|
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 March 28 2017 07:19 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 28 2017 05:59 KwarK wrote:
The allegations of working with the Russians would have a lot less weight to them if our reality didn't look identical to one in which they were actually working with the Russians. I mean sure, it's possible that there is absolutely nothing to this, just because it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck doesn't necessarily mean it's a duck. But they'd have a better case for it not being a duck if they didn't quack so much.
I mean even if we accept the official story, that he flew out to meet with the deputy chairman of Russia's state bank in order to discuss "nothing of consequence", that's still a little odd. It would've helped if there wasn't a hefty dose of partisanship obscuring the issues every time they're brought up. Like the Trump-wiretap story, one write-up: Show nested quote +Partisanship has a way of coloring views of the news, especially of highly-charged stories involving Trump campaign and transition officials turning up in government surveillance.
This week, CNN reported: “The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, US officials told CNN.”
Righties, particularly those of the anti-anti-Trump bent, focuses on the “supposed” and the “possibly” to conclude the story was No Big Deal. The story is certainly qualified, but the dismissal tends to ignore the fact that it’s a report on an ongoing investigation and that unless some sort of charge is brought, it’s a fair bet the evidence will be below the level needed to bring charges.
Conversely, the same basic group of righties thought this week’s press event by Rep. Devin Nunes — chairman of the House Intelligence Committee — (helpfully transcribed by Lawfare) was a Very Big Deal.
Nunes initially claimed that: “on numerous occasions, the intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition. Details about persons associated with the incoming administration, details with little apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting. Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition team members were unmasked. And fourth and finally, I want to be clear, none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities, or of the Trump team.” [...]
Nunes, however, further raises the serious allegation that Trump or members of his transition team were “unmasked” (i.e., their identities were not redacted as would usually be the case for U.S. citizens in cases of incidental collection) in cases without foreign intelligence value, and that said reports were widely disseminated. This is precisely the concern civil libertarians have raised about our foreign surveillance efforts during the post-9/11 era. Warren Henry
Yes, there are terribly biased people when you go out of the way to find biased people?
I googled "Warren Henry" and I'm guessing he isn't anyone from the first 10 pages. Who is he and why is he quote worthy?
|
President Trump is doing his best to put a good face on defeat in his party's attempt to replace the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
His strategy is simple: declare that the law is failing. And he is selling that message in his own distinctly Trumpian way: concocting it out of simple, bold words and then hammering that message home, over and over: Obamacare, in his words, will "explode."
"The best thing we can do, politically speaking, is let Obamacare explode," he said in the Oval Office on Friday after the GOP health care bill went down. "It's exploding right now."
Again on Twitter on Saturday, he repeated his case: "ObamaCare will explode and we will all get together and piece together a great healthcare plan for THE PEOPLE. Do not worry!"
The law has its problems — but it is far from "exploding," using any reasonable definition of the word. Here is a quick rundown of where the Affordable Care Act stands right now, what's going well and what's not so great.
Source
|
people who think healthcare is collapsing
Trump, spicer.
People who think it isn't
Kaiser foundation, CBO, Paul Krugman.
think that says everything
|
Only a very good-natured man would wish Obamacare to explode as political cover for his party's failure to do anything.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 28 2017 08:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 07:43 LegalLord wrote:On March 28 2017 05:59 KwarK wrote:
The allegations of working with the Russians would have a lot less weight to them if our reality didn't look identical to one in which they were actually working with the Russians. I mean sure, it's possible that there is absolutely nothing to this, just because it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck doesn't necessarily mean it's a duck. But they'd have a better case for it not being a duck if they didn't quack so much.
