American Politics

[ninjabot]

In America, sure. But I think someone not being MAGA or even nominally Republican doesn't automatically make them Left.

There's more to being on the left than not being MAGA or Republican. I know it's not as hard of a science as "take left-leaning policies and right-leaning policies, and put them into two lists. Whichever list you align with more determines which side of the political aisle you're on". But for most people (not hyperbole), it IS that simple. This is why people are so comfortable letting a single issue determine their political leaning: it just has to be something that moves them personally, and some of these positions are truly dichotomous,

And I think this is backed up in most other places in the world where most liberals or centrist democrats would be considered center right. Politics shouldn't really be considered on a single axis really, but.... a "centrist democrat" is really just a member of the corporatist establishment and only adopts progressive social positions when it's no longer unpopular to do so. Just look at how long it took Hillary Clinton to support marriage equality. Changing your views over time is natural, only doing do when it's no longer a threat to your grasp on power makes you a charlatan before anything else.

I think this explanation works for politicians because they are financially incentivized to take the position that's most lucrative for them, and most beneficial for the party. I don't think this defines the average American.

To me, being on the left means to push for meaningful social change that is fit to achieve freedom, community and equality. Liberals and centrist democrats are just not doing that. They push for some policies that make conditions for poor people nicer, but they wouldnt push for the end of poverty when it is rough for their core voting groups. That is the difference between being on the left and being a centrist.

Seems you're attacking the party and not the positions of the people as well, because Democrats wouldn't use messaging that preaches those exact 3 things if they didn't know that's what the people wanted.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 30, 2024, Original Post Date: Nov 30, 2024 ---

And I am not saying that to say leftists are better people. My view is that any successful push for these values has to reach people who are not in the left&green bubble and that leftists are often unduly demeaning to other people. But we just cannot pretend that moderate democrats and people who care mostly about woke issues and optics are fighting for the same things as someone who is still for the end of homelessness when people are rallying against the homeless.

Have you considered that one can rally against homelessness without letting homeless people go unchecked? That while you're attempting to fix the problem, someone's got to deal with the homeless people already on hand? In the same way that fixing violent neighborhoods starts with fixing the problems that cause neighborhoods to become violent, but doesn't mean ignoring the violence being committed, fixing homelessness requires a two-pronged attack. Both preventative measures and corrective measures.

 

[M3J]

I don't think he can do that. I wouldnt know how, leave alone without losing power instantly and being pressured by both sides of the political spectrum to correct course in the end.

Eh, all we have are assumptions. I mean, some other countries have been taking action against Israel.

To me, being on the left means to push for meaningful social change that is fit to achieve freedom, community and equality. Liberals and centrist democrats are just not doing that. They push for some policies that make conditions for poor people nicer, but they wouldnt push for the end of poverty when it is rough for their core voting groups. That is the difference between being on the left and being a centrist.

And I am not saying that to say leftists are better people. My view is that any successful push for these values has to reach people who are not in the left&green bubble and that leftists are often unduly demeaning to other people. But we just cannot pretend that moderate democrats and people who care mostly about woke issues and optics are fighting for the same things as someone who is still for the end of homelessness when people are rallying against the homeless.

Eh, the way I see it, the left care more about people than liberals, and definitely more than conservatives. Libs and centrist Democrats this election have shown who they really are when Muslims and Palestinian Americans said they wouldn't vote for Biden or Harris, and when Harris lost. Instead of looking within, they were blaming everyone else.

Not to mention, I've seen a lot of libs oppose cancelling student loans solely because of "what about me who paid off my student loans?!"

It's why and how the libs have alienated the group that should be their allies.

 

[ninjabot]

Leftist disagrees with Destiny's claim that Leftists should be exiled from American politics. Destiny explains his reasoning.

0:00:00 - Addressing Disaffected Leftists
0:06:18 - Ground Game vs. Meme Strategies in Campaigns
0:18:46 - Media Challenges for Democrats
0:28:15 - Engaging with Media and Leftist Critiques
0:40:12 - Labor Advocacy and Biden’s Legacy
0:53:10 - Healthcare Progress and Democratic Loopholes
1:02:30 - Inflation and Voter Disillusionment
1:12:40 - Economic Pain and Media Narratives
1:15:13 - Joe Rogan’s Audience Shift and Political Influence
1:17:24 - Platforming Controversial Figures: Nick Fuentes Debate
1:20:11 - Leftist Streamer Conflicts and Missed Collaborations
1:23:55 - The Affordable Care Act: Public Option Debate
1:29:08 - Obesity Epidemic: Psychological Factors and Societal Impact
1:37:12 - Dietary Changes and Weight Loss Discussions
1:45:16 - Holodomor and Genocide Recognition Debates
1:56:18 - Ukrainian Resistance and Volunteer Efforts
2:03:42 - NATO’s Role and Challenges in Supporting Ukraine
2:14:21 - Russia’s Nuclear Arsenal and Global Deterrence
2:19:47 - Hypothetical Strategies Against Russian Aggression
2:25:36 - Reflections on Ukraine’s Future and Global Relations

