Forums / Discussion / General

@Greyblades

If you're annoyed by sources, I'd like to point out that I'm somehow always the one who seems to provide the sources. This isn't any easier for me than you !

Anyway, here's a video of a few days ago. It has less views, but no talking heads:

Garcia & Ruiz outright argues with her at the time, so it doesn't look like it was an acceptable statement.

The source of the 2022 quote is "MTG Live", posted on "Rumble":
https://rumble.com/embed/v12ic57/

That's as far as I go, this should make it easier for your research since this is the primary source. Just sort by date. I can't get it because:

"Because of French government demands to remove creators from our platform, Rumble is currently unavailable in France". If it isn't available in the UK either, than this is the dead-end.

Don't blame me for the shiftiness of the American media establishment (especially the endless re-reporting from social media). I've had to bust my head against it whenever it turns against something I like. You say I lied, and there's proof enough that she said what she said.

Anyway, to me, she's a piece of shit. All the above debate distracts from that.

>Especially someone who has a history of cheating on her own husband.

See? I just learned yesterday how one podcaster for "Family values" is an abusive prick, and now MTG is a cheater too. Can't lecture anyone else on being a wife.

This is why you use a proxy sever like Hidemyass, that's not the video: it's this one: https://rumble.com/v1carhp-mtglive-ep.-17-alex-stein.html

Timestamp: 53:02

First I'd like to say Fuck you Newsweek, David Packman and LGBTQ nation for not doing your supposed fucking jobs.

But the part I was expecting was right after the twitter's cut "They need an education, and it needs to be parents choosing what sort of education for them, not the teachers and the teachers union and the government, but the parents."

Then she goes into the subjects that our mods dont like anyone to admit exist, then this stein guy goes into the denuclularization of the family, the desire for the family split and the children raised by the state with MTG nodding along. Repeated hammering of the standard Conservative belief of their opposite's intent to take over the role of parent: fake mom and fake dad, no mention of adopters at all.

For "fake mon and fake dad" to be jab at adoptees would need MTG to have a level of subtlety to voice them while talking a subject that uses similar terminology and the self control to not go on a tirade on the subject of her ire here or anywhere else. Sublety and self control to only expose herself in vagueries in only these two moments in her decidedly prolific public correspondance.

Sublety and self control I have never seen her exhibit. Ever.

I'll say it again: "she doesn't think adopters are real parents" is the lie in a desperate attempt to own and distract from the con tearing into why a union lawyer with little educational experience and an absence of medical or even parental experience was put into a position to contribute to the social, mental and emotional stunting of a generation of children.

Also, Garcia and Ruiz are both California politicians,

Ruiz is a democrat, his party is on the hook for basically everything covid related and californian democrats have a reputation, getting indignant is likely theatre as anything else.

Garcia… mistaking him for a democrat in my first draft is somewhat embarassing, that flaw to respond immediately without verification I mentioned. Seems to have the pre trump republican nervous instinct, interested in decorum to the detriment of everything else, determined to lose with grace.

hesrightyouknow.jpg

people like desantis and boebert are probably also up in that category but yeah

Apparently there's a new bill to ban children under 13 from social media
I have not read it but I can bet anything it'll be just like with tiktok and they'll use it as an excuse to enact totalitarian controls
also why 13 and not something more sensable like 15 or 16?

I still think Eric Swalwell is worse just because he slept with a Chinese Spy (not only because he's married with children, endangered the US politically, and because it makes us look like a joke internationally, but because it's just a silly thing to do)

But personally I think people have such trouble getting over personalities and political theatre that things like actual policy tend to fall to the wayside and so we end up talking about whether MTG is the worst politician and not about any specific policy prescriptions because it's all figureheads

13 is actually the age that I've seen most social media companies put as their lower limit. However. If that's the case, and most social media sites already ban kids under 13, then what do you think is hiding under that redundancy? As in, how do they plan to verify your age, make sure you're not putting a fake one in, and how do they find you to punish you for it?

