US Politics: Papers, Please

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, The Killer Snark said:

Some may find these facts uncomfortable, but they nonetheless are facts.

I've heard we call those "alternative facts" these days.

1 hour ago, The Killer Snark said:

Soros citation given.

I've missed the part where he says he "sold his people" though. Must have been another youtube video, right?

1 hour ago, Week said:

I think you have a different definition of "common knowledge" and "everywhere" than everyone else here. 

"Everywhere" clearly refers to some very special websites where people debate whether there's a secret space station on the hidden side of the moon, what the Rothschilds are up to in order to dominate the world, or whether Obama is a reptilian. I've watched some of these "youtube videos" in the past, and they can be mildly entertaining sometimes. The problem is that some people start taking them seriously. To be fair, there's often some slivers of truth here or there to make the whole thing convincing so you need to know what you're watching not to be tricked. If you "want to believe" for some reason or the other, generally because you think your knewly found knowledge will impress others, then you're screwed.

[Einheri]

1 hour ago, MerenthaClone said:

snip

Not sure if I agree with what you're writing here. Watch the recent pod cast between Sargon and Kyle Kulinski of the Justice Democrats. They pretty much agree on everything except when it's  acceptable to use military force (tbh I kind of fall between Sargon and Kyle on this), some of Trumps recent actions like the travel ban (Sargon agrees that it’s stupid, but still feels he needs to defend Trump on this one for some reason, “others have done it before, so it's not THAT bad”) and probably feminism which is dropped as soon as it's mentioned (I guess they both knew they’d never come to an agreement on this one, so they didn't even bother).

Link to the podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48BFEw4MSAs

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Einheri said:

Not sure if I agree with what you're writing here. Watch the recent pod cast between Sargon and Kyle Kulinski of the Justice Democrats. They pretty much agree on everything except when it's  acceptable to use military force (tbh I kind of fall between Sargon and Kyle on this), some of Trumps recent actions like the travel ban (Sargon agrees that it’s stupid, but still feels he needs to defend Trump on this one for some reason, “others have done it before, so it's not THAT bad”) and probably feminism which is dropped as soon as it's mentioned (I guess they both knew they’d never come to an agreement on this one, so they didn't even bother).

 

Link to the podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48BFEw4MSAs

 

Others have done it before. Lulz.

Genocidal Holocaust? Eh, it's stupid, but others have done it before. No big whoop.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

17 hours ago, Kalbear said:

NEVER FORGET

The Bowling Green Massacre will forever be marked as a dark time in this nation. We endured, we healed, we persevered, and we rebuilt Bowling Green, wherever it may be. Today, take the time to talk with your loved ones about this dark day, learn the lessons that we should have never forgotten, and remind each other of what it is to be a true patriot and American. 
NEVER LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN. Or, uh, ever.

Link to video.

 

From the thread attached to the Tweet: "I'll never forget Brian Williams' live report as the massacre started."

[Einheri]

28 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Others have done it before. Lulz.

Genocidal Holocaust? Eh, it's stupid, but others have done it before. No big whoop.

Yeah, it’s a dumb ‘argument’, but I guess Sargon feels he has to somehow justify his support of Trump whom he sided with after Hillary/the establishment took out his favorite candidate Bernie. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

This is actually a kind of interesting apolitical look at Trump from someone who knows Trump well:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/howard-stern-worries-trump-s-sensitive-ego-won-t-survive-n716381

Quote

"I personally wish that he had never run. I told him that. Because I actually think this is something that is going to be very detrimental to his mental health, too. Because he wants to be liked, he wants to be loved, he wants people to cheer for him," Stern said on his show broadcast on SiriusXM satellite radio on Wednesday. "I don't think this is going to be a healthy experience for him."

 

Quote

"It's very awkward for me personally because I like Donald a lot. I do. I like him a lot. But I'm not a guy who thinks the same way politically," said Stern. "And I don't even know that he thought this way politically a couple of years ago."

Stern, who said he was a huge Hillary Clinton supporter, as well as pro-abortion rights, said he remembers when he and the president shared the same beliefs.

"So the new Donald Trump kind of surprised me," said Stern

 

Quote

Stern firmly believes that Trump's whole presidential bid just started as a lark so that he could get more money out of NBC when he renegotiated his contract for the Apprentice television show.

"I think it started as kind of a cool, fun thing to do to get a couple more bucks out of NBC for the Apprentice. I actually do believe that."

(relevant quotes if you don't want to read the whole thing)

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Swordfish said:

I haven't looked at the data yet.

It really only takes a minute, It's pretty straight forward.