 

[shionoro]

Seems you're attacking the party and not the positions of the people as well, because Democrats wouldn't use messaging that preaches those exact 3 things if they didn't know that's what the people wanted.

I am not attacking anyone. I am saying that moderates and liberals want to make the living conditions of poor people nicer, but they are not supporting meaningful fundamental change to end poverty if it goes against their interests. The same goes for many other issues.

Democrats are an example of that and I have talked about one of those issues with Newsom already. He thought Housing first is a popular policy, so he ran on it. When it was not popular anymore, he now runs on taking down the tents while claiming it is just for the best of the homeless. There is no real moral backbone behind that. The actual core of this, and of the liberal and moderate dem mindset, is that they want politics that make the educated middle class comfortable. So the core aim is not to end homelessness, the core aim is to get the homeless out of sight in a somewhat humane enough way so no liberal has to feel like he put his needs over the needs of the poor.

To be a liberal means to put your needs over other people while acting like you are doing the opposite. And of course that includes a messaging that claims you are doing your best for the poor, while you are actually not ever going to fight for the poor if it means.

Have you considered that one can rally against homelessness without letting homeless people go unchecked? That while you're attempting to fix the problem, someone's got to deal with the homeless people already on hand? In the same way that fixing violent neighborhoods starts with fixing the problems that cause neighborhoods to become violent, but doesn't mean ignoring the violence being committed, fixing homelessness requires a two-pronged attack. Both preventative measures and corrective measures.

Have you ever considered there wouldnt be any homeless people to check if they all had a home?

The way you phrased it highlights the way of thinking i outlined above. Homelessness is fine as long as it is "checked", as in, as long as the middle class is not bothered by it. Trump is just being consequent when he offers to build giant tent cities for homeless people in the desert. That is what a lot of Liberals would be happy with if Trump just wouldnt put it so bluntly (as it is also fine for a liberal what is done at the border, as long as there are no pictures of children in cages).

But a leftist does not think homelessness is ever fine, and he thinks that the need to have a home is a more urgent and relevant concern than the need to go shopping without being asked for money. As such he is not going to embrace policies that just "check" homelessness (which really just means using violence to keep the homeless away from the "good people") just to put the actual fight against homelessness on the backseat (if even). He is going to push for the homeless getting homes. And for any necessary intermediate steps (like crime in a tent city) to be handled as humane as possible without accusing the poor of the effects of their poverty.

 

[M3J]

lmfao if the left are excluded from politics, then the Dems might as well just pack it up because their chances of winning will be even more impossible unless republicans seriously fuck up. My god Destiny knows almost nothing about politics

 

[ninjabot]

I am not attacking anyone. I am saying that moderates and liberals want to make the living conditions of poor people nicer, but they are not supporting meaningful fundamental change to end poverty if it goes against their interests. The same goes for many other issues.

Attack is too harsh of a word, but what I meant is your disagreements are with the politicians and not the people. But even so, that's still not accurate because just because Democrats aren't promoting policies that call for immediate change doesn't mean that they're against it. It just means they're against it for the time being, because an immediate change would cause problems in other areas that require fixing. A perfect example being the ban on fracking.

Democrats are an example of that and I have talked about one of those issues with Newsom already. He thought Housing first is a popular policy, so he ran on it. When it was not popular anymore, he now runs on taking down the tents while claiming it is just for the best of the homeless. There is no real moral backbone behind that. The actual core of this, and of the liberal and moderate dem mindset, is that they want politics that make the educated middle class comfortable. So the core aim is not to end homelessness, the core aim is to get the homeless out of sight in a somewhat humane enough way so no liberal has to feel like he put his needs over the needs of the poor.

Sounds like you have a problem with democracy then, not Democrats. Why on Earth would he run on an unpopular policy, when he needs the votes of people to get that policy passed? Politics that make the Democrats uncomfortable will not be voted for by Democrats, therefore if you're running for a Democrat position you avoid the policies that are going to scare away your voter base. That's not the same as saying they don't want these things, they just don't want them now for fear of problems it could make elsewhere.

