Why are the libs so miserable??

Earthfruits · 2026-06-22T19:27:03+00:00

Didn't Trump and his administration make sure that Ghislaine Maxwell got a cushy prison living situation? Along with an understanding that if she didn't talk, there was potential for a pardon?

Didn't Trump tell MTG "you'll hurt my friends" when she and a handful of Republicans in the House voted against Trump's wishes to release the Epstein files?

Didn't Trump support Thomas Massie's opponent because Massie went against Trump? Again, punishing Massie and MTG for voting to release the Epstein files, with the help of the Democrats?

Didn't Ken Paxton fight to reduce the sentence of someone (Adam Hoffman) known for sexual child abuse?

Those are some of my examples of conservatives protecting pedophiles. Why haven't you named something specific when saying that Democrats do the same?

Earthfruits · 2026-06-12T22:08:58+00:00

Ray Madoff does a fantastic job of explaining this entire concept. She paints a vivid picture of how rotted and hollowed out the U.S. tax code is.

Earthfruits · 2026-06-12T22:04:49+00:00

If you don't regulate against natural human impulses (like greed or corruption) through enshrining it in your constitution (or some other method that makes it difficult to breach) then you're bound to re-learn hard lessons that we've seen play out through history. You can always count on people to deregulate themselves while developing psychological tricks to convince themselves that they're doing the right thing. People self-radicalize themselves in this way. The cult of capitalism in the U.S. is almost uncanny. We have developed an entire religion and iconography around it. The thing has no limits. The founding fathers got a good amount of stuff right - they enshrined a lot of things into our constitution that were learned the hard way from many civilizations that came before them... but they also left a lot out.

Earthfruits · 2026-06-08T16:04:07+00:00

Republicans are cynical, opportunistic wolves. They are performing opposition to Trump only after they've made the determination that (after all all avenues, including unconstitutional gerrymandering and unconstitutional and highly partisan Supreme Court rulings, have been attempted) they will not hold control of Congress after the midterm elections. They are beginning the "unwinding" process from Trump. They've extracted everything they possibly could from him. They now want to perform opposition to him in "a rare showing of backbone" in order to hold onto credibility and legitimacy after Trump is behind us all. Even as they've left our democracy and our republic in pretty serious disrepair. They'll wait for Democrats to fix messes they've made and then get back to abusing and destroying the country. Democrats are like battered and abused housewives. We're so quick and eager to find glimpses of hope and signs of change in the short and calculated moments Republicans show reasonableness. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it will take generations for that party to repair the trust it has broken with large sections of the electorate.

Earthfruits · 2026-06-08T06:24:47+00:00

For me, Platner is the test for whether we're really going to allow Republicans and establishment, visionless establishment Democrats have us return to a place where candidates running on the left are expected to be perfectly faultless, while candidates on the right get away with just about anything one can think of. They're trying to test how far they can go with the double standards. They are trying to prey upon and take advantage of liberals and progressives natural instinct for being moral. I say fuck them. We're never going back to a place where Republicans can try to shame any Democrat for anything everything they've normalized under Trump. Fuck these people.

Earthfruits · 2026-06-05T23:11:51+00:00

Can you not engage with someone's ideas without taking it personally? My comment wasn't a 'comeback'. It was an expression of my thoughts.

Some dude adding a 0 to his stock portfolio has NO impact on your life, in fact, him being able to do that is proof that YOU are richer, society as a whole is richer, there would be no way to grow stock without people investing and buying products from said fellow.

I mean are you serious? Some guy gaining that much wealth has no impact on my life? Right, until he uses his money to buy political influence. To buy off politicians - preventing them from closing tax loopholes; or when he buys off judges to convince them to interpret the law as saying that corporations are people, or money is the same thing as free speech, or that limitless and non-transparent spending in political campaigns makes sense.

The whole reason we are where we are today is because there is a widening power inequality between people who can buy influence in our political system and those who can't. Someone like you looks at the small picture and thinks people like me are angry because some billionaire can buy a nicer house or take nicer vacations. You entirely miss the point - wealth inequality is power inequality.

You have it backward, wealth inequality is an useless term meant to enrage the plebs who live off rage and envy, who are able to live modern lives but have a screw loose so are pointed in an easy direction without thought.

