|
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 August 01 2016 22:35 GoTuNk! wrote:
So I tried to read up on what Khan/Trump actually said.. and Humayun Khan died in 2004.
So basically the parents stood in the DNC 12 years later saying Trump hasn't read the constitution and that his son would have never fought to defend the U.S. if he was president. I can't find the actual quote so if someone has it I'll replace it in.
Trump's reply was:
"Captain Humayun Khan was a hero to our country and we should honour all who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country safe," he said.
"The real problem here are the radical Islamic terrorists who killed him, and the efforts of these radicals to enter our country to do us further harm."
But Mr Trump rejected Mr Khan's criticism.
"While I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr Khan, who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things," he said.
I honestly don't see how this is so terrible to say. Did I miss something?
the whole part where he was "mocking" the parents by claiming that maybe the mother didn't say anythign on stage because the dad wouldn't allow her to talk
|
On August 01 2016 17:11 LegalLord wrote:
The current FPTP system basically guarantees there will only be two parties. I think of the parties more as coalitions of state parties than a single party in and of itself. Under that interpretation, the criticism of not liking someone because "they aren't long standing members of the party" is a bit ridiculous.
Weird system, but it's what we have and there is little political will to change it. If a change came to a vote it would fail.
they are indeed more coalition-like; but I can understand the dislike of non-longstanding members, at least if they don't agree with what the party has long been running on. I may not agree with the sentiment,, but it has some validity.
The party is an alliance; and as with many alliances it works off mutual aid and support.
If someone hasn't been providing that aid and support, but suddenly jumps in and wants to receive, while still not notably providing it, it's understandable people wouldn't like them so much; alliances are a two-way system after all, give and take.
|
On August 01 2016 22:43 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 22:35 GoTuNk! wrote:
So I tried to read up on what Khan/Trump actually said.. and Humayun Khan died in 2004.
So basically the parents stood in the DNC 12 years later saying Trump hasn't read the constitution and that his son would have never fought to defend the U.S. if he was president. I can't find the actual quote so if someone has it I'll replace it in.
Trump's reply was:
"Captain Humayun Khan was a hero to our country and we should honour all who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country safe," he said.
"The real problem here are the radical Islamic terrorists who killed him, and the efforts of these radicals to enter our country to do us further harm."
But Mr Trump rejected Mr Khan's criticism.
"While I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr Khan, who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things," he said.
I honestly don't see how this is so terrible to say. Did I miss something? the whole part where he was "mocking" the parents by claiming that maybe the mother didn't say anythign on stage because the dad wouldn't allow her to talk
It's a good line. But hey, if the parents are going to be political shills and attack Trump, then they're fair game for comment.
|
On August 01 2016 22:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 22:43 Toadesstern wrote:On August 01 2016 22:35 GoTuNk! wrote:
So I tried to read up on what Khan/Trump actually said.. and Humayun Khan died in 2004.
So basically the parents stood in the DNC 12 years later saying Trump hasn't read the constitution and that his son would have never fought to defend the U.S. if he was president. I can't find the actual quote so if someone has it I'll replace it in.
Trump's reply was:
"Captain Humayun Khan was a hero to our country and we should honour all who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country safe," he said.
"The real problem here are the radical Islamic terrorists who killed him, and the efforts of these radicals to enter our country to do us further harm."
But Mr Trump rejected Mr Khan's criticism.
"While I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr Khan, who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things," he said.
I honestly don't see how this is so terrible to say. Did I miss something? the whole part where he was "mocking" the parents by claiming that maybe the mother didn't say anythign on stage because the dad wouldn't allow her to talk It's a good line. But hey, if the parents are going to be political shills and attack Trump, then they're fair game for comment.
And if he's willing to fall for their bait his stupid poorly-thought through comments are fair game too.
