|
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 May 27 2017 05:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 05:25 Gahlo wrote:
BRB Gonna go around the corner to the Golden Dragon and tell all the Cambodians they can't sell Chinese food anymore. When it's staffed by Chinese people I'm gonna tell them they can't serve General Tso's chicken unless they change their sign because that was invented in America. this means no more fortune cookies too, right? 
Not at any authentic places, no.
|
On May 27 2017 05:14 Nebuchad wrote:
Seems like a weird hill to die on. Both on GH and on everyone else's side. I certainly see some white fragility on display here when there are like two whole pages of reaction to this rather minor story before GH even comes in with a differing viewpoint, and in the need for everyone to explode on him for that. I don't really think the subject warrants a continued reaction from GH either.
This is not important. Get back to what's important.
The 2 pages were a debate about cultural appropriation which sprung from the minor story. If you equate that to white fragility then you're missing the point. It's perfectly fine to have a debate about something new, talk it through, and move on.
|
I feel like the racism debate would be easier if people could just settle on some more or less crystalized terms. The fact that racism fuckin' goes from "the black person with the low hanging pants walking towards me makes me a little uncomfortable" to "LYNCH 'EM! KKK, HEIL HITLER, SEIG HEIL!" is kind of a problem because you accuse someone of the first and they think you're accusing them of the second.
Everyone is to some degree or another involved in the first one, it's a fact of being human and its one of those things that just requires a wee bit of self reflection and examination to help yourself understand why you feel this way, if its really reasonable to feel this way, and ways to perhaps not feel so much this way, or at least not act on this feeling in the future.
Then the KKK one is the racism thats like, egregious and noone self respecting human being wants to be a part of that deserves the sort of harsh GH-esque tone.
Could this forum at least agree to use like two separate terms for this shit, even if its racism with a little r and Racism with a big R?
|
On May 27 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 05:12 Doodsmack wrote:On May 27 2017 02:58 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 02:12 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 27 2017 02:08 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2017 21:49 Gorsameth wrote:On May 26 2017 21:35 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2017 17:17 Slaughter wrote:On May 26 2017 15:57 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2017 15:34 Slaughter wrote:
At least with Hillary she would have you know actually appointed people to work in the government and made a cabinet with competent people. Not to mention sticking it to the GOP members of congress with her supreme court pick and the ability to veto whatever stupid dumpster fire of ideas the GOP congress shits out. Seriously I don't have as big of problem with conservatism as I do with the utter clowns conservatives choose to represent them in congress. But maybe I should thank them because between them and Trump conservatism will probably lose a looot of respect the next few years since Democrats can't do anything to them that they aren't already doing to themselves. Better some clowns to cause a little havoc than a slick crew that oppose my interests! And hell, you said it buddy, sticking it to the Democrat members with his supreme court pick (RIP Garland). I can't think of a better successor to that suave Obama. Everybody's going so crazy and it's absolutely marvelous. He's doing such ludicrous stuff, but not to be outdone, the media sprinkles in three ridiculous accusations for every one solid. I'm trending below 50% agreement with what Trump does, for sure. But the Dems didn't run a Lieberman type, they gave me an unsatisfactory second choice. I'm having some trouble thinking up a likely Dem candidate I'd actually consider better than Trump for my political views. Political churning, at this point, is vastly preferable to a determined push leftward. I guess that is the difference between you and me. If Trump was the Democratic nominee I would have voted Republican despite the ideological differences. Trump is just that bad and it was obvious from his campaign. The difference between you and me is I think America's institutions, or what's worth preserving that's left of them, are resilient enough to last against one knucklehead. To some extent, the left's screwed the goose by investing too heavily in justifying some very bad shit by demonizing Trump. Bad enough to have partisan hacks leaking at every level of the executive, but particularly in the intelligence agencies? Fuck no. Bad enough for reporters to make up stories, lie by omission, ell deceptive half-truths, abandon standards for source vetting? Hell no. In some useful ways and not really to Trump's credit, he's revealed how entitled D.C. feels to undermine rather than personally oppose. Isn't Fox the one that had to retract a story that tried to deflect away from the Trump dumpster fire? Last I checked the vast majority of stories about Trump have been proven, often by Trumps own twitter tirades. Then you probably also believe that Comey was denied funding by Trump, Saudi money went into Ivanka Fund, Spicer hid in hedges from reporters, Rosenstein threatened to resign, the AHCA made rape a pre-existing condition, Mnunchin's bank foreclosed for 27 cents, and Trump threatened to invade Mexico. I wonder if the strategy is to keep a continuing stream of fake news and wake up the next morning not remembering all the retractions to keep people tied down pointing it out. several of those definitely happened, a couple are very likely, a couple are mostly true, and the only one that i'm pretty sure is fake is invading mexico. I guess what you want to be true can be true in this age. To take one of your examples - the fact that the Ivanka-related charity is run by the IMF rather than Ivanka herself does not exactly insulate her from any concerns of corruption. It is just an excuse for you to focus on the media rather than the underlying issue. Lol. It's World Bank's Women Entrepreneurs Fund. I'm pretty impressed that the stories + Show Spoiler + that this is Clinton's foundation accusations redux gets effortlessly switched to some broad corruption charge. I don't know, what exactly do you hate about the world bank? If people you don't like campaign for charitable causes, does it taint the action?
