US Politics - or: How I Learned to Love the Atomic Don

[Robin Of House Hill]

18 hours ago, WinterFox said:

Well this development is a lot more interesting than what I was up to earlier, so on to this!

Not entirely sure how I feel about this news. As a person, I am very happy for Manning and the things I have heard about her treatment is the stuff of literal nightmares. Not to mention I approve of whistle blowers in general.

As a citizen... she broke the law, and was convicted under the uniform code of military justice. I've been subject to its discipline as well (obviously for completely incomparable reasons), and well... you know what kind of stuff is off-limits when you're a soldier and divulging state secrets is a pretty obvious one. If Manning's sentence has been commuted, shouldn't Assange and Snowden be allowed to work out some kind of deal where they serve a similar sentence? I have absolutely no problem with pardons or a commuted sentence for high profile (nonviolent) crimes when the convicted is not a danger to society, but I would think such a thing should be up to the people, with at the very least a candidate running with such executive intentions made clear.

I don't know, I'm left feeling odd about this one.

I understand what you've said.  I resolved the conflict I felt in this manner.  If the army hadn't subjected her to excessive solitary confinement and confinement in an all male facility, I would have no problem with her serving her entire sentence.  Adding to this, the army's meting out additional punishment for her attempt to end her life, provided me with a clue of what they intended.  For those reasons, I have no problem with the sentence commutation.

As far as Snowden is concerned, I don't think the mantle of "whistle blower" sits easily on him.  I don't think he wound up in Russia by accident.  The claim that he was trying to get to South America is a smokescreen.  Assange is nothing but a trafficker in stolen property.  His latest activities indicate he is allied with Putin.  I'd have no problem with lengthy incarceration for Snowden and Assange.

[DunderMifflin]

15 minutes ago, mormont said:

Oranges, apples.

 

15 minutes ago, mormont said:

Oranges, apples.

Because...you say so? 

So claiming that majority of race discussion is funneled through political parties is the orange? 

Calling someone a racist is the apple? Or the other way around?

 

Regardless, I have no way to prove that the majority of race discussion is based on political affiliation. But I can prove there is A LOT of race discussion that is based on political affiliation. Which still supports my point. 

There is clearly something sinister going on when people treat voting Democrat as some sort of badge to chastise and preach to others about racism. As if voting for someone means youve done your part and now are so keenly aware of who and what is racist that your perception is flawless. 

Again I mean you in general not personally.

also , not singling out democrats here. Just using it as an example.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

 

Because...you say so? 

So claiming that majority of race discussion is funneled through political parties is the orange? 

Calling someone a racist is the apple? Or the other way around?

 

Regardless, I have no way to prove that the majority of race discussion is based on political affiliation. But I can prove there is A LOT of race discussion that is based on political affiliation. Which still supports my point. 

There is clearly something sinister going on when people treat voting Democrat as some sort of badge to chastise and preach to others about racism. As if voting for someone means youve done your part and now are so keenly aware of who and what is racist that your perception is flawless. 

Again I mean you in general not personally.

So, racism as an objective action or belief, doesn't exist?

[DunderMifflin]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, racism as an objective action or belief, doesn't exist?

I believe it exists without a doubt.

I don't believe there's anyone out there who is so amazing that they know exactly how who and where it comes from. Meaning that voting for this guy means you voted for racism and voting for the other guy means you voted for non racism is a fantasy.

 

[Dr. Pepper]

4 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I believe it exists without a doubt.

I don't believe there's anyone out there who is so amazing that they know exactly how who and where it comes from. Meaning that voting for this guy means you voted for racism and voting for the other guy means you voted for non racism is a fantasy.

 

You're right that it isn't always a binary, always perfectly black or white.

However, when a candidate runs an explicitly racist campaign, in fact builds their entire campaign promise on explicitly racist ideas, then voting for that candidate absolutely means you voted for racism.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

You're right that it isn't always a binary, always perfectly black or white.

