|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 18 2016 01:42 Danglars wrote:
Reserve your incredulity for shooters with no motivation beyond to kill people. If Dylann Roof said he did it for Islam or Adam Lanza was on global jihad, I'd be chumming it up with you and patting your back. In this case it's a pretty clear path with longstanding history and actual motivation, not your original's post "actual motivation isn't apparent."
Per standard procedure, when they looked into Mateen, FBI agents ran his information against law enforcement and intelligence databases, did name-checks with the alphabet soup of spooky agencies in Washington, DC, and didn’t find very much. While the FBI understandably now wants to downplay its looks at Mateen in 2013-14, it seems unlikely that they found much of interest about him. He was simply yet another American Muslim with dangerous views and a penchant for violent trash-talk, but no criminal record. Until we outlaw crimethink, Omar Mateens will be in our midst, nasty people you don’t want to be your neighbor or co-worker.
Obviously a Muslim born into a Muslim family will likely pick some form of Jihadist group to identify with, just as a Christian racist would pick the KKK or an Irish born nationalist would have joined the IRA or a kid in socialist upbringing joining the RAF. That the people choose extremist groups that align closely with their socialisation isn't surprising and it doesn't mean that you can take a whole religion or ideology hostage.
Not to mention that the group of converts actually is pretty significant.
|
On June 18 2016 01:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 01:38 ticklishmusic wrote:
will rubio support trump though, or is he going to drag the moderate republicans to vote johnson/blank for president and rubio for senate i wonder He will basically just mirror Paul Ryan, IMO. "I strongly support the dude running against Clinton. But he says some goofy shit that I think is very bad."
this is the political equivalent of cutting off your foot off to survive now, but crippling yourself for the future. the republicans who continue to support trump are going to have a hard time getting away from that in the future if they want to run for national office, it's going to be worse than the iraq war vote.
|
On June 18 2016 02:12 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 01:45 Mohdoo wrote:On June 18 2016 01:38 ticklishmusic wrote:
will rubio support trump though, or is he going to drag the moderate republicans to vote johnson/blank for president and rubio for senate i wonder He will basically just mirror Paul Ryan, IMO. "I strongly support the dude running against Clinton. But he says some goofy shit that I think is very bad." this is the political equivalent of cutting off your foot off to survive now, but crippling yourself for the future. the republicans who continue to support trump are going to have a hard time getting away from that in the future if they want to run for national office, it's going to be worse than the iraq war vote.
Is he supposed to support Clinton, then? I would also argue this isn't his choice. He's just doing as told.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this trump situation has been brewing for a while. economic populism and general anti-elite/establishment sentiment is high. the trump 'coalition' is also not monolithic. you've got a blend of nativist southern republicans with northeast moderate republicans looking to upend the gop as a part of government.
trump's role is to allow these usually divergent gop groups to unite, by appearing as a different person to different people.
there's also a lot of racism in the northeast, in the form of being against 'urban' politics
|
On June 17 2016 23:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 22:41 Plansix wrote:
Populist ideas always gain some level of traction. The problem is when politicians cynically use the populist promises to get elected. As much of a pain as Bernie was, I don’t believe he is cynical and really wants to implement the things he exposes. My problem with him is his distain of pragmatism, which mirrors a lot of my problems other progressives. I will take 1/2% ever month over the chance 100% every 8 years. But some people don’t like that. But to be fair, I am also a firmly middle class guy that has a pretty stable life, so I have the luxury of patience.
Most Bernie supporters are white people with high educations. People really in need know better than fantasies of revolutions. They want concrete things, and most of all, they want things that are achievable. Which is why they supported Obama and now support Clinton. I'm talking of the left of course. Right wing poor people are being sold myths.
What you are describing among the "poor left" sounds more like acquiescence to blackmail to me.
|
On June 18 2016 02:27 oneofthem wrote:
this trump situation has been brewing for a while. economic populism and general anti-elite/establishment sentiment is high. the trump 'coalition' is also not monolithic. you've got a blend of nativist southern republicans with northeast moderate republicans looking to upend the gop as a part of government.
trump's role is to allow these usually divergent gop groups to unite, by appearing as a different person to different people.