Have you ever considered there wouldnt be any homeless people to check if they all had a home?

Of course, but no serious person would expect this to happen. You're perpetuating the leftist stereotype that you like fantastical solutions to realistic problems.

The way you phrased it highlights the way of thinking i outlined above. Homelessness is fine as long as it is "checked", as in, as long as the middle class is not bothered by it. Trump is just being consequent when he offers to build giant tent cities for homeless people in the desert. That is what a lot of Liberals would be happy with if Trump just wouldnt put it so bluntly (as it is also fine for a liberal what is done at the border, as long as there are no pictures of children in cages).

This is a dishonest framing. No one thinks homelessness is fine just because they won't end it immediately, the same way that pro-choice people don't think that killing children is fine, just because they're okay with aborting fetuses. Same thing with not being okay with children being thrown in cages, just because they agree something should be done to prevent them from just entering into the nation unattended. This hyperbolic speaking strawmans the positions of people that agree with you on what needs to happen eventually, but are realistic enough to know these changes can't be made on a whim.

But a leftist does not think homelessness is ever fine, and he thinks that the need to have a home is a more urgent and relevant concern than the need to go shopping without being asked for money. As such he is not going to embrace policies that just "check" homelessness (which really just means using violence to keep the homeless away from the "good people") just to put the actual fight against homelessness on the backseat (if even). He is going to push for the homeless getting homes. And for any necessary intermediate steps (like crime in a tent city) to be handled as humane as possible without accusing the poor of the effects of their poverty.

No one thinks homelessness is ever fine. Not even Republicans think this. The difference is Leftists feel good about bringing up the fact that no one is doing anything about homelessness, while also not voting for the people who actually care to do anything about it, because they're afraid the person can't work miracles. Forgoing good policy because good policy isn't perfect.

These are the kinds of people that don't deserve to be catered to politically,

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 1, 2024, Original Post Date: Dec 1, 2024 ---

lmfao if the left are excluded from politics, then the Dems might as well just pack it up because their chances of winning will be even more impossible unless republicans seriously fuck up. My god Destiny knows almost nothing about politics

Oh? Can you steelman the argument that he made in the video you definitely watched?

 

[M3J]

Oh I must have deleted the sentence where I said I didn't watch the video as I don't care to really discuss the shit. Don't need to watch that to know he says a lot of shit, just by the things you say and you say he says. I don't care that you're brainwashed by him, but it'd be nice to use sources that are actually reliable and less biased.

 

[shionoro]

Sounds like you have a problem with democracy then, not Democrats. Why on Earth would he run on an unpopular policy, when he needs the votes of people to get that policy passed? Politics that make the Democrats uncomfortable will not be voted for by Democrats, therefore if you're running for a Democrat position you avoid the policies that are going to scare away your voter base. That's not the same as saying they don't want these things, they just don't want them now for fear of problems it could make elsewhere.

Is it your idea of democracy that you lie through your teeth about what your values are, just chasing what you think nets you the most votes? Then I would daresay I am the more democratic-affine person of the two of us.

This is a dishonest framing. No one thinks homelessness is fine just because they won't end it immediately, the same way that pro-choice people don't think that killing children is fine, just because they're okay with aborting fetuses. Same thing with not being okay with children being thrown in cages, just because they agree something should be done to prevent them from just entering into the nation unattended. This hyperbolic speaking strawmans the positions of people that agree with you on what needs to happen eventually, but are realistic enough to know these changes can't be made on a whim.

That is the only honest framing. You think homelessness "needs to be checked" instead of giving people housing. You claim giving them housing is "fantastical" even tho housing first policies are proven to work elsewhere. And, as a good liberal, you claim you of course want to end homelessness. You just claim actual solutions are fantastical and they need to be "checked" (whatever you mean with that) so they don't get too unruly.

If you think that is a dishonest framing, then tell me what you actually mean here when you say that giving people housing is fantastical and that "they need to be checked", and what kind of longterm solution for homelessness, if you are actually against it, you envision. And which democrat politicians are actually pursuing these solutions?

 

[ninjabot]

Oh I must have deleted the sentence where I said I didn't watch the video as I don't care to really discuss the shit. Don't need to watch that to know he says a lot of shit, just by the things you say and you say he says. I don't care that you're brainwashed by him, but it'd be nice to use sources that are actually reliable and less biased.