You made plenty of digs about the Clinton Foundation being a vehicle for foreign bribes. It's about 10% funny and 90% sad that you're trying to use that example as some sort of cover for this.
|
On May 27 2017 05:38 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 05:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 27 2017 05:15 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 27 2017 04:48 Reaps wrote:On May 27 2017 04:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 27 2017 04:40 Plansix wrote:On May 27 2017 04:36 biology]major wrote:On May 27 2017 04:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 27 2017 04:17 Plansix wrote:On May 27 2017 04:09 ZeromuS wrote:
[quote]
Well your reasoned argument included saying all white people are racist and making large brush stroke comments about white people. Isn't making huge generalizations problematic regardless of the group you are discussing? I just think your approach and tact are poor. America is racist as hell but there are better ways to try and talk to people about it.
We are all racist. Racism isn’t a thing or a state of being, it is something you do. It is act. Once someone accept that, it is only a question of how they response when they find out they did something racist. Don’t view racism as some cartoon villain or something that damns you forever. Nope. Sorry I can't stand this line of reasoning. The KKK are racist, I'm not racist. There may be some institutional racism at the base of the society which I am a part of, that doesn't make me racist. To minimize racism as just a thing that we all have, like a nipple, is completely missing the point. Its one way in which the modern hard left has taken something which had meaning for everyone and reinterpreted it because they want to push their agenda further. If you want to see racism, read the testimony of black people 60-100 years ago. That's racism. To redefine it in terms of microaggressions (which it seems to me you're trying to do) is to completely ignore the progress that's been made in this area. You can't just redefine the world in terms that fit your agenda. "We are all racist." Original sin is a religious idea which seeks to control people into joining them. You are a sinner, but behave as I tell you and you will be redeemed. Its reprehensible. This is why we have Trump. People's thought processes are so fucking distorted and out of touch with reality, that they have to make up bs justifications and definitions in order to cope with god knows what. Either way, the last few pages of discussion are almost troll worthy. Starting with that petition against white owner's to GH's defense of it. This is a parody right guys? As far as Portland is concerned, it is a strange, shitty place. I was blessed to witness gross (think out of shape and wrinkly), naked people biking down the streets while in my Uber when I went there for a conference for a few days. There were weed shops inside the PSU college campus lol, people looked very different. Honestly couldn't tell if quite a few people were men or women. The complete inability for people to discuss or have any level of self reflection about racism is one of the reasons we have Trump. You are correct about that. It is very clear that our nation has a lot of work and long discussions in the coming decades. And I’m sure you will loath every minute of it. What you see as an 'inability to discuss' others see as something else. Put this in historical context. The liberal, anti racist movement has been pushing and pushing for decades now and made huge progress. They are now pushing further than people are willing to accept, pushing into everybody's lives and telling us we're all racists. As soon as this started happening we get Trump. The problem is the total lack of self reflection from the activists whoa re really pushing this. They should be looking at themselves, but instead their totally blinkered mindset just sees this as proof that everyone's racist, and even more racist than they had previously thought. No-one seems to realize that is the obnoxiously invasive nature of these views and this activism that is the biggest problem here. This, by the way, is exactly what some morons on the right said was going to happen 30 years ago. They were fascist right wingers, mischaracterizing the left as some kind of idiotic, evil movement that wants to control everyone's thought processes and infringe on freedom of speech and thought. Lo and behold, the last thing I expected would be that 30 years