Recent Posts of member Ananas2xLekker

Topics:

Let's help Elon make twitter great 02,Nov,22 05:44

Posts:

By Ananas2xLekker 18,Mar,24 17:54
There is no evidence that Hunter ever did anything illegal too.
However, it's a useless discussion with you. The future will show who's right.

By the way, got you ass kicked out again and now trying #7?
It's getting a bit ridiculous, don't you think?



By Ananas2xLekker 18,Mar,24 17:51
Maybe you should explain the true structure and definition of a country and democracy and what your desires are, before you say something so blatantly false. Goddamn you are a arrogant, ignorant buffoon.



By Ananas2xLekker 18,Mar,24 14:06
It they do, it's still democracy. What you call 'free money' is people's own tax dollars. The people should decide what they use it for.

Why do you think this is in any way related with RNC campaign donations?

When Republican voters donate to the RNC, they are not donating to Trump.
Lara Trump might be breaking the law there.

It's also very likely a campaign finance violation, if Trump uses that money
to pay for his personal indictments.



By Ananas2xLekker 18,Mar,24 13:54
Maybe, we will see when more evidence gets uncovered.

The Guardian say: "Alexander Smirnov was paid $600,000 by the Texas-based Economic Transformation Technologies. ETT’s chief executive is Christopher Condon, who is also one of three shareholders in the now-dissolved ETT Investment Holding Limited in London. The other two shareholders are Pakistani-American investor Shahal Khan and Dubai businessman Farooq Arjomand. Both Khan and Arjomand boast ties to Trump “through Trump associates,” according to The Guardian. Arjomand, who was also listed as an adviser on ETT’s American website, is also a board member of Damac Properties, a Dubai developer that has “partnered with Trump for a decade,” The Guardian reported. The former chairman of Damac, billionaire Hussain Sajwani, is close with the former president, attending his 2016 inauguration. “Hussein, Damac, a friend of mine, a great guy,” Trump reportedly said in 2017."
It will take some time to get all those ties investigated, in so far as they can link the money to the lying and it being a criminal offense.

So, what's your source for claiming that the US paid that money?

In any case, the whole Hunter Biden case is now flat on its ass
and Republicans don't even want to be reminded about it any more.
Too bad, if they find out that Comer and his friends knew about it being
nothing but lies, they are complicit and should face indictments too.



By Ananas2xLekker 18,Mar,24 09:31
It's very sad that you think only meat tastes fit to eat.
I do admit it requires some more skill to make veggies taste nice.

I just want to have the real cost of food represented in the price.
And I don't want factories to turn literal garbage into food.

I'm not saying I want to criminalize eating meat, I'm saying that the damage to nature should be included in the price. That will result in you having financial incentives to eat more healthy, because locally grown plant based food would then be cheaper than meat, especially beef.

Where we are heading, at this pace, you won't be able to afford beef anyway, in a couple of years. The price of all food will go up, whether we do something about climate change or not. Many farms in your southern states are already not able to afford the costs of water and food for their livestock. Clean water sources are drying up, pastures require more water each year and grain goes up in prices because of dwindling water sources too. Cows drink and eat a lot for your piece of beef. The calculations for the amount of beef produced vary from 4,000 to 15,0000 l water/kg of beef, probably based on the areas where they raise the livestock and grow their food. When water sources become scarce, the price goes up, affecting the prices of all products requiring water for their production. Eventually, we will be forces to just consume food that is produced with the least amount of water, which will eliminate beef the first. Pork is a little bit less wasteful with water and chicken is the most water efficient piece of meat. But chickens still eat more grain, than when we feed people on just grain. The longer you lot delay the inevitable sacrifices humanity has to make, the tougher the sacrifices will need to become.

It is freedom to be allowed to do things up to some level of harm you are causing with it. At the moment, eating beef causes a lot of harm to civilization. That should be reduced, because the level of harm is unsustainable.

I'm not talking about achieving Utopia, I'm talking about the continued existence of humanity.



By Ananas2xLekker 18,Mar,24 09:18
Which in your opinion is imprisoning everyone involved in alcohol and g@mbling? Well, at least it would be consistent.

Just look at countries where drugs, alcohol and g@mbling are criminalized and tell me if you want to live there. If you do, maybe convert to Islam beforehand, because I cannot think of any countries besides those. It's not a good sign if your ideas about freedom have so much similarities with Islamism.

People not being able to cope with lives little issues (or big issues) is indeed often the cause for them using alcohol or drugs. That's the wrong reason, but you can't solve that by giving them more issues to cope with. The better solution is to reduce the amount of huge fucking problems that people face every goddamn day of their lives, if they didn't win the birth lottery. Some countries successfully do that and achieve a better quality of life for most of their citizens. Some countries don't and turn the lives of their citizens into a living hell. I know in which country I want to live and that's what I support politically.
The end goal might be socialism, but even if that never amounts to it, in the meantime they are working hard to achieve more justice, freedom and quality of life for the citizens. I cannot say the same for the politicians that you support.



By Ananas2xLekker 18,Mar,24 08:58
You're not even capable of writing something legible anymore.



By Ananas2xLekker 18,Mar,24 08:56
If it was all so obvious, you wouldn't need to say so, you could just show it.

I have an open mind to arguments, based on evidence and logic, not to a bunch of inconsistent claims, that you don't even provide the sources for, or any other reason to accept the truth of them.

