Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Milchshake]

If the Euro left is really this childish and ignorant. It explains why Corbyn and much of the Euro left is in such disarray.

I mean if they can willfully ignore Citizens United, which greatly expanded corporate power by a 5-4 vote, there isnt much hope for them.
I mean if they can willfully ignore Shelby vs Holder, which greatly contracted voting rights by a 5-4 vote, there isnt much hope for them.

The only hope is realizing that these guys are porbably Tories or Putin shills just posing as Leftists.

[Lenonis]

Until then it can all burn down to the ground for all I care.

So hey. Finally someone admitted to being a political arsonist. Maybe y'all can stop trying to reason with someone who just wants it all to burn so we don't have another 100 pages of this merry-go-round?

[Machismo]

You might win me over to this reasoning if it somehow can be shown that these current (or past) liberal judges have done anything meaningful at all to stop the increase in wealth inequality or corporate influence growing larger within the USA.

Until then, I honestly don't care about anything else much. Until then it can all burn down to the ground for all I care.

This isn't much of an argument, it's appealing to willful ignorance.

[eschatological]

You might win me over to this reasoning if it somehow can be shown that these current (or past) liberal judges have done anything meaningful at all to stop the increase in wealth inequality or corporate influence growing larger within the USA.

Until then, I honestly don't care about anything else much. Until then it can all burn down to the ground for all I care.

They've had a 5-4 majority since before most of us were born. Do you remember William Rehnquist? He was CJ for a SCOTUS that was ostensibly 4-4 with a "swing" vote in Kennedy, but Kennedy far more regularly voted with the conservatives, and has been shown to be a bit of a conservative shill since retiring when he did (long before any health concerns) with Trump connections through his son.

The last liberal-majority SCOTUS was the Warren Court, in the 60s. Guess what came out of that court? Things like Miranda Rights, limits on police power, limits on warrant power, civil rights, Brown v. Board of Education, desegregation in general, and so on, and so forth. Oh, and Roe v. Wade.

It's disingenuous as fuck to continue to shill SCOTUS picks as "not interesting" when you know nothing about the history of the Court, and how important its ideological balance is - and how conservative it has been for most of the past 100 years.

Edit: Here's a chart showing the ideological bent of the SCOTUS. The thick yellow line is the "median" justice. Look how conservative it is.



P.S. This image doesn't even include Gorsuch and Kavanaugh yet.

[Milchshake]

They've had a 5-4 majority since before most of us were born. Do you remember William Rehnquist? He was CJ for a SCOTUS that was ostensibly 4-4 with a "swing" vote in Kennedy, but Kennedy far more regularly voted with the conservatives, and has been shown to be a bit of a conservative shill since retiring when he did (long before any health concerns) with Trump connections through his son.

The last liberal-majority SCOTUS was the Warren Court, in the 60s. Guess what came out of that court? Things like Miranda Rights, limits on police power, limits on warrant power, civil rights, Brown v. Board of Education, desegregation in general, and so on, and so forth.

It's disingenuous as fuck to continue to shill SCOTUS picks as "not interesting" when you know nothing about the history of the Court, and how important its ideological balance is - and how conservative it has been for most of the past 100 years.

People really need to realize the Warren Court was a a complete outlier in SCOTUS history. It only happened after modern Dems held presidency for so long.

Then in 1968, Lefties had this brilliant idea to start withholding their votes because LBJ made them mad.
Oh look, 50 years of SCOTUS courts. (Rehnquist was a Nixon appointee afterall).

[Felya]

"The world is complicated and confusing and I don't understand it so burn everything down" is not gonna win you any allies...well...pretty much anywhere.

As I have been saying, their argument is a necessary evil. That’s what burning everything down means. It’s taking the idea of imperialism and applying it morally. Punishing the locals for their barbaric customs, by electing the necessary evil to turn away from vial liberalism.

- - - Updated - - -

The only hope is realizing that these guys are porbably Tories or Putin shills just posing as Leftists.

The irony of alt right, is that they claim to be real liberals. Random posters are not shills, but misguided and those moving the strings, are just in it for the money. Most alt right talking heads, would be homeless without their bowl movement.

