US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6763

On February 03 2017 17:33 bardtown wrote:

I am a direct recipient of this behaviour because I am a vocal supporter of Brexit. You cannot imagine how many times I have been called a racist in the past 6 months or so, and I see exactly the same behaviour in the US. Have you ever entertained the idea that racism might be much less widespread than you think, and that people simply don't like illegal immigration, incompatible value systems and violent crime - regardless of their source? Many of these people voted Obama for 8 years.

On February 03 2017 17:49 OtherWorld wrote:

I'm sorry to break it down to you like this, but thinking - or assuming, rather - that someone has an "incompatible value system" with yours simply because they don't look like Englishmen is pretty much the definition of racism, and assuming that because they're coming from another country is pretty much the very definition of xenophobia. And before you jump on me, no, I don't really consider myself a leftist.

On February 03 2017 14:34 xDaunt wrote:

Do yourself a favor and Google "democrats and identity politics" just to see how willfully absurd you're being. I'm talking about long division and you're asking me to prove that 2+2=4.

On February 03 2017 14:45 Sermokala wrote:

Its self evident to anyone who cares about us politics that the left uses class warfare and identity politics. Its self evident by the evidence of everything democrats did in the last election cycle and the cycles before that. If you can't accept basic facts that are obvious and proven in every part of us politics then you have no place in a thread like this.

are you going to seriously argue that the democrats in the united states don't use identify politics and division like class warfare in their playbooks?

If you were here to learn about it then you wouldn't get combative with the first person that responded to. You can't simple discard an opinion based point with a dismissal and expect someone to put the effort into responding to you. You arn't giving them anything to respond to other then "gee I don't think so".

On February 03 2017 15:00 Sermokala wrote:

This is the most obvious lie anyones ever told. Class warfare is a basic part of democrats campaigns. saying rich people should "pay their fair share" and accuse republicans of killing tens of thousands a year if they repeal Obamacare. passing things like that off to the wings would be like if someone on the right tried to pass off nationalism or voter id laws as something on the wings of the party.

It is in the nature of politics that any decent politician will argue whatever he needs to to advance his position. Its his job and anything less would be being a worse politician. Most actual facts can be backed up with extensive citations. For everything else no one cares enough to do it because it wastes time. If you want to say "hey everyone is shitty lets not talk about people doing things beacuse everyone does some sort of thing" then go ahead, but don't ask surprised when no one finds anything to discuss anymore.


Then your challenge is still pointless because then it becomes a point of view game where people exchange how they feel about things and no one gets anywhere because people are different and they view things differently.

the self in this case would be the democrats and the evident would be the evidence of their tactics that they use for campaigning.

and to your edit what you're suppose to do is continue the conversation by countering their proposition with a point or proposition of your own. Thats how a debate or discussion works. This thread isn't about exchanging facts and reason about things that happen because thats boring and is a waste of time.

On February 03 2017 17:49 OtherWorld wrote:

I'm sorry to break it down to you like this, but thinking - or assuming, rather - that someone has an "incompatible value system" with yours simply because they don't look like Englishmen is pretty much the definition of racism, and assuming that because they're coming from another country is pretty much the very definition of xenophobia. And before you jump on me, no, I don't really consider myself a leftist.

On February 03 2017 17:33 bardtown wrote:

I am a direct recipient of this behaviour because I am a vocal supporter of Brexit. You cannot imagine how many times I have been called a racist in the past 6 months or so, and I see exactly the same behaviour in the US. Have you ever entertained the idea that racism might be much less widespread than you think, and that people simply don't like illegal immigration, incompatible value systems and violent crime - regardless of their source? Many of these people voted Obama for 8 years.

