US Politics Thread

[Kieran]

hmmm... not sure this bolster the argument mate. Like it or not, even if there is now evidence to question some of the decisions made, there was a global pandemic. There was an honorable reason to restrain what a government might reasonably have considered false information that could damage efforts to spread what they considered to be a cure. That's entirely different from what this Administration forced ABC to do to Kimmel.

I'm not saying it was correct. Heck I'm not sure the world has figured out a way to manage free information mediums correctly yet. This issue is basically only a few decades old... if that. I honestly think all governments around the world deserve some grace on this topic

I would agree to an extent - if they hadn’t been partisan in how they silenced other views: for instance, they might have said that social media can only platform people with the right qualifications and many years experience of dealing with viruses, vaccines etc, so the public can see and hear the process in action, can hear both sides, and nobody can call this a conspiracy etc. “For the greater good and through necessity, we’re limiting free speech but we will allow opposing views to be heard.”

That’s not great but to a certain extent, we’re getting to hear what’s happening from many perspectives, and we see a semi transparent process taking place.

Instead, they removed people’s right to free speech, they went for a far left, Big Govt and Big Pharma policy, and they lied about it. They took the China option. They ruined people’s lives and deceived the public. They forced social media and the free press to be complicit in this.

Typical of the left, they framed it as “compassion and care”, when really it was about control.

I’m still not convinced that Trump forced ABC to do anything, since we don’t hear ABC say this. Kimmel is back, crocodile tears and all. I just don’t think there’d be such silence over this, given how the sanctimonious left loves so much to destroy and loot and exercise their free right to “mainly peaceful riots”. Even during the lockdowns they could gather in large groups burning things, as if that made them immune to scientific realities. ABC would be heroes if they were seen to be standing up to the orange fuhrer. And yet there are a lot of people who think Kimmel was not only wrong in what he said, but he was hypocritical too…

 

[Moxie]

re: Trump, he's a buffoon. Just once... once! I wish he would step up to the moment and actually lead people. But it takes courage to put yourself out there and lead, and deep down he's still a scared little boy waiting for daddy's approval. It ain't ever going to happen...

Yes, he is all of those things, but those of you who put him down to a buffon should consider that he is actually our President, here, and he's what is given to us. You and Kieran both say to me, in our right/left arguments, that you don't like Trump. As if that's enough. But he's what we've got, and he is not trying, in any way, to unify this country. He feeds division. Combativeness is all he knows.

Previously, you said, @Federberg that Trump is neither right nor left, that he`s a populist. I think that's true. But he appeals to the right. He went for the far right, initially, and that's his base. He's a grifter. A snake oil salesman. He'll tell you what you want to hear, if it gets him what he wants. If the far right wants him to be patriotic, he'll hump the flag. Is he patriotritic? Not for a minute. He's for Trump. If the religious right needs him to be a Christian, he'll embrace that, but has he ever been one? He grew up at the Marble Collegiate Church in the time of Norman Vincent Peale, which was basically Scientology for business people. For all of the money he grew up with, he also grew up with an enormous chip on his shoulder, for the reason you say above, and more. He has created a party of grievance. He feels enourmously aggrieved in this life, and he appeals to those who also do, rightly or wrongly. That crossed party lines to get him elected again. The party he created is MAGA, which still goes by the name Republican. Who knows what it will go back to, after Trump.

while I have no doubt he has, he's human after all... and as I, myself, have said, his comments regarding Paul Pelosi were partisan and hateful. But please.. seriously.. can you send me an example of what you're talking about. Because every time I've been sent a clip and I've gone down the rabbit hole to watch the hole thing, he's managed to uno-reverse me. He is NOT racist, he is NOT homophobic, he is NOT a misogynist. He's partisan, he had MAGA political views that aren't for an old school conservative like me. The way I look at it, he's no more deplorable than... Hugh Hewitt...

He has said a lot of things that were sensational and divisive. Rather than passive-aggressively continuing to invite me to explore all of his archives for some thing that I find offensive, why don't you offer me something that is worth one full watch that might change my mind, since you seem to have seen so many of them. I've never said he's "deplorable," merely that I don't think he should be raised to a national hero.

Meantime, here are some things he has said that are pretty controversial. We've avoided this one, though it's incredibly ironic:

"I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."

I'm not sure how any context changes that. Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but God didn't give us that right, the Constitution did.

Or what about this:

"The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different." - The Charlie Kirk Show, 1 March 2024

The great replacement theory (or "strategy,") is a deeply racist concept. I'd be interested for you to tell me how he smoothes that one out.

"Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more."
- Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023

This would be based on what data? And the point of him saying it would be what, other that to stir up trouble amongst the races? I live in an urban center, and I can think of no incidence of that being the reason for violence or trouble-making. I mean "prowling Blacks?" How does that land, as a phrase?

"If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified."
- Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024

Seriously? In 2024? I pilot can't be black and qualified, after all of these years of the armed forces being majority Black, which is where airline pilots come from? Tell me how Charlie wiggles out of that one.

Oh, and this nugget:

"Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge."
- Charlie Kirk Show, 26 August 2025, discussing Taylor Swift's engagement

OK, probably that last one was a joke, or could at least be played off as one, though he said it wasn't. Charlie Kirk wasn't a comedian or a satirist. He meant what he said, even if he was willing to debate it. He wanted to win those debates, and win people over to the party of Trump.

 

[Federberg]

Yes, he is all of those things, but those of you who put him down to a buffon should consider that he is actually our President, here, and he's what is given to us. You and Kieran both say to me, in our right/left arguments, that you don't like Trump. As if that's enough. But he's what we've got, and he is not trying, in any way, to unify this country. He feeds division. Combativeness is all he knows.

Previously, you said, @Federberg that Trump is neither right nor left, that he`s a populist. I think that's true. But he appeals to the right. He went for the far right, initially, and that's his base. He's a grifter. A snake oil salesman. He'll tell you what you want to hear, if it gets him what he wants. If the far right wants him to be patriotic, he'll hump the flag. Is he patriotritic? Not for a minute. He's for Trump. If the religious right needs him to be a Christian, he'll embrace that, but has he ever been one? He grew up at the Marble Collegiate Church in the time of Norman Vincent Peale, which was basically Scientology for business people. For all of the money he grew up with, he also grew up with an enormous chip on his shoulder, for the reason you say above, and more. He has created a party of grievance. He feels enourmously aggrieved in this life, and he appeals to those who also do, rightly or wrongly. That crossed party lines to get him elected again. The party he created is MAGA, which still goes by the name Republican. Who knows what it will go back to, after Trump.

sounds like we're saying the same thing...

"The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different." - The Charlie Kirk Show, 1 March 2024

The great replacement theory (or "strategy,") is a deeply racist concept. I'd be interested for you to tell me how he smoothes that one out.

sigh... I asked for full videos to get the proper context and you give me a series of.... clips? Well I'll tackle this one. Let me put it this way... walk through London now, and compare it to a walk down the same streets 30... heck 20 years ago. And tell me there hasn't been a replacement of some sort. I remember in my teens using the buses. You might sit opposite someone who would nod politely at you and smile, and maybe even have a quick chat about the weather. A quintessentially English thing. Try that now. See what happens. Change has happened. It's a FACT. Some believe there's a guiding hand in that change. Some of those promote the Great Replacement Theory. I have a different take. And in a way it's sort of ironic...

I think immigration was always going to be a factor because of wealth disparities across nations. But I do see a guiding hand in this.... Russia. I think - and I'm serious about this - that this was a legacy KGB strategy that when Putin became ascendant he committed to it fully. The migration from Syria was definitely an intentional act by him. But my thesis is that it's been going on for longer. What's the plan you might ask? Disrupt Western societies, provoke nationalism and you get racism along with it. It's no surprise that Putin has positioned himself as the leader of white ethno-Christian society. What I find monumentally stupid is that the very people for whom the resulting politics is most toxic (the progressive left) are the ones who fight to defend unfettered immigration. It is comically stupid...

 

[Kieran]

Yes, he is all of those things, but those of you who put him down to a buffon should consider that he is actually our President, here, and he's what is given to us. You and Kieran both say to me, in our right/left arguments, that you don't like Trump. As if that's enough. But he's what we've got, and he is not trying, in any way, to unify this country. He feeds division. Combativeness is all he knows.

Previously, you said, @Federberg that Trump is neither right nor left, that he`s a populist. I think that's true. But he appeals to the right. He went for the far right, initially, and that's his base. He's a grifter. A snake oil salesman. He'll tell you what you want to hear, if it gets him what he wants. If the far right wants him to be patriotic, he'll hump the flag. Is he patriotritic? Not for a minute. He's for Trump. If the religious right needs him to be a Christian, he'll embrace that, but has he ever been one? He grew up at the Marble Collegiate Church in the time of Norman Vincent Peale, which was basically Scientology for business people. For all of the money he grew up with, he also grew up with an enormous chip on his shoulder, for the reason you say above, and more. He has created a party of grievance. He feels enourmously aggrieved in this life, and he appeals to those who also do, rightly or wrongly. That crossed party lines to get him elected again. The party he created is MAGA, which still goes by the name Republican. Who knows what it will go back to, after Trump.