[cubby]

They've had a 5-4 majority since before most of us were born. Do you remember William Rehnquist? He was CJ for a SCOTUS that was ostensibly 4-4 with a "swing" vote in Kennedy, but Kennedy far more regularly voted with the conservatives, and has been shown to be a bit of a conservative shill since retiring when he did (long before any health concerns) with Trump connections through his son.

The last liberal-majority SCOTUS was the Warren Court, in the 60s. Guess what came out of that court? Things like Miranda Rights, limits on police power, limits on warrant power, civil rights, Brown v. Board of Education, desegregation in general, and so on, and so forth. Oh, and Roe v. Wade.

It's disingenuous as fuck to continue to shill SCOTUS picks as "not interesting" when you know nothing about the history of the Court, and how important its ideological balance is - and how conservative it has been for most of the past 100 years.

People routinely forget how conservative the Court has been the past 50 years. You are entirely correct in the above.

On a side note, re Kennedy - I really hope the Truth and Reconciliation Committee reviews that selection process. Kennedy's son and Deutsche Bank and Kavanaugh, for those not paying attention.

[Theodarzna]

Again you are talking about the new you the old you agreed with Trump 80% of the time pretending that you are neutral now is laughable you are basically saying we all imagined the last four years.

This is a weird take, because I'm not pretending to be "Neutral", I've never really said that. I've said I'm not particularly partisan for any specific politician, at least not ones involved in this election, and if anything the only politician I've unironically had ZERO criticism of is.... nobody. Even Tulsi Gabbard, my absolute BEA has received criticism from me. Actually Marianne Williamson, I've got zero negative things to say about Orb Momma. I talk about what issues I find interesting; which as I've said, the daily circle jerk of "Orange Man Bad" isn't that interesting. Its done to death, you have an entire thread with same six or seven people here saying the same stuff over and over and over again all high fiving one another for their mutual dislike of Trump. It's not that interesting.

However you can't find me having pro-free market stances for example. Or really point to what I agree with other than Immigration should be restricted which honestly Trump deserves criticism for not actually acting on it and not actually clamping down. But it is kinda impossible to make that critique here as I've learned in the past when I have criticized Trump. I'm pretty critical of idpol and obsession with "Diversity" schtick, as well as generally not a fan of Free Trade and Neo-Liberal economic policies. The biggest shift over the last four years is from Pro-Israel to pretty hostile to Israel, and I still hate Henry Kissinger and the Neo-Cons. You mistake "Not joining our circle jerk" for being in accordance with Trump. When I have been critical of him it either gets ignored; or I'm critical of him for not acting on promises to voters or making good on promises in which people say "Well I guess Hillary should have won" which is a weird take since those critiques are essentially "He let down his voters by essentially governing as a traditional Chamber of Commerce Republican".

I mostly talk about the issues that interest me. So, this 80% of the time, can I get a citation?

Yes you have but only recently as part of your newfound views which doesn't erase your 4 years of strongly defending Trump's policies especially on immigration.

Yeah, I'd of course be cool with immigration policies, that is where I find agreement, because I'm for restricted immigration. Duh. Again, strange take, like, to avoid being a Trump supporter I need to change views I had so they can't intersect with Trump? Like if Trump came out as pro-Universal Health care, you'd go against it just to keep your Anti-Trump cred.

You spend all these years stating your right wing views I have lost count of the threads you have made attacking liberalism as a form of cancer. I doubt there is a Trump supporter aside from the very devoted that agree with him 100% but your newfound Bernie bro leftist persona is giving most of us whiplash.

Liberalism isn't the Left? Leftists aren't Liberals. Liberals generally could be synonymous with Centrists. And yeah I'm Anti-Liberal. A younger me might have been less artful, maybe less clear, but yeah, I dislike Liberalism. I have the self description of Paleo-Conservative in my sig, Also, if I can go back to the 2016 primary, I was also a big Bernie Backer then too. Infact me and Skroe butted heads a lot then as well. I for example had an old OLD thread arguing that Conservative parties need to ditch the Free Market stuff. Heck a major thrust of my criticism of Clinton/Kaine ticket was the TPP/TTIP, and their Neo-Liberal economic policies and my dislike of Wokesterism's. Hell here is me in 2016 saying we need a Universal Healthcare system.

