|
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 26 2016 23:45 nothingmuch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 08:21 biology]major wrote:On August 26 2016 08:11 Plansix wrote:On August 26 2016 08:08 TheYango wrote:On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote:
Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide). So in other words, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me? Or, I got mine, so fuck those people. It's more like an observation of what is happening in Germany and preventing it from spreading to the US. If it weren't for Trump no one would even be voicing publicly their concerns about patriarchal value systems infiltrating the USA. If the US is right in barring communists and nazis from immigrating, then it should also prevent people from these patriarchal countries with high levels of sexism/bigotry and terrorism as well. It takes Trumps brash and brutish speech to make headlines and open discourse about these issues, because everyone else is afraid of saying words which hurt peoples feelings. Can you elaborate on what's happening in Germany? I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about.
I'll translate it for you
"It's more like an observation of what is happening in Germany (muslim refugees) and preventing it from spreading to the US. If it weren't for Trump no one would even be voicing publicly their concerns about muslims infiltrating the USA. If the US is right in barring communists and nazis from immigrating, then it should also prevent mulims."
|
On August 26 2016 23:56 Cam Connor wrote:
breaking news! clinton and strategists exchange emails regarding strategy!
Clinton? E-mails??? Must be a scandal. She's banned from all forms of communication besides videotaped sign language, right?
|
The point was the content and strategy. Stop reflexively going into Clinton defense mode.
|
United States42008 Posts
On August 26 2016 23:45 nothingmuch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 08:21 biology]major wrote:On August 26 2016 08:11 Plansix wrote:On August 26 2016 08:08 TheYango wrote:On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote:
Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide). So in other words, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me? Or, I got mine, so fuck those people. It's more like an observation of what is happening in Germany and preventing it from spreading to the US. If it weren't for Trump no one would even be voicing publicly their concerns about patriarchal value systems infiltrating the USA. If the US is right in barring communists and nazis from immigrating, then it should also prevent people from these patriarchal countries with high levels of sexism/bigotry and terrorism as well. It takes Trumps brash and brutish speech to make headlines and open discourse about these issues, because everyone else is afraid of saying words which hurt peoples feelings. Can you elaborate on what's happening in Germany? I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about.
Obama declared Sharia Law in Germany and they're afraid that unless the Texas State Guard stop him he'll do the same in the United States.
|
Legal and constitutional questions have been raised over revelations that the Baltimore police department used privately contracted surveillance technology to secretly monitor vast swaths of the city, lawyers and civil liberties advocates say.
The program, confirmed for the first time by police officials on Wednesday, allows a small plane to film a 32 square mile section of the city. The tape is saved and stored and analysts can move about in time and space in order to track vehicles or individuals, although individual human characteristics aren’t discernible. Russ McNutt, the founder of the Ohio-based Persistent Surveillance, likened it to “Google Earth with Tivo.”
The Baltimore police department entered into a trial agreement with Persistent Surveillance in January and the company has filmed the city for 300 hours and provided the police department with over 100 investigative reports. According to Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which broke the story earlier this week, McNutt developed the program for the Pentagon in 2006 and in 2007 it was used in Iraq.
Legal experts, struggling to catch up with a program that police just admitted exists, are questioning how these tactics will hold up in court.
“It’s highly intrusive surveillance,” said Natalie Finegar, the deputy district public defender, whose office expressed outrage over the program, which was revealed two weeks after the Department of Justice issued a scathing report claiming that the department regularly violated the rights of citizens.
Baltimore’s police commissioner, Kevin Davis, said in a statement that the technology was a reasonable response to the city’s extreme violence. “At a time when 84% of our homicides occur in outdoor public spaces, it seems logical to explore opportunities to capture the brazen killers who don’t think twice about gunning down their victims on our streets,” he said. And police spokesman TJ Smith said the technology has been central in several arrests.
Finegar said arrests that relied on the surveillance could be subject to legal challenge.
Source
|
“Clinton suggests giving the Republicans a way out and an attempt to bring back some form of civility to Washington. Democrat leaders are upset by the idea after years of gridlock, confused by the concept that that the parties used to work together to accomplish things.”
This is called long term planning. The GOP isn’t going to disappear and if it did, it would be replaced by something the Democrats would need to deal with.
On August 27 2016 00:00 Introvert wrote:
The point was the content and strategy. Stop reflexively going into Clinton defense mode.
