Master Troll Activated!! Trump Wins!

[Bret Ripley]

That is not what Molok wrote: you are ignoring "the most left part of democrats, and quite a bit beyond."

Do you need a Venn diagram?

A Venn diagram will probably help, especially if drawn with a Sharpie.

Oh. Umm, OK. So, does anyone know how to clean Sharpie ink from a monitor?

[Markk]

You wrote that a progressive person hates democrats, but then say that they (progressives) are just far left democrats.

Molok’s characterization makes sense in light of how the extremes of either side dislike that portion of their own party that isn’t as extreme. As example, MAGA Republicans absolutely cannot stand traditional Republicans, who they characterize as RINOs. And the Nick Fuentes/America First wing of the Right has twice now tried to pick a battle with Trump for not being MAGA enough. Where do you land in that bunch?

Callling all Democratic Party voters ‘progressives’ is like calling all Republican Party voters ‘America First’-aligned. But the power in the Republican Party is more concentrated on the farther right extreme than the power in the Democratic Party is concentrated towards the left extreme.

In regard to "brown people" being hated, I assume you are speaking of deportation. So when democrats deport "brown people" is that hate. When Obama, Clinton, and Biden deported millions of illegal immigrants, that was what? Love, justice, compromise, other? Or maybe you believe the GOP hates "brown people" for other reasons?

Previous/Democratic administrations seemed to be able to deploy enforcement actions without claiming that their targets as ‘poisoning the blood of the country’, or characterizing all of them as rabid criminals, or publicly heckling them on official social media and marginalizing them while gleefully joking about doing so and working outside of the normal legal structure. The Trump Administration seems to revel in mocking the people targeted while flouting enforcement that ignores the process that would allow applicants to become citizens. I can’t recall seeing that in any other Administration. This comes across as unnecessarily cruel and immature at best, and some folks will find it immoral, even. You are, of course, free to defend that behavior but I can’t see how doing so puts you in a better moral position than your opponent.

Blah blah blah. He said progressives, by definition "hate democrats". And now you agree by saying Molok's definition makes sense. Calling all democrats progressive is not the question, the question was, and is "define it."

As to the second question...

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_g6WKwQugBA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m1Z2KfYaVU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IrDrBs13oA

[Markk]

You wrote that a progressive person hates democrats, but then say that they (progressives) are just far left democrats.

That is not what Molok wrote: you are ignoring "the most left part of democrats, and quite a bit beyond."

Do you need a Venn diagram?

This is what he wrote....

Just in case you actually want to learn something, Progressives don't really like Democrats very much. They vote for them, because the only other option is Nazi crap, and progressives hate Nazis more than they hate Democrats.

[canpakes]

Blah blah blah. He said progressives, by definition "hate democrats". And now you agree by saying Molok's definition makes sense.

Yes, it does. Would you disagree?

Calling all democrats progressive is not the question, the question was, and is "define it."

There’s the ‘sticky wicket’, as the old timers say. There is no definition of ‘Progressive’ that is absolute. You could probbaly find a dozen on the internet with a minute of casual search. I don’t see Molok as trying to define progressive so much as pointing out a characteristic of some people who would call themselves progressive. And even at that, this characteristic applies to only a subset of that group. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie call themselves progressive and I don’t see them hating on mainstream Democratic Party peeps.

It’s interesting that you don’t already have a definition decided upon for ‘progressive’. That doesn’t surprise me, given that the Hound account has started multiple threads on the promise of defining it, only to fail and abandon those threads every time. What is usually left behind is a tangled mess of unsupported accusations and inane assumptions. So you get to give it a go, but maybe try by examining the policy ideas of folks like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie? That way, you’re not immediately falling into the straw man trap.

As to the second question...

Sorry. Didn’t look at these; they’re link-n-runs, and so many of these links just seem to be created by partisan propagandist hacks that they’re just not worth clicking on without knowing anything about them.

[Gadianton]

This comes across as unnecessarily cruel and immature at best, and some folks will find it immoral, even.

I think it's complex. Those who most enthusiastically voted it in do it out of hate. Take Markk, the most obvious example. In his view, Southern California is trashed with a bad economy, drugs, and literal trash because of illegals. People's lives are worth less than keeping that spot tidy where he kissed his first girl. He even temporarily defends Chinatown in order to trash illegals from Mexico all the more. It's the same thing as anti-Semitism. Jewish people look similar enough to the average anti-Semite. It's not hate born out of offence to different physical characteristics, which is the most basic in-group way of being racist and hateful. Nick Fuentes probably had never met a Jew by the time he became the nations leader in anti-Semitism. It's hate born out by a story and worldview, with little to no factual information or education behind it.

Republican leaders are all over the map. I'd say it's less direct hate from themselves, and more opportunism to take advantage of the hate from their supporters. The trashing of civil and human rights is as much about opportunism, exploring how such tactics can be used against political enemies as it is getting the job done with flair, in order to entertain the hate of their base.

A very big factor that I think is overlooked is the hate for "liberals and democrats" from the conservative base, which has been in the works since at least Rush Limbaugh. This is something Democrats are going to seriously need to do some introspection on; they won't, but they should. A huge factor here is destroying that thing the opponent loves. If Democrats care about immigrants, then by golly, the best way to hurt Democrats is to destroy the lives of immigrants. This was admitted to on Gutfeld's show a few months ago. The Democrats are really going to pay for everything they've done in the form of the blood of the immigrants they love. I became very concerned when certain Democrat leaders got sucked into the culture war aspect of this when Texas was sending immigrants to New York and elsewhere. Don't know her name, but one city official accepted the bus-loads with a whole lot of self-righteousness, smugness, and without much understanding that the border only exists in a few key places, and those on the border take the brunt of the problems caused by illegal immigration far more directly than the rest of us. Their concerns are valid.