Come again? “He feeds division.” Doesn’t Obama? Biden? They’re telling black people to get in line and do what they’re told. I think that in common with a lot of democrats, you still haven’t twigged why your lot are unpopular.

Look at crazy people screeching and harassing and blocking the streets and you can tell immediately who they vote for, what they think about Israel, that they wear a mask when they’re sitting alone at home. What they think about race.

Your people brought a helluva lot of crazy and prejudice into the public square. Chest feeding men. Women with dicks. Violent support for the worst sorts of abusers. White privilege. Toxic masculinity. They tried to gaslight vast swathes of good people.

But Trump feeds division?

You don’t get it, why you lost that election, why Trump got the popular vote. It’s amazing, the lack of self reflection democrats seem to be experiencing.

.

Meantime, here are some things he has said that are pretty controversial. We've avoided this one, though it's incredibly ironic:

"I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."

This is not ironic at all. That’s not an example of irony. He did not encourage murderers, assassins, or gun crime. He was defending the second amendment, as a principle, and it’s possible to do this, while also abhorring gun crime.

He was vehemently anti-crime.

"The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different." - The Charlie Kirk Show, 1 March 2024

The great replacement theory (or "strategy,") is a deeply racist concept. I'd be interested for you to tell me how he smoothes that one out.

This isn’t racist. It seems like a policy, of the EU, and America during its open borders Biden phase. I see it in Ireland, that we have an increasing number of refugees, largely Muslim, who are in hotels and getting money from the government, while we have a backlog in dealing with their cases, and an increased number of homeless Irish people.

These are policy issues, and we know that we elect a government to serve the people of our country, and we can clearly see when their eye is elsewhere.

"Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more."
- Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023

This would be based on what data? And the point of him saying it would be what, other that to stir up trouble amongst the races? I live in an urban center, and I can think of no incidence of that being the reason for violence or trouble-making. I mean "prowling Blacks?" How does that land, as a phrase?

I suppose the crime stats regarding black people might help you there. They’re fairly compelling.

"If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified."
- Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024

Seriously? In 2024? I pilot can't be black and qualified, after all of these years of the armed forces being majority Black, which is where airline pilots come from? Tell me how Charlie wiggles out of that one.

Very simply. In the full context, he was talking about DEI, and so making a justifiable remark that it’s difficult to know who’s there due to merit, and who’s been bumped up ahead of everyone else in the queue due to their skin colour. You could have looked this one up in less than a minute, like I did, but I suspect you’re listening to the usual sources - and still believing them.

, or .

Oh, and this nugget:

"Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge."
- Charlie Kirk Show, 26 August 2025, discussing Taylor Swift's engagement

OK, probably that last one was a joke, or could at least be played off as one, though he said it wasn't. Charlie Kirk wasn't a comedian or a satirist. He meant what he said, even if he was willing to debate it. He wanted to win those debates, and win people over to the party of Trump.

Of course. He was a Republican, that’s not a crime. It was actually his purpose. Prominent Democrats were telling black men that if they didn’t vote for Kamala, they must have a problem with women. You know who said this. Since then it’s come to light that Obama himself didn’t want Harris for president. He also knew that Biden wasn’t well enough to continue, yet they all lied and tried to bully their way to victory.

And you’re complaining about Charlie Kirk trying to win debates for Trump?

 

[Moxie]

sounds like we're saying the same thing...

Yes, I was agreeing with you. I had also wanted to follow up on your point about Trump being neither left nor right. There is a way in which I agree with that, as I said.

sigh... I asked for full videos to get the proper context and you give me a series of.... clips?

The quotes were rather for Kieran, who had asked me above what he had said. But also to say why there are so many who object to this current lionizing of him. You can ask for full videos, but I'm not doing that work for you. You're so conversant with his oeuvre, why don't you offer me a full video that gives context to just one of the remarks I pulled out, and changes it's intention, and I'll watch it. With an open heart.

Well I'll tackle this one. Let me put it this way... walk through London now, and compare it to a walk down the same streets 30... heck 20 years ago. And tell me there hasn't been a replacement of some sort. I remember in my teens using the buses. You might sit opposite someone who would nod politely at you and smile, and maybe even have a quick chat about the weather. A quintessentially English thing. Try that now. See what happens. Change has happened. It's a FACT. Some believe there's a guiding hand in that change. Some of those promote the Great Replacement Theory. I have a different take. And in a way it's sort of ironic...

I'm not sure what you mean by "replacement" in your example. Do you mean by immigrants? Do you mean by crime? I know you understand that The Great Replacement theory is a racist conspiracy theory, and that's what it means in this country. My point in saying this is not to tell you something you don't know, but to mention where it's coming from when it's talked about here. What changes have happened in London would you say?

