U.S. Politics NEXT!

[Week]

Back to back posts ... 

Doug Jones: Certified Winner --

Quote

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, Attorney General Steve Marshall and Secretary of State John Merrill – all Republicans – signed off on election results from all 67 counties. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/12/28/roy-moore-asks-alabama-court-for-a-new-election/?

Quote

The Moore campaign’s main argument is that high Democratic turnout and low support for Moore in the state’s most populous, urban counties resulted in an “implausible, unexplained 35 percent drop in votes for Roy Moore relative to the vote share of Republican Party straight-line votes.” While Moore dramatically underperformed other Republican candidates in Alabama when he last ran for office, in 2012, the campaign cites four “experts” to argue that the state should “order a new special election to be held based upon the already known fraud which [Secretary of State John Merrill] had acknowledged and taken action against and the further fraud alleged in this complaint.”

The experts came to the case with baggage of their own. James Condit Jr., one of the election analysts who signed an affidavit on behalf of Moore’s campaign, has written and spoken about “Zionist” control of world politics, and alleged an Israeli role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Richard Charnin, who provided the court with an argument that there was just enough possible fraud to swing the election, claimed to have “mathematically” proven a conspiracy behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Ya know Roy Moore ... maybe you under-performed so spectacularly because you work and identify with people like those in the second paragraph? (... and the pedophilia/hebephilia ... and the white supremacy ... and the bigotry ... and the etc. etc etc. ... .... ... )

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, Week said:

Back to back posts ... 

Doug Jones: Certified Winner --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/12/28/roy-moore-asks-alabama-court-for-a-new-election/?

Ya know Roy Moore ... maybe you under-performed so spectacularly because you work and identify with people like those in the second paragraph? (... and the pedophilia/hebephilia ... and the white supremacy ... and the bigotry ... and the etc. etc etc. ... .... ... )

Roy Moore still showing how to be a horrible human being.  

[Bonnot OG]

5 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

 

Yeah, maybe people should practice what they preach and read the full story instead of jumping to conclusions based on surface appearances.

From Guy Kilmore's link:

 

Maybe publications should stop asinine things such as person of the year and awarding it to shit bags since the tone of person of the year sounds like you're putting the person in a positive light. 

He shouldn't be getting fucking platforms period. It was a dangerous and irresponsible thing for them to do.

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Maybe publications should stop asinine things such as person of the year and awarding it to shit bags since the tone of person of the year sounds like you're putting the person in a positive light. 

He shouldn't be getting fucking platforms period. It was a dangerous and irresponsible thing for them to do.

 

How exactly is a news organization documenting and reporting on an individual's ties to white supremacist and other organizations dangerous and irresponsible? Isn't that what they're supposed to do?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

24 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Maybe publications should stop asinine things such as person of the year and awarding it to shit bags since the tone of person of the year sounds like you're putting the person in a positive light. 

He shouldn't be getting fucking platforms period. It was a dangerous and irresponsible thing for them to do.

 

So when Time gave Hitler, Stalin (twice), and Ayatollah Khomeini the "Person of the year" titles in 1938, 1939, 1942, and 1979 they were offering laurels to these individuals?

[Paladin of Ice]

35 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Maybe publications should stop asinine things such as person of the year and awarding it to shit bags since the tone of person of the year sounds like you're putting the person in a positive light. 

He shouldn't be getting fucking platforms period. It was a dangerous and irresponsible thing for them to do.

 

So news organizations shouldn't single out Nazis and White Supremacists and explicitly say "This is bad." It's better to just ignore it and hope it gets better on its own.

Gotcha.

[Jace, Extat]

25 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So when Time gave Hitler, Stalin (twice), and Ayatollah Khomeini the "Person of the year" titles in 1938, 1939, 1942, and 1979 they were offering laurels to these individuals?

You realize that most people don't understand it's not an explicit endorsement right?

I have heard more than once that Trump was the person of the year, and therefore the negative press is biased.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

25 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

You realize that most people don't understand it's not an explicit endorsement right?

I have heard more than once that Trump was the person of the year, and therefore the negative press is biased.

I do.  That's why I highlighted the individuals I did and the dates they were given the title "Person of the Year".  I hoped it would show that "Person of the Year" isn't an accolade.  I really wish people wouldn't substitute their rationale for the selection of "Persons of the Year" for the rationale.  I remember people freaking out about Trump being named "Person of the Year".

 

[Jace, Extat]

22 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I do.  That's why I highlighted the individuals I did and the dates they were given the title "Person of the Year".  I hoped it would show that "Person of the Year" isn't an accolade.  I really wish people wouldn't substitute their rationale for the selection of "Persons of the Year" for the rationale.  I remember people freaking out about Trump being named "Person of the Year".

 

My point is that naming or nominating these creatures is inadvertently enabling them.

They should not be given consideration for anything that could be deemed an 'award'.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

My point is that naming or nominating these creatures is inadvertently enabling them.

They should not be given consideration for anything that could be deemed an 'award'.

But it is not and has never been an "Award" that is everyone misperception of what it is.  It can't be "deemed and award" when it has never been an "award".

 

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But it is not and has never been an "Award" that is everyone misperception of what it is.  It can't be "deemed and award" when it has never been an "award".

