|
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 September 06 2017 08:31 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 07:47 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 07:28 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 06:36 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:49 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:31 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:26 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:23 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:16 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:13 Danglars wrote: [quote] If only you could communicate the actual answers to your questions that make logical sense.
Wait a second ... let's see if I have it down: If you actually told them, you'd then realize that the real answers totally contradict your points and make them all fundamentally unsound, to the extent to which even a short read would make you realize how stupid it would be to hold them. You clearly don't have it down. Haven't you learned from the last few times we had an interaction and you immediately disengaged when the threat of an actual conversation emerged? Your solution is to state that such a contradictory argument exists, but you refuse to say it. I say you'd be better off not responding at all if you have something to refute my argument but won't lay it down. It might be mistaken for losing the argument. It's just that I expect that immediately after I lay down the argument, you will stop answering and pretend nothing happened, so I'm milking my Danglars' answer time. On top of that you have already agreed with the gist of my argument in your last answer to kollin. Then don't waste everyone's time responding only to say you won't respond with an argument but that one "actually" exists, "is logical," and at a "cursory glance ... is factually substantiated." You become the parody everyone makes xDaunt out to be. Unless that's your goal. 1) Your parties are absurdly rightwing. You have already agreed to that. There are a bunch of facts that caused that to happen, I imagine some really historical facts like the Republicans moving to the right of the Democrats to execute the Southern Strategy or the fact that if you were even slightly left you could be a COMMUNIST during the Cold War did not help, but my guess is the biggest factors are closer to us, with Reagan worshipping and the Tea Party on your side, and the espousal of neoliberalism on the other. We can go into details if you want. 2) This doesn't say much about the actual people within the United States. A country that is that rightwing wouldn't have Bernie Sanders as their most liked politician, and wouldn't have all of the (actual) leftwing talking points at over 50% approval (no matter how much weight you put in those polls, it just wouldn't happen). You also wouldn't get Trump parroting a whole bunch of leftwing talking points to win if the people of the US were actually that rightwing, that would be a moronic strategy and that wouldn't have resulted in him winning some democratic states. 3) The democratic party IS a joke for losing to you guys. Like, not in that I personally think it's a joke (I do), but in that it is treated as such everywhere, even in your own entertainment media. Their losing can be explained strategically though. Their strategy on the state level was incredibly poor. It doesn't help that they're actually mostly playing by the rules, while you gerrymander and "anti voting fraud" your way into a more favourable electorate. They are also much more threatened by losing to their left than they are by losing to their right. If you want to see a strong democratic party, look no further than how they deal with us, and look as far away as you can from how they deal with you. 4) It's telling that you go to these circumstancial notions to defend that your party has sense and substance. Normally you would go to the issues and demonstrate that your party's positions make sense, rather than this convoluted copout. I'm pretty sure I remember xDaunt agreeing that the republican party was intellectually bankrupt not long ago. 4. I responded in context with how you described the situation between the parties. That's the circumstances of the response. I'll defend the sense on an issue-by-issue basis, since the actual positions of the Republican party do not frequently align with my conservative beliefs. But in your framing, absolutely there's the possibility that its beliefs aren't as unpalatable as you make out. And I'm content just to point out that your post paints the Democrat party in a very bad light, or like Kollin said, paints the electorate in a very bad light. That's probably as far as we'll get. The US is a bit overdue to have a collapse with some Berniebro in charge. The Sanders support from the youth makes a lot of sense without a modern example of the unintentional consequences. Trump played off that Sanders support for sure. He's about as much a loser on the populist/socialist front as him. And yet last time we talked about that you absolutely did not engage me on the issues, like not even remotely. I'm not entirely sure why you point out that what I say puts the democratic party in a bad light. Do you think it's news to me? Or to Americans fwiw, since the Democratic party polls about as well as Trump? Can't wait till you get a Berniebro in charge and will be eager to listen to your excuse when they don't destroy your country. Trump's doing a pretty bad job. You might get your shot. Flight 93 election, revisited. I'm of the opinion that both major parties have huge issues representing their bases and future political viability. Identity politics and social issue extremism comes to mind for the Dems, only pretending to want to repeal Obamacare for 7 years and illegal immigration come to mind for the GOP. So, when you trash the Republicans in absolute form, I seek to make sure you understand it means the Dems still have been doing fucking horrible to still lose in what you think would be an easy fight. People like GH I know to have a poor opinion of that party. This was how I discover what your opinion of the Democrat party is. Not everyone thinks they're that bad. This forum is a bit dour compared to my SoCal lib friends. Usually they make excuses for D-party performance (see: They're all racists, traditionalists ... or it's about gerrymandering and voter intimidation). So now I know that about you. It's whatever. Glad I moved away from the absurd pile then. Identity politics doesn't mean much anymore (kind of like racism except this time it's true), and there really isn't such a thing as "too not racist". The Dem's problems lie elsewhere. As for the GOP, they suck on healthcare, economy, guns, climate change, science, education, higher education, taxes, racism... Just about everything actually, I can't think of a subject they don't suck on, ideologically speaking. The overarching issue is that they believe most of what they believe not out of ideology, but because there's a financial interest behind what they support that asked them to believe it. Do you have any favourite subjects for elaboration? I agree with you to a certain extent on healthcare. If you're not going to be for single payer, you gotta make a powerful and repeated case for private markets with a welfare safety net. If you want some hybrid best-of-both-worlds like universal catastrophic, you need to spend even more time on it. But I'll be biting off more than I can chew to go down that laundry list though. The GoP certainly doesn't fight hard enough for the aspects I agree with them on economy, climate change, science, education, higher education, and taxes.
On identity politics not meaning much anymore. Certainly you have one layer of truth there now that both sides sort of do it. But Dem identity politics will run smack dab into the same backlash time and time again like it did in the last election. They are married to the thought that minorities and women have these group grievances that should be treated as separate from individual problems. Clinton fought for Obama's coalition so hard voters understood that if you weren't in her catered-to groups, you weren't going to have your needs addressed directly. It's not the country's problems or the country's economic woes, it's about how women and minorities have particular discrimination. Group identity above individual identity. You're not a person, you're a member of an oppressed class, and this is the way you think about this topic and feel about this topic by your skin color or sex's appointed leaders. It'll continue to offend and cause the kind of backlash that made white identity politics a portion of Trump's support. xDaunt spent more time on the latter topic without any progress, so I won't try to expand it beyond that. It's gonna keep being an issue. We'll see if the next Dem leader, if they manage to have one, rises above their identity history.
