|
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. |
Apparently WH lawyers contacted Bannon's counsel and instructed him not to answer any questions pertaining to the transition period and his time as chief strategist - they're invoking a blanket executive privilege to justify this and Bannon is going along with it. Obviously it is questionable at best if executive privilege would extend to the time before Trump took office or apply to other individuals who are not in fact the executive.
|
don't worry guys, totally no collusion. Trumps just a straight shooter who says it like it is, totally never did anything illegal and nothing to hide.
|
Man, it would be great if this ended with him in contempt of congress and they used that to challenge that bullshit use of executive privilege.
Seriously, this is not the move you pull if Bannon doesn’t know something.
|
On January 17 2018 12:11 hunts wrote:
don't worry guys, totally no collusion. Trumps just a straight shooter who says it like it is, totally never did anything illegal and nothing to hide.
I think the biggest problem is that too many people think it would matter to his supporters if there was.
|
Can't help but wonder if this recess is to somehow dismantle the executive privilege stuff. That can't have been a surprise, right? They must have some legal bullshit lined up for dealing with that.
|
On January 17 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 06:35 ChristianS wrote:On January 17 2018 06:15 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 05:54 Doodsmack wrote:On January 17 2018 05:41 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 05:30 Grumbels wrote:
@Danglars
1. I know this is very petty, but can you stop misspelling my name?
2. I'm not invested in the terminology of conservative or right-wingers or whatever. If you absolutely insist that hordes of people who vote for the GOP calling for Manning's death are all irrelevant because these people are not TrueConservatives, then I'm perfectly willing to concede the point and simply change it to many prominent rightwingers vocally supporting her torture, lamenting that she wasn't executed, misgendering her and calling her a mentally ill freak.
And everyone knows this, everyone knows the GOP and their base are extremists with hateful, reactionary views. I don't even get why you are trying to push back against this incredibly obvious observation that Manning is completely despised by conservatives, right-wingers or whatever they call themselves these days.
Also, we all use different terminology on the internet, the same people are arbitrarily called conservatives, right-wingers, reactionaries, libertarians, evangelicals and while you can sometimes distinguish between them I find it disingenuous to pretend like there is some hard line that divides all these groups. These are not mutually exclusive categories of people, the language used is very fluid. And in the interest of communication I find it very tiresome if every statement I make is parsed for some technical inaccuracy because I called a libertarian a conservative. 1. Where? 2. If you’re willing to identify Republicans when you mean Republicans and conservatives when you mean conservatives, maybe we’ll have reason to talk. Conservatives didn’t call for Manning to be killed for his actions. If you meant to say “some voices on the right” (and your various protestations mean, despite what you hope to persuade others of, you actually meant to say and defend it as such), then admit it and move on. I can quote Salon and say “liberals called for white men to shut up” and that doesn’t make it true no matter how much whining I do about how many labels exist out there. So mean what you say if you want to defend yourself with sources (your first attempt) or don’t attempt to defend it at all if you find the terms long and confusing (your second attempt). I should add “everyone knows the GOP and their base are extremists with hateful, reactionary views“ gave me a good, long laugh. Ok let’s argue the point. Ok the point doesn’t matter because everybody knows you’re all extremist reactionary haters!!!!!! Laying on your hyperpartisanship a little thick there. You “lying commie SJW” haha. Those people he identified would probably identify themselves as conservative. It seems you are arguing from whatever definition of conservative you want to use which appears to be “people with reasonable views.” In any case you are also busy criticizing people on the left for criticizing Trump over the Hawaii issue, and for saying the statue issue is not a big deal. It appears you are trying to associate these viewpoints with a group of people. That you are being slightly more precise than Grumbels in your identification of the group doesn’t make what you’re doing a whole lot better. Yeah and liberals would probably get mad if I said liberals supported Bernie Sanders based on a blog and a small-audience radio man. Self identity doesn’t mean “I speak on behalf of this group,” particularly if hardly anybody listens to them. Otherwise, you literally want to say self-identity automatically means you are a legitimate spokesman on behalf of the group. So about your support for assassination of the president and how whites and blacks cant be friends... But surely you'll recognize, then, that group identification is complicated. If someone self-identifies as a member of a group, and is prominently supported by most members of that group, it doesn't technically prove they're a member of that group – but it starts to feel purely semantic if you put too much stock in the distinction. In Trump's case, I think there is an underlying philosophical integrity to the right's values that Trump does not exemplify, a bit like when Plansix talks about his Republican grandpa to complain about how modern Republicans have lost their intellectual integrity. But in general, conservatives support Trump. In general, Trump supports the policies that conservatives support. If you were to poll the entire country on whether Trump is a conservative, I don't think it'd be a resounding "no." If you polled only self-identified conservatives, I bet it would lean "yes." I mean if you talk broadly about identifying and using the terms, yes. If you talk specifically in this instance, no, you and Grumbels are wrong to apply it and wrongheaded to seek to defend it. The statement is false and only people that like playing fast and loose with facts (or decidedly ignorant) would try to say it (see: they’re all extremist reactionary haters). I repeatedly marked relevant counter opinions on the left that would land the speaker in hot water and was met with silence. Therefore, it’s a one-way street and ought to be recognized as such and eventually repaired in your discourse. If you don’t know what outlets shape opinion and hold sway, you should ask around before generalizing using terms with a degree of preciseness (cf. the Right or right of center or Republicans, or the qualifiers some such as “some Democrats supported Bernie”)
But for purposes of this discussion, you're insisting everyone use these group identifiers exactly the same way you use them (without ever even providing a clear framework for how you use them) and then throwing a hissy fit when people don't use them the same way you do. If someone says "many conservatives think _______" and provides several examples of self-identifying conservatives who think that, but you don't consider those people conservatives, you could say "well I don't think those people are actually conservatives for these reasons," or you could say "you fucking hypocrite, by the same logic you hate all white people." If you want to highlight examples of liberals who have said dumb things (and you have plenty of times), feel free, and we can have a discussion on whether I agree with those people and whether they well-exemplify the tenets of liberalism. What I won't do is say "you hypocrite, those people aren't Real Liberals(TM), how dare you associate me with them."