Not that London has so much to do with the US. You can't compare it to NYC in that way, and NYC is the closest comparison to London. Our crime rates have decreased significantly and steadily over the past 30 years. And you can easily talk with strangers on the subway, buses and streets. And NYC has LONG been a racially diverse city, as you also know.

I think immigration was always going to be a factor because of wealth disparities across nations. But I do see a guiding hand in this.... Russia. I think - and I'm serious about this - that this was a legacy KGB strategy that when Putin became ascendant he committed to it fully. The migration from Syria was definitely an intentional act by him. But my thesis is that it's been going on for longer. What's the plan you might ask? Disrupt Western societies, provoke nationalism and you get racism along with it. It's no surprise that Putin has positioned himself as the leader of white ethno-Christian society. What I find monumentally stupid is that the very people for whom the resulting politics is most toxic (the progressive left) are the ones who fight to defend unfettered immigration. It is comically stupid...

Well, that's certainly a theory. And a conspiratorial one, at that. But I don't see who needs Putin to convince them to immigrate to the US. They have plenty of reasons. However, I do see a motivation for Russia to fiddle in our elections to get a President and others more favorable to fomenting Nationalism and racism, if you see that as his agenda. I do have to say that I'm not sure who promotes or defends "unfettered" immigration. Both parties have been working on our broken immigration system for decades. There are historical reasons why it's so messed up, which are long and complicated, and we've discussed them here, but both sides have a hand in them. We need migrants to help run our economy. It's built that way. We need to find some happy medium between too-porous borders, too much getting around the rules, and the current approach, which is wholesale deportation without respect to due-process of law, and too many law-abiding people, including citizens, going out with the bathwater.

 

[Moxie]

Come again? “He feeds division.” Doesn’t Obama? Biden? They’re telling black people to get in line and do what they’re told. I think that in common with a lot of democrats, you still haven’t twigged why your lot are unpopular.

Obama hasn't been President for 9 years, and Biden is no longer relevant. We're talking about a specific moment of crisis in this country, and Trump can't find it in him to be unifying in any way. It's still totally "us" v. "them," with him. And I DO think that Democrats are very aware of reasons we lost the election, and are losing minds.

Look at crazy people screeching and harassing and blocking the streets and you can tell immediately who they vote for, what they think about Israel, that they wear a mask when they’re sitting alone at home. What they think about race.

Your meaning here is unclear to me. Are you talking about homeless people, or protesters? What does that mean, "wearing a mask when they're sitting alone at home?"

Your people brought a helluva lot of crazy and prejudice into the public square. Chest feeding men. Women with dicks. Violent support for the worst sorts of abusers. White privilege. Toxic masculinity. They tried to gaslight vast swathes of good people.

That is right-wing internet-speak, but i know where you stand on the transgender issues, so we'll leave that. Good people know who they are, so I'm not sure how they were being "gaslighted." I think you're misusing the term, as I understand it.

But Trump feeds division?

You don’t get it, why you lost that election, why Trump got the popular vote. It’s amazing, the lack of self reflection democrats seem to be experiencing.

See above. There is a lot of looking into our own positions going own. Certainly how we communicate to the public. I can't speak for leadership, but I know on the level of rank-and-file Democrats, there is much discussion. Just don't look for us to turn into right-leaning populists, though, if that's the only thing that will make you happy.

This is not ironic at all. That’s not an example of irony. He did not encourage murderers, assassins, or gun crime. He was defending the second amendment, as a principle, and it’s possible to do this, while also abhorring gun crime.

He was vehemently anti-crime.

Of course it's ironic. A man who stated that he'd settle for some gun deaths a year to protect the 2nd Amendment, and then ends up being the statistic he felt was acceptable. You don't find that ironic? Yes, you can defend the 2nd Amendment and abhor gun crime. Many do. Statistically, most do, including and especially gun owners. But this has nothing to do with him being anti-crime, as I see it. It's purely a 2nd Amendment issue. But the statement comes off as a bit cavalier to say that, well, some people will die by guns. Most gun owners, and most Americans in general, favor reasonable regulation. We can't have it, because the gun lobbies are so strong, and now it's also a divisive issue. I don't know where CK stood on regulation.

This isn’t racist. It seems like a policy, of the EU, and America during its open borders Biden phase. I see it in Ireland, that we have an increasing number of refugees, largely Muslim, who are in hotels and getting money from the government, while we have a backlog in dealing with their cases, and an increased number of homeless Irish people.

These are policy issues, and we know that we elect a government to serve the people of our country, and we can clearly see when their eye is elsewhere.