However, when a candidate runs an explicitly racist campaign, in fact builds their entire campaign promise on explicitly racist ideas, then voting for that candidate absolutely means you voted for racism.  

I don't disagree with that point.  But I can see how some fool themselves in to believing otherwise or who, sadly, hold their nose because they want to "shake things up".  

[DunderMifflin]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don't disagree with that point.  But I can see how some fool themselves in to believing otherwise or who, sadly, hold their nose because they want to "shake things up".  

 

Who is anyone to proclaim one guy is racist while another guy isnt.

That's all well and good to be a hero and point out racism, but when the pointing is 100% of the time pointed directly in the opposite direction of themselves and whatever they are into and vote for its begins to look like a weapon you use to discredit something you don't like rather than an honest attempt at curbing racism.

The "I'm not racist but I'll show you someone who is" card is worn thin.

 

 

[Week]

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don't disagree with that point.  But I can see how some fool themselves in to believing otherwise or who, sadly, hold their nose because they want to "shake things up".  

Shockingly, after the racist "shake[s} things up" - the result is a further racist institutional framework. Weird how that happens! "We just wanted it to be different! We're not racist!" -- It isn't something that can be separated. People should be dissuaded from thinking that it can.

I know that isn't exactly what you are saying Scot. Still relevant to he point.

9 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

That's all well and good to be a hero and point out racism, but when the pointing is 100% of the time pointed directly in the opposite direction of themselves and whatever they are into and vote for its begins to look like a weapon you use to discredit something you don't like rather than an honest attempt at curbing racism.

The "I'm not racist but I'll show you someone who is" card is worn thin.

100%. Really? Your analysis is to be believed? Your bias is showing.

Personally, I know that I have done extensive self-evaluation and will continue to do so in order to better understand unconscious racism or racism out of ignorance that I need to active educate myself to understand. I could stick my head in the sand and claim that all cries of racism are merely hammers to bludgeon political opponents - but ... I prefer not to.

[Swordfish]

8 hours ago, Fez said:

France and the UK are nuclear powers. If they wanted, they could threaten Russia with MAD to protect NATO members even if the US looks like its gotten too squishy under Trump. 

I don't think they want to do that, particularly the UK, but underestimating France and the UK's commitment to eastern European countries is how world wars get started.

A mistake I doubt Putin would make.

 

5 hours ago, mormont said:

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/314783-assange-lawyer-conditions-not-met-for-assange-manning-extradition-offer

To the surprise of no-one, Julian Assange will not be giving himself up.

 

You have to wonder, under the circumstance, if he knew that commuted sentence was coming somehow.  

The timing is fairly interesting.

[butterbumps!]

29 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don't disagree with that point.  But I can see how some fool themselves in to believing otherwise or who, sadly, hold their nose because they want to "shake things up".  

So then surely those who held their noses and voted anyway are making generous donations of their time/ money to organizations devoted to thwarting bigotries, right?

34 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

You're right that it isn't always a binary, always perfectly black or white.

However, when a candidate runs an explicitly racist campaign, in fact builds their entire campaign promise on explicitly racist ideas, then voting for that candidate absolutely means you voted for racism.  

You might be wrestling a greased pig with this.    That poster spent a lot of time in the pre-election threads arguing vigorously that there's no appreciable difference in levels of bigotry between the Clinton and Trump campaigns.   If you vote for Hillary, then you cannot call Trump voters "bigots," because her Wall Street policies are harmful to minorities, and you'd be a hypocrite, it was repeatedly argued.   So, yea, I think that poster keeps trying to say we're in glass houses regarding pointing out Trump and his voter's bigotries.  

[Ormond]

Here's a minor aside to the Inauguration. A hairdresser was asked to provide her services for Marla Maples and Tiffany Trump for free in exchange for the publicity, said no because it is her policy not to provide free services for anyone who can obviously afford them, and is getting grief about that:

http://www.omaha.com/columnists/grace/grace-stylist-says-trump-family-request-for-inauguration-day-came/article_6f70ee03-6778-552c-8603-54c95af8a8f7.html

And I was hoping Tiffany would be less spoiled than the other Trump kids. Then again, making this request may not have been her decision or even Marla's, but that of the go-between.

