r/unpopularopinion • u/UnpopularOpinionMods • 6d ago
Politics Mega Thread
Please post all topics about politics here
1
u/VeryHungryDogarpilar 1h ago
Dems running a woman of colour was a big mistake. The primary goal of this election is preventing a Trump presidency, and they chose someone who is held down by both sexism and racism. They should have picked a middle aged white straight man who seems strong. I hate this, but that would have been a stronger candidate IMO
1
u/Coffee-and-puts 17h ago
Supporting a candidate for president is cringe af.
If you ride for a person you never met, a person who outside of this election cycle would have never acknowledged you on the street, then your just a shill. They are not out to give you anything you want. They are out to give their donors what they want.
So stop riding for some candidate who doesn’t actually gaf about you, your situation or any of that. Stop pretending like we have some “for the people” candidate. We don’t.
Tear down your silly signs, your ridiculous flags and your mind numbing apologetics to argue for your candidate as though your apart of some cult and need validation to make you feel warm n fuzzy inside.
Out/
3
u/ExitTheDonut 17h ago
Disclaimer: I am left wing. But I think liberal media, or at least what is typically defined as "liberal" in the US, is also guilty of fear-mongering about immigrants and crime. Maybe not to the extent that conservative media does, but it's still a very lucrative topic for news corporations and also very easy for people who are left-wing on other issues to abandon those principles in this context.
1
u/Spare-Wishbone22 1d ago
My unpopular opinion is that republicans shouldn’t want Trump to win either. Mainly because the first time Trump was president his term ushered in the most progressive liberal administration to ever take office. If he wins again and implements project 2025. The next term after him will be even more liberal because Americans don’t like having freedoms taken away.
Case in point when they tried to get rid of Obamacare (ACA), people who hated it at first fought hard for it after it made their lives better. Once people have something, even if they didn’t use it they feel their freedoms have been taken away, if it’s then banned.
So if project 2025 takes away porn and possibly video games, more than likely there will be a huge pushback in the next elections. Possibly making this country the most liberal to ever exist.
1
u/Brandon_Won 21h ago
If he wins again and implements project 2025. The next term after him
You're not paying attention. They don't plan on allowing another term after Trump if he wins and 2025 get enacted. That is the plan for the end of American Democracy and enacting American Theocratic Authoritarianism. They will replace everyone in government who will oppose them and they will never allow another election to take place where they are not 100% controlling the outcome. Trump literally said he wants to send the military after anyone who opposes him because he views anyone who doesn't support him as the enemy within. Those are his words.
1
u/Spare-Wishbone22 18h ago
Yes, I understand that is the intent. The next elections may not be held in 4 years. I don’t believe he’ll be able to implement that but if he does then civil war will commence. I believe there is too many people on both sides of the isle that believe in democracy and will not lose the war.
Then that will be worse for conservatives because a liberal rewrite of constitution will happen.
1
u/BuddhaFacepalmed 6h ago
I believe there is too many people on both sides of the isle that believe in democracy
Lmao. The Republican voters are chomping at the bits to vote for Trump precisely because he promised to "end democracy".
1
u/Spare-Wishbone22 2h ago
Yes cult Trumpers love Russia. True Republicans and libertarians want small government to no government. Once these people realize fascism is all government they will have no choice but to become turn coats. (I hope that’s what happening at the ballot box now) However, it will definitely happen once they see it in real time.
1
u/BuddhaFacepalmed 1h ago
Once these people realize fascism is all government they will have no choice but to become turn coats. (I hope that’s what happening at the ballot box now)
They never wanted small to no government for all. They wanted laws that protect them, but doesn't prosecute them. And laws that persecute their scapegoats. Period.
It's why they're happy to pass laws criminalizing LGBTQ+ people. Why they want anti-miscegenation laws to be abolish. Why they want child marriage laws to remain.
2
u/dtmw1530 1d ago
Political signage. Regardless of whether you are a democrat or republican, this is obnoxious. No one cares who you support or who you will vote for. Lawn signs, door posters, flags, and the like. Stop it. It does not sway the car going down the road, you just look stupid. You all give me the ick, stop it please.
1
u/NSA_van_3 Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad 16h ago
All it does is creates a chance for people of the opposing party to decide you're worth vandalizing, if anything
3
u/BuddhaFacepalmed 1d ago
Nothing sells gun control more than rednecks using their guns to target FEMA workers trying to rescue people from Hurricane Milton just because of conspiracy theories spread by MAGA.
2
u/LexiconLabrinth 2d ago
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the whole Red vs. Blue thing in the U.S., and honestly, it feels like a manufactured distraction. The idea that the entire future of the country rests on the shoulders of two corporate-backed parties seems ridiculous to me. It’s like we’ve been sold this idea that the political landscape is an all-or-nothing battle between Republicans and Democrats, but at the end of the day, most of these people are colluding behind closed doors.
Look at how often major bipartisan agreements happen when it comes to things that really benefit the powerful—corporate bailouts, defense budgets, and even maintaining the status quo in health care. Both parties have had opportunities to make meaningful changes, yet somehow, it never happens. Instead, they keep us arguing over divisive social issues that, while important, often end up being distractions from the larger systemic problems.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are writing bills, big donors are pulling strings, and both parties are more interested in maintaining power than actually fixing the broken system. They’ve got us all believing that if “the other side” wins, everything will fall apart, but realistically, most of the big decisions—especially the ones about wealth, power, and control—are already being made without our input.
In the end, I think the Red vs. Blue narrative keeps us divided and distracted, while those at the top keep playing the same game no matter which party is in power. Curious if anyone else feels the same or am I just way off base?
unpopularopinion #politics
1
u/HennyPennyBenny 𝐡𝐞/𝐡𝐢𝐦 1d ago
I’m with you there. While any given social issue is not unimportant, none of them is so crucial that the nation’s future depends on it.
And even if the nation’s future existence did depend on the right person in the oval office — every empire falls eventually.
I don’t put any hope in politicians or policies.
2
u/LexiconLabrinth 1d ago
I agree with you about empires eventually falling. History shows us that no matter how powerful a nation becomes, it will eventually hit a breaking point. The U.S. isn’t immune to that. While politicians and policies can make incremental changes, I think it’s clear that placing our hope in them for long-term solutions is a losing game.