I mean even if we accept the official story, that he flew out to meet with the deputy chairman of Russia's state bank in order to discuss "nothing of consequence", that's still a little odd. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, but comes from a highly untrustworthy source, odds are it's a vulture. Maybe there's an underground conspiracy to collaborate with the Russians to achieve some goal. It's possible, and that's why there's an investigation. But the actual reality looks a lot more like a bunch of corrupt and/or incompetent dipshits looking out for themselves ahead of their own country. Some of their interests lie in countries that include Russia. Problem is that most stories that look like garden variety profiteering or incompetence that involve Russian business interests. There's also unfortunate chats with the Russian ambassador to the US. But they are almost without fail seen as "Russia Russia Russia OMG@@@@." I suppose a decent sanity check would be to look at if the shitty officials in question have shitty ties to other nations. Flynn has shitty ties to Turkey, Manafort to Ukraine, Kushner to China, Sessions I dunno but the case against him was kinda very middling, and so on. Beyond saying that Russia hacked the DNC and leaked documents to Wikileaks, every connection to Russia of particular merit is... tenuous. What doesn't help is that even our intelligence agencies seem to be completely ignorant of even the most simple matters of Russia in a way that makes me wonder if they even know what they are talking about. I made the case earlier, but perhaps if I link the thoughts of a rather consistent Putin critic that would be more meaningful. When the circumstantial evidence is highly dependent on the opinion of an intelligence team that is not known for its strong human intelligence prowess, it's important to have a proper level of suspicion. There's much more than that in favor of saying that Russia hacked the DNC - although the ODNI releases are similarly ineffective at proving it. I see every sign of a bunch of incompetent buffoons looking out for themselves in ways that are bad for the country. Democrats want to see a Russia behind every bush and under every rug. And it's clearly not without a sense of self-interest. That this election had Russian-influenced elements in it is of concern, but Democrats want to make more of it than that, to try to say that they were robbed of what was rightfully theirs by a foreign devil. But if that's true, the proof just hasn't been shown to be there. The problem with Sessions is he is a racist. Democrats are grasping for a lot of straws to make a point of their being robbed, but I don't think it is more than Russian influencing the election by spreading false narratives. They need to get their shit together and come together as a party and find their angle and new speaking points. Leave Trump out of it. He'll ruin himself, by himself. I agree with mostly everything else.
Sessions is many things. A lot of them are pretty bad. But I find it really hard to believe that he's a Russian spy. Just an unscrupulous Senator-turned-AG who talked to some guy once.
|
On March 28 2017 08:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 07:19 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 28 2017 05:59 KwarK wrote:
The allegations of working with the Russians would have a lot less weight to them if our reality didn't look identical to one in which they were actually working with the Russians. I mean sure, it's possible that there is absolutely nothing to this, just because it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck doesn't necessarily mean it's a duck. But they'd have a better case for it not being a duck if they didn't quack so much.
I mean even if we accept the official story, that he flew out to meet with the deputy chairman of Russia's state bank in order to discuss "nothing of consequence", that's still a little odd. It would've helped if there wasn't a hefty dose of partisanship obscuring the issues every time they're brought up. Like the Trump-wiretap story, one write-up: Partisanship has a way of coloring views of the news, especially of highly-charged stories involving Trump campaign and transition officials turning up in government surveillance.
This week, CNN reported: “The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, US officials told CNN.”
Righties, particularly those of the anti-anti-Trump bent, focuses on the “supposed” and the “possibly” to conclude the story was No Big Deal. The story is certainly qualified, but the dismissal tends to ignore the fact that it’s a report on an ongoing investigation and that unless some sort of charge is brought, it’s a fair bet the evidence will be below the level needed to bring charges.
Conversely, the same basic group of righties thought this week’s press event by Rep. Devin Nunes — chairman of the House Intelligence Committee — (helpfully transcribed by Lawfare) was a Very Big Deal.
Nunes initially claimed that: “on numerous occasions, the intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition. Details about persons associated with the incoming administration, details with little apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting. Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition team members were unmasked. And fourth and finally, I want to be clear, none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities, or of the Trump team.” [...]
Nunes, however, further raises the serious allegation that Trump or members of his transition team were “unmasked” (i.e., their identities were not redacted as would usually be the case for U.S. citizens in cases of incidental collection) in cases without foreign intelligence value, and that said reports were widely disseminated. This is precisely the concern civil libertarians have raised about our foreign surveillance efforts during the post-9/11 era. Warren Henry Yes, there are terribly biased people when you go out of the way to find biased people? I googled "Warren Henry" and I'm guessing he isn't anyone from the first 10 pages. Who is he and why is he quote worthy?
I read many sources and this one made it into one of my political digests. I expect any good-natured sort to know from my posting and the quoted excerpt whether or not they think reading the full article would be worthwhile. If it isn't, fiiine don't post. If it is, fiiine read the thing, maybe even conclude based on the writing that he's presenting a very biased view. Otherwise, you're just another guy attacking the person instead of the argument. Frankly, I think a lot of StealthBlue's selections are absolutely biased piles of shit, but they advance the thread and raise interesting topics, so I'll find myself giving many a fair reading to see points of agreement and disagreement.
|
On March 28 2017 08:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 07:43 LegalLord wrote:On March 28 2017 05:59 KwarK wrote:
The allegations of working with the Russians would have a lot less weight to them if our reality didn't look identical to one in which they were actually working with the Russians. I mean sure, it's possible that there is absolutely nothing to this, just because it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck doesn't necessarily mean it's a duck. But they'd have a better case for it not being a duck if they didn't quack so much.