Hell, here is me describing Trump as a vaguely nazi like toupee enthusiast in 2016...

[...]

Lets keep the current GOP debacle in context, this is neither Trump's first run, nor is it the first time they have had a lackluster selection of candidates. But alas between your Zodiac Killers, vaguely nazi-like toupee enthusiast, ..... and those other guys, None can ever match the glory and radiance that was Herman Cain, the man who stole our hearts, and would have won all our votes had he staid in and kept quoting the Pokemon movie.

Seriously guys, American elections have always been crazy.

So this is a strange take. Perhaps a bad take from you.

The timing is not the main thing it's just that Biden was VP for 8 years, Ford's accusations came out because Kavanaugh was being raised to a national profile for the first time. If you look at my history Biden is hardly my guy, there's also the character problem, Kavanaugh was the bag guy for the GOP he was the guy you go to if you want an legal excuse for torturing people.

That might be valid, but the precedent is set. Plus, why did Ford only go after him when he was nationally important? Why not when he was a judge anywhere? Why not right away? See, the logic against Reade here applies against Ford, I get that you can't go against your team on this one, but dude, you are giving me a lot of /r/pyonyang vibes.

Because he got impeached for slandering Biden? were you in a coma when he was calling foreign countries to help him win?

And Biden overseeing his own investigating is more trustworthy? In Biden's opinion, Biden is probably not guilty.

[Machismo]

This is a weird take, because I'm not pretending to be "Neutral", I've never really said that. I've said I'm not particularly partisan for any specific politician, and if anything the only politician I've unironically had ZERO criticism of is.... nobody. Even Tulsi Gabbard, my absolute BEA has received zero criticism from me. I talk about what issues I find interesting; which as I've said, the daily circle jerk of "Orange Man Bad" isn't that interesting. Its done to death, you have an entire thread with same six or seven people here saying the same stuff.

However you can't find me having pro-free market stances. Or really point to what I agree with other than Immigration should be restricted which honestly Trump deserves criticism for not actually acting on it and not actually clamping down. But it is kinda impossible to make that critique here as I've learned in the past when I have criticized Trump. I'm pretty critical of idpol and obsession with "Diversity" schtick, as well as generally not like Free Trade and Neo-Liberal economic policies. You mistake "Not joining our circle jerk" for being in accordance with Trump. When I have been critical of him it either gets ignored; or I'm critical of him for not acting on promises to voters or making good on promises in which people say "Well I guess Hillary should have won" which is a weird take since those critiques are essentially "He let down his voters by essentially governing as a traditional Chamber of Commerce Republican".

I mostly talk about the issues that interest me. So, this 80% of the time, can I get a citation?



Yeah, I'd of course be cool with immigration policies, that is where I find agreement, because I'm for restricted immigration. Duh. Again, strange take, like, to avoid being a Trump supporter I need to change views I had so they can't intersect with Trump?



Liberalism isn't the Left? Leftists aren't Liberals. Liberals generally could be synonymous with Centrists. And yeah I'm Anti-Liberal. I have the self description of Paleo-Conservative in my sig, Also, if I can go back to the 2016 primary, I was also a big Bernie Backer then too. Infact me and Skroe butted heads a lot then as well. I for example had an old OLD thread arguing that Conservative parties need to ditch the Free Market stuff. Heck a major thrust of my criticism of Clinton/Kaine ticket was the TPP/TTIP, and their Neo-Liberal economic policies and my dislike of Wokesterism's. Hell here is me in 2016 saying we need a Universal Healthcare system.

Hell, here is me describing Trump as a vaguely nazi like toupee enthusiast in 2016...


So this is a strange take. Perhaps a bad take from you.



That might be valid, but the precedent is set. Plus, why did Ford only go after him when he was nationally important? Why not when he was a judge anywhere? Why not right away? See, the logic against Reade here applies against Ford, I get that you can't go against your team on this one, but dude, you are giving me a lot of /r/pyonyang vibes.



And Biden overseeing his own investigating is more trustworthy? In Biden's opinion, Biden is probably not guilty.

Except, the evidence has already been provided that this is a lie. We can all see the threads you started.

