Implosion is a great way to describe it. When the Overton window (i.e. the range of "acceptable" opinions) becomes narrower and narrower, eventually the number of people who find themselves outside that window is going to be overwhelmingly larger than the in-group, and that's when the whole thing implodes on itself. That's what the left has been pushing towards for the last few years, and it's unsustainable. It's bound to collapse under its own weight at some point.
Get ready for the deluge of headlines about how we must impose a second lock-down. Every article of every major news outlet is going to be nothing but coronavirus for the next week, and it's going to be an overt attempt to counter-signal this good news and tank the economy.
Revealing the identity of someone who posted a tweet isn't a crime. It may be shitty (and pathetic) for an international news organization to use it as a threat to intimidate someone into not mocking them, but as far as I understand, you wouldn't really be able to sue them for it (well, you can sue anyone for anything, but I doubt you'd win that lawsuit).
What's even sadder is that people have to be worry about being publicly exposed as a Trump supporter. It's not like the guy posted an ISIS video or something... It was just a funny clip of Trump wrestling, with the CNN logo as his opponent... and yet, he was worried he'd lose his job if CNN exposed him. Basically for no other reason than being a Trump supporter. Everyone knows the excuse that "it promotes violence" is bullshit. It's cartoon violence, and it's obviously meant to be funny. It's not calling for someone to throw a brick through a window at CNN headquarters, like BLM did.
John Miller, not Jon Miller. Pretty sure it was a joke. John Miller is a pseudonym that Trump has used in the past... he was suggesting that Trump's alter ego was responsible for the copyright claim, since they're the same person (and it was a photo of Trump).
Sorry to make another comment after our last exchange (which was overly long, and I realize can get tiresome), but I've been doing some more reading today. I'm getting closer to nailing down the exact events you were describing in your original comment.
What I had read previously were the events that lead to Italian unification, and the establishment of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861. Later, Italy would ally with Prussia in 1870 during the Franco-Prussian war, after which they would regain Venice and Rome (after France abandoned it). But before that happened, Garibaldi had made a couple attempts on his own to take Rome. He didn't have the support of the newly established Kingdom of Italy, and they actually arrested him twice for his actions. Anyway, this seems to be the relevant area I need to do more reading on.
I stand by my statement that I don't think this is in any way analogous to what is going on in the US right now, but it has been interesting to read up on Italian history. It's incredibly complex and so intertwined with broader European history.
Yes and yes.
I'm sorry what? The "people" were most definitely not fighting for unification.
This seems to disagree with every history book written on the subject. The First Italian War of Independence in 1848 (which is when Garibaldi came to prominence as a military commander) was part of the Italian unification movement. The subsequent events into the mid 1860s were a continuation of that political movement for unification.
There was no democracy. Savoy was a monarchy...
One of the primary objectives of the Italian unification movement was to establish a Republic (which is a form of representative democracy). Savoy was an ally to drive the Austrians out of northern Italy, but that doesn't mean they were establishing a monarchy. When Britain allied with the US during "Operation Iraqi Freedom," does that mean they were trying to establish a monarchy in the US? In the end, they didn't succeed in establishing a Republic, but my point was that it was part of the impetus that lead to the First Italian War of Independence.
The Austrian Empire supported the revolution and gave Garibaldi ships.
Why would the Austrian Empire give ships to Garibaldi, when Garibaldi was fighting on the side of Savoy? Savoy (which was part of the Kingdom of Sardinia at the time) and Austria were on opposite sides of the conflict.
There is so much wrong with this statement that I don't really know where to begin. Even if you're pro-Italian, it just doesn't make sense.
Austria occupied Piedmont, Tuscany, and Romagna, until they were driven out in the Second Italian War of Independence (Austro-Sardinian War) in 1859. Are you saying that the war didn't happen, or that Austrians aren't foreign to Italy?
At this point I just laugh when someone unironically says Garibaldi was good
I never said that, and you know it. Stop lying about what I said. I never once used the word "good" to describe Garibaldi. In fact, I specifically said "I don't doubt there were despicable acts committed by horrible people," and went on to compare their movement to the French revolution, which I would consider to be a black eye on the history of France.
I consider myself to be pro-American, pro-liberty, and pro-Constitution. To that end, I am sympathetic to movements that attempt to overthrow monarchies, but of course I understand that these things can go horribly wrong. Revolutions rarely end well. My only point was that I don't think the history of Italian unification is very analogous to what's currently going on in the US. If anything, it seems to be the reverse of what's going on. BLM and "Antifa" seem to be a movement for disunification.
That doesn't seem analogous to our current situation at all. In the mid 19th century, Italy wasn't a single country. The people were fighting for unification, democracy, and against foreign rule (namely, the Austrian Empire). I don't doubt there were despicable acts committed by horrible people—just like with the French revolution at the end of the 18th century—but that doesn't mean the Italians weren't justified in fighting a foreign government occupying their country.
I rest my case...
You rest your case? I'm sure you're already aware of this, but Rome has a few millennia worth of history. Just because I don't what specific event you're being extremely vague about, doesn't mean I don't know history. It would be helpful if you mentioned a name or date... or at least narrowed it down to a particular century.