|
On September 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 08:31 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 07:47 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 07:28 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 06:36 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:49 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:31 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:26 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:23 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:16 Nebuchad wrote: [quote]
You clearly don't have it down. Haven't you learned from the last few times we had an interaction and you immediately disengaged when the threat of an actual conversation emerged? Your solution is to state that such a contradictory argument exists, but you refuse to say it. I say you'd be better off not responding at all if you have something to refute my argument but won't lay it down. It might be mistaken for losing the argument. It's just that I expect that immediately after I lay down the argument, you will stop answering and pretend nothing happened, so I'm milking my Danglars' answer time. On top of that you have already agreed with the gist of my argument in your last answer to kollin. Then don't waste everyone's time responding only to say you won't respond with an argument but that one "actually" exists, "is logical," and at a "cursory glance ... is factually substantiated." You become the parody everyone makes xDaunt out to be. Unless that's your goal. 1) Your parties are absurdly rightwing. You have already agreed to that. There are a bunch of facts that caused that to happen, I imagine some really historical facts like the Republicans moving to the right of the Democrats to execute the Southern Strategy or the fact that if you were even slightly left you could be a COMMUNIST during the Cold War did not help, but my guess is the biggest factors are closer to us, with Reagan worshipping and the Tea Party on your side, and the espousal of neoliberalism on the other. We can go into details if you want. 2) This doesn't say much about the actual people within the United States. A country that is that rightwing wouldn't have Bernie Sanders as their most liked politician, and wouldn't have all of the (actual) leftwing talking points at over 50% approval (no matter how much weight you put in those polls, it just wouldn't happen). You also wouldn't get Trump parroting a whole bunch of leftwing talking points to win if the people of the US were actually that rightwing, that would be a moronic strategy and that wouldn't have resulted in him winning some democratic states. 3) The democratic party IS a joke for losing to you guys. Like, not in that I personally think it's a joke (I do), but in that it is treated as such everywhere, even in your own entertainment media. Their losing can be explained strategically though. Their strategy on the state level was incredibly poor. It doesn't help that they're actually mostly playing by the rules, while you gerrymander and "anti voting fraud" your way into a more favourable electorate. They are also much more threatened by losing to their left than they are by losing to their right. If you want to see a strong democratic party, look no further than how they deal with us, and look as far away as you can from how they deal with you. 4) It's telling that you go to these circumstancial notions to defend that your party has sense and substance. Normally you would go to the issues and demonstrate that your party's positions make sense, rather than this convoluted copout. I'm pretty sure I remember xDaunt agreeing that the republican party was intellectually bankrupt not long ago. 4. I responded in context with how you described the situation between the parties. That's the circumstances of the response. I'll defend the sense on an issue-by-issue basis, since the actual positions of the Republican party do not frequently align with my conservative beliefs. But in your framing, absolutely there's the possibility that its beliefs aren't as unpalatable as you make out. And I'm content just to point out that your post paints the Democrat party in a very bad light, or like Kollin said, paints the electorate in a very bad light. That's probably as far as we'll get. The US is a bit overdue to have a collapse with some Berniebro in charge. The Sanders support from the youth makes a lot of sense without a modern example of the unintentional consequences. Trump played off that Sanders support for sure. He's about as much a loser on the populist/socialist front as him. And yet last time we talked about that you absolutely did not engage me on the issues, like not even remotely. I'm not entirely sure why you point out that what I say puts the democratic party in a bad light. Do you think it's news to me? Or to Americans fwiw, since the Democratic party polls about as well as Trump? Can't wait till you get a Berniebro in charge and will be eager to listen to your excuse when they don't destroy your country. Trump's doing a pretty bad job. You might get your shot. Flight 93 election, revisited. I'm of the opinion that both major parties have huge issues representing their bases and future political viability. Identity politics and social issue extremism comes to mind for the Dems, only pretending to want to repeal Obamacare for 7 years and illegal immigration come to mind for the GOP. So, when you trash the Republicans in absolute form, I seek to make sure you understand it means the Dems still have been doing fucking horrible to still lose in what you think would be an easy fight. People like GH I know to have a poor opinion of that party. This was how I discover what your opinion of the Democrat party is. Not everyone thinks they're that bad. This forum is a bit dour compared to my SoCal lib friends. Usually they make excuses for D-party performance (see: They're all racists, traditionalists ... or it's about gerrymandering and voter intimidation). So now I know that about you. It's whatever. Glad I moved away from the absurd pile then. Identity politics doesn't mean much anymore (kind of like racism except this time it's true), and there really isn't such a thing as "too not racist". The Dem's problems lie elsewhere. As for the GOP, they suck on healthcare, economy, guns, climate change, science, education, higher education, taxes, racism... Just about everything actually, I can't think of a subject they don't suck on, ideologically speaking. The overarching issue is that they believe most of what they believe not out of ideology, but because there's a financial interest behind what they support that asked them to believe it. Do you have any favourite subjects for elaboration? I agree with you to a certain extent on healthcare. If you're not going to be for single payer, you gotta make a powerful and repeated case for private markets with a welfare safety net. If you want some hybrid best-of-both-worlds like universal catastrophic, you need to spend even more time on it. But I'll be biting off more than I can chew to go down that laundry list though. The GoP certainly doesn't fight hard enough for the aspects I agree with them on economy, climate change, science, education, higher education, and taxes. On identity politics not meaning much anymore. Certainly you have one layer of truth there now that both sides sort of do it. But Dem identity politics will run smack dab into the same backlash time and time again like it did in the last election. They are married to the thought that minorities and women have these group grievances that should be treated as separate from individual problems. Clinton fought for Obama's coalition so hard voters understood that if you weren't in her catered-to groups, you weren't going to have your needs addressed directly. It's not the country's problems or the country's economic woes, it's about how women and minorities have particular discrimination. Group identity above individual identity. You're not a person, you're a member of an oppressed class, and this is the way you think about this topic and feel about this topic by your skin color or sex's appointed leaders. It'll continue to offend and cause the kind of backlash that made white identity politics a portion of Trump's support. xDaunt spent more time on the latter topic without any progress, so I won't try to expand it beyond that. It's gonna keep being an issue. We'll see if the next Dem leader, if they manage to have one, rises above their identity history.
I was wondering how you were possibly going to agree with me. Of course it would be by pretending that being a white nationalist (or worse) is "just white identity politics".
White identity politics in the US is called politics. There's no such thing as a problem that targets white people as a group that the government of the US isn't aware of and needs awareness raised about. That would be like doing "class politics" in favor of the rich, or adding S for Straight to LGBT: utter garbage.
