Jump to content

Archived

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

a good and nice guy

u.s. politics: faygo to the polls

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I'm glad McCain completed his first round of chemo, but am I the only creeped out by this picture?

Lieberman is totally going to give me nightmares.

He looks a lot like that grumpy old man ventriloquist dummy. Pretty creepy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

He looks a lot like that grumpy old man ventriloquist dummy. Pretty creepy.

The nicest way to put it is he does not look well.  Still remember the day after Obama beat McCain.  There was footage of Graham actually driving him to the airport.  All jokes aside, that's quite a bond those guys got.  Then again, look at Fudd's socks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

For anyone who's interested, I have some observations from one of my friends who was there today, a deeply religious, white, trans woman.

 

And some observations from a friend who attended an anti-Nazi rally in Portland, Oregon, especially as a testimonial to the behavior of the Antifa.

 Interesting takes there, thanks for posting them. It's looking like maybe Antifa is learning from their past mistakes here. If they shift from being all out agitators as they were at Berkeley to being a sort of crowd control/protective security role I think that's a good thing. It appears that they are moving in that direction. I truly hope that is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Interesting takes there, thanks for posting them. It's looking like maybe Antifa is learning from their past mistakes here. If they shift from being all out agitators as they were at Berkeley to being a sort of crowd control/protective security role I think that's a good thing. It appears that they are moving in that direction. I truly hope that is the case.

On Friday morning, I actually heard an Antifa rep and one of the organizers of the "free speech" rally getting interviewed on a local radio station. Funnily enough, it was a hip-hop station, during the time slot where they usually talk about celebrity gossip, and boy was it weird to hear Jermaine Wiggins (TE on the first Pats Super Bowl team, now a morning show host) asking the rally organizer if he was a Nazi. To his credit, the rally organizer invited the Antifa guy to speak at the event, and the Antifa guy responded with. "Haha, no. Well... actually... maybe. Let me get back to you on that." Sorry, none of that is related to my actual point, but I just had to share.

The Antifa guy was pretty explicit that they were going to be violent if the ralliers started spouting any fascist or Nazi rhetoric. I don't know enough about what went down at Berkeley to compare. I am very suspicious in general of the accusations being leveled against Antifa and BLM as trouble-makers, because as my friends' testimony pointed out above, you can't always trust cops to be neutral, and it's hard to tell who's instigating what when it's chaotic and people are wearing masks. I also wonder how much false flag agitation goes on there, because that's a proven tactic for authoritarians to grasp power, US law enforcement agencies have done it in the past, and Trump's people make false flag accusations so often in their own defense that it seems like they must be projecting.

But anyway. I, too, am grateful that Antifa (and BLM by all accounts I've read) played it as wisely as they did today, if for nothing else, than to keep their side of the street clean when law enforcement and lazy reporters will probably try to blame them for whatever violence does occur. That said, I do believe there is a time and a place for violence, when dealing with fascists and Nazis. Maybe there didn't have to be any violence today because the Nazis were so outnumbered, they just pissed themselves and ran (to cries of "Smile for your exit interviews on Monday!" in one delightful story). And because Boston PD was organized and made sure to disarm everyone. It's almost like they were bodyguarding these pathetic little cretins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

On Friday morning, I actually heard an Antifa rep and one of the organizers of the "free speech" rally getting interviewed on a local radio station. Funnily enough, it was a hip-hop station, during the time slot where they usually talk about celebrity gossip, and boy was it weird to hear Jermaine Wiggins (TE on the first Pats Super Bowl team, now a morning show host) asking the rally organizer if he was a Nazi. To his credit, the rally organizer invited the Antifa guy to speak at the event, and the Antifa guy responded with. "Haha, no. Well... actually... maybe. Let me get back to you on that." Sorry, none of that is related to my actual point, but I just had to share.

The Antifa guy was pretty explicit that they were going to be violent if the ralliers started spouting any fascist or Nazi rhetoric. I don't know enough about what went down at Berkeley to compare. I am very suspicious in general of the accusations being leveled against Antifa and BLM as trouble-makers, because as my friends' testimony pointed out above, you can't always trust cops to be neutral, and it's hard to tell who's instigating what when it's chaotic and people are wearing masks. I also wonder how much false flag agitation goes on there, because that's a proven tactic for authoritarians to grasp power, US law enforcement agencies have done it in the past, and Trump's people make false flag accusations so often in their own defense that it seems like they must be projecting.

