The war between Trump and the CIA

[Parihaka]

I already have a toilet, a shower and kitchen but thanks for offering.

Meanwhile after you've finished there I think these guys could use some ;logistical support. They don't seem as well organized as that lot (albeit that's probably not surprising).


https://nypost.com/wp-content/upload...rip=all&w=1317

The question still remains, what are you doing, other than hanging out on a forum now virtually dedicated to hate speech aimed at conservatives and conservatism? Doesn't seem very middle-of-the-road of you.

[Monash]

The question still remains, what are you doing, other than hanging out on a forum now virtually dedicated to hate speech aimed at conservatives and conservatism? Doesn't seem very middle-of-the-road of you.

What do I do? I review the current policies of the parties (and individual candidates where applicable) regarding issues of importance to me. I review the track record of the current government and take an active interest in ongoing political debates, economic forecasts and other relevant material. I also listen to the opinions of others. Then I vote.

For the rest? You want to organize port-a-loos for anti-vaxers, be my guest. It its however currently not high on the list of things that I personally believe best serves the interests representative democracy in Australia. But then that's just me. You have at it. As for me, when or if I feel further action is required in support of a particular political cause I will take whatever action I deem lawful and appropriate. When.

Oh and 'hate speech'? Really. You need to check your definitions. I know you 'hate' when people disagree with you and express contrasting opinions but that doesn't meet the dictionary definition of hate speech, let alone the legal one. Not by a long shot.

[Monash]

How many major American cities elected DA's who think criminals should have more rights than thier victims? Are taxes and restrictions on property rights higher or lower than in red states? Murder rates and student achievement in blue cities? The problem with the Left, is what you call the extreme is dictating policy.

The problem with the center is most of them don't vote in primaries. That's where party platforms are decided. As a Libertarian I don't get a say in either of the big parties platforms either. But living in a bright red state means I can vote my conscience every election without risk of empowering the Left.

Ye're I get that's a big problem in the US. Things is, over here it isn't. Compulsory voting largely solves that problem, and with surprisingly small % of donkey votes. People may not like politics or politicians but they do no the politicians they dislike more and vote accordingly. And it has a constraining impact on radical politics, left or right. Parties can't stray to far yo either end of the spectrum in terms of polices without alienating the middle and losing the election.

How to solve the problem in the US? It's a hard one. You can't make people vote and the more partizan politics become the less inclined voters are to want anything to do with politicians or voting. Is it legal to incentivize eligible voters to the ballot box with a with say a $100 federal tax refund (as say payment for taking time out of their day)?

[zraver]

Ye're I get that's a big problem in the US. Things is, over here it isn't. Compulsory voting largely solves that problem, and with surprisingly small % of donkey votes. People may not like politics or politicians but they do no the politicians they dislike more and vote accordingly. And it has a constraining impact on radical politics, left or right. Parties can't stray to far yo either end of the spectrum in terms of polices without alienating the middle and losing the election.

How to solve the problem in the US? It's a hard one. You can't make people vote and the more partizan politics become the less inclined voters are to want anything to do with politicians or voting. Is it legal to incentivize eligible voters to the ballot box with a with say a $100 federal tax refund (as say payment for taking time out of their day)?

The right says do X, Y, Z and you will live the dream. Except there's the whole rest of the alphabet you have to get right too. We do have structural problems that need to be tackled but never are because empowering the lower classes hasn't been in their interest.

The Left says, we will give you X, Y, and Z except there is the whole rest of the alphabet and welfare only makes the structural problems worse. Because ending the cycle of despair and dependency isn't in their interest.

[Monash]

The right says do X, Y, Z and you will live the dream. Except there's the whole rest of the alphabet you have to get right too. We do have structural problems that need to be tackled but never are because empowering the lower classes hasn't been in their interest.

The Left says, we will give you X, Y, and Z except there is the whole rest of the alphabet and welfare only makes the structural problems worse. Because ending the cycle of despair and dependency isn't in their interest.

