama’s agenda, and especially the ACA. The problem with the ACA, as they saw it, is that without opposition from Loyal Patriots™ like themselves, there was a real risk that more Americans could have affordable health care. You know, the kind of health care policy that Richard Nixon had proposed, and that the conservative Heritage Foundation had championed. But by the time a certain uppity Black guy had been elected to the White House and proposed essentially the same thing, suddenly it was unthinkable!
Much of the Tea Party – particularly the bunch strenously opposed to Americans getting health care – later morphed into the ultra-right radical Freedom Caucus, with stellar membership like Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows among their ranking lunatics.
“You guys lament the ‘good’ conservatives. Well, they were called the Tea Party.” 
Really? I didn’t see anyone on the Left attempt to overthrow the government, invade the Capitol and try to prevent the certification of a democratic vote, threaten the lives of police, Congresspersons and the Vice-President, did you?
Wasn’t what Obama finally managed to enact basically based on the work of that well known lefty - Romney?
Is the rest of your point that no, the word “fascism” doesn’t mean what you used it to mean, it’s just a word that you like to throw in when you’re being hyperbolic?
There are still lawsuits ongoing, but the bullshit is to assume that one incomplete report is the final word.
In justifying the decision not to interview protesters, administration officials or the other police agencies involved, the report points out that the IG’s jurisdiction is limited to oversight of the Park Police. That certainly explains why investigators weren’t able to interview Barr, the Secret Service or other participating police agencies, though they also don’t appear to have tried.
But if that’s all true, narrow jurisdiction and narrow investigative authority call for a narrow interpretation of the report’s conclusions. Instead, a narrowly focused report has been interpreted to draw an extraordinarily broad conclusion — that the park clearing had nothing to do with the photo op, and that the media narrative is a lie.
But here’s what we do know:
— We know that the day before the crackdown, Trump was angry about reports that he had fled to a White House bunker as the protests flared.
— We know that in a phone call with state governors just hours before the clearance that was supposed to have been about covid, Trump obsessed about the protests, and implored the governors to use violence. “You have to dominate,” he told them. “If you don’t dominate, you’re wasting your time. … If you don’t dominate your city and your state, they’re gonna walk away with you. And we’re doing it in Washington, in DC, we’re going to do something that people haven’t seen before. But we’re going to have total domination.”
— We know that Trump and Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had an angry confrontation over Trump’s demand to invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy the military to crack down on protests around the country.
— We know that Trump repeatedly insisted police “crack the skulls” of protesters, joked on Twitter about shooting looters and at one point demanded, “Just shoot them.”
— We know that Trump is fond of strongmen who abuse their power. He has praised the Chinese government’s crackdown on the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, for example. He also initially refused to condemn the crackdown on democracy protests in Hong Kong, and reportedly admired Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s willingness to arrest, beat and kill dissidents, and his willingness to deploy the military to put down protest.
The Lafayette Square crackdown was a violent broadside against a protest that had been overwhelmingly peaceful, and whose participants had broken no laws. It was done moments before a planned photo op staged by a president who seemed to relish the idea of beating, injuring and shooting protesters, who had been insulted by a recent article depicting him as a coward, who was reportedly eager to demonstrate strength, and whose attorney general had just visited the very park in question — and who, according to multiple media outlets, gave an explicit order to clear the park for Trump. The photo op couldn’t have happened without the police action, and the chronology of the police action was in near-perfect synchronicity with the photo op, almost down to the minute.
To believe the Trump administration and its defenders, you have to dismiss all of that as one enormous coincidence and believe instead that this really was all about fencing. And to believe that , you also must rely entirely on assurances from a president and an administration that lied to the public on a daily basis, on matters big and small, substantive and absurd, tens of thousands of times.
As for Michael Avennatti, there is no interest from the Democrats really about financing his defense nor organizing a riot, so he could be free and putting him as president.
When appropriate. Thing is hyperbole is not 100% accurate and when someone is proposing something that has heavy elements of a thing, it is not uncommon to reference that thing hyperbolically as (part of) a characterization of that thing.
Pedants Anonymous probably have openings in your area. You should give them a call, they can probably slot you in.
No, “us” includes you. Your defense of the Teafuckinparty puts you there. They weren’t reasonable, they were absolutely terrible extremists who paved the way for Trump.
Mitt Romney? He was a reasonable conservative, still is. There’s a lot wrong with him, ranging from the 47% comment to his binders to a lot of other things, but he would have been the best Republican president the nation had had since Bush Elder. And I said so at the time. But the Tea Party were and are rage-filled white supremacists, and your inclusion of them among the “good” conservatives makes it clear that you’re part of the “us.”
Like I said: Sam Stone is a feckless piece of shit.
Did he really, sort of seriously, put up the tea party republicans up as “good conservatives”? Wow.
Another one for the ignore list. Who cares about the opinions of someone who cannot recognize Sarah Palin as a self-serving, blithering idiot?
I don’t think we should ban discussion of climate change, for the obvious reason that many people don’t believe in it and need to see that evidence. But again, how do we decide when there is genuine doubt about the facts, without having that discussion and looking at the evidence? The reason you can feel so confident about climate science is exactly because you have done that, not because you read about it in some popular science magazine or uncritically accepted a claimed concensus.
Discussing climate change is fine.
Debating if it is real or man made is not a useful pursuit in 2021. Again: it provides deniers a platform as if there is something to debate.
Don’t engage. Or if you feel you must (you have found the last climate denier that is arguing in good faith!) link to some inscrutable sources and move on.
The urge to hear yourself type must be suppressed when the ones you are typing at are unlikely to be operating in good faith or are so far down some rabbit hole that they have only faint memories of daylight. People reading your (the general “your”) explanations could come away with the idea that there is something to the other argument: Why else would this eloquent, intelligent person be debating them?
I’ll have a look when I get time, and see if it changes my mind.
I never really got engaged in the climate change debate. Last time I did anything of the sort it was arguing for evolution and against creationism, and I very much doubt it convinced anyone to believe in creationism who didn’t already. I did read some of the debates with 9/11 Truthers on this board, which did a pretty good job of convincing me they were wrong. Ditto debates with anti-vaxxers. You may not convince the person you are debating with, but that doesn’t mean it’s pointless.
And furthermore, refusing to debate has the opposite effect. It makes it look like your arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny, and observers who have questions or mistaken assumptions have no opportunity to learn better.
It takes two to tango. You are sneering all throughout this thread, as you do in most Pit threads. If you think sneering is incompatible with argument, then you need to stop doing it yourself.
You can’t post in ways designed to piss people off, then act all offended when people get angry. That’s the shit @octopus does.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I could have sworn you used to be better than this.
What do you mean by “real” or “man made”? There is certainly a debate to be had about the degree to which climate change is driven by natural processes and to what degree it is being driven by human activities.
Putting forward evidence for some degree of natural process influence on the climate does not necessarily make one a “denier”.