Itt's very entertaining to see you attack Destiny for saying things when you don't know what he said. Especially when you claim not to care what he says. And it's even better when you mention bias. You really don't recognize that a negative bias is a bias as well.

"No bad tactics, only bad people". Another Leftist stereotype. Jesus.

 

[shionoro]

Oh I must have deleted the sentence where I said I didn't watch the video as I don't care to really discuss the shit. Don't need to watch that to know he says a lot of shit, just by the things you say and you say he says. I don't care that you're brainwashed by him, but it'd be nice to use sources that are actually reliable and less biased.

I watched the first 5 min out of curiosity, it is really not worth it.

 

[xi0]

I think this explanation works for politicians because they are financially incentivized to take the position that's most lucrative for them, and most beneficial for the party. I don't think this defines the average American.

It was only meant for politicians.

Most average Americans who self-describe as "moderates" are not doing so because of how they carefully weigh out their views against each other in order to describe their alignment in totality.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 2, 2024, Original Post Date: Dec 2, 2024 ---

Leftist disagrees with Destiny's claim that Leftists should be exiled from American politics. Destiny explains his reasoning.

0:00:00 - Addressing Disaffected Leftists
0:06:18 - Ground Game vs. Meme Strategies in Campaigns
0:18:46 - Media Challenges for Democrats
0:28:15 - Engaging with Media and Leftist Critiques
0:40:12 - Labor Advocacy and Biden’s Legacy
0:53:10 - Healthcare Progress and Democratic Loopholes
1:02:30 - Inflation and Voter Disillusionment
1:12:40 - Economic Pain and Media Narratives
1:15:13 - Joe Rogan’s Audience Shift and Political Influence
1:17:24 - Platforming Controversial Figures: Nick Fuentes Debate
1:20:11 - Leftist Streamer Conflicts and Missed Collaborations
1:23:55 - The Affordable Care Act: Public Option Debate
1:29:08 - Obesity Epidemic: Psychological Factors and Societal Impact
1:37:12 - Dietary Changes and Weight Loss Discussions
1:45:16 - Holodomor and Genocide Recognition Debates
1:56:18 - Ukrainian Resistance and Volunteer Efforts
2:03:42 - NATO’s Role and Challenges in Supporting Ukraine
2:14:21 - Russia’s Nuclear Arsenal and Global Deterrence
2:19:47 - Hypothetical Strategies Against Russian Aggression
2:25:36 - Reflections on Ukraine’s Future and Global Relations

Why do Leftists need to be "exiled from American politics" if they don't vote?

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 2, 2024 ---

That is the only honest framing. You think homelessness "needs to be checked" instead of giving people housing. You claim giving them housing is "fantastical" even tho housing first policies are proven to work elsewhere. And, as a good liberal, you claim you of course want to end homelessness. You just claim actual solutions are fantastical and they need to be "checked" (whatever you mean with that) so they don't get too unruly.

If you think that is a dishonest framing, then tell me what you actually mean here when you say that giving people housing is fantastical and that "they need to be checked", and what kind of longterm solution for homelessness, if you are actually against it, you envision. And which democrat politicians are actually pursuing these solutions?

It's always interesting to me that there are those that think healthcare is a human right, but don't think shelter should be consider as such.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 2, 2024 ---

Just in case anyone was confused about what Democratic leadership actually values

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 2, 2024 ---

bringing this classic back

 

[ninjabot]

Is it your idea of democracy that you lie through your teeth about what your values are, just chasing what you think nets you the most votes? Then I would daresay I am the more democratic-affine person of the two of us.

You described what Newsome did as choosing a policy that he thought the people wanted, only to abandon said policy once he realized they didn't. What part of this can be considered a lie? My idea of a democracy is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. If the people want the government to do a thing, then they do it. If the people don't want a thing done, even if it's not what some of the people view as moral, then they don't do that thing.

That's democracy.

That is the only honest framing. You think homelessness "needs to be checked" instead of giving people housing. You claim giving them housing is "fantastical" even tho housing first policies are proven to work elsewhere. And, as a good liberal, you claim you of course want to end homelessness. You just claim actual solutions are fantastical and they need to be "checked" (whatever you mean with that) so they don't get too unruly.

I wouldn't accuse your framing of being dishonest if you'd just use the words that I said. I said that democrats want homelessness ended, but they can't end it immediately for fear of messing up things somewhere else. And the phrase "go unchecked" means "Don't let them do whatever they want." I don't know why you're so hung up on this phrase unless it has a different meaning overseas.

