The Real timschochet

Sorry no

No it isn’t.

No you’re wrong. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/the-man-accused-of-attacking-paul-pelosi-with-a-hammer-says-he-wanted-to-end-corruption He was a Qanon Trump fan. Sorry.

No, I wrote that your loving praise of Trump was similar to the poems written to Stalin in the 30s. And it was.

What? Where did you get that from?

If I had choose one person in this forum most guilty of spewing irresponsible, hateful rhetoric, it would quite easily be you. I was hoping what happened yesterday taught you a lesson. It doesn’t appear that it has.

OK. Please stop wasting everyone’s time.

And it was a Trump supporter who shot the guy in Minnesota and another Trump supporter who attacked Paul Pelosi. I don’t think we should go there with “supporters.” With regard to Marxism: it’s an all encompassing term that describes both socialists and Communists. As a general rule socialists have been non-violent and Communists have been violent. The break between them came about 120 years ago (the whole Bolshevik- Menshevik divide.) There are no prominent American Communists. The prominent American socialists are all non-violent.

Antifa is violent.i don’t believe BLM was involved in violence.

Who are the most prominent leftists in America today? I would argue: Bernie Sanders, AOC, and now Momdani. These three are the ones who openly and prominently carry the socialist banner, wouldn’t you agree? But none of them have ever promoted political violence.

I never said this either. I said that crime occurs most often when poverty exists, which is an obvious truth. Even so, if you go to the most poverty ridden areas of this country, the majority of people there are still law abiding and don’t commit crimes. So there are other elements involved.

What I wrote was neither an excuse nor an explanation. It was, for me, the truth. And no I don’t believe it applies to everyone. IMO there are people on both sides who deliberately use terrible and hateful language to describe the other side, KNOWING that it isn’t so. The most obvious example being, of course, Donald Trump. But that’s not what I was doing. Ever.

This is not correct. What I wrote at the time, and still firmly believe, was that it was wrong to conflate the peaceful protests with the riots and that in most cases they had nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

I only ask because once again, just like every other time they are in power, despite warning us (correctly) that our current level of national debt is unsustainable and will eventually lead us to a catastrophe…they are voting to increase it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/05/15/gop-tax-deficit-bill/ Trump’s new “beautiful bill” will increase the debt by 2.5 trillion over the next 10 years. So do they REALLY care?

I was t trying to be cowardly. The discussion/disagreement between @Strike and @TheNewGirl is one that I think about a lot. I lean toward what Strike thinks (a rarity I know!) but I’m honestly unsure. One of my main objections in the numerous tranny threads is that I don’t believe the folks declaring transgenders to be mentally ill really know about the science of mental illness. They are arguing, IMO, based on their emotions about trannies, and not what science or medical experts say. It would therefore be entirely hypocritical of me to try and do the same thing here. I am no medical expert therefore I should not comment too strongly on what is and what is not mental illness, I don’t think others who haven’t studied this should either.

No I’m not. If you’re going to instruct me not to tell you what to do (even though I did use the word “please”) then stop telling me what I’m OK with.

OK we disagree.

I would argue that Tony loved his son and daughter. That wasn’t fake. So how do you square that with your beliefs?

Have I been guilty of criticizing conservatives for political violence in the past while ignoring violence from liberals? Sure. Am I a partisan? Yes. Your turn.

No but there certainly is around mental illness.

Well Dexter is only one example. Let’s take two other TV characters. In your opinion: Tony Soprano: good or evil? Walter White: good or evil?

Is this a philosophical question or a scientific question? Or both? Also, I think it’s possible for a good person to commit evil acts and vise versa, without permanently defining them as such.

I don’t think an evil person is necessarily lacking empathy. Some of the worst Nazi murderers absolutely loved their families, animals, small children, etc. That didn’t stop them performing atrocities.

With regard to Charlie Kirk: I’m very sorry he’s dead. I respect the fact that he engaged in peaceful discussion with his opponents. I really admire that about him. And I hope that you’re right about his death uniting us. On the other hand, I reject this attempt I am seeing on the right to paint Charlie Kirk as a martyr or saint. Personally I found many of his views to be not only wrong but morally abhorrent. I won’t comment any more because I have no desire to speak ill of the dead but I don’t and will not regard this man as some sort of hero.

First off please don’t personalize. I never once posted that it is correct to destroy cities. Nor do I know anyone here who has done so. Nor do I know any prominent Democrat, liberal, or leftist who has done so. I challenge you to show me otherwise. I haven’t seen conservatives do it either. I HAVE seen jerks on both sides sometimes cheer for bad results (like when @Horseman responded to the Los Angeles fires with “Fock yeah! Fock California! Burn it all down!”) but that’s hardly representative. I have also seen both liberals and conservatives attempt to minimize political violence (Jan 6 being the most obvious example) but that’s not the same as cheering it on. So I reject your entire premise here.