Confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court

[Krakan]

The worry and fear are your bubble... plenty of people are not seeing the burning cities. Plenty of people are seeing the Ukrainian flag on police arms, in pictures pretending it’s US, pushed by corrupt politicians.

The reality, there is no going back. It’s no longer the will of the people, but an authoritarian decree. It’s the representation of incompetent government and the ability to skirt issues, in the name of power. They can make any law they want, the people are not going away. They will be there to justify fighting persecution. Even Machiavelli wasn’t stupid enough to claim attacking a minority, that has majority support, has political advantages.



When there is talk of removing rights, it’s pretty clear who the group is... the one losing rights... the ones who can hold a marriage ceremony in a church, but won’t be able to get a government issued marriage license.



Any middle ground is injustice, that’s why you need to claim cities are burning. Name a city that’s burning and I will provide empirical evidence you are being lied to. If Seattle is burning, how is Amazon, Microsoft and Nintendo of America still functioning? How can Microsoft release a new gen XBox from Redmond, when across 520, the city is on fire? How can Amazon hold a prime sale day, when their campus occupying around 20% of Seattle, is on fire? Have you heard of Wallstreet, as NYC burns?



Who is galvanized? Trump couldn’t even get majority if the voting Americans last time.

- - - Updated - - -



He is saying that the pictures pushed by the White House and their cronies, seem to contain police with Ukrainian flags on their arms... in Portland, Seattle and NYC... while even architecture on those shots, seem distinctly Slavic... strange...

I don't really have a dog in this fight sure push comes to shove gun to my head I side conservative but if this is what you truely and honestly believe then I assume for you the time for talk is over?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh that is a forgone conclusion that conservatives will have a 6-3 majority on the court but in doing so they are cementing their own demise. The 5-4 majority was already giving them everything they wanted within reason but they have lost reason which is why they have chosen a nut case like Barrett.

We will honestly just have to wait and see. I expect pushback but I don't know how hard or how fast. There is boosting and bluster then there is what they actually do.

[Endus]

We will honestly just have to wait and see. I expect pushback but I don't know how hard or how fast. There is boosting and bluster then there is what they actually do.

What you're calling "pushback" has another label.

Domestic terrorism and sedition.

It's just violent people engaging in criminal acts, and their justification is their desire to continue to be abusive without restriction or social censure. Because they're hateful assholes.

Will there be a bit of this? Maybe. Could there be a dangerous amount of this? Sure. Does that mean we should let the dangerous bigoted assholes be abusive, at least a little, to try and stave this off? Fuck no. I don't kneel to what is essentially blackmail. Your entire position here basically boils down to "Nice country you got there, be a shame if . . . something happened to it."

Let them rant and rail. When and if they kill some people, we'll give them a fair trial and put them in prison for their crimes. They'll be the only ones bearing any responsibility for those crimes.

And if they won't commit such crimes? Then it's just noise and means nothing. It's abusive dickheads whining because they can't get away with it any more. Fuck 'em; they're awful people, and they're awful by choice.

[Krakan]

What you're calling "pushback" has another label.

Domestic terrorism and sedition.

It's just violent people engaging in criminal acts, and their justification is their desire to continue to be abusive without restriction or social censure. Because they're hateful assholes.

Will there be a bit of this? Maybe. Could there be a dangerous amount of this? Sure. Does that mean we should let the dangerous bigoted assholes be abusive, at least a little, to try and stave this off? Fuck no. I don't kneel to what is essentially blackmail. Your entire position here basically boils down to "Nice country you got there, be a shame if . . . something happened to it."

Let them rant and rail. When and if they kill some people, we'll give them a fair trial and put them in prison for their crimes. They'll be the only ones bearing any responsibility for those crimes.

And if they won't commit such crimes? Then it's just noise and means nothing. It's abusive dickheads whining because they can't get away with it any more. Fuck 'em; they're awful people, and they're awful by choice.

Are we talking about BLM?

It's this lack of self reflection and weird righteous zeal that confuses and entertains me about current politics.

Each side sees themselves as some last line of defense for a civilized world.

All I see are two groups of fools tilting at windmills and sadly trampling some poor souls who are close by.

[Endus]

Are we talking about BLM?

I'm curious what far-right extremist propaganda page you could have pulled that particular shit nugget out from.

[Krakan]

I'm curious what far-right extremist propaganda page you could have pulled that particular shit nugget out from.

Mostly watching the live leaks. We will prosecute the bigoted rioters will we not?