I feel like that bill most certainly has more concerning things in it than a lower age limit.

First Republic Bank just got Ol' Yeller'd. I am not looking forward to round 2.

I just learned that if Pornhub detects your IP is based in Utah then you can't access the site, instead it'll play a video of a porn star saying Utah's "age verification laws" aren't going to help anything and to call your local politicians about it.

that's one creative way to conduct activism I guess lmao

American media outright supported the idea that Samuel Paty be murdered for "offending feelings". That is how one can overstep.

That's not "naivete". One of the peculiarities of the American left-wing is that many of its members, especially those in the journalist caste, see the states of victimhood and offense as virtuous; things to attain, and which can be used to excuse any and all bad behavior if leveraged. This is a large factor in how you get a moderately successful actor staging a hate crime against himself, or people going to gimmick restaurants to get offended at the gimmick. When taken to its (il)logical conclusion, these things, no matter how trivial, can be used to downplay or justify wildly disproportionate acts, up to and including murder.

This sort of belief isn't unique to the American left, nor are its conclusions unique to America; similar things occurred in Britain, when the government declined to do anything about rape gangs because they didn't want to look racist. But, combined with Islam itself being a polarized topic here, that's the source of such a response.

We did. I think both of us agreeing that Iran is a theocracy was one of the few times that happened. Instead of me typing up another wall of text, why do you think I'm using theocrat incorrectly?

What would say it means, in your own words?

Generally? Someone who supports a theocracy – governance by religious leaders. This is distinct from having a state religion or religious influence in government. Most, possibly all, of the people you've accused of being "theocrats" don't even want a state religion, much less a system like Afghanistan. Truth be told, though, I'm not sure if there actually is a good term for what you're trying to get at. Everything is either too broad or too far off the mark; such is the treachery of language.

>One of the peculiarities of the American left-wing is that many of its members, especially those in the journalist caste, see the states of victimhood and offense as virtuous; things to attain, and which can be used to excuse any and all bad behavior if leveraged.

I'm sorry, did you really make such a broad and wide sweeping generalization based on

1) the Jussie Smollett incident which everyone, left and right, condemned as being ridiculous and harmful and led to his being blackballed from Hollywood

2) an MSN article about a tiktok trend so minor that it had to steal a Daily Dot article about it, where leftism isn't even remotely related to the issue

I find it really ironic you speak of "(il)logical conclusions" when there is no logic in your thesis. It does not follow from any of the examples you propose, and the final line is straight up ridiculous. Where has anyone actually been exonerated of murder because of claiming virtuous victimhood as you say in the States?

On the contrary, I can definitely link right wing extremism and supremacist beliefs to avoiding justice for murder. Here's a particularly famous example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till#Trial

1) the Jussie Smollett incident which everyone, left and right, condemned as being ridiculous and harmful and led to his being blackballed from Hollywood

Everyone on the left.

Except Joe Biden ('s twitter monkey)
And Kamala Harris
And Nancy Pelosi
And Bernie Sanders
And Eric Swalwell
And Cory Booker
And Rashida Talib
And AOC
And Al Sharpton
And basically the entirety of the left wing media, in quantity beyond even my considerable arsed-ness to individually track down.

They were all coiled up, eager and ready to jump at the next Trayvon Martin. Jussy Smollett being a celebrity turned it up to eleven; grifter catnip.

All of them lept at the chance of another ID politics donation drive and all of them fell flat on thier faces because Jussy turned out to be a bad actor. All condemnation, all blackballing is mere ass covering.