Just like pure socialism, pure capitalism also has never worked in history before. There are still many socialist policies that HAVE WORKED to pull many people out of poverty and is still working in many countries, to provide their citizens with a much higher quality of life than the US, that doesn't have much of those policies.
But, you do you, and support politicians who want to destroy social security and medicare. Maybe old people will stop voting for Republicans, when they see their life made impossible. Or they'll just die and then they cannot vote for Republicans.
You can of course take care of your parents, like people did before 1935.
Then you can hope your son will do the same for you, when you are old.
But, if he doesn't believe that 2 oranges + 2 oranges are 4 oranges, I don't think he will be ABLE to take care of you in the future. Did he get one of your chromosomes in duplicate?

In any case, what type of economy I support has no relation to anything else we are discussing. Any subject requires it's own arguments, based on evidence and logic.



By Ananas2xLekker 18,Mar,24 08:35
When Trump refused to give back the collection of classified documents that he had, he wasn't president (anymore) EITHER. Trump is not indicted for HAVING those documents, he's indicted for refusing to give them back, lying about having them, lying to his lawyers about it, having his lawyers lie about it, moving those boxes of classified documents and trying to destroy evidence of him moving those boxes of classified documents. Also, Trump had the type of classified documents that he wasn't even allowed to take anywhere outside of the White House as president.

All these charges do not apply to Biden. Biden returned the documents he had, as soon as he found out he had them and fully cooperated in the investigation.
Biden didn't have any documents that he wasn't supposed to have in his personal possession as vice-president.

That's why Biden has not been indicted and that's why Trump still faces 37 felony counts related to the mishandling of classified documents, obstructing justice and making false statements.



By Ananas2xLekker 18,Mar,24 08:16
The American voter never surprises me anymore, but I can give you some reason to be worried. The GOP has lost all control to Trump. With Lara Trump now in control of the party's campaign funding, every cent now goes to Trump's defense in all those court cases. All those Republican congress people, who also want to be re-elected, won't have a cent for their campaigns coming from the RNC.
The RNC was already struggling with declining donations, but now Trump is cleaning out the cash register even more.

Lots of retiring Republicans need to be replaced with new idiots, who depend on the media posting lying ads for them. The media won't do that for free.

Democrats don't have those financial troubles. They are not controlled by someone who's only qualification is being married to Eric Trump.



By Ananas2xLekker 18,Mar,24 07:55
If you cannot find ANY argument against it, then you are full of shit.

I'm objectively not lying, because I'm referring to real news from many credible sources. I'm reporting the fact, that Alexander Smirnov is in custody, awaiting trial:
only registered users can see external links

All the stories about Hunter and Joe Biden having received $ 5 million each from Burisma, were based on nothing else than Alexander Smirnov's 'testimony'.
Everything he has said turns out to be false, it turns out he had been caught lying
in two another cases in 2015 and 2017 and the FBI had considered Smirnov a liar
and a fraudster for years.

Now you better provide any evidence that the story about the $ 5 million from Burisma
is based on anything real. Maybe you can help Alexander Smirnov to get off from being indicted and facing a maximum of 25 years for 'lying' about Biden bribes.
If you can't, you're the liar and you're full of shit.



By Ananas2xLekker 18,Mar,24 05:50
There are lots of conservative Christians working in Hollywood. There are also lots of actors who at some point don't get asked for new roles at a point in there career and even more (millions) who try to make a career over there and fail. They are just not good enough at their job or their appearance doesn't match their role type or they just don't get the good graces of the public anymore.

Kevin Sorbo was a mediocre actor, but he was muscular enough to be Hercules. When he aged, his acting didn't save him. It happens to almost every actor and
even more actresses. Only a rare talent or being associated with roles that are
less dependent on looks saves some of them.

But, right-wingers and Christians have all been talked into a massive victim complex, which is easy to abuse as justification, when you lot get washed up. When they stir up that indignation strong enough, they will get asked for really bad conservative propaganda flicks, out of pure sympathy, for their fake battle against woke.

So, don't be sad, just like there is a good market for 'woke' movies, there is also a good market for right-wing propaganda movies and failed or washed up actors to appear in them. The market is way smaller, but in contrast to the movies you call 'woke', those right-wing propaganda movies are funded massively by wealthy conservative Christian fundamentalists. Not because they want to see that filth themselves, but because they want YOU to see it.



By Ananas2xLekker 18,Mar,24 05:21
You are unwilling to even try to come up with any arguments, other than
personal attacks, but you say I'm the con man and refuse to show transparency.
Irony is lost on people like you.



By Ananas2xLekker 16,Mar,24 16:31
"US firm that paid indicted FBI informant tied to Trump associates, records reveal"
only registered users can see external links

"Alexander Smirnov was paid $600,000 in 2020 – the same year he allegedly began lying to FBI about Bidens’ role in Ukraine business."
"An American company that paid the now indicted FBI informant Alexander Smirnov in 2020 is connected to a UK company owned by Trump business associates in Dubai, according to business filings and court documents."

So literally a paid disinformation/smear campaign, organized by Trump.
You can only wait until he faces consequences for that; indictment #4328.



By Ananas2xLekker 15,Mar,24 07:24



By Ananas2xLekker 14,Mar,24 07:11
That's true and now fossil fuels are destroying humanity and that prosperity.
We either find a solution to prevent the worst of it or die off.