later the left has somehow worked itself into a position of proving them right. Sadly, i agree 100%. It's insane what is happening to politics right now, just doesn't seem to be any middle ground or people even willing to give any. One extreme breeds another. Might disagree with you in the UK thread about certain issues but you're spot on here. I think this is pretty far off the mark. The fact is that the minority voice has risen in public view through advances in technology like facebook allowing folks to gather together and make their voices heard. Movements like BLM wouldnt be half as prevalent without it. its not that the liberal anti-racist movement is pushing further than people are willing to accept. the demands have never changed... equality for all. for you to pretend that that hasn't always been the end goal is myopic at best. (that there are individual actors who have gone too far is not in question. I am aware of specific claims and demands made by BLM members that are stupid, but most of those have come from college kids who obviously shouldn't be taken as a mouthpiece for the entire movement or minority group). What has happened is that the part of america who believed that racism doesn't exist anymore, or that it isn't prevalent in day to day interactions cannot ignore it. you hear about it every day because people are protesting, because another incident happened, because the media likes a story. Racism is the problem but you blame those who are trying to bring attention to the issue as if they are the problem... don't you see something wrong with that? No I don't. I'm approaching this from a leftist point of view (something I didn't disclose when I started discussing it). I am absolutely dedicated to equality of opportunity and don't believe that anyone should be discriminated against in any way for any reason. I just think the methods currently being employed by activists are counter-productive to this goal, hence Trump. When you say 'for you to pretend that that hasn't always been the end goal' you are using that as a way to ignore all historical context. You can't say the end goal is the same when if you were going to summarize that goal using languages the definition of every single word has changed in the meantime. If racism means something different now, then anti racism campaigns have a different goal. If equality means something different now (which it definitely does - it has become equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity) then the goal has changed. The goal has covertly changed, and it will continue to do so the more gains are made. Of course, with Trump, the more overtly racist society becomes I can envisage the goals and language changing again as people realize the futility of calling everyone a racist. I dont personally believe that equality of outcome has become the goal, I believe that people have observed that the historical context of interaction between the two races has resulted in an inherent inequality of opportunity even if on its face it appears to be equal. It has changed the approach to how to obtain that equality which in the short term does make it look like the goal has changed, but things like affirmative action were always and should continue to be seen as a temporary tool to provide the minorty communities with a stepping stone towards an equal opportunity playing field. in short I concede that the tools to obtain that equality have changed necessarily, but i refute that the objective and definition of equality has.
I think this post is much closer to getting to the heart of the racism problem than anything I've read so far in this conversation.
The question is, how the fuck do you even begin to go about solving an inherent inequality of opportunity? There doesn't appear to be a plan, and the way activists seem to try and deal with it is on a personal level with every single person being the antagonist. To try and change everyone will inevitably fail. This has to be dealt with at a policy level, a holistic policy level where all areas which contribute to the inherent inequality are slowly changed over a long period of time.
This includes the openly racist drug policy, economic policy, criminal justice, health care, education, everything basically.
These political areas are the areas which need looking at, and the areas where pressure should be applied, but for the last 5 years the focus from activists seems to be on calling out racist things some guy said on social media more than anything else.
