The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I think this deserves it’s own thread.  

The far left is disturbing.  Some of their claims can only leave a rational person disturbed by them.  For example, they heavily imply that transgender women are not biologically male, even though they are.   They also claim that women are not inferior to men in sports.  When you respond by calling them out on their absurdity, for example by suggesting that if that were the case, would they have a problem making all sports coed, they respond by throwing insults.  We also have far left people who riot for the sake of it, and who believe that cops should not allowed to protect the citizenry.  They promote lies about the pay gap.  

At the far right you have crazy people like Matt Walsh, who implies that women should not be allowed to be police officers and that men and women should not be friends.   You have Steven crowder who pushes the absurd claims of electoral fraud.  You have the capital rioters.  

Which side is worse?  In my view it’s the far left.

I am posting this from my phone, I will supply links at a later time

My issue with the far left is that the truth gets suppressed if and when it hurts their feelings.  And that's why they respond with insults when you call them out on their absurdities.   

Title should be changed to something more accurate..."The Far Right Whines About The Far Left."

Last visit to thread...whine away!

I am not the Far Right, so that would be inaccurate, as are almost all the other ways you and everybody else on this board describe me.

The far left and far right has always been crazy. I just think the far left has grown so much that they ain't that far any longer. AOC and her  posse went from being laughing stock nut jobs to being a symbol of the party standards.

Unfortunately that's not true, AOC has comparatively way less power than Humana or Aetna in democratic politics.  If that wasn't the case, we'd have universal healthcare of one form or another, be it M4A or some other single payer scheme. It's so undeniably beneficial that the only possible opposition comes from those currently benefitting from the system we have now.

I'm extremely interested in seeing these links.  Hopefully they rise above the level of "I found a random person on the Internet who said a thing".

A great example would be a person in a position of power making the kind of crazy claims you're citing.  Maybe something like this list of over 175 Republican current and former elected (and/or appointed) officials "pushing the absurd claims of electoral fraud." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_reactions_to_Donald_Trump%27s_claims_of_2020_election_fraud#Supported_Donald_Trump's_claims_of_election_fraud)

Check back around eight.  I am still at work.  I have to support the people living the good life off my tax dollars.  Please bear with me.   

If there's 175 pushing it, then it's anything but absurd.   

Spider, here is link one

https://www.outsports.com/trans/2021/5/25/22451484/trans-athlete-miller-yearwood-mitchell-soule-smith-adf

The author says that calling trans women biological males with male bodies and chromosomes is misgendering and compares it to blacks being called the n word.  This strongly implies that the author thinks trans women have xx chromosomes and female bodies.  This is not true.   Do you think it is true?

The author also implies that males and females are of equal physical abilities.  

Similar thoughts are echoed in this piece

https://jezebel.com/these-girls-just-wanted-to-run-the-right-wanted-a-war-1846280528

This is an absolutely perfect quote.  The implication (which I wouldn't necessarily disagree with!) is:

Can you still call them the "far right" if they have completely taken over the Republican Party?
Or are they just normal everyday conservatives now?

However, the correlating implication is that we can only call AOC and the Squad the "far left" because there aren't currently enough of them in the Democratic Party, which... isn't a very flattering interpretation of the argument being offered in this thread.

This statement itself is absurd.  The number of people pushing something has nothing to do with its validity

The two links you provided are the very definition of "A person on the internet said a thing."  The authors of those pieces have zero legislative or executive power.  What's more, the first link is an article written in response to a USA Today article.

So do you think that when conservative viewpoints on transgender athletes are offered up, liberal opponents should not be allowed to respond?  Or what, exactly?  Again, the people writing the articles you linked have no real power in our society.  They are writing opinion columns.

There isn’t a far left in the USA as judge by international standards.

Biden and Obama is in every other democratic country center-right.

In every other democracy universal health care is mainstream.  Obama’s most aggressive proposal for health care would be considered too conservative in every other county.  Bernie Sanders is a centrist and the norm in every other country on healthcare.

Being a member of the Paris climate accord is accepted by both the left and right in every other country — that is a centrist position.  Democrats are centrist on the environment, republicans are off the map.

