EPTOn August 13 2017 04:58 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
The groundpotus saw his shadow, 6 more weeks of golf.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8382
| 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. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35165 Posts
The groundpotus saw his shadow, 6 more weeks of golf. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 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. Doesn't sound accurate to me. Sidenote, it's not just the media, it's your politicians too. I specifically asked why "nobody" (official) said it like it is. For a country where the leaders proud themselves in making up terror attacks, or tweet about them when they happen somewhere else/done by a brown person, it strikes me as rather odd. Lets take, as an example, quite similar attacks on the london bridge. Which were immediately (by US media and politicians) portrayed as "possible terror attack" (edit: before the ethnicity was known even). I'm trying to give you guys the benefit of the doubt here, because it seems very obvious as to why that's the case. edit 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. That's not specific to US media, it's specific to journalism. A "perpetrator" is alleged for as long as he isn't tried/convicted. They on the other hand do not call him "involved person", they do call him what he is, an alleged perpetrator. In this case there's not even remotely mentioning of a possible terror attack, and i'm pretty sure you know why. Because it's not perceived as one - even though it certainly should be, because that's what it is. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9017 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. How am I making this a race issue? It's clearly known that white supremacist are the ones marching to keep the statue. If a moderate wants the statue to stay, or even a black person for whatever reason, they'll protest peacefully and without trying to entice others to start something against them. Don't try to turn this into something I'm not even remotely talking about. BLM is the same thing. If they go protesting and enticing violence, then I would condemn them as well. There are peaceful ways to go about, alternative solutions to endeavor to find. MARCHING AROUND WITH TORCHES IN WHITE FUCKING HOODS, PROUDLY PROCLAIMING WHITE SUPREMACY IS NOT THE WAY TO GO ABOUT IT. Don't be stupid Danglars. I know you're smarter than that. | ||
Falling
Canada11385 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9017 Posts
Bridgewater, New Jersey (CNN)President Donald Trump condemned hate "on many sides" in response to violent white nationalist protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, that have played out on national television Saturday. "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides," Trump said during a short statement. "It has been going on for a long time in our country -- not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama. It has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America." He did not mention white nationalists and the alt-right movement in his remarks. Earlier Saturday, Trump, who is on his 17-day vacation in New Jersey, urged people to "come together as one" in response to the protests but did not explicitly mention the white nationalist origins of the conflict. "We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for," he wrote on Twitter. "There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!" Trump, who also signed a Veterans Affairs health care bill Saturday afternoon, later tweeted: "Am in Bedminster for meetings & press conference on V.A. & all that we have done, and are doing, to make it better-but Charlottesville sad!" Demonstrators clashed on the streets of Charlottesville on Saturday morning ahead of a white nationalist rally, with counter-protesters and right-wing nationalist groups converging on the college town in the latest chapter in the United States' debate over race and identity. Source | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
He did not mention white nationalists and the alt-right movement in his remarks. Unsurprisingly, no politician wants to antagonise his base. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Really? When you think Trump cannot sink any lower, he says the ones marching against the white supremists are the ones in display of hatred, bigotry and violence? As a side note, from across the pond, I never understood why after 9/11, the American reluctance to call white supremist attacks, hate crimes or terrorism, when before they did so. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35165 Posts
On August 13 2017 05:27 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Really? When you think Trump cannot sink any lower, he says the ones marching against the white supremists are the ones in display of hatred, bigotry and violence? As a side note, from across the pond, I never understood why after 9/11, the American reluctance to call white supremist attacks, hate crimes or terrorism, when before they did so. It's a shell game. Makes it easy to shift the blame from the poor fighting amongst themselves to fighting against "others". | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9017 Posts
On August 13 2017 05:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What is a shell game? Shell Game:: a game involving sleight of hand, in which three inverted cups or nutshells are moved about, and contestants must spot which is the one with a pea or other object underneath. a deceptive and evasive action or ploy, especially a political one. plural noun: shell games "officials played a shell game by loading prisoners onto buses during population counts at the jail" | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On August 13 2017 05:32 Gahlo wrote: It's a shell game. Makes it easy to shift the blame from the poor fighting amongst themselves to fighting against "others". This is exactly the answer. On August 13 2017 05:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What is a shell game? Also known as Three Card Monte | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On August 13 2017 06:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I think I lost something in translation. Don't worry, not just you. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9017 Posts
On August 13 2017 06:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I think I lost something in translation. Continuously shift/change who the blame belongs to, in the hopes no one knows the difference/truth and continue to exploit them. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On August 13 2017 06:14 mozoku wrote: I mean, he condemned hate. Obviously a white supremacist group is more associated with hate than the counter-protesters. This is reminiscent of when conservatives were mad Obama wouldn't use the phrase "radical Islamic terror." The phrase wasn't "radical islamic terror" but just "islamic terror", and he was quite right in that. That conservatives are too bigoted to understand why has nothing to do with the issue, it's in fact the root of it. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22048 Posts
On August 13 2017 06:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I think we lost something in translation. I know what a shell game is, I don't understand the metaphor. They no longer talk about hate crimes because they are not the enemy anymore, the enemy are Muslims. In other to keep people focused on what you want you only mention one enemy and try to ignore 'lesser' enemies. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On August 13 2017 06:21 OuchyDathurts wrote: This thread is massively on point. https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/896326301832925184 Well to be fair, the guy on the left will certainly know what oppression is. | ||
| ||