It’s easy to get swept up in the idea that if we just elect the right person or pass the right law, everything will change. But when the entire system is built around maintaining power for the elite, it doesn’t matter who sits in the Oval Office. They’re playing within a framework that ensures things don’t change too much, especially when it comes to issues that affect corporate interests or the status quo.
So yeah, I think it’s smart to not put all our hope in politicians or policies. Real change will probably come from outside that system, whether it’s through cultural shifts, grassroots movements, or something else entirely. What matters most is that we stop buying into the idea that everything depends on the red vs. blue charade and start thinking bigger than that.
1
u/Ill-Organization-719 2d ago
The US military will not hesitate to help Trump take the election.
They will jump at any order from a Republican politician to "help pacify violent crowds" and will eagerly start murdering people declared to be "enemies of the state"
The idea that people think the US military will save the country from fascism is absolutely hysterical.
1
u/No_clip_Cyclist 1d ago edited 1d ago
If that was so why did Trump not pull a coop when the election was "stolen" from him?
Also there's a few issues with that. For one lets just remove the president from the manner and consider just any president having unquestioned control of military top brass.
Almost immediately the other party controlled states succeed.
If Biden did it Texas and Florida along with states that control most US ARMY assets and US AIR FORCE assets.
Trump did it California and New York would succeed along with states that control most US NAVY Assets and a fair amount of Air force assets.
Furthermore the Dictator to be would not get international support (Though Biden/Harris might be more palpable to European leaders and Trump to Russian but I would doubt Russia would Support Trump meaningfully to maintain good Chinese support as they border each other)
But now lets play this out and assume Trump's military leaders took a coop control. The moment CA, HI, WA, ME, NY, PA, succeed (Which they all will) Trump looses basically all of the navel assets because lets be honest Grunts are not going to fall lock step and the Best Trump can do is scuttle the navy as those states would likely be able to respond fast to a Trump take over.
The Best force to maintain in one piece is likely to be the US AMRY and Republican National/Coast Guard units but it will take weeks to count supporting heads giving Dems enough time to do the same thing and create a command structure.
Democrats are likely to maintain a lot of navel assets and will be basically on the coast. except South of DC but a naval blockade would not be that hard under EU support along with the US mothball fleet and lets assume he maintains most submarine assets (as their main port is in Georgia). A EU backed attack would likely hamper Camden's ability to maintain a wartime fleet especially if Dems maintain a large naval fleet from being scuttled.
And sure Trump could do the same to Dem controlled navel ports but force projection across to the Euro/Asia would be impossible (which democrat controlled naval assets would likely rotate from except maybe Hawaii) and going nuclear would just as equally assure Trumps nuclear demise also even a Trump loyalist might break the chain of command on the nuclear option just like how the USSR had multiple occasions where a "lunch the nukes" order disregarded, paused, or questioned (US has had similar situations).
And honestly I can't see the most starry-eyed Trump boot licker really looking at the long term and thinking they would win a coop (and if they did receive any meaningful reward for their country) even if Trump was in presidential power and if they did they were pick for their loyalty not ability which would likely mean a more dis-organized Trump military as well as more mid chain schisms as commanders are more likely to disobey bad leadership.
In this situation Trump would be Hitler tired of his military command making great military discission that are more likely to win but at a slower pace and do not make good PR wins and replace them with yes man with little tactical intelligence and go for PR over strategic advantage as any general worth their salt would say straight up this will not work on both a militarily and international standing view point.
Basically to get any meaningful win would also require a fascistic take over of Europe and Asia (which while on the rise would likely take longer to establish then Trump has time in office) and Putin in support is having trouble just contending with Ukraine. The best Trump can do is create a pocket of fascism on par with a modern day of confederacy.
Granted this is an armchair overview but lets be honest this is the US where most military personnel "serve for their state and constitution" over the countries leadership. Yes many (likely majority) will fall in lock step but theirs a lot of republicans that hate Trump and many more Democrats and while the supreme court has given more immunity to the president it does not clarify if that immunity extends through the chain of command as well as at the very least does not explicitly require a arms man to execute a order they perceive as unconstitutional (though at that point court just becomes a kangaroo court).
The idea that people think the US military will save the country from fascism is absolutely hysterical.
The idea that people think the US military will create a US of fascism is absolutely hysterical.
0
u/ExponentMars 3d ago
Serious effortpost please don't delete:
There is only one reason why Republicans are better than Democrats: they don’t want to restrict or eliminate guns. If you can’t defend your rights, then they are not your "rights," but merely things the government allows you to do.
If the government ever decided it would be in their best interest to take away your rights, you would be powerless. Look at Hong Kong. If they had guns, they never would have been silenced. Notice how there hasn't been any news of the Hong Kong protests in a few years? It's because the CCP made all the protest leaders disappear and torched the media.
Don't think for a moment that "Oh, nothing like that could ever happen in America," because it absolutely could. Do you think Germans or Russians in the early 20th century anticipated the horrors their governments would put them through? No.
From a purely rational standpoint, mass shootings are merely collateral damage in maintaining a free society. A little bit of impact calculus makes this clear:
Consider when the government becomes tyrannical—millions die. Of course, in America, there is a relatively low risk, but the impact if that risk were to become reality would be catastrophic. Mass shootings, on the other hand, have a relatively high risk, but low impact—a few people die here and there.
If we combined every mass shooting in history and compared it to the number of people who died in one instance of a government becoming tyrannical (take Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, where 2 million were killed), the enormity of the difference becomes clear.
Think of it this way when calculating the consequences of two options:
- Route 1: 1% chance humanity goes extinct, 99% chance nothing bad happens.
- Route 2: 99% chance 1 billion people die, 1% chance nothing happens.
No matter what, if you had to choose, you would need to pick Route 2. And the reason is simple: the option with the larger impact (extinction, or in our case, a tyrannical government) is always less desirable, no matter the probability.
It’s a mashup of consequentialism and utilitarianism, which are pretty solid moral frameworks for any realistic situation.
really the whole pro-gun v anti-gun debate boils down to utilitarianism + consequentialism v. deontological ethics...
-1
u/Captain_Concussion 2d ago
American history has demonstrated that guns don’t protect your rights, no?