[beanman12345]

They've had a 5-4 majority since before most of us were born. Do you remember William Rehnquist? He was CJ for a SCOTUS that was ostensibly 4-4 with a "swing" vote in Kennedy, but Kennedy far more regularly voted with the conservatives, and has been shown to be a bit of a conservative shill since retiring when he did (long before any health concerns) with Trump connections through his son.

The last liberal-majority SCOTUS was the Warren Court, in the 60s. Guess what came out of that court? Things like Miranda Rights, limits on police power, limits on warrant power, civil rights, Brown v. Board of Education, desegregation in general, and so on, and so forth. Oh, and Roe v. Wade.

It's disingenuous as fuck to continue to shill SCOTUS picks as "not interesting" when you know nothing about the history of the Court, and how important its ideological balance is - and how conservative it has been for most of the past 100 years.

Edit: Here's a chart showing the ideological bent of the SCOTUS. The thick yellow line is the "median" justice. Look how conservative it is.

P.S. This image doesn't even include Gorsuch and Kavanaugh yet.

Yup this should be enough to win over anyone with a functioning brain over. It is paramount to have a liberal supreme court majority to overturn Citizens United. But that poster doesn't actually care about anything other than anarchy, as they said, they want a 7-2 conservative majority so that the country will go into chaos.


Hated Hillary, don't like Biden, voted for her, will vote for him, for 1 reason only. The Supreme Court.

[Theodarzna]

There are significant distinctions in the timing.

Blasey-Ford stepped forward publicly when Kavanaugh was up for a role of national prominence. Even when he was made a U.S. Appeals Court Judge in D.C. in 2004, across the country from where she lived, where he had no possible influence over her day to day life, she talked about it privately to her therapist. Which was seen as credible. And as soon as he was nominated for the Supreme Court, she stepped forward.

On the other hand, Biden has been in national prominence since Tara Reade has known him. She, in fact, worked for him while he was a sitting U.S. Senator and a major player in the Democratic Party. He ran for President in 2008, she didn't come out then - maybe because he was a long shot. But then he was named as VP to the ticket. She said nothing, and, in fact, supported the ticket. Then, when he declared he was running for 2020, and was the early presumptive frontrunner, she said nothing. When polls came out, putting him as the frontrunner, she said nothing. And then when her preferred candidate, Bernie, dropped out after being virtually eliminated from the race....that's when she spoke up.

Nevermind the intervening years between 2008 and 2018, when she suddenly became very pro-Russia, lauding Putin as an admirable leader, and suddenly changed her political leanings quite drastically, when all indications were she was actually a fairly moderate Dem.

That's why, before the Larry King thing, it seemed like she had waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less credibility than Blasey-Ford.

Reade's credibility was very poor before the actual video evidence from Larry King, of something that probably indicates Reade felt harassment in Biden's office in '93, and told her mother about it, but never even insinuated assault. That is serious, and credible information. And people are looking into it now, since it only came out this past week.

I am glad you at least show that you have a standard beyond "Does this serve my team". I pretty much find this take pretty fair on the issue.

As an aside, I have seen one local Bernie supporter I know declare he's psyched that Justin Amash is running, and said, "Finally, someone I can vote for!"

Justin Amash, former Tea Partier, founder of the Freedom Caucus.......that Justin Amash.

The Justin Amash effect depends on how many NeverTrump Righties actually exist and if Biden's electoral strategy really depends on them. If Biden's strategy is as Chuck Shumer once said “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” than Amash is more a threat to Biden than Trump if he is mostly absorbing those NeverTrumpers and Libertarians who bleat, kvetch and winge about their free market all the time than its more harm to Biden. If its absorbing voters that would never vote for Biden but don't want to vote for Trump but would vote for Trump, then it hurts Trump.

My instincts say Amash is a bigger threat to Biden since Biden's whole shtick is moderate center-right Democrat with Larry Summers and Jamie Diamond running the economy. So I can't think of any NeverTrumpers who would find Biden objectionable or unpalatable; but would vote Libertarian or not at all. If someone was a NeverTrumper than they were a NeverTrumper and were never going to vote for Trump so it doesn't seem like a voter block he can lose. Though maybe those at the lower end of the enthusiasm spectrum among Trumps voters might defect, though Trump is doing way better than Biden on enthusiasm so I suspect any third party is more a risk to Biden since he seems dedicated to pissing off the Leftist voters.

