Trump / Musk (other than DOGE) Omnibus Thread

[Shenanigans]

If you guys want to start advocating for violence against government officials or violent overthrow of the government, please do so on another site. I know it seems to be a bit of sport to tip toe up to the line of endorsing or encouraging such behavior, but I ask again that this site not be used as a platform for violence — including the “there’s no other alternative now” stuff that could easily encourage some one unstable to take violent action.

We are getting so very close to no alternative. You are really smart, I know you see it. This is an excellent site to mobilize like-minded individuals. You know how I feel. It's well past time to destroy rednecks. Make them fucking suffer. I don't give a fuck if it is a spineless red government official, Callatoroy's face, or some dumb rubes in trailers in nowhere Georgia related to Ramrouser. FUCK THEM UP, if you want any chance of a normal, decent life.

If nothing is done substantially by the end of this year, we are all going to enjoy being led by stupid fucking rubes and billionaires for 50 years. I would bet Heelyeah's small dick on this.

 

[superrific]

Cmon Super. NYCfan has been clear on this issue for months now. It is not the site she wants. It is a completely fair rule on her part. There are plenty of other sites where that talk is tolerated and promoted, if that is what you want.

In my opinion, the site would be greatly damaged by the departure of her or of me. Surely there can be a resolution that doesn't involve big bold orange type face.

Whether or not her rule is "fair," it's clearly untenable. You know that. It's like if there was a rule on the old board prohibiting comparing Duke's coach to a rodent or a vampire. When most of the posters want to make that comparison and are emotionally vehement about it, restricting their speech isn't going to work.

Where does it end? Twice I have seen men with big guns on trucks in my neighborhood, clearly militia types. What if I ask the board for advice on buying my own gun to defend myself? Hey, which of these guns has the best stopping power? Are we into violent rhetoric territory?

 

[superrific]

This is an excellent site to mobilize like-minded individuals. It's well past time to destroy rednecks.

Both of these contentions seem false, especially the former one (given that it's an empirical claim).

 

[Shenanigans]

If you guys want to start advocating for violence against government officials or violent overthrow of the government, please do so on another site. I know it seems to be a bit of sport to tip toe up to the line of endorsing or encouraging such behavior, but I ask again that this site not be used as a platform for violence — including the “there’s no other alternative now” stuff that could easily encourage some one unstable to take violent action.

This site should speedily adapt. Conservatives are your enemy, and they need to be destroyed, psychologically, physically and mentally.

I will fight until the bitter end, with you and Rock, but I need you to get on board with fucking up rednecks and oligarchs. That should be the only goal.

Peaceful discussion is now as useless as gtyellowjackets brain, and Zen posting pictures of his retarded cocker spanial.

 

[Shenanigans]

Both of these contentions seem false, especially the former one (given that it's an empirical claim).

You're sometimes your own worst enemy. Say less, destroy more! Godspeed

 

[Shenanigans]

Out of curiosity, why do you care if an unstable person were to "take violent action" based on what is written here? From a liability standpoint, CDA section 230 applies. Any person sufficiently unstable has been unstable for a while, and has surely dropped nuggets on other sites or other places. None of us are so radicalizing that our posts will suddenly galvanize that sort of "resistance." Anyone who might act on the basis of the bland anodyne statements here was going to do it regardless.

And meanwhile, you're essentially banning books here. The blood of tyrants quote literally comes from a Founding Father. To me, this seems like, "let's not read Mark Twain because he uses the n word." And this is a losing battle, because you will never be able to define a line between what you deem acceptable and not.

People aren't engaging in sport. The political environment invites and even demands this type of thinking. As I've said, the rule of law is humanity's way of solving disputes through violence. If the rule of law is broken, then violence is again the reigning political principle. Which is why all authoritarian states are violent. And it's why Trump is increasingly violent, and that will continue. And that's why probably half the board would answer the following question in the affirmative: "would you like to see someone kill Elon Musk?" That's not sport. That's genuine frustration, terror, fear, rage -- all sorts of emotions. Asking everyone to bottle that up is not only infeasible, it arguably does more to promote violence than letting people vent.

MOD NOTE — cut the crap.

 

[Enigma94]

 

[MOUNTAINH33L]

Conservatives are your enemy

Conservatives? Where the fuck are they? These are fucking fascists.

 

[superrific]

I will preface this to say that I, and nearly all the pro-Palestine people that I know, ended up voting for Harris. We all knew that Trump would be worse (even though the Dems were not great either).

However, blaming other pro-Palestinian voters for Trump winning is just a way to find someone to blame other than the dems themselves. Even if they all voted Harris, it might have won Michigan for her, but it would not have been enough to flip the election. There were much bigger issues that caused that.