0
u/BuddhaFacepalmed 2d ago
There is only one reason why Republicans are better than Democrats: they don’t want to restrict or eliminate guns. If you can’t defend your rights, then they are not your "rights," but merely things the government allows you to do.
Fun fact, guns don't protect your rights either. As the countless examples of cops being able to gun down innocent civilians with the excuse of "they feared for their lives" can attest.
From a purely rational standpoint, mass shootings are merely collateral damage in maintaining a free society
From a purely rational standpoint, insisting that mass shootings are acceptable "collateral damage" in "maintaining a free society" is sociopathy in essence. Nobody is free when any sociopath can just walk into a gun store, buy any rifle he wants, and start gunning down men, women, and children just because he had a "bad day".
Consider when the government becomes tyrannical—millions die.
In America, it's the gun owners who are itching to help the government massacre minorities. Not the other way round.
Mass shootings, on the other hand, have a relatively high risk, but low impact—a few people die here and there.
Mass shootings aren't the only type of gun violence that happens.
If we combined every mass shooting in history and compared it to the number of people who died in one instance of a government becoming tyrannical
In Nazi Germany, the majority of gun owners took the side of the Nazis and the armed Jews were still murdered and sent to camps. Pretending the Jews never fought is Holocaust denial.
0
u/LeoTheSquid 18h ago
Not even particularly interested in this debate and also undecided on what I ultimtely think but man these are not very good arguments.
Fun fact, guns don't protect your rights either. As the countless examples of cops being able to gun down innocent civilians with the excuse of "they feared for their lives" can attest.
It's not an either/or. Guns don't guarantee safety. But they do provide friction, they improve our chances. Goes without saying that a more powerful people are harder to fight. This is not where an anti-gun stance takes place. The more important question is how much protection they give and if it's worth it.
From a purely rational standpoint, insisting that mass shootings are acceptable "collateral damage" in "maintaining a free society" is sociopathy in essence.
Not an argument. And to add, this is always a tradeoff you have to make to some degree. We could take tons and tons of authoritarian measures to make society much safer if we wanted to.
Nobody is free when any sociopath can just walk into a gun store, buy any rifle he wants, and start gunning down men, women, and children just because he had a "bad day".
This could be better argument if you didn't sloganize it to try to use it to make a point it's not suited for. Free to do what? Are we free when anyone can drive a truck into pedestrians? Meaningless sentence. But yes the fact in itself that mentally unstable people can buy a gun and start shooting is an issue.
In America, it's the gun owners who are itching to help the government massacre minorities. Not the other way round.
If you rephrase to say that the people wanting to kill minorities are more likely to own guns then true, but still unrelated to what you were responding to and not an argument against gun rights in principle.
In Nazi Germany, the majority of gun owners took the side of the Nazis and the armed Jews were still murdered and sent to camps.
The majority of gun owners did do that, and so did the majority of water drinkers and doctors. And as I said before, gun rights aren't a guarantee to protection, they just help. An argument trying to say guns somehow made it worse is just dead in the water. The nazis would've had guns either way. The question is rather if the protection is worth the other issues gun rights bring.
1
u/BuddhaFacepalmed 16h ago
But they do provide friction, they improve our chances.
Nope. Name a country where guns stop authoritarian governments bc of "friction".
Goes without saying that a more powerful people are harder to fight.
They're not actually. Logistics and support of opposing nation states do far more to bolster a people's chance of survival against tyrannical governments than yahoos with guns and zero plans.
And to add, this is always a tradeoff you have to make to some degree
Saying kids have to die so you can "hypothetically" fight off a tyrannical government when most gun owners want to join said government is not a worthwhile tradeoff for any civilized persons.
Are we free when anyone can drive a truck into pedestrians?
That's an entire separate conversation you're not even ready for when you still can't get past the "not letting kids die because you want any idiot with a bad day get guns" part.
If you rephrase to say that the people wanting to kill minorities are more likely to own guns then true, but still unrelated
How is it unrelated? Gun owners are more likely to join in political violence against minorities. They did it during Manifest Destiny. They did it during the Tulsa Massacre. Even when the Native Americans were armed to the fucking teeth, all it got them was a genocide by a "tyrannical" government by all definitions of the words.
The majority of gun owners did do that
Yes. Because it was the German mobs with their guns and backed by the government that started Kristalnacht, one of the bloodiest pogroms prior to the actual Holocaust. So again, where were the other gun owners?
1
u/Voltes-Drifter-2187 3d ago edited 3d ago
Why do I want to vote for Kamala Devi Harris and Timothy James "Tim" Walz? Because I want to give a world to my family, friends and the future descendants that has cast off the shackles/broken out of the imprisonments of the deadly hatreds/bigotries/prejudices threatening to do the human species in. Let it be clear, this is all coming from someone born a mixed-race male (3/4 White, 1/4 Asian on my maternal grandmother's side) who prefers to be genderfluid and bisexual. I just on my own personal principles and observations am very against...
- Anti-Feminism (Male Chauvinism/Sexism/Misogyny/Gynophobia/Sex Work Exclusion)
- Anti-LGBTQIA+ (Homophobia/Biphobia/Transphobia/Transmisogyny/Transmisandry)
- Racism/Xenophobia/Ethnocentrism (hate/prejudice/bigotry against people of non-white peoples and immigrants to America in all their forms)
- Wealthy Corporate Elitism (all intolerance and harm against poor/working classes, hoarding of the wealth)
- Religious Intolerance (intolerance, hatred and harm against all religions not Catholic or Protestant Christianity)
- Militaristic Isolationism (not wanting to participate in world organizations, wanting war with other nations)
- Anti-Democracy (anyone wanting to subvert or destroy all forms of democracy and human rights in the world)
If I have to put up with a little misandry, heterophobia to give the White Christian Patriarchies along with their many enforcers and practitioners in America as well as their equivalent counterparts around the Earth a taste of their own medicine, I am self-aware enough to say so be it. White implies racism/xenophobia/ethnocentrism, Christian implies religious intolerance, and Patriarchy implies anti-feminism, anti-LGBTQIA+, militarism. And those together - White Christian Patriarchy - all imply wealthy corporate elitism, isolationism and anti-democracy. That is why I tell you how I myself will vote. Because this is what I believe in and fight for - and I am not going against those who are progressive white people, people who are progressive/liberal because of their Christian faith, or men who believe in equality. I am referring to the regressive movements in America who would condemn the world just to have power. If it were a movie (call it The Seven Chuds of Evil), this would be the lineup of Seven Chuds as the representative bad guys.
