Double_R

linate wrote:

The recurring themes in most of his posts are just terrible analogies taken to extremes

It'd be interesting if doctors of psychology would do a case study on remy's mind

False equivalences are the oxygen of the political right, and it really does speak to that psychological question; if all you have is “you too”, then you have to believe your side is bad as well. So what are you so fervently in support of?

I think many of these people, Remy included, just need to convince themselves that the rest of the world is bad in order to make themselves feel adequate.

The masses follow hopes and dreams and vague ideas of getting rid of waste fraud and abuse hoping to be able to help everyone else that way but all they get is chaos cause Trump is incompetent

That’s the part I was really getting at. To the question of how did we get here, there’s no question that anger at the system is the key to all of this. It’s not working for the vast majority of us, so people want something different. That’s half the story. But the other half is; how the hell do people look at Trump and think that’s the kind of difference they want?

This is where I go back to the Ronald Reagan philosophy. Here’s a simple question - why do societies have governments? Why do we elect representatives and have debates?

The whole point of representative government is so that society has a means by which it can solve its problems. So when Reagan comes out and adopts the core philosophy that “government is the problem”, it’s fundamentally incoherent. And incoherence leads to absurdities.

You can argue that there’s too much government In some areas or that we need to scale back in some ways, that’s fine. But the idea that government itself, as an institution, is inherently bad… then nothing it does could ever be considered good. And that naturally extends to the people running it. So as a Republican, you can’t run on your accomplishments. You can’t tell people what you did to improve their lives, other than to destroy the government you lead. So now when nothing works, that’s good, which is of course absurd.

And now everyone who is part of the government is bad too. So when we think of a politician, what comes to mind? What traits do we tend to expect from our political leadership? We expect them to be intelligent, we expect them to be mature, educated, caring, to behave with decency, to be serious, etc.

Enter Trump. Since we expect all of these things from politicians, and politicians are bad, Trump being the opposite makes him good. So his stupidity, immaturity, ignorance, vileness and indecency, unseriousness… all get rebranded as “not a politician”, which is good. So now almost literally, bad is good, up is down, left is right… it’s all reversed. Science is propaganda, but people like RFK are the source of truth. Journalists who go to tremendous lengths to vet their stories are fake news, but we listen to Joe Rogan.

When you build your foundation on an absurdity, there’s no where else to go. You can fight for a while to reconcile the obvious issues within your views, as the Republican Party did for years, but at some point it will all come crashing down, and I think that’s what we’re seeing.

Ok, on a more serious note…

The right doesn’t have any solutions, not because they can’t think of anything, but because they very idea of solving problems such as affordability is fundamentally at odds with their core ideology. To understand it we have to go back to Ronald Reagan’s inaugural speech where he said those famous words: “government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem”.

That one line encapsulates everything the modern right is built on. When they decry socialism, they’re not actually talking about socialism, hell they couldn’t even define it. What they’re really criticizing is the idea that government has any role in solving any of our problems at all.

This ideology is impenetrable with logic. I recall back in 2008 during the crash when everyone was asking what should we do to stop the economy from tanking, many of the right were saying we should do nothing at all, because the free market will correct itself. You see, that’s the thing; if government intervenes it’s bad by definition, if it’s the free market it’s good by definition because it occurred naturally and will always work itself out. There’s no getting past that with them.

This not only explains why they’re so obsessed with tax cuts (a it’s the only thing they could possibly “accomplish”), but it also explains how we end up with an absurd figure like Trump. If your entire political ethos is that government is bad, well it’s pretty damn difficult then to sell yourself come election time as to why you should continue to be in power within the government. So people turn to outsiders, reality TV stars and former athletes who have absolutely no idea how anything works get propped up, because by this point, all people want is someone who’s not government. So big words become associated with dishonesty and someone with the vocabulary of a third grader now sounds like “one of us”. It was the inevitable path.

But what are the rights solutions?

