Kalbear Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Commodore said: Court rules proving who you are is racist The people who pushed the law literally said their goal was to disproportionately affect minorities. They put it in writing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 3 hours ago, Fragile Bird said: Um...the most gruesome of which were under the communist Russians, who are atheists? But the Ottomans annually went to every town and village under their control and took the finest young men and women back to Turkey as slaves, which at least did not happen under the Prussians, Russians and Austrians between 1791 and 1918. So careful about those 'depravities'. 1) erm, Nazis? 2) The Janissaries were a bit more complicated than that, but in terms of temporal context, while Christian boys were indeed forcibly made into soldiers, generals, politicians, beaueacrats, doctors and so forth, it's important to remember that at the time the Western/Christian method of dealing with the other side was a bit more, er, definitive. 3) Altherion's entire version is premised on the idea that one side is incorrect, therefore invasive/foreign/oppressive/predatory, whereas the other side is correct, therefore doing the exact same things is simply stopping the other side. I wonder what the, say, Cathars would have to say about that. Let's ask them. Nope, wait, we can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 6 minutes ago, James Arryn said: 1980: RR's New Republicans 1990: Newt's Republican revolutionaries 2000: NEOcons 2010: Mavericks vs. tea partiers. Spot the trend/constant? (admittedly I fudged the dates for effect) If you are a politician in a party which nominally advocates 'small' government, you kinda have to sell yourself as fighting the establishment. Even if you are establishment. And, to be fair, people keep buying. The tendency you describe is there, but Trump is different in that he really was (and to some extent still is) fighting the Republican establishment. Romney, the Bushes, etc. would not even come to the convention. The Tea Party is similar in that the establishment absolutely hated when they pulled stunts like the debt default showdown, but they were mostly kept in check. Some revolts are more genuine than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 12 minutes ago, Altherion said: The tendency you describe is there, but Trump is different in that he really was (and to some extent still is) fighting the Republican establishment. Romney, the Bushes, etc. would not even come to the convention. The Tea Party is similar in that the establishment absolutely hated when they pulled stunts like the debt default showdown, but they were mostly kept in check. Some revolts are more genuine than others. But...think of each in relation to those that went before. All were thought to be more a-s than their predecessors, at the time. Your belief now is not any more sincere than those who thought McCain a refreshing maverick in comparison with Dubya's (by then) mainstream neocons. Who were seen as a more radical/ideological departure than the more pragmatic Gingrichers. Who were more...etc. In relation to how they were viewed by the faithful at the time, the bar is in place by constantly being seen as raised. edit: to be clear, in order to be seen as anti-establishment, you obviously have to be seen as more anti-establishment than those who came/ruled before you...up, the establishment. Your faith in this manifestation IMO presupposes something evidently missing from those who came before you, and I believe those then would have strongly disagreed. Therefore the relationship between the reality and the (constant) optics is IMO highly doubtful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Continued; Tbh, I think Trump's personality clashes more with the GOP establishment than his politics. Almost all their objections to him are about how he comports himself. In terms of his actual policies, such as they are, on some issues he's farther left or right than the norm, as is true of most candidates. But you don't believe his policies are even real, right? So does that mean that this is all about persona? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Fox News Plays Benghazi Commercial Over Khizr Khan's Speech... https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/07/28/fox-news-plays-benghazi-commercial-over-khazir-khans-anti-trump-speech-democratic-national/212012?ICID=ref_fark&ICID=ref_fark&ICID=ref_fark&ICID=ref_fark&ICID=ref_fark&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 1 hour ago, James Arryn said: Continued; Tbh, I think Trump's personality clashes more with the GOP establishment than his politics. Almost all their objections to him are about how he comports himself. In terms of his actual policies, such as they are, on some issues he's farther left or right than the norm, as is true of most candidates. But you don't believe his policies are even real, right? So does that mean that this is all about persona? Look at his NATO comments. It's more then just his attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Who