US Elections - From Russia with Love

[Mexal]

Reuters reporting now that Clinton campaign was also hacked. So now we have the DNC, DCCC and now Clinton campaign. Anyone sensing a pattern here?

[Fez]

20 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 

That balloon stuff was some of the hokiest, fakest staged humanizing act I've seen in a long time.  i was embarrased for everyone on that stage.

The conspiracy goes back decades!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute 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.

Setting aside the fact that you ignored everything else I wrote that completely undermines your argument, the fact that Bush was a part of the establishment doesn't mean he wasn't a complete idiot. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

The antipathy is historical and it is a lot more recent than the Middle Ages. Muslims raped, looted and enslaved across regions of what are now Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, etc. for centuries and ruled what are now other countries outright. It wasn't until Catherine II that the Slavs finally put a stop to it. I don't know how the EU (which is supposedly smarter than Trump) decided to put refugees in Eastern Europe, but it was quite obvious that this wasn't going to go well.

That said, the Democrats have way too much of an edge in Illinois for Trump to have any chance there.

It's interesting that you'd cast it as Muslim v Christian when Poland's suffered way more (and more recent) depravities from fellow 'Christians', Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox, than it has has from the successor states of the Mongol Empire.

Trump is a buffoon, but he has other qualities. He has a magnetic personality that manifests in his speeches being so compelling for so many people despite failing by most orthodox standards of rhetoric. He's also incredibly charismatic in person, when he wants to be. This, combined with his absolute confidence in himself, helps him with investors.

Nevertheless, he's been almost completely blacklisted by major Western Banks, excluding Deutsche. A lot of his mroe recent ventures use less sophisticated investors

23 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Must be nice to be so privileged.  

 

While Swordfish is being obnxious in this thread, this is a bit of a non-sequitor. You at least need to justify the steps between, "I'm fine with there being fewer Supreme Court Justices" and "That's only because you're a cishet white male"

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Yeah I'm not sure how many folks could watch Mr. Khan's speech last night and be left with "just another angry Muslim". Seems to me his speech hit both sides of the aisle right in the heart. 

Agreed. A lot of my Republican friends said it was an incredible speech (but they also hate Trump so who knows how that applies to your average Republican). 

That said, Coulter is a troll who is best ignored. There's a reason she immediately aligned herself with her fellow troll.

[Fragile Bird]

4 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

It's interesting that you'd cast it as Muslim v Christian when Poland's suffered way more (and more recent) depravities from fellow 'Christians', Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox, than it has has from the successor states of the Mongol Empire.

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'.

[BloodRider]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

People investing money in his projects is evidence that there are no obvious psychological problems.

I bet you think Nickleback writes good music, too.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

40 minutes 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'.

The Communist Russians are a different category. I was thinking of the Nazis (who were at least nominally Christian, but were certainly not Muslim), the Russia-Austria-Prussian partition you just mentioned, the Swedes (the Deluge) before that, and the Teutonic Knights in the middle ages. And the Ottomans didn't control much of Poland(unless you count Ukraine) and what they did control wasn't for very long.

Regardless of that, my point is that even if you ascribe to the fallacious Christian v. Muslim narrative (putting the Ottoman Turks and Crimean Tartars into the same bucket), the Muslim still would not be even close to the worst thing that happened to Poland.

 

 

[Dr. Pepper]

Uh oh, I'm bringing up race again.  I know this makes some of you all sorts of uncomfortable and confused, but whatever.

Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down North Carolina Voter ID Provision

Quote

A federal appeals court decisively struck down North Carolina’s voter identification law on Friday, saying its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black turnout at the polls.

 

[Fragile Bird]

18 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

The Communist Russians are a different category. I was thinking of the Nazis (who were at least nominally Christian, but were certainly not Muslim), the Russia-Austria-Prussian partition you just mentioned, the Swedes (the Deluge) before that, and the Teutonic Knights in the middle ages. And the Ottomans didn't control much of Poland(unless you count Ukraine) and what they did control wasn't for very long.

Regardless of that, my point is that even if you ascribe to the fallacious Christian v. Muslim narrative (putting the Ottoman Turks and Crimean Tartars into the same bucket), the Muslim still would not be even close to the worst thing that happened to Poland.

Bah, Nazis were not Christians.  They sent clergy to concentration camps.

In any event you are missing the point.  The point is there is definitely hostility towards Muslims in Poland today.  I was just trying to figure out why.  And Trump's call to bar Muslims resonates in the community.

[Commodore]

32 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Uh oh, I'm bringing up race again.  I know this makes some of you all sorts of uncomfortable and confused, but whatever.

Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down North Carolina Voter ID Provision

 

Court rules proving who you are is racist

[TrueMetis]

32 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Bah, Nazis were not Christians.  They sent clergy to concentration camps.

And that prove they weren't Christians how exactly? Different Christian denominations often fucking hated each other.

[Fragile Bird]

8 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

And that prove they weren't Christians how exactly? Different Christian denominations often fucking hated each other.

I guess I'm getting damn old when I have to start proving this crap.  From Wikipedia, because it's easiest:

There was some diversity of personal views among the Nazi leadership as to the future of religion in Germany. Anti-Church radicals included Hitler's Personal Secretary Martin Bormann, Minister for Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, Neo-Pagan Nazi Philosopher Alfred Rosenberg, and Neo-Pagan Occultist Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler. Some Nazis, such as Hans Kerrl, who served as Hitler's Minister for Church Affairs, believed Christianity could be Nazified into "Positive Christianity", by renouncing its Jewish origins, the Old Testament and Apostle's Creed, and holding Hitler as a new "Messiah".[citation needed]

Nazism wanted to transform the subjective consciousness of the German people—their attitudes, values and mentalities—into a single-minded, obedient "national community". The Nazis believed they would therefore have to replace class, religious and regional allegiances.[4] Under the Gleichschaltung process, Hitler attempted to create a unified Protestant Reich Church from Germany's 28 existing Protestant churches. The plan failed, and was resisted by the Confessing Church. Persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany followed the Nazi takeover. Hitler moved quickly to eliminate Political Catholicism. Amid harassment of the Church, the Reich concordat treaty with the Vatican was signed in 1933, and promised to respect Church autonomy. Hitler routinely disregarded the Concordat, closing all Catholic institutions whose functions were not strictly religious. Clergy, nuns, and lay leaders were targeted, with thousands of arrests over the ensuing years. The Church accused the regime of "fundamental hostility to Christ and his Church". Smaller religious minorities such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Bahá'í Faith were banned in Germany, while the eradication of Judaism by the genocide of its adherents was attempted. The Salvation Army, Christian Saints and Seventh Day Adventist Church all disappeared from Germany, while astrologers, healers and fortune tellers were banned. The small pagan "German Faith Movement", which worshipped the sun and seasons, supported the Nazis.[5] Many historians believed that Hitler and the Nazis intended to eradicate Christianity in Germany after winning victory in the war.

There's lots more if you search the topic.

[Swordfish]

2 hours ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

 

While Swordfish is being obnxious in this thread, this is a bit of a non-sequitor. You at least need to justify the steps between, "I'm fine with there being fewer Supreme Court Justices" and "That's only because you're a cishet white male"

Thank you for that......

[TrueMetis]

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I guess I'm getting damn old when I have to start proving this crap.  From Wikipedia, because it's easiest:

Right, sure. But "They sent clergy to concentration camps" still proves nothing about the religion of the people placing those clergy into concentration camps. Even if the conclusion is correct faulty reasoning used to support that conclusion should still be called out.

[Dr. Pepper]

24 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I guess I'm getting damn old when I have to start proving this crap.  From Wikipedia, because it's easiest:

 

Come on, FB, this is a bit like claiming that the members of ISIS aren't Muslim since the overwhelming majority of their victims are Muslim.

 

 

[James Arryn]

7 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Let's accept for a moment Altherion's premise that Trump is playing a character and doesn't mean most of what he says. Does that not beg the question of which is worse; to be an angry racist who spews vile beliefs or to be the kind of person who isn't an angry racist, but is willing to look out into a crowd of angry racists and prey on their hate and fear and turn them into a mob for your own gain? 

There's the classic question about hitler and Jews. In MK he notes that people love to feel victimized and love having someone to blame for their troubles. So, what's worse, a Hitler inspired holocaust based on a fanatical but sincere belief, or a purely pragmatic holocaust?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 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'.

 Sounds like someone needs to poll the Poles. 

[James Arryn]

6 hours ago, alguien said:

Fair point. Though I've watched better delivery, his story, especially when he took out his copy of the constitution, was an effectively compelling bit of of political theater. 

Hadn't thought about this. It is a little concerning, because it's one of the areas I'm most critical of Hillary Clinton (saying "well, at least she's not a neocon" isn't quite good enough, IMO), and while it seemed the Sanders contingent was moderately successful in achieving some buy-in for their domestic agenda, I haven't seen any major adjustments from Clinton's platform foreign policy-wise. 

It's absolutely the thing about her that has always been my main issue. The American economy/mentality is such that this is kindof like calling rain in London, but if she's elected I fully expect at least one significant 'intervention'.

[James Arryn]

3 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.

 

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.