there's also a lot of racism in the northeast, in the form of being against 'urban' politics
the northeastern megalopolis racists are kind of like the bernieorbust phenomenon in terms of going all in against the RINOs
or maybe its a reaction against capital's use of precarity as a weapon against the middle class in combination with the myth of increasing "flexibility" and "autonomy" benefiting labor. disillusionment is spreading with the realization that strictly formal freedoms are not all they are cracked up to be.
|
On June 18 2016 01:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 01:33 RvB wrote:On June 18 2016 01:20 SK.Testie wrote:On June 18 2016 00:34 Mohdoo wrote:Edit: And I think the Romney summit had a lot to do with this. Did Romney save the GOP? Could he run in 2020? Don't think so. I predict the Republican party will probably be destroyed after Trump. Hillary is going to beat Trump. The only chance the Republicans have is if Trump wins. This is their last election. And leftists will think this is a good thing, because they see the country moving in the right direction. I think they may still hold a lot of seats in the congress and senate for a very long time to come, but on a presidential level they seemed doomed forever. Uncertain times for the GOP for sure. I wonder how tje democratic party will develop. They're showing some signs of going the same way. I certainly don't see the resemblance. The tea party tried to move the GOP away from the center and it worked Bernie tried to move the DNC away from the center and it did not work I would be more worried about the Democrats following the Republicans if Bernie did win and his socialist idea's alienated a large part of the center voting block. Yes young people are the future and the Democrats have been moving with the general feel of the country on social issues like gay rights for a while now. I don't see why they will not follow the young voters in the years to come.
Either Hillary/Democrats moved left or she was lying the whole nomination process. She went from TPP being the "gold standard" to allegedly not supporting it, for example.
|
On June 18 2016 02:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 02:12 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 18 2016 01:45 Mohdoo wrote:On June 18 2016 01:38 ticklishmusic wrote:
will rubio support trump though, or is he going to drag the moderate republicans to vote johnson/blank for president and rubio for senate i wonder He will basically just mirror Paul Ryan, IMO. "I strongly support the dude running against Clinton. But he says some goofy shit that I think is very bad." this is the political equivalent of cutting off your foot off to survive now, but crippling yourself for the future. the republicans who continue to support trump are going to have a hard time getting away from that in the future if they want to run for national office, it's going to be worse than the iraq war vote. Is he supposed to support Clinton, then? I would also argue this isn't his choice. He's just doing as told.
im not suggesting that he support clinton. but he has a choice to tell people to vote a straight republican ticket, or not.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
hillary is one of the chief architects of the 'pivot to asia' and is most likely going to pass tpp with some more enforcement mechanisms on the labor and environmental side.
We are also making progress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which will bring together economies from across the Pacific — developed and developing alike — into a single trading community. Our goal is to create not just more growth, but better growth. We believe trade agreements need to include strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and innovation. They should also promote the free flow of information technology and the spread of green technology, as well as the coherence of our regulatory system and the efficiency of supply chains. Ultimately, our progress will be measured by the quality of people’s lives — whether men and women can work in dignity, earn a decent wage, raise healthy families, educate their children, and take hold of the opportunities to improve their own and the next generation’s fortunes. Our hope is that a TPP agreement with high standards can serve as a benchmark for future agreements — and grow to serve as a platform for broader regional interaction and eventually a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 18 2016 02:43 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 23:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 17 2016 22:41 Plansix wrote:
Populist ideas always gain some level of traction. The problem is when politicians cynically use the populist promises to get elected. As much of a pain as Bernie was, I don’t believe he is cynical and really wants to implement the things he exposes. My problem with him is his distain of pragmatism, which mirrors a lot of my problems other progressives. I will take 1/2% ever month over the chance 100% every 8 years. But some people don’t like that. But to be fair, I am also a firmly middle class guy that has a pretty stable life, so I have the luxury of patience.
Most Bernie supporters are white people with high educations. People really in need know better than fantasies of revolutions. They want concrete things, and most of all, they want things that are achievable. Which is why they supported Obama and now support Clinton. I'm talking of the left of course. Right wing poor people are being sold myths. What you are describing among the "poor left" sounds more like acquiescence to blackmail to me.
there are good rational reasons for poor people to reject sanders-like movements.
sanders is remarkably disdainful of racial and urban issues. the various 'outreach' stuff is just hamfisted. there is a lot of parallel reality going on with african americans and the white mainstream, and the bernie memes and anti-hillary propaganda simply didn't penetrate that deeply.