[Edge-]

If Biden's strategy is as Chuck Shumer once said “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

Well, that might be because that's not, and never has been Biden's strategy as far as we know of. And Schumer never said that about Biden. He said it about Hillary back in 2016.

As New York Senator Chuck Schumer described the strategy in July 0f 2016, “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

https://newrepublic.com/article/1463...an-republicans

[Machismo]

There are significant distinctions in the timing.

Blasey-Ford stepped forward publicly when Kavanaugh was up for a role of national prominence. Even when he was made a U.S. Appeals Court Judge in D.C. in 2004, across the country from where she lived, where he had no possible influence over her day to day life, she talked about it privately to her therapist. Which was seen as credible. And as soon as he was nominated for the Supreme Court, she stepped forward.

On the other hand, Biden has been in national prominence since Tara Reade has known him. She, in fact, worked for him while he was a sitting U.S. Senator and a major player in the Democratic Party. He ran for President in 2008, she didn't come out then - maybe because he was a long shot. But then he was named as VP to the ticket. She said nothing, and, in fact, supported the ticket. Then, when he declared he was running for 2020, and was the early presumptive frontrunner, she said nothing. When polls came out, putting him as the frontrunner, she said nothing. And then when her preferred candidate, Bernie, dropped out after being virtually eliminated from the race....that's when she spoke up.

Nevermind the intervening years between 2008 and 2018, when she suddenly became very pro-Russia, lauding Putin as an admirable leader, and suddenly changed her political leanings quite drastically, when all indications were she was actually a fairly moderate Dem.

That's why, before the Larry King thing, it seemed like she had waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less credibility than Blasey-Ford.

Reade's credibility was very poor before the actual video evidence from Larry King, of something that probably indicates Reade felt harassment in Biden's office in '93, and told her mother about it, but never even insinuated assault. That is serious, and credible information. And people are looking into it now, since it only came out this past week.

- - - Updated - - -

As an aside, I have seen one local Bernie supporter I know declare he's psyched that Justin Amash is running, and said, "Finally, someone I can vote for!"

Justin Amash, former Tea Partier, founder of the Freedom Caucus.......that Justin Amash.

Now, I like Justin Amash, but he's definitely not someone a Bernie supporter should get behind.

He's like... literally the opposite.

[Theodarzna]

Well, that might be because that's not, and never has been Biden's strategy as far as we know of. And Schumer never said that about Biden. He said it about Hillary back in 2016.

https://newrepublic.com/article/1463...an-republicans

May I ask if you actually believe I actually thought Shumer's statement was from the present or said about Biden.

Given my use of the words "is as Chuck Shumer once said", generally when you say someone "Once Said" something it implies a statement made in the past. A reasonable and fair minded reader, Or simply someone stopping to read the words carefully, sometimes we read things too quickly and miss vital information, would assume correctly that I am saying "Someone once said this thing, if that is still the strategy than this plays out in such and such a way". I am stating "If Biden's" strategy is something than the following is true, if not, then it's not true. Notice how I said "If".

My words would thus be that if Biden's basic strategy is to run as a centrist, winning over suburban republicans whom don't like Trumps nasty behavior and lack of decorum, than Amash is siphoning potential Anti-Trump votes that would have gone to Biden. Because Arch-Libertarians who don't like Trump or fanatically didn't like Trump probably weren't going to vote Trump if Amash wasn't a choice, idk if this siphons Trump votes away. Amash as a spoiler for Trump only works if there is a cadre of otherwise Trump voters whom would switch. I doubt the Jennifer Rubin types, or Bill Kristol were going to vote Trump but would vote for Amash rather than just voting for Biden. I can see it being competition for those suburban NeverTrumpers whom might not want to vote for Democrat though. So just using this thread as a sample, Machismo is the only person whom has voiced support for Amash, a very much Anti-Trump poster. He could have done a spite vote for Biden against Trump, but I doubt he was going to ever vote Trump under any circumstances. So that strikes me as a Biden vote lost, not a Trump vote lost. Extrapolating broadly, I can't think of anyone who was going to vote for Trump or is fine voting for Trump, but would switch sides for Amash, but not for Biden.