In an ideal world that would be true for every ethnicity. As it happens, it isn't.
|
On September 06 2017 09:08 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 08:31 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 07:47 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 07:28 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 06:36 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:49 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:31 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:26 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:23 Danglars wrote: [quote] Your solution is to state that such a contradictory argument exists, but you refuse to say it. I say you'd be better off not responding at all if you have something to refute my argument but won't lay it down. It might be mistaken for losing the argument. It's just that I expect that immediately after I lay down the argument, you will stop answering and pretend nothing happened, so I'm milking my Danglars' answer time. On top of that you have already agreed with the gist of my argument in your last answer to kollin. Then don't waste everyone's time responding only to say you won't respond with an argument but that one "actually" exists, "is logical," and at a "cursory glance ... is factually substantiated." You become the parody everyone makes xDaunt out to be. Unless that's your goal. 1) Your parties are absurdly rightwing. You have already agreed to that. There are a bunch of facts that caused that to happen, I imagine some really historical facts like the Republicans moving to the right of the Democrats to execute the Southern Strategy or the fact that if you were even slightly left you could be a COMMUNIST during the Cold War did not help, but my guess is the biggest factors are closer to us, with Reagan worshipping and the Tea Party on your side, and the espousal of neoliberalism on the other. We can go into details if you want. 2) This doesn't say much about the actual people within the United States. A country that is that rightwing wouldn't have Bernie Sanders as their most liked politician, and wouldn't have all of the (actual) leftwing talking points at over 50% approval (no matter how much weight you put in those polls, it just wouldn't happen). You also wouldn't get Trump parroting a whole bunch of leftwing talking points to win if the people of the US were actually that rightwing, that would be a moronic strategy and that wouldn't have resulted in him winning some democratic states. 3) The democratic party IS a joke for losing to you guys. Like, not in that I personally think it's a joke (I do), but in that it is treated as such everywhere, even in your own entertainment media. Their losing can be explained strategically though. Their strategy on the state level was incredibly poor. It doesn't help that they're actually mostly playing by the rules, while you gerrymander and "anti voting fraud" your way into a more favourable electorate. They are also much more threatened by losing to their left than they are by losing to their right. If you want to see a strong democratic party, look no further than how they deal with us, and look as far away as you can from how they deal with you. 4) It's telling that you go to these circumstancial notions to defend that your party has sense and substance. Normally you would go to the issues and demonstrate that your party's positions make sense, rather than this convoluted copout. I'm pretty sure I remember xDaunt agreeing that the republican party was intellectually bankrupt not long ago. 4. I responded in context with how you described the situation between the parties. That's the circumstances of the response. I'll defend the sense on an issue-by-issue basis, since the actual positions of the Republican party do not frequently align with my conservative beliefs. But in your framing, absolutely there's the possibility that its beliefs aren't as unpalatable as you make out. And I'm content just to point out that your post paints the Democrat party in a very bad light, or like Kollin said, paints the electorate in a very bad light. That's probably as far as we'll get. The US is a bit overdue to have a collapse with some Berniebro in charge. The Sanders support from the youth makes a lot of sense without a modern example of the unintentional consequences. Trump played off that Sanders support for sure. He's about as much a loser on the populist/socialist front as him. And yet last time we talked about that you absolutely did not engage me on the issues, like not even remotely. I'm not entirely sure why you point out that what I say puts the democratic party in a bad light. Do you think it's news to me? Or to Americans fwiw, since the Democratic party polls about as well as Trump? Can't wait till you get a Berniebro in charge and will be eager to listen to your excuse when they don't destroy your country. Trump's doing a pretty bad job. You might get your shot. Flight 93 election, revisited. I'm of the opinion that both major parties have huge issues representing their bases and future political viability. Identity politics and social issue extremism comes to mind for the Dems, only pretending to want to repeal Obamacare for 7 years and illegal immigration come to mind for the GOP. So, when you trash the Republicans in absolute form, I seek to make sure you understand it means the Dems still have been doing fucking horrible to still lose in what you think would be an easy fight. People like GH I know to have a poor opinion of that party. This was how I discover what your opinion of the Democrat party is. Not everyone thinks they're that bad. This forum is a bit dour compared to my SoCal lib friends. Usually they make excuses for D-party performance (see: They're all racists, traditionalists ... or it's about gerrymandering and voter intimidation). So now I know that about you. It's whatever. Glad I moved away from the absurd pile then. Identity politics doesn't mean much anymore (kind of like racism except this time it's true), and there really isn't such a thing as "too not racist". The Dem's problems lie elsewhere. As for the GOP, they suck on healthcare, economy, guns, climate change, science, education, higher education, taxes, racism... Just about everything actually, I can't think of a subject they don't suck on, ideologically speaking. The overarching issue is that they believe most of what they believe not out of ideology, but because there's a financial interest behind what they support that asked them to believe it. Do you have any favourite subjects for elaboration? I agree with you to a certain extent on healthcare. If you're not going to be for single payer, you gotta make a powerful and repeated case for private markets with a welfare safety net. If you want some hybrid best-of-both-worlds like universal catastrophic, you need to spend even more time on it. But I'll be biting off more than I can chew to go down that laundry list though. The GoP certainly doesn't fight hard enough for the aspects I agree with them on economy, climate change, science, education, higher education, and taxes. On identity politics not meaning much anymore. Certainly you have one layer of truth there now that both sides sort of do it. But Dem identity politics will run smack dab into the same backlash time and time again like it did in the last election. They are married to the thought that minorities and women have these group grievances that should be treated as separate from individual problems. Clinton fought for Obama's coalition so hard voters understood that if you weren't in her catered-to groups, you weren't going to have your needs addressed directly. It's not the country's problems or the country's economic woes, it's about how women and minorities have particular discrimination. Group identity above individual identity. You're not a person, you're a member of an oppressed class, and this is the way you think about this topic and feel about this topic by your skin color or sex's appointed leaders. It'll continue to offend and cause the kind of backlash that made white identity politics a portion of Trump's support. xDaunt spent more time on the latter topic without any progress, so I won't try to expand it beyond that. It's gonna keep being an issue. We'll see if the next Dem leader, if they manage to have one, rises above their identity history. I was wondering how you were possibly going to agree with me. Of course it would be by pretending that being a white nationalist (or worse) is "just white identity politics". White identity politics in the US is called politics. There's no such thing as a problem that targets white people as a group that the government of the US isn't aware of and needs awareness raised about. That would be like doing "identity politics" for the rich, or adding S for Straight to LGBT: utter garbage. In an ideal world that would be true for every ethnicity. As it happens, it isn't. See, you might prefer to conflate white identity politics with white nationalist bullshit. It's the same Republicans are Nazis or Nazi sympathizer traits. See white race, read as white nationalists, don't read anything else, spit out white nationalists.