1. You are correct in that the ballot totals were unlikely to be sufficiently affected to deny Trump the victory.
2. But there's more to it than ballots. There's a parallel between 2016 and 2024. In both cases, early primary activity focused not on policy but essentially on the integrity of the Dem candidate. That sets a narrative and a mood for the campaign that is tough to shake. Why did people in 2016 decide they trusted TRUMP more than HRC (if you believe the polling)? Wasn't that in part because Bernie campaigned in large measure -- especially nearer the end -- on the idea that Hillary was corrupt?
3. There were also the pro-Hamas vandals that turn people off. If those were really one-offs, then they wouldn't have made much difference. But they were just the ones who took the idea a little further.

4. Quite apart from the election outcome, the uncommitted movement was frustrating in many other ways. First, it's sad to watch that community torch itself. Politically speaking, they are now in a wilderness. They actively worked to defeat -- literally saying that!! -- the party that might like them, in favor of a party that loathes them. They will never have a real voice in the GOP; and they just demonstrated their unreliability to the Dems.

Second, there's a level of political unrealism on display. The Arab population has to understand that they are in a special position in the US. Not by choice, not fairly necessarily, but Arabs are seen as inherently pro-terrorist. Al-Q and Hamas probably have a great deal to do with that. And yes, Americans have skewed definitions of terrorism, typically viewing the Israeli terrorism as something other than it is. But the reality is that Biden and Harris could never have embraced that group. It would have cost them more votes elsewhere. Michigan was not enough to win, and if embracing Dearborn cost them WI or PA, then how is that supposed to work.

So in the end, what happened was that one group refused to recognize its place. It started a fight it couldn't possibly win, and split the Dems' coalition, and soured young people on the Dems . . . and for what? What they did helped Trump and Bibi, full stop. I get it -- there was a lot of emotion about what was happening. I don't pretend to know what it's like to lose family members to military bombs. But I do know that uncommitted did not help their cause in the slightest; it set them back quite a ways; and they helped fuck the country over.

Why shouldn't we be angry about that? Uncommitted was one of many reasons Trump won. Not necessarily the most important, and certainly not the only. But who on this site has been doing that? I think the general consensus here is that there will be a lot of leopards eating a lot of faces, across the board. Farmers are going to get fucked; they had already been fucked by Trump once; and yet they support him wildly. Leopards. Anyone in rural America on Medicaid is about to get fucked royally. Leopards. Uncommitted voters are seeing their homeland destroyed. Leopards. John Roberts? Leopards. There's more than enough to go around.

 

[Shenanigans]

Conservatives? Where the fuck are they? These are fucking fascists.

Unfortunately about 80% of conservatives are now proud fascists. Even the other 20% consisting of your CFord's and Lincoln Project folks can't bring themselves to admit that conservatism has ALWAYS been about fucking over the masses to benefit the super rich. I am incredibly thankful for their efforts, and while I despise fascists, I still am angry that "conservatives" have led us here. Either accept progress, humanity, and intelligence, or step aside and get the fuck out of the way for the rest of us.

I know what needs to be done.

 

[4thgenheel]

for the record, i was just adding that pertinent TJ quote to super's commentary on tyrants - i do not advocate for violence.

 

[RaiGuy]

1. You are correct in that the ballot totals were unlikely to be sufficiently affected to deny Trump the victory.
2. But there's more to it than ballots. There's a parallel between 2016 and 2024. In both cases, early primary activity focused not on policy but essentially on the integrity of the Dem candidate. That sets a narrative and a mood for the campaign that is tough to shake. Why did people in 2016 decide they trusted TRUMP more than HRC (if you believe the polling)? Wasn't that in part because Bernie campaigned in large measure -- especially nearer the end -- on the idea that Hillary was corrupt?
3. There were also the pro-Hamas vandals that turn people off. If those were really one-offs, then they wouldn't have made much difference. But they were just the ones who took the idea a little further.

4. Quite apart from the election outcome, the uncommitted movement was frustrating in many other ways. First, it's sad to watch that community torch itself. Politically speaking, they are now in a wilderness. They actively worked to defeat -- literally saying that!! -- the party that might like them, in favor of a party that loathes them. They will never have a real voice in the GOP; and they just demonstrated their unreliability to the Dems.