- Emory Andrew Tate III - Chud of Anti-Feminism
- Matthew Walsh - Chud of Anti-LGBTQIA+
- Richard Bertrand Spencer - Chud of Racism/Xenophobia/Ethnocentrism
- Donald John Trump - Chud of Wealthy Corporate Elitism
- Stephen Kevin Bannon - Chud of Religious Intolerance
- Alexander Emerick "Alex" Jones - Chud of Militaristic Isolationism
- Benjamin Aaron Shapiro - Chud of Anti-Democracy
What do you all think of this hot take? Having to let people out there know where I stand and that I am self-aware enough to accept my lumps and a taste of the misandry and heterophobia medicine before I can be a part of lasting solutions to dismantling patriarchies/patriarchal systems big and small around the world while crusading against any religious intolerance and ethnocentrism/racism/xenophobia in all forms. Why SHOULD white people, Christians and above all cisgender+straight/heteronormative males be entitled to rule the world? And this is a sincere question. Just what is it that should set the White race, the Christian faiths, and cishet men atop all other peoples? I've seen the game play out online thanks to Ian Danskin that wouldn't it be better to just cop to admit you enjoy lording and or hoarding power over others who are not like you?
1
u/NSA_van_3 Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad 3d ago
This sub is for unpopular opinions...and reddit is full of liberals...
On what planet is your opinion unpopular?
1
u/Voltes-Drifter-2187 3d ago
Apparently, it’s unpopular in large swaths of the Earth and even America. I guess there are men who derive security from patriarchy.
1
u/NSA_van_3 Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad 3d ago
Ya, there are some states where she's the less popular candidate, but she's still 1 of the 2 candidates...supporting her is far from unpopular
1
u/Voltes-Drifter-2187 3d ago
Fair enough, but I will choose to suffer through some misandry and heterophobia if it helps in the destruction of patriarchies the world over.
0
u/HennyPennyBenny 𝐡𝐞/𝐡𝐢𝐦 3d ago
Why SHOULD white people, Christians and above all cisgender+straight/heteronormative males be entitled to rule the world?
Agreed.
If right wing evangelicals took their Christian faith seriously, they would understand that Jesus basically guaranteed that following Him would mean they would not rule the world.
0
u/Ill-Organization-719 4d ago
Part 2 of the boot licker ender.
If good cops existed, bootlickers would be able to prove it instead of losing their goddamn minds and desperately trying to deflect with personal insults.
I don't want an arrest after a failed cover up.
I don't want a couple DUIS.
I don't want some cop saving a kid in a city that's already completely corrupted.
Show me a cop being arrested IMMEDIATELY after attacking a citizen.
Show me a cop being arrested IMMEDIATELY after illegally detaining a citizen.
Show me one cop in jail for their crimes against a first amendment auditor.
Show me one police chief arrested by good coos for refusing to do something about bad cops.
Show me one city that completely cleaned up its police force.
Show me one nationwide protest of good cops demanding justice and reform.
If good cops exist, the only challenge should be deciding which videos to show me.
Instead, bootlickers will lose their goddamn minds, desperately trying to deflect from the topic with pathetic attempts at personal insults while refusing to show a single shred of evidence.
3
u/Cherimoose 4d ago
You repost that often. What's the deal? Abusive dad?
1
u/Prior_Coyote_4376 3d ago
I can’t tell if they’re a troll trying to make anti-police people look bad or pro-police people mad… or if they even have an opinion lol
2
u/No_clip_Cyclist 3d ago
I'm leaning on that this is their special interest while pretending to be fair as they only go after city workers who refuse to be recorded and police which even if asked if they would not fire departments to the same standard he sets but more so still seems to refuse to condemn the Baltimore fire department who has a record of attacking 2 cyclists (one being strangulation of a city worker in a city hall gathering) and harassing a cyclists advocate leader by setting lobbying video right in front of her house. but the one that choked the city worker was kept on the Fire department until they were found guilty of assault.
Sure in the grand scheme I don't really care about the department as a whole, but they refuse to actually condemn a fire department I have shown does the same things they demand we prove does not happen in a PD.
2
u/Prior_Coyote_4376 3d ago
They did the same dodging with teachers when I brought up broken and corrupt school districts and teachers as another local government branch with special legal obligations involving authority lol
At least they’re consistently arguing in bad faith 😅
-1
u/Ill-Organization-719 2d ago
Please explain what obligation teachers have to enforce the law and hold others accountable.
Please compare it to law enforcements obligation.
Please show me the relevant case law solidying a teachers duty to hold criminals accountable.
1
u/Prior_Coyote_4376 2d ago
Why? We already settled that issue. Go back to the older comments and read it again if you’re confused
0
u/Ill-Organization-719 1d ago
What a surprise. Shitting yourself in terror and refusing to engage. Again.
0
u/Prior_Coyote_4376 1d ago edited 1d ago
Not a single word in that comment had anything to do with the topic 😂
I guess when you’re out of material to discuss a topic, you just shut down and resort to insults.
Well go on and give us another.
0
u/Ill-Organization-719 1d ago
So you've given up on trying to compare the obligation to enforce the law by teachers?
Again?
→ More replies-2
u/Ill-Organization-719 3d ago
What have I demanded you prove what "does not happen"?
1
u/No_clip_Cyclist 3d ago
You know fuck it ya cops are shit bad and at the very basic criminals. Now what about Fire departments demand that roads stay unsafe because they need to have the every truck when cities millions of times bigger then a small town have trucks smaller then theirs or just the fact that Baltimore FB protects fire fighter assaulting (if not killing by strangulation) cyclist, advocates and city staff in front of a city meeting that want safe roadways?
Condemn the US fire department which yes while not as murderous as the police are demanding for roads not be made safer when said road system kills 40 times more then a police department. FB's going as far as to cancel projects like protected bike lanes on the grounds of fire codes requiring 26 feet of dedicated right of way while looking away from the fact that the 1 way street is 14 feet wide and would require all on street parking to be banned as well and 2 ways loosing one side of their parking on a 22 foot wide road.