has "taken America from you?" Where the fuck is it? When did this happen? Why didn't you call the cops? What the fuck are you even talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 It's Frum and he's paraphrasing a bunch of people into one weird rant op-ed thing. It's just strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2016/07/donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton-by-their-words/ Quote When it comes to Trump’s rhetoric, what is perhaps most striking is the frequency with which he references himself. He says I, me, or my 850 times in these seven speeches. (He says I 700 times, me 94 times, my 56 times,mine 5 times, and myself 2 times out of the total 25,722 words in the corpus.) What this means is that 3.3% of his words are self-references, which is a remarkably high figure by the standards of any typical corpus. By way of comparison, Clinton says I 360 times,me 36 times, and my 52 times out of the total 23,089 words, bringing the total percentage of explicit self-references to 1.9%. Quote Trump only mentions God twice in all seven speeches. In his campaign launch, he says: “I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created. I tell you that.” The second instance comes in his speech critiquing Clinton’s foreign policy. After setting up the hypothetical scenario of a Clinton presidency, Trump utters: “God help us.” (A video of the speech reveals an eye roll accompanying this exhortation, suggesting that we can safely assume this is not to be taken as a genuine request for divine assistance.) By way of recap, then, Trump references himself 850 times in seven speeches, and God twice. (And the latter in dubious fashion). Given these statistics, one might expect Clinton to be the more popular candidate among voters who likewise sprinkle their conversation with references to God, and advocate the significance of their faith and values. But this would be incorrect. A recent pollindicates that nearly 8 out of 10 white evangelicals are backing Trump over Clinton. What should we make of this? What words is Trump speaking that resonate so powerfully with American evangelicals? To be sure, pollsters do need better working definitions of “evangelicals,” as Thomas Kiddargues. Even so, the numbers are striking. How, then, might we make sense of this situation? Are there insights religious historians can offer here? For example, has an embrace of patriarchal power in the church and home situated evangelicals to look for an autocratic patriarch to lead the nation? Has a self-referential trend in contemporary Christianity blinded evangelicals to Trump’s narcissism? Have deep roots in premillennialism made evangelicals more prone to demonize “the Other”? Have “Christian values” long been but a veneer for racism, sexism, or xenophobia? Has Christian nationalism destroyed any semblance of Christian witness? Is this the logical culmination of “corporate evangelicalism”? [Feel free to add your own questions or theories in the comments section below]. Needless to say, getting to the bottom of this conundrum will likely engage American religious historians for a good time to come. Also a Missouri poll came out with Clinton plus one. Last week there was a Missouri poll of Trump plus 10. The st Louis post dispatch analysis of it said they expected based on the demographics of the Poll that turnout would be a massive factor in the state and could easily return Missouri to its pre 2012 status as preeminent purple swing state. On the other hand the new poll is a four way poll with 9 % libertarian, 1% stein and 9% undecided, which probably accounts for the eleven point discrepancy in one week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 [mod] Let's take the European 20th century history debate to another thread, please. [/mod] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 8 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Who has "taken America from you?" Where the fuck is it? When did this happen? Why didn't you call the cops? What the fuck are you even talking about? The relatively small group of people who make decisions affecting very large groups; take a look at this thread for more details. The people in Frum's rants have a nebulous feeling about something being very wrong, but they lack the education to understand what it really is or the command of language to articulate what little they do understand. The first leads them to lash out at groups that the elites appear to be assisting (illegal immigrants, minorities, etc.) thus playing straight into the divide-and-conquer strategy. The second leaves them open to mockery similar to that in the quote above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 15 hours ago, Altherion said: G.W. Bush was the candidate of the Republican establishment and it was openly advertised that he would rely on establishment figures such as Cheney and Rumsfeld. Trump appears to be on his own. Well a few things here: It’s seemingly true that Trump has broken away from the Republican establishment on a few things like his criticisms of Bush’s foreign policy