>posting receipts from only jan 2019

you posted tweets from the immediate few days following the incident, and then conveniently ignored the response after the fraud was exposed by waving them off as "ass covering". What's that refrain this site likes so much, "WAIT FOR THE DETAILS?" It's almost like responses to situations change based on the available information or something, christ what a concept…

biden via his press secretary on smollett's conviction:

https://nypost.com/2021/12/10/white-house-respects-jussie-smollett-guilty-verdict/

harris:

https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1098724827869995009

Gillenbrand, Tulsi

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/21/politics/kamala-harris-disappointed-jussie-smollett/index.html

this is an embarrassing attempt at making a point

>They were all coiled up, eager and ready to jump at the next Trayvon Martin

because caring about hate crimes is bad apparently? an actor apparently getting attacked is something you shouldn't comment on as a progressive or as a black person? having opposition to such things is disingenuous simply because you say so? believe it or not, a significant part of the country was shocked by the reports. the fact that further information came out indicating dishonesty, and that statements shifted against Smollett's fabrications but still against racism shows consistency, not ass covering. Should we be respecting people who simply pretend it's not an issue, then? Because the GOP definitely never has tried to campaign on identity politics before, right.

Also might I point out

>"Everyone on the left."

>"basically the entirety of the left wing media, in quantity beyond even my considerable arsed-ness to individually track down."

contradict each other. One says "everyone", the other says "I'm lazy and didn't actually do the research but I pulled it out of my ass and I think it's everyone".

Plus, I don't mean to be pedantic, but believe it or not, it was not Joe Biden that banned Jussie Smollett from TV and pulled his role from Empire. That was Fox Networks.

you posted tweets from the immediate few days following the incident, and then conveniently ignored the response after the fraud was exposed by waving them off as "ass covering". What's that refrain this site likes so much, "WAIT FOR THE DETAILS?" It's almost like responses to situations change based on the available information or something, christ what a concept.

…Thats why I posted examples of high level left wing people who didnt wait for the details, jumped the bandwagon and rode it into a brick wall. It is refutation of the sentiment of "right and left condemned as ridiculous and harmful"; the left didnt think it was ridiculous and harmful until they were forced to.

Consider the sheer blatant improbability of a Good-old-boy lynching somehow materializing in the middle of deep winter chicago at night and targeting a a nobody C-list celebrity, failing to do any real damage, screaming "this is maga country" (in Chicago, the diametric opposite of maga country) and avoiding ever ending up on camera.

Simple gullability is hard to countenance across so many whose careers depended on not jumping into proverbial traffic like they did.

Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice and the rest; the Obama years had conditioned them to jump on every hate crime they could find and wring it for what it was worth, so they jumped as they always have but this time they found a spike pit instead of thier usual bloody pulpit.

I must give credit to Chuck Schumer for having the restraint to not join his fellow high profile democrats in the blunder, at least not in a place where I could find.

One says "everyone", the other says "I'm lazy and didn't actually do the research but I pulled it out of my ass and I think it's everyone"

"Everyone on the left" is your line, my line was "except for these politicians and basically the entirety of the lefty media", I left wriggle room for the wheedling "well these guys didn't so not everyone" line.

If I was lazy I wouldn't have tracked down all those politician's blunders to the point of reducing oversized urls and tracking down thier deleted tweets to pull out of the wayback machine.

Jussie Smollett Gives Defiant Concert Days After Reporting Attack,

Straight Black Men’s Silence On Jussie Smollett’s Homophobic And Racist Attack Is Dangerous,

The Attack Against ‘Empire’ Star Jussie Smollett Was Horrific--But Hate Crimes Are On The Rise Across The U.S.

And on and on and on. The Jussy Smollet opinion pieces by the bought-in are legion, for they are many, feel free to pick them out at your leisure

To lay them all at your feet I'd be at it for days and I'm approaching the wordcount as is.

Now if you wanted to hit me with a proper rebuke you would go with Trump's initial comment of 'I think that's horrible, it doesnt get worse' (anyone know a more complete version of the soundbyte I would be grateful) as a "the right believed it too", which would be true on the "not calling bullshit immediately" line but lacking in the unison "we must come together to face the hate" all-in bandwagon grandstanding of the left.

