|
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 October 21 2017 07:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2017 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 21 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On October 21 2017 05:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 21 2017 04:46 Danglars wrote:On October 21 2017 04:18 Adreme wrote:On October 21 2017 04:13 Danglars wrote:On October 21 2017 03:22 Danglars wrote:
We did need more racism in this thread. When a black man does it, it's racism. When a white man does it, it's disagreement. On October 21 2017 03:43 ShoCkeyy wrote:
But that's exactly what it is. Republicans didn't do anything for eight years, you said so yourself, they didn't do anything, not even come up with a plan to repeal, why? Because it was a black man in the office, and to top it off, his name was Barack Hussein Obama II. Now they had their chance and have shown they don't do anything in congress other than milk their constituents.
The ones that actually work, and have a brain, disagree with the "new and improved" repeals that came out this year because it hurts people rather than help them. If the republican party would of had a nice plan ready for repeal, then maybe you could say it wasn't racist, it's a disagreement, because they didn't like the current one, but no they didn't have anything ready, and it just shows their true colors. It's one of the most pathetic falsehoods in modern history. Obama was doing a lot of things that people didn't like, including signing into law Obamacare. The electorate tossed the bums out. The Democrats went from a filibuster-proof majority to half the senators that voted for it gone and the largest Republican majority in Congress since 1928. A reasonable person would call that a mandate to oppose his legislative agenda. A miserable human being would call it an elected body of racists. I'd really like to see this forum turn around and we can get into what did get passed and how Obama sucked at compromise and working with Congress. But the first step is to get off this disease that this is all somehow due to racism. It's the absolute antithesis to debate and reasoning. I'm not going to prove the negative that it isn't racism any more than I'll ask you to prove God doesn't exist. And I didn't say "Republicans didn't do anything for eight years," I said they brought chaos down on themselves for not working on several legislative plans behind the scenes after Obamacare. OR they look at it as a reflection on the state of the economy and since we were still at the tail end of Bush's recession the party in power got the blame whicj is typically the case. Honestly Trump should be faring much bettet in polls considering the economy Obama handed him but he has hindered that every step of the way. Polls showed deep opposition to Obamacare and people polled rated it very highly in their voting decision and Congressmen used it heavily in their campaign ads to slaughter the opposition. Trump would be higher if he kept his trap shut going into left field on all kinds of issues, berating his own staff, and sticking to his own communication office's message. He's so far chosen to not do that. The only positive side effects have been when he waded into the culture wars and chummed the waters for media moralizing (the proven putting out bait and provoking the overreaction). I'm just glad for the small things we've gotten recently despite all of it: decertifying the Iran deal, condemning their terrorist acts, out of UNESCO, and complying with court orders on ACA. I might include the NFL culture wars bit, but I'm still undecided if taking the easy win outweighs meddling with it in the first place. How is the NFL siding with he player's rights(eventually), the people not buying the flaming bag of bullshit you and Trump tried to sell about disrespecting flag/veterans, and more people supporting the players than Trump "winning" in your eyes? Oh that's right, he successfully distracted people with racist inclinations and advocates of white supremacy from the massive and systemic violations of Black people's constitutional rights, up to and including being murdered by those charged with enforcing the law, who then rarely if ever see what are always reduced punishments. Now I completely understand why you would consider that a win in the culture wars. You really can't get past overlooking Kaepernick's actual quote making the flag about black oppression, can you? Remember the original prominent kneeler that everybody remembers and associates the movement with? People might think Trump was wrong to wade in, as do I, or the players look better than Trump, and who doesn't, but it's all about patriotism instead of police brutality and you won't see more and more kneeling with the fan backlash (ratings and ticket sales). The original Goodell response and massive retraction is all anyone remembers. Is all this whining about racists behind every bush and white supremacists underneath every rock due to your black fragility or some Coates "blackness?" Mhmm. but it's all about patriotism instead of police brutality and you won't see more and more kneeling with the fan backlash (ratings and ticket sales). The original Goodell response and massive retraction is all anyone remembers. I'm glad we can agree on why you think it's a win, moving on. What intrigues me is this "Black fragility". I think the imitation is cute, but I can't imagine what you mean, as it can't possibly be the same as white fragility. So what does this term, I presume you are going to create a definition for, mean? I’m only poking a little fun at how often racism/white supremacy/white fragility/whiteness gets brought up by you to explain it all. If white fragility is one hurt backlash, then being told it isn’t all about terrible people that hate other races is certainly prompting your black fragility to come out. Now I need a White Coates to pen an article in the Atlantic about how blackness is responsible for this mental derangement and we can come full circle.
