Jump to content

US Politics: On Many Sides


Kalbear

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Ok, so board hive mind, what do we think?  Did Trump fire Bannon because of the fallout from Charlottesville?  Or because of those weird and surprisingly unflattering interviews he gave about both Trump and his supporters?  The official word is it was the latter, but the timing of all this is very strange. 

Definitely the latter.  And talking about himself instead of his boss to the press.  And that SNL put him at the Big Desk in the Oval and the orange at the teeny tiny one.

But somehow, I don't believe Bannon is really entirely gone.  I think they'll still be talking where others can't hear.  This leaves the White House staffed by the military, bankers and two NYC Dems, Jared and Ivanka.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Definitely the latter.  And talking about himself instead of his boss to the press.  And that SNL put him at the Big Desk in the Oval and the orange at the teeny tiny one.

But somehow, I don't believe Bannon is really entirely gone.  I think they'll still be talking where others can't hear.  This leaves the White House staffed by the military, bankers and two NYC Dems, Jared and Ivanka.

Yeah, this could be just a P.R. move at the end of the day. It will be interesting to see whether or not this Breitbart war versus Trump surfaces. I think if and when that happens we'll have a better idea as to what this is really about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Absolutely, but it could also lead to what about the Washington Monument? What about Monticello? That's all we're saying. The slippery slope argument is not shitty when you can already see rumblings of it. 

You are being deliberately stupid, historically.  Just as i would never argue that the Andrew Jackson statue in New Orleans Jackson Square being taken down, because yo he saved NO from the Brits (even though the war of 1812 was over, treaty signed, nobody knew it -- and Cockburn had proven himself and his crews to be real evil mfs throughout the Eastern Shore and the Chesapeake, particularly before he reluctantly got rid of the French troops called the Canadian Chasseurs -- prisoners of war who chose fight rather than rot in prisons.  He did earn that statue by defending the USA.

Washington earned his statues in many many many multiples times of ways.

I have some problems with Jefferson, as the founding father of white supremacy.  But he did do some stuff that mattered, like the Declaration, the unconstitutional acquisition of the Louisiana Territory -- as well as stuff that was really negative such as dismantling the navy that Washington, Hamilton and Adams struggled so hared to finance and get in plaqce.  But still, in history, that Declaration, yo.

But Lee, Jeff Davis, etc. -- they did nothing but commit treason to the US in the hopes of expanding their wealth, which was primarily the slaves they owned.

These things are NOT equivalences and we know you are, like we are, are smart enough to know that, so yo, just drop this shyte.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jared and Ivanka may be "two NYC Dems" technically , but it's not the same as just two random Democrats from NYC.  These are uppercrust .001%ers who may espouse a couple of socially liberal positions when safe and convenient to do so.  But they're the kids of NYC Dems who are actively supporting and with this shitbag president his stupid-fucked agenda.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Zorral said:

These things are NOT equivalences and we know you are, like we are, are smart enough to know that, so yo, just drop this shyte.

I'm not the one making this argument. The point is that there are folks who are making this argument. This narrative is being forwarded on the back of the Civil War monument "issue". You guys seem to want to just hand wave that fact away. As you posited in your last post, it's not a reasonable position. We are in agreement. That doesn't change the fact that this position is being expressed. Case in point:

 http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-andrew-jackson-new-orleans-20170501-story.html

 

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2016/09/new_orleans_monuments_1.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Jared and Ivanka may be "two NYC Dems" technically , but it's not the same as just two random Democrats from NYC.  These are uppercrust .001%ers who may espouse a couple of socially liberal positions when safe and convenient to do so.  But they're the kids of NYC Dems who are actively supporting and with this shitbag president his stupid-fucked agenda.  

O ya, I never noticed that. :rolleyes:  Irony, yo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

O ya, I never noticed that. :rolleyes:  Irony, yo.

Wasn't digging at you just riffing, and venting about everytime someone still tries to tell me Jared and Ivanka are keeping Trump in check.  Which is the typical babyboomer moderate/liberal response to any concerns I raise with my family and friends...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

I saw one of these polls yesterday broken down by party afffiliation and as expected Ds were overwhelmingly against him, but the dial didn't move for Rs. Even worse, those identified as indepndent were split. He was absolutely correct when he said he could shoot someone and not lose support. There is nothing capable of scandalizing these people. 

The part that breaks me is that the number of Republicans who approved of his comments is higher than the number of Republicans who support him. 

Around half the Republicans who did abandon him (at least, half the ones that still identify as Republican), still support comments like his. So it's not even entirely a question of loyalty; it's just fucked.

