prove me wrong

[Eagle 1]

Sure but doesn't that mean you're wrong to say it happened 'whether you like it or not'?

It happened because a govt you elected decided it should happen (assuming you vote in elections)

The people who voted Labor in the UK didn't vote for open borders just like in the US. I've got relations in Eng and they were staunch Labor voters, but not anymore.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

The people who voted Labor in the UK didn't vote for open borders just like in the US. I've got relations in Eng and they were staunch Labor voters, but not anymore.

So you (or they) no longer support western parliamentary type systems? Or will simply just support a different party?

 

[Brookie1973]

Haven't heard you say that before, interesting.

Do you agree with Alex Jones, Steve Bannon, Jessie Watters and others that the assassination of Kirk shows 'we are at war'?

Don’t follow any of those guys, but I’d say the left essentially declared war years ago.

Do you agree with me that western culture is in terminal decline, thanks to “cultural totalitarianism”?

 

[Brookie1973]

Don't you think the levels of immigration from time to time are set by elected governments in those countries?

The traditional two party duopoly is one of the reasons the west is in terminal decline. No viable alternative outside the vested interest controlled mainstream parties. Reform in the UK is the only example I am aware of. In Australia, the situation is made even worse by two party preferred voting.

 

[Eagle 1]

So you (or they) no longer support western parliamentary type systems? Or will simply just support a different party?

No, they support parties that align with what they want, and right now it's probably the Reform Party who are a big chance of winning the next election.

 

[Ohgeez]

Turns out to be "if you can read this you're gay" was inscribed.
Seems to be not something a lefty would say would you agree?

Nice selective reading skills you got there. Would the fascist stuff or the furry references inscribed be something a lefty would say?

 

[Uk eagle]

The traditional two party duopoly is one of the reasons the west is in terminal decline. No viable alternative outside the vested interest controlled mainstream parties. Reform in the UK is the only example I am aware of. In Australia, the situation is made even worse by two party preferred voting.

Reform are run by a mini-Trump wannabe whose policies are like a weather vane of popular opinion.

 

[Eagle 1]

Reform are run by a mini-Trump wannabe whose policies are like a weather vane of popular opinion.

And the popular opinion is. Get Reform in. Labor and the Tories have had their chance certainly can't do any worse.

 

[lsz]

Considering the next UK election has to be held no later than August 2029 you might be waiting a bit

 

[Brookie1973]

Reform are run by a mini-Trump wannabe whose policies are like a weather vane of popular opinion.

God forbid a political party actually had policies which aligned with popular opinions. I sometimes think people forget politicians are there to serve people, not dictate to them. At least that’s how it used to be.

 

[Cliffycomeback]

Huge protest currently underway in London. It's the biggest I've seen. These are extremely volatile times we live in. It's probably time people stopped fighting each other because of politics. Kindness, courtesy, selflessness and being prepared to show forgiveness seems like something we need more than ever. The world is spiralling out of control very quickly. Nowhere is immune, not even Australia.

 

[Eagle 1]

Considering the next UK election has to be held no later than August 2029 you might be waiting a bit

I could be wrong Iza, but, can't the opposition call for a no confidence vote against the ruling Starmer Gov. Labor won by a big margin in the UK, but stranger things have happened tho.

 

[h27272727]

So, because I can’t be bothered retyping something rather than copying links to suit your preferred method of interaction, my arguments have no validity? That makes a lot of sense. Just for the hell if it, attached are some examples of divisive Obama statements from Marco Rubio. Will that suffice, or do you need actual audio tapes of Obamas voice?

Back to the big picture, my position is that the fracturing of political discourse in America started with the Obama presidency and the denigration/demonisation of conservatives, and what we now see playing out is the ugly consequence of that. If you don’t believe that conservatives have been increasingly vilified by the political left from the time Obama took office, then nothing I say will make any difference. You do remember the Trump assassination attempt right?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1038390674884907008

To preface, I am not terribly interested in defending Obama's efficacy as president here; that period of time is long gone. As per the 'Trump' thread you claimed 'Obama started it' w.r.t violent political rhetoric. That struck me as an interesting idea, so I will focus on that here.