I suppose the crime stats regarding black people might help you there. They’re fairly compelling.

I'm sorry, but to use the phrase Great Replacement in this country is read as racist. Because it is, historically, and now. He's complaining that someone is replacing white, rural America. It's racist to insist that white, rural America should stay that way. That it was meant to be that way. Or that it's ever been only that way. I don't need to tell you that this continent was populated by indigenous people first. But way before it was a country, it was also settled by Spanish and Mexican people. Even when it became a country.

The part above where you say, "crime stats about black people might help you there," was meant to be separated, but I'm not starting all over again. Charlie's quote was: "Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more."
This is not about crime statistics, and it's lazy for you to say so. He's couching it in a particular way, using inciting language. "Prowling blacks," and "for fun" and "targeting white people." Show me a statistic that supports that. Actually, show me one example. I don't know of one story that supports that claim. And to say it foments fear and hatred. This is what I object to about the way he talked.

Very simply. In the full context, he was talking about DEI, and so making a justifiable remark that it’s difficult to know who’s there due to merit, and who’s been bumped up ahead of everyone else in the queue due to their skin colour. You could have looked this one up in less than a minute, like I did, but I suspect you’re listening to the usual sources - and still believing them.


, or .

I'll watch the video later, but why assume that a black pilot is DEI, when one can also assume that white men get a full pass?

Of course. He was a Republican, that’s not a crime. It was actually his purpose. Prominent Democrats were telling black men that if they didn’t vote for Kamala, they must have a problem with women. You know who said this. Since then it’s come to light that Obama himself didn’t want Harris for president. He also knew that Biden wasn’t well enough to continue, yet they all lied and tried to bully their way to victory.

And you’re complaining about Charlie Kirk trying to win debates for Trump?

Not a crime to be a Republican, nor to work for the cause. That's what he did. Very successfully. I'm not complaining about what he did. He was within his rights. I'm complaining that Trump and the Republicans want to elevate a party operative to a national hero. I think he was too divisive to be one. Especially, as Trump is making no effort to use this as an opportunity for unity.

 

[Moxie]

Oh, and now there is talk about putting Charlie Kirk on the currency. It all goes a bit far.

Charlie Kirk’s Image Could Be Printed on New U.S. Currency

A new GOP plan would call on the U.S. Treasury to print silver dollar coins with Kirk's image.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Federberg]

Oh, and now there is talk about putting Charlie Kirk on the currency. It all goes a bit far.

Charlie Kirk’s Image Could Be Printed on New U.S. Currency

A new GOP plan would call on the U.S. Treasury to print silver dollar coins with Kirk's image.

www.newsweek.com

way way way too far! Give it a few decades at least to see if he has affected American society. It's never easy tell initially.

 

[britbox]

Oh, and now there is talk about putting Charlie Kirk on the currency. It all goes a bit far.

Charlie Kirk’s Image Could Be Printed on New U.S. Currency

A new GOP plan would call on the U.S. Treasury to print silver dollar coins with Kirk's image.

www.newsweek.com

That is frankly beyond ridiculous.

 

[Federberg]

I’m not a Trump fan but dammit if his Gaza deal works he’ll be far more deserving of a Nobel than Obama. Period. End of

 

[Moxie]

I’m not a Trump fan but dammit if his Gaza deal works he’ll be far more deserving of a Nobel than Obama. Period. End of

That would be true for at least two reasons. One, because anyone who can make the insanity stop would deserve it. Two, because brokering peace in the Middle East tends to get you a Nobel. Three, because Obama got the Nobel basically because America elected a Black President. Shouldn't they have given it to the American Voting Public?

That said, I don't think the Nobel Committee is enthusiastic about people who actively campaign for it. Also, Trump's blatant dislike for NATO and his sending US troops to US cities, (and rather obviously the ones in States that he lost in the election) tend to negate his peaceful intentions elsewhere.

I'll still be curious to see how Israel reacts if Gaza complies. The Israeli people want this over, but Netanyahu is another story.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, I was agreeing with you. I had also wanted to follow up on your point about Trump being neither left nor right. There is a way in which I agree with that, as I said.

The quotes were rather for Kieran, who had asked me above what he had said. But also to say why there are so many who object to this current lionizing of him. You can ask for full videos, but I'm not doing that work for you. You're so conversant with his oeuvre, why don't you offer me a full video that gives context to just one of the remarks I pulled out, and changes it's intention, and I'll watch it. With an open heart.

I'm not sure what you mean by "replacement" in your example. Do you mean by immigrants? Do you mean by crime? I know you understand that The Great Replacement theory is a racist conspiracy theory, and that's what it means in this country. My point in saying this is not to tell you something you don't know, but to mention where it's coming from when it's talked about here. What changes have happened in London would you say?