Second, there's a level of political unrealism on display. The Arab population has to understand that they are in a special position in the US. Not by choice, not fairly necessarily, but Arabs are seen as inherently pro-terrorist. Al-Q and Hamas probably have a great deal to do with that. And yes, Americans have skewed definitions of terrorism, typically viewing the Israeli terrorism as something other than it is. But the reality is that Biden and Harris could never have embraced that group. It would have cost them more votes elsewhere. Michigan was not enough to win, and if embracing Dearborn cost them WI or PA, then how is that supposed to work.

So in the end, what happened was that one group refused to recognize its place. It started a fight it couldn't possibly win, and split the Dems' coalition, and soured young people on the Dems . . . and for what? What they did helped Trump and Bibi, full stop. I get it -- there was a lot of emotion about what was happening. I don't pretend to know what it's like to lose family members to military bombs. But I do know that uncommitted did not help their cause in the slightest; it set them back quite a ways; and they helped fuck the country over.

Why shouldn't we be angry about that? Uncommitted was one of many reasons Trump won. Not necessarily the most important, and certainly not the only. But who on this site has been doing that? I think the general consensus here is that there will be a lot of leopards eating a lot of faces, across the board. Farmers are going to get fucked; they had already been fucked by Trump once; and yet they support him wildly. Leopards. Anyone in rural America on Medicaid is about to get fucked royally. Leopards. Uncommitted voters are seeing their homeland destroyed. Leopards. John Roberts? Leopards. There's more than enough to go around.

I understand what you're saying. But how can you blame them when you said that the Arab population is seen as pro-terrorist and that Biden/Harris could not embrace them, then why would you expect them to embrace Biden/Harris? Do you see where the moral dilemma is for that population? How can you force them to vote for someone that will not reciprocate the support? (Again, I am not saying I agreed with their votes or lack of votes, but it is their mindset).

 

[superrific]

for the record, i was just adding that pertinent TJ quote to super's commentary on tyrants - i do not advocate for violence.

And that's the problem. The founding of our country was a violent act of rebellion. The most significant event in the country's subsequent history was a civil war. The fight for recognition of labor unions and workers' rights generally was violent on both sides (not symmetrically).

And it's not just American history. It's almost impossible to have discussions about politics in a more theoretical sense without talking about violence. Our Framers loved John Locke. Locke's entire theory was an answer to Hobbes' contention that life is short, brutish and nasty. And our constitution was arguably prompted by (and certainly shaped by) fear of mob violence. It is impossible to talk about our theory of democracy without acknowledging that the rule of law was designed to be violence-preventative, and thus the decline of rule of law will inevitably usher in violence.

The problem, I think, is that nycfan doesn't really want a politics site. She wants a current events site. And that's fine. 95% of her posts consist of news aggregation and people like that she does it. She rarely participates in more abstract threads, or respond to more theoretical posts. I can't recall ever having a detailed policy discussion with her. And again, that's fine.

I just don't think that everyone here wants a current events site. I don't think the majority of people want that. At some point, it's depressing and boring. Arguably, the reason that people here are itching to talk about violence is nycfan's news and social media aggregation. When we see so much irrationality, so much of a train wreck, so much irreparable damage without guard rails or even a coherent ideological program, it creates enormous frustration and if it seems that the only way for that frustration to end is overthrowing the existing order, that's what people are going to like.

To put it more succinctly to close: Trump wants to be a king. What happens to kings when they are sufficiently unpopular? Or for that matter dictators, like the ones Trump loves? There's just no way of talking about politics in 2025 while categorically excluding violence.

 

[4thgenheel]

super is right about where we are now in this country.

but i also completely understand why NYC, rock, etc. don't want this site to turn into some sort of left wing 4chan for both survival and liability reasons.

 

[Calheel]

And that's the problem. The founding of our country was a violent act of rebellion. The most significant event in the country's subsequent history was a civil war. The fight for recognition of labor unions and workers' rights generally was violent on both sides (not symmetrically).

And it's not just American history. It's almost impossible to have discussions about politics in a more theoretical sense without talking about violence. Our Framers loved John Locke. Locke's entire theory was an answer to Hobbes' contention that life is short, brutish and nasty. And our constitution was arguably prompted by (and certainly shaped by) fear of mob violence. It is impossible to talk about our theory of democracy without acknowledging that the rule of law was designed to be violence-preventative, and thus the decline of rule of law will inevitably usher in violence.

The problem, I think, is that nycfan doesn't really want a politics site. She wants a current events site. And that's fine. 95% of her posts consist of news aggregation and people like that she does it. She rarely participates in more abstract threads, or respond to more theoretical posts. I can't recall ever having a detailed policy discussion with her. And again, that's fine.