Any ideas about the incentivization thing?

[Parihaka]

What do I do? I review the current policies of the parties (and individual candidates where applicable) regarding issues of importance to me. I review the track record of the current government and take an active interest in ongoing political debates, economic forecasts and other relevant material. I also listen to the opinions of others. Then I vote.

For the rest? You want to organize port-a-loos for anti-vaxers, be my guest. It its however currently not high on the list of things that I personally believe best serves the interests representative democracy in Australia. But then that's just me. You have at it. And when or if I feel further action is required in support of a particular political cause I will will take whatever action I deem lawful and appropriate. When.

Oh and 'hate speech'? Really. You need to check your definitions. I know you 'hate' when people disagree with you and express contrasting opinions but that doesn't meet the dictionary definition of hate speech, let alone the legal one. Not by a long shot.

Search Result - World Affairs Board
Search Result - World Affairs Board
Search Result - World Affairs Board
Search Result - World Affairs Board
Search Result - World Affairs Board
Search Result - World Affairs Board

I could do this all night. Odd that as a self proclaimed centrist you haven't noticed, but having already pointed out your inhabiting this board without arguing against any of those posts puts the lie to your centrist claims.
And dictionary definition? Really?
Hate speech Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
HATE SPEECH | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Ant-vaxers (sic)
Well, no. Do some reading, and note the word "mandate" you conveniently missed.

Come back when you are honest.

[Monash]

Hate speech definition: 'abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, politics, religion, or sexual orientation.'

OK point to where on this forum exactly all the 'raving lefties' your seem to be so worried about have engaged in the above. The fact that the vast majority of people on this (very small and diminishing forum) haven't abused or threatened you seems to have escaped your notice. Disagreed with you? Definitely, but disagreeing is not prejudice, its just disagreement. And if disagreeing with someone was prejudice? Guess what? That would mean by default you'd must be 'prejudiced' against every single person with political viewpoints to the 'left' of your own that ever lived including all us WABers

So tell me, are you that prejudiced. Is everyone who doesn't agree with you a 'hater'? Are you? Speaking for myself? I have, from time to time (albeit rarely) agreed with or 'liked' certain comments you have made in particular posts. And that was because IMO at the time they had merit. Obviously this doesn't make us 'best buds' but it doesn't make me a proponent of hate speech either. ONe more time - iIt just means we disagree.

But guess what? I can 'deal' with that. Maybe it's time you did to.

[zraver]

Any ideas about the incentivization thing?

1, Bring back actual civics classes in school that teach student's what is expected of a good citizen. Knowledge of the Constitution and the duty to your fellow citizen and community that citizenship entails.

2. Teach personal finance

3. Bring back the draft for some sort of national service and make that service a mandatory pre-req to things like college. Gie the kids a choice 2 years for X amount basically having to do 40 hours a week of community service locally or 3 years national service an even bigger mount. Either will get them invested in community or national success. Currently veterans vote in higher numbers than non-veterans. So it stands to reason that being some sort of vet would push up voter engagement.

[Monash]

1, Bring back actual civics classes in school that teach student's what is expected of a good citizen. Knowledge of the Constitution and the duty to your fellow citizen and community that citizenship entails.

2. Teach personal finance

3. Bring back the draft for some sort of national service and make that service a mandatory pre-req to things like college. Gie the kids a choice 2 years for X amount basically having to do 40 hours a week of community service locally or 3 years national service an even bigger mount. Either will get them invested in community or national success. Currently veterans vote in higher numbers than non-veterans. So it stands to reason that being some sort of vet would push up voter engagement.

The civics classes might work. Problem is getting a consistent, effective, standardized program in place across all 50 States. I suspect the answer to that would be 'good luck' but I could be wrong.

Apart from that I was actually asking whether a financial incentive of some kind to encourage voting (say in the form of a small tax concession) would be Constitutional/legal in the US.

