Here Comes The Left

[Derec]

There's a fairly universal truism on this front, my first external exposure to which came from the military: trust but verify.
That's what "believe" in this context means.

I don't think it does. The use of "believe" is deliberate, since "believe" implies that you disbelieve the alternative. Also note the glaring absence of "verify" in the "believe women" slogan.

 

[Derec]

Of course. Yet you whined about Ziprhead’s whataboutism. Please pay attention before you post.

Because it was an actual whataboutism - try to keep up.

 

[Derec]

That's a hit piece and the headline is a lie. The posts she liked made no mention of the 10/7 attack.

Bullshit. While some of the pro-Hamas posts she liked are from years ago before the 10/7 attacks, she also liked the post that was about the 10/7 attack.

She liked this post. No mention of the 10/7 attack? Then what it is about in your opinion?

She also liked this one.

What resisting do you think peoplesforumnyc was making a reference to on October 7th 2023? Be honest for once.

 

[Derec]

Yup, no one can be against what Israel is doing for any reason other than religion. Totally. And if you're a Muslim, obviously, the only reason you might be against what Israel is doing is because religion. It only makes sense, for some reason.

If you hold Israel to a standard you would not apply to any other country, then you have to ask yourself why? Any country would respond very forcefully to attacks like 10/7. Any country would respond forcefully to being attacked with suicide bombings and unguided rockets for decades.

If you think Israel has no right to defend itself, why not? What's different about Israel, other than that it's the only Jewish state in the world.

And that does not apply just to Muslims of course; there are plenty of antisemitic Chirstians and even atheists. But hatred of Jews is endemic among Muslims in today's world. Especially Twelver Shiites like the theocrats in Iran and the Mamdanis.

 

[Derec]

Why am I not surprised that Derec is posting lies about Zohran Mamdani’s wife

I am not.

that are based on dishonestly mined quotes and assertions we’re being led to believe ( there’s that word again) without verification?

The article includes screenshots of the pro-October7th posts that she liked, so there's verification. There is no quote mining. Nothing is dishonest here except for Zipr's denialism.

I am shocked, shocked I tell you to find Derec jumping to conclusions, again.

Did any of you even open that article or are you just blindly following Zipr?
I am not the one jumping to conclusions; Mamdani's wife really liked pro-10/7 posts.

More like assumed his conclusion.

I did nothing of the sort. Zipr did.

 

[Derec]

Why then the constant misinformation, disinformation, and mischaracterization of moderates then?

Which moderate am I allegedly misinforming about, disinforming about and/or mischaracterizing? Please be specific, including why you consider them "moderate".

 

[Derec]

So what part of the Trump administration approach to border control and immigration do you agree with? Disagree with?

Agree: ending of the practice that those who are caught on the border are released inside the US if they say the magic word "asylum". Also agree that more immigration enforcement inside the US is necessary. Especially with "sanctuary" city/state policies by the locals, federal raids are necessary. Far fewer of them would be needed if local law enforcement was cooperating with the feds and were honoring immigration detainers.

Disagree: Trump's ICE is way too aggressive with enforcement, including poorly trained and led agents. Often legal residents or even citizens are picked up, which is a consequence of the former.

 

[Arctish]

There's a fairly universal truism on this front, my first external exposure to which came from the military: trust but verify.
That's what "believe" in this context means.

I don't think it does. The use of "believe" is deliberate, since "believe" implies that you disbelieve the alternative. Also note the glaring absence of "verify" in the "believe women" slogan.

The glaring absence of verify is the reason "believe women" became a slogan.

 

[Derec]

—not criminals, who, btw, are turned over to ICE after their sentence is completed.

Not necessarily. Often the "sanctuary cities" will just release the criminal illegals instead of turning them over to ICE. That's what happened to the guy (who was a felon) who went on to murder Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco.

ICE holds people in what could only be termed concentration camps, brag about inhumane conditions, fail to provide clean water and food or necessary medical care in violation of US and international laws.

Conditions should definitely be improved, but one caveat is that the illegal immigration has become so bad due to decades of mismanagement from both parties that it is difficult to properly manage now.

ICE has murdered US citizens, kidnapped US citizens, Green Card holders and those here with valid work permits, visas, etc. they are incarcerating children in deplorable conditions. They violate state law, do not identify themselves, and take people without valid warrants or any warrants at all.

ICE is badly mismanaged. Any killings or other use of force needs to be professionally and impartially investigated and if warranted prosecuted. There are several cases that look particularly bad for the agents involved, including the recent cases in Maine and Texas.

 

[Derec]

The glaring absence of verify is the reason "believe women" became a slogan.

It's related to the radfem article of faith that "women don't lie about rape". That's the reason that radical feminist "National Organization for Women" continued to support false rape accuser Jackie Coakley even after it was determined that she fabricated the whole thing.

