|
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 August 29 2017 01:57 KwarK wrote:
Here's the point of the Nazis vs BLM civil rights thing.
Suppose for a second that a hypothetical California called a state constitutional congress to amend the state constitution. And they added a line that said that the local electoral registrars had the right to disenfranchise anyone that they considered guilty of moral turpitude. And that the local electoral registrars, as a body, were comprised almost entirely by extreme left people who think that any Trump supporter is guilty of moral turpitude. And that the registrars are appointed by the system that they, and people who believe as they do, control.
xDaunt, Danglars etc would cry out that this is just asking for abuse. That the system is built to systematically disenfranchise conservatives. Now imagine that the president of that California constitutional congress actually said in his speech opening the constitutional congress that he was calling it to change the state constitution to deal with the threat of Nazis, racists, and conservatives, and forever ensure that liberal beliefs dominated in California. That in this case the naked abuse of the system is actually the stated intent for the use of the system.
Now imagine that they held a statewide referendum on the issue and that predominantly conservative parts of the state voted overwhelmingly for the new constitution, in even greater numbers than the number of registered votes in those districts. Can you imagine how they would react to that?
Well, you don't actually need to. Because that actually already happened. Only it was Alabama, not California. And it was blacks, not conservatives. And it's still being enforced. Black people are still being legally disenfranchised for life in Alabama by local electoral registrars without appeal or oversight in a system that was openly described by the author of it as a means to ensure white supremacy in the state. And Danglars already defended it as both constitutional and a state's rights issue and said that if the people of Alabama were unhappy with it then the people of Alabama who still had the franchise would surely vote against it.
This is why it's very suspicious when xDaunt, Danglars and so forth insist that nobody ever infringe upon any rights of white supremacists, not because they support white supremacists but because they'd never tolerate any kind of infringing of the rights of anyone for any reason. The status quo is not neutral, the status quo does not protect everyone's rights, the status quo is racist, and the status quo is built upon denying legal and constitutional rights to minorities.
That's what separates the right from the likes of the ACLU who will defend Nazis and the citizen children of illegal immigrants equally. When the ACLU defends Nazis people may be mad that they're doing it but nobody questions why they're doing it because it's been established by a very long track record that they defend everyone without prejudice. When the right show up to defend Nazis, not so much.
When the right stand behind their stated beliefs and support equal legal protections for every American then nobody will question why they're so eager to protect Americans who happen to be Nazis. But while they ignore millions of Americans but stand up for the rights of Nazis who happen to be Americans it's a little suspicious. If they want to be taken seriously as defenders of civil rights then they should broaden their defence to include non Nazis.
And this is just one incredibly sharp and irrefutable example of the basis from which I am asking the question. People think it's some sort of gotcha, but it really shouldn't be.
Danglars hasn't really said anything about Nazis he wouldn't/hasn't said about BLM. Simply saying He's not a Nazi or never has been isn't any different than his position on BLM. My read from his refusal to answer isn't that he's a Nazi, it's that he finds Nazis (people fighting for genocide) and BLM (people fighting for their civil/constitutional rights) as so indistinguishably bad that he can't choose.
If the presumption is supposed to be "Of course Danglars would prefer BLM over Nazis" I can't even begin to fathom why that would be a "gotcha" to answer.
Frankly I'm torn at the moment as to whether he genuinely can't choose between, what he sees as, two bad options, or if he is so entrenched he can't even give the answer for fear of it being interpreted as a win for a political opponent?
That said, I feel like we can at least agree that he's exhibited more concern over the free speech rights of Nazis than the systemic disenfranchisement of black people. A suspicious position for someone arguing their defense of Nazis is about their rights and not their rights.
|
On August 29 2017 03:32 Gahlo wrote:Holy moly if true.
25 days ago the guy said this :
|
|
|
On August 29 2017 03:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 01:57 KwarK wrote:
Here's the point of the Nazis vs BLM civil rights thing.
Suppose for a second that a hypothetical California called a state constitutional congress to amend the state constitution. And they added a line that said that the local electoral registrars had the right to disenfranchise anyone that they considered guilty of moral turpitude. And that the local electoral registrars, as a body, were comprised almost entirely by extreme left people who think that any Trump supporter is guilty of moral turpitude. And that the registrars are appointed by the system that they, and people who believe as they do, control.
xDaunt, Danglars etc would cry out that this is just asking for abuse. That the system is built to systematically disenfranchise conservatives. Now imagine that the president of that California constitutional congress actually said in his speech opening the constitutional congress that he was calling it to change the state constitution to deal with the threat of Nazis, racists, and conservatives, and forever ensure that liberal beliefs dominated in California. That in this case the naked abuse of the system is actually the stated intent for the use of the system.
Now imagine that they held a statewide referendum on the issue and that predominantly conservative parts of the state voted overwhelmingly for the new constitution, in even greater numbers than the number of registered votes in those districts. Can you imagine how they would react to that?
Well, you don't actually need to. Because that actually already happened. Only it was Alabama, not California. And it was blacks, not conservatives. And it's still being enforced. Black people are still being legally disenfranchised for life in Alabama by local electoral registrars without appeal or oversight in a system that was openly described by the author of it as a means to ensure white supremacy in the state. And Danglars already defended it as both constitutional and a state's rights issue and said that if the people of Alabama were unhappy with it then the people of Alabama who still had the franchise would surely vote against it.
This is why it's very suspicious when xDaunt, Danglars and so forth insist that nobody ever infringe upon any rights of white supremacists, not because they support white supremacists but because they'd never tolerate any kind of infringing of the rights of anyone for any reason. The status quo is not neutral, the status quo does not protect everyone's rights, the status quo is racist, and the status quo is built upon denying legal and constitutional rights to minorities.