If anything, people are pointing out that her plan isn’t that terrible and doesn’t need defending. Suggesting that they work with the more reasonable members of the GOP who respect government isn’t this wild, crazy idea.
|
On August 27 2016 00:03 Plansix wrote:“Clinton suggests giving the Republicans a way out and an attempt to bring back some form of civility to Washington. Democrat leaders are upset by the idea after years of gridlock, confused by the concept that that the parties used to work together to accomplish things.” This is called long term planning. The GOP isn’t going to disappear and if it did, it would be replaced by something the Democrats would need to deal with. Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 00:00 Introvert wrote:
The point was the content and strategy. Stop reflexively going into Clinton defense mode. If anything, people are pointing out that her plan isn’t that terrible and doesn’t need defending. Suggesting that they work with the more reasonable members of the GOP who respect government isn’t this wild, crazy idea.
It's amazing how the two sides working together ends up somehow being framed as conspiracy or some shit. We have become so divided that its almost like we have forgotten we are all living in the same country.
|
On August 26 2016 23:48 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +Senior Democratic Party officials balked at plans by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign to distinguish GOP nominee Donald Trump from Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and other Republicans, according to emails released by WikiLeaks.
The Clinton camp’s quick-response arm “basically want to make the case that you either stand with Ryan or with Trump, that Trump is much worse than regular Republicans,” then-communications director Luis Miranda told CEO Amy Dacey in May. “[T]hey don't want us to tie Trump to other Republicans because they think it makes him look normal.”
“That's a problem,” he added in the email, which had a subject line “Problem with HFA," using an acronym for Hillary for America.
“We would basically have to throw out our entire frame that the GOP made Trump through years of divisive and ugly politics,” he wrote. “It just doesn't work from the Party side.”
Adopting the Clinton campaign’s line, he insisted, would “hold up Paul Ryan as a good example” and "give down ballot Republicans such an easy out.”
It “would ALSO put us at odds with … basically all of our Congressional Democrats who have embraced our talking points … to point out that GOPers in Congress have been pushing these ugly policies for years,” he claimed. thehill.com
She's definitely got smart advisors. Tarring and feathering the entire Republican Party for producing Trump the nominee is inferior to drawing a distinction between him and favored moderate foil. She doesn't care as much about down-ticket as taking the Presidency. Obama showed how much can be done with the bureaucracy alone. Hell, his example of force feeding Obamacare through during the President-House-Senate ownership that cost purple state Democrats their jobs is the biggest example of this. Play for the long game ... and it's been working.
|
On August 27 2016 00:03 Plansix wrote:“Clinton suggests giving the Republicans a way out and an attempt to bring back some form of civility to Washington. Democrat leaders are upset by the idea after years of gridlock, confused by the concept that that the parties used to work together to accomplish things.” This is called long term planning. The GOP isn’t going to disappear and if it did, it would be replaced by something the Democrats would need to deal with. Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 00:00 Introvert wrote:
The point was the content and strategy. Stop reflexively going into Clinton defense mode. If anything, people are pointing out that her plan isn’t that terrible and doesn’t need defending. Suggesting that they work with the more reasonable members of the GOP who respect government isn’t this wild, crazy idea.
People saw "wikileaks" and "dnc" and assumed I was accusing them of some conspiracy. I was following up on a post from earlier, though the content of the story can stand alone just fine.
This is Hillary trying to win, while kinda throwing the congressional Dems under.
|
On August 27 2016 00:19 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 00:03 Plansix wrote:“Clinton suggests giving the Republicans a way out and an attempt to bring back some form of civility to Washington. Democrat leaders are upset by the idea after years of gridlock, confused by the concept that that the parties used to work together to accomplish things.” This is called long term planning. The GOP isn’t going to disappear and if it did, it would be replaced by something the Democrats would need to deal with. On August 27 2016 00:00 Introvert wrote:
The point was the content and strategy. Stop reflexively going into Clinton defense mode. If anything, people are pointing out that her plan isn’t that terrible and doesn’t need defending. Suggesting that they work with the more reasonable members of the GOP who respect government isn’t this wild, crazy idea. People saw "wikileaks" and "dnc" and assumed I was accusing them of some conspiracy. I was following up on a post from earlier, though the content of the story can stand alone just fine. This is Hillary trying to win, while kinda throwing the congressional Dems under.
I don’t see it as throwing congressional democrats under the bus, as much as giving them realistic expectations. The general public hates the gridlock and hard line government where only a super majority allows for anything to get accomplished. Moving towards ending that is the only way the democrats stay in power. Half the GOP is already running for 2020 and the DNC should avoid empowering the Ted Cruz section of the GOP.
|
It's a good strategic move. Clinton is driving a wedge between the moderate right (which Boehner was a part of) and the alt right and hard right which have been causing the gridlock.
She's not throwing Congressional Dems under the bus. She's signaling that she'll work with Congressional Reps as well to get her agenda through. She kinda needs them, and frankly, they kind of need her. Being the party of no only works so long.