If you think that is a dishonest framing, then tell me what you actually mean here when you say that giving people housing is fantastical and that "they need to be checked", and what kind of longterm solution for homelessness, if you are actually against it, you envision. And which democrat politicians are actually pursuing these solutions?

Here, google answered it much more swiftly than I could:


While providing housing seems like a simple solution to homelessness, the reality is much more complex, as many factors contribute to someone becoming homeless, including mental health issues, addiction, lack of support systems, and a shortage of affordable housing, meaning simply "giving" houses to homeless people often isn't enough to address the underlying issues and ensure long-term stability; additional support services are typically needed alongside housing provision.


Key reasons why "just giving houses" isn't effective:

• Underlying issues:
  Homelessness is often linked to mental health problems, substance abuse, and past trauma, which require treatment and support beyond just having a roof over one's head to address the root causes.
  
  
  
• Lack of affordable housing:
  In many areas, the available affordable housing stock is simply not enough to meet the needs of the homeless population, leading to long waitlists and limited options.
  
  
  
• Need for stability and support:
  Providing housing alone may not be enough to maintain stability if someone lacks the necessary skills to manage their finances, access healthcare, or navigate social services.
  
  
  
• Potential for misuse of housing:
  Without proper support systems, some individuals might struggle to maintain a home if they are dealing with addiction or mental health challenges, leading to potential eviction and returning to homelessness.
  
  

Alternative approaches to addressing homelessness:

• Housing First programs:
  This model prioritizes providing housing first, with wraparound services like mental health counseling and job training available to address underlying issues once someone is stably housed.
  
  
  
• Supportive services:
  Providing access to essential services like healthcare, addiction treatment, and financial literacy training alongside housing assistance.
  
  
  
• Increased affordable housing development:
  
  
  So there ya go. I'm very confident that the places you're mentioning where housing has worked had mitigating factors to it that you're not accounting for in America. As for the question of "What Democrat politicians are attempting any of these things"? I dunno. Maybe none, but that goes back to my "Don't attack Democratic voters for the things Democratic politicians aren't doing". You asserted that you know what Liberals care about, and I was correcting you.
  
  
  
  
  
  

 

[M3J]

I watched the first 5 min out of curiosity, it is really not worth it.

I know, I figured from the previous Google searches on him.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 2, 2024, Original Post Date: Dec 2, 2024 ---

 

[ninjabot]

Why do Leftists need to be "exiled from American politics" if they don't vote?

3:24 of the video starts it out. If they're not going to vote, and they're not going to support the mainstream candidate, then that means they're just around to help Convservatives in making Democrats look bad on the world stage by pointing out that nothing they do will ever be good enough (essentially what shionoro is doing right now). While also giving Conservatives easy lolcow targets on social and legacy media. They get to point at crazy leftists, bootstrap their rhetoric onto ALL Democrats, and we have to answer for it in elections. Admittedly, trans stuff and the genocide is like the furthest thing on people's minds, but optics DO help. Or in this case, hurt.

The leftist he's talking to pulls the "Well you should've courted my vote", and gives examples of what Leftists would've wanted Democrats to do to earn their vote, so Destiny goes through each one. First Labor, then Healthcare, eventually getting to the genocide in Gaza.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 2, 2024, Original Post Date: Dec 2, 2024 ---

I know, I figured from the previous Google searches on him.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 2, 2024, Original Post Date: Dec 2, 2024 ---

What's wrong with gay sex? Also, it's not Nick Fuentes lol.

EDIT: Actually, it might be. Destiny's been super open about his bisexual lifestyle and Nick is a closeted gay so maybe it was him. You'd have been better off posting the confirmed leaks of him fucking Lauren Southern though, at least that wouldn't have come off as homophobic :l

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 2, 2024 ---

I watched the first 5 min out of curiosity, it is really not worth it.

Well see, that's weird, because there are timestamps of every point where he goes into detail. Super weird that you wouldn't want to know the actual context of the arguments. Even weirder that 5 minutes is enough to come to that conclusion.

 

[shionoro]

You described what Newsome did as choosing a policy that he thought the people wanted, only to abandon said policy once he realized they didn't. What part of this can be considered a lie? My idea of a democracy is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. If the people want the government to do a thing, then they do it. If the people don't want a thing done, even if it's not what some of the people view as moral, then they don't do that thing.

That's democracy.

