Political Posts

[dwy000]

41 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

I love Jimmy Kimmel's show, but he was doing too much on Trump every night...like Colbert...Seth Myers as well...even SNL for a couple of years.  People watch the show to get away from this shit...so some jokes, sure...but it was becoming all about Trump and MAGA.

 

That being said, to use your political clout to do stuff like this...that word keeps popping up, because the definition demands it...humanity's awareness to recognize it also demands it.  But that's the problem...half the population doesn't recognize it until it eventually bites them on the ass as well.  And then you wonder why we silenced the likes of the Jimmy Kimmels...gnat-like comedians in the grand scheme of things...why did we do it...but then it's too late!  Cheers!

I think amyone who celebrates the cancelation of Jimmy Kimmel should be fired. 

 

 

Yes, that was meant to be ironic. 

[Sweet]

3 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

 

fas·cism ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm  

 also  ˈfa-ˌsi

1

often Fascism : a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition

 

After the firing of Stephen Colbert, suspension of Jimmy Kimmel, attack on the MSM and firings of so many opposition employees/critics...we're getting pretty damn close!  The question is, how far does the dictator push things...to Iron Man levels or to the extremes we hoped we'd never see again?  Cheers!

That’s companies making those decisions.  Colbert’s show was losing a ton of money.  The world will be a better place with their shows gone

 

Even that’s a watered down version of fascism used to mean, and certainly Trump isn’t a dictator or suppressing the opposition by force.

[Sweet]

3 hours ago, dwy000 said:

Okay.....did it.  I was implying that normally cancel culture is seen from the other side. In this case it is driven directly by the President.

That’s not what I’ve seen.  There are accounts organically organising this in place like Twitter.

 

The people getting cancelled for expressing their views celebrated Kirk getting killed for his views.  They are for the ultimate form of cancelling - assassination.  It’s hard to feel much sympathy for them.

 

This is quite different from much of the cancelling we have seen before.  A person would say something like there are only two sexes and they would be accused of transphobia.

[whiskybravo]

7 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Yup, it's just the lefties.  The righties share none of the blame or culpability.  Those lefties just never look at things rationally...just emotions, emotions, like a raging, hormonal tranny!  Oh, here they come again!  Maybe I should watch Inside Out 2...oh, a Disney/Pixar movie, pushing a DEI, tranny-loving narrative!  Nope, can't watch that...if any of my kids watch a movie like that, they'll turn into gun-toting, gays with tranny boyfriends who try and shoot online right-wing personalities who are preventing the world from dying from vaccines, falling under the cult-like spell of science, and believing that there are systemic inequalities that need to be changed...whew!  Cheers!

Whew is right!

[whiskybravo]

11 hours ago, Eldad said:

Dozens camp outside NYC courthouse chanting “Free Luigi” and buying and selling Mangione merch. 

Today’s Manson girls 

Edited September 18, 2025 by whiskybravo

[Buckeye]

 

Karl Rove gets it.

 

“[T]here has been a disturbing and growing undercurrent in our national conversation and on the internet, a pronounced emphasis on ‘they’ and ‘them,'” Rove wrote in an op-ed for the Journal. “Charlie would be alive but for ‘them.’ ‘They’ killed him. ‘They’ are responsible for his death. ‘They’ must be made to pay.”

Rove said in unequivocal terms that there is no “they” here:

No. Charlie Kirk wasn’t killed by “them.” “They” didn’t pull the trigger. One person did, apparently a young man driven by impulse and a terrible hate. If there were a “they” involved, law enforcement would find “them” and the justice system would hold “them” accountable. But “he” and “him” are the correct pronouns for this horrendous act.

 

Our culture is built on the principle that individuals are responsible for what they say and do. People can be influenced by words they hear and groups they’re part of. But we aren’t helpless automatons whose actions are dictated by others.

 

Using Charlie’s murder to justify retaliation against political rivals is wrong and dangerous. It will further divide and embitter our country. No good thing will come of it.

 

It is also an insult to his memory.

Edited September 18, 2025 by Buckeye

[cwericb]

29 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

 

Karl Rove gets it.

 

“[T]here has been a disturbing and growing undercurrent in our national conversation and on the internet, a pronounced emphasis on ‘they’ and ‘them,'” Rove wrote in an op-ed for the Journal. “Charlie would be alive but for ‘them.’ ‘They’ killed him. ‘They’ are responsible for his death. ‘They’ must be made to pay.”