The right’s solution is to do exactly what they did to bolster Trump into office twice: put democrats in office to fix the problems with the economy, then take office as those benefits are starting to be felt. Worked the first time because Trump mostly let the economy do its thing, didn’t work the second because he decided to implement his agenda. Let’s see what the third time brings.

I wish you would have said the same about Biden and his family

I would say it if it were true.

Who cares what these people think.

I wish I could ignore their opinions, but it's because of them that we have the biggest and most corrupt moron we've ever seen running our country to the ground.

Venezuela and Cuba are America.

Yeah, I'm sure every MAGA lunatic shouting America first at Trump rallies in 2024 were talking about Venezuela and Cuba.

Shoresy wrote:

This thread seems 10 years too late.

So is his removal

President Donald Trump bought stock in the UFC’s parent company ahead of the planned fight on the White House lawn next month.

The president bought between $15,000 and $50,000 of stock in TKO Group Holdings, HuffPost reports, citing Trump’s May 12 financial disclosures. With the planned “Freedom 250” fight on June 14 (Flag Day and Trump’s birthday), the company will get a ton of publicity and media attention, allowing the president to profit as TKO stock goes up.

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/trump-uses-white-house-ufc-181439256.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEpjFqcIC-d9CAb00qi4CJ3cK7jXe6fIZ54jaUUwWp7OhDuB7xuK-oc4u7VgyHzCCM7GFrGQ5DzQk-Swo0fiATre_9iKWHlWvfmHUgwOiebQtlrbIiuG4P-zNSjng-uSaNdOaHPrKAJC7kuULBEMFJPQ6UWTcZCf5Of7vvODs-Hb

Thank you for providing this knowledge.

Nothing about the OP suggested it was new.

What about left? They are corrupt too.

Not even going to pretend you think the left's corruption is analogous.

interviews and Defense Department records reviewed by ProPublica show that the request to loan hundreds of millions of dollars to the firm linked to Trump Jr. was made by Peter Navarro, a White House adviser to President Donald Trump and a friend of Trump Jr.’s.

Of the dozens of companies the Pentagon was considering funding at the time, Vulcan’s was the only deal initiated by a top aide to the president, said an official at the Pentagon who was not authorized to speak publicly.

https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-jr-vulcan-deal-white-house

The president's corruption has gotten so bad that wet literally can't even keep up with it anymore. Most recent example is that he bought stock in Dell right before they were awarded a massive government contract, and also told a crowd to buy stock in Dell, for no apparent reason other than to boost his own holdings.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/05/28/dell-inks-97-billion-pentagon-contract-after-trump-acquires-stock-praises-company/

What other corrupt acts have we not heard about or forgotten because there's just not enough time in a day to focus on them? Post them here.

Or if you're a Trumper, tell us more about Hunter Biden...

Since when was God defined by your standard of "empirical existence"

Are you a Deist? Yes or no?

Says who? You?

Do you really need an authoritative source to recognize that you cannot prove the empirical existence of a being with thoughts alone?

Oh no, the left is again trying steal our hamburgers.

lol. If that’s what you want to believe go ahead.

All facts, not disputable.

Ok but that goes for Harris too.

My point exactly.

The public saw Trump 1st term vs Biden’s term

Correct. They saw a constrained Donald Trump sit back and allow the Obama economy to continue, then compared that to Biden's inheritance of an economy closed down with a decimated supply chain, and acted like both presidents were dealing with the same thing.

Doesn't say many good things about the American electorate.

If Person A disrespects God, then Left Wing Christians don't care.

Because God is just a plug in for whatever you want to call virtuous. You believe in white nationalism? Then claim God does too. You advocate against slavery, them claim God is with you (even though the bible explicitly endorses slavery).

When people invoke God, all they're really doing is invoking their (often convenient) conception of God, and then pretending that the disrespect they experience is being directed towards some omni benevolant being rather than at themselves. It's the ultimate deflection.

If Kamala Harris were to run again and win the Democratic nomination, it’s an L for them long before the Republicans have their guy.

You're really pretending like Americans won't be looking back at the prior administration and tying everything they did to the current candidate. Separating yourself from your own party's failures is very difficult, ask John McCain.