What are republicans doing wrong then? After all, they are electorally more successful than democrats and their talking points of more police, crack down hard on immigrants and homeless people and lower taxes are very popular. Why even fight against that?

I wouldn't accuse your framing of being dishonest if you'd just use the words that I said. I said that democrats want homelessness ended, but they can't end it immediately for fear of messing up things somewhere else. And the phrase "go unchecked" means "Don't let them do whatever they want." I don't know why you're so hung up on this phrase unless it has a different meaning overseas.

When I asked you what is currently done against homelessness, you said you dont know. How can you be so sure that "they cannot end it immediately for fear of messing up things somewhere else" is true when you do not even know what they are doing?

Well see, that's weird, because there are timestamps of every point where he goes into detail. Super weird that you wouldn't want to know the actual context of the arguments. Even weirder that 5 minutes is enough to come to that conclusion.

Why is that weird? Feel free to bring good arguments from destiny into this thread and I will talk about them. Dont need timestamps for that, just summarize what his line of reasoning is. But watching a 2 hour video of someone that I thinkis not exactly making great points in general and who seems misguided in the first 5 min of the video is just not a thing a normal human would do without the necessity to do so. Or what reason would I have?

 

[xi0]

3:24 of the video starts it out. If they're not going to vote, and they're not going to support the mainstream candidate, then that means they're just around to help Convservatives in making Democrats look bad on the world stage by pointing out that nothing they do will ever be good enough (essentially what shionoro is doing right now). While also giving Conservatives easy lolcow targets on social and legacy media. They get to point at crazy leftists, bootstrap their rhetoric onto ALL Democrats, and we have to answer for it in elections. Admittedly, trans stuff and the genocide is like the furthest thing on people's minds, but optics DO help. Or in this case, hurt.

The leftist he's talking to pulls the "Well you should've courted my vote", and gives examples of what Leftists would've wanted Democrats to do to earn their vote, so Destiny goes through each one. First Labor, then Healthcare, eventually getting to the genocide in Gaza.

So Conservatives being dishonest about mainstream Democratic politicians isn't the Republicans' fault, it's the fault of Leftists? come on man, lol

I don't believe shionoro's point was that nothing a politician does is good enough, it's about a politician's actions mean more than their rhetoric.

EDIT: Actually, it might be. Destiny's been super open about his bisexual lifestyle and Nick is a closeted gay so maybe it was him. You'd have been better off posting the confirmed leaks of him fucking Lauren Southern, at least that would wouldn't have come off as homophobic :l

Homophobia being the focus is what you'd expect from conservatives. The issue is him fucking Lauren Southern makes this story absolutely believable.

None of it changes the fact that he's far too charitable to neo-fascists, including fucking them.

 

[ninjabot]

What are republicans doing wrong then? After all, they are electorally more successful than democrats and their talking points of more police, crack down hard on immigrants and homeless people and lower taxes are very popular. Why even fight against that?

Lying. The fake elector scheme. Claiming the election was stolen. January 6th. Stuff like that.

But you claimed that the deeds of democrat politicians is just follwing what their voters want. And I do say that about both. both politicians and many inhabitants (including you) follow that logic. It is more vague for individuals, because they are usually not just in one category. Someone is often not just "a liberal" or "on the right", but rather a complex person with many different ideas and mindsets. For example, someone can have a leftist stance on the climate, but not on homelessness or vice versa. But there are definitely quite a lot of people who are claiming to be "against homelessness" but actually value not having to see a homeless person as more important than ending homelessness.

Then you're just doing the leftist thing of dismissing any non-perfect attempts at progression as apathy. You can't tell someone that they don't care about homelessness just because they're thinking of ways to mitigate the problems I listed in those bullet points, and said problems are slowing down the fight against homelessness. Acting without understanding of what bigger problems could be caused by a particular decision leads to catastrophe.

When I asked you what is currently done against homelessness, you said you dont know. How can you be so sure that "they cannot end it immediately for fear of msesing up things somewhere else" is true when you do not even know what they are doing?

Did you not see the list I provided you of the negative consequences of just giving homes to homeless people? Did you disagree with any of them? Do you have counters for any of them?

I didn't look for examples of Democrats solving for these problems because I didn't see a reason to, as that was never an assertion I made.

Why is that weird? Feel free to bring good arguments from destiny into this thread and I will talk about them. Dont need timestamps for that, just summarize what his line of reasoning is. But watching a 2 hour video of someone that I thinkis not exactly making great points in general and who seems misguided in the first 5 min of the video is just not a thing a normal human would do without the necessity to do so. Or what reason would I have?

