Political Posts

[73 Reds]

6 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Nope...things were exactly the same!  Cheers!

Sorry, not even close.  

[Sweet]

46 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Sorry, not even close.  

I don’t know what Parsad’s talking about.

 

Dems and GOP had their disagreements 25 years ago, gun-control, abortion, climate, healthcare, and they still disagree on these.  Plus much of the political debate was around government size and taxes etc.

 

However, 25 years ago there was broad agreement on major cultural issues that everyone took for granted.  Like securing the border, controlling illegal immigration, tough on crime and pro-police, against racism and discrimination, equality rather than equity, and there was none of the gender nonsense.  Both sides fight on these issues now.

And a simple question to think about.  Which side of the aisle moved on these issues?

 

Edited September 12, 2025 by Sweet

[73 Reds]

14 minutes ago, Sweet said:

I don’t know what Parsad’s talking about.

 

Dems and GOP had their disagreements 25 years ago, gun-control, abortion, climate, healthcare, and they still disagree on these.  Plus much of the political debate was around government size and taxes etc.

 

However, 25 years ago there was broad agreement on major cultural issues that everyone took for granted.  Like securing the border, controlling illegal immigration, tough on crime and pro-police, against racism and discrimination, equality rather than equity, and there none of the gender nonsense.  Both sides fight on these issues now.

And a simple question to think about.  Which side of the aisle moved on these issues?

 

Yep.  Back then we had just gotten through the senseless assassinations of MLK and RFK and the Country was in the process of slow healing.  The trajectory of common desire for freedom, equality and prosperity was on the rise and political opponents could be civil and even work together on important issues.  Today the trajectory is one of increasing divisiveness and sheer ignorance by a materially large segment of our society with respect to US history, economics, and the values which have enabled the US to be the World's primary peace keeper.  I have no idea where Sanjeev is coming from and believe that such thinking fosters an "us vs. them" attitude which causes even further divisiveness and fear - even among friends and allies.  It looks like it comes down to TDS which seems to be a larger problem than some of us (including me) would care to admit.  

[Sweet]

9 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Yep.  Back then we had just gotten through the senseless assassinations of MLK and RFK and the Country was in the process of slow healing.  The trajectory of common desire for freedom, equality and prosperity was on the rise and political opponents could be civil and even work together on important issues.  Today the trajectory is one of increasing divisiveness and sheer ignorance by a materially large segment of our society with respect to US history, economics, and the values which have enabled the US to be the World's primary peace keeper.  I have no idea where Sanjeev is coming from and believe that such thinking fosters an "us vs. them" attitude which causes even further divisiveness and fear - even among friends and allies.  It looks like it comes down to TDS which seems to be a larger problem than some of us (including me) would care to admit.  

Yep.  I think much of the talk about people profiting and causing division is true however it’s also a bit cheap.

 

It’s not just influencers causing division, there has been a real drift in shared beliefs / values.

 

Edited September 12, 2025 by Sweet

[73 Reds]

Just now, Sweet said:

Yep.  I think much of the talk about people profiting and causing division is true however it’s also a bit cheap.

 

There has been a real movement on shared beliefs.  It’s not just influencers profiting from division, there is actually a fundamental shift in shared values.

Right, and the shift in values is based on both ignorance and emotion - two powerful concepts that when combined together cause havoc, which we are now experiencing.

[Gregmal]

I mean it’s staggering to think that there are groups, of size that isn’t immaterial, that consider traditional family values “fascist/racist/far right”. That’s stunning. 

[thepupil]

1 hour ago, Sweet said:

I don’t know what Parsad’s talking about.

 

Dems and GOP had their disagreements 25 years ago, gun-control, abortion, climate, healthcare, and they still disagree on these.  Plus much of the political debate was around government size and taxes etc.

 

However, 25 years ago there was broad agreement on major cultural issues that everyone took for granted.  Like securing the border, controlling illegal immigration, tough on crime and pro-police, against racism and discrimination, equality rather than equity, and there was none of the gender nonsense.  Both sides fight on these issues now.

And a simple question to think about.  Which side of the aisle moved on these issues?

 

what’s amazing is you can watch West Wing from 1999/2000’s and so many of the issues are the same as today.

 

 

[Eldad]

40 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

I mean it’s staggering to think that there are groups, of size that isn’t immaterial, that consider traditional family values “fascist/racist/far right”. That’s stunning. 

I’m sure you have seen the Gen Z polls where the men rate marriage and children very highly and the females near the bottom of important life goals. 
 

