US Politics Mega-Blog - Page 38

On October 08 2018 06:51 Danglars wrote:
Law and order and then the lynching comparison. Trump’s going to get re-elected, isn’t he?

And we’ll get to 2024 and Trump will look moderate.

On October 08 2018 07:36 NewSunshine wrote:

Exactly. Looking back and putting it into context, much, if not all, of the Civil Rights Movement would've been described as "antics and disorder of the mob". Anything that challenges the status quo could be filed away as such. We like to teach a whitewashed version of MLK's push for equality, and pretend he didn't make a big scene, or light a big fire about the whole thing.

On October 08 2018 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:


I'll ask that you do the same:



So I told you why I think they were pushed underground and onto police forces.

Lynching was wrong, but murdering Emmett Till was "law and order", slavery was "law and order", segregation, and so on. Law and order isn't as amazing as you seem to imagine it is. Neither is blind fidelity to it.

On October 08 2018 09:02 xDaunt wrote:
As for MLK, you guys love to talk about his speech from Birmingham jail in which he's bitching about the moderate white person not getting off his ass to support radical and immediate change in favor of black rights. What further evidence do you need of the historical temperament of the American majority and its strong preference for law and order?

On October 08 2018 08:54 xDaunt wrote:


Pointing out a few instances where law and order isn't observed is not evidence of its failure or its undesirability. If anything, all you are doing is reinforcing its necessity. Everyone gets that there are bad actors out there who abuse their authority. There's nothing novel about that. But using those few instances to argue that law and order is not a good thing is asinine.

No one is arguing for blind fidelity to authority. I certainly encourage everyone to look at authority with a critical eye. But I also find it amusing that those who are the fastest to question to good of law and order also tend to be the fastest to give government even more authority over our lives with socialist policies.

On October 08 2018 09:24 Nebuchad wrote:


I'm not really sure why you think this point is in debate? If it's something I said, I certainly agree with you that the general make-up of US politics has been slanted to the right for quite a while. That's the main thing that I believe should change about the US if you want to get better as a country, but I think I've been pretty clear about believing that.

Is it the "party of the people" thing? This is about populism, not popularity. 100% of a people could vote for an oligarchic elitist party and it still wouldn't be the party of the people.

On October 08 2018 09:49 GreenHorizons wrote:


Before I continue I just want to be clear that you're position is that the examples in the post quoted are "a few instances where law and order isn't observed" in your opinion. Am I understanding you correctly?

On October 08 2018 09:54 xDaunt wrote:


I dunno, it seems like the proposition that Americans value law and order has been questioned by a few people above. And the reason why I brought it up originally is that I think that it is going to have great bearing on the upcoming election. The majority of Americans who value law and order are not going to look kindly upon much of what the Democrats are doing, whether it be their unhinged opposition to Kavanaugh, their advocacy of illegal immigration, or their sanction of ANTIFA.

On October 08 2018 09:57 xDaunt wrote:

Good question. What do you really want to talk about? The examples where racism is in fact institutionalized (slavery or segregation) or examples where racism falls outside of law and order (lynching, etc)? You've been conflating both categories when you shouldn't be.

On October 08 2018 05:48 xDaunt wrote:

Yeah, a majority of Americans engaged in lynching. Good luck with that one.

Turkish authorities believe that prominent Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who disappeared four days ago after entering Saudi Arabia's consulate in Istanbul, has been killed.

"The initial assessment of the Turkish police is that Mr Khashoggi has been killed at the consulate of Saudi Arabia in Istanbul. We believe that the murder was premeditated and the body was subsequently moved out of the consulate," a Turkish official told Reuters news agency on Saturday.

A Saudi source at the consulate denied that Khashoggi had been killed at the mission and said in a statement that the accusations were baseless, Reuters reported.

"The condition of the lost journalist, details on him and who is responsible for this will be uncovered," AK Party spokesman Omer Celik told reporters at a party summit chaired by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

"Al Jazeera has also learned in the next day or so video material will be released showing details of the assassination," Elshayyal said.

President Erdogan, who held a speech in Ankara after a two-day political conference, did not mention the the Khashoggi during his speech.

"There appears to be an attempt to have some due process and present all the facts before politicians comment on the situation," Elshayyal said.

"It is a reflection of how sensitive this situation is."

On October 08 2018 16:34 Artisreal wrote:

jesus, it takes your president like what, a week to condemn a murder by right wingers and you come at me with law and order. scientists baffled.

On October 08 2018 22:03 Danglars wrote:

And here comes the shitposters: When Trump condemned the violence, I wasn't listening, which means he didn't condemn the violence. I expected more attacks on the alt right white supremacists, which would justify the condemnation of violence, but when he didn't give me that, it meant the condemnation of violence doesn't exist. Oh, and that's a relative tangent to lynching.

I gotta say the modern left can't stay on a single subject long enough to matter, and appears to shift from tangent to unrelated tangent in the hopes that people get tired of correcting them on the most basic facts so they start to slip by.

On October 08 2018 22:30 xDaunt wrote:
Artisreal has come in here twice now with no argument and just a shitpost. There already is a place for that: the main thread. There’s a reason why most of this thread’s regulars post here now and not there.

On October 08 2018 22:32 GreenHorizons wrote:


Which was their first one?