I have told you about technologies before that can power large cargo ships
on solar, hydro, bio or wind power. Understand that about 40% of the mass transported with those ships consists of fossil fuels. And maybe we could ship
a bit less shit from China?

If combustion engines are indispensable for a certain task, then they can run on hydrogen, alcohol or bio-fuel. The problem is however never the combustion engine itself, because electric motors are much stronger for their size. It's indeed the energy storage that is the problem. However, energy storage is not limited to batteries. There are several chemical solutions to efficiently store energy in a liquid or solid, with high density, which can easily be refilled in a short time, just like tanking fossil fuels. Electric energy storage also gets better by the day. High capacity capacitors can be recharged with many times the speed of batteries. At the moment they can hold a bit less energy than batteries, but it's the time unit of charging per time unit of operation that counts. A minute of charging for an hour of operation is acceptable. We do not have to kill humanity to avoid that minor inconvenience.



By Ananas2xLekker 14,Mar,24 06:31
In history, changes like that took thousands to hundreds of thousands of years,
now those changes take decades.

Those trees under the ice of of greenland are about 400,000 years old.
The CO2 concentration then was 280 ppm. During the last 400,000 years,
the CO2 concentration didn't rise above 300 ppm once. We are at 421.83 ppm today.
In 1970, the CO2 concentration still was at 325 ppm.

The global average temperature was 53.6°F/12°C 400,000 years ago
and didn't rise above that for 400,000 years. The global average temperature
right now is at 57.99°F/14.44°C. It just takes a while for all the ice to melt away.

Yonaguni Jima is NOT under water because of the sea level rising,
but because of tectonic activity causing it to sink below the sea level.

Find some arguments that cannot be debunked in 5 minutes of Googling.

If you don't think: "OMG, I was wrong!" from those arguments, then you are either
not smart enough to understand them or you are gaslighting yourself.



By Ananas2xLekker 14,Mar,24 06:20
Wow, that's dismissive of 99% of women who want to be independent human beings.
Even in 1950's red rural Christian areas, some women didn't want to be men's pets.



By Ananas2xLekker 14,Mar,24 06:16
"a drunk in a penal colony listening to barney the dinosaur playing a digeridoo"
I must say, that's highly creative insulting



By Ananas2xLekker 13,Mar,24 14:56
Bullshit, Trump got hundreds of millions from his father to have him fail business after business.
Then when old Trump died, Donald took the whole inheritance for himself.

When you have that kind of money, you don't have to do anything. You just buy your way into several businesses and live the good life from the dividend. If Trump had done just that, he would have been more wealthy than he is now.

You think living like that is the maximum? OMG, it's so sad what they have made you think.

Even a burger flipper creates enough added value to live that life, if they got a fair piece of the cake. But, I told you before that flipping burgers is only a thing of capitalism, where wealthy people get their money by exploiting nature, workers and your health. It doesn't help society and it doesn't create much pleasure for people. It's bland food that only gives you a buzz, because it's full of fat and sugar and your body is programmed to like it. It's sort of an addiction. It's only capitalism that makes you think that giving people obesity and diabetes is good, because of the jobs. It's not good, it only serves the wealthy and harms society. Socialism would provide restaurants where you could eat a burger, but it would be more expensive than eating healthy, way more tasty, less harmful to nature and pay the workers a wage to do all the things I described.
Why? Because that's the smart choice, that serves everyone.



By Ananas2xLekker 13,Mar,24 14:38
"As for putting drug addicts in jail,that should greatly reduce or eliminate the chance of getting drugs, which would allow them to sober up."
And then they come out with a criminal record and no future.
They will be addicts 10 minutes later again.

You have tried this for decades and decades. It doesn't work.
The US has the worst drug problem in the world. Try something else.

It's only your feelings of 'let them suffer', why you say that.
You don't say it for alcoholics or g@mbling addicts.

Ending the alcohol prohibition did do lots of things. It took away the revenue model from the mafia. The fact that they turned to drugs after exactly proves my point.

It is impossible to keep people away from drugs or alcohol, unless you create a repressive police state which is worse than the drugs and alcohol problem. Duterte tried it in the Philippines and murdered thousands of people, way more than ever died of overdoses. I thought you liked 'small government'? Do you think that a repressive police state like that would respect the freedoms that you like? They will search your house every time they find anything suspicious in your area, because that the only way to keep all drugs of the streets.

People who don't have hope for a better future will always find something to destroy themselves. Actively worsening their future, by jailing them for their mistakes, assures they will never recover. Only the hope for a better future and some help, can be successful in turning these people into contributing members of society.

And again, most people who use drugs don't get addicted. I know a lot of people who used a plethora of drugs and they are all doing perfectly fine right now. Your preferred system would have destroyed them.

People who get into drug addiction have character flaws that would get them in any other trouble too. Those people either need constant mental healthcare, or we accept they are unable to be contributing members of society and minimize their damage.
You might want to put them in jail forever, but that's more expensive than trying to help them. Sometimes it works,
sometimes it doesn't. I want to give them a chance.



By Ananas2xLekker 13,Mar,24 13:08
How is this an eye opener? Should I be surprised that an authoritarian despot is trying to convince people that they are doing it for the glory and well-being of all the people?
That literally has been said by every dictator ever, including Trump.

Indeed, it's a straw-man to say: "Your ideas are the same as the ideas of the Nazis
and that why your ideas are evil!"
I could say the same to you. Would that convince you?