I mean even if we accept the official story, that he flew out to meet with the deputy chairman of Russia's state bank in order to discuss "nothing of consequence", that's still a little odd. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, but comes from a highly untrustworthy source, odds are it's a vulture. Maybe there's an underground conspiracy to collaborate with the Russians to achieve some goal. It's possible, and that's why there's an investigation. But the actual reality looks a lot more like a bunch of corrupt and/or incompetent dipshits looking out for themselves ahead of their own country. Some of their interests lie in countries that include Russia. Problem is that most stories that look like garden variety profiteering or incompetence that involve Russian business interests. There's also unfortunate chats with the Russian ambassador to the US. But they are almost without fail seen as "Russia Russia Russia OMG@@@@." I suppose a decent sanity check would be to look at if the shitty officials in question have shitty ties to other nations. Flynn has shitty ties to Turkey, Manafort to Ukraine, Kushner to China, Sessions I dunno but the case against him was kinda very middling, and so on. Beyond saying that Russia hacked the DNC and leaked documents to Wikileaks, every connection to Russia of particular merit is... tenuous. What doesn't help is that even our intelligence agencies seem to be completely ignorant of even the most simple matters of Russia in a way that makes me wonder if they even know what they are talking about. I made the case earlier, but perhaps if I link the thoughts of a rather consistent Putin critic that would be more meaningful. When the circumstantial evidence is highly dependent on the opinion of an intelligence team that is not known for its strong human intelligence prowess, it's important to have a proper level of suspicion. There's much more than that in favor of saying that Russia hacked the DNC - although the ODNI releases are similarly ineffective at proving it. I see every sign of a bunch of incompetent buffoons looking out for themselves in ways that are bad for the country. Democrats want to see a Russia behind every bush and under every rug. And it's clearly not without a sense of self-interest. That this election had Russian-influenced elements in it is of concern, but Democrats want to make more of it than that, to try to say that they were robbed of what was rightfully theirs by a foreign devil. But if that's true, the proof just hasn't been shown to be there. The problem with Sessions is he is a racist. Democrats are grasping for a lot of straws to make a point of their being robbed, but I don't think it is more than Russian influencing the election by spreading false narratives. They need to get their shit together and come together as a party and find their angle and new speaking points. Leave Trump out of it. He'll ruin himself, by himself. I agree with mostly everything else.
If Russia is the boy who cried wolf, racist/racism is the boy who cried lion. It changes little. Sessions is racist, Trump is racist, Trump voters are racist or unconsciously racist, xDaunt is racist, immigration policies are racist ... you get the idea. I have come to understand the charge has more to do with hatred of the Red Team combined with believing too much of the Dem's/media's own spin. But what would politics be without partisanship?
|
xDaunt is racist tho /s
I'm going from the reading I have done to base my opinion on Sessions. My being black, I have an innate caution built in towards people who have exhibited this behavior before. He may have changed and he may have completely new views that are more inline with the modern times. I won't know unless I talk to him personally or read something directly from him that convinces me 100%. Is that partisan?
EDIT: I think the term racist shouldn't be used unless it is true racism. There is a lot of prejudice in the world that gets converted to racism and it makes the news of it happening seem way worse than it actually is. I have prejudice views of a lot of people, some good, some bad. But I'm not racist. PM me if you want examples or a more thorough explanation.
|
United States42775 Posts
On March 28 2017 08:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 08:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 28 2017 07:43 LegalLord wrote:On March 28 2017 05:59 KwarK wrote:
The allegations of working with the Russians would have a lot less weight to them if our reality didn't look identical to one in which they were actually working with the Russians. I mean sure, it's possible that there is absolutely nothing to this, just because it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck doesn't necessarily mean it's a duck. But they'd have a better case for it not being a duck if they didn't quack so much.
