Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Pedophilia is Just Acosta Doin' Business


Jace, Extat

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I'm guessing Tapper thinks he can take the guy down hard and grind him into the dirt. The problem is these MSM doofuses think they can take these white supremacists down with no preparation and with both hands tied behind their back, because the white supremacist ideology is patently wrong any semi0intelligent person could take them out. What the MSM reporters don't realise is that the Spencer's of this world have had decades of honing their messaging to make them sound so very reasonable to the unsuspecting average Joe. So it's the interviewer who gets blindsided because they didn't do their research. So a tthe end of the interview Spencer will walk out saying to all his friends "nailed it", and Tapper will be sitting there looking like he's going to need therapy for PTSD, thinking how did this happen.

It happened here, when Loren Southern came swanning in to the country, surfing on a wave of freedom of speech editorials, and giving an interview to a MSM reporter on TV. He was unprepared and had no idea what he was getting into (probably a bit sexist too, seeing a young, blonde, attractive (on the outside, but worm-ridden and rotten on the inside) woman and thinking there can't be much grey matter up there), so she used all the standard white supremacist talking points and completely destroyed him. To his credit a few months later (after the Mosque shootings) he wrote an editorial confessing that he was totally unprepared, and he wouldn't let that happen again, and warned all journalists everywhere to learn from his mistake (which of course no one will do). He even issued Southern a challenge to come and be interviewed again. To which she of course tweeted "LoL", which is really code for "Do you think I am so stupid as to willingly participate in an interview or debate where my opponent is actually prepared and done their research?"

So tapper thinks he's going to do a take down strike, but he will fail. But if Spencer thinks Tapper has done his research and prepared himself, Spencer will turn down the interview. I hope for Tapper's reputation Spencer says no.

It’d be nice, to think that all white-supremacists would fit the ideal of just being brain dead idiots, incapable of putting forth a coherent thought when pressed, but sadly that’s not the case. 

Its’ dangerous to brush off the most vile of society  as merely stupid. You don’t have to be an idiot to believe in some really heinous shit. A mistake I see too many people make. It’s dangerous to put bigotry as just the product of ignorance. It could be heavily fueled by it, but it’s not the sole driving force. 

You’re right many white-Supremacists like Spencer know exactly what they’re doing, and ignorance really can’t be used for an excuse for them. They do know how to package their bigotry into something more palpable.

  I had a lengthy debate with such an individual once on this site. He was clearly trying to be “polite” and present himself as a reasonably figure while, he defended anti-Semitic, homophobic, and defending white-supremacists as not bad people.  He said he “respectfully disagreed” on ideas such that wanting to kill/treat people that aren’t you’re race makes you a bad and cried diverse opinions are a good thing, and moaned how people need to work together in their community and other pretty things. He got irked that I didn’t pull a Biden and pretend I found any legitimacy in his bigotry. Though he presented well enough to fool another considerably liberal poster poster as being a “reasonable” individual because he was able to articulate his arguments on a social topic in a not so belligerent manner.

I honestly , don’t see that much of a point in giving a nazi a platform to make his case for why his racism isn’t so bad. In any event he’d gain more supporters for having been granted it in the first place. There’s no benefit to it. Quite honestly it’d remind me when Bill o Reilly had David Duke on. The entire point of the interview was to show how awesome O Reily was but I couldn’t help but think “really? You’re above a literal Former klansman, so I should give you kudos?” 

I’m sure there are some who’ll cry such debate  is needed because you have to give time for  the other side on every issue and blah, blah, blah. 