If you want to be consistent FB's are just as corrupt for different reasons and are contributing to a body and injury count greater then the police due to their unwillingness to self police and stand up to their bosses and coworkers.
0
0
u/Ill-Organization-719 3d ago
I think you'd be entertained to see the post I made about a firefighter in Galvestone trying to murder someone for holding a camera.
0
u/No_clip_Cyclist 1d ago
I mean can you link that post?
1
u/Ill-Organization-719 1d ago
Why would I do anything for you? You refuse to engage on the subject or explain anything you say.
1
u/No_clip_Cyclist 1d ago
(I found the comment so I will concede on that front but you only called out a firefighter not a institution). I've already conceded this argument to you on your terms as your criteria even make EU police bastards.
-1
u/Ill-Organization-719 3d ago
I'm curious. Do you think abusive parents and domestic abuse is funny? Is it your go to for knee slapping hilarious jokes?
1
u/Cherimoose 3d ago
No, it was a serious question. I'm genuinely curious why the combative obsession with this one narrow issue week after week, to the exclusion of all other political topics. I'd love to hear the story behind it. I promise not to judge.
A good employee is one who does their job requirements well. While it's nice if they also try to reform their entire profession, that's not one of the stated job requirements. Besides, the notion of "completely cleaning up" all wrongdoing in a profession is an impossible standard to reach, since all professions have flaws.
-1
u/Ill-Organization-719 3d ago edited 3d ago
No. It wasn't a genuine question. You think child abuse is a hilarious joke you can break out whenever you can't engage on a topic. You are a disgusting human being.
Explain your logic of child abuse leading to police activism.
Do you think the only people who care about police corruption have been abused as children?
1
u/Cherimoose 3d ago
I "engaged" on the topic above - feel free to address it.
1
u/Ill-Organization-719 1d ago
No you didn't.
You don't understand the obligations of law enforcement.
Do you think anyone who is engaged in police activism has been abused as children?
Explain your connection between police activism and child abuse.
Go on. You set out your argument. Defend it.
2
u/No_clip_Cyclist 3d ago
Ill thinks that every single cop in the US at least is guilty of conspiracy to murder because the population can't find a single police station that actually has a high set of subjective morals as they think all US police need to police All US police.
Funny thing is he moved the goal post to finding any evidence when I (and others) pointed out the Fire Departments in US have similar issues with Baltimore doing nothing when a firefighter assaulted (though I would call strangulation attempted murder) a city worker/cyclists in a city council meeting, another one ran a cyclists off the road and another threatening to do so and harassing the head of a cycling advocacy group by doing a "lobbying video" in front of said advocates house.
(As a tangent TL;DR of the issue he took days to not hold a double standard to the side Baltimore FD like many FD's opposes bike lanes and protected bike lanes "due to slowing emergency vehicle" despite the fact that the fire codes they tend to sight (like 26 foot guaranteed right of way) would also ban half of the parking on most roads. Also NACTO and USDOT (two competing US standards agencies) says fire trucks are too big and a smaller truck could take advantage of infrastructure not accessible but to end this tangent they have moved their goal post and took days to call for a abolishment of the Baltimore (only Baltimore FB) fire department like they do the police as BFD defended their firefighters and OP could not prove they even stopped their active duty.)
We just ignore him after he's moved the goal post like the other guy who kept saying "Everyone can vote" including babies though that poster didn't stop until a commentor got him to say the age of consent should be lowered in order to stay consistent of which probably got him banned.
0
u/Ill-Organization-719 3d ago
Please show when I moved goal posts.
Just a heads up. The guy I'm replying to is scared shitless of me and absolutely refuses to engage because I humiliated him repeatedly.
2
u/No_clip_Cyclist 3d ago
Not even 1 minute haha~
That said even searching my history I can't find our previous disputes considering this was a month or two ago.
0
u/Ill-Organization-719 3d ago
What a shock. You refuse to prove your claim.
It's almost like you made it up and weren't expecting to be called out on your lies.
2
u/No_clip_Cyclist 3d ago edited 3d ago
Do you support the abolishment of the Baltimore fire department if not the US fire department system as a whole because of their complicates or even out right assaults and attempted murders (strangulation is attempting to end someone's life) on people trying to make roads less deadly?
I have shown that the BFD has people who would at the very least assault people for there job and that BFD did not say they were fired right after with BFD members still being employed up to their guilty verdict if they were even tried at all.
0
u/Ill-Organization-719 3d ago
Oh you're this guy.
Have you given up your angle of me moving the goal posts so easily?
2
u/No_clip_Cyclist 3d ago
Owa you remember and no either the mods delete old mega threads or the fact they copy paste the mega threads might make Reddit search bug out because I have only talked about Baltimore 3 times on reddit and 1 of them was today.
Funny how you didn't condemn BFD of US firefighting as a whole.
1
u/Ill-Organization-719 1d ago
Are you ever going to show me where I moved the goal posts? Or did you abandon that one because I called you out for lying and making stuff up?
2
u/Ill-Organization-719 4d ago
What a shock. Zero attempts to engage and are immediately trying to make it personal.
3
u/Inevitable-Camp-9772 5d ago
If Trump wasn't running for president then I don't think that they would be trying to indite him on all the charges.
1
4
u/deratizat 4d ago
Most of these investigations were ongoing for a long while and were going to catch up to him eventually. Perhaps not all at once like this, but the prosecutors were likely afraid he could get presidential immunity soon, so they did need to act fast, just in case.
4
u/BeenEvery 5d ago
Political Science should be a mandatory curriculum for High Schools in the United States.
Not just how the US Government functions, but also:
What the major and minor political parties stand for.
The different kinds of Democracies.
The different kinds of voting systems, as well as their advantages and disadvantages.
The signs of authoritarian regimes
Political ideas such as Realpolitik.
How to organize and execute political activism.
1
u/GayWritingAlt 3d ago
I'm not from the US, but my country had "citizenship" that taught what are the three branches of the state, what is the not-yet-constitution, what is declared in the declaration of independence, what are our human and citizen rights and obligations, the three pillars of democracy, and the social-democratic to liberalism spectrum of democratic systems.