Incidentally if you ever wanted an example of how janky Google's search engine is: here's it showing a CNN article, right at the bottom, that is supposed to have been published on the 29th of January 2019 yet is reporting on Jussy's arrest that hadnt happened yet.

Tucker Carlson is very relatable, I too am insane and want to pick a fight with a child (jk mostly lol)

I was going to call you based for wanting to pick fights with children like you're Venom Snake but then you had to add jk smh.

…Allright, I'll bite, what have you been told about him this time?

He admitted he wanted to watch a child get punched repeatedly which would be slightly based if fucked up if the child's "crime" was being part of antifa or something.

Lest this be a misunderstanding due to the language barrier; I must point out that in english it is common for an older man to refer to a significantly younger man as "kid" irrespective of his actual status of adulthood. It has endearing and patronising uses.

I rather doubt there was an incident of actual children getting mobbed by opposing rioters during the antifa riots, the media would have been shouting it from the rooftop for months.

I also saw the lines immediately after:

"Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it. Then somewhere deep in my brain, an alarm went off: this isn’t good for me. I’m becoming something I don’t want to be. The Antifa creep is a human being. Much as I despise what he says and does, much as I’m sure I’d hate him personally if I knew him, I shouldn’t gloat over his suffering. I should be bothered by it. I should remember that somewhere somebody probably loves this kid, and would be crushed if he was killed. If I don’t care about those things, if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?"

It is of dubious fairness to judge a man ill for admitting to experiencing an intrinsic part of human nature that all men posess. Especially when so many are determined to deny they posess it.

It becomes indubitably unfair when the same man is exhibiting awareness of the ills of said feelings and expressing a desire to rise above them.

I think that might be the first time I used "Indubitably" correctly.

Or at all.

I have a strange urge to go watch a black and white Sherlock Holmes movie.

Charles III just became King this week, in case you didn't know.

The rain meant the airshow was limited to a bunch of helicopters and the red arrows, have to wait for his birthday to get a spitfire flyover. Typical.

Else the coronation went off without a hitch.

Wonder if he has any actual power

Wonder if he has any actual power

He's appointed by God, Head of the Church, head of the armed forces, all oaths of allegiance in the country are to him personally not the government or the national concept and all authority of government is rooted in delegation from him; he has veto over everything the government does.

It is unambiguous that the man has the most potential power in the country approaching absolute.

However. Potential. The monarchy has hanging over its head two spectres: the English expectations of a monarch to follow rules and Cromwell; the English general who became dictator in the 1600s after Parliament defeated and executed King Charles the first in the English Civil war, fought over many reasons but the two remembered is the king trying to rule without Parliament by subverting precedents and flirting with Catholicism

The Parliamentarians attempts at replacing him with a republic (of the medieval landowner sort, no universal suffrage here) resulted in failure and Cromwell became "Lord Protector" because the nation's first professional army got sick of their dithering. His famous dismissal of parliament can be summarised as "you've sat here doing nothing for far too long, get out".

Cromwell's decade of reign was an absolute rule to make Lois XIV blush. Full on puritan micromanaging of public morality… in theory, in practice the authorities were nowhere near capable of going Orwellian and most of them didn't want to. But the attempt turned everyone not a puritan sour on the Junta and Cromwell's various attempts at restoring the Parliament in puritan ideals were embarrassing failures that he would get sick of and dissolve in turn.

So when Cromwell died and the army lost it's figurehead Parliament reassembled and invited Charles' son, Charles II, back. Promises of not flirting with Catholocism and attempting to rule without parliament were made and everyone got back to living happy under the man who would earn the nickname "The merry monarch"

Then Charles II died and his brother James II decided to re-enact everything thier father did to get himself beheaded.

Parliament decided to skip the regicide and the republic and instead invited his Protestant sister Mary to take the throne with her Dutch husband and his Dutch army and navy. James didn't have the support to put up a fight and went into exile.