I mean even if we accept the official story, that he flew out to meet with the deputy chairman of Russia's state bank in order to discuss "nothing of consequence", that's still a little odd. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, but comes from a highly untrustworthy source, odds are it's a vulture. Maybe there's an underground conspiracy to collaborate with the Russians to achieve some goal. It's possible, and that's why there's an investigation. But the actual reality looks a lot more like a bunch of corrupt and/or incompetent dipshits looking out for themselves ahead of their own country. Some of their interests lie in countries that include Russia. Problem is that most stories that look like garden variety profiteering or incompetence that involve Russian business interests. There's also unfortunate chats with the Russian ambassador to the US. But they are almost without fail seen as "Russia Russia Russia OMG@@@@." I suppose a decent sanity check would be to look at if the shitty officials in question have shitty ties to other nations. Flynn has shitty ties to Turkey, Manafort to Ukraine, Kushner to China, Sessions I dunno but the case against him was kinda very middling, and so on. Beyond saying that Russia hacked the DNC and leaked documents to Wikileaks, every connection to Russia of particular merit is... tenuous. What doesn't help is that even our intelligence agencies seem to be completely ignorant of even the most simple matters of Russia in a way that makes me wonder if they even know what they are talking about. I made the case earlier, but perhaps if I link the thoughts of a rather consistent Putin critic that would be more meaningful. When the circumstantial evidence is highly dependent on the opinion of an intelligence team that is not known for its strong human intelligence prowess, it's important to have a proper level of suspicion. There's much more than that in favor of saying that Russia hacked the DNC - although the ODNI releases are similarly ineffective at proving it. I see every sign of a bunch of incompetent buffoons looking out for themselves in ways that are bad for the country. Democrats want to see a Russia behind every bush and under every rug. And it's clearly not without a sense of self-interest. That this election had Russian-influenced elements in it is of concern, but Democrats want to make more of it than that, to try to say that they were robbed of what was rightfully theirs by a foreign devil. But if that's true, the proof just hasn't been shown to be there. The problem with Sessions is he is a racist. Democrats are grasping for a lot of straws to make a point of their being robbed, but I don't think it is more than Russian influencing the election by spreading false narratives. They need to get their shit together and come together as a party and find their angle and new speaking points. Leave Trump out of it. He'll ruin himself, by himself. I agree with mostly everything else. If Russia is the boy who cried wolf, racist/racism is the boy who cried lion. It changes little. Sessions is racist, Trump is racist, Trump voters are racist or unconsciously racist, xDaunt is racist, immigration policies are racist ... you get the idea. I have come to understand the charge has more to do with hatred of the Red Team combined with believing too much of the Dem's/media's own spin. But what would politics be without partisanship?
I'm not sure you really understand the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. The point is that he cried wolf over and over again where there was no wolf. That's not really the case here with Sessions, Trump, Trump voters or xDaunt and racism.
|
On March 28 2017 08:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 08:46 Danglars wrote:On March 28 2017 08:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 28 2017 07:43 LegalLord wrote:On March 28 2017 05:59 KwarK wrote:
The allegations of working with the Russians would have a lot less weight to them if our reality didn't look identical to one in which they were actually working with the Russians. I mean sure, it's possible that there is absolutely nothing to this, just because it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck doesn't necessarily mean it's a duck. But they'd have a better case for it not being a duck if they didn't quack so much.
I mean even if we accept the official story, that he flew out to meet with the deputy chairman of Russia's state bank in order to discuss "nothing of consequence", that's still a little odd. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, but comes from a highly untrustworthy source, odds are it's a vulture. Maybe there's an underground conspiracy to collaborate with the Russians to achieve some goal. It's possible, and that's why there's an investigation. But the actual reality looks a lot more like a bunch of corrupt and/or incompetent dipshits looking out for themselves ahead of their own country. Some of their interests lie in countries that include Russia. Problem is that most stories that look like garden variety profiteering or incompetence that involve Russian business interests. There's also unfortunate chats with the Russian ambassador to the US. But they are almost without fail seen as "Russia Russia Russia OMG@@@@." I suppose a decent sanity check would be to look at if the shitty officials in question have shitty ties to other nations. Flynn has shitty ties to Turkey, Manafort to Ukraine, Kushner to China, Sessions I dunno but the case against him was kinda very middling, and so on. Beyond saying that Russia hacked the DNC and leaked documents to Wikileaks, every connection to Russia of particular merit is... tenuous. What doesn't help is that even our intelligence agencies seem to be completely ignorant of even the most simple matters of Russia in a way that makes me wonder if they even know what they are talking about. I made the case earlier, but perhaps if I link the thoughts of a rather consistent Putin critic that would be more meaningful. When the circumstantial evidence is highly dependent on the opinion of an intelligence team that is not known for its strong human intelligence prowess, it's important to have a proper level of suspicion. There's much more than that in favor of saying that Russia hacked the DNC - although the ODNI releases are similarly ineffective at proving it. I see every sign of a bunch of incompetent buffoons looking out for themselves in ways that are bad for the country. Democrats want to see a Russia behind every bush