I cant help but think of Plato criticism of rhetoric when such sentiments are expressed. That debate has literally nothing to do with facts, or even  the truth in general. A medical Doctor with decades long experiences treating STD/STIs  could “lose“a debate on if HIV/Aids are to a person whose not a doctor and thinks those things aren’t real. Because again debate is not about the truth. It’s just about convincing people either your side is correct or your opponent’s side is wrong. That’s all. Such a debate would only serve to give the illusion there is some reasonable disagreement on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debate is a sport, where your skill and ability to sound convincingly coherent determines the winner, not whether you can prove a thing is true or untrue. The best debaters are those who can win a debate when everyone knows what the truth is, and the debate successfully wins the side that is arguing against the truth: Burning the flag is protected by freedom of speech. Everyone knows that's true, a skilled debater wants to be able to win by debating that it's not protected by freedom of speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

I'd say both you and Triskele are quite right. Dems might not win if they shift too far left and the Left cannot win in the short/medium term. And the Left needs to realise that the NYT isn't their friend and that people like Friedman and Brooks definitely aren't to the Left; heck, I'd say the US Left should consider them as strictly temporary allies of opportunity and not as friends and genuine allies, or even should consider them as just one step better than the current crop of GOP politicians when it comes to a lot of policies.

I do think too many people are brushing aside the arguments for it being bad to go too far to the left because of the moral character of those who make such arguments.

I’ll be honest, I don’t care if he’s a friend to the left. His actual arguments need only be scrutinized by themselves. And they don’t crumble just because he’s not a particularly good person. Democrats are trying too hard out-Progressive the other to the point where they’re adopting really unpopular positions I suspect even they don’t agree with and will try to run away the second they get the nominee(with the exception of Perhaps Sanders, because he’s kinda shown himself to have bought into his own hype). Repearations, abolishing ice, getting rid of Private insurance, these things are massively unpopular, and only appeal to the most left-wing in America. 

Trump did benefit from the Democratic debate. This is bad. 

Listen I understand there is concern trolling being expressed to stifle any progressive sentiment and it can cause candidates to be so to be so fearful  going too left so much they go to the center(which has moved to right right), and present themselves as a centrist(i.e what Hillary did) and shun any progressive policy out of fear of being radical. 

But there’s no good reason to take the opposite extreme and think going further left=winning in every single case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Debate is a sport, where your skill and ability to sound convincingly coherent determines the winner, not whether you can prove a thing is true or untrue. The best debaters are those who can win a debate when everyone knows what the truth is, and the debate successfully wins the side that is arguing against the truth: Burning the flag is protected by freedom of speech. Everyone knows that's true, a skilled debater wants to be able to win by debating that it's not protected by freedom of speech.

Best/funniest argument I’ve seen for it not is this;  could flags speak? I don’t think so. The first Amendment literally said  freedom of speech need  be protected not expression  so how could burning a flag be considered free speech?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, a good and nice guy said:

 

really? are people really falling for this?

 

? It would seem so. The proliferation of data tracking aparatus' and our collective refusal to confront them allows for hyper-specific tailoring of queues. And it only makes sense to queue up things just like what you've already seen/ like to get you watching another video. 

Clever and unscrupulous sorts figured out how the algorithm works and how to hyjack it to proliferate their videos, which breeds more people doing the same, until we are in a recursion loop of endless 'journalists' covering whatever topic someone else in their orbit has already covered. 

And it works, Google does it for a reason. So CNN and MSNBC and the like started forming blocks of their coverage around Fox News' segments, to draw viewers who both want to see Fox bashed and the types who want the Fox bigotry validated by the contrarian talking head. 

Now, print/online journalists are becoming so antiquated that whenever someone with a similar readership demographic, or indeed even some ovelap, writes a good article that receives circulation... why wouldn't you just rewrite the same article? It's unethical and crummy, but we don't live in a world where people are held to comportment standards unless they're a Democrat in the Senate

Eta: comportment. I wrote comportment whether my phone possesses basic language skills or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, a good and nice guy said:

@Jace, Basilissa oh yeah, totally. i just meant the “let a republican tell you what they want from the democrats” op-eds specifically, not propaganda techniques in general. sorry, should have clipped the quote for clarity

Oh, well sheeit. I'd say that such practices scratch the itch of many pseudo-intellectuals to reach for 'moderation' (capitulation, really) as a lazily obtained status pretending at superior understanding of the issues. 