There are hundreds of articles about this. David Brooks has written so many. So many. Coates writes about it in his book. The chapter is called The Audacity of Bill Cosby's Black Conservatism." It is all about the articles that exist blaming rap music, black culture, the inner cities, lack of father figures, constantly blaming white people. And about the black people who play along with the self flagellation in a bid for credibility and direction. Your problem is you see the word "whiteness" and think that its about skin color.
|
On October 21 2017 07:09 Nevuk wrote:This woman is having the time of her life ![[image loading]](https://am13.akamaized.net/med/cnt/uploads/2017/10/frederica-wilson-1.jpg) Show nested quote +
Rep. Frederica Wilson: ‘The White House Itself Is Full of
The congresswoman who’s been in a back-and-forth with the White House for days over President Trump‘s call to Sgt. La David Johnson‘s widow has continued to slam the White House.
Rep. Frederica Wilson (D- FL) first relayed what Trump said on that call, and the White House hit back, with even Gen. John Kelly publicly criticizing her yesterday.
And after video surfaced showing one of Kelly’s attacks against Wilson was inaccurate, Wilson again blasted him and the White House.
In an interview today with The New York Times, Wilson said, “I feel very sorry for him because he feels such a need to lie on me and I’m not even his enemy. I just can’t even imagine why he would fabricate something like that. That is absolutely insane. I’m just flabbergasted because it’s very easy to trace.”
The Times report says that she “stopped short” of accusing Kelly himself of racial animus, “she did say that others in the White House are racially biased”:
Ms. Wilson, in an interview on Friday, called Mr. Kelly a liar and hinted strongly that the altercation, prompted by a call from President Trump to the widow of a fallen black soldier, was racially charged.
“The White House itself is full of white supremacists,” she said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/us/politics/trump-kelly-congresswoman-wilson-niger.html?_r=0 Description via mediaite since can't copy paste nyt
Steve Miller is still there, Bannon's man behind enemy lines.
|
On October 21 2017 01:04 Jockmcplop wrote:
This is moronic in so many ways.
Does he know that the only rise in crime that has anything to do with muslims in the UK is a rise in islamophobic hate crimes? Exactly the kind his presidency encourages.
Fuck you Trump, you have your own people to piss off, stay out of our shit.
It's like when people say that trans people are involved in an high amount of sex crimes(or something I forget the exact verbage) per capita. It's like, no duh, because they're overwhelmingly the victim in them.
|
On October 21 2017 04:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2017 04:17 ChristianS wrote:On October 21 2017 03:22 Danglars wrote:
We did need more racism in this thread. When a black man does it, it's racism. When a white man does it, it's disagreement. The racism thing aside, there's really not that much ground for calling Dems obstructionists at the moment. There's not been much filibuster talk, because the Republicans aren't able to get their own caucus to vote for stuff. Meanwhile Dems are pursuing bipartisan legislation like the stabilization bill, cutting deals with Trump, etc. Compare to, say, the Garland nomination, where a number of Republicans even admitted that he was perfectly qualified, but simply refused to let it through Congress. You could argue with obstruction (as I might with racism) that it comes in a wide range of forms and intensities, ranging from virulent to mostly benign, and that the Dems are still guilty of a lesser form of obstructionism. But if you want to flatten all obstructionism to one level, and say the Dems are just as guilty now as the Republicans were then, you've watered the term down to simply mean "voting against legislation they disagree with." Quote the post. I used it to Shokeyy's assertion that Democrats are moving forward. They're not. I might be interested on your opinion on that divide.
Quoting multiple posts is complicated on mobile but I think you're referring to when Shockeyy said:
Republicans brought this chaos upon themselves. They chose to not work for eight years, and during that time, broke off into their own subsections of republicans, with their own agenda's and views. At least democrats have more or less the same ideology of moving forward rather than backwards.