and under every rug. And it's clearly not without a sense of self-interest. That this election had Russian-influenced elements in it is of concern, but Democrats want to make more of it than that, to try to say that they were robbed of what was rightfully theirs by a foreign devil. But if that's true, the proof just hasn't been shown to be there. The problem with Sessions is he is a racist. Democrats are grasping for a lot of straws to make a point of their being robbed, but I don't think it is more than Russian influencing the election by spreading false narratives. They need to get their shit together and come together as a party and find their angle and new speaking points. Leave Trump out of it. He'll ruin himself, by himself. I agree with mostly everything else. If Russia is the boy who cried wolf, racist/racism is the boy who cried lion. It changes little. Sessions is racist, Trump is racist, Trump voters are racist or unconsciously racist, xDaunt is racist, immigration policies are racist ... you get the idea. I have come to understand the charge has more to do with hatred of the Red Team combined with believing too much of the Dem's/media's own spin. But what would politics be without partisanship? I'm not sure you really understand the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. The point is that he cried wolf over and over again where there was no wolf. That's not really the case here with Sessions, Trump, Trump voters or xDaunt and racism.
The golden rule here seems to be that you can only point towards racism in homeopathic doses. It doesn't actually matter if some group of people is racist or isn't, it's just not nice to call them all out on it. The accusation is only allowed if it is watered down so much that they don't feel offended by it, otherwise it is 'partisanship'.
|
On March 28 2017 09:08 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 08:57 KwarK wrote:On March 28 2017 08:46 Danglars wrote:On March 28 2017 08:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 28 2017 07:43 LegalLord wrote:On March 28 2017 05:59 KwarK wrote:
The allegations of working with the Russians would have a lot less weight to them if our reality didn't look identical to one in which they were actually working with the Russians. I mean sure, it's possible that there is absolutely nothing to this, just because it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck doesn't necessarily mean it's a duck. But they'd have a better case for it not being a duck if they didn't quack so much.
I mean even if we accept the official story, that he flew out to meet with the deputy chairman of Russia's state bank in order to discuss "nothing of consequence", that's still a little odd. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, but comes from a highly untrustworthy source, odds are it's a vulture. Maybe there's an underground conspiracy to collaborate with the Russians to achieve some goal. It's possible, and that's why there's an investigation. But the actual reality looks a lot more like a bunch of corrupt and/or incompetent dipshits looking out for themselves ahead of their own country. Some of their interests lie in countries that include Russia. Problem is that most stories that look like garden variety profiteering or incompetence that involve Russian business interests. There's also unfortunate chats with the Russian ambassador to the US. But they are almost without fail seen as "Russia Russia Russia OMG@@@@." I suppose a decent sanity check would be to look at if the shitty officials in question have shitty ties to other nations. Flynn has shitty ties to Turkey, Manafort to Ukraine, Kushner to China, Sessions I dunno but the case against him was kinda very middling, and so on. Beyond saying that Russia hacked the DNC and leaked documents to Wikileaks, every connection to Russia of particular merit is... tenuous. What doesn't help is that even our intelligence agencies seem to be completely ignorant of even the most simple matters of Russia in a way that makes me wonder if they even know what they are talking about. I made the case earlier, but perhaps if I link the thoughts of a rather consistent Putin critic that would be more meaningful. When the circumstantial evidence is highly dependent on the opinion of an intelligence team that is not known for its strong human intelligence prowess, it's important to have a proper level of suspicion. There's much more than that in favor of saying that Russia hacked the DNC - although the ODNI releases are similarly ineffective at proving it. I see every sign of a bunch of incompetent buffoons looking out for themselves in ways that are bad for the country. Democrats want to see a Russia behind every bush and under every rug. And it's clearly not without a sense of self-interest. That this election had Russian-influenced elements in it is of concern, but Democrats want to make more of it than that, to try to say that they were robbed of what was rightfully theirs by a foreign devil. But if that's true, the proof just hasn't been shown to be there. The problem with Sessions is he is a racist. Democrats are grasping for a lot of straws to make a point of their being robbed, but I don't think it is more than Russian influencing the election by spreading false narratives. They need to get their shit together and come together as a party and find their angle and new speaking points. Leave Trump out of it. He'll ruin himself, by himself. I agree with mostly everything else. If Russia is the boy who cried wolf, racist/racism is the boy who cried lion. It changes little. Sessions is racist, Trump is racist, Trump voters are racist or unconsciously racist, xDaunt is racist, immigration policies are racist ... you get the idea. I have come to understand the charge has more to do with hatred of the Red Team combined with believing too much of the Dem's/media's own spin. But what would politics be without partisanship? I'm not sure you really understand the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. The point is that he cried wolf over and over again where there was no wolf. That's not really the case here with Sessions, Trump, Trump voters or xDaunt and racism. The golden rule here seems to be that you can only point towards racism in homeopathic doses. It doesn't actually matter if some group of people is racist or isn't, it's just not nice to call them all out on it. The accusation is only allowed if it is watered down so much that they don't feel offended by it, otherwise it is 'partisanship'.
