US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9155

On November 05 2017 10:14 Kyadytim wrote:

I looked up that Flight 93 election essay. There's a terrifying element to the urgent "we are headed off a cliff message". If someone believes that liberalism is bad for America and liberals are either blindly or intentionally destroying America, and "charging the cockpit" (electing Donald Trump) is a bad idea but the only possible means of survival, basically anything can be justified in the name of trying to pull the country back from disaster. This is the sort of mentality that lead to people cheering as Julius and Augustus transformed Rome from a republic into an empire.

On November 05 2017 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:


I find it pretty amusing you genuinely think I'm the one of us two with an "ass-backwards understanding on racial politics".

It's not hard to understand. The US government was still assassinating black people trying to uplift their community while the 60's versions of you complained about uppity blacks not understanding the realities of race in America.

You're so far gone that you really can't even see how absurd you look right now in this moment, and I have to admit it kind of gives me life.

On November 05 2017 10:36 Danglars wrote:

It's not hard to understand. You conclude I advocate white supremacy from the things I post on this board. You're debasing actual racism by tarring your political opponents with the worst racial terms you can get your hands on. You're putting conscientious conservatives into Richard Spencer's little crew because you can't wrap your head around people of a different race disagreeing with you on the issues. It's absurd and it characterizes a lot of what's wrong with politics these days and plenty of the reason why you elected Trump. I really do hope yourself and allies continue to be loud and proud of your racial narrative because Republicans will need all the help they can get.

On November 05 2017 10:44 GreenHorizons wrote:


I conclude your posts advocate white supremacy from your posts on the board. Yeah... How else would I do it?

It's not hard for me to acknowledge there are differences between what you do and Richard Spencer and that you are both advocating white supremacy.

You seem to be unable to understand that simply advocating/protecting white supremacy isn't the particularly bad part (hell, I do it sometimes), it's when folks like yourself obstinately refuse to acknowledge it or make any attempt to remedy it within themselves, let alone society that makes the behavior particularly disgusting.

On November 05 2017 10:53 Danglars wrote:

Your ideology leads you to absurd conclusions. You literally have to say strangers on the internet are like Richard Spencer because disagreement is advocacy of white supremacy. Absolutely absurd. You debase the terms to apply them liberally. What might be allies in the fight against police brutality get branded and distanced.

Others here want Trump to be some exception to the progression of presidents. He'll be gone in four or eight years, but labeling people white supremacists (for reasons, or course!!!) will endure. That part of political dialogue (if labeling the 'other' white supremacist can be called dialogue) is going to continue to repel people in America. Agree with me or be called racist? Yeah, fuck that I'm going with the other team. They may be disgusting in their own right, but at least I'll be heard and not branded and stigmatized.

Brazile’s book, titled “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House,” will be released Tuesday by Hachette Books. A copy of the 288-page book was obtained in advance by The Washington Post.

Brazile writes that she was haunted by the still-unsolved murder of DNC data staffer Seth Rich and feared for her own life, shutting the blinds to her office window so snipers could not see her and installing surveillance cameras at her home. She wonders whether Russians had placed a listening device in plants in the DNC executive suite.

The WikiLeaks releases included an email in which Brazile, a paid CNN contributor at the time, shared potential topics and questions for a CNN town hall in advance with the Clinton campaign. She claims in her book that she did not recall sending the email and could not find it in her computer archives. Nevertheless, she eventually admitted publicly to sending it, believing her reputation would have suffered regardless.

On November 05 2017 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:


If the proposition (for simplicity sake) is " White people calling Black people nigger is racist" the options are you agree or you're racist. Tough shit.

You could pretend we lose you when we get into the more tangential, but I wouldn't be surprised for you to argue that point already.

On November 05 2017 09:23 biology]major wrote:


I don't get it either, whats so hard about admitting that crooked hillary is possibly the most honest thing trump has said? This thread though repeatedly shows examples of people downplaying the flaws of their favs. "no she didn't"--> "eh it's not that bad" --> "so what everyone does it" --> "trump sucks". the right does the same shit too.

On November 05 2017 10:14 Kyadytim wrote:

I looked up that Flight 93 election essay. There's a terrifying element to the urgent "we are headed off a cliff" message. If someone believes that liberalism is bad for America and liberals are either blindly or intentionally destroying America, and "charging the cockpit" (electing Donald Trump) is a bad idea but the only possible means of survival, basically anything can be justified in the name of trying to pull the country back from disaster. This is the sort of mentality that lead to people cheering as Julius and Augustus transformed Rome from a republic into an empire.

On November 05 2017 10:08 Plansix wrote:


Yo they came for me when I owed like 200 when I was 19. No warrant, but it was close. This guy however.