I'm not sure I agree with him but I don't think obstructionism has much to do with it. The Republicans had a choice in ~2009 how to respond to the Democratic majority. They could shift toward the center to try and get some of the middle back - and I think some Republicans might have wanted to do this. Or they could make the most of the advantage an out-of-power party has: no responsibility for anything that goes wrong. Far right grassroots groups favored the latter, and the strategy proved decisively successful in 2010 so the Republicans stuck with it throughout the Obama administration, with reasonable electoral success.
I think there was a real lack of clarity as to what tea party types (or establishment Republicans, for that matter) wanted to do once they got power back. Even when they got majorities in Congress they still played it like the out-of-power party, insisting they couldn't really get to work until they had the WH too. All along I'd ask conservatives what on Earth their replacement plan for Obamacare was and they'd reply "oh they have plenty of ideas, just wait until they get in power and you'll see how great their replacements are." But the tea party types had a lot of crazy ideas, from 10% "tithe" flat taxes to 2 year mandatory military service, and those differences were largely inconsequential as long as the line was "wait until we're in power to pass anything." Let the crazies think you're on their side, as long as you don't have to actually do anything to prove it.
Now they're in power and it's pretty obvious they don't have a policy consensus in their caucus. Even calling them "in power" is a little weird considering a lot of Republican congressmen probably hate Trump and have fairly little in common with him ideologically. Even among themselves, how much do the "End the Fed" libertarians and Kim Davis religious conservatives really have in common? Take Obama out of the picture, and why are they on the same side?
So far I'm pretty much agreeing with Shockeyy. He said, though, that the Dems are more unified in purpose by comparison - they favor "moving forward rather than backward." That they're opposing (obstructing, in a watered-down sense) Trump and the Republicans hardly disproves this; they can't really be expected to keep things moving forward after losing control of the whole government. But I think I disagree that the Dems are very unified at the moment. Of course they'll say they have a beautiful vision for the future that they'll deliver if the voters will just give them power back. The details of that vision are pretty important, though, and it's a little hard to flesh those details when they have no power to implement any of it right now. "Moving forward" is pretty vague, and they easily might have the same problem if/when they get power back. I'm not sure we'll know for sure until it happens.
|
On October 21 2017 07:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2017 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 21 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On October 21 2017 05:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 21 2017 04:46 Danglars wrote:On October 21 2017 04:18 Adreme wrote:On October 21 2017 04:13 Danglars wrote:On October 21 2017 03:22 Danglars wrote:
We did need more racism in this thread. When a black man does it, it's racism. When a white man does it, it's disagreement. On October 21 2017 03:43 ShoCkeyy wrote:
But that's exactly what it is. Republicans didn't do anything for eight years, you said so yourself, they didn't do anything, not even come up with a plan to repeal, why? Because it was a black man in the office, and to top it off, his name was Barack Hussein Obama II. Now they had their chance and have shown they don't do anything in congress other than milk their constituents.