While there hasn't been any binding limits on the Monarch, per se, the current Royal family have become hyper aware of the precariousness of thier position and the general reality that their appointment by God does not make them immune to the consequences of being unpopular.

They've developed an aversion to openly wielding power without consent of Parliament, to the point where we literally had a king pressured to abdicate because he wanted to marry a divorcee (a no no for the head of the church) and didn't have the confidence to risk pressing the issue, despite being fairly popular outside of parliament.

Unlike the navy and the airforce, "Royal" has never been added to the name of the British Army. It has the lineage of Cromwell's Army, some of his regiments are still in existence today. The absence of the moniker is a implicit threat.

Charles III could be the most powerful man in the country or he could be a a powerless figurehead, it depends on the willingness of the people under him to follow his orders over Parliament's and that is a question the monarchy hasn't put to test in a very long time.

…not that the current parliament is in any position to win a popularity contest with the king. If Charles ever wanted to order his bearskin hats to hunt down every MP and put thier heads on pikes on the walls of the tower of London this would probably be the first time in centuries where they and much of the rest of the nation would respond with three cheers.

Oh, and I looked it up, the Mary that replaced James wasnt his sister but his daughter, his sister also named Mary was the mother of the Dutchman daughter Mary married.

Yes she married her cosin; the significant-protestant-alliance dating pool at the time was distinctly limited and the incest probably didn't help her eventual childlessness.

The whole not marrying non royalty thing was a lot less incestual back when Europe was still a patchwork and you didn't have to worry about religion, the 16th century consolidations and schisms made things a lot messier.

The world needed more people like this guy, he was based til the end

Fitch downgrades France's credit rating citing government debt and political risks

Week old news, but it's been a crazy week.

Macron's measure to reduce the financial burden of pensions will probably be negated by the interest & borrowing costs from this, and that's not even talking about long-term political cost.

A classic example of how being cheap can be expensive.

@Spaghetto

Well, yeah.

Politics makes people create illogical and nonsensical alliances. It's how anti-"imperialists" and far-right "sovereignists" have allied with Russia. Or how I've come to dislike a lot of the foreign press on both on the right and left for their response to terrorist attacks.

Generally? Someone who supports a theocracy – governance by religious leaders. This is distinct from having a state religion or religious influence in government.

My definition is along the lines of someone's who's working towards governance by religious leaders & law. If a theocrat can only be a theocrat when they've taken control (and thus it's too late), than language has failed.

It has nothing to do with influence. A monarchist can still be a monarchist in a country with no kings, and a communist or fascist can push policies that move towards fascism or communism.

To challenge the distinction, in countries where state religions exists, it's status quo, but in a country which doesn't have that, someone who pushes for state religion or some kind of influence is a theocrat.

Most, possibly all, of the people you've accused of being "theocrats" don't even want a state religion, much less a system like Afghanistan. Truth be told, though, I'm not sure if there actually is a good term for what you're trying to get at. Everything is either too broad or too far off the mark; such is the treachery of language.

It's just a few more steps in that direction. They already have their pseudo state religion, at this point the goal is just entrenching it and disseminating diktats.

To quote C.S Lewis (who was also religious, obvious if you read his books):

"I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber barron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.

If you can think of a better term, than I'm all ears.

You let the moral guardians run rampant, one day they'll hit something you give a damn about.

Donald Trump got defeated in court today over sexual harrassment.

And evidently gave him a huge political win all for $5 Million dollars. I say this because from what I followed the case was a bit flimsy, considering that Carroll doesn't know what year it happened, that he did not rape her as she claimed, , that there was a tv show around the exact same time with the same exact plot, access Hollywood tape came out before she made her claim public, and she's has huge political motivations. What does this mean?

He's not going to jail. He's going to instead go on a rampage calling it an unfair, that it was all politically motivated, and the thing is, he has a lot of circumstantial evidence to prove it. Have we learned nothing from his 4 years in office where he fought off multiple cases against him, entrenching his base even further?

