Varysblackfyre321 Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 8 hours ago, Altherion said: I've been waiting for a major political figure on the left to do something like this. It's been obvious for a while that apologizing to the "social justice" crowd is counterproductive -- they'll keep hammering just the same except that now they have what amounts to an admission that you did something wrong. One possible solution is to say "This is what I believe in (in Biden's case, civil discourse). Accordingly, I'm right and you're wrong so you apologize." The "social justice" people will be outraged, but this doesn't matter because they'd be outraged regardless. On the other hand, there may be some fraction of the rest of the population which appreciates a leader who appears to have values that he's not going to jettison the moment a mob of bullies starts shouting at him. We'll see. The social justice people being the anti-segregationists? So hopefully most people. Got it. Yeah it sure is courageous to to openly vouch for the good character of people who’d treat non-whites as subhuman and mush how even though they disagreed with Biden(on whether icky blacks should be allowed to live for example ), they were totes able to civilly talk and respectfully disagree on whether or not non-whites are subhuman. They talked civilly enough with Joe-that’s the big thing here-so they shouldn’t be seen in too bad a light even though they actively strived to take away of civil rights for non-whites. There is definitely fraction of the population who’ll cheer this on. Mostly hard-core racists tired of being looked at as bad people for their stance that other races are inferior, and need to be separated/killed. It really hurts their feelings judged on their abhorrent beliefs that other be judged on their skin color. So unfair. They should be able to politely argue why non-whites should be kicked out of this country and not be seen as or called a bad person for it. They’re just putting forth an idea. A different perspective that should be responded to respectfully. So Yes, they’ll see Joe standing up to a mob of bullies-which in this case is people who don’t like segregationists and don’t want them sanitized or looked at as redeemable by virtue of being able to respectfully disagree with Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 9 minutes ago, DMC said: Anybody thinking they have the first idea what American politics is gonna look 20 years down the road is kidding themselves. Obviously, it will be all about Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: Obviously, it will be all about Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism. Isn't that pretty much WALL-E? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darzin Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: Meh, a lot of people like it when they’re Presidents bomb or destroy shit. Whips up a patriotic fervor and once at war, it’s easy to frame any dissent as being unpatriotic. But how do people like it when Iran bombs back? Iran is much stronger then Iraq ever was there are US bases and ships in range of Iranian missiles a war with Iran could easily cause a few thousand US casualties in the first week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centrist Simon Steele Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 4 hours ago, Fragile Bird said: God I love Warren the more I see of her. After she announced people said she would be destroyed by Trump. Do you guys think so? She just announced she’d make for-profit, private prisons illegal. Gotta love her. Me too. I think the whole native american thing really hurt her (which is super frustrating), but she seems to be overcoming that. No doubt if she wins the nom, then Trump would start that again. She needs a good plan for how to handle it. Otherwise, she is exciting and has great plans for the working/middle classes. I've always liked Bernie, but Warren's quickly overtaken him for me. I think she is more likely to get things done and not get gridlocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Just now, Darzin said: But how do people like it when Iran bombs back? Iran id much stronger then Iraq ever was there are US bases and ships in range of Iranian missiles a war with Iran could easily cause a few thousand US casualties in he firs week. Meh I’d figure it’d be easy to spin it as “Those savages killed our brave troops!” I mean it’d be a while before people would actually be able to say the US attacked first, without mostly being called a traitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centrist Simon Steele Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 35 minutes ago, Triskele said: Jim Cylburn who is the highest ranking African American in Congress is defending Biden and saying essentially that there's nothing wrong with being will to work with people that you don't agree with. I think there's truth to that. If you have white supremacists in Congress, not working with them won't get you anywhere. But Biden's example shows how tone deaf he really is when it comes to self vs. public perception. I think if I had to work with a white supremacist to get something positive done, that'd stay off my talking points...forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darzin Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Th 2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: Meh I’d figure it’d be easy to spin it as “Those savages killed our brave troops!” I mean it’d be a while before people would actually be able to say the US attacked first, without mostly being called a traitor. That happened with Iraq which has a much more careful build up Hillary fucking Clinton voted to invade there. If Trump randomly starts a shooting war and we lose some troops and boat it will look like an ill advised folly and an act of native aggression and it would be the first military loss for the US felt by the public since the Tet offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: The social justice people being the anti-segregationists? No. The majority of the country (and certainly the vast majority of Democrats who will be voting in the upcoming primary) is an anti-segregationist so it makes absolutely no sense for Biden to antagonize them -- which is why he is not doing that. The people he is going up against are those who don't believe in being civil to people with whom they disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 8 minutes ago, Altherion said: The majority of the country (and certainly the vast majority of Democrats who will be voting in the upcoming primary) is an anti-segregationist so it makes absolutely no sense for Biden to antagonize them -- which is why he is not doing that. The people he is going up against are those who don't believe in being civil to people with whom they disagree. This is just ludicrously stupid. You think this was a strategic move? You think Biden has a single advisor or strategist who was like "hey, you know what will really shake things up? You touting how you used to pal around with segregationists! Genius move." This was Biden making a really stupid argument for his "civility" and "experience," using a cringe-worthy comparison with the "boy" comment, then acting like an asshole when other Dem candidates called him out for being insanely off-base. Nothing more, nothing less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 24 minutes ago, Altherion said: No. The majority of the country (and certainly the vast majority of Democrats who will be voting in the upcoming primary) is an anti-segregationist so it makes absolutely no sense for Biden to antagonize them -- which is why he is not doing that. The people he is going up against are those who don't believe in being civil to people with whom they disagree. The disagreement in this case being on this idea of non-whites being treated as equal