I'll say it again. If you want to advance in your understanding of how identity politics is a problem for Dems, you have to understand the backlash when people learn they're the wrong race to get goodies and have their problems addressed seriously. As it happens, you chose the easy way out, and your understanding will be lacking.
|
White nationism is identity politics in its purest form. It is 200 proof, unfiltered politics based on race alone. There is nothing to conflate.
|
On September 06 2017 09:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 09:08 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 08:31 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 07:47 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 07:28 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 06:36 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:49 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:31 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:26 Nebuchad wrote: [quote]
It's just that I expect that immediately after I lay down the argument, you will stop answering and pretend nothing happened, so I'm milking my Danglars' answer time.
On top of that you have already agreed with the gist of my argument in your last answer to kollin. Then don't waste everyone's time responding only to say you won't respond with an argument but that one "actually" exists, "is logical," and at a "cursory glance ... is factually substantiated." You become the parody everyone makes xDaunt out to be. Unless that's your goal. 1) Your parties are absurdly rightwing. You have already agreed to that. There are a bunch of facts that caused that to happen, I imagine some really historical facts like the Republicans moving to the right of the Democrats to execute the Southern Strategy or the fact that if you were even slightly left you could be a COMMUNIST during the Cold War did not help, but my guess is the biggest factors are closer to us, with Reagan worshipping and the Tea Party on your side, and the espousal of neoliberalism on the other. We can go into details if you want. 2) This doesn't say much about the actual people within the United States. A country that is that rightwing wouldn't have Bernie Sanders as their most liked politician, and wouldn't have all of the (actual) leftwing talking points at over 50% approval (no matter how much weight you put in those polls, it just wouldn't happen). You also wouldn't get Trump parroting a whole bunch of leftwing talking points to win if the people of the US were actually that rightwing, that would be a moronic strategy and that wouldn't have resulted in him winning some democratic states. 3) The democratic party IS a joke for losing to you guys. Like, not in that I personally think it's a joke (I do), but in that it is treated as such everywhere, even in your own entertainment media. Their losing can be explained strategically though. Their strategy on the state level was incredibly poor. It doesn't help that they're actually mostly playing by the rules, while you gerrymander and "anti voting fraud" your way into a more favourable electorate. They are also much more threatened by losing to their left than they are by losing to their right. If you want to see a strong democratic party, look no further than how they deal with us, and look as far away as you can from how they deal with you. 4) It's telling that you go to these circumstancial notions to defend that your party has sense and substance. Normally you would go to the issues and demonstrate that your party's positions make sense, rather than this convoluted copout. I'm pretty sure I remember xDaunt agreeing that the republican party was intellectually bankrupt not long ago. 4. I responded in context with how you described the situation between the parties. That's the circumstances of the response. I'll defend the sense on an issue-by-issue basis, since the actual positions of the Republican party do not frequently align with my conservative beliefs. But in your framing, absolutely there's the possibility that its beliefs aren't as unpalatable as you make out. And I'm content just to point out that your post paints the Democrat party in a very bad light, or like Kollin said, paints the electorate in a very bad light. That's probably as far as we'll get. The US is a bit overdue to have a collapse with some Berniebro in charge. The Sanders support from the youth makes a lot of sense without a modern example of the unintentional consequences. Trump played off that Sanders support for sure. He's about as much a loser on the populist/socialist front as him. And yet last time we talked about that you absolutely did not engage me on the issues, like not even remotely. I'm not entirely sure why you point out that what I say puts the democratic party in a bad light. Do you think it's news to me? Or to Americans fwiw, since the Democratic party polls about as well as Trump? Can't wait till you get a Berniebro in charge and will be eager to listen to your excuse when they don't destroy your country. Trump's doing a pretty bad job. You might get your shot. Flight 93 election, revisited. I'm of the opinion that both major parties have huge issues representing their bases and future political viability. Identity politics and social issue extremism comes to mind for the Dems, only pretending to want to repeal Obamacare for 7 years and illegal immigration come to mind for the GOP. So, when you trash the Republicans in absolute form, I seek to make sure you understand it means the Dems still have been doing fucking horrible to still lose in what you think would be an easy fight. People like GH I know to have a poor opinion of that party. This was how I discover what your opinion of the Democrat party is. Not everyone thinks they're that bad. This forum is a bit dour compared to my SoCal lib friends. Usually they make excuses for D-party performance (see: They're all racists, traditionalists ... or it's about gerrymandering and voter intimidation). So now I know that about you. It's whatever. Glad I moved away from the absurd pile then. Identity politics doesn't mean much anymore (kind of like racism except this time it's true), and there really isn't such a thing as "too not racist". The Dem's problems lie elsewhere. As for the GOP, they suck on healthcare, economy, guns, climate change, science, education, higher education, taxes, racism... Just about everything actually, I can't think of a subject they don't suck on, ideologically speaking. The overarching issue is that they believe most of what they believe not out of ideology, but because there's a financial interest behind what they support that asked them to believe it. Do you have any favourite subjects for elaboration? I agree with you to a certain extent on healthcare. If you're not going to be for single payer, you gotta make a powerful and repeated case for private markets with a welfare safety net. If you want some hybrid best-of-both-worlds like universal catastrophic, you need to spend even more time on it. But I'll be biting off more than I can chew to go down that laundry list though. The GoP certainly doesn't fight hard enough for the aspects I agree with them on economy, climate change, science, education, higher education, and taxes. On identity politics not meaning much anymore. Certainly you have one layer of truth there now that both sides sort of do it. But Dem identity politics will run smack dab into the same backlash time and time again like it did in the last election. They are married to the thought that minorities and women have these group grievances that should be treated as separate from individual problems. Clinton fought for Obama's coalition so hard voters understood that if you weren't in her catered-to groups, you weren't going to have your needs addressed directly. It's not the country's problems or the country's economic woes, it's about how women and minorities have particular discrimination. Group identity above individual identity. You're not a person, you're a member of an oppressed class, and this is the way you think about this topic and feel about this topic by your skin color or sex's appointed leaders. It'll continue to offend and cause the kind of backlash that made white identity politics a portion of Trump's support. xDaunt spent more time on the latter topic without any progress, so I won't try to expand it beyond that. It's gonna keep being an issue. We'll see if the next Dem leader, if they manage to have one, rises above their identity history. I was wondering how you were possibly going to agree with me. Of course it would be by pretending that being a white nationalist (or worse) is "just white identity politics". White identity politics in the US is called politics. There's no such thing as a problem that targets white people as a group that the government of the US isn't aware of and needs awareness raised about. That would be like doing "identity politics" for the rich, or adding S for Straight to LGBT: utter garbage. In an ideal world that would be true for every ethnicity. As it happens, it isn't. See, you might prefer to conflate white identity politics with white nationalist bullshit. It's the same Republicans are Nazis or Nazi sympathizer traits. See white race, read as white nationalists, don't read anything else, spit out white nationalists. I'll say it again. If you want to advance in your understanding of how identity politics is a problem for Dems, you have to understand the backlash when people learn they're the wrong race to get goodies and have their problems addressed seriously. As it happens, you chose the easy way out, and your understanding will be lacking.
