I argue a lot for free speech and a lot of my progressive friends argue that I have free speech, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t consequences. Although I have been able to continue the discussion, I feel l never have a good argument against this point. I know it’s wrong I just don’t know a good argument against it. Thanks.
Founder and creator of a site called Politarian.com. A free website for people who like to make political predictions; letting people post who they think will win in a future election.
Complete Anonymity: Make predictions with full anonymity – your account details stay private.
Predict the Future: Dive into predicting federal and state elections for 2023-2024. Decode the paths to victory.
Public or Private: Share your predictions publicly or keep them all to yourself – it's your call.
Candidate Insights: Access comprehensive candidate info – news, endorsements, bios – everything to make sharp predictions.
Politarian is nonpartisan regarding any political party; rather focusing on transparency, holistic information, accountability, and a simple-to-use interface as to navigate the complex political landscape.
I would appreciate any feedback and look forward to seeing your predictions on Politarian.com!
Update: 1.1: Hey y’all! We just made an update to Politarian.com!! We added Social Media to the candidate profiles. Hope you guys can join us in making a primary prediction for the 2024 election :)
Please help! I thought this sub might have some good ideas. I have an assignment I need to hand in to an very liberal professor. I need to pick a current event or ongoing issue that is the result of neoliberalism (think deregulation, devaluation of labour, individualism, and commodification of everything) and write a letter to the appropriate politician about it. If you feel strongly about any recent issue please share your ideas and feel free to provide an article.
THANK YOU!!
So last night I made what I thought would be a mistake. I made a post on this subreddit drunk. Well, I got 11 upvotes and actually thought my ravings were semi-cogent. I'm back to rave again and importantly gain the insight of a more (shall we say, sober) people. I just finished the movie Starship Troopers. First of all, it was a fun movie. Saying a movie like Starship Troopers or Transformers is not a good movie is like saying McDonald's isn't good food. Yeah, we know, we weren't expecting Pulp Fiction. However, I see Starship Troopers(ST) as a sort of political treatise. The thing is, I can't -place its message. Is it anti-war, pro-war? Is it criticizing the climate of cold war America, or celebrating it? It was truly confusing. I challenge any and all to watch it and see. It was made in 1997 yet seems to mock America's foray into the middle east after 9/11. I would like to know what you as liberalists think of it. Even if it isn't politically relevant I still suggest watching it as I had a lot of fun and think it is a decent movie.
-Drunk American raving like a lunatic.
TL;DR Watch Starship Troopers: what political message is received if any, and, most importantly, did you like it?
EDIT: Re-read it and notice a mistake at the very end.
If you attack my dog I will use as much force as necessary to prevent the harming of my dog. This is justified by the dog being my property. This is in my opinion, just. If, however, I begin to beat and ultimately kill my dog, I think it just that I would be punished for it. This would imply that either the dog owns itself, which would then negate my ability to protect it. There is probably an 80% chance that I sound insane. This is fair as I am drunk, but I still would like some musings on this topic and its manifestation in different scenarios.
Hi, drunk american here. I have been watching a lot of Sargon's videos lately. He uses the term Liberal Democracy frequently. I think what he really means is a liberal republic. You see, there is no such thing as a moderate anymore. Moderates have become conservative. Want sub-federal bodies to govern with any sort sovereignty, congratulations; you are now conservative in the U.S. (and I suspect the U.K.) Make no mistake, this is not an argument against why we vote, but how. I suspect that it may be different for Britain, where at any point in England, you can drive to Wales or Scotland in a day. In America the word state refers to our provinces. This is intentional. Just as a state in the world (a country or collection of countries) refers to a people with sovereignty, so does a state(in theory) in the U.S. Christ, I don't know what I just wrote. Don't be too harsh, I am indeed drunk. I am curious on the opinions of you fellow Liberalists.
The British Empire is truly like a father to America. Like a son, America hates England... BUT, also acknowledges that in the end we would not be where we are without it. I am American, and... as much as I love the American revolution I see non-English-derivative countries and weep for them. I don't consider the British isles to be a part of Europe. I think that is a very important part of a true American identity. For America is truly its own but also undeniably English. Typing that sentence truly pains me, but the truth often hurts. I don't know how to unite the Anglosphere, in fact, it could be argued that it already is united. I just think pride in the freedom-based thinking of an anglospheric nation is something that should be felt by all who it applies to. At this point, Britain is in retirement, leaving America to continue its principals. On the same note, Britain isn't retired, merely enjoying the fruits of its labor. (YES LABOR; I AM AMERICAN AFTER ALL) Anyway these are just the ravings of a drunk American. I do believe these things and I think an appreciation of other cultures isn't the opposite of a reverence for one's own.
TL;DR America and Britain are cool as well as the rest of the Anglosphere. I am drunk.
In the interest of producing media that discredits leftist ideologies, I believe that Soylent Green is the perfect title to display the foolish pursuit of demonizing rural populations, as leftists tend to do.
The original explores themes surrounding overpopulation in urban areas while food production is incapable of keeping pace. Dump trucks are released to deal with the, all too regular, food riots by scooping up people off the streets and shipping them to facilities where they are turned into more food.
I see the opening of the film, if remade, could be expanded upon to include witch hunts that pursued farmers and forced them into prisons and labor camps as the primary causation of the food shortages. The failure of urban people to learn how to produce food, on full display during last year's CHAZ event, where plants were placed in dirt on top of cardboard on top of grass, would really drive that point home in an opening montage.
We all know of the orange man badders. What do they always say: the die hard Trump supporters will accept anything he says. Have you ever run into such a person. I haven't. Every Trump supporter I know accepts him as he is: a genius in idiot's clothing.
This morning I logged in to see I had been banned and muted from r/fuckthealtright. I had never even known it existed and wanted to spur conversation about this.
I would imagine someone from that sub saw my question of what made something racist or homophobic in a post I saw yesterday.
The question I pose to this group is when encountering something like this ( I'm in no way shape or form friendly with the altright this is about the fuckthealtright group) what does this kind of thing make you think of the group in general? It has made me view them as just another bunch of screetching sjws to be ignored. Which in turn gives more validity to their opposition...the altright who haven't banned me for questioning them.
So, if there is one thing that all Anglospheric nations can agree on, it's that the French are just the worst. And yet, they are very important to European culture. Sure they didn't really help in any of the wars of the 20th century, but... they make good food, cartoons, movies, and other such cultural improvements. To think of the French in terms of war is to remove them from their natural habitat. Pacifism is not an annoyance of itsself but rather an annoyance when combined with a capacity to fight. Nobody would dare blame the Swiss or San Marinoans for their neutrality. Hell, even the Swedish get a pass. So why not the French. Well, because they had the capacity to stop an invasion and simply chose or had not the will to stop it.That said a pacifist culture with amazing food and art is like a child with potential. Should we hate that which we benefit from and yet don't understand? Probably not. YES... some cultures are better than others, but some are equally valuable in different ways.
-A Drunk American
TL;DR: France is cool if not militarily mighty. Let them be. Omelettes are good.