On February 03 2017 15:50 ChristianS wrote:

A lot of reasons. One of the bigger ones is that conservatives have been poisoning the well on any "politically correct" labels so much that people no longer think of racism or sexism as the great societal evils they are. They just think of it as some nagging liberals whining about something or other. Notably, this makes it so that when people are faced with actual racism, they automatically assume it's not really racism. It's probably tongue-in-cheek, or just meant to protest against PC culture, or something. Thus you get a serious dispute about whether or not the alt-right is racist despite r/altright regularly going full anti-miscegenation (As an aside, I was going to link to some racist r/altright posts as proof but apparently that subreddit got banned).

Another decent answer is that it did work in a sense – Donald Trump is the least popular winning candidate in history, after all. If both candidates are that unpopular, it seems reasonable to think both sides' mudslinging landed pretty well. I don't think most people heard much about DT's racism, and xenophobia is usually a bit too convoluted to make a very effective attack, but after the Access Hollywood tape I don't think anybody was about to argue Donald Trump didn't have a women problem. It just wasn't enough to stop his chances (I hesitate to even bring this up because I'm really tired of re-litigating this election, and if LL hears he'll come and say "electable" 20 more times).

If I had to guess, I'm guessing you don't think Donald Trump is a racist, and the sexism stuff is overblown. As for "xenophobia," you probably think that's just a pejorative to dismiss legitimate fears about the effects of immigrants on the country. But hey, I don't want to put words in your mouth, feel free to share your reasons why Donald Trump's apparent racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not legitimate reasons to dislike him.

On February 03 2017 19:14 Slaughter wrote:
Yea but isn't it the opinion of the left generally that everyone is at least a little racist though? And that having racist thoughts or actions doesn't make you a KKK level racist? I feel like when that term is brought up the person in question automatically assumes you are calling them a white supremacist, instead of a human being growing up in a culture that leads to people sterotyping and having prejudices.

I do think the words sterotyping, prejudice, racist, racist act/though, bigot, etc have gotten jumbled up in their use. I would say though that a lot of people (especially on the internet) use racist because it is the most insulting and the discourse has gotten increasingly hostile on both sides.

On February 03 2017 19:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So in an interview last night with Chris Matthews interviewed Kellyanne Conway who invented a terrorist attack called the Bowling Green Massacre. Luckily for her it was Chris Matthews so she got away with it.

In the thirteen days since President Donald Trump was sworn in, headlines have screamed about mass dismissals at federal agencies, tense phone calls with world leaders, and a commander-in-chief who stewed for days over coverage of his inauguration crowd size.

Many of these unflattering details about the turmoil at the White House and inner psychology of the President have come from a steady stream of anonymous leaks. Presidential historians and veteran political journalists agree they’re unlike anything they’ve seen before.

“I can’t recall having seen a situation where there appears to be so much leaking of such an intimate nature in such a short period of time,” Russell Riley, expert on presidential history at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, told TPM.

“I think typically there is an enormous amount of care on the part of the White House staff not to do anything to undermine the President,” he added.

Bill Keller, the longtime former editor of The New York Times and current editor-in-chief of the Marshall Project, said he’d seen “nothing remotely like” the leaks coming out of the Trump White House over the course of his career.

The political observers who spoke to TPM said that leaks typically tend to filter out months into an administration, after senior officials have cultivated relationships with individual reporters. Points of crisis also tend to produce an unusual volume of leaks, as officials scramble to shift blame and distance themselves from administration policies with which they disagree.

Asked for historical analogies for the publication of this volume of anonymously-sourced information, those experts pointed to several rock-bottom points in U.S. presidential history.

Both Riley and Margaret Thompson, a professor on the modern presidency at Syracuse University, pointed to Richard Nixon’s administration in the lead-up to the Watergate scandal. Thompson mentioned the so-called “plumbers” Nixon hired to stop the leaking of classified information after the Pentagon Papers were published, several of whom were later implicated in Watergate.

Len Downie, a former executive editor of the Washington Post who oversaw coverage through seven presidential elections, referenced George W. Bush’s second term, when his popularity declined precipitously, as a time of particularly heavy leaking.