I cannot emphasize enough how bizarre it is to leverage the media's fixation on you by making extreme comments then complain that they take chunks out of your extreme comments that make you look bad.
|
There's also the problem of characterizing the reaction to those comments as something borne from a liberal echo chamber when numerous, party-leading Republicans have also condemned them, but hey, accuracy or sense are overrated.
|
On August 01 2016 22:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 22:49 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2016 22:43 Toadesstern wrote:On August 01 2016 22:35 GoTuNk! wrote:
So I tried to read up on what Khan/Trump actually said.. and Humayun Khan died in 2004.
So basically the parents stood in the DNC 12 years later saying Trump hasn't read the constitution and that his son would have never fought to defend the U.S. if he was president. I can't find the actual quote so if someone has it I'll replace it in.
Trump's reply was:
"Captain Humayun Khan was a hero to our country and we should honour all who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country safe," he said.
"The real problem here are the radical Islamic terrorists who killed him, and the efforts of these radicals to enter our country to do us further harm."
But Mr Trump rejected Mr Khan's criticism.
"While I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr Khan, who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things," he said.
I honestly don't see how this is so terrible to say. Did I miss something? the whole part where he was "mocking" the parents by claiming that maybe the mother didn't say anythign on stage because the dad wouldn't allow her to talk It's a good line. But hey, if the parents are going to be political shills and attack Trump, then they're fair game for comment. And if he's willing to fall for their bait his stupid poorly-thought through comments are fair game too. I cannot emphasize enough how bizarre it is to leverage the media's fixation on you by making extreme comments then complain that they take chunks out of your extreme comments that make you look bad.
This has been the crux of Trump's strategy. How many of these little tempest in a teapot stories have there been so far? And which of them made a damn bit of difference at stopping the Trump Train?
|
Just think of the outrage if Obama had made the same comments about a parents service member criticizing him. Or if Hillary had called out the incorrect statements that mother who was blamed her for Benghazi. People would lose their shit.
Which is exactly what is happening to Trump. And this sort of stuff worked in the primary where less than 9% of the total voting population voted between both parties. The general election is not the same game.
|
On August 01 2016 22:56 farvacola wrote:
There's also the problem of characterizing the reaction to those comments as something borne from a liberal echo chamber when numerous, party-leading Republicans have also condemned them, but hey, accuracy or sense are overrated.
Since when were republicans prohibited from taking part in the liberal echo chamber? Let me cue y'all in on something. One of the reasons that Trump wiped the floor with the republican establishment is because the republican establishment is stacked with a bunch of unprincipled pussies who are more interested in appeasing the liberal media order than their own voting base.
|
For reference, Trump is being backed up on this by Roger Stone and some conspiracy websites :
|
I mean yeah, Trump has made a bunch of dumb comments so far and that hasn't stopped him yet. But that doesn't mean that attacking anyone that criticizes him is a good long term strategy. Eventually he's going to attack someone most Americans respect and its going to hurt him. His base won't give a shit because they "100% trust him" but that's not going to win him an election.
|
On August 01 2016 22:56 farvacola wrote:
There's also the problem of characterizing the reaction to those comments as something borne from a liberal echo chamber when numerous, party-leading Republicans have also condemned them, but hey, accuracy or sense are overrated.
Many/most Republicans submit to the liberal media outrage. One of the tenent's of Trump's popularity is to tell them to fuck off, unlike other Republican candidates.
Edit: xDaunt beat me to it
|
You say unprincipled pussies, other say they have stronger principles than most of the GOP that only cares about beating the other side at any cost.
|
I mean, great, the more dissonance there is among Republicans, the better chances down ticket Democrats have. Keep calling each other unprincipled pussies 
|
On August 01 2016 23:03 Plansix wrote:
You say unprincipled pussies, other say they have stronger principles than most of the GOP that only cares about beating the other side at any cost.
The ends justify the means! Unless of course you fail in which case you look like a twit. Maybe burning the bridges and ships wasn't such a good idea.