You don't have to watch 2 hours: that's what the time stamps are for.

So Conservatives being dishonest about mainstream Democratic politicians isn't the Republicans' fault, it's the fault of Leftists? come on man, lol

I gave several reasons, including the fact that they're just here to yell at Democrats for not being progressive enough, quickly enough (perfect). That's not a dishonest Conservative tactic, that's Leftists looking for updoots on twitter. And it hurts the Democratic party in the face of the normies. So many white men have complained about the Democratic party abandoning them, and it's not us that are telling them to check their privelege, or considering media with too many white people in it to be regressive and problematic. Though I'll admit: I do love seeing white men cry when a videogame or movie has a black main character. Feels good, after a childhood of having white dudes tell me to stop complaining about there not being black main characters in media because "If you truly loved the story/game/movie, it wouldn't matter what color the main character is."

I don't believe shionoro's point wasn't that nothing a politician does is good enough, it's about a politician's actions mean more than their rhetoric.

I haven't the foggiest idea how the hell you got that from his reply. His argument is that Liberals don't care about homeless people, they care about not having to see homeless people. When I pointed out that there's nuance to the problem he brought up just giving people houses. If that's not a fantasy solution to a nuanced problem I don't know what is. It would be like accusing liberals of being okay with mass shootings because Democrats won't go out and personally take EVERY GUN from every American. It's fucking dumb.

Homophobia being the focus is what you'd expect from conservatives.

And some (fuck me for being good faith and clarifying my phrasing for these dishonest fucks... I'm too good for these people) Leftists. I told you "No bad tactics, only bad people." Certain Leftists can justify any attack as long as it's against the correct target. It's why Hasan signal boosted "Gusano" and used to call Buttegiug "Booty Judge". It's why they can call for the destruction of Israel and getting off at the deaths of Israeli civilians.

The issue is him fucking Lauren Southern makes this story absolutely believable.

Yeah, obviously.

None of it changes the fact that he's far too charitable to neo-fascists, including fucking them.

I have no interest in defending anything about Steven except his political claims, so it's whatever. As for charitability to neo-fascists, someone has to fight these ideas instead of leaving them to propagate unchecked. He talks to these people for the same reason I talk to people that I think are wrong. I want them to not be wrong, or at least to prevent them from making other people wrong by exposing their wrongness in the marketplace of ideas.

 

[shionoro]

Lying. The fake elector scheme. Claiming the election was stolen. January 6th. Stuff like that.

That is not what they mostly ran on this time, is it? They ran on shutting down the border, tarifs, helping the economy, lowering prices, cut climate funds, ending ukraine war and abortion ban. What is wrong with that? Of course they are framing things their way when they propose these issues, but so do democrats.

Then you're just doing the leftist thing of dismissing any non-perfect attempts at progression as apathy. You can't tell someone that they don't care about homelessness just because they're thinking of ways to mitigate the problems I listed in those bullet points, and said problems are slowing down the fight against homelessness. Acting without understanding of what bigger problems could be caused by a particular decision leads to catastrophe.

But you said you dont know anything about what is actually done about homelessness and you seem to not know a lot about the issue in itself. If that is recipe for catastrophe, how can you then have a decisive stance about dems not being able to do more?

Did you not see the list I provided you of the negative consequences of just giving homes to homeless people? Did you disagree with any of them? Do you have counters for any of them?

I didn't look for examples of Democrats solving for these problems because I didn't see a reason to, as that was never an assertion I made.

You made the assertion that Democrats cannot take bold steps against homelessness. Or did you not? Your list admittedly shocked me a little, as you just cited some things that a homeless first policy should include (for example adressing underlying issues) and then the list advocated for housing first, the very thing I am for. Then you said "there ya go", but my problem was exactly that these things were not done.

Newsome, for example, provided housing, called it housing first, but without help for the underlying issues: https://reformcalifornia.org/news/w...tunt-on-homelessness-is-just-more-gaslighting

The sad reality is Gavin Newsom still backs “Housing First” policies that expressly prohibit local government and non-profits from using drug treatment and mental health mandates to get to the root cause of homelessness.

So what Newsom did here was to promise housing first when he felt it was popular. Then he did it in a way that made construction companies and the industry happy (building stuff) but without the actual hard work that is fighting the core issues (which is how they did in successfully in Finland and what housing first actually means). He then, when his own policy failed partially for that reason, do a 180 and help to tear down tent cities.