It wouldn't, because saying things like that is only intended to demonize the other side.
It is intended to easily win an argument for your own side.
It's called a fallacy. It's a dishonest tactic to evade having to put up real arguments, most of the time showing that people have no real arguments.

It's like me saying:
"You want to kill all blacks, gays, Jews and atheists and that's why you're evil!"
I know you don't want that, but I can make believe that you want that.
That's the straw-man. It's a scarecrow misrepresentation of you, to make you look bad.
That makes it easier for me (if I would do that) to win a debate.

Do you understand 'that strawman thing' now?
Do you understand why it's dishonest to use straw-manning?



By Ananas2xLekker 13,Mar,24 10:48
At least Trump can now use the defense that he's mentally unfit to stand trial.
It's a better defense than anything he has tried so far.

Well, actually he is not even trying to defend himself, he's just trying to obstruct
and delay, until he can steal the presidency and pardon himself.
Strange, right? If he's innocent, he would have some defense.

He used to say he didn't take any documents. At least you know now that was a lie.
Then he had his lawyers lie for him. That's worse, Biden didn't do that. Right?
Then he tried to destroy evidence showing that he had them. Did Biden do that?
Why wouldn't he just have given back those documents, when they asked? Biden did.
For a 'mentally unfit man', Biden was a lot smarter about it, than Trump.
So yeah, pleading insanity is not such a bad idea, for Trump.
But, I guess that would make him unfit to run for president. Right?



By Ananas2xLekker 13,Mar,24 08:57
"So you're saying I'm brainwashed into striving for moral correctness in comparison to political correctness."
No, you are brainwashed into thinking that what your saying is true.

What kind of bullshit is it to compare moral correctness to political correctness? I want politics to represent my morality, not the other way around. I have explained enough of my basis for my morality, and how I expand on it to for my political opinions. You just say that yours is based on right and wrong, or moral correctness or altruism, without showing any link to your political ideas.

Definitions are useless, if you cannot show your words to contain any meaning. Definitions are for describing the meaning of words. We should have the exact same ones, because that's just the rules of language.
You can just go to Cambridge Dictionary and search those words.
I'll agree, most of the time. There are some words that are used very broadly. The definition is than not very useful. The term 'socialism' is overused, to mean almost nothing anymore. If idiots think it's the exact same thing for Stalin, Hitler, Cuba, Venezuela, Iceland, Finland or my Socialist Party, then the term itself can't hold it's own.
I'm also not going to define terms that you pulled into the discussion.
They are not useful for me, to explain my ideas. If they are useful to you, it's your burden to show the significance of them. If defining them does that, go ahead. It doesn't explain anything besides what you think those terms mean. If you think the term 'democracy' means something else than what society has agreed it means, saying 'the US is not a democracy' might be correct for you, but not for the rest of society.

"Socialism gives all the power to the government."
If that is your definition, than understand that I want that government to
BE THE PEOPLE! I want everyone to be involved in deciding how to best organize that government. That's power for the people to control what you call the government.
It's exactly the opposite of the straw-men you keep repeating.

Meanwhile, you support Trump, who only wants people to cheer for him and do as they are told. Then he picks a bunch of loyalists for his GOVERNMENT, to rule over them and you, with an iron fist. He will be the leader of the COMMUNIST EMPIRE OF THE SEPARATED STATES.
He will rule it like Putin and Kim Jong-un, because that's what he likes about them. "We wrote beautiful love letters to each other!"

And you are sad little sucker for not seeing it.

You want a government that controls women's bodily autonomy.
You want a government that reduces sex to only reproduction.
You want a government that takes away IVF, if they do want a baby.
You want a government that controls who people may love.
That's 'giving all the power to the government'.

If the large majority of people want gun restrictions, that's DEMOCRACY!

The Constitution is a blue print for how to be a democracy.
You are correct that it wasn't the perfect expression of democracy, but a compromise, to the southern states who didn't want a democracy at all. That's why they introduced the Electoral College, which provides stronger votes for southern states. The better options, which were similar to what we have in Europe, were not agreed upon by those southern states.
So, you have a flawed democracy, but at least it was the first one.
There is some 'moral correctness' in it, but the GOAL of organizing a government that way was providing people with rights, so they wouldn't want to support some king from England or France, coming over to take power, which is harder when you distribute power over more people.
When you just have a king, the enemy can easily behead the king and announce themselves to be the new king. Trump wants to be king or emperor and you're the gullible idiots who would give away your own power to that king, because you think you have less power now.
The only argument you have is; it's not really a democracy anyway.
Yes, it is, the majority just doesn't agree with you.

"As long as you have abuse of power, lying, stealing and removing guns with freedom of speech the country is done. Our cities are destroyed and unlivable now." Absolute nonsense!
Maybe you should use Russia's system? Didn't Tucker Carlson show you how nice their subways, grocery stores and super market carts are?
That's a guy from your side, literally trying to sell you COMMUNISM
and then you accuse my side of it. You cannot make this stuff up.

"The bullshit comment about you in one country and kebmo in another country is used for deception, just like you say I'm one with more than one account and was Trump 2."
Of course you are, do you think you are fooling anyone?
You are saying the exact same things that you said as TS2.
You still lied about it though.

It's all PROJECTION; you accuse others of what you are doing yourself.



By Ananas2xLekker 13,Mar,24 08:34
Then why would you want Trump to lead you?
He didn't lead himself to prosperity, his father did.
Anyone would be able to maintain the wealth he started with.