Unless your case against him is rock solid, with grave consequences, he's going to find a way to twist it for his own good.

And he will do the same here.

that link to the MTG's verified live stream is nice, even though its from last year on july 14th
But it doesnt argue the fact at all that she literally suggested that an adoptive parent wasnt a real parent in the video above yours in a hearing that was recorded by c-span on April 26th (its at :57 specifically)
Like she literally asks Randi Weingarten if she is a mother, and when she says shes a “I am a mother by marriage,” MTG mocks her for it and says "“The problem is people like you need to admit that you’re just a political activist, not a teacher, not a mother, and not a medical doctor.”

Id say youd have to be very disingenuous to argue she didnt say the thing she very clearly said in the video, but its more akin to lying through your teeth to suggest that the thing she did say on camera is a lie

…no duh it is from last year, that's when she said the line I had been asking context for.

You know, the line that was supposed to establish a precedent, a pattern of behaviour of adoptee bashing and was supposed to be proof her comment wasn't aimed at the parent by title alone status.

If you are going to restart a dead conversation the least you could do is read said preceding conversation, instead of jumping on the end with an attempt at a gotcha that only makes you look ignorant.

the livestream doesn't change the fact that she said that shit. I brought up that it wasnt even from this year to doubly emphasize on how little relevance this livestream you linked has.

You're comparing what she came prepared to say on a production livestream last year vs what she said unprompted in a Freudian slip a couple weeks (Do you just not believe that politicians lie, cause, oh boy; do I have a bridge to sell you), and saying what she said before is over-riding what she is saying now, when its really the opposite.

You need to confront reality, she revealed her true feeling's about stepmoms at this hearing.

I didn't have much to add to the conversation thread, because I didn't have a VPN or because it's re-treading old ground. It's re-opening the discussion on Covid and on religion or even decorum. Funny hing about Garcia and Ruiz though.

Garcia (the republican) is the one who's most outraged, while Ruiz is quieter and more focused on decorum. The former isn't sterile procedure, it's passionate admonishment.

Looking over the excerpts of MTG, I don't think she's really justifiable:

Children are in the greatest danger in America today because traditional family values are being destroyed--the idea that mom and dad together, not fake mom and fake dad, but the biological mom and biological dad, can raise their children together and do what’s right for their children.

As always, I really hate this kind of bullshit.

Considering how Illinois has now allowed 16 and 17 year olds to work as many hours as an adult, while allowing 15 and 14 to work in meat packing plants (all with a party vote with the American Right for it), I find the cry of "protect the children" really hypocritical from the current American Right.

What else can be said further, at this point?

Which reminds me!

There was a "CPAC" Hungary, really I could talk about the mixture of American conservatism with "Hybrid Regime" directorship adjacency, Russian autocracy sympathy, theocratic & moralist nonsense that went on there, but I don't need to.

“Hungary is actually an incubator where experiments are done on the future of conservative policies. Hungary is the place where we didn’t just talk about defeating the progressives and liberals and causing a conservative Christian political turn, but we actually did it,” Orban said.

I don't really need to allege these elements working together, when it's admitted so blatantly.

There's a reason I bring up Orban so much, the American Right & other guests consider Hungary a model. A clear end-goal of being an economically moribund one-party kleptocracy.

Utterly pathetic.

My definition is along the lines of someone's who's working towards governance by religious leaders & law. If a theocrat can only be a theocrat when they've taken control (and thus it's too late), than language has failed.

Either you're talking past me or you misunderstood. Regardless, you aren't even using your own personal definition consistently.

It's just a few more steps in that direction. They already have their pseudo state religion, at this point the goal is just entrenching it and disseminating diktats.

Who's "they"? 'Cause frankly, this can apply to both sides of the aisle, as long as you're willing to stretch the definition of "religion" a bit. And one certainly has greater political, cultural, and economic influence than the other as of late…

I don't really need to allege these elements working together, when it's admitted so blatantly.