A lot of Republican officeholders did seem pretty upset with his comments, but it turns out they are nowhere near where their party is anymore. No wonder Jeff Flake's approval among Arizona Republicans is so bad (he's down to 18% among all AZ voters).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Fez said:

The part that breaks me is that the number of Republicans who approved of his comments is higher than the number of Republicans who support him. 

Around half the Republicans who did abandon him (at least, half the ones that still identify as Republican), still support comments like his. So it's not even entirely a question of loyalty; it's just fucked.

A lot of Republican officeholders did seem pretty upset with his comments, but it turns out they are nowhere near where their party is anymore. No wonder Jeff Flake's approval among Arizona Republicans is so bad (he's down to 18% among all AZ voters).

After decades of race baiting, continuing embrace of far right extremism, and stoking of culture wars, Republicans have created their own monster. Even if they didn't believe some of the shit they spewed, their electorate surely did, really I am not surprised to see the disconnect between Congress and their constituents. Real leadership would be taking the unpopular, moral stance and in attempt to draw voters back from the brink. Instead, I think they will try to brush this under the rug and pretend their leader never coddled white supremacy and that their public didn't give him license to so, in a few weeks they will treat this like a speed bump until the next time Trump shits himself publicly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'm not the one making this argument. The point is that there are folks who are making this argument. This narrative is being forwarded on the back of the Civil War monument "issue". You guys seem to want to just hand wave that fact away. As you posited in your last post, it's not a reasonable position. We are in agreement. That doesn't change the fact that this position is being expressed. Case in point:

 http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-andrew-jackson-new-orleans-20170501-story.html

 

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2016/09/new_orleans_monuments_1.html

No -- you keep going right by it, which is statues and infrastructure and institutions named in honor of people who committed treason for the sake of increasing their wealth through the breeding, selling and buying of African American bodies, whose ancestors were enslaved, brought here as prisoners for the same purpose.  This is not the same as saving the city of New Orleans from ravishment by the Brits.  Andrew Jackson committed the sins of slavery himself -- including being the only POTUS who ever personally drove a slave coffel -- not to mention the genocide of Native Americans to make Dixie safe for the cotton kingdom, i.e. slavery's expansion -- but he did something else as well.

Jeff Davis is honored with a portrait in the Capitol.  That is wrong because Jeff Davis never did anything but live off slavery, work to destroy the US, and then rewrite history to say what he did wasn't about slavery at all.

If you cannot see the difference you are either a smug 20 year old who thinks he's discovered something important that is in reality just wrong or someone who is trolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Wasn't digging at you just riffing, and venting about everytime someone still tries to tell me Jared and Ivanka are keeping Trump in check.  Which is the typical babyboomer moderate/liberal response to any concerns I raise with my family and friends...

Ah -- we see now. I am vision impaired.  You don 't want to try looking through my prescription.  :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Fez said:

The part that breaks me is that the number of Republicans who approved of his comments is higher than the number of Republicans who support him. 

Around half the Republicans who did abandon him (at least, half the ones that still identify as Republican), still support comments like his. So it's not even entirely a question of loyalty; it's just fucked.

I think it has more to do with them approving of Trump attacking leftist activists then it does with him conflating them with Nazis. And I would ignore the other poll numbers. They may not have fully captured the fallout of his comments, and he probably got a decent short term bump from looking tough on North Korea. 

42 minutes ago, Fez said:

A lot of Republican officeholders did seem pretty upset with his comments, but it turns out they are nowhere near where their party is anymore. No wonder Jeff Flake's approval among Arizona Republicans is so bad (he's down to 18% among all AZ voters).

This is always the case though. Elected Republicans understand the magnitude of Trump's comments far better than your average Republican does. And that's in part why Trump won. He appealed to ignorance rather then inspiration, by and large. 

Also, I didn't realize Flake's numbers were so bad. I've never heard of a sitting Senator who hasn't done anything illegal or shady at 18%. Guess that's why he's saying screw it and trying to do what he thinks is right rather then what he thinks would be right politically. Still, a profile in courage he will not receive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

But somehow, I don't believe Bannon is really entirely gone.  I think they'll still be talking where others can't hear.  This leaves the White House staffed by the military, bankers and two NYC Dems, Jared and Ivanka.

Yes and no. He'll play nice if Trump sticks to nationalism. If Trump flips and becomes a run of the mill neo-con, all bets are off and I expect he and Breitbart will unload on him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, denstorebog said:

I think we need a calm reality check on this first.