Or do you hold one set of morals for people you sympathize with and another for people you disagree with.

I don't want to pick on you but you have such a perfect example of flexible morality you make a perfect example of how running a country shouldn't be framed as a primordial battle between good and evil.

[Endus]

Mostly watching the live leaks. We will prosecute the bigoted rioters will we not?

You went from BLM, to rioters.

That's exactly what I meant when I said you were only listening to far-right disinformation channels. You're pushing a lie.

Or do you hold one set of morals for people you sympathize with and another for people you disagree with.

Of course not.

But I'm not going to entertain your outright fictions as if they're a reasonable example, either.

[Krakan]

You went from BLM, to rioters.

That's exactly what I meant when I said you were only listening to far-right disinformation channels. You're pushing a lie.



Of course not.

But I'm not going to entertain your outright fictions as if they're a reasonable example, either.

I won't argue it then. It falls under the philosophy of one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

I would simply look at the actions taken then the rhetoric. I don't see this as some struggle between justice or injustice just two sides turning a blind eye when it suits them. What the right and left say about one another applies rather equally to both. Two sides of the same coin.

[Endus]

I won't argue it then. It falls under the philosophy of one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

No. It doesn't. Because if you're talking about BLM, you're not talking about either. Unless you've swallowed someone else's disinformation without thinking, or are lying about the facts yourself.

I would simply look at the actions taken then the rhetoric. I don't see this as some struggle between justice or injustice just two sides turning a blind eye when it suits them. What the right and left say about one another applies rather equally to both. Two sides of the same coin.

You're not doing this.

That's the point.

"Both sides" arguments are almost inevitably complete garbage, and used solely to defend horrible acts by one side, by making shit up about the other.

[Edge-]

https://theweek.com/speedreads/94226...-barrett-event

White House is apparently thinking Trump was infected at the Rose Garden Massacre.

President Trump is reportedly believed to have picked up COVID-19 at the nomination event for Amy Coney Barrett.

Trump, along with dozens of West Wing staffers, Republican senators, and outsiders, gathered in the Rose Garden on Saturday, Sept. 26, for Barrett's formal nomination to the Supreme Court. Many lawmakers later gathered with Barrett inside the White House. White House medical staff have since traced that event to the arrival of COVID-19 in the White House, people familiar with the matter tell Bloomberg.

[Krakan]

No. It doesn't. Because if you're talking about BLM, you're not talking about either. Unless you've swallowed someone else's disinformation without thinking, or are lying about the facts yourself.


You're not doing this.

That's the point.

"Both sides" arguments are almost inevitably complete garbage, and used solely to defend horrible acts by one side, by making shit up about the other.

So you are a fan of the " fiery but peaceful protest" meme I take it?

Constricting yourself to an extremely narrow source of new for current events doesn't actually shape reality to conform to that view.

[downnola]

So you are a fan of the " fiery but peaceful protest" meme I take it?

Constricting yourself to an extremely narrow source of new for current events doesn't actually shape reality to conform to that view.

How about actually going to a protest and seeing for yourself instead of pulling memes from /pol/.

[Krakan]

How about actually going to a protest and seeing for yourself instead of pulling memes from /pol/.

I mean I can watch the fires from the comfort of my own home.

I mean it's actually on a meme site...

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cnn-f...tests-parodies

[Endus]

So you are a fan of the " fiery but peaceful protest" meme I take it?

In that property damage is not violence? That's a simple fact. The far-right like to pretend otherwise, because it's the only way they can conceivably present left-wing protests as even remotely as violent as right-wing extremism, which actually does kill people on a very regular basis in the USA.

Constricting yourself to an extremely narrow source of new for current events doesn't actually shape reality to conform to that view.

Of the two of us, I'm not the one doing so. You're pushing propaganda and lies, not truth. Because you willfully ignore the truth, and seek out only outlets that will feed you the lies you want.

I look at dozens of media sources. I'm not even American. The "mainstream media is corrupt and lying to you" meme is just far-right conspiracy horseshit. Worse, it's literally Nazi-era propaganda, reborn.

[Krakan]

In that property damage is not violence? That's a simple fact. The far-right like to pretend otherwise, because it's the only way they can conceivably present left-wing protests as even remotely as violent as right-wing extremism, which actually does kill people on a very regular basis in the USA.



Of the two of us, I'm not the one doing so. You're pushing propaganda and lies, not truth. Because you willfully ignore the truth, and seek out only outlets that will feed you the lies you want.