Edit: although I took long enough responding maybe it's not worth continuing. Apparently even when I take a sick day I don't have time to keep up with the thread enough to have a discussion.
|
On January 17 2018 12:24 Mohdoo wrote:
Can't help but wonder if this recess is to somehow dismantle the executive privilege stuff. That can't have been a surprise, right? They must have some legal bullshit lined up for dealing with that.
It’s called the FBIs questioning or a straight up challenge in the courts.
|
On January 17 2018 12:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 12:24 Mohdoo wrote:
Can't help but wonder if this recess is to somehow dismantle the executive privilege stuff. That can't have been a surprise, right? They must have some legal bullshit lined up for dealing with that. It’s called the FBIs questioning or a straight up challenge in the courts.
I don't understand what you mean by this
|
On January 17 2018 12:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 12:43 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 12:24 Mohdoo wrote:
Can't help but wonder if this recess is to somehow dismantle the executive privilege stuff. That can't have been a surprise, right? They must have some legal bullshit lined up for dealing with that. It’s called the FBIs questioning or a straight up challenge in the courts. I don't understand what you mean by this
Congress does not have the ability to stop them from abusing executive privilege on their own.
|
Why did Nunes bother to subpoena Bannon? I mean, he is practically an arm for the White House on the intel committee. So why go to that trouble only to have the White House come and block it anyway?
|
|
|
On January 17 2018 10:21 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 08:50 Sermokala wrote:On January 17 2018 08:39 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 08:27 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 08:15 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 08:07 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:57 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 07:50 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:29 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 06:59 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Removing statues is removing public reminders of our historical past. These ought to exist in public to center the present between past and future. Removing the visible reminders is a strike for relegating history to libraries only for people who decide to seek it out. I would say the same for any Spencer types that want to take out a public monument calling attention to Selma or the fugitive slave act or the dred Scott decision. As someone who got a whole degree in history, statues do not preserve history. They have never done that. They do distort history to favor the political views of the people who put up the statue. But they in no way preserve our history. Books, records and historians preserve our history and its accuracy. But if you want to fight for the views of the people who put up the confederate monuments, feel free. Ask for your money back. You should have learned that public displays help the national consciousness. That includes celebrating great men that weren’t saints through-and-through, and also points of national embarrassment that we should learn from in other ways. Maybe you learned but now choose to forget or not apply lessons from history in complicated figures that should lead to investigation and examination. If you think some conflicted figure gets a bad rap, go argue for an accompanying plaque instead of calling shit racist and moving on. I did learn all of that and it’s all written down in books. It is where they wrote down the last two verses to the national anthem. Not in the national consciousness, which would rather forget the history of slavery and oppression in our nation. Not in the statues erected by people wishing to rewrite the history of a war fought to preserve the enslavement of an entire race of people. Historians want to preserve an accurate retelling of history as it was, not as people wish to remember it. Bring down all the statues. The historians will write down why there were put up and why they were taken down. We will never forget them. Then I really wish you would apply those lessons. You keep dancing back and forth on stupid Americans that are cursed to whitewash racism, but it’s all great if you bury the past in libraries where it has to be sought out. You show a great disrespect for history and its memorialization in the public square. You protest against it, for sure, but I’m starting to realize you’ll never recognize this aspect of your character. I have no problem with memorializing history. I just don't fear the memorial being taken down or changed. Statues are great if put up for the right reasons. But we are not slaves to them once they are put up. We are not required to endure the flawed monuments of a previous generation that wished to return to the days of slavery and oppression. The preservation and accuracy of history does not require that. But if getting rid of those statues causes people to read more history books, bring me the hammer. On January 17 2018 08:09 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 08:01 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 07:54 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:32 Sermokala wrote:On January 17 2018 07:29 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
As someone who got a whole degree in history, statues do not preserve history. They have never done that. They do distort history to favor the political views of the people who put up the statue. But they in no way preserve our history. Books, records and historians preserve our history and its accuracy.
But if you want to fight for the views of the people who put up the confederate monuments, feel free.