|
United States43586 Posts
On May 27 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 05:12 Doodsmack wrote:On May 27 2017 02:58 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 02:12 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 27 2017 02:08 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2017 21:49 Gorsameth wrote:On May 26 2017 21:35 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2017 17:17 Slaughter wrote:On May 26 2017 15:57 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2017 15:34 Slaughter wrote:
At least with Hillary she would have you know actually appointed people to work in the government and made a cabinet with competent people. Not to mention sticking it to the GOP members of congress with her supreme court pick and the ability to veto whatever stupid dumpster fire of ideas the GOP congress shits out. Seriously I don't have as big of problem with conservatism as I do with the utter clowns conservatives choose to represent them in congress. But maybe I should thank them because between them and Trump conservatism will probably lose a looot of respect the next few years since Democrats can't do anything to them that they aren't already doing to themselves. Better some clowns to cause a little havoc than a slick crew that oppose my interests! And hell, you said it buddy, sticking it to the Democrat members with his supreme court pick (RIP Garland). I can't think of a better successor to that suave Obama. Everybody's going so crazy and it's absolutely marvelous. He's doing such ludicrous stuff, but not to be outdone, the media sprinkles in three ridiculous accusations for every one solid. I'm trending below 50% agreement with what Trump does, for sure. But the Dems didn't run a Lieberman type, they gave me an unsatisfactory second choice. I'm having some trouble thinking up a likely Dem candidate I'd actually consider better than Trump for my political views. Political churning, at this point, is vastly preferable to a determined push leftward. I guess that is the difference between you and me. If Trump was the Democratic nominee I would have voted Republican despite the ideological differences. Trump is just that bad and it was obvious from his campaign. The difference between you and me is I think America's institutions, or what's worth preserving that's left of them, are resilient enough to last against one knucklehead. To some extent, the left's screwed the goose by investing too heavily in justifying some very bad shit by demonizing Trump. Bad enough to have partisan hacks leaking at every level of the executive, but particularly in the intelligence agencies? Fuck no. Bad enough for reporters to make up stories, lie by omission, ell deceptive half-truths, abandon standards for source vetting? Hell no. In some useful ways and not really to Trump's credit, he's revealed how entitled D.C. feels to undermine rather than personally oppose. Isn't Fox the one that had to retract a story that tried to deflect away from the Trump dumpster fire? Last I checked the vast majority of stories about Trump have been proven, often by Trumps own twitter tirades. Then you probably also believe that Comey was denied funding by Trump, Saudi money went into Ivanka Fund, Spicer hid in hedges from reporters, Rosenstein threatened to resign, the AHCA made rape a pre-existing condition, Mnunchin's bank foreclosed for 27 cents, and Trump threatened to invade Mexico. I wonder if the strategy is to keep a continuing stream of fake news and wake up the next morning not remembering all the retractions to keep people tied down pointing it out. several of those definitely happened, a couple are very likely, a couple are mostly true, and the only one that i'm pretty sure is fake is invading mexico. I guess what you want to be true can be true in this age. To take one of your examples - the fact that the Ivanka-related charity is run by the IMF rather than Ivanka herself does not exactly insulate her from any concerns of corruption. It is just an excuse for you to focus on the media rather than the underlying issue. Lol. It's World Bank's Women Entrepreneurs Fund. I'm pretty impressed that the stories + Show Spoiler + that this is Clinton's foundation accusations redux gets effortlessly switched to some broad corruption charge. I don't know, what exactly do you hate about the world bank? If people you don't like campaign for charitable causes, does it taint the action?
Are you kidding? It's exactly like the Clinton situation. In the Clinton situation the Saudi donation was spent on a public library while the Republicans screamed corruption. Neither Trump nor Clinton got a direct cash donation from the Saudis, if Trump thought Clinton was fair game then Ivanka is fair game too.
|
On May 27 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 05:12 Doodsmack wrote:On May 27 2017 02:58 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 02:12 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 27 2017 02:08 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2017 21:49 Gorsameth wrote:On May 26 2017 21:35 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2017 17:17 Slaughter wrote:On May 26 2017 15:57 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2017 15:34 Slaughter wrote:
At least with Hillary she would have you know actually appointed people to work in the government and made a cabinet with competent people. Not to mention sticking it to the GOP members of congress with her supreme court pick and the ability to veto whatever stupid dumpster fire of ideas the GOP congress shits out. Seriously I don't have as big of problem with conservatism as I do with the utter clowns conservatives choose to represent them in congress. But maybe I should thank them because between them and Trump conservatism will probably lose a looot of respect the next few years since Democrats can't do anything to them that they aren't already doing to themselves. Better some clowns to cause a little havoc than a slick crew that oppose my interests! And hell, you said it buddy, sticking it to the Democrat members with his supreme court pick (RIP Garland). I can't think of a better successor to that suave Obama. Everybody's going so crazy and it's absolutely marvelous. He's doing such ludicrous stuff, but not to be outdone, the media sprinkles in three ridiculous accusations for every one solid. I'm trending below 50% agreement with what Trump does, for sure. But the Dems didn't run a Lieberman type, they gave me an unsatisfactory second choice. I'm having some trouble thinking up a likely Dem candidate I'd actually consider better than Trump for my political views. Political churning, at this point, is vastly preferable to a determined push leftward. I guess that is the difference between you and me. If Trump was the Democratic nominee I would have voted Republican despite the ideological differences. Trump is just that bad and it was obvious from his campaign. The difference between you and me is I think America's institutions, or what's worth preserving that's left of them, are resilient enough to last against one knucklehead. To some extent, the left's screwed the goose by investing too heavily in justifying some very bad shit by demonizing Trump. Bad enough to have partisan hacks leaking at every level of the executive, but particularly in the intelligence agencies? Fuck no. Bad enough for reporters to make up stories, lie by omission, ell deceptive half-truths, abandon standards for source vetting? Hell no. In some useful ways and not really to Trump's credit, he's revealed how entitled D.C. feels to undermine rather than personally oppose. Isn't Fox the one that had to retract a story that tried to deflect away from the Trump dumpster fire? Last I checked the vast majority of stories about Trump have been proven, often by Trumps own twitter tirades. Then you probably also believe that Comey was denied funding by Trump, Saudi money went into Ivanka Fund, Spicer hid in hedges from reporters, Rosenstein threatened to resign, the AHCA made rape a pre-existing condition, Mnunchin's bank foreclosed for 27 cents, and Trump threatened to invade Mexico. I wonder if the strategy is to keep a continuing stream of fake news and wake up the next morning not remembering all the retractions to keep people tied down pointing it out. several of those definitely happened, a couple are very likely, a couple are mostly true, and the only one that i'm pretty sure is fake is invading mexico. I guess what you want to be true can be true in this age. To take one of your examples - the fact that the Ivanka-related charity is run by the IMF rather than Ivanka herself does not exactly insulate her from any concerns of corruption. It is just an excuse for you to focus on the media rather than the underlying issue. Lol. It's World Bank's Women Entrepreneurs Fund. I'm pretty impressed that the stories + Show Spoiler + that this is Clinton's foundation accusations redux gets effortlessly switched to some broad corruption charge. I don't know, what exactly do you hate about the world bank? If people you don't like campaign for charitable causes, does it taint the action?
Ivanka started the fund. It's not exactly the same as the Clinton Foundation setup. But the fund conceived of, and started by Ivanka received that money around the same time Saudi Arabia received benefits from the US. So you can see this is something that should be reported on - it's not a media fabrication. You can't just say "charity therefore good".
|
So I grew up in Miami, where we had white hispanics, whites, blacks, and dark hispanics. And one thing I've learned is that the black people are the treated the worst. And it's not only because of racist assholes outside of their skin color, but because they're racist to themselves too.
Everyone is pretty much racist to each other down here culturally if you're ignorant. But the worst I've seen is Jamaicans getting into gang fights with Haitians because of their culture. Or a Dominican person getting into a fight with a Haitian because of past qualms. I understand GH point of view, but I think he also needs to realize, it's not just white people. I'm a dark skinned person as well, and I get looks, when I'm outside of my norms, but fuck them, I don't give two shits, I'll just keep going my way.