But anyway. I, too, am grateful that Antifa (and BLM by all accounts I've read) played it as wisely as they did today, if for nothing else, than to keep their side of the street clean when law enforcement and lazy reporters will probably try to blame them for whatever violence does occur. That said, I do believe there is a time and a place for violence, when dealing with fascists and Nazis. Maybe there didn't have to be any violence today because the Nazis were so outnumbered, they just pissed themselves and ran (to cries of "Smile for your exit interviews on Monday!" in one delightful story). And because Boston PD was organized and made sure to disarm everyone. It's almost like they were bodyguarding these pathetic little cretins.

 I agree with most of this, but do have some pushback regarding the two bolded bits. I can't get behind violence as a response to mere rhetoric. I think that more often than not that is going to backfire on you. The Milo/Berkeley incident was a prime example of this. In that particular instance Antifa played right into the Right's narrative. That could not have gone better for Milo had he scripted it. He rode that incident into numerous media appearances, including the opening slot on Bill Maher's show. 

To the last part, that is the job of the police at these events. That's #1 on their mission statement for riot control. Not sure how you can logically criticize them for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, Trumps inability to forcefully condemn white nationalists/fascist's cost him dearly.  We have pretty well established that over the last thread or two.  However...

1 - there is a grand jury investigation into the activities of Trump and his campaign underway.  Sooner or later, that grand jury will reach a verdict - probably one not favorable to Trump.

2 -  Trump will see said verdict as a direct personal attack - his worldview allows him no other options.  He also prides himself on being a 'counter-puncher who strikes back ten times harder.'  So, how does this philosophy translate into action?  His legal options are somewhat limited, but another key element of Trumps beliefs is that he considers himself one of the 'strong,' and hence 'above the law.'  So...

....envision an announcement or tweet-storm in which Trump asks 'would somebody please rid me of my persecutors,' accompanied by hints of riches and pardons.  And maybe, if he has the authority, a sudden downsizing in the security around said 'persecutors.'   As president, and hence outside the normal judicial process, Trump might actually be able to manage something like this without legal consequence.  Given that it is not possible to 'out-crazy' Trump, this or something similar cannot be completely ruled out. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

The Antifa guy was pretty explicit that they were going to be violent if the ralliers started spouting any fascist or Nazi rhetoric.

Why?  No matter how many times people emphasize genocide or Nazis in their argument, there is no reasonable rationale for responding to rhetoric with unprovoked violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

....envision an announcement or tweet-storm in which Trump asks 'would somebody please rid me of my persecutors,' accompanied by hints of riches and pardons.  And maybe, if he has the authority, a sudden downsizing in the security around said 'persecutors.'   As president, and hence outside the normal judicial process, Trump might actually be able to manage something like this without legal consequence.  Given that it is not possible to 'out-crazy' Trump, this or something similar cannot be completely ruled out. 

If I can envision Trump soliciting assassins on twitter I can also envision Trump being removed from office almost immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Ok, Trumps inability to forcefully condemn white nationalists/fascist's cost him dearly. 

How has it? It has probably cost him some political capital, which is pretty vague to begin with, but it has gained him approval from voters. Bannon's ouster wasn't because of this. So what do you believe it has cost him?

Anyway, I don't believe that Trump will be that direct in requesting vigilante help, even when his back is to a wall. There are still lines you can't cross before people walk away from you in disbelief. If it happens, it'll be more subtle, and it'll have to look like any decision to take matters into own hands came from the far-right groups themselves. Even so, we're not talking a solicited, coordinated coup or anything, more a stirring of some of the more lunatic individuals of his base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bannon was not removed because of Trump's remarks but I think Republican's will act as if he was, I have heard "clean slate" thrown around. As if Bannon Harkonnen had his hand up Cheeto's ass when he Belvedered himself on national TV. I would not count on any of theses Rs to go beyond mild chiding and by Autumn they will probably chalk it up to Trump's inelgance rather than a defect of character, by that time, they will positively scoff any time someone so much suggests that the President is racist. So, no, I don't think the cost will go beyond a few weeks of bad press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Altherion said:

But by this measure, the white Americans (and especially the white American men) who are currently angry are doing exactly what you would expect: they have been subject to officially sanctioned, overt discrimination against by corporations, the government and academia for several decades so now they have a grudge against the beneficiaries of said discrimination.

Sure, if white men were truly discriminated against they would have a point. But I'm sure you realize that such victimisation on their part is hiding the true reaons of their economic woes. In other words, blaming affirmative action instead of political, governmental, and financial decisions taken these last decades is highly ridiculous. You and I know why inequality has risen in the past fifty years in the West, and we know affirmative action is certainly not to blame for anything in this story.
Also, in order to see affirmative action as "discrimination" you have to pretty much deny the fact that there is discrimination against minorities or women in the first place.
So it's all coherent: the folks over at Breitbart adamantly deny that there is a class war or racism and instead argue that "leftist" policies are what have created the class or racial divides.
From a purely argumentative perspective it works... If you have absolutely no historical knowledge.
Like, seriously, to think that, you need to be laughably ignorant.
Of course, racism also plays a role since white supremacists otoh do believe in a racial divide and see it as normal and desirable.