I mean there are statues of MLK but if they get torn down and defaced that would be okay because they don't preserve history and shouldn't be protected. Clearly. Spray paint over Rosa Parks? Nothing to see here, just a bunch of kids, why was this up in the first place? Everybody knows there’s public libraries where we inter history! That’s the enlightened view! I hear MLK cheated on his wife, so clearly any statues of him or boulevards named after him or holidays honoring him are problematic on women’s rights. This is pretty ironic, because most people who talk about MLK bemoan how sanitized his history has become in service of making him palpable to whites uncomfortable with the realities of the civil rights movement. Most people I know would love it if MLK was celebrated for more than a couple lines in “I have a dream.” You would hamstring all attempts to even know the quick basics if all public monuments to him are subject to removal. You bemoan the ignorance, but advocate for a double helping of it. It’s sad. I taught history. It is the teacher standing next to the statue explaining the history to the kids, not the statue. All of the classes I taught did not require a statue to teach the basics. To be honest, preserving a historical figure's home is a better teaching tool than a statue. There are sections of the countries with no statues and they managed to learn US history. We will be fine. The movement is defacement and removal. I don’t care if you think you don’t have a problem with memorializing history, I have a problem with you actually seeing fit to remove them (not stand in the way of removing them). They ought to be preserved for what they are and reflected upon by young and old. Then when and if you’re inspired, go to the library or search online for the full story. Like my previous comparison, you don’t have to be Mao’s goons effacing the cultural past, to just stand by as its done anyways, content in your own innocence. I’m also in favor of teachers taking children to historical places about time including statues, graves, and historical buildings. You’re more at home with a teacher telling students where the statue used to stand, and the intricacies of the artistry from the past, than to actually stand next to the statue. Covered in spray paint. Unable to exist in history because of the puritanical present. Your argument is that all statues are sacrosanct and must be preserved regardless of the facts surrounded them or what they represent. But even you know that argument is bad. The reality is the confederate statues are going to come down some day and it will have no impact on our national history. But you want to cling to this argument because you cannot think of a better one. Or maybe you have not been provided with one. You attempts to moralize on the subject is puerile, like someone throwing a tantrum when they realizing they won't get their way or someone won't do what they want. I am unmoved by your faux outrage. But don't you see that it would be a weird whitewashing of history to see a bunch of statues everywhere except for the ones that people don't like anymore? Its always going to be in history that there were confederate statues and them going down will change absolutely nothing about them being there or what those people did. It just seems that people are protesting people pruning history to suit what they like with more pruning. So does that mean that the people who put up the statues first get to decide for all time which people are memorialized in statue? Yea. You are right. This is a dispute about which people to canonize. It's always been about who should be canonized. @Danglars You are giving short shrift to Mao and his goons, Danglars. They needed to unite disparate peoples spread over massive distances. How to do it? Destroy divisive symbols of identitarian pasts and forge new symbols of a strong national identity. Think about what kinds of unifying public symbols we can erect to forge a new 21st American identity, free from the present divisive politics of difference.
Maybe call off the bloody revolution if the annihilation of your cultural heritage is the cost for glorious communist unity.
|
On January 17 2018 12:27 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 06:35 ChristianS wrote:On January 17 2018 06:15 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 05:54 Doodsmack wrote:On January 17 2018 05:41 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 05:30 Grumbels wrote:
@Danglars
1. I know this is very petty, but can you stop misspelling my name?
2. I'm not invested in the terminology of conservative or right-wingers or whatever. If you absolutely insist that hordes of people who vote for the GOP calling for Manning's death are all irrelevant because these people are not TrueConservatives, then I'm perfectly willing to concede the point and simply change it to many prominent rightwingers vocally supporting her torture, lamenting that she wasn't executed, misgendering her and calling her a mentally ill freak.
And everyone knows this, everyone knows the GOP and their base are extremists with hateful, reactionary views. I don't even get why you are trying to push back against this incredibly obvious observation that Manning is completely despised by conservatives, right-wingers or whatever they call themselves these days.
Also, we all use different terminology on the internet, the same people are arbitrarily called conservatives, right-wingers, reactionaries, libertarians, evangelicals and while you can sometimes distinguish between them I find it disingenuous to pretend like there is some hard line that divides all these groups. These are not mutually exclusive categories of people, the language used is very fluid. And in the interest of communication I find it very tiresome if every statement I make is parsed for some technical inaccuracy because I called a libertarian a conservative. 1. Where? 2. If you’re willing to identify Republicans when you mean Republicans and conservatives when you mean conservatives, maybe we’ll have reason to talk. Conservatives didn’t call for Manning to be killed for his actions. If you meant to say “some voices on the right” (and your various protestations mean, despite what you hope to persuade others of, you actually meant to say and defend it as such), then admit it and move on. I can quote Salon and say “liberals called for white men to shut up” and that doesn’t make it true no matter how much whining I do about how many labels exist out there. So mean what you say if you want to defend yourself with sources (your first attempt) or don’t attempt to defend it at all if you find the terms long and confusing (your second attempt). I should add “everyone knows the GOP and their base are extremists with hateful, reactionary views“ gave me a good, long laugh. Ok let’s argue the point. Ok the point doesn’t matter because everybody knows you’re all extremist reactionary haters!!!!!! Laying on your hyperpartisanship a little thick there. You “lying commie SJW” haha. Those people he identified would probably identify themselves as conservative. It seems you are arguing from whatever definition of conservative you want to use which appears to be “people with reasonable views.” In any case you are also busy criticizing people on the left for criticizing Trump over the Hawaii issue, and for saying the statue issue is not a big deal. It appears you are trying to associate these viewpoints with a group of people. That you are being slightly more precise than Grumbels in your identification of the group doesn’t make what you’re doing a whole lot better. Yeah and liberals would probably get mad if I said liberals supported Bernie Sanders based on a blog and a small-audience radio man. Self identity doesn’t mean “I speak on behalf of this group,” particularly if hardly anybody listens to them. Otherwise, you literally want to say self-identity automatically means you are a legitimate spokesman on behalf of the group. So about your support for assassination of the president and how whites and blacks cant be friends... But surely you'll recognize, then, that group identification is complicated. If someone self-identifies as a member of a group, and is prominently supported by most members of that group, it doesn't technically prove they're a member of that group – but it starts to feel purely semantic if you put too much stock in the distinction. In Trump's case, I think there is an underlying philosophical integrity to the right's values that Trump does not exemplify, a bit like when Plansix talks about his Republican grandpa to complain about how modern Republicans have lost their intellectual integrity. But in general, conservatives support Trump. In general, Trump supports the policies that conservatives support. If you were to poll the entire country on whether Trump is a conservative, I don't think it'd be a resounding "no." If you polled only self-identified conservatives, I bet it would lean "yes." I mean if you talk broadly about identifying and using the terms, yes. If you talk specifically in this instance, no, you and Grumbels are wrong to apply it and wrongheaded to seek to defend it. The statement is false and only people that like playing fast and loose with facts (or decidedly ignorant) would try to say it (see: they’re all extremist reactionary haters). I repeatedly marked relevant counter opinions on the left that would land the speaker in hot water and was met with silence. Therefore, it’s a one-way street and ought to be recognized as such and eventually repaired in your discourse. If you don’t know what outlets shape opinion and hold sway, you should ask around before generalizing using terms with a degree of preciseness (cf. the Right or right of center or Republicans, or the qualifiers some such as “some Democrats supported Bernie”) But for purposes of this discussion, you're insisting everyone use these group identifiers exactly the same way you use them (without ever even providing a clear framework for how you use them) and then throwing a hissy fit when people don't use them the same way you do. If someone says "many conservatives think _______" and provides several examples of self-identifying conservatives who think that, but you don't consider those people conservatives, you could say "well I don't think those people are actually conservatives for these reasons," or you could say "you fucking hypocrite, by the same logic you hate all white people." If you want to highlight examples of liberals who have said dumb things (and you have plenty of times), feel free, and we can have a discussion on whether I agree with those people and whether they well-exemplify the tenets of liberalism. What I won't do is say "you hypocrite, those people aren't Real Liberals(TM), how dare you associate me with them." Edit: although I took long enough responding maybe it's not worth continuing. Apparently even when I take a sick day I don't have time to keep up with the thread enough to have a discussion.
Nope. These are broadly applicable rules. If you want to know what libertarians think, check out their webzines and think tanks. Not twitter eggs (but they self identify as libertarians!!) and and somebody with three hours down in Tampa. That’s a quick way to dress up ignorance as legitimate political summary. If you didn’t catch my last post, I’m kind of against it. So basically, do your research. I very helpfully added conservative sources with enough traffic to be a hub of opinion and enough of a history to be reliable. You basically have no excuse to google a pastor out in the Midwest and americanfreedomeagleflag.com, and yes, even if they self-identify as a conservative.
|
On January 17 2018 16:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 12:27 ChristianS wrote:On January 17 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 06:35 ChristianS wrote:On January 17 2018 06:15 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 05:54 Doodsmack wrote:On January 17 2018 05:41 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 05:30 Grumbels wrote:
@Danglars
1. I know this is very petty, but can you stop misspelling my name?
2. I'm not invested in the terminology of conservative or right-wingers or whatever. If you absolutely insist that hordes of people who vote for the GOP calling for Manning's death are all irrelevant because these people are not TrueConservatives, then I'm perfectly willing to concede the point and simply change it to many prominent rightwingers vocally supporting her torture, lamenting that she wasn't executed, misgendering her and calling her a mentally ill freak.
And everyone knows this, everyone knows the GOP and their base are extremists with hateful, reactionary views. I don't even get why you are trying to push back against this incredibly obvious observation that Manning is completely despised by conservatives, right-wingers or whatever they call themselves these days.
Also, we all use different terminology on the internet, the same people are arbitrarily called conservatives, right-wingers, reactionaries, libertarians, evangelicals and while you can sometimes distinguish between them I find it disingenuous to pretend like there is some hard line that divides all these groups. These are not mutually exclusive categories of people, the language used is very fluid. And in the interest of communication I find it very tiresome if every statement I make is parsed for some technical inaccuracy because I called a libertarian a conservative. 1. Where? 2. If you’re willing to identify Republicans when you mean Republicans and conservatives when you mean conservatives, maybe we’ll have reason to talk. Conservatives didn’t call for Manning to be killed for his actions. If you meant to say “some voices on the right” (and your various protestations mean, despite what you hope to persuade others of, you actually meant to say and defend it as such), then admit it and move on. I can quote Salon and say “liberals called for white men to shut up” and that doesn’t make it true no matter how much whining I do about how many labels exist out there. So mean what you say if you want to defend yourself with sources (your first attempt) or don’t attempt to defend it at all if you find the terms long and confusing (your second attempt). I should add “everyone knows the GOP and their base are extremists with hateful, reactionary views“ gave me a good, long laugh. Ok let’s argue the point. Ok the point doesn’t matter because everybody knows you’re all extremist reactionary haters!!!!!! Laying on your hyperpartisanship a little thick there. You “lying commie SJW” haha. Those people he identified would probably identify themselves as conservative. It seems you are arguing from whatever definition of conservative you want to use which appears to be “people with reasonable views.” In any case you are also busy criticizing people on the left for criticizing Trump over the Hawaii issue, and for saying the statue issue is not a big deal. It appears you are trying to associate these viewpoints with a group of people. That you are being slightly more precise than Grumbels in your identification of the group doesn’t make what you’re doing a whole lot better. Yeah and liberals would probably get mad if I said liberals supported Bernie Sanders based on a blog and a small-audience radio man. Self identity doesn’t mean “I speak on behalf of this group,” particularly if hardly anybody listens to them. Otherwise, you literally want to say self-identity automatically means you are a legitimate spokesman on behalf of the group. So about your support for assassination of the president and how whites and blacks cant be friends... But surely you'll recognize, then, that group identification is complicated. If someone self-identifies as a member of a group, and is prominently supported by most members of that group, it doesn't technically prove they're a member of that group – but it starts to feel purely semantic if you put too much stock in the distinction. In Trump's case, I think there is an underlying philosophical integrity to the right's values that Trump does not exemplify, a bit like when Plansix talks about his Republican grandpa to complain about how modern Republicans have lost their intellectual integrity. But in general, conservatives support Trump. In general, Trump supports the policies that conservatives support. If you were to poll the entire country on whether Trump is a conservative, I don't think it'd be a resounding "no." If you polled only self-identified conservatives, I bet it would lean "yes." I mean if you talk broadly about identifying and using the terms, yes. If you talk specifically in this instance, no, you and Grumbels are wrong to apply it and wrongheaded to seek to defend it. The statement is false and only people that like playing fast and loose with facts (or decidedly ignorant) would try to say it (see: they’re all extremist reactionary haters). I repeatedly marked relevant counter opinions on the left that would land the speaker in hot water and was met with silence. Therefore, it’s a one-way street and ought to be recognized as such and eventually repaired in your discourse. If you don’t know what outlets shape opinion and hold sway, you should ask around before generalizing using terms with a degree of preciseness (cf. the Right or right of center or Republicans, or the qualifiers some such as “some Democrats supported Bernie”) But for purposes of this discussion, you're insisting everyone use these group identifiers exactly the same way you use them (without ever even providing a clear framework for how you use them) and then throwing a hissy fit when people don't use them the same way you do. If someone says "many conservatives think _______" and provides several examples of self-identifying conservatives who think that, but you don't consider those people conservatives, you could say "well I don't think those people are actually conservatives for these reasons," or you could say "you fucking hypocrite, by the same logic you hate all white people." If you want to highlight examples of liberals who have said dumb things (and you have plenty of times), feel free, and we can have a discussion on whether I agree with those people and whether they well-exemplify the tenets of liberalism. What I won't do is say "you hypocrite, those people aren't Real Liberals(TM), how dare you associate me with them." Edit: although I took long enough responding maybe it's not worth continuing. Apparently even when I take a sick day I don't have time to keep up with the thread enough to have a discussion. Nope. These are broadly applicable rules. If you want to know what libertarians think, check out their webzines and think tanks. Not twitter eggs (but they self identify as libertarians!!) and and somebody with three hours down in Tampa. That’s a quick way to dress up ignorance as legitimate political summary. If you didn’t catch my last post, I’m kind of against it. So basically, do your research. I very helpfully added conservative sources with enough traffic to be a hub of opinion and enough of a history to be reliable. You basically have no excuse to google a pastor out in the Midwest and americanfreedomeagleflag.com, and yes, even if they self-identify as a conservative.
The point is that this is literally a purely semantic argument, and the reason people think purely semantic arguments are dumb is because words are arbitrary symbols that only have meaning insomuch as we agree on what they mean. "Libertarian" is a lot better defined than "conservative," and even there, depending on who you ask you're not a Real Libertarian if you want to require driver's licenses or support taxation in any form.
"Conservative" is more vague still. Depending on who you ask, neither Reagan, nor Bush Sr. or Jr., nor Trump, nor nearly anybody in Congress is a Real Conservative. It's silly to even try to make it a binary, since surely someone could be "somewhat conservative" or "very conservative." It would probably be better to talk about conservativeness on a scale out of 10, but even then you'd have to agree on an operational definition before you could say much.
My point is not that people who say "Trump isn't a real conservative" are wrong. My point is that they're using a particular definition of conservative. Their point isn't really semantic; that's just a proxy for criticizing him using conservative values. If you informed them that you're using an operational definition of "conservative" that's pretty broad, so he's included, their argument could be rephrased as "he's insufficiently conservative" or "he badly serves these conservative ideals." But if they said "no, that's wrong, my definition is the right one," they're simply misunderstanding how language works.
Here's Trump speaking at CPAC: https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004951486/president-trump-cpac.html
Here's CNN asking people at CPAC whether he's conservative: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/02/23/politics/cpac-donald-trump-conservative/index.html
If you don't care to click the second link, I'll paraphrase their answers as mostly some form of: "I think so, but only recently, and maybe a different type of conservative."
So if someone appears to be using a different definition of a word than you, feel free to clarify that, or even to express why you think your definition is more natural or more consistent with popular usage or more ideologically consistent or better by whatever metric you like. But with fuzzily defined categories, don't get butthurt that somebody categorizes things a little differently than you.
|
|
|
United States border patrol agents routinely vandalise containers of water and other supplies left in the Arizona desert for migrants, condemning people to die of thirst in baking temperatures, according to two humanitarian groups.
In a report published Wednesday, the Tucson-based groups said the agents committed the alleged sabotage with impunity in an attempt to deter and punish people who illegally cross from Mexico.
Volunteers found water gallons vandalised 415 times, on average twice a week, in an 800 sq mile patch of Sonoran desert south west of Tucson, Arizona from March 2012 to December 2015, the report said. The damage affected 3,586 gallons.
The report also accused border patrol agents of vandalising food and blankets and harassing volunteers in the field.
“Through statistical analysis, video evidence, and personal experience, our team has uncovered a disturbing reality. In the majority of cases, US border patrol agents are responsible for the widespread interference with essential humanitarian efforts.”
The report, published by No More Deaths and La Coalición de Derechos Humanos, said wildlife – as well as hunters, hikers and border militia members – also damaged aid drops. But it said the main culprits were agents from border patrol, a branch of Customs and Border Protection, which is part of the department of Homeland Security.
“The practice of destruction of and interference with aid is not the deviant behavior of a few rogue border patrol agents, it is a systemic feature of enforcement practices in the borderlands.”
An agency spokesman said he could not rebut accusations before seeing the report but added that patrols and desert rescue beacons routinely saved migrants’ lives.
The report came amid renewed rancour in Washington over Donald Trump’s desire to build a border wall and his alleged racism towards non-white immigrants. Congress is scrambling to reach a deal on immigration and border security before federal funding expires on Friday, raising the specter of a government shutdown.
In addition to building a wall Trump wishes to hire another 5,000 border patrol agents.
Caitlin Deighan, a spokesperson for No More Deaths, said the policy of militarising the border and funnelling migrants into remote, perilous desert, where thousands died, dated from President Bill Clinton’s era. “It’s been ongoing throughout every administration since.”
Barack Obama occupied the White House during the water vandalism detailed in the report. Pima county’s medical examiner received the remains of at least 593 border crossers during this period.
Trump’s plan to further fortify the border and deport more people – people who often will try to return – will mean more suffering and death, said Deighan. “We do expect this crisis to worsen under the current administration.”
Border crossers should drink between five to 12 litres of water daily, depending on conditions. Few manage to carry more than seven litres even though a journey through the desolate scrub can last several days or even weeks.
According to No More Deaths, of 31,558 gallon jugs of water left on migration trails during 2012-15, over 86% was used.
Birds, cattle and other animals destroyed 533 gallons and humans destroyed 3,586 gallons, said the report.
Hunters, militia members and other actors were partly to blame but statistical analysis of the different land jurisdictions – national forest, state trust land and private land – identified border patrol as the only group with regular access and consistent presence in all three jurisdictions.
The report also cited anecdotal evidence from volunteers and an unnamed former Border Patrol agent interviewed last year who was quoted saying: “I remember people smashing and stepping on water bottles, I remember that being imparted onto us in one way or another.”
The report also quoted a 37-year-old Mexican border crosser named Miguel: “They break the bottles so you can’t even use them to fill up in the tanks. I needed water, some of the other people in the group needed water, but we found them destroyed. [I felt] helplessness, rage. They [the US border patrol] must hate us.”
The report is the second of a three-part series on death and disappearance on the border. The first part was released last year.
Source
|
On January 17 2018 23:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +United States border patrol agents routinely vandalise containers of water and other supplies left in the Arizona desert for migrants, condemning people to die of thirst in baking temperatures, according to two humanitarian groups.
In a report published Wednesday, the Tucson-based groups said the agents committed the alleged sabotage with impunity in an attempt to deter and punish people who illegally cross from Mexico.
Volunteers found water gallons vandalised 415 times, on average twice a week, in an 800 sq mile patch of Sonoran desert south west of Tucson, Arizona from March 2012 to December 2015, the report said. The damage affected 3,586 gallons.
The report also accused border patrol agents of vandalising food and blankets and harassing volunteers in the field.
“Through statistical analysis, video evidence, and personal experience, our team has uncovered a disturbing reality. In the majority of cases, US border patrol agents are responsible for the widespread interference with essential humanitarian efforts.”
The report, published by No More Deaths and La Coalición de Derechos Humanos, said wildlife – as well as hunters, hikers and border militia members – also damaged aid drops. But it said the main culprits were agents from border patrol, a branch of Customs and Border Protection, which is part of the department of Homeland Security.
“The practice of destruction of and interference with aid is not the deviant behavior of a few rogue border patrol agents, it is a systemic feature of enforcement practices in the borderlands.”