On November 05 2017 11:13 zlefin wrote:

yep; and the people who elected trump are exactly the kind of crazed mob that will do that; they're happy to destroy democracy, and did indeed vote against democracy itself quite clearly. so a very apt analogy.
and of course it's patently false and has little relation to reality. but it does demonstrate their deluded mindset well.
sadly this is the kind of madness we have to deal with

On November 05 2017 10:28 Danglars wrote:

You should focus in on the conservative thought process.
+ Show Spoiler +

There's a lead up to that conclusion: that we're actually in some dire times. The political system is corrupt. The left has been ascendant culturally for around 70 years. Conservatives haven't gotten anything accomplished politically since the Gingrich Revolution. Their job historically has been to show up and lose. Stand in front of the train yelling stop. Hillary represented a big push of the progressive agenda, with a huge mandate after Obama's 8 years (but slower and more corrupt than Bernie). The pace of mass immigration is awful, and probably leads to a loss of Texas and other Republican strongholds crucial to bringing the country back in the future. It's literally twelve paragraphs of lead-up to the conclusion.

It wasn't time to wait until 2020/2024 to put a stop to the progressive agenda. It was time to take a break from pushing this agenda first, before working to a real conservative candidate in the future (and the party has a terrible time fielding conservatives that fight for principle and can articulate it). A great many things can be justified after accepting conservative philosophy says the country is headed off a cliff, or can't claw its way back from a hole after 4 years/8 years of Clinton. All that's called for is pausing the descent, quite raucously, to give us a shot at retaking institutions and renewing the culture. Conservatives, after all, do believe in the rule of law and constitutional government ... not Caesar-like revolution Trump lifetime dictator shit.

EDIT: oBlade's phrase of discount version of Democrats comes to mind on this topic. Trump didn't try to say the right things and cave upon election, he said all the wrong things and showed people you can toss the Dem bullshit right back at them (however poorly he identifies and executes).

On November 05 2017 06:06 Danglars wrote:

You can't separate them out if you want to talk the benevolence of one country versus another. If you ignore massive parts wrong with China, but take all of America's at face value, you've lost the opportunity to make international benevolence comparisons. The exclusion practically proves the rule. China oppresses its emigrated citizens by holding captive their family members and jailing and torturing them. That certainly is a problem with foreign relations of other governments with China. One Example.

You need to live somewhere that isn't United States or Europe? I don't see how more first-hand knowledge of third world banana republics improves your case. If anything, it heightens the need for political stability with representative government. As in, a United States that accepts the results of the election and moves on, instead of these bizarre white supremacy hysteria that shows one side of the political aisle only likes the system if they win and run it.

I'm fine with foreign media dumping on Trump. Our goal isn't to move the center of our politics to European norms or Asian norms. They can either accept that our politics and culture and national makeup is different, or they can't. We'd see a century of leftist rule if the goal was to appease the foreign press. The bottom line is the world likes the US being a patsy that guarantees their national security, but doesn't act in a manner that makes sense for them. In another generation, maybe they also click back to the reality of America--that would be a welcome change. You're making a mighty leap between negative views of America abroad and comparing China and America in terms of benevolence.

On November 05 2017 12:13 Kyadytim wrote:

There's a couple of assumptions that are being made. First is that the left is culturally ascendant. Second is that the left being culturally ascendant means dire times. Remember, this article was written concerning the general election. This wasn't a "We're doomed if we don't pull conservatism from it's defeatist path" article. It was a "We're doomed if we don't stop liberalism, and it's therefore worth any risk to stop it," article.

I'm not saying that I don't understand the chain of logic presented. Using a Russian Roulette analogy like the article (which is kind of accidentally extra appropriate), Trump is a revolver pointed at the stability and rule of law of this country, and for the sake of stopping liberalism, the risk of destroying America itself is acceptable. I disagree with basically everything Republicans stand for, but I don't treat conservatism itself as something that threatens the very existence of the country(1). How do I, as a liberal, attempt to have any sort of productive discourse or even negotiate a state of mutual tolerance when interacting with people who hate and/or fear the things I believe are good for America with such a passion that they would rather see America destroyed than see my ideals realized?

This is why I found that essay terrifying. I know a number of conservatives treat liberals as an enemy. Some liberals treat conservatives as an enemy. But an enemy can be negotiated with. An uneasy peace can be found with an enemy. But if liberalism is a threat of guaranteed doom that must be stopped at any cost, even if the solution risks the same doom? For a liberal, there's no negotiating or settling into a ceasefire with people holding that attitude. I do not view conservatives as enemies, but the "Stop liberalism at all costs" attitude is going to force me to act that way regardless of my views. How can I offer compromise, seek common ground, or even ignore conservative ideas that I find distasteful when every hesitation or peace offering on my part is simply taken as a weakness to be exploited on the charge to seize the cockpit?



(1) I do believe that gerrymandering is working its way towards being an existential threat to the US democracy. Taking Wisconsin as an example of where gerrymandering is headed, I believe that if left unchecked politicians will be able to entrench their side in power regardless what voters desire unless a huge shift in the electorate occurs. I don't think gerrymandering is a partisan issue. Democrats do it too when they're in power, and it really needs to stop.

+ Show Spoiler +

On November 05 2017 13:51 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Apparently a bunch of new sealed indictments just popped up. RICO?



+ Show Spoiler +