I want the people in politics to care about people, not themselves.
The 'leaders' I choose, voluntarily give away most of their salary from their elected position as representatives, to the Socialist Party. What they would have normally earned, would lead them to prosperity, but they choose not to, because that would divert them too much from the people they represent; the working class.

They accept a compensation that is enough to live on, afford their own house, educate their children well, have some luxuries and go on 1 or 2 vacations/year.
That's the minimum that our party wants for everyone who contributes.
Most of the parties management is highly educated and intelligent,
they could lead themselves to prosperity, but chose to be public servants.

That's the type of person I want to REPRESENT ME, NOT LEAD ME!
I don't want ANYONE to lead me, I want to participate in DEMOCRACY.
And that's what I'm doing, regularly.



By Ananas2xLekker 13,Mar,24 08:01
Who is talking about cuddling drug addicts?
"no one is helping them" Is throwing them in jail 'helping them'?

I wasn't even talking about the drug addicts themselves or 'helping them'. I left completely open the choice between sending them to a state-funded rehab clinic, locking them up or just euthanizing them. That's a completely different question.

NOT EVERYONE WHO CONSUMES WEED, XTC OR COKE IS AN ADDICT.
And even if they were, which they are not, that's their responsibility.
The use of drugs shouldn't be illegal. It should only be illegal when you harm other people, like when driving under the influence.
The only argument I was making is that it is bad to exploit addicts.
It is bad when drug dealers do that and it would be bad if we let Pfizer do that. That's why I always say "legalize, tax and regulate".

Just like g@mbling and alcohol consumption are regulated (at least in my country) to prevent addiction, that should be the same for drugs. A drug addict is not more helpless than an alcohol or g@mbling addict. Why should they not go to jail?

(g@mbling is a censored word? Why? It's legal in your country)

Just like dope heads, people in deep debt from pay day loans and people addicted to g@mbling or alcohol, put their family in ruin.
So why do you have such different ideas about controlling drugs, pay day loans, alcohol and g@mbling? None of your arguments against drugs are different from the arguments against alcohol and g@mbling. You also have not shown any difference between exploiting people who borrow money at predatory conditions and get into huge financial problems from it and people who consume drugs and get addicted from it. Why is one legal and the other not?

Why should an owner of a liquor store not be charged with murder and attempted murder and put in jail? Do you know how many people die from alcohol and alcohol related traffic accidents?

I repeat: I have the same solution for similar problems.
Your solutions are wildly different, depending on your feelings.
My solutions are better. Your solutions don't work at all.



By Ananas2xLekker 13,Mar,24 07:18
Eh, you are canceling and hating on Hollywood, for just casting a black person.

I support free speech. You can say whatever ignorant shit or lie all you want, as long as you don't break the law, which should be minimized to incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity (with very wide margins), child pornography, fighting words (with very wide margins), and threats (with very wide margins).

I of course will use my free speech to compete with the ideas you put forth with your free speech. That's called 'The marketplace of ideas'. In contrast to some of you, and your straw-man of liberals, I'm not looking for a safe space to get my own ideas parroted back to me, but I'm seeking out people with completely different ideas and I'm discussing the IDEAS head on, with arguments, while minimizing cheap tricks like straw-manning and personal attacks. Some of you have the same principles, some of you prefer straw-manning and personal attacks. The last is only a sign of weakness.



By Ananas2xLekker 13,Mar,24 06:40
I can say Nazis are bad. As a socialist, I can say that, it's easy.

It's wrong because Nazis stand for the opposite of what I base my socialism on,
which is very much related to humanism. I think every person has an intrinsic value and the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and I think everyone has the duty to respect all people's intrinsic value and right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The best way to do that, is to not giving all the power and money to a few wealthy people, who exploit other people and the democratic system that people have organized to protect them against exploitation, to maintain and expand their own wealth and power. Socialism supports a more equal distribution of power and money, with the intent of not getting exploited. Socialism respects the idea that all people are created equal, capitalism doesn't. Understand that when you argue against those ideas, you are arguing against The Declaration of Independence,
The Bill of Rights and The Constitution. It will make you LESS 'AMERICAN' than me!

My basis for morality is completely different from the basis for the 'morality' of the Nazis, which was/is: only their race has any value, if at all, and people's only right is to serve the glory of the master race.
Do you understand the difference? Are you smart enough to digest that?

"You can say well it isn't as bad." No, because that makes you a Nazi. It's BAD!

"Like what the fuck, its either right or its wrong." So? What is it? SAY IT!!

"I showed this because it is the best explanation the smart ones here can digest."
What are you showing? That you can ask if Nazis are bad?
If you even have to ask, then what is your morality based on?
Sure, you can reduce morality to its basic premises and ask:
"What is the basis for claiming that Nazis were/are bad?".
It's fine to think about your basis philosophically, but if you STILL need to do that,
on such a basic level, then do that first and come back to debate me AFTER.
I have progressed well beyond that level, for decades, and I'm not debating people who are stuck at that level.

I don't see you discuss those semantics, when you say socialism is bad.
But, when it's Nazis, then you start asking questions, like "Are they really?".
I find that remarkable.



By Ananas2xLekker 13,Mar,24 06:03
Again, no arguments at all. Sure, many agree, and they have no arguments EITHER!

Just a cut job clip of Biden making a joke. HAHAHA, he's old!

