EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 8381
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
what, you think "pink slime" is defamatory? seems a pretty apt description to me | ||
|
frazzle
United States468 Posts
And I wasn't exactly expecting everyone to spill the beans to the real reason the Russia stuff was September/November 2016 until today. It's just I was expecting people to be a little more MoveOn-ish with political opposition, combined with thinking a smaller population of #Resist being a little less transparent with their motivations. Compare with the expectation that actual racists won't stand up and say they're racists and tell you why. Could someone decipher this word salad for me? | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On August 13 2017 03:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/AP/status/896429444939878400 All those peaceful right-wing protesters bringing riot shields in militia uniforms toting guns sure didn't escalate any tensions. | ||
KwarK
United States44171 Posts
On August 13 2017 02:53 Danglars wrote: Good thing the national election is a term of art for 50 separate elections and everybody knew the ground rules going in. You can't make the argument that the people rejected Hillary and then when it's pointed out that the people didn't reject her go "well yeah but it's not about the popular vote". You're the one who opened by insisting that the the American population saw her record and voted otherwise. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44171 Posts
Found an example http://www.citypages.com/news/st-paul-cop-accused-of-encouraging-drivers-to-run-over-blm-protesters-7974088 + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgflip.com/1qry7x.jpg) | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
“Things were getting out of hand in the skirmishes between the alt-right and what I would describe as the outside agitators who wanted to encourage violence,” Toscano said, referring to the counterprotesters. Asked why police did not act sooner to intervene as violence unfolded, Toscano said he could not comment. But they trained very hard for this and it might have been that they were waiting for a more effective time to get people out” of Emancipation Park, he said. A group of three dozen self-described “militia” men, who were wearing full camouflage and were armed with long guns, said they were there to help keep the peace, but they also did not break up the fights. Right. So militias are a thing now too. edit Sidenote, while i am not a fan (quite the opposite) of Antifa and other extremists (regardless of left or right) - it strikes me odd that nobody calls this a terror attack. What exactly would be the requisite in the US to do so? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On August 13 2017 04:08 ShoCkeyy wrote: "Tin foil hat here, but IF Trump is working with Russia, isn't this what they would want? USA in a war on all fronts?" I'm pretty sure that was already explicitly laid out in that crazy Dugin manifesto that he wrote twenty years ago Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics. We're already down a few points on that checklist | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24109 Posts
On August 13 2017 02:26 Danglars wrote: From the AP story You're making this a race issue, and you're ignoring other sides that wouldn't want the statue removed. You live there or something? Seriously. It's like your straining to make stories fit your narrative and hope nobody sees you shoehorning one into the other. Bruh, "the history" they are worried about being erased is exactly the part of history folks at that protest and folks like yourself usually suggest we "get over", "It was long ago, why do you think it impacts you today", and other equally stupid things. I know you aren't dumb enough to think that this about making a town ahistorical because they take down statues of terrible people in history. Meanwhile no problem with the efforts to whitewash and sanitize US history of the evil and terrible things that the very people they are trying to memorialize actually did. You funny. On August 13 2017 04:13 kollin wrote: But punching Nazis! Yeah, should have had a conversation with them about how genocide isn't the answer to their white angst. On August 13 2017 04:10 m4ini wrote: Right. So militias are a thing now too. edit Sidenote, while i am not a fan (quite the opposite) of Antifa and other extremists (regardless of left or right) - it strikes me odd that nobody calls this a terror attack. What exactly would be the requisite in the US to do so? More melanin. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
More melanin. Clever. Didn't want to go there, certainly was the first thought though. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
Obviously NSFW/NSFL. Contains photos of the incident and video from behind. Mayor: 1 killed as car plows into crowd near Unite the Right rally site | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On August 13 2017 04:10 m4ini wrote: Right. So militias are a thing now too. edit Sidenote, while i am not a fan (quite the opposite) of Antifa and other extremists (regardless of left or right) - it strikes me odd that nobody calls this a terror attack. What exactly would be the requisite in the US to do so? usage of the term terror attack by the media differs somewhat from the criminal statutes labelled terrorism. I'd also imagine the media is reluctant to use the word terror attack unless it's a known, previously existing, terrorist group (i.e. one that's been formally labelled a terrorist group); or is if it's somehow extremely blatantly announced by the perpetrator that terrorism is the intent. maybe they could get sued or something; that's just a guess though. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24109 Posts
On August 13 2017 04:48 zlefin wrote: usage of the term terror attack by the media differs somewhat from the criminal statutes labelled terrorism. I'd also imagine the media is reluctant to use the word terror attack unless it's a known, previously existing, terrorist group (i.e. one that's been formally labelled a terrorist group); or is if it's somehow extremely blatantly announced by the perpetrator that terrorism is the intent. maybe they could get sued or something; that's just a guess though. Are you just not including outlets like Fox News when you say "the media"? Otherwise that doesn't sound accurate at all. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On August 13 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote: Are you just not including outlets like Fox News when you say "the media"? Otherwise that doesn't sound accurate at all. I wasn't thinking about Fox news, and i'm not familiar with their actual broadcast patterns in reference to things like this. I was simply guessing to try to answer the question; it is true in general that American media has some very specific rules they use when talking about stuff to avoid lawsuits/liability; like the way they always add "alleged" perpetrator no matter how thorough the evidence is prior to a conviction. so I thought it might be an instance of that. | ||
|
frazzle
United States468 Posts
On August 13 2017 03:55 KwarK wrote: Large numbers of people on the right have been cheering for cars to mow down protestors on streets for a while now. Normally it's just the blacks they want to get though. Looks like they're branching out. Found an example http://www.citypages.com/news/st-paul-cop-accused-of-encouraging-drivers-to-run-over-blm-protesters-7974088 + Show Spoiler + I wonder if Dana Loesch thinks this was an attempt to fight the counter protesters' violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth? | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24109 Posts
On August 13 2017 04:55 zlefin wrote: I wasn't thinking about Fox news, and i'm not familiar with their actual broadcast patterns in reference to things like this. I was simply guessing to try to answer the question; it is true in general that American media has some very specific rules they use when talking about stuff to avoid lawsuits/liability; like the way they always add "alleged" perpetrator no matter how thorough the evidence is prior to a conviction. so I thought it might be an instance of that. Yeah, for terrorist attacks they use "apparent" to avoid that problem where it exists. Fox News just doesn't call anything done in the name of white nationalism/the KKK terrorism. The rest of the media is less rigid but typically does the same type of stuff. | ||
| ||