White Women, Come Get Your People
They will defend their privilege to the death.
By Alexis Grenell

After a confirmation process where women all but slit their wrists, letting their stories of sexual trauma run like rivers of blood through the Capitol, the Senate still voted to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. With the exception of Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, all the women in the Republican conference caved, including Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who held out until the bitter end.

These women are gender traitors, to borrow a term from the dystopian TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale.” They’ve made standing by the patriarchy a full-time job. The women who support them show up at the Capitol wearing “Women for Kavanaugh” T-shirts, but also probably tell their daughters to put on less revealing clothes when they go out.

They’re more sympathetic to Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who actually shooed away a crowd of women and told them to “grow up.” Or Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, whose response to a woman telling him she was raped was: “I’m sorry. Call the cops.”

These are the kind of women who think that being falsely accused of rape is almost as bad as being raped. The kind of women who agree with President Trump that “it’s a very scary time for young men in America,” which he said during a news conference on Tuesday.

And while African Americans voters supported Barack Obama with near unanimity, the so-called “women’s vote” never materialized behind Hillary Clinton. Instead, Trump won white women with 53% of the vote.

Stephanie Gutmann, a conservative writer and veteran journalist, told the Guardian on Friday that she was annoyed by liberal insistence that Ford’s treatment would drive women to the polls.

“What is this women thing? Why do you think we’re so monolithic? We’re not so monolithic at all. In the media we’re portrayed as being very single-issue, just voting on reproductive rights. I think there may be a movement of women to the polls, but it’s going to be on both sides,” she said.

After watching coverage of the hearings, Gutmann felt compelled to pen an op-ed for USA Today on why conservative women like her won’t abandon Kavanaugh. Still, she said, she was moved by Ford’s testimony. “She seemed very fragile to me, I was struck by that,” she said. “I believe that something happened to her, but don’t believe necessarily that it involved Kavanaugh, and I don’t think the evidence is strong enough to go forward with any more investigation at this point.”

It isn’t just women she’s worried about, with regard to justice.

“We have husbands and sons and brothers and lovers and they’re part of our lives intertwined,” she said. “I think it’s fair to have the emphasis on sons now because the ball swings back and forth and right now the pendulum has swung way too far in the sort of believe-the-woman-at-any-cost direction.”

The emphasis fits nicely with a recent study of women’s voting patterns, which found that while single women tend to cast votes with the fate of all women in mind, women married to men, and white women in particular, often vote on behalf of their husbands and families, research shows.

On October 08 2018 23:55 Danglars wrote:
The narrative currently is that conservatives are going too far in spiking the football after the Kavanaugh nomination. It's a little weak for a narrative, but whatever. The second big one is NYT and Guardian articles written about white women.


NY Times

https://twitter.com/lucia_graves/status/1048587370789031937


Two very important points:
First, nobody really destroys women's agency like feminists. You're supposed to vote as they tell you to vote, or else they're gender traitors or being forced to by their husbands (or subordinating their interests to their husbands). Well, women and white women get a little upset at being told the way they're supposed to vote in order to be truly voting their interests. This will definitely pay off in Republican's favor in November, and hopefully in a big enough way to retain the house or not give Dems too much of a seat advantage.

Second, the far left's habit of doubling down on race and gender issues speaks heavily to the long term success of Republican messaging in 2020 and beyond. No issue really gets passed over to the next as a wash. It's like an allergy to losing a fight and moving out without demeaning the forces that triumphed over them in very base ways. It's not that enough Senators saw the witnesses as uncredible, it's that white women are betraying their sex. It's not that women have genuine interest in the success of their own families that include their husbands and sons, it's that they're actively hurting themselves because their primary interest should have been the left's perception of their best interest.

There will be a lot more flare-up issues in the culture war from now until the 2020 election. The best thing helping Republicans is that the left won't let up their grip on topics such as gender ideology. It'll hurt their coalition, and continue to hurt their coalition. Left-leaning media cannot pay service to their radical fringe without it being seen by moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans. These are people that could be swayed to the Democrat coalition with concerns over Trump, over health issues, over foreign policy ... but some of them saw an innocent man dragged through the dirt, and would like to just differ from their colleagues to unite on other issues. Articles that show necessary dogma on race-delineated sex-delineated issues put a stop to that.

following the introduction of a proposal legalizing woman suffrage in the Massachusetts state legislature. In response, two hundred women countered this petition “with a ‘remonstrance’” in which they pleaded with their elected officials to reject forcing onto the female citizenry the ballot.4 Marshall states that in 1871, the first instance of women’s antisuffrage mobilization occurred when “nineteen women published a petition to the U.S. Congress remonstrating against votes for women in the editorial pages of the popular Godey’s Lady’s Book and Magazine.”5 It formal beginning could be traced to the 1880s where the movement started building its institutions.6 The movement initially began as general public disapproval of arguments made by suffragists through mediums such as the press or the pulpit. It gained momentum throughout the 1890s during the period of state amendment campaigns regarding women suffrage, culminating in the peak of its power and influence between 1895 and 1907.78 By 1911, the movement existed largely through diffuse state associations before merging together to form the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage (NAOWS) in New York City which was active from 1912-1918. NAOWS continued to grow, coordinating the activities of twenty-five state associations by 1916.