Rove said in unequivocal terms that there is no “they” here:

No. Charlie Kirk wasn’t killed by “them.” “They” didn’t pull the trigger. One person did, apparently a young man driven by impulse and a terrible hate. If there were a “they” involved, law enforcement would find “them” and the justice system would hold “them” accountable. But “he” and “him” are the correct pronouns for this horrendous act.

 

Our culture is built on the principle that individuals are responsible for what they say and do. People can be influenced by words they hear and groups they’re part of. But we aren’t helpless automatons whose actions are dictated by others.

 

Using Charlie’s murder to justify retaliation against political rivals is wrong and dangerous. It will further divide and embitter our country. No good thing will come of it.

 

It is also an insult to his memory.

 

Gets my vote for post of the week!

[dealraker]

13 minutes ago, cwericb said:

 

Gets my vote for post of the week!

I do believe we had quite the effort here to properly categorize the shooter, its is surely them that did it.  To me that effort failed, but we tried hard.

 

I'll simply say that if you are putting on a good selling show, and nearly all shows are geared towards raising people's emotions, you'd better make enough money to get protected because you've really pissed off someone somewhere who is lusting for the glory of being an assassin.  

[73 Reds]

9 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

How about free and open speech in the U.S...Trump is going on an all out blitz of firing/silencing opposition voices.  I just banned Cubsfan for 48 hours because one of his posts was a little over the top.  Doo is next!  Isn't this ok with you Reds...your commander in chief is doing the same thing...even greater lengths to get what he wants.  I'm only doing it to slow down the rhetoric and animosity on here from people who used to get along great 10 years ago!  Cheers!

Sanjeev, why does my question about a ban bring you right back to Trump?  This is what some of us mean by DTS.  

[whiskybravo]

50 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

 

Karl Rove gets it.

 

“[T]here has been a disturbing and growing undercurrent in our national conversation and on the internet, a pronounced emphasis on ‘they’ and ‘them,'” Rove wrote in an op-ed for the Journal. “Charlie would be alive but for ‘them.’ ‘They’ killed him. ‘They’ are responsible for his death. ‘They’ must be made to pay.”

Rove said in unequivocal terms that there is no “they” here:

No. Charlie Kirk wasn’t killed by “them.” “They” didn’t pull the trigger. One person did, apparently a young man driven by impulse and a terrible hate. If there were a “they” involved, law enforcement would find “them” and the justice system would hold “them” accountable. But “he” and “him” are the correct pronouns for this horrendous act.

 

Our culture is built on the principle that individuals are responsible for what they say and do. People can be influenced by words they hear and groups they’re part of. But we aren’t helpless automatons whose actions are dictated by others.

 

Using Charlie’s murder to justify retaliation against political rivals is wrong and dangerous. It will further divide and embitter our country. No good thing will come of it.

 

It is also an insult to his memory.

Sure, the individual is responsible. But that doesn’t mean we pretend the ideological environment, especially one full of dehumanizing language, plays no role.

 

I’ve seen a lot of calls for violence coming from the left online.  There’s a cultural atmosphere of hatred that shouldn’t be ignored.

[73 Reds]

9 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Are you fucking kidding me?  Go back and read all of the shit-stirring stuff he's posted...not to mention just him, but others on both sides!  

 

But please use me as the foil here if necessary to get the board back to what it was before Trump ever arrived.  When people casually on occasion voiced their political opinion instead of what it has become on this thread.

 

Cheers!

Sorry, I've never seen anything he's posted that is personally offensive.  But like Cubs said, you're the boss and its your rules.  And yet again, you just can't leave Trump out of any post.  

[whiskybravo]

8 minutes ago, dealraker said:

I do believe we had quite the effort here to properly categorize the shooter, its is surely them that did it.  To me that effort failed, but we tried hard.

 

I'll simply say that if you are putting on a good selling show, and nearly all shows are geared towards raising people's emotions, you'd better make enough money to get protected because you've really pissed off someone somewhere who is lusting for the glory of being an assassin.  

Very cynical and unfair take.  Sure you are perfectly within your rights to disagree with Charlie Kirk’s political views.  Just as he iwas within his rights to promote them. But he was also promoting dialogue.  Trying to give students a different perspective than they were getting from their professors.  Since he was having success, he was more of a threat.