I look at dozens of media sources. I'm not even American. The "mainstream media is corrupt and lying to you" meme is just far-right conspiracy horseshit. Worse, it's literally Nazi-era propaganda, reborn.

I mean there is warlord razz... the murders in the autonomous zone those videos of people beaten to death in BLM protests I'm not going to link here...

Also how isn't the whole scale destruction of property not violence? I somehow doubt you would be as cavalier about nazis burning your home down or would you claim it's ok because it's not violence?

[Endus]

Also how isn't the whole scale destruction of property not violence?

Because words mean things.

Is graffiti "violence"?

I somehow doubt you would be as cavalier about nazis burning your home down or would you claim it's ok because it's not violence?

No, I'd claim it's arson and thus a crime, and that I have lost a lot of property that has great value to me.

It's not violent, however.

Because words mean things.

You seem to think "violent" is a statement of severity, when it isn't. It's a description of the character of an act. A mother spanking her child for writing on the walls is "violent". But not something that is severe. It's entirely possible for a non-violent crime to be more severe and noteworthy than a violent crime. Your example of a hate crime by Nazis, destroying a family home, for instance, is more severe than a bar fight where one guy got punched in the chin and then left the bar without serious injury. The former isn't violent, and the latter is, however.

Because words mean things.


Edit: Regarding the deaths in protests, you really need to stop listening to propaganda. Nearly all those deaths have either been unconnected to the protests entirely other than coincidentally (they were about personal beefs or were accidental or the like), or they were by right-wingers; https://abcnews.go.com/US/deaths-con...ry?id=72724790

[downnola]

I mean I can watch the fires from the comfort of my own home.

I mean it's actually on a meme site...

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cnn-f...tests-parodies

Right, so you speak with a tone of authority on matters that you've never actually experienced and think you're in a position to critique how people curate their news.

While posting a fucking meme...

[Krakan]

Because words mean things.

Is graffiti "violence"?


No, I'd claim it's arson and thus a crime, and that I have lost a lot of property that has great value to me.

It's not violent, however.

Because words mean things.

You seem to think "violent" is a statement of severity, when it isn't. It's a description of the character of an act. A mother spanking her child for writing on the walls is "violent". But not something that is severe. It's entirely possible for a non-violent crime to be more severe and noteworthy than a violent crime. Your example of a hate crime by Nazis, destroying a family home, for instance, is more severe than a bar fight where one guy got punched in the chin and then left the bar without serious injury. The former isn't violent, and the latter is, however.

Because words mean things.


Edit: Regarding the deaths in protests, you really need to stop listening to propaganda. Nearly all those deaths have either been unconnected to the protests entirely other than coincidentally (they were about personal beefs or were accidental or the like), or they were by right-wingers; https://abcnews.go.com/US/deaths-con...ry?id=72724790

I just don't think I should engage with you. Your so twisted up and drowned in ideology that I can't see this being productive.

You are making excuses for utterly repulsive acts and I can't see any value in carrying this conversation on.

Chalk it up as your win if you want but this is such a utterly absurd and out there belief I doubt you are making it genuinely.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, so you speak with a tone of authority on matters that you've never actually experienced and think you're in a position to critique how people curate their news.

While posting a fucking meme...

I think when a riot is described as fiery but mostly peaceful it shows a certain level of cognitive dissonance yes.

[downnola]

I think when a riot is described as fiery but mostly peaceful it shows a certain level of cognitive dissonance yes.

That's why I'm pointing out how silly you look when you even admit you're just speaking from the comfort of your couch instead of speaking from actual experience at a protest. Some protests have turned into riots but most are peaceful. That isn't stopping you from generalizing an entire movement/slogan and painting them as domestic terrorists. Your commentary is /pol/ level shit posting and shouldn't be taken seriously, thanks for assisting and making that point crystal clear.

[Edge-]

Man, was Coney Barrett at the BLM protests? No? Why are we on this topic?

[Krakan]

That's why I'm pointing out how silly you look when you even admit you're just speaking from the comfort of your couch instead of speaking from actual experience at a protest. Some protests have turned into riots but most are peaceful. That isn't stopping you from generalizing an entire movement/slogan and painting them as domestic terrorists. Your commentary is /pol/ level shit posting and shouldn't be taken seriously, thanks for assisting and making that point crystal clear.

So to be clear. You are no longer debating this did happen you are saying I didn't see it first hand so somehow I can't make any comment on it?

- - - Updated - - -

Are you the artist formally known as Connal? You remind me of him a great deal.

I don't draw or song so no?