There is hours of Trump showing his brain rot. Go look at that!
And if you weren't so stupid yourself, you would understand that even before
his brain started rotting away, he was already too stupid to be president.
His ideas to cure people of corona were a bright light in the lungs and
injecting bleach. Hell, I've never even heard you say SUCH dumb things.
And that's saying something.

TS6 shows you Nazis and you say that shows that progressives are Idiot lunatics. WHY??? Why are progressives in any way remotely similar to Nazis?
Give a fucking coherent argument for once in your life!



By Ananas2xLekker 13,Mar,24 05:03
If your only argument is that the other side is stupid,
then you don't have an argument.



By Ananas2xLekker 13,Mar,24 05:03
Just from what you are saying "freedom vs. socialism" and "nazi give his opening statement", I'm expecting something incredibly ignorant, but I'm going to watch it.
With the low bar you're setting, it can only be better than expected.

----- watching a few minutes -----

What the fuck! Are you kidding me? This is just some WWII movie?
You were even worse than I expected. This is the biggest straw-man,
combined with projection, you ever presented. (That is, when I assume you're Trump_supporter_2, because as Trump_supporter_6 you haven't said much yet.
If you're not, than exchange "you" with "everyone here".)

The Nazi's were not socialists, they just used a term that was popular then. They did massive privatization of the means of production and they took away democracy.
Those are the opposites of what what I stand for and what my Socialist Party stands for.

Meanwhile, Trump is talking about being a dictator. He says "for a day", but that's all he needs to wipe out the opposition and destroy democracy. The next day he will pronounce the empire of Trump.
What freedom are you talking about? The freedom to vote for the Trump family?
Not the freedom to be a Democrat, a liberal, a socialist or to support any ideas besides misogyny, xenophobia, anti-science and totalitarianism.
Not the freedom to have an abortion, IVF or contraceptives. Not the freedom to travel out of state for it. Not the freedom to teach kids evolution or that gay people exist.
Most likely, not to have any religion besides Christianity, although Trump is not really a believer. It would depend if he would find Christianity useful or if he would prefer to exchange Jesus for Trump. Some of you already did. Freedom of the press will be turned into freedom to praise the Trump family. Freedom of expression will be expanded to be as much hateful and calling for violence towards minorities as you want, but any critique of that and the empire of Trump will be criminalized, just like Putin does.
Trump is the one who says the KKK are "fine people". He is actually being friendly with Nazis, but you project the love for Nazis onto me.
Trump is using hate and fear of minorities, to get his base angry and exited, just like Hitler did. His prime target is not the Jews, but the immigrants, the Muslims and the transgenders, but after you all deported and exterminated them, the gays and any non-white people will be next. Then you will thank the Jews for wiping out all the Palestines from the promised land and take it for yourself. You only act like you support them, because of that, but you hate them just as much as any other minority. I see you lot say that often enough.

If you cannot show your ideas to be better than mine, without using straw-men,
then you are just showing that you don't have any real arguments.



By Ananas2xLekker 12,Mar,24 11:34
"In 2021, atheists made up only 0.1% of the federal prison population"
only registered users can see external links



By Ananas2xLekker 12,Mar,24 08:00
I see the type of voting that you like. Are you a fan of the Russian 'democracy'?



By Ananas2xLekker 12,Mar,24 07:51
There are negatives of every power generation technology,
but only fossil fuels are the ones threatening humanity now.

Hydropower is the cheapest power generation technology we have.
Please do some research before you say something.
There's just one problem with it; climate change brings long periods of drought, which is creating problems for hydropower in many areas in the world.
That's one of the reasons for China is doing more coal power now. Record-breaking drought has caused some rivers in China, including parts of the Yangtze, to dry up, affecting hydropower.

You're not sticks in the mud to me, you're roadblocks on the way to progress.
Your road leads to a canyon, but like Thelma and Louise, you're speeding ahead.
But, it's not just you in that car, it's the sensible people too. And that's not fair.



By Ananas2xLekker 12,Mar,24 07:32
It doesn't really matter who you are or were, but it's useful to know,
so I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

I you cannot tell the difference between a Canadian and a Dutch guy,
that shows YOU have an incompetent weak mind.

There is no 'NEWS' that supports socialism. The choices are limited to publicly funded broadcasting services, commercial broadcasting companies, independent YouTubers funded by views and commercial YouTubers and YouTube channels funded by donations. The publicly funded broadcasting services are incredibly centrist. They'll allow some programmers to make more left-wing and more right-wing programs, but none of that even comes close to socialism, or your MAGA extremism.
The commercial broadcasters are all owned and funded by large corporations. They don't allow any ideas that threaten their power. Many of the commercial YouTubers are funded by the same large corporations, but they lack the journalistic integrity. They'll either express their own ideas that are useful to their corporate donors or they'll lie for their corporate donors,
if they'll pay enough. None of those corporate donors like socialism, because it will the end the power and wealth of their wealthy owners.

About 75% of my media consumption is apolitical. It's things like this:
only registered users can see external links
Or this: only registered users can see external links
So, how is that brainwashing me? They are debates where both sides present their arguments and evidence and it's up to the listener to decide what they think holds the most truth. How often do you consider the arguments of the other side?

The one who is brainwashed is you; everything you think favors the wealthy donors of your media, who put those ideas in your head. You're a gullible sheep to them. That concerns your right-wing views and your religion.
Your religion has primed you to accept everything they tell you, without criticism or independent thought. It's all useful to the powers who control you.
And you are doing nothing but projection.