However, I have to point out that there's shades of grey. I think that the writers @Triskele has been referencing really have identified an area of weakness in the Democratic party's branding. And their stated motivation to ensure victory over Trump is likely honest and sincere. But people are complicated and contradictory beasts and a certain amount of underlying bias is perfectly predictable, even if the writer can't see it themselves.

And here's the real fun part. They can still be absolutely right even if their starting motivation is explicitly biased against liberal practices themselves instead of providing constructive critique for the purpose of defeating our mutual enemy. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Triskele said:

The NYT has its third "Don't go so far to the left, Dems" column in just a short while, and that's only if you don't count the Maureen Dowd Pelosi to AOC one.  This time it's Thomas Friedman following Stephens and Brooks with a remarkably similar column just spreading it across a few more issues and less on the immigration stance though he does mention that too.  I don't know to what extent newspapers do or do not influence what their opinion columnists write, but that's quite a trend developing. 

Any major news outlet is going to be centrist at heart because the all inevitably thrive in the status quo 

Re: the Friedman article

I'm getting sick of this shit.  If this was the other way around and there were a bunch of centrist-type Dems or policies getting attention and the left complained the party was including them Friedman would be saying "shut up and fall in line, do you want Trump to win?". But as soon as the party shifts left (a little tiny fucking but finally) he's doomsaying and telling us "sorry but you're scaring people, Trump will win".  Why doesn't Freidman and this nonexistent center fall in line?

This last bout of Trump tweeting racist shit at AOC, Omar and co is the cherry on top.  Anyone who doesn't think this was racist is never going to.  People that don't see it fundamentally see the world differently.  You're not going to woo these people as voters, they're already gone.  I read something very cogent on this point from a formerly active board member on social media yesterday, will see if they'd be willing to post it here.

Funny how all these pundit assholes that have been decrying infighting and saying the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot are the ones who aren't where the candidates are in the policies.  It's just whining because the party has moved left with a large portion of it's base 

Also, Friedman, why don't you consider some real fucking politik for once.  Look at these positions as negotiating.  Ask for more than you can expect to get and haggle down to what you want.  I

He's also using some lame whataboutist tactics with his "what about veterans?"well guess what asshole, medicare for all would, miraculously, include veterans.  Believe it or not they are people too.  

I've been told my entire life to fall in line suck it up and vote for Kerry, Clinton, etc.  The center can suck my white bluecollar ass, fall in line, and vote with whatever center-left or center politician with a couple leftist ideas gets the nomination.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Any major news outlet is going to be centrist at heart because the all inevitably thrive in the status quo 

Re: the Friedman article

I'm getting sick of this shit.  If this was the other way around and there were a bunch of centrist-type Dems or policies getting attention and the left complained the party was including them Friedman would be saying "shut up and fall in line, do you want Trump to win?". But as soon as the party shifts left (a little tiny fucking but finally) he's doomsaying and telling us "sorry but you're scaring people, Trump will win".  Why doesn't Freidman and this nonexistent center fall in line?

This last bout of Trump tweeting racist shit at AOC, Omar and co is the cherry on top.  Anyone who doesn't think this was racist is never going to.  People that don't see it fundamentally see the world differently.  You're not going to woo these people as voters, they're already gone.  I read something very cogent on this point from a formerly active board member on social media yesterday, will see if they'd be willing to post it here.

Funny how all these pundit assholes that have been decrying infighting and saying the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot are the ones who aren't where the candidates are in the policies.  It's just whining because the party has moved left with a large portion of it's base 

Also, Friedman, why don't you consider some real fucking politik for once.  Look at these positions as negotiating.  Ask for more than you can expect to get and haggle down to what you want.  I

He's also using some lame whataboutist tactics with his "what about veterans?"well guess what asshole, medicare for all would, miraculously, include veterans.  Believe it or not they are people too.  

I've been told my entire life to fall in line suck it up and vote for Kerry, Clinton, etc.  The center can suck my white bluecollar ass, fall in line, and vote with whatever center-left or center politician with a couple leftist ideas gets the nomination.  

That was worth a 3 hour wait. Well said, and easy to respect.