in terms of rhetoric and policy, sanders is a departure from the 'help this group in particular' style politics of democrats. take the college thing, free public college vs specifically targeted pell grants etc. the universalist approach taken by sanders places system above people, in a way that speaks to people who see themselves as democratically empowered enough to fancy ideas like "what sort of society we need" (white liberals), but has limited appeal to long time marginalized groups that are more interested in seeing specific programs.
and this preference for group specific rhetoric/policy is rational because the universal programs tend to favor the politically powerful middle class group.
|
On June 18 2016 01:54 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 01:42 Danglars wrote:
Reserve your incredulity for shooters with no motivation beyond to kill people. If Dylann Roof said he did it for Islam or Adam Lanza was on global jihad, I'd be chumming it up with you and patting your back. In this case it's a pretty clear path with longstanding history and actual motivation, not your original's post "actual motivation isn't apparent."
Per standard procedure, when they looked into Mateen, FBI agents ran his information against law enforcement and intelligence databases, did name-checks with the alphabet soup of spooky agencies in Washington, DC, and didn’t find very much. While the FBI understandably now wants to downplay its looks at Mateen in 2013-14, it seems unlikely that they found much of interest about him. He was simply yet another American Muslim with dangerous views and a penchant for violent trash-talk, but no criminal record. Until we outlaw crimethink, Omar Mateens will be in our midst, nasty people you don’t want to be your neighbor or co-worker.
Obviously a Muslim born into a Muslim family will likely pick some form of Jihadist group to identify with, just as a Christian racist would pick the KKK or an Irish born nationalist would have joined the IRA or a kid in socialist upbringing joining the RAF. That the people choose extremist groups that align closely with their socialisation isn't surprising and it doesn't mean that you can take a whole religion or ideology hostage. Not to mention that the group of converts actually is pretty significant.
Look at the original post and response. He was going down the undue weight to ISIS when just crazy and it constitutes evil-muslim-man tropes. This is an example of the opposite. You have no need to blow critique up to hostage levels, particularly if you're choosing to only quote the second paragraph.
|
On June 18 2016 02:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 01:38 Gorsameth wrote:On June 18 2016 01:33 RvB wrote:On June 18 2016 01:20 SK.Testie wrote:On June 18 2016 00:34 Mohdoo wrote:Edit: And I think the Romney summit had a lot to do with this. Did Romney save the GOP? Could he run in 2020? Don't think so. I predict the Republican party will probably be destroyed after Trump. Hillary is going to beat Trump. The only chance the Republicans have is if Trump wins. This is their last election. And leftists will think this is a good thing, because they see the country moving in the right direction. I think they may still hold a lot of seats in the congress and senate for a very long time to come, but on a presidential level they seemed doomed forever. Uncertain times for the GOP for sure. I wonder how tje democratic party will develop. They're showing some signs of going the same way. I certainly don't see the resemblance. The tea party tried to move the GOP away from the center and it worked Bernie tried to move the DNC away from the center and it did not work I would be more worried about the Democrats following the Republicans if Bernie did win and his socialist idea's alienated a large part of the center voting block. Yes young people are the future and the Democrats have been moving with the general feel of the country on social issues like gay rights for a while now. I don't see why they will not follow the young voters in the years to come. Either Hillary/Democrats moved left or she was lying the whole nomination process. She went from TPP being the "gold standard" to allegedly not supporting it, for example.
Yes she has moved a bit to the left but the Democrats have not gone full Tea Party
|
|
|
On June 18 2016 03:03 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 02:43 IgnE wrote:On June 17 2016 23:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 17 2016 22:41 Plansix wrote:
Populist ideas always gain some level of traction. The problem is when politicians cynically use the populist promises to get elected. As much of a pain as Bernie was, I don’t believe he is cynical and really wants to implement the things he exposes. My problem with him is his distain of pragmatism, which mirrors a lot of my problems other progressives. I will take 1/2% ever month over the chance 100% every 8 years. But some people don’t like that. But to be fair, I am also a firmly middle class guy that has a pretty stable life, so I have the luxury of patience.