If they want to bother me, that's when either I just get in my car and leave, no point in fighting or call the cops for harassment. I'm a legal citizen, I was born here. I have my rights, and if a cop were to infringe on that right, which has happened, then I'll let the law handle it with an actual lawyer. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
|
On May 27 2017 05:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 05:12 Doodsmack wrote:On May 27 2017 02:58 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 02:12 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 27 2017 02:08 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2017 21:49 Gorsameth wrote:On May 26 2017 21:35 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2017 17:17 Slaughter wrote:On May 26 2017 15:57 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Better some clowns to cause a little havoc than a slick crew that oppose my interests! And hell, you said it buddy, sticking it to the Democrat members with his supreme court pick (RIP Garland). I can't think of a better successor to that suave Obama. Everybody's going so crazy and it's absolutely marvelous. He's doing such ludicrous stuff, but not to be outdone, the media sprinkles in three ridiculous accusations for every one solid. I'm trending below 50% agreement with what Trump does, for sure. But the Dems didn't run a Lieberman type, they gave me an unsatisfactory second choice. I'm having some trouble thinking up a likely Dem candidate I'd actually consider better than Trump for my political views. Political churning, at this point, is vastly preferable to a determined push leftward. I guess that is the difference between you and me. If Trump was the Democratic nominee I would have voted Republican despite the ideological differences. Trump is just that bad and it was obvious from his campaign. The difference between you and me is I think America's institutions, or what's worth preserving that's left of them, are resilient enough to last against one knucklehead. To some extent, the left's screwed the goose by investing too heavily in justifying some very bad shit by demonizing Trump. Bad enough to have partisan hacks leaking at every level of the executive, but particularly in the intelligence agencies? Fuck no. Bad enough for reporters to make up stories, lie by omission, ell deceptive half-truths, abandon standards for source vetting? Hell no. In some useful ways and not really to Trump's credit, he's revealed how entitled D.C. feels to undermine rather than personally oppose. Isn't Fox the one that had to retract a story that tried to deflect away from the Trump dumpster fire? Last I checked the vast majority of stories about Trump have been proven, often by Trumps own twitter tirades. Then you probably also believe that Comey was denied funding by Trump, Saudi money went into Ivanka Fund, Spicer hid in hedges from reporters, Rosenstein threatened to resign, the AHCA made rape a pre-existing condition, Mnunchin's bank foreclosed for 27 cents, and Trump threatened to invade Mexico. I wonder if the strategy is to keep a continuing stream of fake news and wake up the next morning not remembering all the retractions to keep people tied down pointing it out. several of those definitely happened, a couple are very likely, a couple are mostly true, and the only one that i'm pretty sure is fake is invading mexico. I guess what you want to be true can be true in this age. To take one of your examples - the fact that the Ivanka-related charity is run by the IMF rather than Ivanka herself does not exactly insulate her from any concerns of corruption. It is just an excuse for you to focus on the media rather than the underlying issue. Lol. It's World Bank's Women Entrepreneurs Fund. I'm pretty impressed that the stories + Show Spoiler + that this is Clinton's foundation accusations redux gets effortlessly switched to some broad corruption charge. I don't know, what exactly do you hate about the world bank? If people you don't like campaign for charitable causes, does it taint the action? Are you kidding? It's exactly like the Clinton situation. In the Clinton situation the Saudi donation was spent on a public library while the Republicans screamed corruption. Neither Trump nor Clinton got a direct cash donation from the Saudis, if Trump thought Clinton was fair game then Ivanka is fair game too.
It's the "am I a partisan hack test" TM, and it never fails. Always switch the parties/candidates of whatever it is you are criticizing and self reflect if your reaction would be the same. I've caught myself on this several times, and other times not so much.
For example: rn trump is being shit on by leaks, and people on the left always say, that's not the real problem! Imagine if HRC was president for a second, and if her administration was leaking like this, would your reaction be the same? If so, then I applaud you.
|
United States43586 Posts
On May 27 2017 05:48 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 05:45 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 05:12 Doodsmack wrote:On May 27 2017 02:58 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 02:12 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 27 2017 02:08 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2017 21:49 Gorsameth wrote:On May 26 2017 21:35 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2017 17:17 Slaughter wrote:
[quote]
I guess that is the difference between you and me. If Trump was the Democratic nominee I would have voted Republican despite the ideological differences. Trump is just that bad and it was obvious from his campaign. The difference between you and me is I think America's institutions, or what's worth preserving that's left of them, are resilient enough to last against one knucklehead. To some extent, the left's screwed the goose by investing too heavily in justifying some very bad shit by demonizing Trump. Bad enough to have partisan hacks leaking at every level of the executive, but particularly in the intelligence agencies? Fuck no. Bad enough for reporters to make up stories, lie by omission, ell deceptive half-truths, abandon standards for source vetting? Hell no. In some useful ways and not really to Trump's credit, he's revealed how entitled D.C. feels to undermine rather than personally oppose. Isn't Fox the one that had to retract a story that tried to deflect away from the Trump dumpster fire? Last I checked the vast majority of stories about Trump have been proven, often by Trumps own twitter tirades. Then you probably also believe