Personally, I agree with everything you state except I acknowledge that the centrists will never fall in line and have to be appeased. 

Your vitriol is justified, however. I won't disagree with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Really though, I think the reason Trump's cranked up the insanity to the max right now is Mueller testifying today, and the Epstein shit.  

That got pushed to next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

That got pushed to next week.

Oh did not see that, good to know.  I rearranged my work schedule to not be in the boonies today where there's not reception.  

 

Eta: why did it get bumped?  Did CNN schedule a roundtable with the Westboro Baptist Church, Stephn Miller and a Hitler AI?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Oh did not see that, good to know.  I rearranged my work schedule to not be in the boonies today where there's not reception.  

 

Eta: why did it get bumped?  Did CNN schedule a roundtable with the Westboro Baptist Church, Stephn Miller and a Hitler AI?

Heh. 

Apparently it was to get him to testify for an extra hour, because the most "representative" body in our government has to grovel and make deals to convince Republican justice officials to do their fucking jobs.

Some of the Democratic fellating of Mueller fucking astounds me. I also intend to scrub off work to watch, although for me that means getting a butterfingers and a Dr. Pepper and hiding in one of the lobbies. My office computer can't stream the CNN live app for whatever reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

All this discussion about liberal democracy has me puzzled. I agree with True Métis asking about how you define liberal democracy, because as far as I can tell the US is not a liberal democracy and never has been, except in the minds of white people.

I mean I'd call it a neoliberal democracy. IE rights are negative, privatization, deregulation, basically all the shit Thatcher and Reagan unleashed that absolutely should be jettisoned and not preserved at all.

But then some might disagree with my definition of neoliberal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DMC said:

Sorry for the double post, but, like, seriously?  You're the fucking Speaker of the goddamn House of Representatives and you're gonna act like your number 2 can shut you down on the floor because..you said mean things?  What an absurd load.

It was likely premeditated. I think she wanted to bait Republicans into openly complaining about calling obvious racism racism. And the fact that only four of them voted to condemn Trump cemented that point. The Republican Party is dead. This is the Racist Party now, and don’t let anyone ever say otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DMC said:

Man I didn't see John Paul Stevens died until I was reading ESPN's Yankees page.  It's irrelevant, but man dude was 99.

He may've been the last person who saw Babe Ruth's called shot live. I've seen the CSPAN clip of him talking about it at some honorary dinner.

Was that the ESPN angle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It was likely premeditated. I think she wanted to bait Republicans into openly complaining about calling obvious racism racism. And the fact that only four of them voted to condemn Trump cemented that point. The Republican Party is dead. This is the Racist Party now, and don’t let anyone ever say otherwise.

This was my read on the situation as well, but I guess political maneuvering to further weaken the orange motherfucker's support is now interpreted as endorsement on Pelosi's part? I don't understand what she's supposed to do to appease some people.

:idea:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

This was my read on the situation as well, but I guess political maneuvering to further weaken the orange motherfucker's support is now interpreted as endorsement on Pelosi's part? I don't understand what she's supposed to do to appease some people.

:idea:

She's supposed to forcefully make the case that Trump is a criminal and open impeachment proceedings. People follow the cues of their political leaders and anytime someone shows a poll with only 35% or whatever of the country says Trump should be impeached, I respond that it'd be 50% if Democrats actually made the case for it.

I know the Senate would never convict. That's not the point. The point is to show courage of your convictions and give a reason for people to vote for your party. Pelosi wants to stick to bread and butter issues, but that message isn't getting through. And when 60% of the country approves of Trump's handling of the economy but only 45% approves of his job as President, I think bread and butter isn't where you want to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It was likely premeditated. I think she wanted to bait Republicans into openly complaining about calling obvious racism racism. And the fact that only four of them voted to condemn Trump cemented that point. The Republican Party is dead. This is the Racist Party now, and don’t let anyone ever say otherwise.

Yeah, I just not believe the McCarthy gaslighting going on. He may as well don a sheet at this point.

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...