I'm not actually sure if he said that; the best sources I can find are 1) an untranslated Youtube video of him giving a speech in Hungarian, 2) a random blog post with no sources, and 3) fucking Infowars.

How about some actual connections or parallels; cases where his policies actually end up being used as blueprints by others.

There's a reason I bring up Orban so much, the American Right & other guests consider Hungary a model.

Ah, so he is to you as Chávez and Maduro are to many others: an example of a negative end-state of a particular ideology. One that's not necessarily applicable in every case, but still gives interesting insight into what may happen and why. But just as important as analyzing the end result is analyzing why people may support the inciting policies or individuals in the first place.

In the case of Hungary, much of it seems to be a long-term reaction to decades spent under the communist boot breeding a desire to not only pivot to the opposite of atheistic left-wing rule, but also a desire to be unshackled to the whims of unaccountable bureaucrats thousands of miles away.

In the case of Venezuela, initial support for Chavez and his "revolution" was born from a history of ineffective governance and economic crises, compounded by the country's relative lack of experience with autocratic rule. Support was then amplified and locked down by the government providing extensive social programs, bankrolled almost entirely by oil.

We can learn a lot from both of these, and others, too, as long as we actually know what's going on, how things got to be this way, and why. Simply blindly going "muh vuvuzela" or "muh hungry" any time anything remotely similar happens doesn't help anything.

Though I guess if you want a more direct look into what could be in store for eg. the United States in regards to the excesses and hubris of modern progressivism, it might be more relevant to look at the bullshit happening in, like, Canada or Scotland.

The shit that she said is the person was "not a teacher, not a doctor and not really a parent".

The dilemma is interpreting whether the shit she said was said because she doesn't believe adoptees in general are real parents or the shit she said was said it because she doesnt believe this particular person is a real parent for any other reason.

The argument for the former is that this isnt the first time she has said something that could be interpreted as prejudicial towards adopters and that this is a pattern of behavior. The livestream is supposed to be evidence to this position and a clip of it was presented semi-directly by Gilan.

The argument for the latter is the woman in question has produced no children of her own and only claim to the role was that the person she married had children; children that were in thier mid twenties at time of marriage. "Not really a parent" referring to this lack of experience raising children is congruent to the context of the hearing.

The post you were responding to was a rather painful examination of the former's argument by going to the source of the quote.

You need to confront reality and read the preceeding posts between myself and Gilan. Then you would realize that nothing you have said hasn't already been said to me with a great deal more eloquence, and a pinch less unearned arrogance surrounding hollow assertions of moral superiority.

I'm going to pull a gilan and go off immediately into a different topic, because holy shit do I not want to keep talking MTG.

.
.
.

Dear American Democrats

If you could figure out a way to get the DNC to ever allow JFK's nephew to replace Biden in the next election I am willing to give up my right to ever snark about America again.

Sincerly

Greyblades.

To witness the Kennedy Clan finally taking thier revenge on the CIA is an event so tantalizing I am genuinely torn in my loyalties at the prospect.

this is such a hard cope lmao, like actually silly

Just baselessly arguing that you know she didnt really mean it like you are a mind reader, and thats makes everybody pointing out how she said to someone they arent a real parent a liar somehow.

Like you are completely divorced from the world we live in if you think that somehow, because she didnt mean it, this changes things somehow and makes everyone a liar.

And one a final note; she GOP. Not a single one of those people actually cares about families

im only mildly surprised no one is talking about the Texas Mall shooter

a 6 year old boy family was killed, including the 3 year old brother of his

He was a fan of Tim pool, wrote he was inspired by @libsoftiktok

People are denying that he was a white supremacist, saying the photos of him with nazi tattoos was a CIA PSYOP; all to deny his link to the American right. They would rather distance the shooter from white supremacy than distance themselves from the shooter