I just don't think that everyone here wants a current events site. I don't think the majority of people want that. At some point, it's depressing and boring. Arguably, the reason that people here are itching to talk about violence is nycfan's news and social media aggregation. When we see so much irrationality, so much of a train wreck, so much irreparable damage without guard rails or even a coherent ideological program, it creates enormous frustration and if it seems that the only way for that frustration to end is overthrowing the existing order, that's what people are going to like.

To put it more succinctly to close: Trump wants to be a king. What happens to kings when they are sufficiently unpopular? Or for that matter dictators, like the ones Trump loves? There's just no way of talking about politics in 2025 while categorically excluding violence.

Then go join a political violence site. You’re even free to start your own site and recruit fellow jihadists. But this is a red line for her, and it is a completely reasonable position (even if not exactly the line I would draw).

 

[superrific]

I understand what you're saying. But how can you blame them when you said that the Arab population is seen as pro-terrorist and that Biden/Harris could not embrace them, then why would you expect them to embrace Biden/Harris? Do you see where the moral dilemma is for that population? How can you force them to vote for someone that will not reciprocate the support? (Again, I am not saying I agreed with their votes or lack of votes, but it is their mindset).

1. Because Biden and Harris were, in fact, keeping Bibi at least somewhat in check. And because Biden and Harris would never sell out the very idea of Palestine, as Trump has done. And, after the election passed, the administration would have more leeway to address both sides of the conflict. You just can't embrace pro-terrorist voices during an election season. You just can't. Voters expecting them to do so have little comprehension of our system and refuse to listen.

2. Biden and Harris embraced them as much as possible consistent with winning. That's the best you're going to get as a pariah group. Did black people like it when Clinton denounced Sista Souljah? Not the ones I knew. But Clinton was way better for racial equality and justice than the GOP. Black activists realized that the best way to help their communities was not by big political campaigns, but getting well-placed in policy positions where their voices could be heard, or their views put into practice by administrative agencies. I get it -- this was a war, and not something amenable to incrementalism. But in the end, what they did was devastating to their cause.

Take another example: climate change. Climate change has probably become my #1 voting issue. When I think of the damage being caused by Trump, I think of climate change. Trump is basically locking humanity into a devastating climate change future, unless we find miracle technologies to decarbonize and/or die out to AI. Did the Dems embrace that? No -- they barely said anything about climate change. So yeah, I'm frustrated with that. But I also know that Dems are trying to do something, even if it's insufficient; and are likely to do more when they have more power; and at least they won't make that worse. It's not great bread, but it's better than eating grass.

3. I say this as someone who has zero tolerance for bullshit discrimination, and who tries to do my best to act out my principles. An Afghani restaurant opened up near me last spring, run I'm sure by refugees. My wife and I basically stopped eating anywhere else, to give the restaurant our maximum support. The food was meh. But the idea was important. Alas, it closed last week.

 

[nycfan]

super is right about where we are now in this country.

but i also get why NYC, rock, etc. don't want this site to turn into some sort of left wing 4chan for both survival and liability reasons.

How about just moral reasons. If folks feel like they want to form a Committee on Public Safety discuss a Reign of Terror, go find yourself a Jacobin site and figure out who is your Robespierre. I get it, I’ll be first against the wall.

 

[superrific]

Then go join a political violence site. You’re even free to start your own site and recruit fellow jihadists. But this is a red line for her, and it is a completely reasonable position (even if not exactly the line I would draw).

Do you mean a political theory site? Why would you caricature my position as jihad? Do you think that's fair? And the problem with nycfan's position isn't its reasonableness but its workability.

But if you're inviting me to leave . . . I've said many times that I'm ambivalent about my participation here. It's both bad for me, and kinda sadly necessary for me.

 

[superrific]

How about just moral reasons.

So, yeah. That's an objectively bad response, and surely you can do better.

Are you suggesting that talk of killing Elon Musk is more immoral than all the discriminatory ideas championed by right-wingers here? Than the aggressive pro-Trump apologizing? But you put up with that gladly.

And this Reign of Terror nonsense is comically stupid. There's a really big gap between wishing for Elon Musk to die and mass beheading -- especially since, if we ever do get a reign of terror, it will be Elon and his minions leading the charge. In fact, the entire reason for talking about it is to try to head off the Reign Of Terror outcome.

Virtually every successful violent revolution in history has been followed by mass political violence and repression. Violence is a common societal response to tyranny. Our history includes Malcolm X and MLK, Nat Turner and Frederick Douglass. The idea that talking about history should be somehow verboten is ludicrous. You simply cannot talk about history or politics without raising the specter of violence. You might as well be talking about fairy tales.

 

[MOUNTAINH33L]

jihadists.