GasBandit
Staff member
Way to illustrate the lack of difference between what means you find acceptable to reach your desired ends, then.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
I'm pretty sure the antiquated voting system we use is what let that happen.
GasBandit
Staff member
Rigged, right? It couldn't possibly have been the insufferable deluge of happy-faced fascism and thought criminalisation that has washed over the country over the last decade or so, right?
Oh waah. I don't have millions of people following me like I'm some great genius. Fine. To my numerous supporters: don't go around killing people.
I'm guessing it's more related to the whole "3 million more people voted for the candidate that lost" thing.
Moving less than a third of those into a few states would have given her the win. She actually had a surplus of what she needed.
It really is time to think about doing away with the electoral college.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, they may not follow you, but it's illustrative of the groupthink that I've encountered. The left thinks they're compassionate and inclusive and looking out for the little guy. They're the good guys. See? So any and all actions they take to achieve their ends are therefor justified, up to and including violence and murder.
I've said it often - people don't actually want democracy, they want a fascist dictatorship that agrees with them.
I think we went around the discussion table on that one too, acknowledging that strict popular vote would not be a good way to run national elections, as it would mean the only states with an actual voice would be California, Texas, Florida, and New York. So, yeah, the electoral college isn't great, but it's the least awful we've got, so long as we're stuck in first-past-the-post elections.
It won't go away because the last 2 Republican presidents won because of the EC.
There are Californian republicans and Texan democrats. I'd argue that switching to a popular vote would also get more people voting knowing that their vote counts no matter where they live
I hit "like" on this already, but I wanted to re-emphasize this one too.
Add to that, the people rioting, damaging property, and trying to suppress others from TALKING, aren't the ones in power. And none of this has changed from when Obama was in power. It was the same side of your political spectrum doing it then too, making sure that anything "right-wing" was shouted down or otherwise cancelled on campuses whenever possible.
When free speech is to be suppressed, and that's consistent with your beliefs, you may want to re-examine your beliefs.
For the record, I don't even support the protesters. It drives me nuts when college kids lose their shit because someone they don't like is going to give a speech. They need to respect opposing viewpoints, not shout them down.
But I'm sure you all think I'm some evil Cali Anarchist, so whatever.
But I'm sure you all think I'm some evil Cali Anarchist, so whatever.
GasBandit
Staff member
There are, but let's not pretend that the populations of both mostly support certain political schools of thought more than others. Furthermore, more people live in big cities than in rural/agricultural areas, and that quickly becomes two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
There are other ways to increase voter turnout. For example, you could simply make it mandatory (and election day a national holiday).
I'd call people having that debate "smarter than the average protester"
Edit: and btw, why the hate towards the administration of UC Berkley from the right? Yes they may not have stopped the protesters/anarchists, but they called the cops (fine), and they did NOT cancel the appearance because of the threats of having protests. Yes the student body (and others) did not demonstrate it to be a bastion of free speech (some faculty signed a petition for the administration to cancel the appearance), but the administration didn't openly deny it either, and in fact allowed it.
So I wouldn't paint them with a hard brush. Could they have done more to foster a community mindset that allowed many points of view? Maybe, but their "official" obligation appears to have been in the "correct" side of things IMO.
Last edited:
Conservatives are mad at Berkley for this because they want an excuse to be mad at Berkley in general.
Also, you know Milo was paid to speak? Like from the money the school gets from students that's allocated for bringing in speakers? I figure conservatives love when people protest what they feel are improper uses of collected money.
On the plus side, a fascist dictatorship that agrees with me probably wouldn't be violent, now would they?
--Patrick
Mao-era China might disagree with you.
Necronic
Staff member
Conservatives aren't mad at Berkeley about this. Conservatives are fucking tumescent over this. It 100% plays into their view that the left are a bunch of communists/amarchists. Just like how (at some level) the left were sporting a bit of chub to find out that the Quebec shooter was a Trump supporter.
Which is important only because it is easier to argue against actions than actually discuss ideology.
Trumps ideology is wrong because someone who likes him shot up a mosque
The left's ideology is wrong because someone from the left rioted at a school.
It's fucking pathetic line of argumentation either way.
Which is important only because it is easier to argue against actions than actually discuss ideology.
Trumps ideology is wrong because someone who likes him shot up a mosque
The left's ideology is wrong because someone from the left rioted at a school.
It's fucking pathetic line of argumentation either way.
I'm not sure I agree with everything here, but can I just say, great use of the word 'tumescent'. Like, that's such an under-used word, and it was deployed perfectly. Congratulations.
Well, the Conservatives are flat out wrong.
This loony lefty is Augustist. Lots of nice warm nights where I can put on a toga, lay on my lounge chair, drinking a vodka and clamato as I watch an Empire being born.
This is why Milo shouldn't be allowed to speak on college campuses.
Compared to a previous time when he outed a trans student during his rally.
So yeah, I wasn't too serious about shooting him, but he is a danger to students on the campuses where he goes. This isn't just the "marketplace of ideas." This is harassing and inciting violence against innocent people.
X
Compared to a previous time when he outed a trans student during his rally.
So yeah, I wasn't too serious about shooting him, but he is a danger to students on the campuses where he goes. This isn't just the "marketplace of ideas." This is harassing and inciting violence against innocent people.
X
Yeah, though he was apparently planning to include anyone thats muslim to that list.
Necronic
Staff member
There are appropriate methods and channels for doing that. Doing it on stage like that is calling for mob justice. If that's what he was going to do then he was a bigger dickbag than I thought, which is a bit surprising, but he truly is impossible to underestimate.
The trouble with trying to outguess crazy people is that they do things you wouldn't expect.
--Patrick
It also raises the question of why, if he already had this information, he didn't just submit it to INS and the college proper? He was clearly hoping that someone would get hurt.
Here's the headline: French soldier shoots man at Louvre Museum
What's your reaction to that? Some soldier overreacts to a somebody doing something, bad soldier? Well, here's the first paragraph:
And they say the "mainstream" media isn't biased. Ya right.
What's your reaction to that? Some soldier overreacts to a somebody doing something, bad soldier? Well, here's the first paragraph:
How the hell did they get that headline? How about "Assailant Near Louvre Is Shot by French Soldier" or "Machete attack on soldier near Louvre was of 'terrorist nature'" or "Soldier shoots attacker near Louvre in Paris" or for the long-form, "Louvre museum is locked down after soldier shoots machete-wielding man screaming 'Allahu Akbar' as he tried to tried to enter the building". ALL of those btw are REAL headlines, including the one at the top.
And they say the "mainstream" media isn't biased. Ya right.
Fine, but somebody at the news agency is doing so. That doesn't negate my point. I didn't try and "shame" whomever was writing the article, just pointing out the bias of the organization as a whole.
The headline on the link you posted is "Man shot after attacking soldiers outside Louvre"
I noticed that too. It changed since I posted it.
It seems to have changed again.
This rather looks like a case of reporting as quickly as possible, putting out a blurb and editting as they learn more/anything. So at the start, maybe all they knew was that one fact, that a soldier shot a man,mbut none of the details or circumstances involved.
That would be terrible reporting, but of a different sort than you were suggesting at first. It's presenting bad (because insufficient) info, not being biased/prejudiced/etc.
This rather looks like a case of reporting as quickly as possible, putting out a blurb and editting as they learn more/anything. So at the start, maybe all they knew was that one fact, that a soldier shot a man,mbut none of the details or circumstances involved.
That would be terrible reporting, but of a different sort than you were suggesting at first. It's presenting bad (because insufficient) info, not being biased/prejudiced/etc.