I find it rather unbelievable the Republicans abandoned patriotism for its bastard cousin jingoism. Democrats picked it right up. Nothing is sacred. Obama gave a shout out to St. Ronnie too, is he the next Republican icon to be discarded as the party makes its transition into the party of Trump?
|
On August 01 2016 23:04 farvacola wrote:I mean, great, the more dissonance there is among Republicans, the better chances down ticket Democrats have. Keep calling each other unprincipled pussies
Still not as divided as the democrats. Trump hasn't even played the "unity" card yet. To which degree I'm not certain off, but a best case scenario of Cruz/Mc. Cain and Trump holding hands on a stage calling everyone to vote and support the party would crush Hillary's machinery who is out of ammo.
|
On August 01 2016 02:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Shortly after Barack Obama’s victory in the 2008 presidential election, the former chair of the North Carolina Republican party wrote an anxious postmortem saying something had to be done about the students and black voters whose unprecedented turnout had turned the state blue for the first time in 32 years.
The alternative, the former state chair Jack Hawke wrote, was that the country would “continue to slide toward socialism”.
That “something” turned out to be a notorious omnibus law – better known to its detractors as the “monster law” – passed by a Republican-majority state legislature in 2013. The legislation gutted many of the progressive voting rules that had contributed to Obama’s razor-thin margin in the state: same-day registration, a lengthy early voting period and out-of-precinct voting by provisional ballot – all favored disproportionately by African American voters and students. The law also introduced a strict voter ID requirement, with the anticipated effect of suppressing Democratic votes even further.
Had the law stood, it could have been the biggest setback for voting rights in North Carolina since the Jim Crow era, a brazen attempt by conservatives to upend the rules of democratic engagement and block access to groups most likely to oppose them. The Republicans have sought to couch their maneuvering in more benign terms, as a form of justifiable partisan warfare. Hawke noted in his postmortem that the Democrats had been motivated, united and well-financed in 2008, and said it was up to the Republicans to respond in kind.
That argument has come crashing down, following a flurry of remarkable court rulings over the past two weeks accusing North Carolina and three other Republican-run states – Wisconsin, Kansas and Texas – of violating the 1965 Voting Rights Act and intentionally discriminating against African Americans and other classes of voters. State and federal judges have struck down laws that could have given the Republicans a significant edge in close races this November, lifting the spirits of voting rights activists who have been campaigning against such laws for more than a decade.
“Winning an election does not empower anyone in any party to engage in purposeful racial discrimination,” the fourth circuit court of appeals ruled in the North Carolina case on Friday. “When a legislature dominated by one party has dismantled barriers to African American access to the franchise, even if done to gain votes, ‘politics as usual’ does not allow a legislature dominated by the other party to re-erect those barriers.”
The omnibus law has been almost entirely swept away and is now unlikely to be resurrected in any form before November, when Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will be fighting over every vote in North Carolina, where recent polls show them less than two points apart.
In Kansas, which is not a swing state, a state court pushed back against an attempt by the state’s top Republican elections official, Kris Kobach, to prevent an estimated 17,500 Kansans from voting in state and local races even though they have been recognized as eligible by federal courts. They will now be allowed to participate fully in primary elections this Tuesday. Source
Washington post has a better article on this that goes into more detail on the specific findings from the court and the reasoning for their decision.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na
There was data taken on the identification african americans used to vote and when they typically voted and the law specifically targeted those forms of id and dates.
These people who pass legislation like this truely are the scum of the earth. The problem is the media wont report on it properly and people will say "well everyone should have an id. Stop complaining" not realizing the level of detail that went into creating the law to fuck over black people. Its much more than just having an ID.
|
On August 01 2016 23:09 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 23:04 farvacola wrote:I mean, great, the more dissonance there is among Republicans, the better chances down ticket Democrats have. Keep calling each other unprincipled pussies Still not as divided as the democrats. Trump hasn't even played the "unity" card yet. To which degree I'm not certain off, but a best case scenario of Cruz/Mc. Cain and Trump holding hands on a stage calling everyone to vote and support the party would crush Hillary's machinery who is out of ammo.