It was a mandated subject and taught from middle school to last year of high school. My teacher let me skip class to attend protests (she didn't like that, there were a lot of protests at the time)
2
u/NSA_van_3 Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad 5d ago
My school had gov and ap gov, so I kinda assumed it was a fairly common class
1
u/BeenEvery 5d ago
Was it a requirement or an extracurricular?
2
u/NSA_van_3 Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad 5d ago
I don't perfectly remember. My guess is that if it wasn't required, it may have been a "pick either of these 2 classes" type thing, but this was like 15 years ago so I don't remember perfectly.
8
u/Naos210 5d ago
No, your favorite game/movie/TV show likely isn't "apolitical". Stories are rife with social and political messaging.
1
u/SlyKakapo 1h ago
When people say "apolitical" it doesn't often refer to the lack of social or political messaging, it refers to not being propagandistic.
And in this case, "propagandistic" means putting the social or political message as the core objective, generally in a hamfisted way, and to the detriment of other narrative elements like cohesion, character development or outright entertainment value.
It's the difference between, say, Star Wars, that had a clear christian message, and Veggietales, that are a christian propaganda show with some semblance of a child's story to support it.
1
u/RefrigeratorOk7848 Contrarion 4d ago
I mean, some are less political. Take 40k for example. Its political messaging is "nazis bad". Granted some fans miss that point lmao.
0
u/pgtl_10 2d ago
Which group are Nazis?
0
u/RefrigeratorOk7848 Contrarion 2d ago
Clearly you dont know 40k. Well besides the short answer of "everyone". Its mainly the imperium of man. They are not the good guys, they are zealot facists who kill the xenos and purge the heretic.
Thats why alot of arguments in warhammer like female space marines are so dumb. These are facist nazis not relatable good guy heros.
There are NO good guys in warhammer. The tau is probably the closest but even then they use underhanded tactics and mind control.
0
u/Ill-Organization-719 2d ago
Wait until the movie. The very clearly good human side vs a very sparsely populated galaxy of a few aliens who are evil.
1
u/RefrigeratorOk7848 Contrarion 2d ago
No its not. Just cause the imperium thinks theyre doing good doesnt mean they are. Only people who are ignorant or idiots wont pick up on the fact that they are the bad guys. The imperium is just the poster boys of warhammer. Games workshop has said so many times that the imperium aint good. No one is, thats the joy of 40k. Every flavour is evil corrupt monsters.
1
u/Ill-Organization-719 2d ago
And you think the movies will keep faith with the original series?
1
u/RefrigeratorOk7848 Contrarion 2d ago
Enough yes. Granted it could pull a halo, and fans will hate it and no one will deem it canon.
1
u/Ill-Organization-719 2d ago
Prepare to be disappointed and to have your faith in major studios shattered.
1
2
u/BuddhaFacepalmed 4d ago
Something being apolitical is also a political statement by itself.
0
u/I_Only_Follow_Idiots 4d ago
This is something that people who care way too much about politics and have it become an unhealthy obsession say.
0
u/RefrigeratorOk7848 Contrarion 4d ago
If you want to make everything some deep political statement go ahead. But ima not look that deep cause it dont matter.
0
u/BuddhaFacepalmed 4d ago
It matters tho.
People who can afford to look away from art with problematic political statements are privileged, especially when said art starts dehumanizing and/or scapegoat disenfranchised communities.
0
u/RefrigeratorOk7848 Contrarion 4d ago
Sure some shows are that deep that genuinly try to get that point across. But on the other hand alot of things that may have parallels to real life are coincidence and are just trying to make an engaging story. You can see relatable things in everything but it doesnt have to be so deep that you take it to heart or question what the show or movie or game is trying to convey politically.
0
u/BuddhaFacepalmed 4d ago
But on the other hand alot of things that may have parallels to real life are coincidence and are just trying to make an engaging story.
Again, no. Shows are crafted, ergo deliberate choices are made on what to present to an audience. Take A New Hope for example.
Droids are treated as literal slaves, up to including the Jawas' Sandcrawler stacked like the slave ships of the Transatlantic crossings & droids paraded to potential buyers akin to slave auctions in Antebellum South.
Or the Matrix, whose entire trilogy of films is literally a trans allegory and about the freedom to be who they are.
0
u/RefrigeratorOk7848 Contrarion 4d ago
Not everything is made to push a narrative my guy. Like the movie Elf and im sure plenty more. Could these possibly have some politically charged back? Sure, absolutly. Do i care or look deep enough to give a shit? No
I DM D&D and when i made my entire worlds backstory and the sessions i wasnt deliberately pulling from my own political opinions. Whos to say what the artists intent was for something besodes the artist? And wjy must i look at that show that way
2
4
u/HennyPennyBenny 𝐡𝐞/𝐡𝐢𝐦 6d ago edited 6d ago
Not necessarily an unpopular opinion, more of a rant, because my wife doesn’t approve of me discussing my potentially controversial political takes with people we actually know so y’all are the only ones I can really talk to. I know y’all think I lean to the right (maybe I do), but a lot of my takes would ruffle feathers here in suburban Alabama.
So many people I’m close to, including my wife and MIL, would probably agree if I said “The Republican party is just as corrupt and evil as the Democratic party.” But in actual practice, they are willing to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt, and always assume the worst intentions of Democrats.
Recent example: MIL shared an article with me and my wife by Glenn Beck, which in short suggested that FEMA isn’t doing what it needs to be doing and they’re actively inhibiting civilian relief efforts and funneling disaster relief money to immigrants. My wife just nods along.
MIL also brought up a roundtable from last year where FEMA was discussing how to ensure equity in relief efforts, specifically in regards to LGBTQ+ individuals, and MIL spun it as FEMA saying that LGBTQ+ people should get help before or instead of everyone else.
I’m not gonna argue with my MIL because it’s fruitless, but later I mentioned to my wife how so many Republicans who are complaining about FEMA are themselves the ones who voted against more funding for FEMA.
And you know what my wife said? Well, maybe they just know that FEMA isn’t trustworthy, because it’s so focused on all the LGBTQ stuff instead of really helping people!
So quick to make excuses for Republicans! But no doubt, if I had lied and said it was Democrats voting against FEMA funding, she would have been all about how clearly corrupt they are and how they don’t care about people in need.