Paid maternity leave is not a leftist position, it is the norm in every other country.  The democratic are right of center on this issue.  Republicans are off the map.

Our lack of gun control is considered insane in every other country.  Gun control is not a left- right issue, it is universally accepted by both the left and right.  Even the most ardent gun control proposals by democrats would not align us with the rest of the world.  The democrats are right wing on this issue.  The GOP is off the map.

Free or very affordable college tuition is not left wing, it is the norm in every other democracy. Sanders and AOC are the centrist on this issue.  Anyone opposing them are far right.

Abortion rights is the norm in most democracies, but not theocracies.  The democratic party is centrist on this issue.  The republicans are far right.

There are no leftist in power in the USA.  Sanders and AOC are centrist.  Biden and Clinton are right of center.  Louis Farrakan is as far to the left as Romney is to the right.  The extremists are on the right not the left. 

There is no way to know of course, but I would be very interested to find out if those 175 truly believed the election fraud narrative or if they were just pulling the common and disgusting political tactic of pandering/appeasement to what they perceive to be a strong voting block within their constituency.  Although I'm not high enough in the federal food chain to be a member of the "Beltway Boys" in DC, I have worked with enough members of Congress and their staffs to know that politicians from both parties pull this stunt all the time.  It is a close cousin to the feigned indignant fake outrage that members of Congress play on a weekly basis. "I am outraged that the Democrat/Republican members of this Congress are subverting the power of the Democrat/Republican President of this country. This is historically unprecedented in the history of the U.S. (no it isn't, you did the same thing when the other party was in the White House)"     And their constituents eat that shit up because most of them have no idea or understanding of history to realize that it is all a big Congressional charade.  I have seen with my own eyes when Dems/Republicans who throw out quotes all week long about how the other person is going to destroy our democracy and they are probably the spawn of Satan......yet on Saturday morning they are on the golf course together yukking it up like a couple of frat brothers.  Politicians are an elite breed of trolls that make D4L and Hoodie look like a first time amateurs.  Politicians essentially do the same thing for votes and poll numbers what prostitutes do for money.  And if you are lucky, they'll give you the Girlfriend Experience and not make you wear a condom.

While Democrats are indeed centrist or center-right on most economic issues compared to many European left-wing parties, on the particular topic of immigration, Democrats would be considered unelectable far-left cranks in Europe.  The position of the Democratic Party is that any child - even the children of illegal immigrants - born on US soil is automatically and inviolably an American citizen, and that any suggestion of an alternative interpretation of the 14th Amendment would immediately disqualify a candidate in the Democratic Party.  (The Supreme Court has upheld this interpretation of the law.)

I agree with the general thrust of your post, but keep that in mind before we go too far down the "Democrats would be center-right in Europe" rabbit hole.  Liberal European parties are to the left of Democrats on some issues, and to the right on others.

Does it matter.  Either they are delusional and shouldn’t be in power or they are willing to destroy our democracy to pander for votes and should be in power.  There is no equivalent on the other side no matter how often people want to claim both sides do it.

Absolutely true.

There is functionally no difference between a politician who is pretending to believe that the election was stolen (and acting accordingly) vs. a politician who genuinely believes the election was stolen (and is taking exactly the same actions).

While Birthright citizenship is almost nonexistent in Europe, it is the norm in almost every country in both North and South America and the Caribbean.  So the US policy here is consistent with the entire Western hemisphere.  Healthcare, gun control, education, climate change, and maternity leave the US stands alone.

Yeah, that's why there are actually different countries. If you think other countries better fit your lifestyle, by all means, pack your shit a go. I don't understand why you people want every country to be the same? If you want tacos, you go to taco bell. You don't go to Burger King and demand that they have to serve you a tacos. What other countries do is irrelevant because we aren't other countries. 

This is a lazy, stupid idea.  99% of the people don't get to leave a country just because they don't like the policies. That's just not the world works. If you don't like how your country operates, then you change your country. That's what citizenship is. You are your country.

You do raise a reasonable question regarding whether it matters whether the politicians are delusional or willing to destroy the democracy to pander for votes and should not be in power.  Please keep in mind that my opinions are formed from actually working with these people and not from things I have read or heard other people say.  So at the risk of sounding conceited, I think I have a little more insight than most people.  