You're missing the argument completly. The point people bring up is that when you start out by labeling the people you disagree with as being racists there isn't any conversation to have with them. And then whats the point of even careing about racism when you're just entrenching it actively.
|
You just beat around the bush but never touch it. Because there's a sign posted stating, "DON'T BEAT THE BUSH. BEATING AROUND THE BUSH IS OKAY. JUST DON'T TOUCH THE BUSH."
|
On March 28 2017 09:11 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 09:08 Nyxisto wrote:On March 28 2017 08:57 KwarK wrote:On March 28 2017 08:46 Danglars wrote:On March 28 2017 08:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 28 2017 07:43 LegalLord wrote:On March 28 2017 05:59 KwarK wrote:
The allegations of working with the Russians would have a lot less weight to them if our reality didn't look identical to one in which they were actually working with the Russians. I mean sure, it's possible that there is absolutely nothing to this, just because it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck doesn't necessarily mean it's a duck. But they'd have a better case for it not being a duck if they didn't quack so much.
I mean even if we accept the official story, that he flew out to meet with the deputy chairman of Russia's state bank in order to discuss "nothing of consequence", that's still a little odd. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, but comes from a highly untrustworthy source, odds are it's a vulture. Maybe there's an underground conspiracy to collaborate with the Russians to achieve some goal. It's possible, and that's why there's an investigation. But the actual reality looks a lot more like a bunch of corrupt and/or incompetent dipshits looking out for themselves ahead of their own country. Some of their interests lie in countries that include Russia. Problem is that most stories that look like garden variety profiteering or incompetence that involve Russian business interests. There's also unfortunate chats with the Russian ambassador to the US. But they are almost without fail seen as "Russia Russia Russia OMG@@@@." I suppose a decent sanity check would be to look at if the shitty officials in question have shitty ties to other nations. Flynn has shitty ties to Turkey, Manafort to Ukraine, Kushner to China, Sessions I dunno but the case against him was kinda very middling, and so on. Beyond saying that Russia hacked the DNC and leaked documents to Wikileaks, every connection to Russia of particular merit is... tenuous. What doesn't help is that even our intelligence agencies seem to be completely ignorant of even the most simple matters of Russia in a way that makes me wonder if they even know what they are talking about. I made the case earlier, but perhaps if I link the thoughts of a rather consistent Putin critic that would be more meaningful. When the circumstantial evidence is highly dependent on the opinion of an intelligence team that is not known for its strong human intelligence prowess, it's important to have a proper level of suspicion. There's much more than that in favor of saying that Russia hacked the DNC - although the ODNI releases are similarly ineffective at proving it. I see every sign of a bunch of incompetent buffoons looking out for themselves in ways that are bad for the country. Democrats want to see a Russia behind every bush and under every rug. And it's clearly not without a sense of self-interest. That this election had Russian-influenced elements in it is of concern, but Democrats want to make more of it than that, to try to say that they were robbed of what was rightfully theirs by a foreign devil. But if that's true, the proof just hasn't been shown to be there. The problem with Sessions is he is a racist. Democrats are grasping for a lot of straws to make a point of their being robbed, but I don't think it is more than Russian influencing the election by spreading false narratives. They need to get their shit together and come together as a party and find their angle and new speaking points. Leave Trump out of it. He'll ruin himself, by himself. I agree with mostly everything else. If Russia is the boy who cried wolf, racist/racism is the boy who cried lion. It changes little. Sessions is racist, Trump is racist, Trump voters are racist or unconsciously racist, xDaunt is racist, immigration policies are racist ... you get the idea. I have come to understand the charge has more to do with hatred of the Red Team combined with believing too much of the Dem's/media's own spin. But what would politics be without partisanship? I'm not sure you really understand the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. The point is that he cried wolf over and over again where there was no wolf. That's not really the case here with Sessions, Trump, Trump voters or xDaunt and racism. The golden rule here seems to be that you can only point towards racism in homeopathic doses. It doesn't actually matter if some group of people is racist or isn't, it's just not nice to call them all out on it. The accusation is only allowed if it is watered down so much that they don't feel offended by it, otherwise it is 'partisanship'. You're missing the argument completly. The point people bring up is that when you start out by labeling the people you disagree with as being racists there isn't any conversation to have with them. And then whats the point of even careing about racism when you're just entrenching it actively.