[DunderMifflin]

7 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

 

You might be wrestling a greased pig with this.    That poster spent a lot of time in the pre-election threads arguing vigorously that there's no appreciable difference in levels of bigotry between the Clinton and Trump campaigns.   If you vote for Hillary, then you cannot call Trump voters "bigots," because her Wall Street policies are harmful to minorities, and you'd be a hypocrite, it was repeatedly argued.   

See what happens here. 

My opinion on what's racist is treated as some sort of joke by this poster, like it's ridiculous to suggest that someone who made the incredible and amazing sacrifice of voting for Hillary Clinton could ever possibly be racist. Because it requires so much self awareness and enlightenment to vote Democrat it clearly means you are above it.

While I have no doubt this poster will treat their own opinion of what is racist as a given that is not to be challenged.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

So then surely those who held their noses and voted anyway are making generous donations of their time/ money to organizations devoted to thwarting bigotries, right?

You might be wrestling a greased pig with this.    That poster spent a lot of time in the pre-election threads arguing vigorously that there's no appreciable difference in levels of bigotry between the Clinton and Trump campaigns.   If you vote for Hillary, then you cannot call Trump voters "bigots," because her Wall Street policies are harmful to minorities, and you'd be a hypocrite, it was repeatedly argued.   So, yea, I think that poster keeps trying to say we're in glass houses regarding pointing out Trump and his voter's bigotries.  

No clue if they are doing that.  I argued with them till I was blue in the face about how horrible voting for Trump was.  They wouldn't hear it.  I'm embarrassed to say... they were my parents.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

44 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

You're right that it isn't always a binary, always perfectly black or white.

However, when a candidate runs an explicitly racist campaign, in fact builds their entire campaign promise on explicitly racist ideas, then voting for that candidate absolutely means you voted for racism.  

Actually in this case it is. Trump openly ran a racist campaign while Clinton openly ran a campaign against racism. This is unique compared to every presidential campaign in the modern era. 

[butterbumps!]

8 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

See what happens here. 

My opinion on what's racist is treated as some sort of joke, like it's ridiculous to suggest that someone who made the incredible and amazing sacrifice of voting for Hillary Clinton could ever possibly be racist. Because it requires so much self awareness and enlightenment to vote Democrat clearly means you are above it.

While I have no doubt this poster will treat their own opinion of what is racist as a given that is not to be challenged.

Undoubtedly, some Dems/ liberals are bigots.   I don't think anyone would suggest that libs/ Dems are free from bigotry.  Just looking at the discourse surrounding the women's march and the hostility toward intersectionality tells you that we have a long way to go.

But, uh, importantly, those who didn't vote for Trump are not guilty of having voted in favor of bigotry.   It's pretty simple.    Bigotry is part of the Trump package.    By voting for him, one voted for bigotry, even if it was not the explicit selling point for a particular voter.    A vote for Hillary, by contrast, was not, and it's absurd to argue otherwise.

[Swordfish]

13 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Here's a minor aside to the Inauguration. A hairdresser was asked to provide her services for Marla Maples and Tiffany Trump for free in exchange for the publicity, said no because it is her policy not to provide free services for anyone who can obviously afford them, and is getting grief about that:

http://www.omaha.com/columnists/grace/grace-stylist-says-trump-family-request-for-inauguration-day-came/article_6f70ee03-6778-552c-8603-54c95af8a8f7.html

And I was hoping Tiffany would be less spoiled than the other Trump kids. Then again, making this request may not have been her decision or even Marla's, but that of the go-between.

Huh?  They offered it as part of a negotiation, 'do our hair for free, and we'll give you some free publicity'..  

What's the big deal here?  And what grief is she getting for it?  