  • Who is reporting this, exactly? I see reference to the governor, but apparently police has shot down the story. So who's right about this?
  • Do we really believe that this was a "test run for a takeover of a city"? My gut feeling tells me we're ascribing a bit too much organizational coherence to the rally and the people behind it. Even if someone hid weapons somewhere, the idea that a bunch of people were in on it without police or the feds catching on seems dubious. Everything in the planning, execution and aftermath of the rally says "total chaos" to me, and the people who participated are a really fractioned bunch.

I had said in my previous posts on the subject why I choose to believe the Governor, and he is speaking on the podcast linked in that Twitter thread, over the police that are very clearly riddled with Nazis and had just suffered a massive organisational failure even if they were not. I'm not American, there's nothing I can do here either way other than appeal to people I know to be fucking vigilant so that's what I'm doing.

These people just had a large scale march in public, showing their faces, and they advocate genocide. The POTUS has defunded law enforcement that deals with domestic terror groups and they know this. Why on earth is it a stretch to think they would be trying to practice the techniques/achieve infrastructure they need to achieve their stated goal of genocide? These are literal fucking Nazis, they will do what Hitler did if they can and yet they just keep being underestimated. I understand thinking them incompetent, because thankfully so far that has been the saving grace, but attempting to do shit like that is a question of desire, of motive, of premeditation as much as of competence. Be sceptical sure, but disbelieving? Just dismiss the Governor of the state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the Nazi King is out, but the Nazi sympathizer is still President. And this farce is mainly continuing because Wall Street Bankers want a huge tax cut and the generals want to throw a bunch poor suckers out to die in the MIddle East.

On the plus the side, it doesn't appear that Eric Prince privatization schemes will go anywhere. I don't like to be pessimistic, but our country really could be well and truly fucked.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/afghanistan-camp-david/537324/

Erik Prince's Plan to Privatize the War in Afghanistan
President Trump is meeting with his aides on Friday at Camp David—and some unorthodox ideas are on the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I'm talking about a much more widespread view on issues that has nothing to do with the Nazi's. Views that there is too much immigration, that white / european history and culture is being lost and replaced, far more conservative viewpoints on racial incidents such as ferguson. You don't have to be a nazi to hold these views, and it doesn't make you incorrect either.

3 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

That is your opinion that is not a big deal, and reducing peoples worries by patting them on the head, telling them there is something wrong with them for being concerned is only going to lead to more and more right wing groups. Telling people to not be proud of their culture, to be ashamed of it instead while their culture slowly dies away is really not going help matters.

People who think their country (or the West as a whole) has a glorious culture that is somehow being lost may not be nazis, but they certainly share with them a distorted view of history.

I think the controversy surrounding the "Life in Roman Britain" BBC cartoon illustrates it well. For those who don't know, right-wingers were shocked by a cartoon showing a black Roman soldier in ancient Britain, and criticized it for "political correctness" running wild in the face of historical accuracy. As it turns out however, historians pointed out that Roman Britain was indeed rather ethnically diverse and that there had even been a Roman governor of Britain who was born in Algeria.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/07/542077027/a-cartoons-black-star-prompts-a-fight-what-did-roman-britain-look-like
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/06/mary-beard-misogynistic-race-row-bbc-cartoon-us-academic-claimed/

This shows what may be the root of the problem: the shock at seeing a black Roman soldier came from a fantasized vision of the past in which one couldn't exist. And such fantasized visions of the past in turn create erroneous perspectives about the times we live in. It's the same story throughout the West. It's the same story in the US because of a completely fantasized version of the Civil war. As historians say: "the North won the war, but the South won the peace," which means the South got to write the completely erroneous narrative of a fight for "States' rights." Of course, it was about slavery, it was about racism, it was about white supremacy, and the South's cause was very wrong.
Many people think it's important for nations to believe in "shared" history, even when such history is a lie ; they think these are "noble" lies, because pride brings people together. In French we call that the "national novel," the narrative upon which a nation is built. And I think this is where our problems today come from: such narratives are lies, fairy tales for the gullible. In truth, I don't think any nation has a history to be proud of. That is, unless you think wars, genocides and mass exploitation are stuff to be proud of.

So yes, I do believe there is something wrong with people who are "concerned" about the "loss and replacement of their culture." They are ignorant and/or falling for right-wing propaganda. They are blaming the wrong people for their economic woes. And they tend to elect awful leaders. Because they still want to believe in the fairy tale that their nation is "great" and "unique," and that there is something about it that they can take pride in. I would find it funny, but I don't think these "concerns" are anything to laugh about anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...