Ukrainian brides is always an option I guess. Their male to female ratio is going to be all out of whack after this war. 

[backtothebeach]

German public mainstream media slinging mud, with a half-sentence for plausible deniability. This is one of the two main evening news shows, reporting just 24 hours after Charlie Kirk was killed:
 

"Charlie Kirk was an extremist."

 

"That there are now groups celebrating his death cannot be justified by anything ... not even by his often repulsive, racist, sexist, and anti-human statements."

 

"The radical religious conspiracy theorist ..." (heute-journal September 11)

 

Poor Germans have to pay an obligatory $250 per year per household for "neutral" public media.

[dwy000]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fed-governor-cook-declared-her-atlanta-property-vacation-home-documents-show-2025-09-12/

 

So Trump lied to try and fire Cook?  I'm shocked!

[Libs]

Interesting how many posters - not just leftists - assume Kirk was a shameless profiteer. But I believe he was sincere in his convictions. (Just watch the videos- he went into the lion's den and respectfully engaged young people in debate. The guy meant it, and whether you agree or not, this is the way it should be done. People freely expressing their opinions).

 

I loathe, AOC, Sanders, Mamdami, et al.   Because their policies are idiotic. But I believe they are mostly sincere. 

Edited September 13, 2025 by Libs

[dwy000]

14 minutes ago, Libs said:

Interesting how many posters - not just leftists - assume Kirk was a shameless profiteer. But I believe he was sincere in his convictions. 

 

I loathe, AOC, Sanders, Mamdami, et al.   Because their policies are idiotic. But I believe they are mostly sincere. 

I'm sure they are all sincere in their convictions. The difference is that the ones in the second paragraph ran for office on the basis of their convictions. Kirk just sought to make money off of his. 

 

And I should add i strongly disagree with those 3 on policy too. 

Edited September 13, 2025 by dwy000

[Eldad]

11 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

I'm sure they are all sincere in their convictions. The difference is that the ones in the second paragraph ran for office on the basis of their convictions. Kirk just sought to make money off of his. 

 

And I should add i strongly disagree with those 3 on policy too. 

I don’t think money is what drove him. Turning Point is a nonprofit. He did also do well financially . I mean this America, even Bernie Sanders has three houses. 

[dwy000]

Just now, Eldad said:

I don’t think money is what drove him. Turning Point is a nonprofit. He did also do well financially . I mean this America, even Bernie Sanders has three houses. 

I suspect Turning Point was a non profit for tax purposes only. He lived in an $8m house.  It appears not all those donations were going to further the cause. 

[Eldad]

3 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

I suspect Turning Point was a non profit for tax purposes only. He lived in an $8m house.  It appears not all those donations were going to further the cause. 

8 MM house can ding the legacy a little bit. Probably should not have done that. 

[whiskybravo]

7 hours ago, Gregmal said:

I mean it’s staggering to think that there are groups, of size that isn’t immaterial, that consider traditional family values “fascist/racist/far right”. That’s stunning. 

And the discouraging thing is, as is often attributed to Jonathan Swift, you can’t reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into.

 

Edited September 13, 2025 by whiskybravo

[Cigarbutt]

3 hours ago, backtothebeach said:

German public mainstream media slinging mud, with a half-sentence for plausible deniability. This is one of the two main evening news shows, reporting just 24 hours after Charlie Kirk was killed:

"Charlie Kirk was an extremist."

"That there are now groups celebrating his death cannot be justified by anything ... not even by his often repulsive, racist, sexist, and anti-human statements."

"The radical religious conspiracy theorist ..." (heute-journal September 11)

Poor Germans have to pay an obligatory $250 per year per household for "neutral" public media.

Please help me understand here (i may need to be "reasoned"?).

The topic: where was he positioned in the following two-dimensional spectrum?

1st dimendion: factual-based

2nd dimension: bias or let's say position in 'our' increasingly polarized environment

 

Typically, factual-based approaches tend to help in objectively assessing conspiracy (or any) theories

Typîcally, semantically, extreme and radical means far from the center/moderation

Can you explain/clarify your post, given this additional information?