"the truth shows in you every single time."
Thanks! I cannot say the same about you, unfortunately. Do better!
At least I try to be mature and authentic. Can you say the same?



By Ananas2xLekker 12,Mar,24 06:23
You better care about it, because it causes damage to society.
The only reason why it's not controlled to do less damage,
is because some people get wealthy from abusing the system.

Some people get wealthy from drugs too. People who use drugs should know better too. Still, you want to keep fighting the war on drugs, which hasn't worked at all. What's the difference for you?
Why is abusing stupid people who get addicted to drugs illegal and why should abusing stupid people who put themselves into debt with crazy high interests rates, which they never get out of, be legal?

Limiting predatory loans WILL work, because they are legal.
Regulation is the solution. (it's already legalized and taxed)
If you have a problem with stupid people making stupid decisions, banning the stupid decisions will only make things worse,
because they'll get what they want or need from an illegal source.
That's because praying on stupid people is very profitable.
The solution is prohibiting the damaging type and providing a
less damaging alternative, legally. Then most of the stupid people
will take the alternative and most of the damage is prevented.

The pay day loan system is sort of the legalized version of mafia
loan sharks, who break your legs if you don't pay back. The current alternative is less damaging, but NOT ENOUGH, because you just legalized the mafia. They won't break your legs, but they still scam people with contracts and interest rates, with the goal of taking everything they own. That's like legalizing the drugs cartels.
That's stupid, the solution should always include regulating the providers too. It's what my country did wrong, when they permitted
the sale of cannabis, but not the suppliers of the coffee shops.
And when they legalized the personal use of XTC and cocaine,
but not the suppliers. That resulted in a massive crime network.
And the idiot politicians still won't correct their mistake.

You shouldn't have Don Corleone manage the pay day loan business and not let El Chapo provide the legalized weed, XTC and coke.

I have the same solution for similar problems.
Your solutions are wildly different, depending on your feelings.



By Ananas2xLekker 12,Mar,24 06:15
I have a foresight to see what America can become in the future,
but you are all running towards it with blinders on.

Whatever Putin says is pure propaganda. Whatever he says, hear the opposite.
He uses the term 'Nazi' to kill everyone he wants to kill, you use the term 'terrorist'.



By Ananas2xLekker 12,Mar,24 06:00
Per capita, the average crime rate of the red states is much higher than
the crime rate of the blue states. Especially the violent crime.

only registered users can see external links



By Ananas2xLekker 11,Mar,24 13:35
I though crime only happened in New York? This is Florida, DeSantis' state.



By Ananas2xLekker 11,Mar,24 13:27
The economy is not intended to benefit you normal Americans, it's intended to further enrich the wealthy. Profits have been soaring since the pandemic.

That $ 6 trillion in pandemic relief, that Trump approved, and for a big part caused the inflation, all went into the pockets of the wealthy, while small companies went bankrupt and were bought up by large companies, houses were bought up by private equity firms, and while the normal American got fired and hired at reduced wages.

At least, under Biden, the wages are going up again, making large companies share some of their record profits with the average American.
But, of course you don't like that either.



By Ananas2xLekker 11,Mar,24 13:07
OPEC is a legalized cartel. The US would have the power to break it, but your politicians have kept it in place, because your own oil companies profit from it too.

Oil companies fund your Republicans 3x more than your Democrats. That's why every time progressive Democrats try to pass legislation that would limit oil companies price gauging the American people, all the Republicans and a few corporate Democrats, like Joe Manchin, who got rich from the fossil fuel business, vote against it.

Another reason for why the prices haven't dropped is Russia.
Europe doesn't buy Russian oil anymore, because of Ukraine.
Now the other oil countries, including the US, provides that oil at higher prices.
It's your biggest export product now. That demand creates higher prices for you.



By Ananas2xLekker 11,Mar,24 12:32
"well, have you ever really studied what it cost to run for Prez?"

Do you understand the failure of your system, when you say that?
People should be able to participate in politics, based on an constituent of voters trusting someone to represent their ideas, not based on their wealth. Because then, they most likely just represent their wealth; their own self-interest.
Democracy is about representation of voters, not representing the self-interests of one wealthy person.

We have a prime minister and it costs NOTHING to run for that function.
You just need to be a member of a political party, climb up through the ranks to be placed on #1 of their election list and then get the most votes with that party.

For any outsider who wants to be prime minister, they need the signatures of 580 voters, $491,73 to register and deposit $12.293,32 to the State, which they would get back, if they can reach a minimum of votes corresponding to 75% of 1 seat.

Political campaigns cost money, even in our country, but a poor man has the exact same chances as a rich man, because people cannot use their own money to run for any office, in my country. It at least requires a political movement, with people supporting it, to get into any office. That's a safeguard to prevent any wealthy despot to just buy themself into power.



By Ananas2xLekker 11,Mar,24 11:34
OK, at least I knew what to look for now, because for people who are not in the right-wing conspiracy corners of the internet, this is not a thing. The sourse of this story is Chairwoman Amy Tarkanian claiming that the unusually long meeting with the Pope, the day prior, may have been caused by a “bathroom accident” involving the president. That's what your side turns into shitting on the Vatican floor and them making him wear a diaper. You are all so immature.

If you actually have some evidence, than I'm very much willing to accept it. It's not like the family of politicians never misuse that fact to improve their own status in life. But you randomly quoting lines that you're not even linking to sources, is not evidence.