Clinton has shown in the past as Senator when she gets down to business she doesn't care what names and what slander the right has thrown at her, she'll try and make it work. There are a lot of things she's laid out that moderate Republicans in theory could be amenable to like infrastructure spending and immigration reform.
|
On August 27 2016 00:19 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 00:03 Plansix wrote:“Clinton suggests giving the Republicans a way out and an attempt to bring back some form of civility to Washington. Democrat leaders are upset by the idea after years of gridlock, confused by the concept that that the parties used to work together to accomplish things.” This is called long term planning. The GOP isn’t going to disappear and if it did, it would be replaced by something the Democrats would need to deal with. On August 27 2016 00:00 Introvert wrote:
The point was the content and strategy. Stop reflexively going into Clinton defense mode. If anything, people are pointing out that her plan isn’t that terrible and doesn’t need defending. Suggesting that they work with the more reasonable members of the GOP who respect government isn’t this wild, crazy idea. People saw "wikileaks" and "dnc" and assumed I was accusing them of some conspiracy. I was following up on a post from earlier, though the content of the story can stand alone just fine. This is Hillary trying to win, while kinda throwing the congressional Dems under.
I would argue that the persistence of the alt-right movement would inhibit Clinton's presidency more than losing a couple seats. The kind of silliness associated with Cruz' government shutdown is childish nonsense that has no place in government. Republicans used to play along. Obstruction has become a priority and Clinton is trying to cleanse the GOP of their cancer. She can get a lot done and make a lot of compromises so long as there are people in office who at least acknowledge she is president.
|
None of that makes sense. Hillary would rather have Dems in Congress than Republicans she can "work with." and judging by the story, the rest of the party sees it that way too. They want to win these seats.
|
The thing to remember is the Alt-right has zero respect for government process or compromise. People like Bonner, Cruz and the rest will only accept everything they want or nothing. They will never be happy with having a majority of the power, they want to remove the left from governments as a whole. They are not the Reagan area, or even Newt era republicans of the past.
The best thing Clinton can do to get support is to work with the Republicans to delegitimize the alt-right. They are beyond just an opposition party that disagrees about the role of government, they are just anti-democracy and anti-American.
On August 27 2016 00:38 Introvert wrote:
None of that makes sense. Hillary would rather have Dems in Congress than Republicans she can "work with." and judging by the story, the rest of the party sees it that way too. They want to win these seats.
I don’t believe that. Clinton worked with Republicans in a much more functional era of government. If the emails are correct and she is pushing to work with the GOP, I believe she and her advisers correctly view the alt-right as a long term problem that will not go away after this election. Of course there are short sighted democrats who just see it as a numbers game. But the best defense against them in another stronger GOP leadership that can attract fiscal conservatives that lean to the left on social issues and the long term role of government.
|
|
|
On August 26 2016 15:08 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 11:29 xDaunt wrote:On August 26 2016 11:23 Slaughter wrote:
Milo is a very public figure and you know damn well what opinions of his people on the left don't like so why are you asking for them to waste their time to tell you what you already know? I don't know anything on this matter. Like I said earlier, I suspect that most people who hate on Milo don't even really understand him (or they deliberately misrepresent him). But, I am making an effort to confirm those suspicions before unfairly maligning anyone around here. I would say he makes of habit of defending that which least needs defending and sugar coating some very ugly sentiments. http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/He wrote this article on the Alt Right and basically dismissed all the anti-antisemitism and racist garbage floating around as just people being trollish and engaging in harmless fun. Show nested quote +Are they actually bigots? No more than death metal devotees in the 80s were actually Satanists. For them, it’s simply a means to fluster their grandparents. While he is likely correct that there are people that spread racist screed on the internet for the lulz, I think he is flat out wrong and in fact dangerously wrong because much of it is spread in earnest. I think because Milo's modus operanda is to be a troll, he is blinded and incapable of seeing the racism being fomented within the Alt Right (and indeed the racism directed against him). Daily Stormer wrote two articles countering Milo "Can't Kike the Alt-Right" and "And When They Came For Milo" that basically said, 'yes we have fun, because why not, but we are serious about the racist stuff and we're on to your Jewish trickery that's trying to derail our cause'. But Milo cannot see that and so feels compelled to defend actual racism. He creates a tame and domesticated version of online racism even though many see him as an intruding Jewish enemy. I think this whitewashing (if you will) of real racism is very, very bad and I don't think he doesn't get a free pass by sleeping with black men. He is clever in his provocations, but the battles he chooses to fight makes him foolish. As a witty fool, he hides and disguises thereby unwittingly defending those who were not fooling. edit. I will say, on occasion I can see, within all his verbiage, a whiff of a possibility of a reasonable point (particularly when he's facing down screaming people subsumed by rage). But the point is so buried in a mountain of douchery that it is crushed under the weight of his trollish nature.