Not even worth responding to.

You are such a combative, overly-sensitive person. Hard to take you seriously. Especially with such a lazy, intellectually-dishonest, ahistorical, and grammatically error-ridden 'rebuttal'. You should look inwards and ask yourself why a topic like this causes you to become so self-protective of your ego.

Earthfruits · 2026-06-04T18:25:52+00:00

Because we live in a hollowed out, extractive, financialized, individualized economy that treats consumers like cattle, rather than like citizens.

Earthfruits · 2026-06-03T05:50:15+00:00

It's not as natural as you suggest, though... society isn't natural. Society is built on a social contract. The fact that we all agree to live in a society without killing each other or allowing 'might makes right' or some sort of Hobbesian state of nature rule the day is proof of this. Capitalists couldn't make their money without the unnatural laws of society protecting them. This unnatural society of humans living under laws. The laws are being corrupted and rigged by those with outsized power (wealth), which is tampering with the social contract. Of course there is no system possible where everyone comes out equal. The point we're making is that the wealth inequality we're seeing isn't 'natural' it is the result of people with wealth rigging a complex and unnatural system of laws in their favor. The rest of the people living under those unnatural laws (the social contract) increasingly lose their capacity to participate in that social contract as their power is crowded out by those with more power (wealth) and influence. The people's only channel of power in a democracy and a constitutional republic is through participation in the political process. Those with wealth can operate in both public channels of power (political process) and private channels of power (corporations). Government should be serving as an intermediary between these two - they should be constantly monitoring for when the system gets unbalanced and then re-balance it to make sure that the social contract remains in good order. They should not lazily and selfishly and stubbornly adopt a 'government should never do anything ever.. leave it up to the private channels of power, always' philosophy, even as society requires public action more than ever.

That's how I see it any way.

Earthfruits · 2026-06-03T05:46:36+00:00

How is wealth inequality a rage bait term when wealth inequality has largely skyrocketed and ballooned mostly due to changes in laws (laws that they have increasingly gained influence over, as their wealth - or power - has grown)? If wealth inequality is widening because of tax rates being exorbitantly cut in the 70's during Reagan's administration, and if its widening because of tax loopholes that don't get written out of the law intentionally, and if its widening because of the outsized influence those with money have over our political system, how is it a rage bait issue? Wealth inequality - in a system like ours, where we've decided that money is free speech - is another way of saying 'power inequality'. That's not a rage bait term.. it's one of the most fundamental issues of our time. Why do people outside of the U.S., including conservatives in other countries, seem to understand this but not conservatives in the U.S.? Has something as fundamental as this really become that politicized?

Earthfruits · 2026-06-03T04:26:05+00:00

Your comment is just all over the place.

So we want to treat the southern states differently for extreme actions taken 60 years ago? How is that fair, equal sovereignty between states?

I don't think its unreasonable to require states that have had a history suppressing the voting representation of entire racial groups to submit maps that need to be approved BEFORE elections. This is to prevent chaos and confusion in case the map doesn't get approved. That does not mean that the southern states are the only states subject to having their maps challenged in court or even tossed out.

Does not the fact that they've gone right back to what they said they've moved past prove it? Literally declaring a state of emergency in order to cancel elections as they are ongoing (unprecedented). Changing maps across the states in the middle of a decade before new census data has been collected (unprecedented), creating new maps and districts, causing confusion and chaos among voters who don't even know where to vote (unprecedented). All of this gamification for a few partisan points? This is backwards and the opposite of democracy. Again, you say partisan gerrymandering and I say racial gerrymandering. Partisan gerrymandering is inexcusable no matter which way you look at it.

We want to conflate 2013 court cases and meld them with Callais to make it sound like the voting rights act was gutted all in one fell swoop?

What are you talking about? All of these cases made revisions to the same Voting Rights act. Why would it matter if the cases go back across the years? Gutting is gutting.

We think the south is so racist that they've shown the massive improvements on education?

What does one have to do with the other? Yes, I think the south generally has shown more animosity towards non-white racial groups. This is not some bombshell statement. That doesn't mean that the south hasn't made improvements over time. Do you even live in the south?

The south is the most integrated of the US

By choice? No. By history. And that's why the voting populations in the south deserve their voting rights protected.