[zraver]

Apart from that I was actually asking whether a financial incentive of some kind to encourage voting (say in the form of a small tax concession) would be Constitutional/legal in the US.

I don't know, but I feel that that answer is no since the individual state legislatures are the only ones empowered to set the time, place and manner of elections.

Also would mandatory voting really fix anything? Representative democracy demands an informed public. Not just on the issues of the day, but the factual and legal undergirding of the system they are participating in.

[Monash]

I don't know, but I feel that that answer is no since the individual state legislatures are the only ones empowered to set the time, place and manner of elections.

Also would mandatory voting really fix anything? Representative democracy demands an informed public. Not just on the issues of the day, but the factual and legal undergirding of the system they are participating in.

Yep, there would have to be a little bit of incentive offered at the Federal, State and probably county level as well. And I 'm pretty sure it would be anathema to both the Democratic and Republican party machines because it would mean people who aren't registered or otherwise inclined to vote for either one on a regular basis would suddenly start showing up to vote. Can't have that, they only want people they can 'rely on' to vote. As for fixing anything? I think it would help. As I said, a lot of people, especially those without a deep interest in politics or the 'issues' will tend to vote against someone or something they don't like rather than 'for' someone or something they do like. Even if its just based on the personality of the candidates or one single policy that's always been they're personal bugbear.

SO I'm pretty sure having most of the population vote would make a difference. Because suddenly pollys on both sides would have to take the opinion of all those unaffiliated voters into consideration. No more pandering just to their cores with a little bit of 'sugar' sprinkled on in the hope of attracting just enough uncommitted voters to get over the line and win office. Now they have to take in take the entire communities interests (at least the things many of them don't want or like) into consideration. The political class would hate it - and anything they hate is usually good for everyone else. Leastways that's how it tends to work over here.

[Parihaka]

Hate speech definition: 'abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, politics, religion, or sexual orientation.'

OK point to where on this forum exactly all the 'raving lefties' your seem to be so worried about have engaged in the above. The fact that the vast majority of people on this (very small and diminishing forum) haven't abused or threatened you seems to have escaped your notice. Disagreed with you? Definitely, but disagreeing is not prejudice, its just disagreement. And if disagreeing with someone was prejudice? Guess what? That would mean by default you'd must be 'prejudiced' against every single person with political viewpoints to the 'left' of your own that ever lived including all us WABers

So tell me, are you that prejudiced. Is everyone who doesn't agree with you a 'hater'? Are you? Speaking for myself? I have, from time to time (albeit rarely) agreed with or 'liked' certain comments you have made in particular posts. And that was because IMO at the time they had merit. Obviously this doesn't make us 'best buds' but it doesn't make me a proponent of hate speech either. ONe more time - iIt just means we disagree.

But guess what? I can 'deal' with that. Maybe it's time you did to.

Gosh, 1 minute searching of the links I provided you

Remember the alt-right? The sludge of white supremacists, misogynists, neo-Nazis, and various chauvinists leaked out of the putrid corners of the internet in the years leading up to Donald Trump’s election. Although their various hatreds, grievances, and conspiracy theories were old, they saw themselves as something new. Their very name placed them in opposition to the status quo. They weren’t the American right, the coalition that included politicians like then-House Speaker Paul Ryan and Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain, as well as the Wall Street Journal editorial board and the intellectuals in the conservative think tanks and magazines. No, they were the blood-and-soil, tiki-torches-and-khakis alternative.
.......

That was then. By its own definition, the alt-right is no more. Because it’s no longer an alternative to the right. It is the right.

But then you never actually read them did you, just like all the other discussions we've had. And by the way, it's not all about you, you're just the one who denies it's happening.

[Monash]

Gosh, 1 minute searching of the links I provided you



But then you never actually read them did you, just like all the other discussions we've had. And by the way, it's not all about you, you're just the one who denies it's happening.