Why shouldn't Milo downplay the truly racist elements of the Alt Right? White supremacy is dead as an effective or compelling ideology. White supremacists are universally pariahs. They have no voice in popular media (or in anything resembling popular media). They have no platform in mainstream politics. They have no representative politicians advocating their positions at any meaningful level of government. Focusing on the white supremacists when assessing the Alt Right is like focusing on the Black Panthers when assessing the Civil Rights movement.
As for Milo himself and what he believes, I think he very clearly illustrates the problems with the present, over-expansive definition of racism. And he does this using inflammatory rhetoric to get a rise out of people, but when you actually listen to what his message is, it becomes quite clear that he's not a racist. As just one example, how many racists/neo-nazis/whatever stupid label people want to use are willing to concede that African Americans have had a rough go in the US historically such that some degree of governmental assistance may be appropriate? When you get past the trolling, it becomes very clear very quickly that Milo is incredibly thoughtful and has very well-developed ideas.
|
Maybe its Clinton's way of telling the moderate republicans that she is willing to come together with them to push the lunatic alt-right or tea partiers (whatever stupid name you want to assign them) off a cliff and into the abyss where they belong. So they can get back to being an actual functioning body.
|
On August 27 2016 00:38 Introvert wrote:
None of that makes sense. Hillary would rather have Dems in Congress than Republicans she can "work with." and judging by the story, the rest of the party sees it that way too. They want to win these seats.
Surely you understand that many seats are simply not attainable for the Democrats?
Hillary either secures a super majority in both House and Senate or she will have to work with Republicans
Doing the former is night impossible so she throws the Republicans a bone to allow the latter.
|
|
|
On August 27 2016 00:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 15:08 Falling wrote:On August 26 2016 11:29 xDaunt wrote:On August 26 2016 11:23 Slaughter wrote:
Milo is a very public figure and you know damn well what opinions of his people on the left don't like so why are you asking for them to waste their time to tell you what you already know? I don't know anything on this matter. Like I said earlier, I suspect that most people who hate on Milo don't even really understand him (or they deliberately misrepresent him). But, I am making an effort to confirm those suspicions before unfairly maligning anyone around here. I would say he makes of habit of defending that which least needs defending and sugar coating some very ugly sentiments. http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/He wrote this article on the Alt Right and basically dismissed all the anti-antisemitism and racist garbage floating around as just people being trollish and engaging in harmless fun. Are they actually bigots? No more than death metal devotees in the 80s were actually Satanists. For them, it’s simply a means to fluster their grandparents. While he is likely correct that there are people that spread racist screed on the internet for the lulz, I think he is flat out wrong and in fact dangerously wrong because much of it is spread in earnest. I think because Milo's modus operanda is to be a troll, he is blinded and incapable of seeing the racism being fomented within the Alt Right (and indeed the racism directed against him). Daily Stormer wrote two articles countering Milo "Can't Kike the Alt-Right" and "And When They Came For Milo" that basically said, 'yes we have fun, because why not, but we are serious about the racist stuff and we're on to your Jewish trickery that's trying to derail our cause'. But Milo cannot see that and so feels compelled to defend actual racism. He creates a tame and domesticated version of online racism even though many see him as an intruding Jewish enemy. I think this whitewashing (if you will) of real racism is very, very bad and I don't think he doesn't get a free pass by sleeping with black men. He is clever in his provocations, but the battles he chooses to fight makes him foolish. As a witty fool, he hides and disguises thereby unwittingly defending those who were not fooling. edit. I will say, on occasion I can see, within all his verbiage, a whiff of a possibility of a reasonable point (particularly when he's facing down screaming people subsumed by rage). But the point is so buried in a mountain of douchery that it is crushed under the weight of his trollish nature. Why shouldn't Milo downplay the truly racist elements of the Alt Right? White supremacy is dead as an effective or compelling ideology. White supremacists are universally pariahs. They have no voice in popular media (or in anything resembling popular media). They have no platform in mainstream politics. They have no representative politicians advocating their positions at any meaningful level of government. Focusing on the white supremacists when assessing the Alt Right is like focusing on the Black Panthers when assessing the Civil Rights movement. As for Milo himself and what he believes, I think he very clearly illustrates the problems with the present, over-expansive definition of racism. And he does this using inflammatory rhetoric to get a rise out of people, but when you actually listen to what his message is, it becomes quite clear that he's not a racist. As just one example, how many racists/neo-nazis/whatever stupid label people want to use are willing to concede that African Americans have had a rough go in the US historically such that some degree of governmental assistance may be appropriate? When you get past the trolling, it becomes very clear very quickly that Milo is incredibly thoughtful and has very well-developed ideas.
Ehhhh you don't need to be a full-out slavery denier or Holocaust denier to still be racist/ bigoted. Only a tiny, tiny sliver of people will say that blacks were treated fairly "in the US historically"; most people who are prejudiced are prejudiced about the present, modern era.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