The fact she went public with a private negotiation seems to suggest that she may have had a motive here, so as far as I can tell from the article, the only reason anyone even knows about this is because she sent the story to a reporter.

Quote

Aghast, Kelly said no. She responded that she works for a fee, not for free. Then, still steamed about the request — which she called “entitled behavior” — she picked up the phone and texted a friend at the Washington Post. The Post published a much talked-about story Tuesday.

 

 

[DunderMifflin]

1 minute ago, butterbumps! said:

Undoubtedly, some Dems/ liberals are bigots.   I don't think anyone would suggest that libs/ Dems are free from bigotry.  Just looking at the discourse surrounding the women's march and the hostility toward intersectionality tells you that we have a ways to go.

But, uh, importantly, those who didn't vote for Trump are not guilty of having voted in favor of bigotry.   It's pretty simple.    Bigotry is part of the Trump package.    By voting for him, one voted for bigotry, even if it was not the explicit selling point for a particular voter.    A vote for Hillary, by contrast, was not, and it's absurd to argue otherwise.

I highly disagree. If bigotry and racism were simple problems they wouldn't still be plaguing our world today after so many years and centuries and millenia of it.

To make a fictitious line between bigotry and non bigotry that amazingly just happens to fall between two 2016 presidential candidates is beyond absurd.

[Ormond]

14 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Huh?  They offered it as part of a negotiation, 'do our hair for free, and we'll give you some free publicity'..  

What's the big deal here?  And what grief is she getting for it?  

The fact she went public with a private negotiation seems to suggest that she may have had a motive here, so as far as I can tell from the article, the only reason anyone even knows about this is because she sent the story to a reporter.

 

 

Who said it was a "big" deal? I started off my post saying it was a "minor aside". 

As for the grief, I think her getting the messages:   that Kelly was “messing with the president of the United States,” that she “shouldn’t have said anything” and that she doesn’t “realize the power my clients have, that your reputation could be on the line.”

are at least a minor form of "grief." 

I am willing to accept at face value that her motive was that she was angry about what she considered "entitled behavior" by a famous person.

[Week]

14 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I highly disagree. If bigotry and racism were simple problems they wouldn't still be plaguing our world today after so many years and centuries and millenia of it.

To make a fictitious line between bigotry and non bigotry that amazingly just happens to fall between two 2016 presidential candidates is beyond absurd.

Bigotry is a problem.

Candidate A runs on a platform of anti-bigotry while also supporting institutions that have historically and still do benefit from bigotry.

Candidate B runs on a platform of thinly veiled bigoted statements and as well a few outrageous ones (consider: Khan, Curiel, etc.).

TEHY AR EQWAL?

No, they are not. You are asserted that the choice is not either A (Anti-Bigotry) or B (Pro-Bigotry). Instead, the choice as you claim is both Candidates are a lovely equal mix of pro- and anti- Bigotry - both chocolate and vanilla ... and no, people of common sense reject that. 

Voting for A is NOT unequivocally a vote in support of anti-bigotry - however it is against Candidate B (a bigot) and it is for Candidate A who is the only person who has denounced bigotry in many, granted perhaps not all, its forms.

Voting for B is - unequivocally - a vote in support of a bigot. 

A vote for which Candidate will make bigotry worse? Where are you lost in the logic? 

[butterbumps!]

48 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No clue if they are doing that.  I argued with them till I was blue in the face about how horrible voting for Trump was.  They wouldn't hear it.  I'm embarrassed to say... they were my parents.

I'm curious-- are they having a change of heart in the aftermath?   I'm interested to see how Trump voters react to him as he goes from candidate to president.   I'm sure Trump voters already feeling regret is by no means widespread (I know the Tumblr site, though I don't think it's significant in number yet), but this Vox piece on it was kind of interesting, especially in terms of putting into perspective for me just how unseriously they took him.   I don't think I truly appreciated just how much a lot of these people believed Furious Orange was just an act and that he would be a competent, reasonable person once elected.