[whiskybravo]

For those doubting there is a problem with the European political class.  Here is a quote from British social democrat leader William Clouston (not on the right!):  “That this Green Paper exists is a tragedy. For decades, Britain has sleepwalked into an abyss which has made us poorer, weaker, and gutted our industrial base. The heart of this is a self-induced energy crisis which has been catastrophic for our welfare and security. Britons now suffer the highest energy prices in the developed world, with our collective wealth continually drained to fund vast energy imports.
How did Britain—an energy rich nation—sink into an energy crisis? We argue below that the causes were part indifference, part profiteering and part lunacy. And it happened because of pretence: an ill-fated attempt to ignore the material world. But as we are finding out, the material world matters, production matters, and tangible needs matter“

 

This exerpt from Doomberg’s latest continues: “The exactitude of Clouston’s diagnosis of what ails Britain also serves to highlight the enormous chasm in energy positioning between it and its former colonial possession….In less than two decades, the shale revolution, and the enthusiasm with which key US states embraced the technology, catapulted America into the world’s preeminent oil and gas producer by a wide margin.”

 

This, among other reasons, is how the current political class has maneuvered Europe to a less influential global role and if continued an decreasingly competitive position.  Three cheers for feckless Ed Miliband.

 

P.S.  Feel free to compare blue state policies where appropriate, e.g. New York State fracking ban.

[dealraker]

59 minutes ago, whiskybravo said:

Very cynical and unfair take.  Sure you are perfectly within your rights to disagree with Charlie Kirk’s political views.  Just as he iwas within his rights to promote them. But he was also promoting dialogue.  Trying to give students a different perspective than they were getting from their professors.  Since he was having success, he was more of a threat.

Sorry whisky but it really...and I know this is hard for you...isn't just right zingers who get axed.  A "different" perspective was one programmed to sell extremely well.  And it was extreme, and it gets extreme response.

 

Hire security.  You've pissed off someone, count on it.  4?  That ain't proper security for national attraction.

[cwericb]

51 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Sorry, I've never seen anything he's posted that is personally offensive.  But like Cubs said, you're the boss and its your rules.  And yet again, you just can't leave Trump out of any post.  

 

Little lack of objectivity here? 

 

"Sorry, I've never seen anything he's posted that is personally offensive." 

Really? Of course you don't. You support and agree with most or all of what Cubs posts. 

 

"And yet again, you just can't leave Trump out of any post." 

Why are you surprised at the frequent mention Trump on a thread titled "Political Posts"? 

 

Some of Cub's posts are as outrageous as are those of his great leader. It's all about that Koolaid thing. 

[Castanza]

16 hours ago, LC said:

The death penalty is illegal in Wash DC and in New York.

Trump says anyone in DC who meets his criteria, he is going to "seek the death penalty"

So he is admitting he will be seeking to commit an illegal act. 

 

Is this whole discussion we're having absolutely silly?

Of course it is - but this is what happens when you elect a clown to run the country.

We get circus laws, clown show enforcement, and things like Spek pointed out above where Trump's friends get to break the law without repercussion. 

 

So if Bessent can break the law without issue, if Jan 6 rioters can commit treason and get a pardon, well perhaps Tyler and Luigi are thinking the same thing. Rules for thee, not for me...it's a terrible way to run a little league team much less a country.

 

 

You're not going far enough which is the problem. This issue of Presidential Powers and abuse of said position did NOT start with Trump and it will not end with Trump. The sooner citizens remove themselves from this cycle of "my side vs your side" the sooner we can get back on track and elect a candidate that builds bridges. This is why I did not vote for Trump.  

 

Bruce Ackerman (Sterling Professor at Yale Law School) made this prediction in his book (2010) The Decline and Fall of the American Republic. It's very much worth a read....But if you cannot find the time I suggest listening to this section of Dan Carlins most recent podcast. He goes over a section of the book including the predictions made by Ackerman.

 

Start at 1:10:00 for full discussion....1:19:00 for predictions 

 

https://www.dancarlin.com/product/common-sense-324-whats-good-for-the-goose/

 

 

[LC]

7 hours ago, Sweet said:

The world will be a better place with their shows gone

 

What was wrong with the Colbert show? 

[LC]

6 minutes ago, Castanza said:

You're not going far enough which is the problem. This issue of Presidential Powers and abuse of said position did NOT start with Trump and it will not end with Trump. The sooner citizens remove themselves from this cycle of "my side vs your side" the sooner we can get back on track and elect a candidate that builds bridges. This is why I did not vote for Trump.  