Do you think mayer pete is a bad nominee given hes gay? Even if hes a good candidate otherwise

I do think his sexuality would hurt him in a general election. I would certainly put him ahead of Kamala though because he's far more inspiring and clear in expressing his vision.

sounds like a vanity and power trip more than anything

I would say that accurately describes most candidates on both sides of the aisle.

That aside, I think you're right that she doesn't have a real shot. She'd make a fine president, as I believe many democrats would, but she's a terrible campaigner. She's very mechanic, relies on overused talking points, and is often ill prepared to deal with difficult questions.

And if I'm being honest, after 2024 I just don't think this country is ready for a woman in the Oval office, the misogyny is pervasive. We need a candidate who can win. After 4 years of Trump I believe any democrat will do in the eyes of most voters, but I don't want to take any chances.

Try a bit harder next time.

You're a clown. The only reason I interact with you at all is because of the lack of serious candidates to discuss issues with here.

given that you don't believe in objective morality, there is no such thing as "rational behavior" in your playbook

Another example of you not understanding what words mean.

I would love to debate you on a lot of topics, but given your absurd positions, I wouldn't have to try very hard to win.

You wouldn't stand a chance and you know it.

thats not really any deep question any rational person even asks.

That's literally what the entire legal debate is about, and no legal expert is claiming the answer to be clear cut.

But tell use more Lucy oh great one about what qualifies as rational.

If you are brainless ape, then words can provoke you to act violently.

It really does speak to your inability to understand the world around you that you think this sentence makes sense.

"Brainless apes" cannot be provoked by words because they lack the ability to understand them in any meaningful context. That's the literal difference between us and apes. Words are how ideas are expressed, and ideas are what cause us as human beings to react emotionally. To say that words cannot get an emotional reaction out of you is to say that you lack the capacity to formulate ideas in response to them.

You turn out to be much closer to the brainless ape you paint the attacker as.

Typical response from Dbl.

Yeah, calling out gibberish for being gibberish is a thing people typically do after reading gibberish.

Your response is also typical; ignore the point I actually made and pretend the second part is all that was said. It's what dishonest people do.

I don't think Hillary would have had the courage to liberate Venezuela and Cuba from socialism.

#americafirst

Of course, you won't say a thing about it. You worship government intervention in all things.

Do you enjoy having full blown conversations with yourself? Do you tag me because it makes you feel better to pretend you’re actually talking to another person?

You miss this point: "we do not have the right to censure or censor anyone due to their chosen commentary"

I don’t see how I was missing it, I responded directly to it.

To say we don’t have a right to censor or censure anyone for their commentary is self defeating. It’s trying to uphold one person’s right to free speech by taking away the free speech rights of others to respond. This is why “free speech” is only meaningful as a concept if it is invoked as a check against the government.

There are always consequences to our claim of rights, where rights may not in fact be available. Therefore, we do not have the "right" [which is available to all], but a misguided privilege "...to censure or censor anyone due to their chosen commentary." Privileges are of limited access. One of the limitations is that by whatever claim we make about someone else is subject to truth. One may say that another is "low I.Q.," but they had better be prepared to prove it in court should that other person sue for slander or libel. They have that right, my friend.

Honestly, no idea what you’re talking about here.

You miss my point;

I accept your concession.

The banks must pay you well to support the fascist bailouts to those private sectors.

No one said a thing about bail outs. You’re such a pathetic troll.

The violence itself isn't a 1st amendment violation to my knowledge, but if the govt failed to prosecute them specifically because of your speech, then that would be viewpoint discrimination, which is unconstitutional.

What you’re describing is basically the government imposing punishment for speech by a proxy. Doesn’t really conflict with what I’m saying, I never argued that someone’s speech makes it ok to attack them, only that it falls outside of the scope of what “free speech” is about. But when someone’s speech becomes the deciding factor in what can happen to them and it’s the government at the helm of that decision, doesn’t matter what mechanism they use, that is principally a first amendment violation.