That's what separates the right from the likes of the ACLU who will defend Nazis and the citizen children of illegal immigrants equally. When the ACLU defends Nazis people may be mad that they're doing it but nobody questions why they're doing it because it's been established by a very long track record that they defend everyone without prejudice. When the right show up to defend Nazis, not so much.
When the right stand behind their stated beliefs and support equal legal protections for every American then nobody will question why they're so eager to protect Americans who happen to be Nazis. But while they ignore millions of Americans but stand up for the rights of Nazis who happen to be Americans it's a little suspicious. If they want to be taken seriously as defenders of civil rights then they should broaden their defence to include non Nazis. exhibited more concern over the free speech rights of Nazis than the systemic disenfranchisement of black people. A suspicious position for someone arguing their defense of Nazis is about their rights and not their rights.
I think a lot of it comes from the fact that xdaunt and danglars also subscribe to the belief that there are systematic differences between whites and blacks as people/cultures that make it a grey area. "What about rap music and fatherless children?" etc. There are things that they have in their minds that let them think these things are partially the fault of blacks. Because there is some amount of "its your own fault" component, they aren't willing to discuss anything else.
|
On August 29 2017 03:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 03:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2017 01:57 KwarK wrote:
Here's the point of the Nazis vs BLM civil rights thing.
Suppose for a second that a hypothetical California called a state constitutional congress to amend the state constitution. And they added a line that said that the local electoral registrars had the right to disenfranchise anyone that they considered guilty of moral turpitude. And that the local electoral registrars, as a body, were comprised almost entirely by extreme left people who think that any Trump supporter is guilty of moral turpitude. And that the registrars are appointed by the system that they, and people who believe as they do, control.
xDaunt, Danglars etc would cry out that this is just asking for abuse. That the system is built to systematically disenfranchise conservatives. Now imagine that the president of that California constitutional congress actually said in his speech opening the constitutional congress that he was calling it to change the state constitution to deal with the threat of Nazis, racists, and conservatives, and forever ensure that liberal beliefs dominated in California. That in this case the naked abuse of the system is actually the stated intent for the use of the system.
Now imagine that they held a statewide referendum on the issue and that predominantly conservative parts of the state voted overwhelmingly for the new constitution, in even greater numbers than the number of registered votes in those districts. Can you imagine how they would react to that?
Well, you don't actually need to. Because that actually already happened. Only it was Alabama, not California. And it was blacks, not conservatives. And it's still being enforced. Black people are still being legally disenfranchised for life in Alabama by local electoral registrars without appeal or oversight in a system that was openly described by the author of it as a means to ensure white supremacy in the state. And Danglars already defended it as both constitutional and a state's rights issue and said that if the people of Alabama were unhappy with it then the people of Alabama who still had the franchise would surely vote against it.
This is why it's very suspicious when xDaunt, Danglars and so forth insist that nobody ever infringe upon any rights of white supremacists, not because they support white supremacists but because they'd never tolerate any kind of infringing of the rights of anyone for any reason. The status quo is not neutral, the status quo does not protect everyone's rights, the status quo is racist, and the status quo is built upon denying legal and constitutional rights to minorities.
That's what separates the right from the likes of the ACLU who will defend Nazis and the citizen children of illegal immigrants equally. When the ACLU defends Nazis people may be mad that they're doing it but nobody questions why they're doing it because it's been established by a very long track record that they defend everyone without prejudice. When the right show up to defend Nazis, not so much.
When the right stand behind their stated beliefs and support equal legal protections for every American then nobody will question why they're so eager to protect Americans who happen to be Nazis. But while they ignore millions of Americans but stand up for the rights of Nazis who happen to be Americans it's a little suspicious. If they want to be taken seriously as defenders of civil rights then they should broaden their defence to include non Nazis. exhibited more concern over the free speech rights of Nazis than the systemic disenfranchisement of black people. A suspicious position for someone arguing their defense of Nazis is about their rights and not their rights. I think a lot of it comes from the fact that xdaunt and danglars also subscribe to the belief that there are systematic differences between whites and blacks as people/cultures that make it a grey area. "What about rap music and fatherless children?" etc. There are things that they have in their minds that let them think these things are partially the fault of blacks. Because there is some amount of "its your own fault" component, they aren't willing to discuss anything else.
The counter-argument is that GH is unwilling to discuss anything else than "racism" because he sees only that component to the plight of the black man.
But frankly, I think it's more the fact that we usually discuss quite specific occurrences and not more abstract issues. The occurrences which have exemplified the systemic suppression of black rights have all had some quite controversial issues attached to them as well which were in the way of discussing the more general issues - i.e. Fergusson had the riots (where the discussion ended up being about mob justice vs rule of law) and shortly after the ambush on the innocent police officer. The discussion of Nazi's rights was quite at the forefront of the Charlottesville discussion as multiple people wanted to outright outlaw such protests.
EDIT: Considering how the discussion re: Nazi's rights went I frankly doubt that we will ever be able to discuss more general issues. The form is simply too dishonest in this thread.
|
on the contrary side, i think discussing them more generally helps with the dishonesty because it's that much harder to wave away an issue because Nazis, or because Violence. that is to say i think a lot of the arguments here tend to selectively respond to a post with the low hanging fruit. and like you mentioned, the low hanging fruit in these cases tend to be the circumstances around why it's the topic du jour, be it riots or nazis or otherwise.
or i could just be projecting.
|
Well that is what one would think and I would much prefer to be proven wrong.
|
On August 29 2017 03:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The intention of those around Trump to freely profit off of his candidacy and presidency could not be more clear. These people are part of Trump's company and have worked for him for a long time. Take a look at the timeline of Trump's praise for Putin during the campaign. By the way, we could tell from a mile away from Trump is a con.
|
On August 29 2017 04:04 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 03:55 Mohdoo wrote:On August 29 2017 03:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2017 01:57 KwarK wrote:
Here's the point of the Nazis vs BLM civil rights thing.