I would say that from my personal experiences, there are a small number of politicians who have drank the Kool Aid and are delusional.  I think that the majority are pandering for votes.  BUT, I don't think they would continue to roll out the feigned indignance pandering stances if it reached the point of being a threat to democracy.  I do get what you were saying in your comment but I think you took the concept of voter pandering to the very extreme when you talk about it threatening democracy.  There is a very large chasm between the standard political pandering and the level of pandering which would threaten the democracy.  

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if your comment of "there is no equivalent on the other side" was intended to mean that you don't think the left does the feigned indignancy ploy to pander to their constituents for votes, then you are so blinded by party loyalty that it has rendered you unable to see obvious facts.  Because both sides of the aisle do it.  If that isn't what your comment was referring to then I apologize.  

Spider, although you and I disagree on most things, this post of yours was spot on and well thought out.  Even though we disagree on most things politically, I respect the fact that unlike a lot of people on here (from both sides of the aisle) you do seem to put thought and consideration into your posts rather than just parroting party lines.  The way you roll in here allows me to actually think about and consider opinions that differ from my own.  Even though we rarely see eye to eye, I appreciate what you bring to the board.

This isn't even a hypothetical.  As we speak, Congress is determining the appropriate response to a violent mob invading the Capitol with the express purpose of overturning a Presidential election.  This was as close as you can get to "a threat to our democracy" without actually being too late to stop it.  And the cynical panderers you refer to are still 100% on board.  The same politicians whose lives were at risk are still "pretending" to support the mob that wanted to (in the BEST case scenario) take them hostage.  There is no bottom here, no red line left to cross.

Thanks, I appreciate the sentiment.

I do agree that the group of lunatics who stormed the capital were looking to overturn the election and most probably going to hurt their foes if they got a hold of them.  The scariest part is that these morons considered themselves modern day "revolutionary forefathers" who were fighting tyranny like the founding fathers did.  And this is just my opinion, but I don't think that a handful of deluded idiots were an actual threat to our democracy.  Although I am usually right leaning in my politics, I hope each and every one of them is charged and convicted of the most serious charges possible.  1: Because you just don't do that shit and 2: To send a very clear signal to their sympathizers not to even think about pulling that shit

My “there is no equivalent “ does not apply to a willingness to pander.  My “no equivalent” does apply to a willingness to undermine a fair election to score points, (the democrats most certainly could have done that in 2000, they didn’t) disenfranchise opposing voters (democrats aren’t trying to make it harder for rural voters to vote, republicans are trying to make it harder for urban voters to vote) the democrats do not engage in scapegoating, the democrats do not engage in misinformation campaigns.  There is no democratic equivalent to MTG.  There is no democratic equivalent to January 8th.

Ok, thanks for clarifying your comment for me.  I agree with you that at least in recent history there is no Democratic equivalent to January 8.   

I disagree with your assertion that the "democrats do not engage in scapegoating, the democrats do not engage in misinformation campaigns" but honestly I don't care enough to get into a drawn out debate with you on that one because you are as loyal to your party as CF DolFan is to his.  I don't mean that as an insult, but both of you have your parties on such a pedestal that no amount of evidence would ever convince either of you otherwise.  And I get that.  When I was younger I was guilty of the same thing.  Scapegoating and misinformation campaigns have been hallmarks of politics in this country (and all others) going back to before the Whig party. 

I am not a democrat.  The democratic party has drifted too far too the right for me.  I support the democratic party with as much zeal as Winston Churchill and FDR supported Stalin and for the same reason.   

Obviously it is how it works. Plenty of people leaving their country because they want to be here. Go down to the border crisis and tell them all to go fix and change their country. Yes, I agree go fix your country, we don't need you.

Another example is that the far right views George Floyd as a criminal who got what was coming to him because of his bad deeds, whereas the far eft views him as a hero.   

Nobody views him as a “hero.” The left views him as a victim. 

https://naacp-oc.org/george-floyd-an-american-hero/ (https://naacp-oc.org/george-floyd-an-american-hero/)

Yeah, Floyd isn't a hero.  He didn't willingly do any of this.  He is a victim.  Whoever put up that page goofed up.