I think you're being too kind when you say I'm "conflating them with white nationalism". I'm denying their existence in the US, outside of white nationalists lying and pretending that they're "just identitarians" to appeal to normies.
|
On September 06 2017 06:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +HOUSTON (AP) — The U.S. government carefully designed a path of least resistance to building a border wall in Texas, picking a wildlife refuge and other places it already owns or controls to quickly begin construction. All it needed was Congress to approve the money.
Then came Harvey.
President Donald Trump’s administration must now grapple with a storm that devastated the Texas Gulf Coast, with some areas still underwater and tens of thousands of people forced from their homes. Rebuilding will require billions of dollars to start — and may come at the expense of what is perhaps Trump’s best-known policy priority.
The White House wanted $1.6 billion for 74 miles (120 kilometers) of initial wall, including 60 miles (95 kilometers) in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley.
While a fraction of what the overall Harvey recovery effort will cost, funding for the wall already faced strong opposition from Senate Democrats. Three days before the storm made landfall, Trump threatened a government shutdown unless Congress provides funding. That threat now appears to be off the table, as is any potential maneuver to tie the wall to providing disaster relief.
“If Trump is saying, ‘Listen, you’re only going to get your disaster funding if I get my wall,’ that is a total political loser,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Texas-based Republican consultant. “That’s just not tenable.”
Another potential way to get the wall started would be tying initial funding to the program shielding young immigrants from deportation, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which the Trump administration announced Tuesday it would seek to phase out.
The White House and Republican congressional leadership are discussing a larger package of legislation to address DACA, money for the border wall and other elements. Democrats have ruled out any trade off of DACA legislation with the border wall, though, casting doubt on such an approach.
Before the storm hit, the U.S. government had spent months quietly preparing to begin new construction in Texas. The first construction site would be the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, a verdant forest with butterflies and rare bird species next to the Rio Grande — that wasn’t affected by Harvey.
Those preparations are still underway. At Santa Ana, crews were seen as recently as Friday drilling holes for testing the soil on the river levee built to withhold high waters from the Rio Grande. The head of the National Butterfly Center, also next to the border, recently caught workers chopping trees and mowing vegetation on her property without her permission. And contractors have been spotted at a courthouse in a neighboring county examining land ownership records.
The government wants to build on the 3 miles (5 kilometers) of river levee cutting through the northern edge of the refuge, separating the visitor center from the rest of the park. A gate in the wall would open and close for visitors. Vegetation in front of the wall would be cleared for an access road and open land to give agents better visibility.
Under current plans, another 25 miles (40 kilometers) would go on other parts of the levee, where government agencies are believed to control land rights and have previously built sections of fencing. The remaining construction would go through river towns further west, taking a route the government examined the last time it built a border barrier, under the 2006 Secure Fence Act.
Scott Nicol, co-chair of the Sierra Club’s Borderlands campaign and a longtime opponent of the plan, said that the storm “should stop them from trying to build a wall.”
“If we had an administration that was acting responsibly, that was acting in the best interest of the United States, they would say, ‘We have a much more important thing to do right now,'” Nicol said.
Law enforcement officials in the Rio Grande Valley say the wall is part of their strategy to slow the entry of drugs and illegal immigration. And they want to avoid the issues that stymied the U.S. government after the Secure Fence Act. That resulted in hundreds of lawsuits and years of delays in Texas, and yielded just 100 miles (160 kilometers) of fencing in the state.
That’s why they want to start in Santa Ana.
“That is government property already,” Manuel Padilla, the Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Valley sector chief, told The Associated Press last month. “So we don’t have to deal with the landowner because that’s a process and it takes time.”
The Valley is the nation’s busiest place for illegal border crossings. Agents routinely catch human and drug smugglers along the state’s 800-mile (1,290-kilometer) border with Mexico, most of which is not fenced.
“Smugglers exploit the refuge because it has limited access to law enforcement,” Padilla said.
Opponents say Padilla is overstating the threat in the refuge. The Border Patrol says its agents have intercepted just eight human smuggling cases in Santa Ana since October. By comparison, during that same period, agents intercepted more than 2,000 human smuggling cases in the Rio Grande Valley overall.
Environmentalists say cutting through Santa Ana’s forests would irreparably damage the area and endanger animals in the event of floods. Several endangered wildcats and 400-plus species of birds live at the refuge.
Still, the Department of Homeland Security can waive environmental and other reviews to expedite construction, as it’s already done in San Diego, where the remaining 14 miles (22 kilometers) of border wall is currently planned. Even if Congress doesn’t approve funding, the department might still be able to build in the refuge by reallocating money already in its budget.
It’s a plan that would be hard for opponents of a wall to stop. But after Harvey, the state faces a rebuilding effort that will draw not just on government money, but the efforts of construction companies and natural resources that might have otherwise gone to a wall.
So far, Texas Republicans won’t rule out a wall but say it shouldn’t jeopardize Harvey recovery funding.
Sen. John Cornyn has filed a $15 billion border security bill that would build some new portions of border wall, though he opposes fencing off the entire, nearly 2,000-mile (3,220-kilometer) U.S.-Mexico border. He said the message from the White House so far has been to offer immediate storm aid without political strings.
“Asked if he was concerned the border wall fight could tie up federal disaster spending, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said simply, “No.” Source
This seems to me to be really fortunate for Trump. Now he has a legit copout on why the wall isn't happening. Even his base would have to concede that the wall can be delayed to rebuild Houston.
On September 06 2017 08:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Don't worry; Trump would never let Jose into America.
I lol'd.
On a related note, what about those people who believe that hurricanes are a sign from God that we're doing something wrong? Are these all on the gays?
|
On September 06 2017 09:40 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 06:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:HOUSTON (AP) — The U.S. government carefully designed a path of least resistance to building a border wall in Texas, picking a wildlife refuge and other places it already owns or controls to quickly begin construction. All it needed was Congress to approve the money.
Then came Harvey.
President Donald Trump’s administration must now grapple with a storm that devastated the Texas Gulf Coast, with some areas still underwater and tens of thousands of people forced from their homes. Rebuilding will require billions of dollars to start — and may come at the expense of what is perhaps Trump’s best-known policy priority.
The White House wanted $1.6 billion for 74 miles (120 kilometers) of initial wall, including 60 miles (95 kilometers) in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley.
