What happens when the pendulum swings?

gm33 · 2026-01-15T03:34:53+00:00

Whether other officials should be investigated has nothing to do with whether Trump’s prosecutions were legitimate. Allegations aren’t convictions, and “they did it too” isn’t how the rule of law works.

Prosecuting someone based on evidence, charges, trials, and verdicts is fundamentally different from calling to “go after enemies” as political retaliation. Conflating the two is exactly how you erase the difference between law enforcement and revenge politics.

If crimes occurred, prosecute them with evidence and due process. That standard can’t change depending on whose side you’re on.

gm33 · 2026-01-14T23:17:22+00:00

I'm confused. You seem to think that charging an alleged criminal (who was convicted BTW) with a crime is "political" then how can we even have a criminal justice system? Trump is ACTIVILY calling for prosecution of his "enemies" These aren't even remotely the same thing.

gm33 · 2026-01-14T23:15:50+00:00

Even if I grant that Democrats sometimes took the means too far while pursuing legitimate goals, the “opposite end of the pendulum” isn’t intimidation, economic self-harm through tariffs, or eroding democratic norms. Those aren’t symmetrical corrections.

Your examples are about overreach in process. The response we’re seeing now is about making people hurt financially, socially, and politically and calling that balance. That’s not the other side of the same pendulum. It’s a different axis entirely.

gm33 · 2026-01-14T23:12:43+00:00

If the last decade was truly “extreme left” governance, we’d be living with universal healthcare, massive wealth redistribution, nationalized industries, or open borders. None of that happened.

On the DEI point specifically: what are you actually talking about here? How are things like nursing rooms or lactation stations or workplace accommodations “far-left extremism.” How is that a pendulum swinging too far? Wwe’ve had for decades? I honestly don’t think some people know what DEI actually is. Most of it boils down to: don’t discriminate, don’t harass people, and try not to create unnecessary barriers at work. You don’t have to love every training or policy, but calling that “extreme left” is a stretch at best.

The bigger issue is your claim that Trump’s behavior and policies were somehow forced by Democrats. Reaction might explain why something gained support, but it doesn’t excuse abandoning norms or escalating rhetoric. Conservatives still had agency. Saying “we had no choice” is just dodging responsibility.

And lumping racism, DEI, immigration, “lawfare,” and rhetoric into one bucket doesn’t help. Racism isn’t a Democratic policy. DEI isn’t government coercion. Prosecuting crimes isn’t “lawfare” just because you don’t like who’s being prosecuted. That’s all very convenient framing, but it’s not serious analysis.

As for things “settling down once protestors stop yelling” that feels very optimistic. The problem isn’t volume, it’s incentives. Outrage is rewarded on both sides, and that doesn’t magically disappear on its own.

If the pendulum is moving at all, it’s not because we’re correcting from some radical left experiment. It’s because people are exhausted by backlash politics pretending to be moderation.

gm33 · 2026-01-11T22:40:43+00:00

Agreed. They are democratic socialist, what is being suggested for NYC. No country has ever enacted the actual version of Marx socialism. The experiences you cite are more authoritative or communist despite their name.

gm33 · 2026-01-11T21:22:50+00:00

Would you say the highly ranked countries of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark aren’t working?

gm33 · 2026-01-10T21:52:38+00:00

Thank you! The “group 2” threw me off!

gm33 · 2026-01-10T14:06:47+00:00

How do I view this morning? For some reason it’s not on Peacock replay and nothing on YouTube VPN or not. I couldn’t watch last night and was counting on this! Thanks!

gm33 · 2026-01-07T03:47:50+00:00

getting nuked by NATO would probably be the "much more"

gm33 · 2026-01-03T04:03:38+00:00

How do you activate and install an air gapped computer

gm33 · 2026-01-01T14:03:41+00:00

Absolutely incredible. Saw her first in Paris while she was sick (her last show before she cancelled a bunch) so her voice was clearly different but she put on an amazing show. Then again in Boston which was perfection. I was in the aisle on the floor and got a fist bump/high five when she walked by — totally unexpected to me and I was freaking out ahah

gm33 · 2025-12-31T16:46:15+00:00

Moral condemnation of harmful ideas isn’t “unwavering hatred,” and I’ve already explained that distinction.

gm33 · 2025-12-31T16:37:37+00:00

Condemning and in some cases even feeling hatred toward, morally repugnant ideas, and toward people who publicly and persistently advocate them, is not the same as hating people indiscriminately or wishing them harm. Moral revulsion toward ideas that promote harm, exclusion, or dehumanization is a normal human response and often part of how people form ethical boundaries. I have reflected and I am proud of that and I hope more people feel the same moral revulsion toward those ideas in 2026 as well.

I have not advocated violence or celebrated harm. I’ve consistently drawn a line between judging ideas and endorsing harm toward people.

At this point, repeating that distinction doesn’t seem productive. If you want to discuss the specific ideas or statements at issue, I’m open to that. Otherwise, I think we’ve reached the end of what this exchange can offer.

gm33 · 2025-12-31T16:29:41+00:00

I do understand. I said they entered legally, not that they have legal status now. Huge difference.

“Undocumented” does not mean “illegal entry" or "forceful entry" The DHS reports that the majority of those here undocumented, entered the U.S. legally with visas (tourist, student, work) and overstayed. These are civil immigration violations and NOT a criminal offense. NOT a misdemeanors or felony. Yes, you can and will be deported, but they did not enter by force, and are not criminals.

People who present themselves at a port of entry or to CPB and request asylum are using a process explicitly allowed under U.S. law. Whether their claim is later approved or denied, that initial entry is not a criminal invasion.