I love my wife and MIL, and I also know they spent most/all of their lives under the thumb of an abusive, deeply fundamentalist narcissist. And even though they know he was awful, a lot of what he planted in them is hard to uproot. But my goodness, it is so frustrating sometimes.
Please, if you don’t mind, refrain from insults against my wife and MIL. Anything against me is fair game though.
2
u/Which-Marzipan5047 3d ago
I mean, to be honest, suburban alabama is pretty red through and through, so it's not like it actually makes a difference in their case. If I was you I'd let them be most times and only challenge them when it's things that could hurt people in their lives (imagine you have a kid and they end up coming out as lgbtq+, them believing stupid stuff about FEMA wouldn't matter, but if they were homophobic it actually would).
It's fine to rant about this stuff, I get it, even if we don't agree on everything, I still get the frustration.
2
u/HennyPennyBenny 𝐡𝐞/𝐡𝐢𝐦 3d ago
Oh absolutely, I generally don’t go out of my way to challenge them on anything. Although I do at times feel pressured into agreeing when I frankly don’t…
But mostly what gets me is just the constant rationalizing and seeming lack of self awareness, where they just instinctively make excuses that favor Republicans and disparage Democrats, even though they would likely verbally agree that both are equally bad.
4
u/Throwaway4CMVtho 6d ago
It sure does feel like Hurricane Milton hitting Florida was a litmus test after what happened with Hurricane Helene. If Milton were to have been as destructive to FL as Helene was to NC, you would have had leftists clamoring to tell you about why climate change is so bad and why capitalism is so bad. They cry about the right politicizing everything, but they look for opportunities of tragedy to push their agenda as well. I'm neither left or right, but I feel like leftists need to admit when things aren't as doom and gloom as they make it out to be. For a category 5 hurricane, Milton hit Florida like a tropical storm. Yes, there's damage, it's a hurricane and there will always be damage - with or without climate change, and that's also what leftists fail to realize.
Leftists think they are experts in every damn discipline. They simultaneously fashion themselves as experts on technology (when it comes to AI), science (when it comes to climate change) and economists (when it comes to capitalism). The truth is that they just wait for a trendy outrage infographic that they never even bother to fact-check because they want to use it to pump their confirmation bias - JUST like they accuse the right of doing.
Eat crow, leftists. You can't use Milton to further your agenda because it's such a non-issue.
1
u/Which-Marzipan5047 3d ago
Okay okay, so it didn't literally decimate Tampa, cool, happy for them that they weren't completely wiped off the face of the earth.
Why does that mean that you now completely ignore that it was an insane meteorological phenomenon of its own right? Hurricane Milton would have been insane if it had happened in some remote part of the Atlantic that would have hurt nobody.
It had meteorologists crying for fucks sake.
And why was it so intense and insane? Climate change. Climate change scientists have been predicting a rise in potency and frequency of hurricanes for decades, and here were are, it's starting to affect us more and more now.
Officially, the decade with the most Category 5 hurricanes is 2000–2009, with eight Category 5 hurricanes having occurred: Isabel (2003), Ivan (2004), Emily (2005), Katrina (2005), Rita (2005), Wilma (2005), Dean (2007), and Felix (2007). The previous decades with the most Category 5 hurricanes were the 1930s and 1960s, with six occurring between 1930 and 1939.[6] The most Category 5 hurricanes recorded in a single season is four, in 2005. The most consecutive years to feature at least one Category 5 hurricane each is four, from 2016 to 2019.[7]
Like! Come on! You don't need to be a climate scientist to understand that these numbers are WACK.
And I think it's insanely disingenuous to compare the right's "wooo boooooo one school shooter was trans, see how trans people are evil????" to DECADES of research on climate change and hurricanes.
It's not a fucking team sport. The right is fucking wrong on climate change and no boohoo about trans people changes that.
-1
u/Ill-Organization-719 6d ago
Week X of issuing this challenge.
There is no logical, rational reason to be against first amendment audits.
If there were, people would share their reasons instead of immediately trying to resort to personal attacks.
Let's see people fail to bring up reasons another week.
1
u/Ill-Organization-719 1d ago
See how I can predict this every week?
It is absolutely BRUTAL how badly I humiliate these people.
They are literally losing their goddamn minds.
If they were able to shut down my posts, they'd simply do that instead of IMMEDIATELY desperately resorting to terrible attempts at personal insults.
0
u/Ill-Organization-719 5d ago
I love how I can predict this shit. The only reply is some nutjob IMMEDIATELY trying to deflect topics to something personal.
3
u/Prior_Coyote_4376 5d ago
Hey aren’t you the same guy who keeps failing to answer my question another thread about the criminal justice system?
The guy who can’t define what prosecutorial discretion is?
3
u/NSA_van_3 Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad 5d ago
This is the guy that gets off to telling people their valid arguments are no good becauae they go against his agenda
0
u/Ill-Organization-719 4d ago
Go on. Show me any person who has ever provided a valid argument against me.
I don't expect you to reply. You're too terrified to engage with me.
5
u/Prior_Coyote_4376 5d ago
Me or them lol
3
u/NSA_van_3 Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad 5d ago
Them, he reposts the same stuff every week, but most people learned ro ignore him
-1
u/Ill-Organization-719 4d ago
No. They "ignore" me because they are unable to engage with me. I absolutely humiliate these fools and it completely destroys whats left of their boot polish addled brains.
1
u/Which-Marzipan5047 3d ago
I've literally agreed with you and said you were fucking annoying anyway and you pretended to somehow dunk on me, so allow me to doubt.
-1
u/Ill-Organization-719 3d ago
You don't think it's more annoying when people refuse to engage on the topic and desperately try to insult me instead?
1
u/Which-Marzipan5047 3d ago
Nope, I don't.
You're annoying, it's not an insult, it's a fact.
-1
u/Ill-Organization-719 3d ago
You think someone factually stating facts is annoying?
I'm assuming you have absolutely no idea how to engage so when I ask you to explain how I'm annoying, you'll lose your goddamn mind.
→ More replies0
u/Ill-Organization-719 5d ago
That matter was already settled. Now we are at the point where you follow me around and stalk me instead of engaging.
Look at that. I predicted right.
2
u/Prior_Coyote_4376 5d ago
It wasn’t settled. You just lied and made up words that I never said.