that Comey was denied funding by Trump, Saudi money went into Ivanka Fund, Spicer hid in hedges from reporters, Rosenstein threatened to resign, the AHCA made rape a pre-existing condition, Mnunchin's bank foreclosed for 27 cents, and Trump threatened to invade Mexico. I wonder if the strategy is to keep a continuing stream of fake news and wake up the next morning not remembering all the retractions to keep people tied down pointing it out. several of those definitely happened, a couple are very likely, a couple are mostly true, and the only one that i'm pretty sure is fake is invading mexico. I guess what you want to be true can be true in this age. To take one of your examples - the fact that the Ivanka-related charity is run by the IMF rather than Ivanka herself does not exactly insulate her from any concerns of corruption. It is just an excuse for you to focus on the media rather than the underlying issue. Lol. It's World Bank's Women Entrepreneurs Fund. I'm pretty impressed that the stories + Show Spoiler + that this is Clinton's foundation accusations redux gets effortlessly switched to some broad corruption charge. I don't know, what exactly do you hate about the world bank? If people you don't like campaign for charitable causes, does it taint the action? Are you kidding? It's exactly like the Clinton situation. In the Clinton situation the Saudi donation was spent on a public library while the Republicans screamed corruption. Neither Trump nor Clinton got a direct cash donation from the Saudis, if Trump thought Clinton was fair game then Ivanka is fair game too. It's the "am I a partisan hack test" TM, and it never fails. Always switch the parties/candidates of whatever it is you are criticizing and self reflect if your reaction would be the same. I've caught myself on this several times, and other times not so much.
That's my point though. The Saudis didn't bribe Trump with this money but if Trump had any intellectual honesty and wasn't just a youtube comment section that wished super hard it could be a real boy then he'd be attacking himself for corruption.
|
United States43586 Posts
On May 27 2017 05:48 biology]major wrote:
For example: rn trump is being shit on by leaks, and people on the left always say, that's not the real problem! Imagine if HRC was president for a second, and if her administration was leaking like this, would your reaction be the same? If so, then I applaud you.
For that it'd depend on the leak. If Clinton had knowingly appointed a foreign agent who was in the pay of a foreign power and who was deliberately altering existing military plans at the bequest of that foreign power and Clinton was told about it and did nothing then yeah, leaking that would be appropriate because the people could force her to stop doing that.
But that's a bit far-fetched. A hypothetical where that could even happen in any US government would sound really unrealistic if you suggested it in 2015. I don't think you can realistically play "if X did what Trump did then" because nobody has ever done what Trump does.
|
On May 27 2017 05:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 05:48 biology]major wrote:On May 27 2017 05:45 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 05:12 Doodsmack wrote:On May 27 2017 02:58 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 02:12 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 27 2017 02:08 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2017 21:49 Gorsameth wrote:On May 26 2017 21:35 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The difference between you and me is I think America's institutions, or what's worth preserving that's left of them, are resilient enough to last against one knucklehead. To some extent, the left's screwed the goose by investing too heavily in justifying some very bad shit by demonizing Trump. Bad enough to have partisan hacks leaking at every level of the executive, but particularly in the intelligence agencies? Fuck no. Bad enough for reporters to make up stories, lie by omission, ell deceptive half-truths, abandon standards for source vetting? Hell no. In some useful ways and not really to Trump's credit, he's revealed how entitled D.C. feels to undermine rather than personally oppose. Isn't Fox the one that had to retract a story that tried to deflect away from the Trump dumpster fire? Last I checked the vast majority of stories about Trump have been proven, often by Trumps own twitter tirades. Then you probably also believe that Comey was denied funding by Trump, Saudi money went into Ivanka Fund, Spicer hid in hedges from reporters, Rosenstein threatened to resign, the AHCA made rape a pre-existing condition, Mnunchin's bank foreclosed for 27 cents, and Trump threatened to invade Mexico. I wonder if the strategy is to keep a continuing stream of fake news and wake up the next morning not remembering all the retractions to keep people tied down pointing it out. several of those definitely happened, a couple are very likely, a couple are mostly true, and the only one that i'm pretty sure is fake is invading mexico. I guess what you want to be true can be true in this age. To take one of your examples - the fact that the Ivanka-related charity is run by the IMF rather than Ivanka herself does not exactly insulate her from any concerns of corruption. It is just an excuse for you to focus on the media rather than the underlying issue. Lol. It's World Bank's Women Entrepreneurs Fund. I'm pretty impressed that the stories + Show Spoiler + that this is Clinton's foundation accusations redux gets effortlessly switched to some broad corruption charge. I don't know, what exactly do you hate about the world bank? If people you don't like campaign for charitable causes, does it taint the action? Are you kidding? It's exactly like the Clinton situation. In the Clinton situation the Saudi donation was spent on a public library while the Republicans screamed corruption. Neither Trump nor Clinton got a direct cash donation from the Saudis, if Trump thought Clinton was fair game then Ivanka is fair game too. It's the "am I a partisan hack test" TM, and it never fails. Always switch the parties/candidates of whatever it is you are criticizing and self reflect if your reaction would be the same. I've caught myself on this several times, and other times not so much. That's my point though. The Saudis didn't bribe Trump with this money but if Trump had any intellectual honesty and wasn't just a youtube comment section that wished super hard it could be a real boy then he'd be attacking himself for corruption.