 

Yeah, it's much more realistic to assume one day everyone will understand that and react appropriately, especially those who are willfully ignorant, than to take a bit of responsibility.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Yeah, it's much more realistic to assume one day everyone will understand that and react appropriately, especially those who are willfully ignorant, than to take a bit of responsibility.

Take responsibility for people who are "willfully ignorant"?  How is anyone other than the person who is "willfully ignorant" responsible for their willful ignorance?

 

[Jace, Extat]

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Take responsibility for people who are "willfully ignorant"?  How is anyone other than the person who is "willfully ignorant" responsible for their willful ignorance?

 

'Person of the Year' is easy to interpret as an accolade, and even easier to insist is an accolade. 

They should either rename it as 'most influential person of the year' for clarity's sake or stop nominating figures that barely meet the requirements for PERSON as it is.

[Altherion]

11 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

My point is that naming or nominating these creatures is inadvertently enabling them.

Enabling them to do what? Their kind will never be allowed anywhere near political power in America and everybody knows it; this is why there was so much effort to tie Trump & Co. to them. A related species (somewhat more nationalistic than Trump, significantly more willing to upset the status quo and with military, police and/or paramilitary support) can be dangerous, but I guarantee you that that if such a group does arise, they will do their best to distance themselves from the likes of Spencer.

[Fragile Bird]

I not only read the article, I also listened to a lot of comments about what an excellent condemnation it was of Spencer, and the justification that it was not an 'award' for things they liked but a recognition that he is a Texan who made the news.

I wholly agree with Pony Queen Jace here. The nomination enables him, and worse, normalizes what he does. How many people will read the article, and instead, just say, 'Oh look, he was nominated as Texan of the year! He must be legit!'

I mean, wtf, Hatch thanked the paper for the honor, because he couldn't bother to read the story either. We laughed because of the condemnation in his nomination, but probably the majority of his supporters just know he was named person of the year.

Hitler and Stalin were the leaders of countries, repulsive as those selections were. Spencer is the leader of what? Nominating him is like nominating Hitler in 1928, no?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

'Person of the Year' is easy to interpret as an accolade, and even easier to insist is an accolade. 

They should either rename it as 'most influential person of the year' for clarity's sake or stop nominating figures that barely meet the requirements for PERSON as it is.

Which is why Hitler was given it in 1938 and Ayatollah Khomeini was given it in 1979 because we in the US really wanted to honor those men...

[Jace, Extat]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Which is why Hitler was given it in 1938 and Ayatollah Khomeini was given it in 1979 because we in the US really wanted to honor those men...

In 38 the only people who gave a shit probably actually read the articles. 

Do you think that's still the case? 

[Week]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Which is why Hitler was given it in 1938 and Ayatollah Khomeini was given it in 1979 because we in the US really wanted to honor those men...

What other examples other than these 2 in the last 79 years follow this logic? The title has been an accolade 97.5% of the time in the last 79 years -- it's a mistake to use the same title for the 2.5% of "Person of the Year" recipients who receive it as a dishonor.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Week said:

Back to back posts ... 

Doug Jones: Certified Winner --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/12/28/roy-moore-asks-alabama-court-for-a-new-election/?

Ya know Roy Moore ... maybe you under-performed so spectacularly because you work and identify with people like those in the second paragraph? (... and the pedophilia/hebephilia ... and the white supremacy ... and the bigotry ... and the etc. etc etc. ... .... ... )

I honestly think his comments about "the best time in American was when we still had slaves" was what did more damage to him than anything else, including the charges of sexual harassment and assault. 

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Take responsibility for people who are "willfully ignorant"?  How is anyone other than the person who is "willfully ignorant" responsible for their willful ignorance?

 

The overwhelming majority of people in this country are willfully ignorant in one form or another. I agree with Jace to some extent. I'd rather they have two "awards" when they do these things. Call one "Person With The Most Positive Influence Of The Year" and the other "Person With The Most Negative Influence Of The Year." Make it unmistakably clear, even if it ends up a bit wordy. 

ETA:

I'd really take FB's last paragraph to heart on this one. Sure the paper is trashing him, but it gives him a larger platform for recruiting. And I'm sure a lot more people will just see the headline rather than read the article. Idk if you've seen his videos, but they are actually fairly well done for what they are. He's very good a creating a tempting dog whistle for the right audience. 

 

38 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Enabling them to do what? Their kind will never be allowed anywhere near political power in America and everybody knows it; this is why there was so much effort to tie Trump & Co. to them. A related species (somewhat more nationalistic than Trump, significantly more willing to upset the status quo and with military, police and/or paramilitary support) can be dangerous, but I guarantee you that that if such a group does arise, they will do their best to distance themselves from the likes of Spencer.

It gives them undue attention that can be spun to be positive. You should get that, given how many times you've used the word "propaganda" in the last year. 

As far as being near political power goes, you're grossly wrong. Spencer started the rebranding of the white nationalist/supremacist movement with the term "alt-right." Bannon co-opted it and made it the focus of a growing online news site. Bannon went on to directly influence the President, and he still does today (although that could be waning). They have real political power, albeit by degrees of separation. 

[Seli]

nvm