 

Edited September 13, 2025 by Cigarbutt

[Parsad]

5 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

Yep.  Back then we had just gotten through the senseless assassinations of MLK and RFK and the Country was in the process of slow healing.  The trajectory of common desire for freedom, equality and prosperity was on the rise and political opponents could be civil and even work together on important issues.  Today the trajectory is one of increasing divisiveness and sheer ignorance by a materially large segment of our society with respect to US history, economics, and the values which have enabled the US to be the World's primary peace keeper.  I have no idea where Sanjeev is coming from and believe that such thinking fosters an "us vs. them" attitude which causes even further divisiveness and fear - even among friends and allies.  It looks like it comes down to TDS which seems to be a larger problem than some of us (including me) would care to admit.  

 

5 hours ago, Sweet said:

I don’t know what Parsad’s talking about.

 

Dems and GOP had their disagreements 25 years ago, gun-control, abortion, climate, healthcare, and they still disagree on these.  Plus much of the political debate was around government size and taxes etc.

 

However, 25 years ago there was broad agreement on major cultural issues that everyone took for granted.  Like securing the border, controlling illegal immigration, tough on crime and pro-police, against racism and discrimination, equality rather than equity, and there was none of the gender nonsense.  Both sides fight on these issues now.

And a simple question to think about.  Which side of the aisle moved on these issues?

 

 

I was talking about the 1960's and 1970's...73Reds has an extremely rosy view of what it was like back then.  There was as much divisiveness...even more than today.  Vietnam vets used to get lambasted as "baby killers"...there was like 2 or 3 prominent assassinations or attempts a year...inflation was becoming rampant in the 70's...shortages were common place...gas prices started spiking...unemployment was way higher than today...Nixon was being impeached...Nixon associates were being prosecuted and jailed...nuclear war was a real threat...population growth was a worry...civil rights was one of the biggest issues, including women entering the workforce...divorce was still a no-no, but women's lib was becoming prominent.  

 

Many of the same issues or spins on the same issues existed.  So that's what Parsad was talking about!  Cheers!

[Parsad]

3 hours ago, Libs said:

Interesting how many posters - not just leftists - assume Kirk was a shameless profiteer. But I believe he was sincere in his convictions. (Just watch the videos- he went into the lion's den and respectfully engaged young people in debate. The guy meant it, and whether you agree or not, this is the way it should be done. People freely expressing their opinions).

 

I loathe, AOC, Sanders, Mamdami, et al.   Because their policies are idiotic. But I believe they are mostly sincere. 

 

Although Mamdami looks like he's a pretty good soccer player!    Cheers!

[backtothebeach]

2 hours ago, Cigarbutt said:

Please help me understand here (i may need to be "reasoned"?).

The topic: where was he positioned in the following two-dimensional spectrum?

1st dimendion: factual-based

2nd dimension: bias or let's say position in 'our' increasingly polarized environment

 

Typically, factual-based approaches tend to help in objectively assessing conspiracy (or any) theories

Typîcally, semantically, extreme and radical means far from the center/moderation

Can you explain/clarify your post, given this additional information?

 

I don't think he was on the radical right (which in German basically means he's one step away from being a Neonazi). Religious conservative, sure. Intolerant extremist, no.

 

I’d question the accuracy and categories of your graph. They feel vague and subjective. Apparently, analysts rate a small number of articles, which doesn’t seem very rigorous. As for Charlie Kirk, it’d be interesting to actually see the ten or so articles where they say he spreads falsehoods, when 90% of his stuff online is polite discussions with college students.

I mean, you can dig up examples of lies or falsehoods from almost any media outlet. Like yesterday, when the German correspondent in Washington from the same public station repeated the claim that Kirk supposedly said gay people should be stoned to death, and other stuff, parroting the same lies from the X post someone else did earlier in this thread.

Edited September 13, 2025 by backtothebeach

[Sweet]

8 hours ago, Libs said:

Interesting how many posters - not just leftists - assume Kirk was a shameless profiteer. But I believe he was sincere in his convictions. (Just watch the videos- he went into the lion's den and respectfully engaged young people in debate. The guy meant it, and whether you agree or not, this is the way it should be done. People freely expressing their opinions).

 

I loathe, AOC, Sanders, Mamdami, et al.   Because their policies are idiotic. But I believe they are mostly sincere. 

Kirk profited from division, insofar as he went to campuses to talk about divisive issues and was able to monetise that.  People who know even less about the guy than I do are saying all sorts of wild shit about him - like he supported ‘stoning gays’.
 

I don’t think he was went anywhere trying to wind people up or annoy them, he seemed kind to most he encountered.  You get all those ‘owned’ and ‘destroyed’ videos, but most of its editing for clicks many not even produced by him.
 

For those who think otherwise go watch him with Newsom or Maher.