Suppose for a second that a hypothetical California called a state constitutional congress to amend the state constitution. And they added a line that said that the local electoral registrars had the right to disenfranchise anyone that they considered guilty of moral turpitude. And that the local electoral registrars, as a body, were comprised almost entirely by extreme left people who think that any Trump supporter is guilty of moral turpitude. And that the registrars are appointed by the system that they, and people who believe as they do, control.
xDaunt, Danglars etc would cry out that this is just asking for abuse. That the system is built to systematically disenfranchise conservatives. Now imagine that the president of that California constitutional congress actually said in his speech opening the constitutional congress that he was calling it to change the state constitution to deal with the threat of Nazis, racists, and conservatives, and forever ensure that liberal beliefs dominated in California. That in this case the naked abuse of the system is actually the stated intent for the use of the system.
Now imagine that they held a statewide referendum on the issue and that predominantly conservative parts of the state voted overwhelmingly for the new constitution, in even greater numbers than the number of registered votes in those districts. Can you imagine how they would react to that?
Well, you don't actually need to. Because that actually already happened. Only it was Alabama, not California. And it was blacks, not conservatives. And it's still being enforced. Black people are still being legally disenfranchised for life in Alabama by local electoral registrars without appeal or oversight in a system that was openly described by the author of it as a means to ensure white supremacy in the state. And Danglars already defended it as both constitutional and a state's rights issue and said that if the people of Alabama were unhappy with it then the people of Alabama who still had the franchise would surely vote against it.
This is why it's very suspicious when xDaunt, Danglars and so forth insist that nobody ever infringe upon any rights of white supremacists, not because they support white supremacists but because they'd never tolerate any kind of infringing of the rights of anyone for any reason. The status quo is not neutral, the status quo does not protect everyone's rights, the status quo is racist, and the status quo is built upon denying legal and constitutional rights to minorities.
That's what separates the right from the likes of the ACLU who will defend Nazis and the citizen children of illegal immigrants equally. When the ACLU defends Nazis people may be mad that they're doing it but nobody questions why they're doing it because it's been established by a very long track record that they defend everyone without prejudice. When the right show up to defend Nazis, not so much.
When the right stand behind their stated beliefs and support equal legal protections for every American then nobody will question why they're so eager to protect Americans who happen to be Nazis. But while they ignore millions of Americans but stand up for the rights of Nazis who happen to be Americans it's a little suspicious. If they want to be taken seriously as defenders of civil rights then they should broaden their defence to include non Nazis. exhibited more concern over the free speech rights of Nazis than the systemic disenfranchisement of black people. A suspicious position for someone arguing their defense of Nazis is about their rights and not their rights. I think a lot of it comes from the fact that xdaunt and danglars also subscribe to the belief that there are systematic differences between whites and blacks as people/cultures that make it a grey area. "What about rap music and fatherless children?" etc. There are things that they have in their minds that let them think these things are partially the fault of blacks. Because there is some amount of "its your own fault" component, they aren't willing to discuss anything else. The counter-argument is that GH is unwilling to discuss anything else than "racism" because he sees only that component to the plight of the black man. But frankly, I think it's more the fact that we usually discuss quite specific occurrences and not more abstract issues. The occurrences which have exemplified the systemic suppression of black rights have all had some quite controversial issues attached to them as well which were in the way of discussing the more general issues - i.e. Fergusson had the riots (where the discussion ended up being about mob justice vs rule of law) and shortly after the ambush on the innocent police officer. The discussion of Nazi's rights was quite at the forefront of the Charlottesville discussion as multiple people wanted to outright outlaw such protests. EDIT: Considering how the discussion re: Nazi's rights went I frankly doubt that we will ever be able to discuss more general issues. The form is simply too dishonest in this thread.
I agree with your edit just given how discussion on free speech and assembly rights went. Maybe next year we can take on more nuanced topics. GH certainly doesn't see other components.
|
If talking about racism easy, we would have dealt with this years ago.
NPR’s Gene Demby: (paraphrased) When white people say talking about racism is really uncomfortable, emotional and hard, all I can say is “Welcome to the fight.”
No one said this shit would be easy. If you are uncomfortable with having your point of view challenged, don’t discuss racism. Because that is the entire discussion, front to back.
|
On August 29 2017 04:17 Plansix wrote:
If talking about racism easy, we would have dealt with this years ago.
NPR’s Gene Demby: (paraphrased) When white people say talking about racism is really uncomfortable, emotional and hard, all I can say is “Welcome to the fight.”
No one said this shit would be easy. If you are uncomfortable with having your point of view challenged, don’t discuss racism. Because that is the entire discussion, front to back.
If you are uncomfortable with having your point of view challenged, don’t discuss anything. Regardless of who you are or what is being discussed.
|
On August 29 2017 04:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 04:04 Ghostcom wrote:On August 29 2017 03:55 Mohdoo wrote:On August 29 2017 03:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2017 01:57 KwarK wrote:
Here's the point of the Nazis vs BLM civil rights thing.
Suppose for a second that a hypothetical California called a state constitutional congress to amend the state constitution. And they added a line that said that the local electoral registrars had the right to disenfranchise anyone that they considered guilty of moral turpitude. And that the local electoral registrars, as a body, were comprised almost entirely by extreme left people who think that any Trump supporter is guilty of moral turpitude. And that the registrars are appointed by the system that they, and people who believe as they do, control.
xDaunt, Danglars etc would cry out that this is just asking for abuse. That the system is built to systematically disenfranchise conservatives. Now imagine that the president of that California constitutional congress actually said in his speech opening the constitutional congress that he was calling it to change the state constitution to deal with the threat of Nazis, racists, and conservatives, and forever ensure that liberal beliefs dominated in California. That in this case the naked abuse of the system is actually the stated intent for the use of the system.