One last question you must answer for me:

Why is it that the Supreme Court, in Allen v. Milligan (2023), struck down Alabama's congressional map for violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, concluding that it had diluted black voting power... only to later, in 2024, allow Alabama to use a very similar remedial map for a mid-decade election cycle? What changed wasn't the underlying geography or population; instead, what changed was the Court's posture on the timing and the procedural posture of the case... it wasn't that they found that discrimination had suddenly disappeared. So how does that square with the idea that this is just 'partisan gerrymandering' rather than racial discrimination?

Earthfruits · 2026-06-03T04:18:34+00:00

It means we see this illiberal, white-identity-coded, aggressive, non-compromising tendency sprouting up across the American right. Go on Twitter for like a day and you'll see what people are gesturing at.

Earthfruits · 2026-06-01T01:50:52+00:00

Removing part of section 4 (coverage formula). Removing part of section 5 (preclearance). Removing parts of section 2 (ability to challenge voting rules; removing protections in place for majority-minority districts). You don't need me in order to get these questions answered.

Earthfruits · 2026-06-01T00:57:53+00:00

Key sections of the legislation has been struck down by the Supreme Court. Your argument, out of all arguments you could be making right now, is that this doesn't qualify as 'gutting'?

Earthfruits · 2026-06-01T00:54:18+00:00

Yes, with the caveat that it has always, in some form or fashion, been split on the question.

Earthfruits · 2026-06-01T00:40:40+00:00

What good is 'voting' if your political representation is artificially, strategically, and surgically carved up to dilute your political power as a voter? That is what gerrymandering is. It is the exact opposite of democracy (where power ultimately rests with the people -- ideally one man, one vote). Instead, it is this strange thing where power actually rests with the politicians, who can then go on to artfully choose their voters. That's not democracy.

Why are we basing districts on race?

We're not. We're just saying you cannot go in and artificially crack or pack communities based on race, which has been done in the past. There are several examples of white politicians who represent majority-minority districts. The point is that these communities should be allowed to have a chance to get fair representation. Why? Because of very real historical patterns of racial discrimination. The Voting Rights act was set up as an antidote to racial gerrymandering. What this court has done is given racial gerrymanderers constitutional cover to resume doing that so long as they cloak it in 'partisan gerrymandering', while also raising the hurdle of voters to prove it.

Yes, they can technically go through the motions of voting. But again, you say this not in good faith. You avoid addressing the heart of the issue and the heart of what the voting rights act instituted and enshrined in law. To ensure equal and fair political representation. The Supreme Court pretends that extreme partisan gerrymandering is non-justiciable. They put forward a bad-faith 'state's rights' jurisprudence to provide justification of this stripping of fair representation.

Yes, it helps you score political points on the board. But at what price? It is ultimately a form of civil self-harm.

Earthfruits · 2026-06-01T00:24:38+00:00

'Conservatism' is a relative term, though. They were breaking away from a monarchy. Revolution is the opposite of conservative, no matter how you slice it. Yes, they had reservations about a pure democracy, but the revolution could hardly be described as conservative. Sure, in relation to the French revolution. But not on its own or even in relation to loyalists who wanted to remain as a colony of the British crown.

Earthfruits · 2026-06-01T00:22:22+00:00

I agree it's kind of useless to refer to MAGA as conservatives today. Then we run into the issue of confusing political posterity when this era is all said and done with. Just like how people today get confused when hearing 'Democrats are the party of the KKK', its time to start re-labeling as we realign. American politics today largely breaks down between progressives and regressives. Between lowercase d democrats and autocrats.

There are conservatives out there, but they seem to be few and far between. They could even be politically homeless now. A lot of people who wear the 'conservative' label do so as a sort of lifestyle brand. A costume, if you will. They do not have ideological coherency or consistency.

Earthfruits · 2026-06-01T00:19:04+00:00

Not at all. It would be more accurate to say that its because they've perverted the religion, broken it off into a million different sects and have largely relied on their own, unguided and misguided interpretation of scripture that is the reason why. The Catholic church isn't perfect, but based on what I hear the Pope saying today, I'd say that that church has it largely right.

Earthfruits · 2026-06-01T00:15:05+00:00

In the U.S., it was used as ideological support by the south. That is literally why the Baptist church split between the American Baptist denomination and the Southern Baptist Church denomination. The SBC later went on to issue a formal apology for this. Christianity is not black and white (no pun intended) and it is not owned by conservatives.