History shows that liberals escalate until they win. The first attack on Rome was a sniper inside a house. In the end it was 50 artillery shells bombing jospitals and churches.
What the hell are you even talking about? Is this a reference to WWII?
He's right. You haven't noticed that this shit kicks off every four years, right before an election? The media would love nothing more than if right-wingers started opening fire on crowds of "peaceful," "anti-racist" protesters. I'm not saying people shouldn't defend themselves, but I think the driver in that white Excursion made the right choice in this particular case.
The left is sowing chaos, and if you respond with more chaos, you're playing right into their hand. That's what they want. In 2016 we had riots, cops being murdered in Dallas and Louisiana, Trump supporters violently attacked at rallies... and we weathered the storm. We showed them that their destruction and chaos only strengthened our resolve.
The left has had control of American culture for decades, and what you're seeing now is their desperate attempt to cling to that control. We know this has nothing to do with George Floyd. The issue of police killing unarmed black men is a made up problem; the number of instances last year was in the single digits (and it was higher during the Obama administration). The left "won" the culture war by convincing people with arguments and appealing to people's compassion... now that they see their control starting to wane, they're resorting to racial animus, violence, and chaos.
I know I may seem naive or crazy for saying this, but I'm actually optimistic. The reason things are getting so crazy is because we are so close to winning. There's old saying that goes something along the lines of: "a wounded tiger is more dangerous than a hungry one." Right now, the left is a wounded tiger, lashing out. All we have to do is keep our cool, and finish the job.
This is exactly the reason. At first I wondered why they would ban a community that hasn't been active or had a new post in months, and then I realized it's because of the sticky post that links to thedonald.win. I think they're too late to make a difference. Everyone who was going to come here from reddit has already made the move, and the site now has enough users to grow organically on its own.
Sure thing, professor emeritus.
So I guess the answer is "yes," we are just going to ignore the existing case law, where the Supreme Court has explicitly cited the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment in dozens of decisions.
That's literally what they'll say. You can't appeal to these people with logical arguments, because they actually believe logic itself is a manifestation of white supremacy. Atheists have a saying about religious people that I think aptly applies to leftists (which is itself quickly becoming the newest religion): "You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into." Their racial politics are all based on emotion, not reason.
So you believe your state police should be able to walk into your home whenever they please, without a warrant, if your governor decides its okay? They should be able to set up listening devices in your home, and also make it illegal to be a Christian or a Trump supporter, and imprison you for life for posting on thedonald? Apparently they wouldn't be violating your Constitutional rights, because they aren't the federal government.
edit: for the record, I would support a "repeal and replace" of the 14th Amendment, but for the sole purpose of getting rid of "birthright" citizenship. It's never going to happen, unfortunately. Even though there are legitimate reasons to change the 14th, people will see it as an attempt to literally re-institute slavery.
What about the dozens of Supreme Court cases that have specifically cited the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment? Are you just pretending that those don't exist?
It's right there in Section 1 of Amendment 14. It's the whole "equal protection under the law" clause. Applying a local ordinance to one group, but not another (based on their skin color), is not "equal protection." There are dozens of Supreme Court cases that affirm as much.
I think it should also be pointed out that the reason they reversed it isn't because of the backlash, but due to that pesky 14th Amendment (which Democrats have fought against since we took away their slaves). It's unconstitutional to apply the law differently based on the color of someone's skin.
Now that Trump has "signal boosted" this story, how much do you want to bet that twitter is going to delete this video? They'll probably use the music playing in the background, which you can barely hear, to make a "copyright strike" claim.
I've been posting (spamming) this all over your comment section, but I figured I may as well respond directly to one of your comments. If you're religious, you might be able to base your lawsuit on the fact that the co-founder of BLM has publicly admitted in a recorded interview that they are "trained Marxists." Karl Marx was an atheist, and virtually every implementation of Marxism has including state-enforced atheism. Being fired for opposing that could possibly be seen as a violation of your religious freedoms.
The co-founder of BLM has admitted in a recorded interview that they are "trained Marxists." If you're religious, and you were also fired for speaking out against BLM, you might be able to use this as a basis for your lawsuit. Karl Marxist was an atheist, and virtually every implementation of Marxism has included state-enforced atheism. A religious person would have a valid reason to oppose any organization that is founded by someone who refers to themselves as a Marxist; you were essentially fired for your religious beliefs.
Exactly.
The co-founder has openly admitted, in a recorded interview, that they are "trained Marxists." If OP is religious, he can sue on religious grounds. Karl Marx was an atheist, and virtually every implementation of Marxism has included state-enforced atheism, so a religious person would have a valid reason for opposing BLM.
Especially when the co-founder has openly said in a recorded interview, "we're trained Marxists." The idea of someone getting fired for opposing that (off the clock, no less... on their personal social media account), is insane. This has to be a slam-dunk lawsuit. He was essentially fired for not being a Marxist.
edit: Karl Marx was an atheist, and most implementations of Marxism have involved state-enforced atheism, so if the OP is religious... he could make this a religious matter (much more juicy for a lawsuit).
Yeah, I mean, she has to make sure they have enough porta-potties at the block party. Doesn't everyone have multiple homicides at their block party? I don't see what's the big deal. She has more important things to worry about. Like the porta-potties.