Why can't I have conversations with people who I think are racists? And why am I labeling them racist because I disagree with them and not because, you know, I think they're racist?
|
On March 28 2017 09:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
You just beat around the bush but never touch it. Because there's a sign posted stating, "DON'T BEAT THE BUSH. BEATING AROUND THE BUSH IS OKAY. JUST DON'T TOUCH THE BUSH."
Except with Ilsam. With that religion, it's time to tell it like it is. No more worrying about being politically correct. Radical Islam at small times.
But don't call people racist or sexist. That's to far.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Well in any case, would we all agree that "Sessions pushes forward policies that are undesirable for people for whom racial issues are a major concern" is fair? Without trying to put a specific label on him?
|
United States42775 Posts
On March 28 2017 09:11 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 09:08 Nyxisto wrote:On March 28 2017 08:57 KwarK wrote:On March 28 2017 08:46 Danglars wrote:On March 28 2017 08:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 28 2017 07:43 LegalLord wrote:On March 28 2017 05:59 KwarK wrote:
The allegations of working with the Russians would have a lot less weight to them if our reality didn't look identical to one in which they were actually working with the Russians. I mean sure, it's possible that there is absolutely nothing to this, just because it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck doesn't necessarily mean it's a duck. But they'd have a better case for it not being a duck if they didn't quack so much.
I mean even if we accept the official story, that he flew out to meet with the deputy chairman of Russia's state bank in order to discuss "nothing of consequence", that's still a little odd. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, but comes from a highly untrustworthy source, odds are it's a vulture. Maybe there's an underground conspiracy to collaborate with the Russians to achieve some goal. It's possible, and that's why there's an investigation. But the actual reality looks a lot more like a bunch of corrupt and/or incompetent dipshits looking out for themselves ahead of their own country. Some of their interests lie in countries that include Russia. Problem is that most stories that look like garden variety profiteering or incompetence that involve Russian business interests. There's also unfortunate chats with the Russian ambassador to the US. But they are almost without fail seen as "Russia Russia Russia OMG@@@@." I suppose a decent sanity check would be to look at if the shitty officials in question have shitty ties to other nations. Flynn has shitty ties to Turkey, Manafort to Ukraine, Kushner to China, Sessions I dunno but the case against him was kinda very middling, and so on. Beyond saying that Russia hacked the DNC and leaked documents to Wikileaks, every connection to Russia of particular merit is... tenuous. What doesn't help is that even our intelligence agencies seem to be completely ignorant of even the most simple matters of Russia in a way that makes me wonder if they even know what they are talking about. I made the case earlier, but perhaps if I link the thoughts of a rather consistent Putin critic that would be more meaningful. When the circumstantial evidence is highly dependent on the opinion of an intelligence team that is not known for its strong human intelligence prowess, it's important to have a proper level of suspicion. There's much more than that in favor of saying that Russia hacked the DNC - although the ODNI releases are similarly ineffective at proving it. I see every sign of a bunch of incompetent buffoons looking out for themselves in ways that are bad for the country. Democrats want to see a Russia behind every bush and under every rug. And it's clearly not without a sense of self-interest. That this election had Russian-influenced elements in it is of concern, but Democrats want to make more of it than that, to try to say that they were robbed of what was rightfully theirs by a foreign devil. But if that's true, the proof just hasn't been shown to be there. The problem with Sessions is he is a racist. Democrats are grasping for a lot of straws to make a point of their being robbed, but I don't think it is more than Russian influencing the election by spreading false narratives. They need to get their shit together and come together as a party and find their angle and new speaking points. Leave Trump out of it. He'll ruin himself, by himself. I agree with mostly everything else. If Russia is the boy who cried wolf, racist/racism is the boy who cried lion. It changes little. Sessions is racist, Trump is racist, Trump voters are racist or unconsciously racist, xDaunt is racist, immigration policies are racist ... you get the idea. I have come to understand the charge has more to do with hatred of the Red Team combined with believing too much of the Dem's/media's own spin. But what would politics be without partisanship? I'm not sure you really understand the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. The point is that he cried wolf over and over again where there was no wolf. That's not really the case here with Sessions, Trump, Trump voters or xDaunt and racism. The golden rule here seems to be that you can only point towards racism in homeopathic doses. It doesn't actually matter if some group of people is racist or isn't, it's just not nice to call them all out on it. The accusation is only allowed if it is watered down so much that they don't feel offended by it, otherwise it is 'partisanship'. You're missing the argument completly. The point people bring up is that when you start out by labeling the people you disagree with as being racists there isn't any conversation to have with them. And then whats the point of even careing about racism when you're just entrenching it actively.