The ones that actually work, and have a brain, disagree with the "new and improved" repeals that came out this year because it hurts people rather than help them. If the republican party would of had a nice plan ready for repeal, then maybe you could say it wasn't racist, it's a disagreement, because they didn't like the current one, but no they didn't have anything ready, and it just shows their true colors. It's one of the most pathetic falsehoods in modern history. Obama was doing a lot of things that people didn't like, including signing into law Obamacare. The electorate tossed the bums out. The Democrats went from a filibuster-proof majority to half the senators that voted for it gone and the largest Republican majority in Congress since 1928. A reasonable person would call that a mandate to oppose his legislative agenda. A miserable human being would call it an elected body of racists. I'd really like to see this forum turn around and we can get into what did get passed and how Obama sucked at compromise and working with Congress. But the first step is to get off this disease that this is all somehow due to racism. It's the absolute antithesis to debate and reasoning. I'm not going to prove the negative that it isn't racism any more than I'll ask you to prove God doesn't exist. And I didn't say "Republicans didn't do anything for eight years," I said they brought chaos down on themselves for not working on several legislative plans behind the scenes after Obamacare. OR they look at it as a reflection on the state of the economy and since we were still at the tail end of Bush's recession the party in power got the blame whicj is typically the case. Honestly Trump should be faring much bettet in polls considering the economy Obama handed him but he has hindered that every step of the way. Polls showed deep opposition to Obamacare and people polled rated it very highly in their voting decision and Congressmen used it heavily in their campaign ads to slaughter the opposition. Trump would be higher if he kept his trap shut going into left field on all kinds of issues, berating his own staff, and sticking to his own communication office's message. He's so far chosen to not do that. The only positive side effects have been when he waded into the culture wars and chummed the waters for media moralizing (the proven putting out bait and provoking the overreaction). I'm just glad for the small things we've gotten recently despite all of it: decertifying the Iran deal, condemning their terrorist acts, out of UNESCO, and complying with court orders on ACA. I might include the NFL culture wars bit, but I'm still undecided if taking the easy win outweighs meddling with it in the first place. How is the NFL siding with he player's rights(eventually), the people not buying the flaming bag of bullshit you and Trump tried to sell about disrespecting flag/veterans, and more people supporting the players than Trump "winning" in your eyes? Oh that's right, he successfully distracted people with racist inclinations and advocates of white supremacy from the massive and systemic violations of Black people's constitutional rights, up to and including being murdered by those charged with enforcing the law, who then rarely if ever see what are always reduced punishments. Now I completely understand why you would consider that a win in the culture wars. You really can't get past overlooking Kaepernick's actual quote making the flag about black oppression, can you? Remember the original prominent kneeler that everybody remembers and associates the movement with? People might think Trump was wrong to wade in, as do I, or the players look better than Trump, and who doesn't, but it's all about patriotism instead of police brutality and you won't see more and more kneeling with the fan backlash (ratings and ticket sales). The original Goodell response and massive retraction is all anyone remembers. Is all this whining about racists behind every bush and white supremacists underneath every rock due to your black fragility or some Coates "blackness?" Mhmm. but it's all about patriotism instead of police brutality and you won't see more and more kneeling with the fan backlash (ratings and ticket sales). The original Goodell response and massive retraction is all anyone remembers. I'm glad we can agree on why you think it's a win, moving on. What intrigues me is this "Black fragility". I think the imitation is cute, but I can't imagine what you mean, as it can't possibly be the same as white fragility. So what does this term, I presume you are going to create a definition for, mean? I’m only poking a little fun at how often racism/white supremacy/white fragility/whiteness gets brought up by you to explain it all. If white fragility is one hurt backlash, then being told it isn’t all about terrible people that hate other races is certainly prompting your black fragility to come out. Now I need a White Coates to pen an article in the Atlantic about how blackness is responsible for this mental derangement and we can come full circle.
There's a bit more to it than "hurt backlash" and you should know by now I don't think it's all about race, that's just one part in particular people like yourselves can't deal with and I refuse to let you think that's an acceptable position (without acknowledging your support of white supremacy).
Just remember folks, in a country where Nazis and white supremacists are marching and saluting Hitler, it's the people putting tarps on statues that are indicative of a dangerous slippery slope, not the advocates of white supremacy (including a president that called people marching with nazi flags "very fine people") defending the right for people to advocate genocide and occasionally inspire someone to act violently to instigate it.
|
When you receive this email. What a joke.![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/9HyQxOy.png)
|
United States43165 Posts
Could be worth it. Will Trump drive through Dallas in an open top motorcade? I'd throw $3 into the crowdfunded campaign if he would.
|
that’s a weird thing to say
|
On October 21 2017 09:01 brian wrote:
that’s a weird thing to say
indeed, people don't joke about assassination that often.
|
United States43165 Posts
On October 21 2017 09:07 zlefin wrote:indeed, people don't joke about assassination that often.
No, you misunderstood me. You see I was saying that Second Amendment supporters are very passionate and politically active people and therefore they would be more likely to vote in the 2016 election.
|
On October 21 2017 06:53 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2017 05:53 Plansix wrote:
Danglars is apparently transparent. Neither white nor black. And deeply trouble whenever anyone talks about whiteness or blackness. I hope I'll be born transparent in my next life! Just imagine the possibilities...