Now imagine that they held a statewide referendum on the issue and that predominantly conservative parts of the state voted overwhelmingly for the new constitution, in even greater numbers than the number of registered votes in those districts. Can you imagine how they would react to that?
Well, you don't actually need to. Because that actually already happened. Only it was Alabama, not California. And it was blacks, not conservatives. And it's still being enforced. Black people are still being legally disenfranchised for life in Alabama by local electoral registrars without appeal or oversight in a system that was openly described by the author of it as a means to ensure white supremacy in the state. And Danglars already defended it as both constitutional and a state's rights issue and said that if the people of Alabama were unhappy with it then the people of Alabama who still had the franchise would surely vote against it.
This is why it's very suspicious when xDaunt, Danglars and so forth insist that nobody ever infringe upon any rights of white supremacists, not because they support white supremacists but because they'd never tolerate any kind of infringing of the rights of anyone for any reason. The status quo is not neutral, the status quo does not protect everyone's rights, the status quo is racist, and the status quo is built upon denying legal and constitutional rights to minorities.
That's what separates the right from the likes of the ACLU who will defend Nazis and the citizen children of illegal immigrants equally. When the ACLU defends Nazis people may be mad that they're doing it but nobody questions why they're doing it because it's been established by a very long track record that they defend everyone without prejudice. When the right show up to defend Nazis, not so much.
When the right stand behind their stated beliefs and support equal legal protections for every American then nobody will question why they're so eager to protect Americans who happen to be Nazis. But while they ignore millions of Americans but stand up for the rights of Nazis who happen to be Americans it's a little suspicious. If they want to be taken seriously as defenders of civil rights then they should broaden their defence to include non Nazis. exhibited more concern over the free speech rights of Nazis than the systemic disenfranchisement of black people. A suspicious position for someone arguing their defense of Nazis is about their rights and not their rights. I think a lot of it comes from the fact that xdaunt and danglars also subscribe to the belief that there are systematic differences between whites and blacks as people/cultures that make it a grey area. "What about rap music and fatherless children?" etc. There are things that they have in their minds that let them think these things are partially the fault of blacks. Because there is some amount of "its your own fault" component, they aren't willing to discuss anything else. The counter-argument is that GH is unwilling to discuss anything else than "racism" because he sees only that component to the plight of the black man. But frankly, I think it's more the fact that we usually discuss quite specific occurrences and not more abstract issues. The occurrences which have exemplified the systemic suppression of black rights have all had some quite controversial issues attached to them as well which were in the way of discussing the more general issues - i.e. Fergusson had the riots (where the discussion ended up being about mob justice vs rule of law) and shortly after the ambush on the innocent police officer. The discussion of Nazi's rights was quite at the forefront of the Charlottesville discussion as multiple people wanted to outright outlaw such protests. EDIT: Considering how the discussion re: Nazi's rights went I frankly doubt that we will ever be able to discuss more general issues. The form is simply too dishonest in this thread. I agree with your edit just given how discussion on free speech and assembly rights went. Maybe next year we can take on more nuanced topics. GH certainly doesn't see other components.
What are some of the components I certainly do not see?
|
On August 29 2017 04:28 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 04:17 Plansix wrote:
If talking about racism easy, we would have dealt with this years ago.
NPR’s Gene Demby: (paraphrased) When white people say talking about racism is really uncomfortable, emotional and hard, all I can say is “Welcome to the fight.”
No one said this shit would be easy. If you are uncomfortable with having your point of view challenged, don’t discuss racism. Because that is the entire discussion, front to back.
If you are uncomfortable with having your point of view challenged, don’t discuss anything. Regardless of who you are or what is being discussed.
Agreed. But it is such a common theme when talking about racism. As a white dude who mostly talks about racism to other white people, the discomfort is palpable. It is visible. I went through it and I’m still doing it. And that discomfort is like a lead blanket that smothers the entire topic.
|
On August 29 2017 02:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 02:38 mozoku wrote:On August 29 2017 01:57 KwarK wrote:
Here's the point of the Nazis vs BLM civil rights thing.
Suppose for a second that a hypothetical California called a state constitutional congress to amend the state constitution. And they added a line that said that the local electoral registrars had the right to disenfranchise anyone that they considered guilty of moral turpitude. And that the local electoral registrars, as a body, were comprised almost entirely by extreme left people who think that any Trump supporter is guilty of moral turpitude. And that the registrars are appointed by the system that they, and people who believe as they do, control.
xDaunt, Danglars etc would cry out that this is just asking for abuse. That the system is built to systematically disenfranchise conservatives. Now imagine that the president of that California constitutional congress actually said in his speech opening the constitutional congress that he was calling it to change the state constitution to deal with the threat of Nazis, racists, and conservatives, and forever ensure that liberal beliefs dominated in California. That in this case the naked abuse of the system is actually the stated intent for the use of the system.
Now imagine that they held a statewide referendum on the issue and that predominantly conservative parts of the state voted overwhelmingly for the new constitution, in even greater numbers than the number of registered votes in those districts. Can you imagine how they would react to that?
Well, you don't actually need to. Because that actually already happened. Only it was Alabama, not California. And it was blacks, not conservatives. And it's still being enforced. Black people are still being legally disenfranchised for life in Alabama by local electoral registrars without appeal or oversight in a system that was openly described by the author of it as a means to ensure white supremacy in the state. And Danglars already defended it as both constitutional and a state's rights issue and said that if the people of Alabama were unhappy with it then the people of Alabama who still had the franchise would surely vote against it.
This is why it's very suspicious when xDaunt, Danglars and so forth insist that nobody ever infringe upon any rights of white supremacists, not because they support white supremacists but because they'd never tolerate any kind of infringing of the rights of anyone for any reason. The status quo is not neutral, the status quo does not protect everyone's rights, the status quo is racist, and the status quo is built upon denying legal and constitutional rights to minorities.