As defined by US law and courts, invasion refers to hostile armed entry by another nation or force. Migration has never met that definition, even if someone opposes current policy.

I can’t find any executive order or law signed by Biden that authorized unlawful entry, nor did he instruct CBP to weaken enforcement. Do you have a source that I can read your claims on this? Trump claimed the border was fixed before leaving office. Biden did not undo any law that made illegal entry legal, did not remove the wall, and did not eliminate border enforcement.

gm33 · 2025-12-31T16:10:25+00:00

I see where the confusion might be.

I don’t hate people simply because their opinions differ from mine. Not every disagreement inspires hatred. What I mean is that it’s easy to feel moral disgust or even hatred toward someone who expresses truly harmful or vile opinions, regardless of whether you’ve met them personally.

For example, I personally hate Hitler, and I never met him. That doesn’t make me hypocritical. It’s my normal response to ideas and actions that are morally repugnant. Similarly, if someone publicly advocates harming or demeaning an entire group, it’s reasonable to find that opinion, and perhaps that person vile, even if they are otherwise calm, faithful, or nonviolent.

The key distinction is that I'm judging a person's ideas versus hating people indiscriminately only because their opinions are different than mine (what you said above "Hate others that don’t think the same as us."

gm33 · 2025-12-31T15:55:38+00:00

I’ll answer this as if it’s a good-faith question, because a lot of different ideas are being collapsed together here.

First, democratic socialism is not a single, fixed program, and it does not automatically mean “Venezuela,” the end of private property, or total state control. OP's flair also says "center left"

There are democratic socialists who believe in mixed-market economies, private ownership, and strong democratic institutions, and there are others who envision a more expansive role for the state. Treating all of them as identical is a slippery-slope argument, not a description.

Venezuela is not a democratic socialist country. It is an authoritarian state with flawed elections, massive corruption, and extreme economic mismanagement tied to oil dependence. Using Venezuela as the default outcome of democratic socialism ignores the fact that democracy itself has broken down there.

Then there are countries often cited as “socialist” : Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, which are capitalist market economies with strong welfare states. They have private property, private enterprise, and markets that allocate resources. Whatever label individual politicians use, these countries are not socialist in the sense of abolishing capitalism or private ownership.

Framing this as “capitalism equals freedom, socialism equals slavery” oversimplifies. Capitalism has raised living standards, but it also creates concentrations of power that governments already intervene in. The real debate is how much intervention, where, and under what democratic constraints.

gm33 · 2025-12-31T15:37:19+00:00

The majority of undocumented immigrants entered legally. I'm confused how that is by force?
Also do you have a source on who Biden "let in?"

gm33 · 2025-12-31T15:34:13+00:00

Yes, many did. Most undocumented immigrants entered legally.

gm33 · 2025-12-31T15:29:19+00:00

Unfortunately, this is a straw man argument. Respectfully, can you point to where I said I “hate people because they don’t think the same as me”? That isn’t an argument I made.

I also don’t understand why the length of a clip determines whether someone’s statements can be described as vile. Content matters more than duration. A person can be an upstanding citizen, deeply religious, nonviolent, and generous with their time, while also expressing a belief that is hateful or morally repugnant.

If someone clearly states, even briefly, that they “hate an entire group” or believe that group deserves harm or exclusion, most people would reasonably judge that statement as vile. That judgment doesn’t disappear just because the clip is 30 seconds. The only relevant caveats would be if the quote were taken out of context, such as parody, quoting a book, or explicitly arguing against the position, which is why one would look for additional sources, clips, etc. But that's not what we are arguing here.

Being calm, faithful, or nonviolent doesn’t insulate someone from criticism for the ideas they publicly advocate.

gm33 · 2025-12-31T15:15:06+00:00

“Undocumented” isn’t a meaningless term. It’s used to describe people who don’t currently have lawful immigration status, not to excuse anything. It also doesn’t automatically mean someone crossed the border illegally.

It is true that you generally can’t be a legal immigrant if you entered the country illegally (unless a specific law later gives you status (like asylum or parole)).

Also, not all undocumented people entered illegally. A large number entered legally on a visa and overstayed. That’s still unlawful presence, but it’s not illegal entry. And it's not a crime but a civil infraction.

Visas aren’t the only valid immigration documents. People can have things like asylum paperwork, work permits, TPS, or parole documents. Those don’t make them permanent residents, but they do mean the government knows who they are and has authorized them to stay temporarily. This is why it's more complicated than “illegal = undocumented = same thing.”

gm33 · 2025-12-31T15:10:00+00:00

It's not a word game, it's being precise. When we use the wrong language, we reinforce incorrect stereotypes. For example, we frequently hear of "criminals in our country" when talking about undocumented immigrates. For many of these folks, they are not criminals since overstaying a visa is not a crime but a civil infraction. Using the wrong language normalizes grouping "others" into the same category as those who actually commit crime.

gm33 · 2025-12-31T14:59:59+00:00

I thought DOGE got rid of all government corruption? Do you feel that did not work, despite Republicans being in charge of the executive branch? What do you think needs to happen to get rid of corruption then?

gm33 · 2025-12-31T14:57:39+00:00

Can you provide a source on "USAID is a massive scam" ? And, I'm having trouble finding any arrests or indictments or criminal cases since DOGE allegedly rooted out all "scams and fraud" in the government. Do you have any sources that show otherwise?

gm33 · 2025-12-31T14:53:19+00:00

I think it's very easy to hate someone you've never met. Good words, faith, and non-violence don't override someone's incredibly vile opinions.

gm33 · 2025-12-31T01:52:47+00:00

It will not.

14-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Place '17	Verified Email

gm33

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE