|
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 January 16 2018 12:04 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2018 12:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2018 12:00 zlefin wrote:
the tone of that article makes it extremely suspect; sounds like standard bs, claiming the "other" side (which in this case would be the centrist dems) did something bad, usually by inaccurately twisting things, or any of the numerous other standard rhetorical deceits. Sounds like you're just saying what you think without having any idea about the information relevant to what you're talking about. dude, why you gotta start it up again? with a terribad post like that? you're just trolling with that. your post adds nothing but vitriol.
It's not vitriol, it's stating what is obvious to just about everyone but you. Your post was wholly worthless and the thing is, unlike most of the worthless posts, yours are never even remotely funny.
If you have no idea what the article is talking about, didn't read it, and didn't read what it was referencing you should expect to have that pointed out to you.
|
On January 16 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2018 12:04 zlefin wrote:On January 16 2018 12:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2018 12:00 zlefin wrote:
the tone of that article makes it extremely suspect; sounds like standard bs, claiming the "other" side (which in this case would be the centrist dems) did something bad, usually by inaccurately twisting things, or any of the numerous other standard rhetorical deceits. Sounds like you're just saying what you think without having any idea about the information relevant to what you're talking about. dude, why you gotta start it up again? with a terribad post like that? you're just trolling with that. your post adds nothing but vitriol. It's not vitriol, it's stating what is obvious to just about everyone but you. Your post was wholly worthless and the thing is, unlike most of the worthless posts, yours are never even remotely funny. If you have no idea what the article is talking about, didn't read it, and didn't read what it was referencing you should expect to have that pointed out to you.
yes, you're trolling; cuz I did read the article, knew what it was about, knew what it was referencines, and my point stands as correct in its entirety, which youd' know if you bother to read my post, but you didn't. so yes, it is vitriol, and completely ignoring reality.
|
On January 16 2018 12:16 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2018 12:04 zlefin wrote:On January 16 2018 12:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2018 12:00 zlefin wrote:
the tone of that article makes it extremely suspect; sounds like standard bs, claiming the "other" side (which in this case would be the centrist dems) did something bad, usually by inaccurately twisting things, or any of the numerous other standard rhetorical deceits. Sounds like you're just saying what you think without having any idea about the information relevant to what you're talking about. dude, why you gotta start it up again? with a terribad post like that? you're just trolling with that. your post adds nothing but vitriol. It's not vitriol, it's stating what is obvious to just about everyone but you. Your post was wholly worthless and the thing is, unlike most of the worthless posts, yours are never even remotely funny. If you have no idea what the article is talking about, didn't read it, and didn't read what it was referencing you should expect to have that pointed out to you. yes, you're trolling; cuz I did read the article, knew what it was about, knew what it was referencines, and my point stands as correct in its entirety, which youd' know if you bother to read my post, but you didn't. so yes, it is vitriol, and completely ignoring reality.
Perhaps if you included some example of the inaccurate twisting or other rhetorical deceptions it would have been indicative of your post having value, but it didn't.
As it stands it's just your unsubstantiated opinion against a well articulated article.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37108 Posts
I'm stepping in before this turns into a shit-fest. GH, you are to leave zlefin alone. Drop the personal attack against him and just focus on discussing the topic at hand.
|
On January 16 2018 11:19 KwarK wrote:
Anyone who accept's the attempt to pivot from shithole countries produce shithole immigrants into some kind of merit based immigration system is mentally defective and beyond help.
Well when a merit-based immigration system isn't on the table (I have no idea how you think that was ever in the discussion in the first place), but topics like the diversity lottery and refugee policy are... limiting immigration from "shithole" countries isn't a very far off proxy for limiting low-skill immigrants. Why would Trump be selling stump-speech racism... to a bunch of fucking Democratic senators anyway? You couldn't find a further out-of-context frame than yours if you tried. The only way your framing makes any sense is if you (as you usually do) start from the premise of "everything Trump does is racist."
I'm pretty sure you could find a racial framing for how Trump gets out of bed in the morning, so I won't expend too much effort in this discussion.
|
On January 16 2018 12:27 Seeker wrote:
I'm stepping in before this turns into a shit-fest. GH, you are to leave zlefin alone. Drop the personal attack against him and just focus on discussing the topic at hand.
It's not a personal attack it's directly pointed at his post and it's lack of substance. Unlike the personal attacks he lobs through PM's
|
Well, having read the article myself I certainly don't trust the person who wrote it, for more or less the reasons zlefin outlined.
The argument (which the author claims to be his central point) that Manning is somehow entitled to a Senate seat over the incumbent on account of her being a "pioneering" and "marginalised minority" (ignoring the other context which applies specifically to Manning), based on the actions of establishment Democrats in the past, seems pretty dubious.
As far as I can see the only part which attempts to justify this argument is
they give themselves license to support old straight white men at the expense of pioneering minority candidates when doing so advances their ideological agenda, whereas leftists who do so are vilified for doing the same thing (see the rhetoric from Clinton supporters in the 2016 Democratic Party primary about the misogynistic, malignant motives of Sanders supporters for how that works).
which seems to be at best oversimplification.
The rest of it just reads like random smears on whatever targets were within reach. It's entirely possible and likely some of the author's attacks are justified but that article gives me no reason to take his word for it.
|
In all seriousness though, Chelsea Manning is obviously not someone the Democrat Party should ever want to associate with.
She's carried herself with a certain carte-blanche since being released, acting as if being convicted for conspiracy against your country and having a sex-change are qualities that should immediately give her a prominent voice or role in progressive matters. She bears much of the entitled-attitude I couldn't stand from Hillary's "just give it to me" Presidential campaign. She's done nothing actually commendable to receive her attention, and she should go away.
That's coming from a Bernie voter.
|
Even though 70% of the country supports it.
|
I'm not really clear on why Chelsea Manning is qualified in any way for a senate seat.
Also, I'd recommend looking at Ben Cardin's resume and voting record before dismissing him as just some old white dude.
|
On January 16 2018 12:51 Aquanim wrote:
Well, having read the article myself I certainly don't trust the person who wrote it, for more or less the reasons zlefin outlined.
The argument (which the author claims to be his central point) that Manning is somehow entitled to a Senate seat over the incumbent on account of her being a "pioneering" and "marginalised minority", based on the actions of establishment Democrats in the past, seems pretty dubious.
The rest of it just reads like random smears on whatever targets were within reach. It's entirely possible and likely some of the author's attacks are justified but that article gives me no reason to take his word for it.
I had to reread it to see if I missed it, but where did the author say she is entitled to a Senate seat?
They don't read like random smears at all to me, but germane to his point, which to me seems obviously to be about the Russia plant type smear and a potshot at the shallowness of Democrat identity politics.
What specifically do you not trust or believe?
EDIT: Just to be clear, I haven't seen enough from her to make me think she should be a Senator, but the specific "Russian" attacks are dumb and so is Democrats weaponization of identity except when it's not helpful to them.
|
That article is complete shit and a political hack job. If Manning wants to run, that is fine. A lot of people don't run because politics is mean and will be mean to her. That article does not provide any reason why she should hold office over her opponent beyond that he is old, white and exists. I also hate these the tired progressive line that anyone who has been in office for longer than 2 terms is propped up by the DNC. Elections happen, they are real and people vote in them. They shouldn't be robbed of agency simply because they elected the same person since 1996.
|
Luckily there'll be a primary where the voters get to decide whether she is qualified for a senate seat and whether Ben Cardin should be dismissed.
It's also fun cause Danglars doesn't get to criticize us if she wins.
|
On January 16 2018 13:11 Plansix wrote:
That article is complete shit and a political hack job. If Manning wants to run, that is fine.
The article wouldn't exist if centrist Democrats hadn't disagreed with this premise displayed by forwarding the conspiracy she's part of some Kremlin plot.
EDIT: Which I've noticed none of the people responding addressed at all.
On January 16 2018 13:16 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2018 13:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2018 13:11 Plansix wrote:
That article is complete shit and a political hack job. If Manning wants to run, that is fine. The article wouldn't exist if centrist Democrats hadn't disagreed with this premise displayed by forwarding the conspiracy she's part of some Kremlin plot. EDIT: Which I've noticed none of the people responding addressed at all. So you're saying she didn't betray her oath and fed state secrets to someone who eventually gave them to the russians?
No, that's not what I'm saying.
|
On January 16 2018 13:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2018 13:11 Plansix wrote:
That article is complete shit and a political hack job. If Manning wants to run, that is fine. The article wouldn't exist if centrist Democrats hadn't disagreed with this premise displayed by forwarding the conspiracy she's part of some Kremlin plot. EDIT: Which I've noticed none of the people responding addressed at all.
So you're saying she didn't betray her oath and fed state secrets to someone who eventually gave them to the russians?
|
On January 16 2018 13:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2018 13:11 Plansix wrote:
That article is complete shit and a political hack job. If Manning wants to run, that is fine. The article wouldn't exist if centrist Democrats hadn't disagreed with this premise displayed by forwarding the conspiracy she's part of some Kremlin plot.
There are a lot of centrist democrats in the world. But apparently if a few of them disparage Manning run, it is worthy of an article spends two paragraphs at the end justifying its existence. And it does so by saying the head of a think tank said a mean thing about Manning, so clearly the entire DNC is in on the hit job.
It is a trash piece that shouldn't have ever been approved by an editor. But I'm not sure the Intercept has editors or any form of peer review. Or fact checkers for that matter.
|
On January 16 2018 13:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2018 12:51 Aquanim wrote:
Well, having read the article myself I certainly don't trust the person who wrote it, for more or less the reasons zlefin outlined.
The argument (which the author claims to be his central point) that Manning is somehow entitled to a Senate seat over the incumbent on account of her being a "pioneering" and "marginalised minority", based on the actions of establishment Democrats in the past, seems pretty dubious.
The rest of it just reads like random smears on whatever targets were within reach. It's entirely possible and likely some of the author's attacks are justified but that article gives me no reason to take his word for it. I had to reread it to see if I missed it, but where did the author say she is entitled to a Senate seat?
I'm not sure the word "entitled" was literally used, but from the postscript:
[Centrist Democrats] feel free to keep old white straight men in power at the expense of marginalized minority candidates such as Manning.
The decision could only be at the "expense" of Manning if she had some entitlement in the first place.
--
They don't read like random smears at all to me, but germane to his point, which to me seems obviously to be about the Russia plant type smear and a potshot at the shallowness of Democrat identity politics.
Just because he's building a narrative against a group he doesn't like out of random smears doesn't change what they are.
As far as I'm concerned, "shallow politics" would be nominating people based solely on their combined name recognition and minority status.
--
What specifically do you not trust or believe?
I don't have a firm belief one way or the other on most of it, but I don't trust pretty much the entire thing. The arguments and allegations the author makes are unnuanced in an area where I think nuance is required for accuacy.
|
On January 16 2018 13:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2018 13:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2018 13:11 Plansix wrote:
That article is complete shit and a political hack job. If Manning wants to run, that is fine. The article wouldn't exist if centrist Democrats hadn't disagreed with this premise displayed by forwarding the conspiracy she's part of some Kremlin plot. There are a lot of centrist democrats in the world. But apparently if a few of them disparage Manning run, it is worthy of an article spends two paragraphs at the end justifying its existence. And it does so by saying the head of a think tank said a mean thing about Manning, so clearly the entire DNC is in on the hit job. It is a trash piece that shouldn't have ever been approved by an editor. But I'm not sure the Intercept has editors or any form of peer review. Or fact checkers for that matter.
I see the President of the largest and most influential Democratic Party think tank in Washington calling her a Russian stooge to be more than "a few centrists saying something mean".
Hard for me to see how you of most people would still even float the "as if the DNC is in on this" line but they'll have time to point out how stupid it is to Joy Reid's face on the most popular left wing news source on TV if they so choose, or let it linger like Republicans did the Birther thing.
I feel like most everyone just completely didn't understand the critique of identity weaponization that was the whole "nepotistic white man" angle to this article.
Just because he's building a narrative against a group he doesn't like out of random smears doesn't change what they are.
As far as I'm concerned, "shallow politics" would be nominating people based solely on their combined name recognition and minority status.
Yeah, definitely completely didn't get it.
|
No, we got it. We just think it’s a really bad article. It might as well be an opinion peice, but tries to pass itself off as news. One think tank president making a comment isn’t news worthy.
|
On January 16 2018 13:28 Plansix wrote:
No, we got it. We just think it’s a really bad article. It might as well be an opinion peice, but tries to pass itself off as news.
So you realize he doesn't think she should get the job because of her identity and Cardin shouldn't be replaced because of his, because I'm reading you guys as taking it as the complete opposite?
One think tank president making a comment isn’t news worthy.
Come on man, don't do this. You know it's not "one thinktank president"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