 

[Derec]

That sounds precisely like what the Republitards said would happen if we elected Obama. Endless economic and social disaster.
As it turned out Obama gave us the longest string of consecutive growth quarters in modern history, didn't start any wars, ended Bushbaby's Iraq debacle and made no attempt to overthrow the results of elections, not even when The People decided they'd prefer a wannabe dictator, known career fraudster, sexual assaulter and and self dealing asshole.

Note that Obama ran and (for the most part) governed as a moderate. That's why he was so successful.

The times where he stumbled - like when he cancelled the previously approved and almost finished Dakota Access Pipeline - are when he foolishly caved to the fauxgressive extremists.

 

[Derec]

All of the above — this is just a sampling — are a result of what today we call democratic socialism.

No, it is not. Democratic socialism is socialism - i.e. an economic system based on collective ownership and control of the means of production.
The DSA constitution and some of its stars (like Mamdani) are honest about this "end goal" of "winning socialism".
The only major difference between democratic and revolutionary socialism of the likes of Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov is that the former want to implement socialism through elections rather than through a revolution.

All the things you listed are reforms of capitalism. And EPA was started by an executive order by Richard Milhous Nixon, whom nobody would confuse with a socialist.

Democratic socialism all. And we have all immensely benefited.

Nope. None of it is socialism, democratic or otherwise.

 

[Derec]

OMG!
They're advocating for both basic Christian ethics and traditional American values? In the US, today?
What is the matter with those people?
Tom

I see this tactic a lot on this forum.

When first confronted with an extremist policy, it is denied. We exaggerate, or even make it up. Then, when so much evidence is presented that the Ilk cannot deny it any more, the policy is acknowledged, but they then pivot into saying that the policy is a good thing actually.

We see the same thing with racial discrimination in college admissions. First it's denied that it takes place. Then, when they can no longer deny evidence, it is acknowledged, but defended - it is good to discriminate against whites and Asians because there are too many of them in med schools and selective universities anyway.

As to your defense of open border policies, how are they part of "American values" or "Christian ethics" specifically? Not that "Christian ethics" should even matter on this forum. If you want to make some sort of reference to immigration policies in centuries past, times and circumstances change. Early 19th century (when US population was something like 10M) is very different than early 21st century.

 

[Toni]

—not criminals, who, btw, are turned over to ICE after their sentence is completed.

Not necessarily. Often the "sanctuary cities" will just release the criminal illegals instead of turning them over to ICE. That's what happened to the guy (who was a felon) who went on to murder Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco.

ICE holds people in what could only be termed concentration camps, brag about inhumane conditions, fail to provide clean water and food or necessary medical care in violation of US and international laws.

Conditions should definitely be improved, but one caveat is that the illegal immigration has become so bad due to decades of mismanagement from both parties that it is difficult to properly manage now.

ICE has murdered US citizens, kidnapped US citizens, Green Card holders and those here with valid work permits, visas, etc. they are incarcerating children in deplorable conditions. They violate state law, do not identify themselves, and take people without valid warrants or any warrants at all.

ICE is badly mismanaged. Any killings or other use of force needs to be professionally and impartially investigated and if warranted prosecuted. There are several cases that look particularly bad for the agents involved, including the recent cases in Maine and Texas.

I believe we were talking about Minneapolis? Forgive me if I am mistaken but I know that in Minnesota, municipalities do co ta t ICE if they have undocumented Ted persons convicted of criminal offenses. I assume this is true in other states/cities but I have friend/family in Minneapolis so I know more about that particular area

There is flat out zero excuse for the deplorable conditions in which we are holding people that were taken to custody without due process afforded all within the borders of the US and so many/most are being detained illegally. But regardless of whether or mother date tion is legal, if any local, state or federal authority incarcerates anyone first any reason they have a legal duty to provide accommodations for for human habitation, clean food and water for for human consumption, sufficient toilets, showers and other sanitary facilities to meet the needs of those incarcerated, medical treatment and access to legal counsel.

There is no need for except to satisfy cruel impulses and political expediency to ‘round up’ people by the tens of thousands, neglect due process and even whether or not they are citizens or here in valid visas or have immigration hearings pending. There is no danger! Local police can and do arrest criminals regardless of nationality or citizenship. We have a legal system that works.

This is particularly disgusting when we know that they also abduct small children and hold them in the same deplorable conditions. There are reports that teenage girls are taken away from these facilities Abd terurn pregnant —whether that is true or widespread I do not know.

I do know that in Minnesota, they abducted people they suspected of being illegal and sometimes released them miles away from their homes, in rural areas without their coats or cell phones in subzero weather, common in Minnesota in January.

They have murderers least 5 US citizens falsely claiming that they were a threat to ICE.

DHS is impeding investigations into those deaths and withholding e dense important to investigations.

Whoever is running these Internet camps aka concentration camps is raking in billions of dollars and providing living conditions that would be illegal if we were talking about stray dogs or livestock waiting slaughter.

