US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9457

On December 07 2017 13:21 Danglars wrote:

It's always a nice reminder from you to how statue defacement and removal was supposed to be limited to Confederate generals, until it wasn't. But you're into erasing more recent history, like how Trump was castigated for implying that Washington and Jefferson would be next after the Robert E Lee statue. Nah, buddies, let's forget about all that: what matters is a conservative said slippery slope and that's the punch line!

On December 07 2017 13:11 Danglars wrote:


I knew I couldn't have been the only one to observe this. + Show Spoiler +

On December 07 2017 13:20 micronesia wrote:
Other than the tweets that you posted only after I pointed out your post was unsupported, I did not observe the reaction you claim to have because I don't talk to the large group of California millennials that you apparently do.

I wouldn't have responded if you pointed out ridiculous responses on the basis of them being ridiculous (and would agree in some cases). But you didn't do that. You called out a not ridiculous tweet and then generalized the left with it.

It seems like you don't really have any problem with the way Pelosi conveyed herself regarding the alleged public safety threats. Personally, I would prefer if you called out the nonsense directly (which you have partially done after being pressed) rather than call out otherwise innocuous remarks from notable liberals as an excuse to criticize previous comments on another issue and wrap it all up as a negative characterization of the left as though the very things you are accusing the left of, even if true to the extent you are claiming, is not more severe than what the right has done with leftist agenda items like the Affordable Care Act which I haven't seen you call out at all.

On December 07 2017 13:29 mozoku wrote:

I'm actually disappointed I don't see a little bit more zealotry where I'm at. I recently moved into the most Democratic majority-white congressional district in the country but it's been surprisingly apolitical. Perhaps my neighborhood is too business district-y.

On December 07 2017 13:27 GreenHorizons wrote:


I wasn't one of the "it's just the confederate generals" people so that's probably why you're confused about why your comment is foolish.

On December 07 2017 13:47 Danglars wrote:

I assumed fellow readers of this thread would remember all the doom-and-gloom comments, since the bill passed the Senate only a week ago. I said before in this quote chain, and I'll say it again, it felt like Trump had just gotten re-elected and we were observing live reactions. I made reference to that fact in "They've put a pause on America being literally over from the tax bill." As in, the tweet stands out as humorous when contrasted that America is over, but now has a public safety issue. In any case, I didn't explicitly bring up the context I thought people would immediately connect to the tweet, so I hope I've cleared up exactly what I find humorous by over-explaining the joke.

The rest of your post surprises me, micronesia. The first is how on earth you come to conclude "[you] wrap it all up as a negative characterization of the left." I'm about on my third time of saying it's about some elected leaders and many journalists and media figures. I did not use "the left," I never implied "the left," and maybe in future you can reserve your personal critiques for the slew of other people that actually say "liberals always do this." I'm observing this of the very vocal group of people that act like Pelosi in the heightened rhetoric after the tax bill.

Secondly, maybe you should spend some time reading and calling out your own party's bullshit if you expect others to do so ("I haven't seen you call out at all.") I have a very simple message for you: I've never seen you explicitly condemn the rhetoric that the tax bill kills tens of thousands or millions, nor when Democratic elected leaders go over the top generally, but I would never suggest you're party to those actions because you aren't engaging in that behavior in your posts. Now, if you can consider extending the same to your fellow posters on the right, when I personally know and remember some ACA rhetoric that I'd disagree with, then I think we'll together be at a good place. The thread moves fast for both of us, there's limited time and topics to reply to, and many times when I post I have between three and eight different people responding, because this forum lacks conservative/leans conservative voices.

On December 07 2017 13:56 Danglars wrote:

Well, you are mis-summarizing what I referenced with the slippery slope, so at least you're confused at why I said it in the first place. Big-publication journalists assumed Trump was off his rocker for suggesting it wasn't confined to confederates like Lee, and they were proven wrong.

On December 07 2017 13:47 Danglars wrote:

I assumed fellow readers of this thread would remember all the doom-and-gloom comments, since the bill passed the Senate only a week ago.