“As administrations run down in national security crises situations, like during the Iraq War period, you saw the State Department and the Defense Department and the intelligence communities leaking in defense of themselves and in opposition to policies they didn’t like,” he said.

Less than two weeks into the Trump administration, staffers at federal agencies have been taking a similar approach. Drafts of executive orders have been leaked to the press days before they are made public. Anonymous officials said that Homeland Security Secretary Gen. John Kelly learned that Trump was moving forward with his travel ban on immigrants and refugees because an official on his briefing call happened to see Trump signing it on television. Military officials told Reuters that insufficient intelligence and ground support crippled Trump’s first military operation in Yemen, in which a NAVY Seal and 8-year-old American girl were killed.

Either oblivious to or uninterested in the traditional channels through which executive decisions are made, Trump is blazing ahead with huge policy changes like the travel ban, reportedly without consulting officials essential to the successful rollout of those policies.

On February 03 2017 19:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So in an interview last night with Chris Matthews interviewed Kellyanne Conway who invented a terrorist attack called the Bowling Green Massacre. Luckily for her it was Chris Matthews so she got away with it.

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/827367984230457345

On February 03 2017 19:34 Wegandi wrote:


If the term is vague and over-used does it really have any meaning anymore? So when someone who actually is quite militantly racist comes along no one gives a shit because it's just another spurious slander of the "other". Anyone not in the leftist bubble doesn't give a fuck anymore. It's why calling Trump a racist has little effect. Plus, you can't really deny that the "left" loves to use epithets to shut down discourse. Oh, you're a racist, you're a misogynist, xenophobe - evil - discussion over. Don't get me wrong the "right" does it too with stuff like the police - anarchist, druggie, etc. but clearly not as a primary bludgeon.

Look, you guys can define that shit however the fuck you want, but if you want to influence people towards what is generally professed you guys are going 85 MPH in the wrong direction. Calling everyone in society a racist by virtue of birthplace and country of origin is extremely off-putting to a great deal of folks. By the way, if your argument held (it doesn't, it's just one huge rationalization imho), then they'd call their own political corner racists as well, but that almost never happens. When was the last time it did? Any examples you have? Goddamn man, I've even been in conversations where people proclaiming themselves leftists have called Ludwig Von Mises racist and misogynist...I mean really? Anyways, good luck making the racist or misogynists labels stick now-a-days. No one gives a fuck anymore it's been so overused.

On February 03 2017 19:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So in an interview last night with Chris Matthews interviewed Kellyanne Conway who invented a terrorist attack called the Bowling Green Massacre. Luckily for her it was Chris Matthews so she got away with it.

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/827367984230457345

On February 03 2017 20:20 GreenHorizons wrote:


Someone is going to pull this type of tweet from some hard drive from some rubble pile one day and wonder how people could have not seen it all coming.

On February 03 2017 20:20 GreenHorizons wrote:


Someone is going to pull this type of tweet from some hard drive from some rubble pile one day and wonder how people could have not seen it all coming.

Pentagon spokesman Christopher Sherwood confirmed to The Intercept that the attack was in fact conducted against a Saudi warship, and that the Pentagon suspects Houthi rebels. “It was a Saudi ship – it was actually a frigate” said Sherwood. “It was [conducted by] suspected Houthi rebels off the coast of Yemen.”

Fox News initially misreported that a U.S. ship was somehow the target — which is perhaps where some of the confusion in the White House originated

On February 03 2017 18:15 bardtown wrote:

You're the only one making an assumption here, and demonstrating what I am talking about wonderfully. When did I say anything about people of a certain skin colour or nationality having incompatible values? I said the exact opposite of that - that people have a problem with incompatible value systems regardless of their origin. You make some bizarre assumption that I am talking about a specific race, call it racism, and thus compound the devaluation of the term. The vast majority of Americans and Britons will welcome immigrants of any race/nationality that share their values and can contribute to society.