instead of subhuman. It’s not a minor point of disagreement that could/should be respectfully disagreed upon. The vast majority of Democrats probably don’t care whether or not a neo-nazi, is “civil” in advocating for America to become a white-ethnostate and is really polite when he argues for ethnic cleansing instead of just always going into a belligerent vulgar rant to express the same idea. The people Biden is going up against are the type of people who would be more offended at the prospect at white-supremacist spewing racist propaganda on the street on how America must become all white , than prospect of a man who deighns to call said white-supremacist a bad person for you know wanting forcibly remove/kill the majority of non-whites from his land because they’re non-white. But, Please perhaps you’d make like to make an argument for why said white-supremacist shouldn’t be called or even looked at as terrible person for wanting genocide and/or ethnic cleansing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 4 minutes ago, DMC said: This is just ludicrously stupid. You think this was a strategic move? You think Biden has a single advisor or strategist who was like "hey, you know what will really shake things up? You touting how you used to pal around with segregationists! Genius move." This was Biden making a really stupid argument for his "civility" and "experience," using a cringe-worthy comparison with the "boy" comment, then acting like an asshole when other Dem candidates called him out for being insanely off-base. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't know whether the initial statement was a strategic move -- it looks like a mistake to me, but I could be wrong. However, the response to Booker (i.e. demanding an apology) was almost certainly deliberate and this is what I was responding to. Of course, it might not work as intended, but it's an interesting move and if it does work, it'll make future would-be attackers think twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 3 minutes ago, Altherion said: However, the response to Booker (i.e. demanding an apology) was almost certainly deliberate and this is what I was responding to. Of course, it might not work as intended, but it's an interesting move and if it does work, it'll make future would-be attackers think twice. If he just refused to apologize, then emphasized that his main point was about civility and was just inartfully articulated, then maybe you'd have an argument. But no, saying Booker should apologize, and obfuscating to imply Booker called him a racist, then using the "I don't have a racist bone in my body" trope? That's what the GOP does. It's definitely not going to endear oneself to anybody in the Democratic primary electorate. To be clear, however, I doubt this single instance will matter too much in isolation. But it's representative, and another one of those "death by a thousand cuts" things that I suspect will be the end of Biden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 2 hours ago, Triskele said: Jim Cylburn who is the highest ranking African American in Congress is defending Biden and saying essentially that there's nothing wrong with being will to work with people that you don't agree with. I've heard theories that Biden's remarks may be a strategy where he signals to moderate whites he is no flaming progressive and really quite moderate, and that the black caucus would support him because electability, firewalling his support among African Americans. Why the black caucus would support him is beyond me though. Maybe they really are worried about electability and already have made their call about who they think the best candidate is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 By By Biden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 Quote President Donald Trump may not want a high-profile congressional debate on war with Iran, but he might not have much say in the matter. Just as military tensions reach new heights with Tehran, the Senate is taking up its annual defense bill next week — a must-pass Pentagon policy measure that will put the president’s Iran approach in the spotlight. And Democrats are seizing on the chance to try to rein Trump in — demanding a vote on an amendment that would require congressional approval for a military confrontation with Iran. "One of the best ways to avoid bumbling into a war, a war that nobody wants, is to have a robust and open debate and for Congress to have a real say," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said this week. The push marks the latest Senate attempt to restrain Trump’s authority when it comes to conflict in the Middle East. A bipartisan majority passed a resolution Thursday to block the Trump administration’s arms sale. Trump can't hide from Senate debate on Iran Lawmakers will likely spotlight the president's moves on Iran next week when they take up the annual defense policy bill. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/21/trump-senate-iran-1376556 Hopefully they ask Trump why he is both the biggest Iran hawk ever and a coward at once? He just called them a nation of terrorists. Then, he flinched and ran away. If we are not at war with Iran within the next 2 months, Trump definitely has the tiniest dick of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: Historically speaking, you're correct, but I just have a hard time seeing any type of shift occurring until a lot of people get old and die. This also opens up the philosophical conversation regarding will we retain the right to vote once we become cyborgs? We're in the theoretical age range for that to be a possibility, though I think both of our enjoyment of numerous vices might hinder our ability to make it there. Goes double for @Jace, Basilissa. Sorry @Ser Scot A Ellison, you're SOL. I think you die when you get tired of life. We will all see in the end. Not sure I want to end up downloading to a dream world like Neal Stephenson’s latest protagonist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted June 22, 2019 Author Share Posted June 22, 2019 Remember last year when Democrats beat the Republicans in Wisconsin, and the Republicans passed all kinds of laws to strip powers from the incoming administration? The Wisconsin Supreme Court said it’s just fine. Their Supreme Court, btw, is highly polarized between Republican and Democrat appointees. With all of Trump’s puppet appointees to courts at various levels, guess what’s coming down the pipeline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 And the most stringent “big government bad types” eagerly want to protect state senators who’d openly mush over killing cops(to which they say they Uber-respect) if they you know come to try to get them to do their job. https://www.thedailybeast.com/armed-militias-pledge-to-fight-for-fugitive-oregon-gop-lawmakers-at-any-cost?ref=scroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 8 hours ago, Darzin said: Th That happened with Iraq which has a much more careful build up Hillary fucking Clinton voted to invade there. If Trump randomly starts a shooting war and we lose some troops and boat it will look like an ill advised folly and an act of native aggression and it would be the first military loss for the US felt by the public since the Tet offensive. I mean Clinton was never really an isolationist quite frankly. There’s a reason why she’s gotten Kissinger’s endorsement and why they’re such good friends. The build-up for a regime change in Iran has been for decades no? Especially amplified in recent years since the Nuclear agreement among conservatives. And, felt by the public doesn’t necessarily mean the debacle would make people less inclined for war no? I mean after being humiliated, and the deaths of thousands of brave soldiers, I think people would be too emotional to reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.