Remind me again which of Cruz and Sanders has already endorsed their party's winning nominee?
|
Trump could offer Cruz Secretary of State and the chance to bang Melania and Ivanka and Cruz still wouldn't endorse him.
|
On August 01 2016 23:11 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 02:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Shortly after Barack Obama’s victory in the 2008 presidential election, the former chair of the North Carolina Republican party wrote an anxious postmortem saying something had to be done about the students and black voters whose unprecedented turnout had turned the state blue for the first time in 32 years.
The alternative, the former state chair Jack Hawke wrote, was that the country would “continue to slide toward socialism”.
That “something” turned out to be a notorious omnibus law – better known to its detractors as the “monster law” – passed by a Republican-majority state legislature in 2013. The legislation gutted many of the progressive voting rules that had contributed to Obama’s razor-thin margin in the state: same-day registration, a lengthy early voting period and out-of-precinct voting by provisional ballot – all favored disproportionately by African American voters and students. The law also introduced a strict voter ID requirement, with the anticipated effect of suppressing Democratic votes even further.
Had the law stood, it could have been the biggest setback for voting rights in North Carolina since the Jim Crow era, a brazen attempt by conservatives to upend the rules of democratic engagement and block access to groups most likely to oppose them. The Republicans have sought to couch their maneuvering in more benign terms, as a form of justifiable partisan warfare. Hawke noted in his postmortem that the Democrats had been motivated, united and well-financed in 2008, and said it was up to the Republicans to respond in kind.
That argument has come crashing down, following a flurry of remarkable court rulings over the past two weeks accusing North Carolina and three other Republican-run states – Wisconsin, Kansas and Texas – of violating the 1965 Voting Rights Act and intentionally discriminating against African Americans and other classes of voters. State and federal judges have struck down laws that could have given the Republicans a significant edge in close races this November, lifting the spirits of voting rights activists who have been campaigning against such laws for more than a decade.
“Winning an election does not empower anyone in any party to engage in purposeful racial discrimination,” the fourth circuit court of appeals ruled in the North Carolina case on Friday. “When a legislature dominated by one party has dismantled barriers to African American access to the franchise, even if done to gain votes, ‘politics as usual’ does not allow a legislature dominated by the other party to re-erect those barriers.”
The omnibus law has been almost entirely swept away and is now unlikely to be resurrected in any form before November, when Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will be fighting over every vote in North Carolina, where recent polls show them less than two points apart.
In Kansas, which is not a swing state, a state court pushed back against an attempt by the state’s top Republican elections official, Kris Kobach, to prevent an estimated 17,500 Kansans from voting in state and local races even though they have been recognized as eligible by federal courts. They will now be allowed to participate fully in primary elections this Tuesday. Source Washington post has a better article on this that goes into more detail on the specific findings from the court and the reasoning for their decision. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_naThere was data taken on the identification african americans used to vote and when they typically voted and the law specifically targeted those forms of id and dates. These people who pass legislation like this truely are the scum of the earth. The problem is the media wont report on it properly and people will say "well everyone should have an id. Stop complaining" not realizing the level of detail that went into creating the law to fuck over black people. Its much more than just having an ID.
That law was an abomination. The level of effort to target black voters would be impressive if the law was designed to do something useful, rather than just repress their vote. Of course the NC legislature is pushing for an appeal and whining about activist courts. But it won’t come in time for the next election.
And the best part is that the GOP will do nothing to stop more laws of this design being passed. Its almost part of their party platform “Put us in power so we can continue our efforts to rig the system to our benefit. Redistricting is soon, make sure the GOP is in power at that time.”
|
On August 01 2016 23:09 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 23:04 farvacola wrote:I mean, great, the more dissonance there is among Republicans, the better chances down ticket Democrats have. Keep calling each other unprincipled pussies Still not as divided as the democrats. Trump hasn't even played the "unity" card yet. To which degree I'm not certain off, but a best case scenario of Cruz/Mc. Cain and Trump holding hands on a stage calling everyone to vote and support the party would crush Hillary's machinery who is out of ammo.
Republicans look more divided to me.
How are you measuring the level of division?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