An agency spokesman said he could not rebut accusations before seeing the report but added that patrols and desert rescue beacons routinely saved migrants’ lives.
The report came amid renewed rancour in Washington over Donald Trump’s desire to build a border wall and his alleged racism towards non-white immigrants. Congress is scrambling to reach a deal on immigration and border security before federal funding expires on Friday, raising the specter of a government shutdown.
In addition to building a wall Trump wishes to hire another 5,000 border patrol agents.
Caitlin Deighan, a spokesperson for No More Deaths, said the policy of militarising the border and funnelling migrants into remote, perilous desert, where thousands died, dated from President Bill Clinton’s era. “It’s been ongoing throughout every administration since.”
Barack Obama occupied the White House during the water vandalism detailed in the report. Pima county’s medical examiner received the remains of at least 593 border crossers during this period.
Trump’s plan to further fortify the border and deport more people – people who often will try to return – will mean more suffering and death, said Deighan. “We do expect this crisis to worsen under the current administration.”
Border crossers should drink between five to 12 litres of water daily, depending on conditions. Few manage to carry more than seven litres even though a journey through the desolate scrub can last several days or even weeks.
According to No More Deaths, of 31,558 gallon jugs of water left on migration trails during 2012-15, over 86% was used.
Birds, cattle and other animals destroyed 533 gallons and humans destroyed 3,586 gallons, said the report.
Hunters, militia members and other actors were partly to blame but statistical analysis of the different land jurisdictions – national forest, state trust land and private land – identified border patrol as the only group with regular access and consistent presence in all three jurisdictions.
The report also cited anecdotal evidence from volunteers and an unnamed former Border Patrol agent interviewed last year who was quoted saying: “I remember people smashing and stepping on water bottles, I remember that being imparted onto us in one way or another.”
The report also quoted a 37-year-old Mexican border crosser named Miguel: “They break the bottles so you can’t even use them to fill up in the tanks. I needed water, some of the other people in the group needed water, but we found them destroyed. [I felt] helplessness, rage. They [the US border patrol] must hate us.”
The report is the second of a three-part series on death and disappearance on the border. The first part was released last year. Source
Another wonderful display of compassion for one another, what a world
|
I cannot not think of anything more cowardly and racist that destroying a life saving water supply to deter people from crossing into the US. The deterrent is death. They want people to die during the crossing to deter others from making it.
|
On January 17 2018 19:42 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 16:09 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 12:27 ChristianS wrote:On January 17 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 06:35 ChristianS wrote:On January 17 2018 06:15 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 05:54 Doodsmack wrote:On January 17 2018 05:41 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 05:30 Grumbels wrote:
@Danglars
1. I know this is very petty, but can you stop misspelling my name?
2. I'm not invested in the terminology of conservative or right-wingers or whatever. If you absolutely insist that hordes of people who vote for the GOP calling for Manning's death are all irrelevant because these people are not TrueConservatives, then I'm perfectly willing to concede the point and simply change it to many prominent rightwingers vocally supporting her torture, lamenting that she wasn't executed, misgendering her and calling her a mentally ill freak.
And everyone knows this, everyone knows the GOP and their base are extremists with hateful, reactionary views. I don't even get why you are trying to push back against this incredibly obvious observation that Manning is completely despised by conservatives, right-wingers or whatever they call themselves these days.
Also, we all use different terminology on the internet, the same people are arbitrarily called conservatives, right-wingers, reactionaries, libertarians, evangelicals and while you can sometimes distinguish between them I find it disingenuous to pretend like there is some hard line that divides all these groups. These are not mutually exclusive categories of people, the language used is very fluid. And in the interest of communication I find it very tiresome if every statement I make is parsed for some technical inaccuracy because I called a libertarian a conservative. 1. Where? 2. If you’re willing to identify Republicans when you mean Republicans and conservatives when you mean conservatives, maybe we’ll have reason to talk. Conservatives didn’t call for Manning to be killed for his actions. If you meant to say “some voices on the right” (and your various protestations mean, despite what you hope to persuade others of, you actually meant to say and defend it as such), then admit it and move on. I can quote Salon and say “liberals called for white men to shut up” and that doesn’t make it true no matter how much whining I do about how many labels exist out there. So mean what you say if you want to defend yourself with sources (your first attempt) or don’t attempt to defend it at all if you find the terms long and confusing (your second attempt). I should add “everyone knows the GOP and their base are extremists with hateful, reactionary views“ gave me a good, long laugh. Ok let’s argue the point. Ok the point doesn’t matter because everybody knows you’re all extremist reactionary haters!!!!!! Laying on your hyperpartisanship a little thick there. You “lying commie SJW” haha. Those people he identified would probably identify themselves as conservative. It seems you are arguing from whatever definition of conservative you want to use which appears to be “people with reasonable views.” In any case you are also busy criticizing people on the left for criticizing Trump over the Hawaii issue, and for saying the statue issue is not a big deal. It appears you are trying to associate these viewpoints with a group of people. That you are being slightly more precise than Grumbels in your identification of the group doesn’t make what you’re doing a whole lot better. Yeah and liberals would probably get mad if I said liberals supported Bernie Sanders based on a blog and a small-audience radio man. Self identity doesn’t mean “I speak on behalf of this group,” particularly if hardly anybody listens to