That's what separates the right from the likes of the ACLU who will defend Nazis and the citizen children of illegal immigrants equally. When the ACLU defends Nazis people may be mad that they're doing it but nobody questions why they're doing it because it's been established by a very long track record that they defend everyone without prejudice. When the right show up to defend Nazis, not so much.
When the right stand behind their stated beliefs and support equal legal protections for every American then nobody will question why they're so eager to protect Americans who happen to be Nazis. But while they ignore millions of Americans but stand up for the rights of Nazis who happen to be Americans it's a little suspicious. If they want to be taken seriously as defenders of civil rights then they should broaden their defence to include non Nazis. The fact that you're asserting "the right" acts uniformly as you suppose is just a testament to how your bias blinds you to the the equally prevalent legitimate complaints of the "the right." If you didn't notice, most of the right (including his own senior administration officials) was criticizing Trump for his handling of Charlottesville. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi was accusing a guy who is on public video yelling "F*** Neo-Nazis! F*** white supremacists!" of being a white supremacist (yeah, figure that one out) for planning a free speech rally--as if "free speech" necessarily implies "white supremacist" in the modern age. Link to previous post.For every Sessions, Bannon, and Trump, there's a McCain, Cohn, and Tillerson that are disgusted by them. But as long as you're condoning (and willfully participating in) the broad stroking of the entire right as racists while ignoring the legitimate arguments of the non-racist right, there's never going to be a constructive discussion on either racism or free speech. ? You completely ignored my point and instead ranted about how I was painting you all with the same brush. If you don't want to be painted with the same brush then start standing up against the civil rights abuses. At a certain point you're making my argument for me. You're more concerned with defending people on the right from being called racists than you are with civil rights abuses.
I ignored your "point" because it's a 400 word realization of assuming your own correctness (may or may not be valid, I haven't followed this thread for the whole 5 years) in previous arguments and laying judgment on xDaunt, Danglars, and "the right" for disagreeing with it. If you had made an actual argument, I may have actually responded or even agreed.
And, hilariously and ironically enough, you're the one making my argument for me--I don't recall ever not standing against civil rights abuses, though you've apparently assumed I have by defending the KKK's free speech rights. But here I am having to defend myself against a charge based on no evidence instead of actually having a discussion on either free speech or racism.
I think my stance civil rights has been pretty clear from my posting: I'm an ironclad defender of civil rights for all, support the socioeconomic advancement of disadvantaged groups, and believe that diversity strengthens organizations and especially the USA. However, pursuit of such goals has become moralized and ideological to the point that it's hindering achievement of the original goals in the first place, and would be better served by a more level-headed, rational, and scientific approach. The status quo approach towards achieving these goals serves the two groups with the most power to advance them: Democratic politicians (through votes), and the large majority of socially left-leaning whites (by making them feel as though they're "advancing progress"). The groups hurt the most are the disadvantaged groups themselves: their supposed "advocates" spend their resources on largely symbolic token efforts and demonizing the opposition instead working towards real progress.
|
On August 29 2017 04:41 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 02:49 KwarK wrote:On August 29 2017 02:38 mozoku wrote:On August 29 2017 01:57 KwarK wrote:
Here's the point of the Nazis vs BLM civil rights thing.
Suppose for a second that a hypothetical California called a state constitutional congress to amend the state constitution. And they added a line that said that the local electoral registrars had the right to disenfranchise anyone that they considered guilty of moral turpitude. And that the local electoral registrars, as a body, were comprised almost entirely by extreme left people who think that any Trump supporter is guilty of moral turpitude. And that the registrars are appointed by the system that they, and people who believe as they do, control.
xDaunt, Danglars etc would cry out that this is just asking for abuse. That the system is built to systematically disenfranchise conservatives. Now imagine that the president of that California constitutional congress actually said in his speech opening the constitutional congress that he was calling it to change the state constitution to deal with the threat of Nazis, racists, and conservatives, and forever ensure that liberal beliefs dominated in California. That in this case the naked abuse of the system is actually the stated intent for the use of the system.
Now imagine that they held a statewide referendum on the issue and that predominantly conservative parts of the state voted overwhelmingly for the new constitution, in even greater numbers than the number of registered votes in those districts. Can you imagine how they would react to that?
Well, you don't actually need to. Because that actually already happened. Only it was Alabama, not California. And it was blacks, not conservatives. And it's still being enforced. Black people are still being legally disenfranchised for life in Alabama by local electoral registrars without appeal or oversight in a system that was openly described by the author of it as a means to ensure white supremacy in the state. And Danglars already defended it as both constitutional and a state's rights issue and said that if the people of Alabama were unhappy with it then the people of Alabama who still had the franchise would surely vote against it.
This is why it's very suspicious when xDaunt, Danglars and so forth insist that nobody ever infringe upon any rights of white supremacists, not because they support white supremacists but because they'd never tolerate any kind of infringing of the rights of anyone for any reason. The status quo is not neutral, the status quo does not protect everyone's rights, the status quo is racist, and the status quo is built upon denying legal and constitutional rights to minorities.
That's what separates the right from the likes of the ACLU who will defend Nazis and the citizen children of illegal immigrants equally. When the ACLU defends Nazis people may be mad that they're doing it but nobody questions why they're doing it because it's been established by a very long track record that they defend everyone without prejudice. When the right show up to defend Nazis, not so much.