P: That post is you and TH going at it head to head like you always do. So were all the others you listed. And no-where in the posts you provided (I did read most of them) did TH attack you personally any more harshly that you attacked him. The basic problem? There simply aren't that many people on this forum that share your political beliefs, at least to the degree you seem to. Such posters are not banned from WAB for being too conservative and they certainly weren't forced to leave for not being 'liberal' enough. (Your still here and no-one has said 'go'.) Fact is as far as I can tell there simply weren't ever that many people as conservative in their political beliefs as you appear to be on WAB. At least as far as I can recall. (Maybe it was different before my time.) But that's not WABS fault it's just the way it is.

I also remind you that most of those who are left here are retired military, or in my case law enforcement along with a number of other well educated, older professional people. WAB is not and never has been a hot bed of wokeist, radical socialism! (Thank God). If anything, on average I would argue its members arguably lean far more right of center than left. That being the case if you feel like your in a minatory on this board the issue might simply be where on the political spectrum you have chosen to position yourself. And yet as far as I am aware no-one as ever suggested you stop posting.

[Parihaka]

P: That post is you and TH going at it head to head like you always do. So were all the others you listed. And no-where in the posts you provided (I did read most of them) did TH attack you personally any more harshly that you attacked him. The basic problem? There simply aren't that many people on this forum that share your political beliefs, at least to the degree you seem to. Such posters are not banned from WAB for being too conservative and they certainly weren't forced to leave for not being 'liberal' enough. (Your still here and no-one has said 'go'.) Fact is as far as I can tell there simply weren't ever that many people as conservative in their political beliefs as you appear to be on WAB. At least as far as I can recall. (Maybe it was different before my time.) But that's not WABS fault it's just the way it is.

I also remind you that most of those who are left here are retired military, or in my case law enforcement along with a number of other well educated, older professional people. WAB is not and never has been a hot bed of wokeist, radical socialism! (Thank God). If anything, on average I would argue its members arguably lean far more right of center than left. That being the case if you feel like your in a minatory on this board the issue might simply be where on the political spectrum you have chosen to position yourself. And yet as far as I am aware no-one as ever suggested you stop posting.

Lol, and in three or four easy posts we go from

Oh and 'hate speech'? Really. You need to check your definitions.

Hate speech definition: 'abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, politics, religion, or sexual orientation.'

Remember the alt-right? The sludge of white supremacists, misogynists, neo-Nazis, and various chauvinists leaked out of the putrid corners of the internet in the years leading up to Donald Trump’s election. Although their various hatreds, grievances, and conspiracy theories were old, they saw themselves as something new. Their very name placed them in opposition to the status quo. They weren’t the American right, the coalition that included politicians like then-House Speaker Paul Ryan and Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain, as well as the Wall Street Journal editorial board and the intellectuals in the conservative think tanks and magazines. No, they were the blood-and-soil, tiki-torches-and-khakis alternative.
.......

That was then. By its own definition, the alt-right is no more. Because it’s no longer an alternative to the right. It is the right.

It's too fucken easy.

Oh and by the way

P: That post is you and TH going at it head to head like you always do.

I made no posts between

The war between Trump and the CIA
in American Politics & Economy

16 Feb 20,, 10:34

and

A conservative perspective
in American Politics & Economy
10 Jul 21,, 20:09


Joe's post was of course


13 Jan 21,, 06:04
The Alt-Right Is Now the Entire Right


Another blatant and obvious lie, where you didn't bother even going to the link.

It really is like taking candy from a baby.

[DOR]

Gosh, 1 minute searching of the links I provided you



But then you never actually read them did you, just like all the other discussions we've had. And by the way, it's not all about you, you're just the one who denies it's happening.

You do realize, I hope, that they weren’t the American right, the coalition that included politicians like then-House Speaker Paul Ryan and Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain, as well as the Wall Street Journal editorial board and the intellectuals in the conservative think tanks and magazines. No, they were the blood-and-soil, tiki-torches-and-khakis alternative. The alt-right was invited to take over the legitimate right.