I really don't think I need to tell you all this Altherion. IIRC you're not even white, are you? ;)

Anyway, you might argue that some whites are "victims" of affirmative action if they are indeed more qualified than the members of minorities who take their place. It may happen, at the margins.
But it's far less frequent than you might think. I believe it's even irrelevant.
Take Abigail Fisher for instance. You remember Fisher v. University of Texas perhaps? This young very white young woman saying that colored people with lower grades than hers had been admitted to uni at her expense?
If my sources are correct, turns out she was wrong. Long story short she understimated just how good her competitors were. And because of that she presented herself as a victim of discrimination when, in fact, she was simply not good enough.
It still ended up in a 4-3 SCOTUS decision, but it shouldn't even have. The whole case was horseshit.

To sum up: many white people in the US are victimizing themselves because they vastly overestimate the effects of affirmative action while vastly underestimating the class and racial divides that exist in the US.
If you listen to the neo-nazis, they genuinely think they are victims.
And maybe they are, but certainly not of affirmative action.

8 hours ago, Altherion said:

This is true too, but your impact on the degree to which ideas become acceptable is minimal: they are becoming more popular despite overwhelming public and private disapproval and they will continue to do so until the underlying social dynamics change.

I think the media isn't doing their job of truly showing why such ideas should be rejected.
Of course, it they did, in the US they would no doubt be accused of being biased.
But in Europe at least, the journalists have done a pisspoor job of criticizing right-wing populism.
But we know why don't we? In France, Le Pen had to be threatening enough to get Macron elected. Else something really bad could have happened... Like an actual socialist being elected president. And god forbid we should go back to a genuinely progressive tax system...

8 hours ago, Altherion said:

It will eventually be sorted out, but they've still hurt people in the process.

Come on, what are the numbers? What percentage of the population are we talking about? Or even of the college population?
You can't seriously think this is statistically relevant.

8 hours ago, Altherion said:

Besides, if you are judging them by political relevance, the alt-right is just as politically irrelevant as the alt-left. Politics in the US is controlled by the neoliberals and they don't like sharing power any more than they like sharing wealth.

I beg to differ. I think neoliberalism is fine with some mild versions of neo-fascism and that it even encourages them.
Worse case scenario, the rise of the neo-fascists is very useful to neo-liberals to prevent socialism from rising again.

Also, Trump is ridiculously neo-liberal. National neo-liberalism and international neo-liberalism are two sides of a coin. Or do you seriously believe that things will be better if NAFTA is renegociated to screw the Canadians? Like, do you seriously believe that poverty in the US is due to the Canadians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this, but is it accurate about free speech rights being only for protection from Gov'mt?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

I like this, but is it accurate about free speech rights being only for protection from Gov'mt?

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It sure looks that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why do you continue to say these things?"  Trump apologist pwned.   lol

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ghjhero said:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It sure looks that way. 

Thanks.  Yet, Citizen's United was free speech issue.  I still don't  get that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Thanks.  Yet, Citizen's United was free speech issue.  I still don't  get that one.

I don't know the issue as much as I would like,  but I vaguely remember hearing it was considered a free speech issue because it originated over an attack ad against Hillary Clinton and she or her affiliates tried to shut it down. That could be totally bonkers, but that's all I can say at the moment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ghjhero said:

I don't know the issue as much as I would like,  but I vaguely remember hearing it was considered a free speech issue because it originated over an attack ad against Hillary Clinton and her or her affiliates tried to shut it down. That could be totally bonkers, but that's all I can say at the moment. 

I'm beginning to realize, that without Hillary and Bill Clinton, the modern GOP would not exist.  Clinton derangement syndrome is the force that gives GOP meaning, to paraphrase Chris Hedges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

I'm beginning to realize, that without Hillary and Bill Clinton, the modern GOP would not exist.  Clinton derangement syndrome is the force that gives GOP meaning, to paraphrase Chris Hedges.

Basically. It seems to be the only "issue" they can agree upon. They perpetually have the mindset of an opposition party. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Thanks.  Yet, Citizen's United was free speech issue.  I still don't  get that one.

It's because the campaign contributions were limited, the argument was that limitations on contributions restricted free speech, with money being considered speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

It's because the campaign contributions were limited, the argument was that limitations on contributions restricted free speech, with money being considered speech.

Money talks, as you know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×