When the right stand behind their stated beliefs and support equal legal protections for every American then nobody will question why they're so eager to protect Americans who happen to be Nazis. But while they ignore millions of Americans but stand up for the rights of Nazis who happen to be Americans it's a little suspicious. If they want to be taken seriously as defenders of civil rights then they should broaden their defence to include non Nazis. The fact that you're asserting "the right" acts uniformly as you suppose is just a testament to how your bias blinds you to the the equally prevalent legitimate complaints of the "the right." If you didn't notice, most of the right (including his own senior administration officials) was criticizing Trump for his handling of Charlottesville. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi was accusing a guy who is on public video yelling "F*** Neo-Nazis! F*** white supremacists!" of being a white supremacist (yeah, figure that one out) for planning a free speech rally--as if "free speech" necessarily implies "white supremacist" in the modern age. Link to previous post.For every Sessions, Bannon, and Trump, there's a McCain, Cohn, and Tillerson that are disgusted by them. But as long as you're condoning (and willfully participating in) the broad stroking of the entire right as racists while ignoring the legitimate arguments of the non-racist right, there's never going to be a constructive discussion on either racism or free speech. ? You completely ignored my point and instead ranted about how I was painting you all with the same brush. If you don't want to be painted with the same brush then start standing up against the civil rights abuses. At a certain point you're making my argument for me. You're more concerned with defending people on the right from being called racists than you are with civil rights abuses. I ignored your "point" because it's a 400 word realization of assuming your own correctness (may or may not be valid, I haven't followed this thread for the whole 5 years) in previous arguments and laying judgment on xDaunt, Danglars, and "the right" for disagreeing with it. If you had made an actual argument, I may have actually responded or even agreed. And, hilariously and ironically enough, you're the one making my argument for me--I don't recall ever not standing against civil rights abuses, though you've apparently assumed I have by defending the KKK's free speech rights. But here I am having to defend myself against a charge based on no evidence instead of actually having a discussion on either free speech or racism. I think my stance civil rights has been pretty clear from my posting: I'm an ironclad defender of civil rights for all, support the socioeconomic advancement of disadvantaged groups, and believe that diversity strengthens organizations and especially the USA. However, pursuit of such goals has become moralized and ideological to the point that it's hindering achievement of the original goals in the first place, and would be better served by a more level-headed, rational, and scientific approach. The status quo approach towards achieving these goals serves the two groups with the most power to advance them: Democratic politicians (through votes), and the large majority of socially left-leaning whites (by making them feel as though they're "advancing progress"). The groups hurt the most are the disadvantaged groups themselves: their supposed "advocates" spend their resources on largely symbolic token efforts and demonizing the opposition instead working towards real progress.
So when you responded to his post, you really were responded to a fictional person making a fictional argument? You don’t even want to discuss the point he brought up, but mostly state your views as the right way to address the subject.
|
Four months into his campaign for president of the United States, Donald Trump signed a “letter of intent” to pursue a Trump Tower-style building development in Moscow, according to a statement from the then-Trump Organization Chief Counsel Michael Cohen.
The involvement of then-candidate Trump in a proposed Russian development deal contradicts repeated statements Trump made during the campaign, including telling ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos that his business had “no relationship to Russia whatsoever.”
The disclosure from Cohen, who has described himself as Trump’s personal lawyer, came as Cohen’s attorney gave congressional investigators scores of documents and emails from the campaign, including several pertaining to the Moscow development idea.
“Certain documents in the production reference a proposal for ‘Trump Tower Moscow,’ which contemplated a private real estate development in Russia,” Cohen’s statement says. “The decision to pursue the proposal initially, and later to abandon it, was unrelated to the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign.”
In a separate statement texted to ABC News, Cohen added that “the Trump Moscow proposal was simply one of many development opportunities that the Trump Organization considered and ultimately rejected.”
Cohen specifically says in his statement that Trump was told three times about the Moscow proposal.
“To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Trump was never in contact with anyone about this proposal other than me on three occasions, including signing a non-binding letter of intent in 2015,” his statement says.
Trump's Russian Business Connections Under the Microscope
Memory Lapse? Trump Seeks Distance From 'Advisor' With Past Ties to Mafia
Cohen also makes clear that he himself engaged in communication directly with the Kremlin about the proposal during the ongoing 2016 presidential campaign. His statement says he wrote to the press secretary for Russian President Vladimir Putin at the request of Felix Sater, a frequent Trump Organization associate who had proposed the Trump Moscow development.
“In mid-January 2016, Mr. Sater suggested that I send an email to Mr. Dmitry Peskov, the Press Secretary for the President of Russia, since the proposal would require approvals within the Russian government that had not been issued,” Cohen’s statement says. “Those permissions were never provided. I decided to abandon the proposal less than two weeks later for business reasons and do not recall any response to my email, nor any other contacts by me with Mr. Peskov or other Russian government officials about the proposal.”
The Trump Moscow development proposal, which was first reported Monday by The Washington Post, provides a new look at the relationship between the president’s real estate firm and Sater, a convicted felon who served a year in New York state prison for stabbing a man during a bar fight.
Sater is a controversial figure who served for many years as a federal government cooperating witness on a host of matters involving organized crime and national security. Sater had also traveled in Moscow with Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., in the mid-2000s and handed out business cards identifying himself as a “senior adviser” to Donald Trump Sr.
Trump had taken pains to distance himself from Sater. In one sworn deposition, regarding a Trump development in Florida on which Sater had worked, Trump said “I don't know him very well … if he were sitting in the room right now I really wouldn't know what he looked like.”
But on Sept. 30, 2015, Trump Organization officials told ABC News that Sater had inflated his connections to the company. Alan Garten, a senior Trump Organization attorney, told ABC News that “there's really no direct relationship” between Sater and the real estate firm.
“To be honest, I don't know that he ever brought any deals,” Garten said.
That was the same month Sater brought the company the Trump Moscow development proposal, according to Cohen’s statement. Cohen’s statement notes that he did not share the proposal with others in his firm.
“Mr. Sater, on occasion, made claims about aspects of the proposal, as well as his ability to bring the proposal to fruition. Over the course of my business dealings with Mr. Sater, he has sometimes used colorful language and has been prone to ‘salesmanship,’” Cohen wrote. “As a result, I did not feel that it was necessary to routinely apprise others within the Trump Organization of communications that Mr. Sater sent only to me.”