I said before in this quote chain, and I'll say it again, it felt like Trump had just gotten re-elected and we were observing live reactions. I made reference to that fact in "They've put a pause on America being literally over from the tax bill." As in, the tweet stands out as humorous when contrasted that America is over, but now has a public safety issue. In any case, I didn't explicitly bring up the context I thought people would immediately connect to the tweet, so I hope I've cleared up exactly what I find humorous by over-explaining the joke.

The rest of your post surprises me, micronesia. The first is how on earth you come to conclude "[you] wrap it all up as a negative characterization of the left." I'm about on my third time of saying it's about some elected leaders and many journalists and media figures.

I did not use "the left," I never implied "the left," and maybe in future you can reserve your personal critiques for the slew of other people that actually say "liberals always do this." I'm observing this of the very vocal group of people that act like Pelosi in the heightened rhetoric after the tax bill.

Secondly, maybe you should spend some time reading and calling out your own party's bullshit if you expect others to do so ("I haven't seen you call out at all.")

I have a very simple message for you: I've never seen you explicitly condemn the rhetoric that the tax bill kills tens of thousands or millions, nor when Democratic elected leaders go over the top generally, but I would never suggest you're party to those actions because you aren't engaging in that behavior in your posts. Now, if you can consider extending the same to your fellow posters on the right, when I personally know and remember some ACA rhetoric that I'd disagree with, then I think we'll together be at a good place. The thread moves fast for both of us, there's limited time and topics to reply to, and many times when I post I have between three and eight different people responding, because this forum lacks conservative/leans conservative voices.

On December 07 2017 16:29 Grumbels wrote:
re: Ben Shapiro, if you want to read a good takedown of him you should read this

https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-philosopher

Young people looking up to Shapiro is a genuinely sad phenomenon. Also, there is clearly huge overlap between the alt right and Shapiro’s fan base. Saying he is not alt right because he is Jewish seems to me to miss the point.

On December 07 2017 08:34 mozoku wrote:

Or maybe the issue is reading comprehension:

The argument is about hypocrisy, which apparently all of you except Kollin missed.

I've repeatedly and unwaveringly stated that I consider Moore's actions to be repulsive. If you consider Moore's actions to be pedophiliac (I certainly would agree to something along those lines), you need to explain why you've never had an issue with pedophilia being legal in several of the largest countries in Europe.

Kollin: You could argue that people who live in countries where the age of consent 16+ aren't being hypocritical, but I have my doubts that the accusations of pedophilia would be revoked if the 14 year old never brought up her case. To directly answer your question, I use the rough definition below on italics. If I had to pick a number, it'd be at least 18 or higher if there's a significant age gap, but some people mature faster or slower than others.

Also, Macron and his wife started dating before he was 17 according to Wikipedia. I don't have any problem with a a 24-year age gap assuming both parties are consenting, fully-developed adults. I have my doubts whether that was true when Macron was 16, but it seems that it fortunately led to no harms in his case.

Though this changes nothing in my opinion, I thought I'd mention for the record that I learned today that the age of consent in Alabama is 16.

The age of consent in Germany is 14, as long as a person over the age of 21 does not exploit a 14- to 15-year-old person's lack of capacity for sexual self-determination, in which case a conviction of an individual over the age of 21 requires a complaint from the younger individual; being over 21 and engaging in sexual relations with a minor of that age does not constitute an offense by itself. Otherwise the age of consent is 16, although provisions protecting minors against abuse apply until the age of 18 (under Section 182(1), it is illegal to engage in sexual activity with a person under 18 "by taking advantage of an exploitative situation"[36]).

On December 07 2017 18:29 Introvert wrote:
When left has universal disdain for pretty much everyone besides David Brooks it's pretty easy to see how pieces that like that are written and even easier to see how they get labeled as takedowns. The ones that slam together hyperlinks every few words are espeically obnoxious, for reasons that I'm sure are obvious once one spends a few seconds thinking about it.

edit: I mean just take the part on Israel, which is now relevant. When an entire population is propagandized to hate Israel so much that they cheer in streets when innocents are attacked and the government compensates the terrorist's family, saying that they are moral reprobates and peace is unlikely seems pretty defensible.

lol looking through more of these links is pretty funny and really demonstrates the point made in my first sentence.