and statements he’s made over Social Security and Medicare. But, there seems to be many indications that he isn’t going to stray too far off from the usual Republican party orthodoxy on a number of things. Like, who does he go out and get as his economic policy advisers? Evidently, Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow, the two biggest supply side clowns around. Remember Moore? The guy who wrote "Bullish on Bush". Was there anything ever funnier written? Also, it really seems that on a number of policy details, he just doesn’t seem to have lot fleshed out, leaving the impression, that when it comes down to it, he’ll just rely on the Republican establishment to fill in the blanks. Like take for instance Dodd Frank, which he says he’ll get rid off. So what is going to replace it with? Most likely Hensarling’s alternative plan because I don’t think he’s got anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Trump is still sending fundraising emails to foreign government officials: https://twitter.com/alexstubb/status/759065237303783425/photo/1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 14 hours ago, Kalbear said: The people who pushed the law literally said their goal was to disproportionately affect minorities. They put it in writing! The Court read that writing and used it in coming to their decision, a very good one! And that's what, the second decision this week striking down these horrible laws? Think of the further damage to voter rights that a Trump Supreme Court could do. Now that's truly frightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 I think perhaps the best thing about Trump losing to Hillary Clinton is that we'll be hearing conservatives say: "We'll we would have won, if we had been more conservative." "Next time we'll get real conservative." "We just couldn't get our conservative message out and that's why we lost!" So like Trump beats up on people like Kasich and Cruz, who have more conservative cred and then Trump turns around and loses to Clinton, what we'll hear is: "We would have won if we had been more conservative!" LOL. It's going to be good times I tell ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said: I think perhaps the best think about Trump losing to Hillary Clinton is that we'll be hearing conservatives say: "We'll we would have won, if we had been more conservative." "Next time we'll get real conservative." "We just couldn't get our conservative message out and that's why we lost!" So like Trump beats up on people like Kasich and Cruz, who have more conservative cred and then Trump turns around and loses to Clinton, what we'll hear is: "We would have one if we had been more conservative!" LOL. It's going to be good times I tell ya. The hilarity of your prediction to me is this; Reince Priebus gave the GOP an autopsy after Romney's humiliating loss. So the GOP picks a racist, misogynist, hateful in debt tycoon who cares nothing for the lessons Priebus was trying to bring to the party, and ole Reince climbs right on board. However, to be fair, the GOP didn't take Reince's little autopsy to heart, so there is that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 11 minutes ago, LongRider said: The hilarity of your prediction to me is this; Reince Priebus gave the GOP an autopsy after Romney's humiliating loss. So the GOP picks a racist, misogynist, hateful in debt tycoon who cares nothing for the lessons Priebus was trying to bring to the party, and ole Reince climbs right on board. However, to be fair, the GOP didn't take Reince's little autopsy to heart, so there is that. I think these guys should attend their conventions wearing leisure suits and bell bottoms, because evidently they think it's 1979, conservatism is on the rise, inflation is bad, and that old supply side magic is going to work it's wonders. Hence comments like Gingrich made a few years ago that only if Obama "did it like Ronnie" all would be awesome. Too bad, our problems are very different than were in 1979. And too bad that in reality all that supply magic had to do mainly with monetary policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 10 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: that old supply side magic is going to work it's wonders. Gimme that good old supply side religion! And me without an umbrella! (can't afford one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 41 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: I think perhaps the best thing about Trump losing to Hillary Clinton is that we'll be hearing conservatives say: "We'll we would have won, if we had been more conservative." "Next time we'll get real conservative." "We just couldn't get our conservative message out and that's why we lost!" So like Trump beats up on people like Kasich and Cruz, who have more conservative cred and then Trump turns around and loses to Clinton, what we'll hear is: "We would have won if we had been more conservative!" LOL. It's going to be good times I tell ya. That's true but it's not even news. Same story as always: conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.