 

8 hours ago, dwy000 said:

I'm sure they are all sincere in their convictions. The difference is that the ones in the second paragraph ran for office on the basis of their convictions. Kirk just sought to make money off of his. 

 

And I should add i strongly disagree with those 3 on policy too. 

This is an extremely cynical (and wrong) take.  
 

Kirk set up turning point USA which a non-profit conservative movement that goes to university campuses.  He became famous because he was an effective debater and speaker and from that drew an audience and following that he was able to monetise.
 

He was only 31, he might very well have ran for office later in life.  And even if he didn’t, he was involved in politics and started out with no guarantee of ever making money from it.   So why the profiteering stuff?

 

Greg said he didn’t have a real job.  Really?  He started and ran his own organisation from when he was young.  How is running your own organisation not a job?

 

Edited September 13, 2025 by Sweet

[whiskybravo]

5 hours ago, Cigarbutt said:

Please help me understand here (i may need to be "reasoned"?).

The topic: where was he positioned in the following two-dimensional spectrum?

1st dimendion: factual-based

2nd dimension: bias or let's say position in 'our' increasingly polarized environment

 

Typically, factual-based approaches tend to help in objectively assessing conspiracy (or any) theories

Typîcally, semantically, extreme and radical means far from the center/moderation

Can you explain/clarify your post, given this additional information?

 

 

The Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart gives the appearance of neutrality through its tidy symmetry, but it’s not ideologically neutral. One of its key backers, Gaingels, is a venture group explicitly committed to advancing DEI and LGBTQ+ representation in corporate leadership. That mission inevitably shapes how bias and reliability are framed. In this context, someone like Charlie Kirk, who openly rejects DEI in favor of meritocracy and promotes traditional family values, doesn’t just appear biased, but becomes ideologically incompatible. What’s labeled extreme is often just nonconformity to a dominant cultural framework. The chart’s polished balance masks a deeper alignment with progressive institutional norms.

 

German media slinging mud within 24 hours of his death reflects the same dynamic, nonconformity to the prevailing moral framework is recoded as moral deviance.

 

Edited September 13, 2025 by whiskybravo

[whiskybravo]

1 hour ago, Sweet said:

Kirk profited from division, insofar as he went to campuses to talk about divisive issues and was able to monetise that.  People who know even less about the guy than I do are saying all sorts of wild shit about him - like he supported ‘stoning gays’.
 

I don’t think he was went anywhere trying to wind people up or annoy them, he actually seemed kind to most he encountered.  You get all those ‘owned’ and ‘destroyed’ videos, but most of its editing for clicks many not even produced by him.

 

I’ve watched some of his videos and he seems respectful to those he’s debating.  I don’t agree with everything he says, but he’s reasonable.  I mean he is a religious conservative.  It is ridiculous to think he wants to stone gays.  He was arguing against the tendency of people to cherry-pick Biblical passages.  His beliefs are anathema to progressives, so he gets villainized .

Edited September 13, 2025 by whiskybravo

[73 Reds]

7 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

 

I was talking about the 1960's and 1970's...73Reds has an extremely rosy view of what it was like back then.  There was as much divisiveness...even more than today.  Vietnam vets used to get lambasted as "baby killers"...there was like 2 or 3 prominent assassinations or attempts a year...inflation was becoming rampant in the 70's...shortages were common place...gas prices started spiking...unemployment was way higher than today...Nixon was being impeached...Nixon associates were being prosecuted and jailed...nuclear war was a real threat...population growth was a worry...civil rights was one of the biggest issues, including women entering the workforce...divorce was still a no-no, but women's lib was becoming prominent.  

 

Many of the same issues or spins on the same issues existed.  So that's what Parsad was talking about!  Cheers!

Sanjeev, Viet Nam was ending; Presidents' lives were not being threatened; inflation was an issue but that was hardly divisive because it affected everyone; Nixon was impeached for activity that today would be punishable by a slap on the wrist, if at all.  Get some perspective.  

Edited September 13, 2025 by 73 Reds
word

[dealraker]

19 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Sanjeev, Viet Nam was ending; Presidents' lives were not being threatened; inflation was an issue but that was hardly divisive because it affected everyone; Nixon was impeached for activity that today would be punishable by a slap on the wrist, if at all.  Get some perspective.  

Reds I think you've been overcome by the Trump narrative, the only possible factor that could cloud your view of the past. The sentence about Nixon is however accurate but only as it relates to our great flexibility for allowing Trump to have no accountability, others would not escape Nixon type actions.