On December 07 2017 18:54 Grumbels wrote:

Being leftwing would have absolutely no meaning if it did not involve opposition to everyone to the right of David Brooks. Especially opposition to absolute racist scum like Ben Shapiro who should, in a normal society, be considered anathema. I don’t know what you think is unfair to Shapiro in that article, but to me his opinion on the subhuman evil of the Arab race means that every criticism of him is fair game. Honestly, what is wrong with you that you would read near-genocidal stuff like that and think, hm, interesting point, hmm.

Ah, the fabled Palestinian people. The Palestinian people, who simply want "a better life." The Palestinian people, who, President George W. Bush has repeatedly informed us, "long for a society in which they can raise their children in peace and hope."

The Palestinian people, who support, fund and execute suicide bombings. The Palestinian people, who dress their toddlers in bomb belts and then take family snapshots. The Palestinian people, who cheered on September 11 as the World Trade Center towers fell. The Palestinian people, who followed terrorist extraordinaire Yasser Arafat, supported Saddam Hussein, shredded the blooming rose that was once Christian Lebanon, and almost toppled the Western-friendly Jordanian monarchy. The Palestinian people, who destroy relics on the Temple Mount, openly call for the destruction of the state of Israel, ally with Syria and Iran, and elect Hamas. The Palestinian people, who teach their children that the Holocaust is a fairy tale, and that Jews routinely poison Palestinian candy. The Palestinian people, who stage injuries in order to solicit Western media sympathy, and then roar madly as they hold up their hands, red with the blood of murdered Israeli soldiers.

The idea of an entire population corrupted by bloodthirsty anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism violates modern ideas of politics. According to the Bush administration, the problem with the Palestinian Arabs isn't the Palestinian Arabs — it's their leadership. During Yasser Arafat's tenure, the problem was Yasser Arafat, not the hundreds of thousands who followed him. Now the problem is Hamas, not the hundreds of thousands who supported and elected them.

The problem runs deeper than a few figureheads. The Palestinian Arab population is rotten to the core. There are many to be blamed: Yasser Arafat, who lined his pockets with cash and subsidized murder while playing the victim of oppression. An Arab world that refused to absorb the Palestinian population, preferring to use it as a political pawn against Israel. The United Nations, which suckled the Palestinian Arab population into dependency at the international teat. Israel, for emboldening the Palestinian Arabs by conceding to them.

But in the end, the blame must lie with the Palestinian Arabs themselves. They have accepted their role with relish. They are as responsible for their government's longstanding evil as the Germans were for the Nazis'.

It is far more convenient, however, for the Bush administration and the international community to treat the Palestinian Arabs' thoroughgoing radicalism as a top-down problem. Throw a bit of money at the Holocaust denier, pressure Israel into concessions and hope that the Palestinian Arabs will abandon their attachment to Islamofascism, the logic runs.

Such policy demonstrates an adolescent understanding of Palestinian Arab motivation. Palestinian Arabs will not be bribed: The West has bribed them for decades, and the Palestinian Arabs have demonstrated their preference for suicide bombing over working toilets. Palestinian Arabs will not be moderated: Israel has ceded land continuously since 1993, and the Palestinian Arabs have demonstrated their preference for murder over peace. Palestinian Arabs must be fought on their own terms: as a people dedicated to an evil cause.

So far, Israel and America have willfully blinded themselves to the harsh reality of popular evil. They have refused to come to terms with the harsh fact that collective choices require collective treatment.

Treating collective problems as problems of individuals is a vacuous panacea. Waiting for Arafat to die of old age did not moderate the Palestinian Arabs; supporting one radical over another will not moderate them, either. The Palestinian Arab population breeds terrorism, anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. If Israel and America refuse to recognize that simple truth, they will continue to pay the price in blood and treasure.