Can you really defend that? If not, isn't that a great example of democrats not actually fighting against homelessness but just use that issue for votes as they see fit?

You don't have to watch 2 hours: that's what the time stamps are for.

But why do I have to watch these? What compels me to do that? I think it is bad style to just put a video and require other people to watch it instead of summarizing the point and arguing it yourself. You did the work with the timestamps, but that cannot replace a summary.

 

[xi0]

I gave several reasons, including the fact that they're just here to yell at Democrats for not being progressive enough, quickly enough (perfect). That's not a dishonest Conservative tactic, that's Leftists looking for updoots on twitter. And it hurts the Democratic party in the face of the normies. So many white men have complained about the Democratic party abandoning them, and it's not us that are telling them to check their privelege, or considering media with too many white people in it to be regressive and problematic. Though I'll admit: I do love seeing white men cry when a videogame or movie has a black main character. Feels good, after a childhood of having white dudes tell me to stop complaining about there not being black main characters in media because "If you truly loved the story/game/movie, it wouldn't matter what color the main character is."

I think your reaction to the latter is all that matters really. You know those people are wrong and tilting at windmills. To extrapolate that, punching Left won't win Democrats elections. Yet Destiny and yourself still think otherwise.

I haven't the foggiest idea how the hell you got that from his reply. His argument is that Liberals don't care about homeless people, they care about not having to see homeless people. When I pointed out that there's nuance to the problem he brought up just giving people houses. If that's not a fantasy solution to a nuanced problem I don't know what is. It would be like accusing liberals of being okay with mass shootings because Democrats won't go out and personally take EVERY GUN from every American. It's fucking dumb.

That's dishonest framing. He said they care more about winning elections than they do about ending homelessness. That is as close to an objective truth as we can have in politics.

And some (fuck me for being good faith and clarifying my phrasing for these dishonest fucks... I'm too good for these people) Leftists. I told you "No bad tactics, only bad people." Certain Leftists can justify any attack as long as it's against the correct target. It's why Hasan signal boosted "Gusano" and used to call Buttegiug "Booty Judge". It's why they can call for the destruction of Israel and getting off at the deaths of Israeli civilians.

The vast majority of people I've seen online are MAGAtards mocking him for gay shit, anyone else that dislikes Destiny is doing it because it's Nick fucking Fuentes. Destiny isn't some redpilled super masculine straight dude outing himself as gay.

Signal boosting "gusano"? Not sure I even know what that means. Mocking Buttigieg's name as being homophobic is kind of eyerolling to me personally idk.

The last point however is just the least charitable thing you could possible say. "Getting off at the deaths of Israeli civilians"?? To me this is just transposing some maniac on twitter onto Hasan. I've never seen him do anything of the sort.

I have no interest in defending anything about Steven except his political claims, so it's whatever. As for charitability to neo-fascists, someone has to fight these ideas instead of leaving them to propagate unchecked. He talks to these people for the same reason I talk to people that I think are wrong. I want them to not be wrong, or at least to prevent them from making other people wrong by exposing their wrongness in the marketplace of ideas.

But you have a very keen interest on putting him forth as the "best the left has" while he fucks nazis (and everything else), so idk...

 

[M3J]

What's wrong with gay sex? Also, it's not Nick Fuentes lol.

EDIT: Actually, it might be. Destiny's been super open about his bisexual lifestyle and Nick is a closeted gay so maybe it was him. You'd have been better off posting the confirmed leaks of him fucking Lauren Southern though, at least that wouldn't have come off as homophobic :l

You have me confused with Destiny, I am not a bigot (other than hating conservatives).

The problem isn't him having sex with another man, it's him having sex with Nazis like Nick and Lauren. If he had sex with Boebert and Southern, I'd still have the same issue - the so-called liberal is not only hosting and amplifying Nazi voices, but he's sleeping with them.

And as far as I know, Fuentes is one of the biggest pieces of shit because on top of his Nazism, he's also a misogynist. This makes me wonder if Destiny really is a lib, or if he's just pretending to be a lib for fame. Would also explain why he is a piece of shit.

It's why they can call for the destruction of Israel and getting off at the deaths of Israeli civilians.

Yet you seem to have no issue with libs wishing and telling Palestinians that Gaza will be razed to the ground, and Palestinians there will burn after Harris lost. You yourself seem to be more than okay with Palestinians being killed.

You also seem to be okay with rape because you have no problem with blaming the victims instead of the men who make the choice to assault and rape.