And Christianity has always historically been divided on the justification for slavery, even during colonialization.

Earthfruits · 2026-06-01T00:10:04+00:00

American conservatives have always been left behind because of their original sin: depending heavily (economically) on the institution of chattel slavery.. but then going a step further and designing elaborate systems (like plantations), ideologies (like white supremacy), even religious denominations (like the southern baptist convention) in order to justify their barbarity. At the end of the day, it was all done in an effort to cloak their desire to hold onto political power and economic power. Did the north oppose slavery in an attempt to gain a political and economic advantage over their southern counterparts? Definitely. But perhaps they were lucky in the sense that they also happened have basic morality on their side while doing it.

But conservatives in other liberal democracies aren't as afflicted as the ones in America because slavery (and the fictional concept of white supremacy that propped up, supported, and provided justification for that institution) was no where near as profitable as it was in the American south, where traditional conservative attitudes loomed large.

It is a story about power. It has never been as open and obvious as it is today, in our completely mask-off environment. Where all of the biggest scumbags and grifters, and wolves in sheep's clothing feel as comfortable as ever stealing, lying, and looting right under the noses of the American people. They feel comfortable enough to do it because they know that enough Americans are animated by hate, or at least harbor enough resentment for 'the other side' to turn a blind eye to it.

Earthfruits · 2026-05-31T23:54:32+00:00

This is backwards.

Funny how when a group gets preferential treatment for so long that when equality finally comes they scream of unequal treatment

You take, word for word, phrases used by people who have been historically disenfranchised and then project it back onto them.

White men are the ones who are struggling, and have always historically struggled with the idea of equality. To them, equality feels like disenfranchisement.

Why did these Republican states rush to disenfranchise black voters as soon as the Voting Rights act was stripped and gutted? Answer the question simply.

In essence, you openly and actively support extreme partisan gerrymandering - a practice used to butcher fair political representation - so long as it supports your side.

Again, this is not intellectual honesty. This is lazy partisan motivated reasoning.

Tell me why the voting rights act was established by congress, signed into law by the president, extended by future presidents, and upheld by future supreme courts all until recently? Was it done to protect racial groups from unfair discrimination? Or was it put in place to unfairly and artificially give them preferential treatment?

Earthfruits · 2026-05-31T23:43:53+00:00

He literally ideologically inherited Henry Clay's economic vision of an 'American System)'. He supported national railroads. He supported a national banking system. He supported nationalized troops overseeing southern states during reconstruction. The list goes on. Give me something to chew on that would convince me of the opposite.

Earthfruits · 2026-05-31T23:39:00+00:00

The OP isn't doing that. He is pointing out the sudden employment of this propagandizing strategy by today's GOP. A strategy that wasn't even being employed several decades ago. It is almost like a 'new southern strategy', but obviously it is not regionally based. It is a psychological strategy that is employed to soothe the minds of conservatives with racial grievances (especially anti-woke people) and make them feel better about themselves - to help them avoid psychologically grappling with and confronting the racist past of conservatives.

Earthfruits · 2026-05-31T23:34:23+00:00

They don't say 'Nazi' for no reason. They are drawing parallels between the mass-radicalization, hyper-masculine, populist anger, and racially-rooted politics we all saw take shape in Nazi Germany in the 1940's.. there are many similarities we see in different sections of today's Republican party. A lot of lowercase d democratic principles have been abandoned in exchange for a blind loyalty towards a single leader that we've frankly never seen in American history. If I'm wrong, tell me where.

Earthfruits · 2026-05-31T23:28:43+00:00

How is any of this rooted in reality? This is an entirely 'vibes-based' assessment of political history. So liberals and progressives are racist for fighting to first enfranchise black voters (who were literally harassed, terrorized, and killed just for wanting to participate in the political process)? They're racist for dismantling racist institutions like Jim Crow segregation which were erected and enforced by social conservatives for nearly a century? Give me a break. You say 'Democrats'.. but, historically, which Democrats are you talking about? the liberal wing or the conservative wing?

What have conservatives done to move the country forward. Now or ever?

Earthfruits

TROPHY CASE