Most Bernie supporters are white people with high educations. People really in need know better than fantasies of revolutions. They want concrete things, and most of all, they want things that are achievable. Which is why they supported Obama and now support Clinton. I'm talking of the left of course. Right wing poor people are being sold myths. What you are describing among the "poor left" sounds more like acquiescence to blackmail to me. there are good rational reasons for poor people to reject sanders-like movements. sanders is remarkably disdainful of racial and urban issues. the various 'outreach' stuff is just hamfisted. there is a lot of parallel reality going on with african americans and the white mainstream, and the bernie memes and anti-hillary propaganda simply didn't penetrate that deeply. in terms of rhetoric and policy, sanders is a departure from the 'help this group in particular' style politics of democrats. take the college thing, free public college vs specifically targeted pell grants etc. the universalist approach taken by sanders places system above people, in a way that speaks to people who see themselves as democratically empowered enough to fancy ideas like "what sort of society we need" (white liberals), but has limited appeal to long time marginalized groups that are more interested in seeing specific programs. and this preference for group specific rhetoric/policy is rational because the universal programs tend to favor the politically powerful middle class group.
acquiesence to blackmail is oftentimes a rational decision you are right
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 18 2016 03:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 03:03 oneofthem wrote:On June 18 2016 02:43 IgnE wrote:On June 17 2016 23:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 17 2016 22:41 Plansix wrote:
Populist ideas always gain some level of traction. The problem is when politicians cynically use the populist promises to get elected. As much of a pain as Bernie was, I don’t believe he is cynical and really wants to implement the things he exposes. My problem with him is his distain of pragmatism, which mirrors a lot of my problems other progressives. I will take 1/2% ever month over the chance 100% every 8 years. But some people don’t like that. But to be fair, I am also a firmly middle class guy that has a pretty stable life, so I have the luxury of patience.
Most Bernie supporters are white people with high educations. People really in need know better than fantasies of revolutions. They want concrete things, and most of all, they want things that are achievable. Which is why they supported Obama and now support Clinton. I'm talking of the left of course. Right wing poor people are being sold myths. What you are describing among the "poor left" sounds more like acquiescence to blackmail to me. there are good rational reasons for poor people to reject sanders-like movements. sanders is remarkably disdainful of racial and urban issues. the various 'outreach' stuff is just hamfisted. there is a lot of parallel reality going on with african americans and the white mainstream, and the bernie memes and anti-hillary propaganda simply didn't penetrate that deeply. in terms of rhetoric and policy, sanders is a departure from the 'help this group in particular' style politics of democrats. take the college thing, free public college vs specifically targeted pell grants etc. the universalist approach taken by sanders places system above people, in a way that speaks to people who see themselves as democratically empowered enough to fancy ideas like "what sort of society we need" (white liberals), but has limited appeal to long time marginalized groups that are more interested in seeing specific programs. and this preference for group specific rhetoric/policy is rational because the universal programs tend to favor the politically powerful middle class group. acquiesence to blackmail is oftentimes a rational decision you are right
there is no blackmail. just avoiding complete disaster by not giving the reins to fluffy liberal hamsters
|
On June 18 2016 03:26 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 03:24 IgnE wrote:On June 18 2016 03:03 oneofthem wrote:On June 18 2016 02:43 IgnE wrote:On June 17 2016 23:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 17 2016 22:41 Plansix wrote:
Populist ideas always gain some level of traction. The problem is when politicians cynically use the populist promises to get elected. As much of a pain as Bernie was, I don’t believe he is cynical and really wants to implement the things he exposes. My problem with him is his distain of pragmatism, which mirrors a lot of my problems other progressives. I will take 1/2% ever month over the chance 100% every 8 years. But some people don’t like that. But to be fair, I am also a firmly middle class guy that has a pretty stable life, so I have the luxury of patience.