them. Otherwise, you literally want to say self-identity automatically means you are a legitimate spokesman on behalf of the group. So about your support for assassination of the president and how whites and blacks cant be friends... But surely you'll recognize, then, that group identification is complicated. If someone self-identifies as a member of a group, and is prominently supported by most members of that group, it doesn't technically prove they're a member of that group – but it starts to feel purely semantic if you put too much stock in the distinction. In Trump's case, I think there is an underlying philosophical integrity to the right's values that Trump does not exemplify, a bit like when Plansix talks about his Republican grandpa to complain about how modern Republicans have lost their intellectual integrity. But in general, conservatives support Trump. In general, Trump supports the policies that conservatives support. If you were to poll the entire country on whether Trump is a conservative, I don't think it'd be a resounding "no." If you polled only self-identified conservatives, I bet it would lean "yes." I mean if you talk broadly about identifying and using the terms, yes. If you talk specifically in this instance, no, you and Grumbels are wrong to apply it and wrongheaded to seek to defend it. The statement is false and only people that like playing fast and loose with facts (or decidedly ignorant) would try to say it (see: they’re all extremist reactionary haters). I repeatedly marked relevant counter opinions on the left that would land the speaker in hot water and was met with silence. Therefore, it’s a one-way street and ought to be recognized as such and eventually repaired in your discourse. If you don’t know what outlets shape opinion and hold sway, you should ask around before generalizing using terms with a degree of preciseness (cf. the Right or right of center or Republicans, or the qualifiers some such as “some Democrats supported Bernie”) But for purposes of this discussion, you're insisting everyone use these group identifiers exactly the same way you use them (without ever even providing a clear framework for how you use them) and then throwing a hissy fit when people don't use them the same way you do. If someone says "many conservatives think _______" and provides several examples of self-identifying conservatives who think that, but you don't consider those people conservatives, you could say "well I don't think those people are actually conservatives for these reasons," or you could say "you fucking hypocrite, by the same logic you hate all white people." If you want to highlight examples of liberals who have said dumb things (and you have plenty of times), feel free, and we can have a discussion on whether I agree with those people and whether they well-exemplify the tenets of liberalism. What I won't do is say "you hypocrite, those people aren't Real Liberals(TM), how dare you associate me with them." Edit: although I took long enough responding maybe it's not worth continuing. Apparently even when I take a sick day I don't have time to keep up with the thread enough to have a discussion. Nope. These are broadly applicable rules. If you want to know what libertarians think, check out their webzines and think tanks. Not twitter eggs (but they self identify as libertarians!!) and and somebody with three hours down in Tampa. That’s a quick way to dress up ignorance as legitimate political summary. If you didn’t catch my last post, I’m kind of against it. So basically, do your research. I very helpfully added conservative sources with enough traffic to be a hub of opinion and enough of a history to be reliable. You basically have no excuse to google a pastor out in the Midwest and americanfreedomeagleflag.com, and yes, even if they self-identify as a conservative. The point is that this is literally a purely semantic argument, and the reason people think purely semantic arguments are dumb is because words are arbitrary symbols that only have meaning insomuch as we agree on what they mean. "Libertarian" is a lot better defined than "conservative," and even there, depending on who you ask you're not a Real Libertarian if you want to require driver's licenses or support taxation in any form. "Conservative" is more vague still. Depending on who you ask, neither Reagan, nor Bush Sr. or Jr., nor Trump, nor nearly anybody in Congress is a Real Conservative. It's silly to even try to make it a binary, since surely someone could be "somewhat conservative" or "very conservative." It would probably be better to talk about conservativeness on a scale out of 10, but even then you'd have to agree on an operational definition before you could say much. My point is not that people who say "Trump isn't a real conservative" are wrong. My point is that they're using a particular definition of conservative. Their point isn't really semantic; that's just a proxy for criticizing him using conservative values. If you informed them that you're using an operational definition of "conservative" that's pretty broad, so he's included, their argument could be rephrased as "he's insufficiently conservative" or "he badly serves these conservative ideals." But if they said "no, that's wrong, my definition is the right one," they're simply misunderstanding how language works. Here's Trump speaking at CPAC: https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004951486/president-trump-cpac.htmlHere's CNN asking people at CPAC whether he's conservative: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/02/23/politics/cpac-donald-trump-conservative/index.htmlIf you don't care to click the second link, I'll paraphrase their answers as mostly some form of: "I think so, but only recently, and maybe a different type of conservative." So if someone appears to be using a different definition of a word than you, feel free to clarify that, or even to express why you think your definition is more natural or more consistent with popular usage or more ideologically consistent or better by whatever metric you like. But with fuzzily defined categories, don't get butthurt that somebody categorizes things a little differently than you.
You think I would be surprised when you declare an argument over the use of the word “conservative” to be a semantics argument? For sure. Like I said earlier, if you can just google random people on the internet with no audience and no known ideology to declare “conservatives support this action,” you end with mush. Since I think I outlined my argument rather well already, I’ll leave it at that.
|
??? You'd be surprised at an argument over the definition of a word being a "semantic argument?"
Sure, I'll happily drop this discussion, and I'm sure everyone in the thread will be glad we did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