He's was an idiot. He only had to do one simple thing. Sit in the back of a car by himself. Most children over the age of 4 can do that. Chauvin wouldn't even be involved if that was the case.

And the penalty for getting out of the back of a cop car...is death?

Hmmmm  :-\

Fixed it for you.

Floyd was murdered by Chauvin.
I don't know how much effort one normally invests in blaming a murder victim for the crime committed against them, but this seems like a lot.

"What were you doing outside at that time of night anyway?"
"What did you expect dressed like that?"
etc.

You fixed nothing...you just used it as a misdirection ploy. Either that or you were just translating what I said into something I didn't say, which definitely qualifies you to be a Retrumplican.

If you get out of the back of a cop car after being placed in it by the cop, you deserve, at least, to get an ass whoopin' while they try to place you back in it.

Would Floyd be alive if he got in the police car as instructed by the officers before Chauvin arrived on scene?

You don't suppose??   

The ironic thing is that when the guilty verdict against Chauvin was announced, he immediately turned and put his hands behind his back.   Imagine if Floyd had done the same.

Go change your kotex, your estrogen is leaking all over the carpet.......

It's funny how he could breath while sitting in the SUV before law enforcement arrived. But as soon as he was getting put in the back of a police SUV he couldn't breath. Floyd was a criminal doing anything he could to avoid going to jail.

Would Nicole Brown Simpson be alive if she had not been dating another man?
Again, not sure why you want to spend so much energy blaming the victim of a murder.

I'm not even sure why George Floyd is still being debated.  It was pretty simple, really.  Chauvin was found guilty of the exact charges that he should have been found guilty of.  Chauvin was the perpetrator and Floyd was the victim.  Having said that, it is also common sense that George Floyd would not have been killed if he had not been resisting arrest.  Before everyone starts hyperventilating, by no means am I saying that resisting arrest made it okay for him to be killed.  But as many times as George Floyd had been arrested (and it was a bunch of times), he should have known that nothing good ever comes out of resisting arrest.  AGAIN, I'm not excusing what Chauvin did.  Chauvin killed him, was arrested for it, and was found guilty of it.  Exactly as he should have been. 

Answering a question with a question? It was a simple yes or no.

Correct, I agree with you for the most part. I just want to see how many people place some accountability on Floyd for putting himself in that situation. His decisions directly led to his own death. Come on Spider, say it with me, "George Floyd's own decisions directly led to his own death."

"Answering a question with a question"... with yet another question?  Seems like yes or no isn't that simple after all!

The sad irony of the situation is that you are once again (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=25246.msg352217;topicseen#msg352217) shouting for a "yes or no!" answer to a clownishly-formatted question.  I mean, according to you (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=26670.msg375328#msg375328) he died of "an overdose," right?  So YOUR answer should be "No"!

My actual answer is "Maybe" because we don't know what else would have happened.  After all, Freddie Gray didn't resist arrest, and he was still killed in police custody anyway.

Spider translates things I say into things I didn’t say all the time, and he is as liberal as you can get. 

Btw, you REALLY don’t like Trump, do you?

That's what's wrong with most of you liberal extremists. You're never wrong. Hell, I can admit that Chauvin was wrong, but you can't even admit that George Floyd was somewhat culpable in his own death with his poor choices. This shit is laughable....

was he culpable in getting arrested .. sure .. was he culpable in getting killed .. no

This...exactly.

I think that is a fair statement.  I think I would probably say that Floyd made a very bad decision which  put the wheels in motion that ultimately led to him being killed, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he was "culpable" in getting killed.  Again, nothing good ever ever ever comes out of resisting arrest.  But resisting arrest shouldn't lead to death unless the officer(s) or innocent bystanders are in immediate danger of their own lives which does not seem to be the case with Floyd.  It was a truly shitty situation in which pretty much everyone involved did the wrong thing from beginning to end. 