"Socialists are atheists. The meaning of a country or by definition is not the same comparing us."
Is this supposed to represent something I said? I happen to be a socialist and an atheist, but there is no link between those life views, other than that I base them both on rationality and humanism. True, I try to base almost everything on logic, even compassion, because I think compassion makes the world better. But all of it is inspired by this idea: I want the world to be a better place and I want humanity to survive. Why would I want this? Just 'numerically'? Do you want this? Is that a common frame of reference? If so, is that enough to base a discussion on?

Do you think democracy makes the world better? I do. So does my Socialist Party.
But, why support someone who praises the least democratic leaders in the world, like Viktor Orbán, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un and Mohammed bin Salman?
I have never heard Trump praise any democratic leader, as much as he praises all of these authoritarian monsters. Do you define democracy differently?

I think utopia is a fantasy; one person's utopia is another person's hell.
The best we can do is respect people's human dignity, provide everyone with the basic necessities for life and self development, respect other people's rights and freedoms, and do our best to work together to achieve those goals.

You might be correct that we are incapable of understanding each other.
That common frame of reference is facts. If we cannot agree on facts and reality itself, it will be hard to agree on opinions about them.

I think a belief in a god is limiting, not inspirational; it reduces all the questions in life and fascination about the complexity of nature and reality, to one simple answer: "God did it!". I prefer searching for the truth, over having the answers.

"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt. I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned."
-- Richard Feynman



By Ananas2xLekker 11,Mar,24 10:57
Both kebmo and I have accounts that are years old, with a long history of engagement in this community. We have similar opinions on politics, just like you have similar opinions on politics with phart and dgraff. I understand that you are not the same person as them, so why do you think we are?
There are actually more liberals than people like you in the world.

I don't believe you even really think what you are saying. You are either gaslighting or you think it's funny.

This is a site for adults, discussing adult subjects. Every sexual orientation and fetish is represented here. If you are not mature enough to handle that, you don't have to be here, you can leave.



By Ananas2xLekker 11,Mar,24 09:57
Maybe some of the skills, but the principles are the exact opposite.
To be wealthy, requires nothing but selfishness.
To be a leader of a country who benefits its citizens requires dedication to the needs of everyone else, instead of yourself. It requires empathy, wisdom, patience and courage, instead of narcissism.



By Ananas2xLekker 11,Mar,24 09:43
Russia fought against the Nazis too, in WWII. They lost 27 million people.
And you think the US should have double-crossed them and conquered them?
On what principles do you even base your ideas?



By Ananas2xLekker 11,Mar,24 08:20
The fact that you think that's logical, shows who you are.
You're obviously the same person, with a new account.
Your new account is just as empty as your last one.
It shows you have no intent of actually engaging in this community.



By Ananas2xLekker 11,Mar,24 07:53
There are indeed some people who got rich or wealthy, by taking a big risk and that risk working out. Some were working for a boss and they took a risk being self employed. That's what my brother did and it is working for him. My brother in law tried it two times and lost his house over it. It doesn't require just taking a risk, it does require a brain. Unless you start out by winning the birth lottery. If you have rich or wealthy parents, it doesn't require taking a risk, because your parents will protect you from the financial and legal ramifications, when you gamble wrong. They will see it as valuable experiments to success. Those people can keep screwing up, until they learn or get lucky.
Lower and middle class people don't have that luxury. If their experiment doesn't work out, they are stuck working off the debt from their gamble for years to come.

Life is not without risk. That's not what you were talking about, so don't muddle the discussion. Poor people are taking way more risk of getting killed in a work accident than a manager, a CEO or an investment banker. There is a difference in the type of risk. Some people have a 1 in 10,000 risk of getting killed on the job. Other people have a 90% chance that their investment doesn't work out. That 10% that did find their gamble paid out, might have been smarter, but a big percentage of them was just lucky. And once they've had their first lucky break, the risk goes way down for the next gamble. The previous experiment provides inside into what works, people think they are smart and they have a financial buffer that allows a risk, without going broke.
Most people who are rich or wealthy started out with rich or wealthy parents. Most of the few that made it from rags to riches started out with a lucky break. Only a minority of rich and wealthy people are actually the very smart and talented people that you think all of them are.
And then some of them were just as morally deficient as those dope dealers and stealing people you talk about. Many start by scamming people, taking the pensions from old people. Then there are the legal, but morally deficient rich people who make money from payday lending companies, investment apps and g@mbling sites. They make money from gullible people. Their money making strategy causes incredible damage to society and should be regulated to death. But, I'm sure you don't agree and you respect people who get rich that way.

"The 1's that don't take any risk are the 1's laid up at home, having never worked, on dope bought with money from stuff they stole and etc."
There are people who are useless. But that's not the 50% of people who will struggle to survive all of their lives.

We cannot all be the owner class. Some people need to do actual work.
That actual work needs to be rewarded, with enough money to afford a place to live, healthy food on the table, healthcare, some luxuries and providing your kids the best education that they are capable of.



By Ananas2xLekker 07,Mar,24 17:37
If it requires risk taking, then it's not a choice, but LUCK!



By Ananas2xLekker 07,Mar,24 17:32
I have never seen him not be transparent. He actually answers serious questions.
How old was he when he took a shit on the Vatican floor?
If he was 3, OK, if he was an adult man, as an atheist, I would find that based!