2 hours ago, Swordfish said:

I get that it was a post you made in about 5 seconds.  You could have simply acknowledged that the post was inaccurate and all of this could have been avoided.  I'm not the only one who dug in here.  Your post was the message board equivalent of a fake headline.  It's a pet peave of mine.

Fair enough, although I did try to clean up my perspective in subsequent posts, but it doesn't really matter anymore.

[MerenthaClone]

11 minutes ago, Einheri said:

Yeah, it’s a dumb ‘argument’, but I guess Sargon feels he has to somehow justify his support of Trump whom he sided with after Hillary/the establishment took out his favorite candidate Bernie. 

 

Look, unless he's massively come around on feminism, I'm really not interested in what a raging misogynist with no qualifications has to say about anything.  Like, there are plenty of raging misogynists with a lot of qualifications to listen to, what exactly does Carl bring to the table at all?  Plenty of people who are experts in some fields are complete idiots in others or otherwise have horrible personal views. I'll listen to them when it comes to their actual expert field but Carl literally doesn't have a field to even give him that credit.

He supported Bernie just like a ton of other brogressive idiots: because they heard the dogwhistle that Bernie (probably) inadvertently was signaling.  In the US, one of the constant ways minorities get screwed over is being told that the upcoming programs for the poor that are being implemented will help everyone!  Then, because nobody has actually done work into actual intersectional difficulties faced by some people, the poor white men get a much larger benefit from the program than others.  Reduced college tuition, for instance, is great:  if you don't also have racially biased admissions .  Bernie, in my opinion, was actually earnest when he meant that he'd work to benefit everyone, but there's a long, long history of economic progressives who say the same thing who then jettison minorities either as soon as they can or as soon as they realize they can use racism as a wedge issue.  Anyone who supported Trump after supporting Sanders is either so insanely misogynist that they couldn't reconcile that misogyny with their supposed favorite candidate's endorsement, they weren't actually paying attention to Sanders' message, they heard something that I don't believe was intended, or they were just flavor-of-the-month anti-establishment candidates who projected a whole shitton of nothing onto him.  

And, on top of that, he calls himself a classic liberal!  Words have meaning!  A classical liberal is not someone who supports Sanders!  They're practically antithetical positions economically.  Either he is lying or he is so uneducated about the topic (and doesn't care to learn) that he's basically showing that he's not someone to be listened to regardless of his fucking appalling paranoia about women and feminism.  

[DraculaAD1972]

2 hours ago, MerenthaClone said:

You're insane, mate.  He describes himself as "classically liberal" (ie, not leftist at all) he has repeatedly supported Trump, albeit mostly because of his general refusal to be "politically correct" ie not an asshole for no reason. He's an active pseudo-MRA who is convinced that the entire world is some bizarre feminist conspiracy and bills himself as a rationalist while refusing to actually engage with critics or data.  He was heavily involved with gamergate, massively supported Aurini's Sarkeesian Effect project, and generally has no intellectual rigor or classifications whatsoever.  His research is essentially looking up wikipedia articles, skimming the first 30 seconds of whatever he's discussing, and talking down to whatever video he's "refuting" as if they actually could respond.  His criticism mostly extends to saying "its stupid" or "its wrong" without any actual reason behind it as if it was self-evident to everyone involved (and since his fanbase consists of a massive circlejerk it probably is) and the man has no education whatsoever, as much as he thinks a british accent covers for that.  He makes occasionally anti-religious arguments, but much like Dawkins, usually fucks it all up by actually just being shitty towards Muslims.  But, really, his most defining characteristic when it comes to his social is his general hatred and fear of anything approaching the most milquetoast of feminism.  Petitioning to ban any kind of "social justice" coarse or theory at universities was one thing (all while he claims, repeatedly, that free speech is one of the most important rights we have, the hypocrite), but defending Elliot fucking Rodger because women supposedly created misogyny was another.  

As for his economic policy:  "The only people who are actually oppressed by capitalism are people who either can't work, people who've lost a leg or are morbidly obese or something like that, or people who don't want to work because they're fucking lazy, or people who don't have any other skills because they did gender studies degrees. Believe it or not, everyone else actually does pretty well out of capitalism, y'know, something like a house, a car, holidays, food on the table, entertainment, luxuries."  These are not the words of a "centre-left" person.  While he does occasionally say things like "a system that produces billionaires is not one which should exist" (so he's not a classical liberal either, despite what he claims) he refuses to engage in any way with any claims that institutional racism or sexism or discrimination of any kind should exist.  Economically, if he had to be described as anything, it'd probably be best to lump him in with the brogressive idiocy that basically is ostensibly progressive and in favor of a rising tide lifting all boats, as long as those boats are white and male.  He's someone who has picked phrases that sound good, positions that sound good, and all ones that work to benefit him the most without thinking about anyone else or looking at anything in depth.  And no, extensive, long videos in which he repeatedly covers the same ground don't count as depth. 