Not that London has so much to do with the US. You can't compare it to NYC in that way, and NYC is the closest comparison to London. Our crime rates have decreased significantly and steadily over the past 30 years. And you can easily talk with strangers on the subway, buses and streets. And NYC has LONG been a racially diverse city, as you also know.


Well, that's certainly a theory. And a conspiratorial one, at that. But I don't see who needs Putin to convince them to immigrate to the US. They have plenty of reasons. However, I do see a motivation for Russia to fiddle in our elections to get a President and others more favorable to fomenting Nationalism and racism, if you see that as his agenda. I do have to say that I'm not sure who promotes or defends "unfettered" immigration. Both parties have been working on our broken immigration system for decades. There are historical reasons why it's so messed up, which are long and complicated, and we've discussed them here, but both sides have a hand in them. We need migrants to help run our economy. It's built that way. We need to find some happy medium between too-porous borders, too much getting around the rules, and the current approach, which is wholesale deportation without respect to due-process of law, and too many law-abiding people, including citizens, going out with the bathwater.

I'm still curious to hear your deeper explanation about "replacement."

 

[mrzz]

That would be true for at least two reasons. One, because anyone who can make the insanity stop would deserve it. Two, because brokering peace in the Middle East tends to get you a Nobel. Three, because Obama got the Nobel basically because America elected a Black President. Shouldn't they have given it to the American Voting Public?

Wow, we agree completely over an entire paragraph with multiple, different ideas in the US Politics Thread. Stop it...

 

[Federberg]

That would be true for at least two reasons. One, because anyone who can make the insanity stop would deserve it. Two, because brokering peace in the Middle East tends to get you a Nobel. Three, because Obama got the Nobel basically because America elected a Black President. Shouldn't they have given it to the American Voting Public?

That said, I don't think the Nobel Committee is enthusiastic about people who actively campaign for it. Also, Trump's blatant dislike for NATO and his sending US troops to US cities, (and rather obviously the ones in States that he lost in the election) tend to negate his peaceful intentions elsewhere.

I'll still be curious to see how Israel reacts if Gaza complies. The Israeli people want this over, but Netanyahu is another story.

we are agreement

 

[Federberg]

I'm still curious to hear your deeper explanation about "replacement."

I'm aware of the Great Replacement Theory. Tucker might not have come up with it, but he certainly mainstreamed it when he monologued about it on his Fox News show all those years ago. Obviously in America it has a particular flavour, but you can see evidence of something profoundly different in Europe. Whether you've spent anytime in London, or God forbid somewhere like Birmingham or Bradford. There are parts of the UK where they practice sharia law now... in Great Britain @Moxie. In the sceptred isles. Stockholm in the summer was a special place to go to. Decades ago, my banker friends and I would occasionally hop over for long weekends in the summer just for a change of scene... and hot blondes It's not the same anymore. It's more than people being replaced, it's the culture. I, and others, of a more conservative mindset keep saying this, but I'll say it again... this would NEVER happen in the Middle East. Why should we tolerate it in Europe. I may not agree with Trump about many things, and even for the things in which I'm in agreement, I often don't like his methods. He is spot on about immigration. What I can't get my head around is why liberals, mostly the coastal elites who can't be blind to what's going on in Europe when they go over for their annual trips, are so resistant. Go back a few decades and you would find mainstream Democrats saying much of what the modern day GOP is saying. It's so bizarre it's hard to completely dismiss @britbox opinions on the potential conspiracies surrounding this topic

 

[mrzz]

Problem with this "theory" is that it supposes some mastermind behind it, pulling the strings while this ultimate evil plan of erasing entire races takes place.

Some sort of "replacement" is indeed taking place, it is an empirical fact, shown by any official demographic data. But there are also two other empirical facts that need to be considered: never, in human history, it was so easy to travel around, and to settle somewhere else. Human mobility has radically increased in the last 50, 70 years, so it is only natural that different populations will mix -- be it biologically, or at least share the same spaces. Also, some populations tend to reproduce at much larger rates than others. If you put those things in a mathematical model, you would get the results we are seeing, without the need of some arch villain behind it.

Now, of course people of all sorts have seen this trend decades ago, and they use it to push whatever narrative they want. And here the cultural part comes into play. On one hand, culture is what it is, I hate when I see people wanting to "preserve" culture. Culture is the result of a natural social process, if it needs to be preserved, it is artificial. If populations mix up, culture will have its effects, period. On the other hand, a lot of people vocally push for the erasure of a great part of western culture. This is a thing, you see it in academia, you see it in politicians, and it is hitting the streets as well. This is also artificial -- and that is the only reason I oppose it. While this people don't need or don't control the "great replacement", they at least see it as good thing (for their purposes). But, again, they are riding the wave, not creating it.