Yeah, I agree. It's like when Chaffetz declared "if hillary wins we won't stop investigating her ever" (paraphrasing). Now that Trump has won and has a full blown investigation on his hands, he retires. I mean he might have legitimate reasons to retire, but something tells me he would be in defcon1 if hillary won.
|
Quick question, given that most people vote party, how different would the legislature look in the situation where Hillary won?
|
|
|
On May 27 2017 05:59 Gahlo wrote:
Quick question, given that most people vote party, how different would the legislature look in the situation where Hillary won?
What legislature? Nothing would still get done with GOP controlling the house.
|
On May 27 2017 05:59 Gahlo wrote:
Quick question, given that most people vote party, how different would the legislature look in the situation where Hillary won?
It would probably look something like a one to two point shift in the Dems' favor. They might have clinched the Senate but the House was pretty out of reach. It would honestly probably be close to what it is now given that Hillary won the popular vote.
|
On May 27 2017 05:15 Trainrunnef wrote:This makes no sense. you act as if someone can only be solving one problem at a time ever. lets add on top of that the fact that this is an american problem being discussed in the US politics thread. not to mention you are complaining about someone else complaining about x that isn't as important as Y so why dont you stop your self serving grandstanding? in your humble opinion....
It's almost as if you can't read since I said of course someone can do both. Which is getting more backing and which deserves it? Like I said, personal preference. As for doing both, please direct me to BLM using their influence and exposure to direct attention and funds to the food crisis. They can obviously do both, so it won't take you long to flood me with examples.
Anyway, it doesn't seem you want to address my point, so yea. Enjoy your high horse.
|
On May 27 2017 05:25 Gahlo wrote:
BRB Gonna go around the corner to the Golden Dragon and tell all the Cambodians they can't sell Chinese food anymore. When it's staffed by Chinese people I'm gonna tell them they can't serve General Tso's chicken unless they change their sign because that was invented in America.
General tso's was invented in taiwan by the nationalists that fled the mainland and popularized by the immigrants to went to america instead of staying. Extra sugar and the steamed broccoli is the american version of it.
The fact that non chinese asians have to make their restaurants "chinese food" is beacuse americans wouldn't regognize anything other then a handful of asian foood cultures. My favorite Chinese food place was started by a north korean who swarm to Japan during the Korean war. My favorite Mexican place was started by a bunch of Navajo people.
|
On May 27 2017 05:59 Gahlo wrote:
Quick question, given that most people vote party, how different would the legislature look in the situation where Hillary won?
Maybe 1-2 more in the senate, House roughly the same (it's really GOP tilted right now). Not enough for a majority either way - the senate was only going to go democrat if Hillary had a blowout and we can tell that wasn't in the cards.
|
On May 27 2017 06:39 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 05:59 Gahlo wrote:
Quick question, given that most people vote party, how different would the legislature look in the situation where Hillary won? Maybe 1-2 more in the senate, House roughly the same (it's really GOP tilted right now). Not enough for a majority either way - the senate was only going to go democrat if Hillary had a blowout and we can tell that wasn't in the cards.
That possibility was briefly considered around when people realized that Trump would be hated. But it didn't happen.
Also, Hillary talked today in Wellesley. Didn't see much but Trump=Nixon and impeachment needs to happen. Or something along those lines, I only saw headlines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