Democrats need to be cautious about making people's lives a target by pointing the wolves to them and saying, "see those poor people, I care about them!"

[Markk]

Blah blah blah. He said progressives, by definition "hate democrats". And now you agree by saying Molok's definition makes sense.

Yes, it does. Would you disagree?

Calling all democrats progressive is not the question, the question was, and is "define it."

There’s the ‘sticky wicket’, as the old timers say. There is no definition of ‘Progressive’ that is absolute. You could probbaly find a dozen on the internet with a minute of casual search. I don’t see Molok as trying to define progressive so much as pointing out a characteristic of some people who would call themselves progressive. And even at that, this characteristic applies to only a subset of that group. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie call themselves progressive and I don’t see them hating on mainstream Democratic Party peeps.

It’s interesting that you don’t already have a definition decided upon for ‘progressive’. That doesn’t surprise me, given that the Hound account has started multiple threads on the promise of defining it, only to fail and abandon those threads every time. What is usually left behind is a tangled mess of unsupported accusations and inane assumptions. So you get to give it a go, but maybe try by examining the policy ideas of folks like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie? That way, you’re not immediately falling into the straw man trap.

As to the second question...

Sorry. Didn’t look at these; they’re link-n-runs, and so many of these links just seem to be created by partisan propagandist hacks that they’re just not worth clicking on without knowing anything about them.

[Markk]

Blah blah blah. He said progressives, by definition "hate democrats". And now you agree by saying Molok's definition makes sense.

Yes, it does. Would you disagree?

Calling all democrats progressive is not the question, the question was, and is "define it."

There’s the ‘sticky wicket’, as the old timers say. There is no definition of ‘Progressive’ that is absolute. You could probbaly find a dozen on the internet with a minute of casual search. I don’t see Molok as trying to define progressive so much as pointing out a characteristic of some people who would call themselves progressive. And even at that, this characteristic applies to only a subset of that group. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie call themselves progressive and I don’t see them hating on mainstream Democratic Party peeps.

It’s interesting that you don’t already have a definition decided upon for ‘progressive’. That doesn’t surprise me, given that the Hound account has started multiple threads on the promise of defining it, only to fail and abandon those threads every time. What is usually left behind is a tangled mess of unsupported accusations and inane assumptions. So you get to give it a go, but maybe try by examining the policy ideas of folks like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie? That way, you’re not immediately falling into the straw man trap.

As to the second question...

Sorry. Didn’t look at these; they’re link-n-runs, and so many of these links just seem to be created by partisan propagandist hacks that they’re just not worth clicking on without knowing anything about them.

Lol...Again, blah blah blah, He said he would define it and he did, by saying progressives hate democrats, and as a learning moment for me. I did however learn he believes that progressives hate democrats, just less than Nazis.

Is you position as a moderator to define what others think, Molok is a big boy, he can defend what he wrote.

Here it is again

Just in case you actually want to learn something, Progressives don't really like Democrats very much. They vote for them, because the only other option is Nazi crap, and progressives hate Nazis more than they hate Democrats.

And I have no doubt you looked at the links, at least one of them, you are lying again in my opinion. It is not a link in run I said they are in regard to what was wrote in a remark to me, you just have no answer for them.

[Bret Ripley]

That is not what Molok wrote: you are ignoring "the most left part of democrats, and quite a bit beyond."

Do you need a Venn diagram?

This is what he wrote....

Just in case you actually want to learn something, Progressives don't really like Democrats very much. They vote for them, because the only other option is Nazi crap, and progressives hate Nazis more than they hate Democrats.

Yes, I know. He also noted that there was some overlap between progressives and Democrats. It's really not that difficult, but if you think a Venn diagram would help just say the word.

[Whiskey]

This is what he wrote....

Yes, I know. He also noted that there was some overlap between progressives and Democrats. It's really not that difficult, but if you think a Venn diagram would help just say the word.

It would help me.

[canpakes]

There’s the ‘sticky wicket’, as the old timers say. There is no definition of ‘Progressive’ that is absolute. You could probbaly find a dozen on the internet with a minute of casual search. I don’t see Molok as trying to define progressive so much as pointing out a characteristic of some people who would call themselves progressive. And even at that, this characteristic applies to only a subset of that group. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie call themselves progressive and I don’t see them hating on mainstream Democratic Party peeps.

It’s interesting that you don’t already have a definition decided upon for ‘progressive’. That doesn’t surprise me, given that the Hound account has started multiple threads on the promise of defining it, only to fail and abandon those threads every time. What is usually left behind is a tangled mess of unsupported accusations and inane assumptions. So you get to give it a go, but maybe try by examining the policy ideas of folks like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie? That way, you’re not immediately falling into the straw man trap.

Lol...Again, blah blah blah, He said he would define it and he did, by saying progressives hate democrats, and as a learning moment for me. I did however learn he believes that progressives hate democrats, just less than Nazis.

Is you position as a moderator to define what others think, Molok is a big boy, he can defend what he wrote.

What is there to defend? What are you taking issue with? Be specific.

Sorry. Didn’t look at these; they’re link-n-runs, and so many of these links just seem to be created by partisan propagandist hacks that they’re just not worth clicking on without knowing anything about them.

And I have no doubt you looked at the links, at least one of them, you are lying again in my opinion. It is not a link in run I said they are in regard to what was wrote in a remark to me, you just have no answer for them.

Well, you’re wrong. I haven’t bothered to look at any of them. No apologies for not doing so, either. If you can’t speak for yourself without trying to direct folks to unexplained mystery links (yes, they’re link’n’runs), then why should I chase down someone else’s propagandists and try to guess at whatever point you think that you’re making?