Garten and an attorney for Sater did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
For five months, the Trump Organization gave serious consideration to the Moscow development idea. But Cohen told ABC News he scuttled the plan in January 2016, one year before Trump was sworn in as president.
“I abandoned the Moscow proposal because I lost confidence that the prospective licensee would be able to obtain the real estate, financing, and government approvals necessary to bring the proposal to fruition,” Cohen said. “It was a building proposal that did not succeed and nothing more.”
Source
|
Rip america
Controversial former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio said Monday that he is considering another run for public office, including a potential primary challenge against Sen. Jeff Flake.
Arpaio, a vocal supporter of Trump’s during the campaign, was unseated last November from his position as Maricopa County sheriff. But with his name in the spotlight once again following a pardon from Trump last week, Arpaio said he could mount another bid for public office.
“I could run for mayor, I could run for legislator, I could run for Senate," the former sheriff told The Washington Examiner. He said “I'm sure getting a lot of people around the state asking me" to challenge Flake (R-Ariz.), who refused to endorse Trump during last year’s election and has been among his most vocal GOP critics.
“All I'm saying is the door is open and we'll see what happens. I've got support. I know what support I have,” he said.
Arpaio gained notoriety as sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County for his hardline stance on illegal immigration and the harsh conditions he maintained at the jail he oversaw. He was found guilty last month of criminal contempt of court, a case that stemmed from his office’s continued racial profiling of Latinos in violation of a court order.
Trump pardoned Arpaio for the conviction late last Friday, one in a flurry of controversial announcements from the White House that came just as a category four Hurricane made landfall along the Texas coast. On Twitter, Flake was critical of the pardon, writing that "I would have preferred that the President honor the judicial process and let it take its course."
Throughout his political career, Arpaio has frequently floated himself as a candidate for higher office and used those trial balloons to raise campaign money. When he announced in May 2014 he wouldn’t seek the state’s open governorship that year — he had teased a potential bid in a fundraising email two months prior — the Arizona Republic noted it was the fifth time Arpaio publicly considered running for governor but ultimately passed on the race.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/28/joe-arpaio-considers-challenge-jeff-flake-2018-242095
|
United States42950 Posts
On August 29 2017 04:41 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 02:49 KwarK wrote:On August 29 2017 02:38 mozoku wrote:On August 29 2017 01:57 KwarK wrote:
Here's the point of the Nazis vs BLM civil rights thing.
Suppose for a second that a hypothetical California called a state constitutional congress to amend the state constitution. And they added a line that said that the local electoral registrars had the right to disenfranchise anyone that they considered guilty of moral turpitude. And that the local electoral registrars, as a body, were comprised almost entirely by extreme left people who think that any Trump supporter is guilty of moral turpitude. And that the registrars are appointed by the system that they, and people who believe as they do, control.
xDaunt, Danglars etc would cry out that this is just asking for abuse. That the system is built to systematically disenfranchise conservatives. Now imagine that the president of that California constitutional congress actually said in his speech opening the constitutional congress that he was calling it to change the state constitution to deal with the threat of Nazis, racists, and conservatives, and forever ensure that liberal beliefs dominated in California. That in this case the naked abuse of the system is actually the stated intent for the use of the system.
Now imagine that they held a statewide referendum on the issue and that predominantly conservative parts of the state voted overwhelmingly for the new constitution, in even greater numbers than the number of registered votes in those districts. Can you imagine how they would react to that?
Well, you don't actually need to. Because that actually already happened. Only it was Alabama, not California. And it was blacks, not conservatives. And it's still being enforced. Black people are still being legally disenfranchised for life in Alabama by local electoral registrars without appeal or oversight in a system that was openly described by the author of it as a means to ensure white supremacy in the state. And Danglars already defended it as both constitutional and a state's rights issue and said that if the people of Alabama were unhappy with it then the people of Alabama who still had the franchise would surely vote against it.
This is why it's very suspicious when xDaunt, Danglars and so forth insist that nobody ever infringe upon any rights of white supremacists, not because they support white supremacists but because they'd never tolerate any kind of infringing of the rights of anyone for any reason. The status quo is not neutral, the status quo does not protect everyone's rights, the status quo is racist, and the status quo is built upon denying legal and constitutional rights to minorities.
That's what separates the right from the likes of the ACLU who will defend Nazis and the citizen children of illegal immigrants equally. When the ACLU defends Nazis people may be mad that they're doing it but nobody questions why they're doing it because it's been established by a very long track record that they defend everyone without prejudice. When the right show up to defend Nazis, not so much.