 

I largely agree with this. I think the changing nature of the world (globalization, interconnection) has necessitated some  consolidating of power/decision making with POTUS, at least compared to the pre-WW2 era. 

 

But I also agree the "abuse" has gone too far. Trump I would argue has done the worst and shamelessly abuses his power, but there were other instances over the past 3 decades as well that I can recall. 

 

So I think you're spot-on in identifying the problem.

 

The short term solution of electing a better leader is the right one, but take a look at this thread as one data point...what are the odds? I hope the pendulum swings back from where it is today but who knows. Democrats don't have a great rallying call and Republicans continue to embolden themselves, the benefit of fanaticism. 

 

Long term solutions are even more difficult: Reduce POTUS power and adopt more of a parliamentary driven government like Europe? I think that is where the US is heading as we mature as a nation, otherwise the alternative is something oligarch-driven like Russia. And I am not sure that is even possible with the current Supreme Court. Redefine executive orders? That would take a constitutional amendment I think, unlikely to pass Congress. 

 

Long way of saying I think the odds of Americans solving our own political problems are getting worse by the day.

[73 Reds]

36 minutes ago, cwericb said:

 

Little lack of objectivity here? 

 

"Sorry, I've never seen anything he's posted that is personally offensive." 

Really? Of course you don't. You support and agree with most or all of what Cubs posts. 

 

"And yet again, you just can't leave Trump out of any post." 

Why are you surprised at the frequent mention Trump on a thread titled "Political Posts"? 

 

Some of Cub's posts are as outrageous as are those of his great leader. It's all about that Koolaid thing. 

Nah, and this is the problem.  It makes no difference what I agree with - civil and polite tones are what matter and show me a post that is personally insulting to another poster.  It is easy to make assumptions about people on an online board where all you know about someone is the snippets they write.  From my perspective, Cubs is usually responding to the endless posts here complaining about what Trump did, said or believes.    

[dwy000]

7 hours ago, Sweet said:

That’s companies making those decisions.  Colbert’s show was losing a ton of money.  The world will be a better place with their shows gone

 

Even that’s a watered down version of fascism used to mean, and certainly Trump isn’t a dictator or suppressing the opposition by force.

Nobody is forcing you to watch their shows just as nobody is forcing you to watch Hannity.  Thats the whole freedom of speech thing. 

 

Trump is putting troops on the streets over the opposition of local government, publicly stating he doesn't care about sowing division, publicly calling for the cancelation of shows and having his personally picked FCC head criticize networks/shows when he has to approve mergers.  And he's making up false accusations against fed officials to try and get them fired because they dont do what he wants. 

 

If the dictator/fascist alarm bells aren't ringing loudly, regardless of your polical leaning you just don't want to hear them. 

[73 Reds]

21 minutes ago, LC said:

 

What was wrong with the Colbert show? 

It just isn't funny.  I miss the days of Carson, Letterman and Leno.

[LC]

4 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

It just isn't funny.  I miss the days of Carson, Letterman and Leno.

Isn't that just a matter of taste? It's like saying the world is better off without durian fruit. 

 

Hardly a reason to say the world is better off without it...I figured there was more to Sweet's comment that was being unsaid. 

[73 Reds]

2 minutes ago, LC said:

Isn't that just a matter of taste? It's like saying the world is better off without durian fruit. 

 

Hardly a reason to say the world is better off without it...I figured there was more to Sweet's comment that was being unsaid. 

Yeah, you're right.  But I do go to sleep earlier now and wake up earlier as well so all the better!

[LC]

8 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

If the dictator/fascist alarm bells aren't ringing loudly, regardless of your polical leaning you just don't want to hear them. 

 

Bingo. If this was a third world country, we would all be saying, "of course, this is just what dictators do!" 

 

 

 

[cwericb]

7 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Nah, and this is the problem.  It makes no difference what I agree with - civil and polite tones are what matter and show me a post that is personally insulting to another poster.  It is easy to make assumptions about people on an online board where all you know about someone is the snippets they write.  From my perspective, Cubs is usually responding to the endless posts here complaining about what Trump did, said or believes.    

 

You have been a member of this group for about a year. Cubs has been on this board for over a dozen years and I have been here for for close to twenty. So I think I know Cubs and his history in the board pretty well.

 

Now, I know he has drunk the Koolaid, and there is little I can do to rescue him, but I think that he is smart enough that he will come around eventually. If we ever ran into each other I think we would have a great time. Or perhaps strangle each other if the subject of politics came up.