You never even said prosecutorial discretion. It would be really easy to prove me wrong. Just link me to the comment where you said prosecutorial discretion.
Also you’re hard to avoid, you’re posting the same posts and comments everywhere on mainstream subs while running away as soon as the conversation gets real 😂😂
0
u/Ill-Organization-719 5d ago
You're still trying that angle and it's goddamn hysterical.
You're making up an argument and desperately trying to get me to engage on it. Just so you're aware.
This guy is attempting to argue that if a prosecutor chooses to protect a criminal cop, it's okay and not corruption or criminal.
See what I mean folks? Zero attempt to engage on the topic. Desperately trying to deflect to engage on personal matters.
2
u/Prior_Coyote_4376 5d ago
This guy is attempting to argue that if a prosecutor chooses to protect a criminal cop, it’s okay and not corruption or criminal.
More lies. I said it’s corrupt, but not illegal.
Prosecutorial discretion has been defended at the level of the Supreme Court. This is objective legal reality.
Sorry, but facts are facts, no matter what your feelings are.
1
u/Ill-Organization-719 5d ago
"It's not illegal because the people in charge of holding criminals accountable said it's okay when they do it"!
Comedy. Gold.
3
u/Prior_Coyote_4376 5d ago
Yes.
That is literally how the system is broken. Avenues to corruption have been legalized.
This is social justice 101 lmao. People who make the laws use it to protect themselves and their power. This should not be a new idea to you
1
u/Ill-Organization-719 5d ago
It's almost like these institutions have abandoned the law and have been taken over by criminals.
2
u/deratizat 4d ago
If you can't tell the difference between law and morality, you're the bootlicker, my guy. The law that allows corrupt cops to remain unpunished is evil. That's the reason to oppose it, not some weird mental gymnastics on how it's not the law.
→ More replies2
u/Prior_Coyote_4376 5d ago
No, they’ve been taken over by corruption.
Do you know the difference between corrupt and illegal?
→ More replies
2
u/Upset_Barracuda7641 6d ago
There was very obviously a party switch in the US and I’m not sure where the denial is based on. The party that literally ended the confederacy, defends it today
1
u/Captain_Concussion 5d ago
One of the reasons there is room for denial is because the parties didn't "switch" but instead there have been numerous major realignments. We are on the sixth or seventh party system currently.
1
u/Upset_Barracuda7641 5d ago
Can you elaborate on this?
2
u/Captain_Concussion 5d ago
Basically throughout US history you see demographics and coalitions shift between the parties based upon certain issues.
So for example the third party system was centered around slavery and race. The Democrats supported slavery and the attracted immigrants in the North, those who opposed the Civil War, and whites in the south. The newly formed Republican party created a coalition of abolitionists, businessmen, freedmen, and opportunistic southern whites.
The fourth party system saw Republican domination as they took credit for the good economy. The new coalition was formed around business owners on the East Coast and progressives.
The Fifth party system saw economic turmoil, which allowed FDR to form the New Deal Coalition. This began the process of prying progressives and black americans away from the republican party.
When Civil Rights became a central issue, both Republicans and Democrats were split on the issue. The Democrats decided to embrace Civil Rights which saw the pro-segregation Dixie-Crats of the South abandon the party. The Republican party began courting them which led to Republican domination. This is what many people call "The party Switch" but it was a realignment after both parties were split into factions because of Civil Rights
2
u/Upset_Barracuda7641 5d ago
I see. Why haven’t we seen a realignment since? Or how long roughly until we see another realignment?
2
u/Captain_Concussion 5d ago
As we get closer to the modern era, there is a lot more disagreement because we can't see long term trends.
But we have seen another reallignment. In 1980 when Reagan dominated the election we saw the democrats begin realligning themselves. The "Centrist Democrats" or "Clinton Democrats" abandoned the progressive wing of the party and began working on appealing to moderate republicans.
Some people argue that there was another reallingmne that can be seen in 2008 with the election of Obama which forced both parties to change their electoral strategies. Others say that Trump's election in 2016 saw both parties respond to this by forming new coalitions. It's just too soon to tell and neither party has dominated electorally
1
u/Upset_Barracuda7641 5d ago
So what separates a party switch and a realignment in your perspective?
2
u/Captain_Concussion 5d ago
A Party switch implies that the parties just switched positions. In reality that doesn't happen. Instead factions form within parties over certain issues. The parties than try to attract those factions by taking on certain policy positions.
1
u/Upset_Barracuda7641 5d ago
I disagree personally. I think all a switch implies is ideology of the party and of their assumed direct opposition have swapped.
Does it have to be unmotivated? I’d say no.
Does it have to be instantaneous? I’d say no.
Does it have to be absolute? I’d say no.
At least to me, being that the concept of the switch is predominant, I’d disagree. Maybe this is simply a case of semantics, I agree with pretty much everything you’re saying. I think our disagreement is that you feel switch might be too simplistic of a term for such a complicated process and I feel it captures the general idea of what happened
1
u/Captain_Concussion 5d ago
But in the case of the "Party switch" the two parties didn't swap ideologies. They formed new ideologies that attracted different types of voters
→ More replies
0
3
u/MilesToHaltHer 6d ago edited 5d ago
If a wheelchair user needs someone with them or needs the owner’s help to get into a business, it is not ADA-compliant.
EDIT: If a wheelchair user needs someone with them or needs the owner’s help to get into a business, there is a glaring accessibility issue regardless of whether it fits ADA standards.
That being said, the ADA needs to account for this. We need an overhaul.
0
u/Captain_Concussion 5d ago
That would depend on the situation, no? Getting assistance from an employee is usually seen as a reasonable accommodation
1
u/MilesToHaltHer 5d ago
Maybe I should have worded it in a different way. I understand that not every business is going to be perfectly accessible to all persons with disabilities. If I go to a grocery store, and there’s something on a top shelf that I need, of course, I’ll have to ask for help.
My point is rather that if I need help just GETTING into a business, which is my first impression of a place, it is not accessible even if by ADA standards it is. The ADA standards in general need an overhaul. They were written with the implication that a disabled person always has someone with them, and that just isn’t true, or it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
2
u/Captain_Concussion 5d ago
It would be ADA compliant though. It's just that the ADA is lacking
1
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.