In my opinion, if someone is worried about western culture, the first thing this person should do is to avoid mentioning this "theory". Instead of trying to argue about a fabricated "great replacement", simply call out the fact that things like "mathematics is racist" is a complete non sense. That is a discussion much easier to win.

 

[Moxie]

I'm aware of the Great Replacement Theory. Tucker might not have come up with it, but he certainly mainstreamed it when he monologued about it on his Fox News show all those years ago. Obviously in America it has a particular flavour, but you can see evidence of something profoundly different in Europe. Whether you've spent anytime in London, or God forbid somewhere like Birmingham or Bradford. There are parts of the UK where they practice sharia law now... in Great Britain @Moxie. In the sceptred isles. Stockholm in the summer was a special place to go to. Decades ago, my banker friends and I would occasionally hop over for long weekends in the summer just for a change of scene... and hot blondes It's not the same anymore. It's more than people being replaced, it's the culture. I, and others, of a more conservative mindset keep saying this, but I'll say it again... this would NEVER happen in the Middle East. Why should we tolerate it in Europe. I may not agree with Trump about many things, and even for the things in which I'm in agreement, I often don't like his methods. He is spot on about immigration. What I can't get my head around is why liberals, mostly the coastal elites who can't be blind to what's going on in Europe when they go over for their annual trips, are so resistant. Go back a few decades and you would find mainstream Democrats saying much of what the modern day GOP is saying. It's so bizarre it's hard to completely dismiss @britbox opinions on the potential conspiracies surrounding this topic

I subscribe to much of what @mrzz said above. People will move around, and intermix, culturally and biologically. Mrzz and I come from two countries, (Brazil and the US,) that are defined by their mixing, since colonization.

Tucker Carlson absolutely did not come up with the theory. Some old French guy did, though both iterations are racist at their core. Who do you think is replacing you? You're still there, right? You're playing a zero-sum game where when there are more of "others," there are less of "you." When that game is played here, it is specifically racist and white nationalist.

I have been living and traveling in Europe since the late 70s. I have had these conversations over the years with friends, including in England, who live with the changes. They are newer to you than they are to us. So please don't tell me that we should be looking to Europe and worrying about your changes, in terms of cultural mixing. In the early 80s, when Europe was still pretty monocultural, Europe looked down their noses at us for our complicated issues with race. And, frankly, our racism. There was much sneering at our "political correctness." As more widespread immigration hit Europe, I told them that now they'd have to deal with it. And so they/you have. When you're used to a very specific and defined cultural identity, it's hard to get used to the idea that it gets diluted with other cultures, and it changes. This is not the same for the US, where we've always had it.

I get that you English are fairly entrenched in your great culture, but you've accepted a curry as a really English thing for a long time. Because of the Raj. The Dutch consider a Rijsttafel to be a Dutch tradition, though it is Indonesian, and comes from their spice trade. How much cultural intermixing is acceptable, and how much is not? And I really don't know where you're going with the lack of hot Swedish blondes. Are they not as blonde as they used to be? Or as hot as they used to be? Or simply not hot for middle-aged Englishmen in the same way? Seriously, what are you saying? I have a hard time believing that there is suddenly a paucity of blonde women in Sweden.

I also don't know how to speak to any claim that sharia law has become the law of the land in parts of England. But it has not here.

The US is not a God-mandated country for White Christians. (Which people like Charlie Kirk believed, as does Trump and Vance.) A good portion of it was originally colonized by the Spanish. (Not to mention the people who lived here before the English or Spanish got here, which we almost never do.) Who's getting "replaced" in the US?

 

[britbox]

I'm aware of the Great Replacement Theory. Tucker might not have come up with it, but he certainly mainstreamed it when he monologued about it on his Fox News show all those years ago. Obviously in America it has a particular flavour, but you can see evidence of something profoundly different in Europe. Whether you've spent anytime in London, or God forbid somewhere like Birmingham or Bradford. There are parts of the UK where they practice sharia law now... in Great Britain @Moxie. In the sceptred isles. Stockholm in the summer was a special place to go to. Decades ago, my banker friends and I would occasionally hop over for long weekends in the summer just for a change of scene... and hot blondes It's not the same anymore. It's more than people being replaced, it's the culture. I, and others, of a more conservative mindset keep saying this, but I'll say it again... this would NEVER happen in the Middle East. Why should we tolerate it in Europe. I may not agree with Trump about many things, and even for the things in which I'm in agreement, I often don't like his methods. He is spot on about immigration. What I can't get my head around is why liberals, mostly the coastal elites who can't be blind to what's going on in Europe when they go over for their annual trips, are so resistant. Go back a few decades and you would find mainstream Democrats saying much of what the modern day GOP is saying. It's so bizarre it's hard to completely dismiss @britbox opinions on the potential conspiracies surrounding this topic

I'm not sure I've ever mentioned anything about a "Great Replacement Theory" - so not sure where you've got that idea mate. What I have stated is that migration in the current context is not organic. It's driven top-down.