If someone were to label something I did or said as racist I would ask them why they thought it was racist, especially given that I have a somewhat limited perspective on racism as a white dude. Hopefully they would then explain why they thought what I said was racist and even though I may disagree with them I would at least learn something about how other people see the world.
What typically happens with the xDaunts of the world is they go on their rants about how black people are monkeys and then if you say that they're being kinda racist then they get all offended and retreat to their nearest safe space while denouncing you for being so rude to them. The problem isn't the word racist, it's that one side literally doesn't want to talk about racism beyond insisting that no matter what they say or do, they're not being racist. It's the whole "you're the real racist for saying that I might be a racist" argument, which incidentally is another of xDaunt's gems.
|
Sessions is racist in the most political acceptable way. Agressive indifference and selective use of political power. Just like the guy who irrationally hates Mulsims, Sessions can justify all his actions in non-racist terms.
|
What I will say in defense of xDaunt is that this is a time of hyper-sensitivity to a lot of issues and people are constantly walking on egg shells. That is the biggest thing that I've found. People are quick to throw the term around just because someone disagrees with them or may have spoken out of line. I've done it, but when called on it, I've defended why I said it and listened to the other party.
We can't make everyone happy, but when you are pushing legislation and views that are harmful to a category of people and it's quite evident that there are racist/prejudice undertones in that, then you're going to be called out on it. Stand your ground and defend yourself, but when you are proven wrong and or racist, own that shit. If you care about living in a harmonious, albeit unfair, world, then you will seek to educate yourself on the different factors of society that each group may have to fight against.
You kind of have to want to learn about black relations and why they are apprehensive towards a lot of republicans because of the policies they have put in place. And you also have to understand that a lot of this is a generational thing that is passed down.
|
just because someone uses the word 'racist' (and this extends to other topics besides racism) inflationary, doesn't mean that the concept of racism vanishes or that it is automatically unwarranted to call someone out on it. After all people are being called incompetent a lot, often unfounded, but that doesn't mean that I'd be wrong if I say that the Trump administration is utterly incompetent or that the claim is a priori unreasonable
Like.. there's a shit-ton of racist people around, so it's not that outrageous to assume that a room full of old dudes might possibly be racist. It's not like I've just claimed that there's a room full of unicorns somewhere
|
On March 28 2017 08:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
xDaunt is racist tho /s
I'm going from the reading I have done to base my opinion on Sessions. My being black, I have an innate caution built in towards people who have exhibited this behavior before. He may have changed and he may have completely new views that are more inline with the modern times. I won't know unless I talk to him personally or read something directly from him that convinces me 100%. Is that partisan?
EDIT: I think the term racist shouldn't be used unless it is true racism. There is a lot of prejudice in the world that gets converted to racism and it makes the news of it happening seem way worse than it actually is. I have prejudice views of a lot of people, some good, some bad. But I'm not racist. PM me if you want examples or a more thorough explanation.
You lead me to surmise that you're unable to view dispassionately absolute denials (example/starting point) because your position is that an accusation already digs them a hole with heightened burden of proof on the accused. Compare it with innocent until proven guilty. Or compare it to your mirrored clone that thinks racism accusations have been thrown around like unamerican rhetoric in McCarthy's time and deserve extra suspicion. The term, in my view, has been almost entirely robbed of meaning like fascism and equality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