When the right stand behind their stated beliefs and support equal legal protections for every American then nobody will question why they're so eager to protect Americans who happen to be Nazis. But while they ignore millions of Americans but stand up for the rights of Nazis who happen to be Americans it's a little suspicious. If they want to be taken seriously as defenders of civil rights then they should broaden their defence to include non Nazis. The fact that you're asserting "the right" acts uniformly as you suppose is just a testament to how your bias blinds you to the the equally prevalent legitimate complaints of the "the right." If you didn't notice, most of the right (including his own senior administration officials) was criticizing Trump for his handling of Charlottesville. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi was accusing a guy who is on public video yelling "F*** Neo-Nazis! F*** white supremacists!" of being a white supremacist (yeah, figure that one out) for planning a free speech rally--as if "free speech" necessarily implies "white supremacist" in the modern age. Link to previous post.For every Sessions, Bannon, and Trump, there's a McCain, Cohn, and Tillerson that are disgusted by them. But as long as you're condoning (and willfully participating in) the broad stroking of the entire right as racists while ignoring the legitimate arguments of the non-racist right, there's never going to be a constructive discussion on either racism or free speech. ? You completely ignored my point and instead ranted about how I was painting you all with the same brush. If you don't want to be painted with the same brush then start standing up against the civil rights abuses. At a certain point you're making my argument for me. You're more concerned with defending people on the right from being called racists than you are with civil rights abuses. I ignored your "point" because it's a 400 word realization of assuming your own correctness (may or may not be valid, I haven't followed this thread for the whole 5 years) in previous arguments and laying judgment on xDaunt, Danglars, and "the right" for disagreeing with it. If you had made an actual argument, I may have actually responded or even agreed. And, hilariously and ironically enough, you're the one making my argument for me--I don't recall ever not standing against civil rights abuses, though you've apparently assumed I have by defending the KKK's free speech rights. But here I am having to defend myself against a charge based on no evidence instead of actually having a discussion on either free speech or racism. I think my stance civil rights has been pretty clear from my posting: I'm an ironclad defender of civil rights for all, support the socioeconomic advancement of disadvantaged groups, and believe that diversity strengthens organizations and especially the USA. However, pursuit of such goals has become moralized and ideological to the point that it's hindering achievement of the original goals in the first place, and would be better served by a more level-headed, rational, and scientific approach. The status quo approach towards achieving these goals serves the two groups with the most power to advance them: Democratic politicians (through votes), and the large majority of socially left-leaning whites (by making them feel as though they're "advancing progress"). The groups hurt the most are the disadvantaged groups themselves: their supposed "advocates" spend their resources on largely symbolic token efforts and demonizing the opposition instead working towards real progress.
I called out two voices of the right in this topic, neither of whom were you, both of whom are staunch defenders of Nazi rights. You volunteered to be offended on behalf of the right and turn this into how unfairly you were being treated by a label you chose when you decided I meant you. If the racist right (Trump, Sessions, Gorka etc) doesn't represent you then by all means join the condemnation of them. I'm perfectly happy to concede that my post might not apply to you, although it definitely applies to the two individuals I named.
However like it or not, the Republican party is the current incarnation of conservative politics and the Republican party is entirely complicit in the kind of civil rights violations I'm referring to. You can't really get around that. I didn't paint the right with a single brush, they went swimming in paint.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 29 2017 04:52 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Rip america Show nested quote +Controversial former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio said Monday that he is considering another run for public office, including a potential primary challenge against Sen. Jeff Flake.
Arpaio, a vocal supporter of Trump’s during the campaign, was unseated last November from his position as Maricopa County sheriff. But with his name in the spotlight once again following a pardon from Trump last week, Arpaio said he could mount another bid for public office.
“I could run for mayor, I could run for legislator, I could run for Senate," the former sheriff told The Washington Examiner. He said “I'm sure getting a lot of people around the state asking me" to challenge Flake (R-Ariz.), who refused to endorse Trump during last year’s election and has been among his most vocal GOP critics.
“All I'm saying is the door is open and we'll see what happens. I've got support. I know what support I have,” he said.
Arpaio gained notoriety as sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County for his hardline stance on illegal immigration and the harsh conditions he maintained at the jail he oversaw. He was found guilty last month of criminal contempt of court, a case that stemmed from his office’s continued racial profiling of Latinos in violation of a court order.
Trump pardoned Arpaio for the conviction late last Friday, one in a flurry of controversial announcements from the White House that came just as a category four Hurricane made landfall along the Texas coast. On Twitter, Flake was critical of the pardon, writing that "I would have preferred that the President honor the judicial process and let it take its course."
Throughout his political career, Arpaio has frequently floated himself as a candidate for higher office and used those trial balloons to raise campaign money. When he announced in May 2014 he wouldn’t seek the state’s open governorship that year — he had teased a potential bid in a fundraising email two months prior — the Arizona Republic noted it was the fifth time Arpaio publicly considered running for governor but ultimately passed on the race.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/28/joe-arpaio-considers-challenge-jeff-flake-2018-242095
Arpaio for NSA gogo. McMonster won't last too long anyways.
|
On August 29 2017 04:52 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Rip america Show nested quote +Controversial former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio said Monday that he is considering another run for public office, including a potential primary challenge against Sen. Jeff Flake.
Arpaio, a vocal supporter of Trump’s during the campaign, was unseated last November from his position as Maricopa County sheriff. But with his name in the spotlight once again following a pardon from Trump last week, Arpaio said he could mount another bid for public office.
“I could run for mayor, I could run for legislator, I could run for Senate," the former sheriff told The Washington Examiner. He said “I'm sure getting a lot of people around the state asking me" to challenge Flake (R-Ariz.), who refused to endorse Trump during last year’s election and has been among his most vocal GOP critics.
“All I'm saying is the door is open and we'll see what happens. I've got support. I know what support I have,” he said.
Arpaio gained notoriety as sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County for his hardline stance on illegal immigration and the harsh conditions he maintained at the jail he oversaw. He was found guilty last month of criminal contempt of court, a case that stemmed from his office’s continued racial profiling of Latinos in violation of a court order.
Trump pardoned Arpaio for the conviction late last Friday, one in a flurry of controversial announcements from the White House that came just as a category four Hurricane made landfall along the Texas coast. On Twitter, Flake was critical of the pardon, writing that "I would have preferred that the President honor the judicial process and let it take its course."
Throughout his political career, Arpaio has frequently floated himself as a candidate for higher office and used those trial balloons to raise campaign money. When he announced in May 2014 he wouldn’t seek the state’s open governorship that year — he had teased a potential bid in a fundraising email two months prior — the Arizona Republic noted it was the fifth time Arpaio publicly considered running for governor but ultimately passed on the race.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/28/joe-arpaio-considers-challenge-jeff-flake-2018-242095
Stuff like this makes me wonder if the Republicans are going to have to rewrite their primary rules about how can run on their tickets. Or if they are going to continue to play with fire and see if we all get burned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