Of those 4 examples offered by Rubio, I am struggling to see how they justify your strong opinion on Obama laying the foundation for the divisive use of language by Trump and the wider MAGA movement. Trump's political rhetoric is inflammatory, highly targeted, frequent and often reckless. It is also systemic, being exhibited by figures such as Hegseth, Miller, Vance and Bondi (to name a few). Beyond this, its also extended beyond rhetoric into real world actions; many of which have since been deemed illegal (and yet ignored).

1. Calls all opponents of same-sex marriage bigots

• This is not rhetoric against political opponents (i.e. 'radical leftists', 'far right extremists'), nor is it targeted against a particular race or minority group. There's gay Republican and Democrat supporters. Who exactly is being attacked here?
• Bigot definition: A bigot is a person who is utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from his own.
  • Those that wish to overturn same-sex marriage without religious grounds do so because they dont think it should be tolerated by anyone in society. i.e. bigotry. They have a right to feel that way, sure. But by definition it meets the criteria.
  • For those with deep religious views (such as Rubio who provided that tweet), it is more complex to separate moral beliefs from bigotry. But it is not unreasonable to describe religious ideas to be intolerant w.r.t the same-sex issue
• Assessment: Not violent political rhetoric. Untargeted. Primarily grounded on factual basis. Use of term 'bigot' is appropriate w.r.t. its dictionary definition.

2. Call the Pro-Life movement a "War on Women"

• This one implicitly targets some Republicans, who traditionally oppose abortion-rights. Still, religious and cultural factors generally dictate an individual's stance. I don't neccessarily agree that this explicitly attacks all republicans, nor that is it limited to republicans.
• From Wiki: "War on women" is a slogan in United States politics used to describe certain Republican Party policies and legislation as a wide-scale effort to restrict women's rights, especially reproductive rights, including abortion.
• Roe v. Wade (1973): The Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade established a constitutional right to abortion, with states permitted to regulate but not ban abortion before fetal viability.
• Trump vs Hillary debate (2016): (on Roe. v Wade) "Well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that ... will happen automatically in my opinion because I am putting pro-life justices on the court,"
• 2022: 6-3 conservative majority in the supreme court allow Mississippi's overturn of Roe v Wade. 14 Republican states repealed the right to abortion for the first time in nearly 50 years.
• Current: List of additional actions against female rights.
• Assessment: A loose implicit link to Republicans but far removed from the blanket demonisation common today: e.g. 'leftist extremist', “They’re poisoning the blood of our country,”(on immmigrants). If not valid at the time (?), Obama's statement has undoubtedly been vindicated since. Republican party policies and legislation since then did not further women's rights. Nor did they keep them the same.

3. Call all immigration enforcement advocates racists

• Can you find this quote? I have not been able to find related quotes on this; appears either unfounded or skewed.
• Curious if advocates indicates 1-2 individuals or blanket. If former, could've been calling those 1-2 people racist. Without further information im unable to make a judgment on this claim.

4. Call the GOP the enemy of Hispanics

• Obama clarified those comments not long after making them: “Now the Republicans are saying that I’m calling them enemies,” “What I’m saying is you’re an opponent of this particular provision, comprehensive immigration reform, which is something very different.”
  • Even the need to address this gives weight to the idea that under Obama potentially divisive comments were not commonplace. They are almost daily under Trump 2.0. Most certainly daily once right wing media is factored in (eg. the fox guy today freely saying that the homeless and mentally ill should all be subject to 'involuntary lethal injections').
• Comprehensive immigration reform has since been enacted by Republicans as Obama warned the Hispanic community.
  • Many Hispanic MAGA far right influencers have since begun expressing remorse about advocating for his reelection.
  • Deportation Data Project at UC Berkeley Law - nearly 70% of those arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement from June 1 through June 10 had no criminal convictions. (includes people living in US for decades)
  • Latino's disproportionally fear they will be deported.
  • Immigration advocates warned that the supreme court has “effectively legalized racial profiling”
  • “We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job."-LA mayor, 2025
• Assessment: Original quote since clarified, although largely benign to begin with. Hispanics have since been subject to mass-deportation and holding without due process and against court rulings. Clarified comment appears to have been vindicated.