There would be some clear advantages to that.
|
On October 21 2017 09:10 mikedebo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2017 06:53 thePunGun wrote:On October 21 2017 05:53 Plansix wrote:
Danglars is apparently transparent. Neither white nor black. And deeply trouble whenever anyone talks about whiteness or blackness. I hope I'll be born transparent in my next life! Just imagine the possibilities... There would be some clear advantages to that.
Shut it down folks, that's enough internet for today.
|
On October 21 2017 09:10 mikedebo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2017 06:53 thePunGun wrote:On October 21 2017 05:53 Plansix wrote:
Danglars is apparently transparent. Neither white nor black. And deeply trouble whenever anyone talks about whiteness or blackness. I hope I'll be born transparent in my next life! Just imagine the possibilities... There would be some clear advantages to that.
I'm not even a pun guy but I gotta give it up.
|
On October 21 2017 09:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2017 09:07 zlefin wrote:On October 21 2017 09:01 brian wrote:
that’s a weird thing to say indeed, people don't joke about assassination that often. No, you misunderstood me. You see I was saying that Second Amendment supporters are very passionate and politically active people and therefore they would be more likely to vote in the 2016 election.
So this looked to me like a bad taste joke followed by a deflection to "yeah but Trump did it once too," which is hardly a good example to follow. Am I missing something? I figured "I hope the president gets assassinated" jokes were probably not kosher
|
On October 21 2017 09:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2017 09:07 zlefin wrote:On October 21 2017 09:01 brian wrote:
that’s a weird thing to say indeed, people don't joke about assassination that often. No, you misunderstood me. You see I was saying that Second Amendment supporters are very passionate and politically active people and therefore they would be more likely to vote in the 2016 election.
wp. i take it back i guess.
|
Agreed, let's not be Trump. The president getting killed is serious shit, not to be joked about.
|
These mother fuckers are going to deploy my brother to some unknown part of the world, get him killed and not tell my family for a month. Jesus fucking Christ. They can't even above lying about who he called, or just admit he didn't call everyone. Every moment of this gets me more pissed off.
|
http://www.dailywire.com/news/22540/trump-was-right-gold-star-widow-releases-trumps-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand#
So this settles it? Everything was fabricated, and Trumps sounds more of a decent human being than he ever has.
he video, obtained by The Washington Post, shows President Trump being respectful and kind to the widow of Army Staff Sgt. Mark R. De Alencar.
“I am so sorry to hear about the whole situation.” President Trump said. “What a horrible thing, except that he’s an unbelievable hero.”
“Thank you. I really, really appreciate it,” Natasha De Alencar said. “I really do, sir.”
Trump warmly welcomed her to the White House if she ever visited Washington D.C., saying that he considers her family.
“If you’re around Washington, you come over and see me in the Oval Office,” Trump continued. “You just come over and see me because you are just the kind of family … this is what we want.”
“Say hello to your children, and tell them your father, he was a great hero that I respected,” Trump said. “Just tell them I said your father was a great hero.”
Video on the link.
|
On October 21 2017 11:12 GoTuNk! wrote:http://www.dailywire.com/news/22540/trump-was-right-gold-star-widow-releases-trumps-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand#So this settles it? Everything was fabricated, and Trumps sounds more of a decent human being than he ever has. Show nested quote +he video, obtained by The Washington Post, shows President Trump being respectful and kind to the widow of Army Staff Sgt. Mark R. De Alencar.
“I am so sorry to hear about the whole situation.” President Trump said. “What a horrible thing, except that he’s an unbelievable hero.”
“Thank you. I really, really appreciate it,” Natasha De Alencar said. “I really do, sir.”
Trump warmly welcomed her to the White House if she ever visited Washington D.C., saying that he considers her family.
“If you’re around Washington, you come over and see me in the Oval Office,” Trump continued. “You just come over and see me because you are just the kind of family … this is what we want.”
“Say hello to your children, and tell them your father, he was a great hero that I respected,” Trump said. “Just tell them I said your father was a great hero.” Video on the link.
Different widow. Mark R. De Alencar and La David T. Johnson are 2 different people.
|
This is a different widow, so I don't think it proves anything?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