He's been defended by the EDL, Breitbart, key MRA members, and the editor of the Daily Stormer.  If you have immense respect for him, then I hope you re-evaluate your life.  

I'm not sure if I have 'immense respect' for Sargon, but I personally enjoy his videos and often agree with his views. Unlike the SJW's he so despises, Sargon is at least entertaining. As for re-evaluating one's life...really? It's this kind of patronizing mentality that makes the Sargons of this world look good. 

[MerenthaClone]

1 minute ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

I'm not sure if I have 'immense respect' for Sargon, but I personally enjoy his videos and often agree with his views. Unlike the SJW's he so despises, Sargon is at least entertaining. As for re-evaluating one's life...really? It's this kind of patronizing mentality that makes the Sargons of this world look good. 

Awww, does being told your views are shared by neo-Nazis offend you?  

[Rippounet]

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/02/513126985/house-votes-to-overturn-obama-rule-restricting-gun-sales-to-mentally-ill

[LongRider]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/02/513126985/house-votes-to-overturn-obama-rule-restricting-gun-sales-to-mentally-ill

Because every crazy motherfucker should have one.

[MerenthaClone]

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/02/513126985/house-votes-to-overturn-obama-rule-restricting-gun-sales-to-mentally-ill

The same party that insists with every mass shooting that the problem is mental health, not gun access.  Huh.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 2/2/2017 at 5:21 PM, Ran said:

Very rapid response from the DoJ for a FOIA request regarding the OLC's review of the travel ban EO. USA Today reporter shared its legal analysis, in full, for those wanting a glimpse behind the complexities of weighing the form and legality of such a consequential executive order:

For the full memo (which basically simply repeats what the EO is supposed to do without commenting at all on the legalities):

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/zoetillman/heres-the-justice-department-memo-on-trumps-refugee-and-trav?utm_term=.ewGbWYZP8#.dd2LlD0A2

Thank you.  You're absolutely right the memo contains -0- analysis regarding the constitutionality or propriety of the EO.  And no analysis as to the broader implications of what the EO could impact.

[LongRider]

1 minute ago, MerenthaClone said:

The same party that insists with every mass shooting that the problem is mental health, not gun access.  Huh.  

It's only a mental health issue if the shooter is a white guy, d'uh!  If the shooter is black or brown, they are either a criminal or a terrorist, whichever one will garner the most headlines.

[Einheri]

29 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

snip

Look, as you say that words have meaning. Looking up the term misogynist, for example, reveals the following:

"reflecting or exhibiting hatred, dislike, mistrust, or mistreatment of women."

- http://www.dictionary.com/browse/misogynistic

"One who hates or mistrusts women."

- http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misogynistic

"a hatred of women <lyrics that promote violence and misogyny>"

- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny

 

For all his criticism of the current feminism movement (not really why I watch his videos tbh), I have yet to see actual evidence that Sargon is a misogynist, in which case I’d actually reconsider my opinion on him.

As for classical liberalism, yes, he has said that he might consider himself as such, but you can't ignore that he frequently goes on to defend the welfare state and wealth distribution through taxes, and thus reveals himself as a social liberal.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but I came across an article about Milo that I feel hit the nail right on the head. Well written little piece by a blogger who Milo considers a friend. Really interesting take on Professional Political Troll culture.

 https://medium.com/welcome-to-the-scream-room/im-with-the-banned-8d1b6e0b2932#.8y17ad4t8

[IamMe90]

44 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

The same party that insists with every mass shooting that the problem is mental health, not gun access.  Huh.  

That's because it's the mentally unhealthy that are the problem, duh. Republicans want them all to have guns so they'll kill each other... or something. 

[LongRider]

9 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

That's because it's the mentally unhealthy that are the problem, duh. Republicans want them all to have guns so they'll kill each other... or something. 

Keeping the mentally ill from getting guns on that slippery slope to gun control.  It's all about preventing any  gun control, they don't give a shit if they shoot each other, or any one else.

[Rippounet]

21 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but I came across an article about Milo that I feel hit the nail right on the head. Well written little piece by a blogger who Milo considers a friend. Really interesting take on Professional Political Troll culture.

 https://medium.com/welcome-to-the-scream-room/im-with-the-banned-8d1b6e0b2932#.8y17ad4t8

That was a great read, thanks.
While I was reading I couldn't help picture Milo like Johnny Depp playing Hunter S. Thompson in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.