@mrzz's hyopthesis is only partly true - yes, there would be mixing of the races organically and that's something the vast majority of people would care very little about. In fact, I don't think the vast majority of people other than race grifters (and most of these are white far lefties) care that much about race at all, Culture maybe.

However, if we actually take @mrzz's hyopthesis on "maths" into account, then the UK would be typically taking in less than 50K (immigrants) annual net prior to 1997 (and I don't think travel was that much restrictive then that is now - in 2024, the UK took in over 800,000 net). This, despite a Government manifesto that stated they would do otherwise. On the EU side of it, Hungary are fined constantly for not taking in migrants as demanded by the EU.

@mrzz - When you have boats of migrants escorted across the channel and the recipients given money and accommodation upon arrival then I'd say that suggests a concerted top-down effort. Also, I doubt either you or @Moxie are well-versed in some of the two-tier justice that has been going. Systematic covering up of mass rape by Islamic gangs on the local indigenous populations.

Of course, the proposed "solution" to these problems in the UK is now a digital ID. This was supposed to be a conspiracy theory of mine along with Central Banking Digital Currencies.... well, here we are - both on the horizon. As per usual - it's problem, reaction, solution.

Conclusion? To see what's going on, I implore people to look at legislation being passed and treaties being signed - forget the bloody "news" - it's just divide and conquer bullshit - the same controllers own Fox and CNN and all major press. The BBC is by now just an organ of the state (it's even mentioned in the British Defence Review)

All countries on the planet have signed up to Agenda 2030 with the UN in 2015. Go look at it (most people are far too lazy). That's where DEI comes from - not "woke" grass roots ideology. All these "naughty" countries like Russia, North Korea and Iran are fully signed up... all the other bullshit is just drama for the masses. As the saying goes, the world is just a stage. - Fink (Blackrock CEO) said they were going to leverage their power to change behaviour.

The world is being remade according to a model - Stakeholder Capitalism... which is facism for the 0.001% who consider themselves elites (or like "Gods" according to the WEF's Schwab and Hirari) and communism for everybody else (the useless eater class).

 

[Federberg]

It appears that I haven't been clear. I'm not giving credence to the Great Replacement theory. Nor was I claiming that @britbox gave credence to it either. I was, rather, talking about immigration and it's obvious harms when unchecked (and thus the question arises about if there is some directive pushing for this, hence the thought of conspiracies). I originally mentioned replacement purely because the comparison of culture now versus 20 or 30 years ago in the UK is truly shocking.

I agree with a lot of what @mrzz mentioned, including the fact that immigration is easier than ever. I also support the idea that culture isn't a static thing, it evolves over time. I believe I've made the point on this forum, in the past, that both economic and environmental factors are making immigration almost a necessity. @britbox is of course correct about the seeming two tier system in the UK now, and the blatant diversion of resources towards supporting illegal immigrants at the expense of tax payers.

Lol! @Moxie you made me laugh out loud regarding blondes. I didn't say there weren't any blondes anymore, I said that we hopped over for long weekends to have fun, because of the hot blondes, that was mostly humour (mostly!), and had very little to do with the changes. The changes relate to an explosion in gang related crime in major Swedish cities that simply wasn't there 20 years ago. Just like stabbings weren't a thing on the streets of south London 20 years ago. So please calm your skin down, that's a rabbit hole I didn't dig, that's your doing

Here's the thing, it's not about race, it's not about skin colour. It's about a system, at least in the UK where there are no efforts to assimilate these people into the larger society. If anything the society, seemingly with government assistance is almost being coerced to accommodate the values of the newer entrants. It's weird, and frankly almost unheard of. I repeat, there are parts of the UK where sharia law is being practiced. That's not happening in the United States or Brazil as far as I'm aware, so you're welcome to feel how you folks feel, get back to me when things like that are happening where you live..

 

[mrzz]

The world is being remade according to a model - Stakeholder Capitalism...

You have a point here -- I would only name it different (whenever you need to put an adjective to capitalism, it is not capitalism). I will give a much calmer second look to your post.