If he didn't leave the house that day, he wouldn't have been in that position
If he didn't pass counterfeit money that day the police would have never been call to the location.
If he didn't resist arrest, he would have safely been transported to jail and released.
If he didn't get high on drugs that day, he may not have made so many stupid decisions that led him down the path to his own death.

If he would have made the correct decision just one time, he wouldn't have been killed by Chauvin. But every decision he made was wrong. Hell, he could have flipped a coin for each decision and came out better.

Let's see, tomorrow I'm going to get up. ------>  Do a multi drug cocktail ------> Leave the house and go pass counterfeit money ------> Then argue, fight, and non comply with the police when they show up. Yeah, what the fuck could go wrong with such a well planned out day?

From what I have seen in his prior arrest history, etc. I don't think his life was punctuated by smart decisions and intellectual prowess. 

The fuck you say? According to the "collective wokeness", he was a hero and upstanding citizen, haha 

He had a prior arrest history??  Geez, that's the first time I'm hearing of this!  I don't think anyone knew that!  According to the media, George Floyd was a saint!  ::)

Same thing goes with the guy who was supposedly jogging through a neighborhood in Georgia while wearing boots and carrying a hammer, the guy who snatched a cop's taser and pointed it at him while running off, the girl who was stabbing someone else, and the guy who tried to take off when he was told he was being taken into custody because of outstanding arrest warrants.   NONE OF THESE PEOPLE are the heroes the media made them out to be!!!

you're right obviously .. USC 1.2.324423223 clearly says that if you run away, jog through a neighborhood carrying a hammer, just look a little darker than a sicilian, that warrants the death penalty

No one is arguing that point. Did George Floyd make stupid decisions that led to his own death? It's really a simple question.

Actually, I am.  Because no one goes for a jog wearing boots and carrying a hammer.  It's obvious what he was up to.  Not to mention he had a criminal past.
 While it doesn't justify him getting shot to death, let's not make him into a tragic hero or any kind of hero. 

I was only talking about the Floyd case. I'd have to research the other one to make an informed decision

Ahmaud Arbery is the name. 

Didn't he also try to take the guy's gun away from him, and that's when the shooting happened?

I don't know what your getting at.  Are you saying white people are killing black people unjustified in large numbers or something?

That's exactly what happened.   The whole incident was recorded on a smartphone.  The two guys claim they were performing a citizen's arrest and Arbury resisted by going for one of their guns.


Definitely not true.  There's more black on black crime than white on black crime.  And police kill more white people than black people.  Those are the facts but apparently the liberal's don't care because it goes against their agenda.

One of the greatest Republican presidents of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan once said, "The problem with our liberal friends is not that they know nothing.  It's that they know so much that isn't so."

Far-right groups are spreading racist, false claims about shooting victim Ahmaud Arbery, analysts say (https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/far-right-groups-are-spreading-racist-false-claims-about-shooting-victim-ahmaud-arbery-analysts-say/)

Far-right and neo-Nazi groups are spreading racist and false information about a black jogger who was fatally shot in Georgia to promote their agendas on social media platforms, according to organizations that monitor online extremist activity.

The campaigns gained traction after the release this month of a video showing the moments before Ahmaud Arbery, 25, was shot dead in February. Two white men were arrested and charged in the shooting after the video drew widespread attention to the incident.

Some of the online posts, which include racist language, memes and graphics, claim that Arbery was carrying a hammer and wearing boots when he was killed, as the groups try to create false narratives about his death, analysts said.

In the video, Arbery is wearing a white T-shirt, shorts and running shoes. Security footage shows a man in similar clothing who is believed to be Arbery entering a house under construction just before the shooting. The owner of the property has said nothing was stolen from the site.

“The most remarkable finding is that an alternate narrative was created, most notably that Arbery was carrying a hammer and wearing Timberland boots – two claims which CCTV footage and mainstream media reporting does not support,” said a senior terrorism analyst for the Middle East Media Research Institute, which is collecting information related to the case. The analyst spoke on the condition of anonymity because of security concerns.

The groups portray the two arrested men, Gregory McMichael and his son, Travis McMichael, as victims, the analysts said. Both men have been charged with murder and aggravated assault.

---

Maybe Facebook groups and e-mail chain letters aren't the most reliable sources of information.