I'll recite what I wrote and highlight the key words here to help you with this misunderstanding.

If Biden's strategy is as Chuck Shumer once said “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

These are key words I presume you missed and thus lost key meaning and thus why you responded to castigate me for suggesting something I actually didn't say. It's okay, we all make mistakes and misread what people wrote. No worries.

[Edge-]

May I ask if you actually believe I actually thought Shumer's statement was from the present or said about Biden.

Given the way you wrote it, connecting Biden's campaign to what Schumer once said, yes. I think that was the intent behind it. If it wasn't, then I misinterpreted it your post. But it wouldn't be the first time you've tried to mischaracterize someones words.

Especially given that this is a very different political landscape and election from 2016, and the Democratic playbook has changed as well.

These are key words I presume you missed and thus lost key meaning and thus why you responded to castigate me for suggesting something I actually didn't say. It's okay, we all make mistakes and misread what people wrote. No worries.

I didn't miss any of those words. If my reading of your post was wrong, then that's fine, I'll have clarified it for myself and anyone else who may have read it that way.

[Theodarzna]

Given the way you wrote it, connecting Biden's campaign to what Schumer once said, yes. I think that was the intent behind it. If it wasn't, then I misinterpreted it your post. But it wouldn't be the first time you've tried to mischaracterize someones words.

Especially given that this is a very different political landscape and election from 2016, and the Democratic playbook has changed as well.

I didn't miss any of those words. If my reading of your post was wrong, then that's fine, I'll have clarified it for myself and anyone else who may have read it that way.

As I stated and explained, that was not my meaning, thus why I said the words If, and Once Said.

And I think you are projecting since mischaracterizing my words are exactly what you seem to have done, from my perspective. At least, that wouldn't be an unreasonable suggestion since your followup is tinged with personal animosity towards me reflecting a kind of bias. Because the charitable reading of your post was that it was a mistaken reading and misunderstanding, the less charitable is deliberate misreading to make a gotcha for no reason other than, well who knows, I guess to be mean to a person you don't like and get praise from others who also aren't exactly fans of mine.

Given you were not charitable with my words, and suggest I tried to mischaracterize something for what purpose I can't say, I am unsure why I should be so charitable with you. You can't even admit to misunderstanding the words without a backhanded insult.

[Milchshake]

What a coincidence! Our local woke stooges are playing the "economic anxiety" card again. Boosting the Trump ad that just came out...


Why are they (gleefully) signal boosting every shitty, disingenuous Team Trump oppo/attack dumpt?
Unless that is, they like them...which pretty obviously seems to be the case.



This is the same Trump that yesterday, demanded that workers go back to work without liability protections...

[shimerra]

As I stated and explained, that was not my meaning, thus why I said the words If, and Once Said.

And I think you are projecting since mischaracterizing my words are exactly what you seem to have done, from my perspective. At least, that wouldn't be an unreasonable suggestion since your followup is tinged with personal animosity towards me reflecting a kind of bias. Because the charitable reading of your post was that it was a mistaken reading and misunderstanding, the less charitable is deliberate misreading to make a gotcha for no reason other than, well who knows, I guess to be mean to a person you don't like and get praise from others who also aren't exactly fans of mine.

Given you were not charitable with my words, and suggest I tried to mischaracterize something for what purpose I can't say, I am unsure why I should be so charitable with you.

Climb down off your high horse. You've thrown enough victim cards on this forum we can use a break.

If you don't want to be thought of a certain way stop acting that way.

[breadisfunny]

They've already cut off their nose, don't expect them to see past it.

what do you mean they've cut off her nose?

- - - Updated - - -

So hey. Finally someone admitted to being a political arsonist. Maybe y'all can stop trying to reason with someone who just wants it all to burn so we don't have another 100 pages of this merry-go-round?

even i'm getting a bit tired of rochana.

[Kasierith]

So hey. Finally someone admitted to being a political arsonist. Maybe y'all can stop trying to reason with someone who just wants it all to burn so we don't have another 100 pages of this merry-go-round?

What.. what exactly did you expect from a self anointed anarchist in a political discussion?