Here’s the thing: If they can do that to people with darker skin than Aryan white or accents, they can do it to me or to you. Just give them a bit more time. They won’t need an excuse. Just a quota to fill.

 

[Toni]

That sounds precisely like what the Republitards said would happen if we elected Obama. Endless economic and social disaster.
As it turned out Obama gave us the longest string of consecutive growth quarters in modern history, didn't start any wars, ended Bushbaby's Iraq debacle and made no attempt to overthrow the results of elections, not even when The People decided they'd prefer a wannabe dictator, known career fraudster, sexual assaulter and and self dealing asshole.

Note that Obama ran and (for the most part) governed as a moderate. That's why he was so successful.

The times where he stumbled - like when he cancelled the previously approved and almost finished Dakota Access Pipeline - are when he foolishly caved to the fauxgressive extremists.

You mean people who did not want a pipeline through environmentally and culturally sensitive lands?

 

[Derec]

Nothing in theory. But judgment requires including context, behavior and realistic projections of action. Something that is many times lacking in your analysis.

What possible context would relativize putting Marxist ideas in the DSA constitution? What possible context would make Mamdani saying that "winning socialism" includes "the end goal of seizing the means of production"?

As to "realistic projections of actions": of course people like Mamdani and DSA will not try their most extreme policies right away. But so what? They still hold these views. We should not ignore them.

Pointing that out does not make one a "leftist" or a "Marxist" or "pro-Hamas".

Making Marxist statements (see Mamdani's statements and DSA constitution) does likely make one a leftist and a Marxist.
Liking posts defending the October 7th attack on Israel (like Mamdani's wife) does make one pro-Hamas.
There is not much nuance needed here as the positions themselves are not nuanced. It's no different than calling somebody who defended Hitler's actions a Nazi.

 

[Toni]

What if the victim is male?

Why should that change anything at all?

For starters, you should not call neither female nor male accusers "victims" as that prejudges the case.

So, the person who presents with multiple abrasions, contusions and cut marks and restraint marks with vaginal and/ or recital bleeding and missing teeth is the alleged victim? Or just the accuser?

 

[laughing dog]

Nothing in theory. But judgment requires including context, behavior and realistic projections of action. Something that is many times lacking in your analysis.

What possible context would relativize putting Marxist ideas in the DSA constitution? What possible context would make Mamdani saying that "winning socialism" includes "the end goal of seizing the means of production"?

As to "realistic projections of actions": of course people like Mamdani and DSA will not try their most extreme policies right away. But so what? They still hold these views. We should not ignore them.

Pointing that out does not make one a "leftist" or a "Marxist" or "pro-Hamas".

Making Marxist statements (see Mamdani's statements and DSA constitution) does likely make one a leftist and a Marxist.
Liking posts defending the October 7th attack on Israel (like Mamdani's wife) does make one pro-Hamas.
There is not much nuance needed here as the positions themselves are not nuanced. It's no different than calling somebody who defended Hitler's actions a Nazi.

Using a phrase from a Marxism does not necessarily make one a Marxist. Liking a post does not necessarily make one a supporter of the poster or the an adherent of the cause. Just like spouting a racist phrase or misogynistic idea doesn’t necessarily make one a racist or a misogynist.

 

[Toni]

There's a fairly universal truism on this front, my first external exposure to which came from the military: trust but verify.
That's what "believe" in this context means.

I don't think it does. The use of "believe" is deliberate, since "believe" implies that you disbelieve the alternative. Also note the glaring absence of "verify" in the "believe women" slogan.

Not really.

Believe is the starting point of any investigation. If someone reports their credit card stolen, in order for an investigation to begin, the officer taking the report must first approach the case as though they believe the assertion that a credit card was stolen. Sure they will ask where the cc was last seen, if there has been any unauthorized use of the cc and if it were reported to the cc company. But a lot of people report first to the police.

 

[Derec]

The US has substantially increased money supply since the collapse of Bretton Woods, and any ill effects have been massively outweighed by beneficial ones.

As you say, US already increased the money supply along with the size of the economy. Since this has been the standard in the US and elsewhere for decades, it can't be what MMT means.

Defecit spending to build infrastructure* is one of the most significant macroeconomic differences between the most successful and least successful economies, both over time and over geography.

Within reason, yes. But the likes of AOC think that for example US could pay for the $60-100T "Green New Deal" by printing that money over the 10 year time frame of the bill. Which is why she needed a new "monetary theory"

Balanced budgets, austerity, and "fiscal responsibility" have, since the demise of commodity money, been universally disastrous.

Not nearly as disastrous as monetary policy that is too loose.

A national economy is nothing like a household economy, and the belief that an understanding of the latter qualifies someone to set policy for the former has led to vast and pointless suffering.

They may be different, but that does not mean that deficits do not matter or that debt can increase indefinitely without ill effects for the currency and the economy.

As you can see, the interest on US debt alone is already more than we spend on thing slike Medicare and the defense.