While a fraction of what the overall Harvey recovery effort will cost, funding for the wall already faced strong opposition from Senate Democrats. Three days before the storm made landfall, Trump threatened a government shutdown unless Congress provides funding. That threat now appears to be off the table, as is any potential maneuver to tie the wall to providing disaster relief.
“If Trump is saying, ‘Listen, you’re only going to get your disaster funding if I get my wall,’ that is a total political loser,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Texas-based Republican consultant. “That’s just not tenable.”
Another potential way to get the wall started would be tying initial funding to the program shielding young immigrants from deportation, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which the Trump administration announced Tuesday it would seek to phase out.
The White House and Republican congressional leadership are discussing a larger package of legislation to address DACA, money for the border wall and other elements. Democrats have ruled out any trade off of DACA legislation with the border wall, though, casting doubt on such an approach.
Before the storm hit, the U.S. government had spent months quietly preparing to begin new construction in Texas. The first construction site would be the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, a verdant forest with butterflies and rare bird species next to the Rio Grande — that wasn’t affected by Harvey.
Those preparations are still underway. At Santa Ana, crews were seen as recently as Friday drilling holes for testing the soil on the river levee built to withhold high waters from the Rio Grande. The head of the National Butterfly Center, also next to the border, recently caught workers chopping trees and mowing vegetation on her property without her permission. And contractors have been spotted at a courthouse in a neighboring county examining land ownership records.
The government wants to build on the 3 miles (5 kilometers) of river levee cutting through the northern edge of the refuge, separating the visitor center from the rest of the park. A gate in the wall would open and close for visitors. Vegetation in front of the wall would be cleared for an access road and open land to give agents better visibility.
Under current plans, another 25 miles (40 kilometers) would go on other parts of the levee, where government agencies are believed to control land rights and have previously built sections of fencing. The remaining construction would go through river towns further west, taking a route the government examined the last time it built a border barrier, under the 2006 Secure Fence Act.
Scott Nicol, co-chair of the Sierra Club’s Borderlands campaign and a longtime opponent of the plan, said that the storm “should stop them from trying to build a wall.”
“If we had an administration that was acting responsibly, that was acting in the best interest of the United States, they would say, ‘We have a much more important thing to do right now,'” Nicol said.
Law enforcement officials in the Rio Grande Valley say the wall is part of their strategy to slow the entry of drugs and illegal immigration. And they want to avoid the issues that stymied the U.S. government after the Secure Fence Act. That resulted in hundreds of lawsuits and years of delays in Texas, and yielded just 100 miles (160 kilometers) of fencing in the state.
That’s why they want to start in Santa Ana.
“That is government property already,” Manuel Padilla, the Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Valley sector chief, told The Associated Press last month. “So we don’t have to deal with the landowner because that’s a process and it takes time.”
The Valley is the nation’s busiest place for illegal border crossings. Agents routinely catch human and drug smugglers along the state’s 800-mile (1,290-kilometer) border with Mexico, most of which is not fenced.
“Smugglers exploit the refuge because it has limited access to law enforcement,” Padilla said.
Opponents say Padilla is overstating the threat in the refuge. The Border Patrol says its agents have intercepted just eight human smuggling cases in Santa Ana since October. By comparison, during that same period, agents intercepted more than 2,000 human smuggling cases in the Rio Grande Valley overall.
Environmentalists say cutting through Santa Ana’s forests would irreparably damage the area and endanger animals in the event of floods. Several endangered wildcats and 400-plus species of birds live at the refuge.
Still, the Department of Homeland Security can waive environmental and other reviews to expedite construction, as it’s already done in San Diego, where the remaining 14 miles (22 kilometers) of border wall is currently planned. Even if Congress doesn’t approve funding, the department might still be able to build in the refuge by reallocating money already in its budget.
It’s a plan that would be hard for opponents of a wall to stop. But after Harvey, the state faces a rebuilding effort that will draw not just on government money, but the efforts of construction companies and natural resources that might have otherwise gone to a wall.
So far, Texas Republicans won’t rule out a wall but say it shouldn’t jeopardize Harvey recovery funding.
Sen. John Cornyn has filed a $15 billion border security bill that would build some new portions of border wall, though he opposes fencing off the entire, nearly 2,000-mile (3,220-kilometer) U.S.-Mexico border. He said the message from the White House so far has been to offer immediate storm aid without political strings.
“Asked if he was concerned the border wall fight could tie up federal disaster spending, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said simply, “No.” Source This seems to me to be really fortunate for Trump. Now he has a legit copout on why the wall isn't happening. Even his base would have to concede that the wall can be delayed to rebuild Houston. Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 08:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Don't worry; Trump would never let Jose into America. I lol'd. On a related note, what about those people who believe that hurricanes are a sign from God that we're doing something wrong? Are these all on the gays?
Well some of the pastors who are claiming that God sends hurricanes to destroy gay people's homes actually had their homes destroyed by hurricanes, which is pretty great.
Those people are idiots though.
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 06 2017 09:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 09:40 Dromar wrote:On September 06 2017 06:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:HOUSTON (AP) — The U.S. government carefully designed a path of least resistance to building a border wall in Texas, picking a wildlife refuge and other places it already owns or controls to quickly begin construction. All it needed was Congress to approve the money.
Then came Harvey.
President Donald Trump’s administration must now grapple with a storm that devastated the Texas Gulf Coast, with some areas still underwater and tens of thousands of people forced from their homes. Rebuilding will require billions of dollars to start — and may come at the expense of what is perhaps Trump’s best-known policy priority.
The White House wanted $1.6 billion for 74 miles (120 kilometers) of initial wall, including 60 miles (95 kilometers) in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley.
While a fraction of what the overall Harvey recovery effort will cost, funding for the wall already faced strong opposition from Senate Democrats. Three days before the storm made landfall, Trump threatened a government shutdown unless Congress provides funding. That threat now appears to be off the table, as is any potential maneuver to tie the wall to providing disaster relief.
“If Trump is saying, ‘Listen, you’re only going to get your disaster funding if I get my wall,’ that is a total political loser,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Texas-based Republican consultant. “That’s just not tenable.”
Another potential way to get the wall started would be tying initial funding to the program shielding young immigrants from deportation, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which the Trump administration announced Tuesday it would seek to phase out.
The White House and Republican congressional leadership are discussing a larger package of legislation to address DACA, money for the border wall and other elements. Democrats have ruled out any trade off of DACA legislation with the border wall, though, casting doubt on such an approach.
Before the storm hit, the U.S. government had spent months quietly preparing to begin new construction in Texas. The first construction site would be the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, a verdant forest with butterflies and rare bird species next to the Rio Grande — that wasn’t affected by Harvey.