Most Bernie supporters are white people with high educations. People really in need know better than fantasies of revolutions. They want concrete things, and most of all, they want things that are achievable. Which is why they supported Obama and now support Clinton. I'm talking of the left of course. Right wing poor people are being sold myths. What you are describing among the "poor left" sounds more like acquiescence to blackmail to me. there are good rational reasons for poor people to reject sanders-like movements. sanders is remarkably disdainful of racial and urban issues. the various 'outreach' stuff is just hamfisted. there is a lot of parallel reality going on with african americans and the white mainstream, and the bernie memes and anti-hillary propaganda simply didn't penetrate that deeply. in terms of rhetoric and policy, sanders is a departure from the 'help this group in particular' style politics of democrats. take the college thing, free public college vs specifically targeted pell grants etc. the universalist approach taken by sanders places system above people, in a way that speaks to people who see themselves as democratically empowered enough to fancy ideas like "what sort of society we need" (white liberals), but has limited appeal to long time marginalized groups that are more interested in seeing specific programs. and this preference for group specific rhetoric/policy is rational because the universal programs tend to favor the politically powerful middle class group. acquiesence to blackmail is oftentimes a rational decision you are right there is no blackmail. just avoiding complete disaster thanks to fluffy liberal hamsters
says the blackmailer
the blackmail doesn't even have to be "real" to succeed, it can be entirely virtual. your threats of "complete disaster" are precisely the line of attack i'm talking about. targeted pell grants do nothing to upend a system of debt proliferation that still functions as a device of control and capture by inserting students in the labour market as commodities. the formal freedom to choose between the scylla of high school education and the charybdis of indebted higher education that constrains future action is the double bind of increasing precarity that hangs over the head of the disenfranchised more than the "liberal white" bernie supporters but is not different in kind from the double bind that the bernie supporters may or may not feel more secure in rejecting entirely.
to put it another way: the minorities and poor who "rationally" choose Clinton as pragmatic and targeted are actually choosing what they think will translate their position tomorrow into the one that the bernie bros occupy today. when considering the impossibility of such (ie the disciplining of the labor force always prevents the entire precariat from occupying the "upper class" position of resistance that is both incited by and in opposition to capital) it becomes clear that neoliberal hawks like Clinton ARE CONSTANTLY REPRODUCING the very class of people that they rely upon to get elected. they are the class of people who accept the terms of the (virtual) blackmail: catastrophe for everyone or we can try and help you and maybe you will one day be a member of the precarious cognitariat privileged enough to resist.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
nah, people just want a decent job and live life. there is not much of this capitalist conspiracy stuff except in the far left.
|
On June 18 2016 03:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 02:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 01:38 Gorsameth wrote:On June 18 2016 01:33 RvB wrote:On June 18 2016 01:20 SK.Testie wrote:On June 18 2016 00:34 Mohdoo wrote:Edit: And I think the Romney summit had a lot to do with this. Did Romney save the GOP? Could he run in 2020? Don't think so. I predict the Republican party will probably be destroyed after Trump. Hillary is going to beat Trump. The only chance the Republicans have is if Trump wins. This is their last election. And leftists will think this is a good thing, because they see the country moving in the right direction. I think they may still hold a lot of seats in the congress and senate for a very long time to come, but on a presidential level they seemed doomed forever. Uncertain times for the GOP for sure. I wonder how tje democratic party will develop. They're showing some signs of going the same way. I certainly don't see the resemblance. The tea party tried to move the GOP away from the center and it worked Bernie tried to move the DNC away from the center and it did not work I would be more worried about the Democrats following the Republicans if Bernie did win and his socialist idea's alienated a large part of the center voting block. Yes young people are the future and the Democrats have been moving with the general feel of the country on social issues like gay rights for a while now. I don't see why they will not follow the young voters in the years to come. Either Hillary/Democrats moved left or she was lying the whole nomination process. She went from TPP being the "gold standard" to allegedly not supporting it, for example. Yes she has moved a bit to the left but the Democrats have not gone full Tea Party
I never said the democratic party was going full tea party. What the Sanders movement shows is that there is a significant part of the electorate which is more extreme than is currently represented by the Democratic party. There is a reason why Clinton is considering Warren as VP. Down the road this can lead to increased tension in the party. How it will ultimately pan out depends on the respons of the Democratic party as well.
|
|
|
Man I find it mind boggling that someone with a 75% unfavorable ratings with white men will become president.
I'm one of the people that think feminism in its current form is absolute cancer, and from the dozens and dozens of people I've talked to personally, nobody likes Elizabeth Warren minus the fact that many can agree with her that Trump is awful. Really unfortunate that the Republican Party didn't have a better flag bearer, because I'd personally rather have a heavy drug addict become president than have Clinton plus Warren. I think they are evil people with evil morals, and I'd rather have the government shut down for four years than have them in power.
Ugh, just really disappointing all around, I no longer support Trump, since he's just acting insane, but I think if someone else was supporting a similar message, they would have a strong chance of winning. If Obama was running, then I'd have no problem voting for them, there's a lot I can agree with when it comes to the DNC, but Hillary man, she's so bad. Truly the downfall of America, and am excited for our new overlords from the east in the coming decades, as I associate myself with their viewpoints much more than the current US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
