Basically, they ideologues don't think it's possible for someone to stop being a Leftist and move right without becoming a class/race traitor who's only doing it for money. It's part of their narrative.

There's a major flaw in this. There's a missing percentage of non-retarded psychopaths with extreme power and control. There used to be more of them, but there are more than a few Tony Blair's out there.

They are. Frankly, I'm glad people are getting reminded of this. I'm worried that they weren't being reminded of this during the late stages of the campaign, especially since the Dems were pushing Agenda 2025 instead of, you know, these. BUT, it could also be used to show Trump that there is a political populism around the issues he started with, which will sway his decisions on who to appoint.

Let's assume that's correct. How much are we going to save in the long run by removing millions of illegal immigrants in crime reduction, welfare reduction, housing program reduction, healthcare reduction, education reduction, wage increases, higher employment, and a reduction in home prices?

It's not even based. It's just the law.

This is genuinely uncontroversial shit. That whole "family separation" argument always was. We don't send kids to jail for the crimes of their parents. No, that doesn't mean you just don't send the parents to jail for committing crimes.

It's because you faggots always think "everyone who disagrees with me is a jew", and you've been calling me a jew for... jesus, seven consecutive years?

Yes, I tend to agree.

I didn't include the other ones yet.

No one was a racialist until the 20th century. Fucking Nationalism is a modern concept. If they were anything they were theocrats, monarchists, and imperials.

Race was never a concept for political organization because it wouldn't make sense. There was no Finnish-Portuguese White Brotherhood Alliance of 1324 because that's retarded and doesn't make sense. At no point did Europe stop fighting wars with each other, in order to came together to form an international race-based socialist government. There was no White Commintern. People that don't have the same language, culture, religion, ethnic groups, economic interdependence, shared history, sense of self-identification, or geographical continuity are NOT going to form a political body.

Racialism is a modern, leftist, political construct that replaces the bourgeoise & proletariat with oppressor race and oppressed race.

"things get simpler" is not reality. You're talking about simplexity, but that doesn't have any relation to what you can understand as a homo sapien in regards to the universe. The universe is as it is, it does not have a requirement to conform to human intuition. What it could it simplify to may only be simple from a non-human perspective. And again, that is within the material universe. Politics is non-rational, and non-material.

You are attempting to conflate being reductive as a universal principle. Even this comment:

provided libertarian don't destroy all science funding or democrats give it all to the niggers.

demonstrates your own ignorance. There's zero nuance in the statement. It's an attempted attack on me, a universal statement of all libertarians, a universal statement on all blacks, an assumption about the universal intent of all blacks at all times and all places, and an assumption that science can only be funded by the government. You've made a litany of assumptions because you believe that a perfect ideology can exist while being complete and consistent; thus, you can simply operate entirely off of thought-terminating cliches.

That's not reality. It's never reality. There is no ideology that will correctly map to the universe, and you will always have paradoxes in all models, particularly when dealing with non-material topics.

No, but you are a faggot.

Yes, exactly. Tolerance levels exist. If a society has too fine of a tolerance it is basically ultra-fragile and can't adapt. If a society's tolerance is too broad, it will destroy itself.

Reality exists, theory is an abstraction. You will never get to a complete understanding of reality, especially as a political theory, because political science is not a rational, material, science. Political Rationalism is wrong.

Then again, even if Political Science was a rational, material, science; just like what I was trying to get with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem; you still can't get to a theory of politics which maps to reality perfectly. Mathematics is not a good enough model to map completely to reality. Logic is not a good enough model to map to reality completely. It's why scientific revolutions exist.

I corrected the spelling.

Besides that, I'm not asking you to mathematically prove a political opinion. I'm saying you're misapplying the concept of a paradox, and I'm giving you an example of a larger trend in sciences which shows that you can't have perfect mapping of any model onto reality. A paradox doesn't exist in reality because it's an issue with the model which is what you said, but you're assuming there's a model that won't have one.

No political theory is going to exist without an inconsistency, and you're never going to find or make one. This is especially true because you are attempting to map a theory onto reality which will never map perfectly, assuming you could develop a near perfect political theory, which you can't.

But that's my point. You're criticizing Leftism's use of Tolerance. Tolerance is entirely reasonable. It's intended to be used with wisdom. Otherwise, you have unflinching absolutism that doesn't take anyone or anything into account outside of pre-made assertions. No society functions like that, and no society can. In fact, most societies are tolerant of their eccentrics because that's really all they are. Eccentric. Exceptions that prove the rule. A unique feature of a population.

Fair enough.

Unfathomably based.

They haven't done 2 minutes of research in years, which is why they keep saying it.

"slight" not "authentic".

I'm not. It's like throwing out Free Speech, anti-war sentiments, and immigration restrictions because at some previous point the Left used these terms as weapons against society.

What does progressive outreach to men look like?

The same as it does everywhere else.

There'd be no difference beyond that.

Catboy fed faggots are not based.

The faggot's behavior is probably well within his rights, though.

That's not true. Tolerance exists and society always tolerates it's harmless eccentric. Not all of them, just the few in number that don't cause issues. The point of tolerance is to not try to force homogeneity to the point of diminishing returns and damaging society in the process.

You're misusing a couple things here in philosophy. Paradoxes do not exist in nature because nature is the only complete and consistent system within itself.

All logical systems will have a logical end-point. This is Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. All logical systems can be either complete or consistent, but never both. Meaning: either you have a logical system that covers all things and gives inconsistent results (generating paradoxes in logic), or you have a logical system which gives you consistent results and has an explicit boundary of where it can be applied.

So yes, paradoxes exist in logic, but not reality. This is because no logical system can ever map to reality completely, so any that try will always have a paradox. Ideologies attempt rationally construct a political framework that covers all possible things that fall under politics (which can become everything). As such, unless your ideology has a point where it no longer applies, you will never have an ideology without a paradox.