Those preparations are still underway. At Santa Ana, crews were seen as recently as Friday drilling holes for testing the soil on the river levee built to withhold high waters from the Rio Grande. The head of the National Butterfly Center, also next to the border, recently caught workers chopping trees and mowing vegetation on her property without her permission. And contractors have been spotted at a courthouse in a neighboring county examining land ownership records.
The government wants to build on the 3 miles (5 kilometers) of river levee cutting through the northern edge of the refuge, separating the visitor center from the rest of the park. A gate in the wall would open and close for visitors. Vegetation in front of the wall would be cleared for an access road and open land to give agents better visibility.
Under current plans, another 25 miles (40 kilometers) would go on other parts of the levee, where government agencies are believed to control land rights and have previously built sections of fencing. The remaining construction would go through river towns further west, taking a route the government examined the last time it built a border barrier, under the 2006 Secure Fence Act.
Scott Nicol, co-chair of the Sierra Club’s Borderlands campaign and a longtime opponent of the plan, said that the storm “should stop them from trying to build a wall.”
“If we had an administration that was acting responsibly, that was acting in the best interest of the United States, they would say, ‘We have a much more important thing to do right now,'” Nicol said.
Law enforcement officials in the Rio Grande Valley say the wall is part of their strategy to slow the entry of drugs and illegal immigration. And they want to avoid the issues that stymied the U.S. government after the Secure Fence Act. That resulted in hundreds of lawsuits and years of delays in Texas, and yielded just 100 miles (160 kilometers) of fencing in the state.
That’s why they want to start in Santa Ana.
“That is government property already,” Manuel Padilla, the Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Valley sector chief, told The Associated Press last month. “So we don’t have to deal with the landowner because that’s a process and it takes time.”
The Valley is the nation’s busiest place for illegal border crossings. Agents routinely catch human and drug smugglers along the state’s 800-mile (1,290-kilometer) border with Mexico, most of which is not fenced.
“Smugglers exploit the refuge because it has limited access to law enforcement,” Padilla said.
Opponents say Padilla is overstating the threat in the refuge. The Border Patrol says its agents have intercepted just eight human smuggling cases in Santa Ana since October. By comparison, during that same period, agents intercepted more than 2,000 human smuggling cases in the Rio Grande Valley overall.
Environmentalists say cutting through Santa Ana’s forests would irreparably damage the area and endanger animals in the event of floods. Several endangered wildcats and 400-plus species of birds live at the refuge.
Still, the Department of Homeland Security can waive environmental and other reviews to expedite construction, as it’s already done in San Diego, where the remaining 14 miles (22 kilometers) of border wall is currently planned. Even if Congress doesn’t approve funding, the department might still be able to build in the refuge by reallocating money already in its budget.
It’s a plan that would be hard for opponents of a wall to stop. But after Harvey, the state faces a rebuilding effort that will draw not just on government money, but the efforts of construction companies and natural resources that might have otherwise gone to a wall.
So far, Texas Republicans won’t rule out a wall but say it shouldn’t jeopardize Harvey recovery funding.
Sen. John Cornyn has filed a $15 billion border security bill that would build some new portions of border wall, though he opposes fencing off the entire, nearly 2,000-mile (3,220-kilometer) U.S.-Mexico border. He said the message from the White House so far has been to offer immediate storm aid without political strings.
“Asked if he was concerned the border wall fight could tie up federal disaster spending, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said simply, “No.” Source This seems to me to be really fortunate for Trump. Now he has a legit copout on why the wall isn't happening. Even his base would have to concede that the wall can be delayed to rebuild Houston. On September 06 2017 08:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Don't worry; Trump would never let Jose into America. I lol'd. On a related note, what about those people who believe that hurricanes are a sign from God that we're doing something wrong? Are these all on the gays? Well some of the pastors who are claiming that God sends hurricanes to destroy gay people's homes actually had their homes destroyed by hurricanes, which is pretty great. Those people are idiots though. Meh, maybe they were just Ted Haggards.
|
The thing I did is wildly unpopular with everyone except self identifying Republicans. But my AG refused to defend it in court, so I punted the problem to congress and I'll blame them in 6 months.
I also like how he slips in the shot at Obama, while also admitting its is congresses problem.
|
the quality of the replies in twitter is about as poor as one would expect. so mcuh glaringly stupid points some people make; and no consequences for lying as they do so. pity so few value truth, and so few can recognize it.
|
Why would you ever ready twitter replies? They are challenging YouTube comments for the poop covered throne that the worst of the internet sits upon.
|
On September 06 2017 10:13 Plansix wrote: Why would you ever ready twitter replies? They are challenging YouTube comments for the poop covered throne that the worst of the internet sits upon. Twitch chat or stream chat in general?
|
On September 06 2017 10:13 Plansix wrote: Why would you ever ready twitter replies? They are challenging YouTube comments for the poop covered throne that the worst of the internet sits upon. because people are constnatly linking to tweets. and I can't read tweets directly (without enabling stuff that crashes my browser due to site issues) so I have to load them in a separate page to see them, which shows the replies. I wonder if media site comment areas are worse though, from what little i've seen of those they are worse.
|
On September 06 2017 10:16 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 10:13 Plansix wrote: Why would you ever ready twitter replies? They are challenging YouTube comments for the poop covered throne that the worst of the internet sits upon. Twitch chat or stream chat in general? Twitch chat is destroyed each stream. YouTube comments are eternal, especially on older videos.
Edit: the responses from political reporters to Trumps demand DACA be law have been met with confusion or mild wonder. But this was the most insightful:
|
|
On September 06 2017 09:20 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 09:16 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 09:08 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 08:31 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 07:47 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 07:28 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 06:36 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:49 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:31 Danglars wrote: [quote] Then don't waste everyone's time responding only to say you won't respond with an argument but that one "actually" exists, "is logical," and at a "cursory glance ... is factually substantiated." You become the parody everyone makes xDaunt out to be. Unless that's your goal. 1) Your parties are absurdly rightwing. You have already agreed to that. There are a bunch of facts that caused that to happen, I imagine some really historical facts like the Republicans moving to the right of the Democrats to execute the Southern Strategy or the fact that if you were even slightly left you could be a COMMUNIST during the Cold War did not help, but my guess is the biggest factors are closer to us, with Reagan worshipping and the Tea Party on your side, and the espousal of neoliberalism on the other. We can go into details if you want. 2) This doesn't say much about the actual people within the United States. A country that is that rightwing wouldn't have Bernie Sanders as their most liked politician, and wouldn't have all of the (actual) leftwing talking points at over 50% approval (no matter how much weight you put in those polls, it just wouldn't happen). You also wouldn't get Trump parroting a whole bunch of leftwing talking points to win if the people of the US were actually that rightwing, that would be a moronic strategy and that wouldn't have resulted in him winning some democratic states. 3) The democratic party IS a joke for losing to you guys. Like, not in that I personally think it's a joke (I do), but in that it is treated as such everywhere, even in your own entertainment media. Their losing can be explained strategically though. Their strategy on the state level was incredibly poor. It doesn't help that they're actually mostly playing by the rules, while you gerrymander and "anti voting fraud" your way into a more favourable electorate. They are also much more threatened by losing to their left than they are by losing to their right. If you want to see a strong democratic party, look no further than how they deal with us, and look as far away as you can from how they deal with you. 4) It's telling that you go to these circumstancial notions to defend that your party has sense and substance. Normally you would go to the issues and demonstrate that your party's positions make sense, rather than this convoluted copout. I'm pretty sure I remember xDaunt agreeing that the republican party was intellectually bankrupt not long ago. 4. I responded in context with how you described the situation between the parties. That's the circumstances of the response. I'll defend the sense on an issue-by-issue basis, since the actual positions of the Republican party do not frequently align with my conservative beliefs. But in your framing, absolutely there's the possibility that its beliefs aren't as unpalatable as you make out. And I'm content just to point out that your post paints the Democrat party in a very bad light, or like Kollin said, paints the electorate in a very bad light. That's probably as far as we'll get. The US is a bit overdue to have a collapse with some Berniebro in charge. The Sanders support from the youth makes a lot of sense without a modern example of the unintentional consequences. Trump played off that Sanders support for sure. He's about as much a loser on the populist/socialist front as him. And yet last time we talked about that you absolutely did not engage me on the issues, like not even remotely. I'm not entirely sure why you point out that what I say puts the democratic party in a bad light. Do you think it's news to me? Or to Americans fwiw, since the Democratic party polls about as well as Trump? Can't wait till you get a Berniebro in charge and will be eager to listen to your excuse when they don't destroy your country. Trump's doing a pretty bad job. You might get your shot. Flight 93 election, revisited. I'm of the opinion that both major parties have huge issues representing their bases and future political viability. Identity politics and social issue extremism comes to mind for the Dems, only pretending to want to repeal Obamacare for 7 years and illegal immigration come to mind for the GOP. So, when you trash the Republicans in absolute form, I seek to make sure you understand it means the Dems still have been doing fucking horrible to still lose in what you think would be an easy fight. People like GH I know to have a poor opinion of that party. This was how I discover what your opinion of the Democrat party is. Not everyone thinks they're that bad. This forum is a bit dour compared to my SoCal lib friends. Usually they make excuses for D-party performance (see: They're all racists, traditionalists ... or it's about gerrymandering and voter intimidation). So now I know that about you. It's whatever. Glad I moved away from the absurd pile then. Identity politics doesn't mean much anymore (kind of like racism except this time it's true), and there really isn't such a thing as "too not racist". The Dem's problems lie elsewhere. As for the GOP, they suck on healthcare, economy, guns, climate change, science, education, higher education, taxes, racism... Just about everything actually, I can't think of a subject they don't suck on, ideologically speaking. The overarching issue is that they believe most of what they believe not out of ideology, but because there's a financial interest behind what they support that asked them to believe it. Do you have any favourite subjects for elaboration? I agree with you to a certain extent on healthcare. If you're not going to be for single payer, you gotta make a powerful and repeated case for private markets with a welfare safety net. If you want some hybrid best-of-both-worlds like universal catastrophic, you need to spend even more time on it. But I'll be biting off more than I can chew to go down that laundry list though. The GoP certainly doesn't fight hard enough for the aspects I agree with them on economy, climate change, science, education, higher education, and taxes. On identity politics not meaning much anymore. Certainly you have one layer of truth there now that both sides sort of do it. But Dem identity politics will run smack dab into the same backlash time and time again like it did in the last election. They are married to the thought that minorities and women have these group grievances that should be treated as separate from individual problems. Clinton fought for Obama's coalition so hard voters understood that if you weren't in her catered-to groups, you weren't going to have your needs addressed directly. It's not the country's problems or the country's economic woes, it's about how women and minorities have particular discrimination. Group identity above individual identity. You're not a person, you're a member of an oppressed class, and this is the way you think about this topic and feel about this topic by your skin color or sex's appointed leaders. It'll continue to offend and cause the kind of backlash that made white identity politics a portion of Trump's support. xDaunt spent more time on the latter topic without any progress, so I won't try to expand it beyond that. It's gonna keep being an issue. We'll see if the next Dem leader, if they manage to have one, rises above their identity history. I was wondering how you were possibly going to agree with me. Of course it would be by pretending that being a white nationalist (or worse) is "just white identity politics". White identity politics in the US is called politics. There's no such thing as a problem that targets white people as a group that the government of the US isn't aware of and needs awareness raised about. That would be like doing "identity politics" for the rich, or adding S for Straight to LGBT: utter garbage. In an ideal world that would be true for every ethnicity. As it happens, it isn't. See, you might prefer to conflate white identity politics with white nationalist bullshit. It's the same Republicans are Nazis or Nazi sympathizer traits. See white race, read as white nationalists, don't read anything else, spit out white nationalists. I'll say it again. If you want to advance in your understanding of how identity politics is a problem for Dems, you have to understand the backlash when people learn they're the wrong race to get goodies and have their problems addressed seriously. As it happens, you chose the easy way out, and your understanding will be lacking. I think you're being too kind when you say I'm "conflating them with white nationalism". I'm denying their existence in the US, outside of white nationalists lying and pretending that they're "just identitarians" to appeal to normies. I'm trying to get you closer to understanding my point. If Dems harp on group identity and a list of oppressed groups for long enough, they get a backlash of whites that never thought of themselves as a group. This is separate from white nationalism. I don't get what's giving you such a hard time.
|
Look at the eye of the storm it is bigger than some of the islands...
|
seems like typical limbaugh from what i've heard of him. I'm not entirely sure what your response is indicating (or why you linked this in the first place), but it doesn't really matter, as there doesn't seem to be much to say on the topic.
|
Jesus the things a quote mountain.
And, of course, when Harvey hit, it was the first hurricane that had hit in 12 years. There haven’t been more hurricanes and no more dangerous than any others in previous years.
He doesn't even pull the trigger and say its a conspiracy by Big Water to drive up water sales in the face of a hurricane that might come through. He just spouts educated nonsense about basic hurricane facts and then gets confused on why people buy bottled water "people think tap water is dirty for some reason" and "just put out a bucket and you have rain water".
Glen beck was underrated television let me tell you.
|
|
|
|