|
On October 20 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:
I'm rather disappointed in the progress on the Russia-gate stuff. The House is playing with kid gloves and not using the subpoena power to the fullest extent that it could. Unlike the charges being made against Trump, there is all sorts of evidence that parts of the DOJ, Fusion GPS, and even British Intelligence are dirty and implicated in this mess. Glenn Simpson pleading the 5th was yet another huge red flag. It simply boggles the mind that there isn't more urgency to surface this stuff. Also, I have absolutely no idea why they are playing footsies with Rod Rosenstein, though apparently he will be testifying to four members of the judiciary committee next week. Lastly, I'm disappointed in Trump for holding up the FISA application declassification. The country needs to know what happened.
They may have chosen to avoid resolving these matters to maintain the conspiracy theorist fodder.
|
On October 20 2018 00:35 xDaunt wrote:BAHAHAHAHAHA!Show nested quote +Ready to go through the 2016 election all over again?
Philippe Reines, who worked for Hillary Clinton going back to 2002 and was her senior adviser at the State Department, made the argument to Politico Friday that the former Democratic nominee might actually be the party's best hope for defeating Trump in 2020. He said no other Democrat has "anywhere near a base of 32 million people," especially not Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The party, he feels, shouldn't dismiss her as a failed candidate because she's "smarter" and "tougher" than most, and she "could raise money easier than most."
But it doesn't sound like this is just wishful thinking on his part. He really thinks it could happen, saying the chances of Clinton running in 2020 are "not zero.”
Publicly, Clinton has said she will not run again, but Reines doesn't sound so sure she'll keep her word on that. Politico explored Clinton's careful re-entry into the political arena, noting that she's going on tour with former President Bill Clinton this fall and has reportedly even called up journalists who cover the White House to put out "the occasional feeler."
Despite her non-zero interest in public office, her favorability is even lower than it was in 2016. A recent Gallup poll found that Clinton is now polling at 36 percent — five points lower than President Trump. Read more about her political future at Politico. This is what you call a trial balloon authorized by the Clinton camp. And it's pretty obvious what they're thinking. The current field of Democrat contenders is a wasteland, with the most likely candidate to emerge being a currently-under-the-radar progressive radical who will get ROFL-stomped in the election. Hillary knows that she'll easily suck up all of the big money Democrat donors, which should grease the treads for her nomination.
Is this an actual person or a caricature you're imagining?
As for Hillary, she has been looking for a way to rationalize a run in 2020 since the day she lost I'v enever for a second believed she was "out of politics" especially when her major project since has been keeping influence over donors. Also stuff like the messed up gofundme tweet for a former employee of hers (but currently employed by another Dem) who couldn't afford his healthcare bills despite working 20 hour days.
|
On October 20 2018 06:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2018 00:35 xDaunt wrote:BAHAHAHAHAHA!Ready to go through the 2016 election all over again?
Philippe Reines, who worked for Hillary Clinton going back to 2002 and was her senior adviser at the State Department, made the argument to Politico Friday that the former Democratic nominee might actually be the party's best hope for defeating Trump in 2020. He said no other Democrat has "anywhere near a base of 32 million people," especially not Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The party, he feels, shouldn't dismiss her as a failed candidate because she's "smarter" and "tougher" than most, and she "could raise money easier than most."
But it doesn't sound like this is just wishful thinking on his part. He really thinks it could happen, saying the chances of Clinton running in 2020 are "not zero.”
Publicly, Clinton has said she will not run again, but Reines doesn't sound so sure she'll keep her word on that. Politico explored Clinton's careful re-entry into the political arena, noting that she's going on tour with former President Bill Clinton this fall and has reportedly even called up journalists who cover the White House to put out "the occasional feeler."
Despite her non-zero interest in public office, her favorability is even lower than it was in 2016. A recent Gallup poll found that Clinton is now polling at 36 percent — five points lower than President Trump. Read more about her political future at Politico. This is what you call a trial balloon authorized by the Clinton camp. And it's pretty obvious what they're thinking. The current field of Democrat contenders is a wasteland, with the most likely candidate to emerge being a currently-under-the-radar progressive radical who will get ROFL-stomped in the election. Hillary knows that she'll easily suck up all of the big money Democrat donors, which should grease the treads for her nomination. Is this an actual person or a caricature you're imagining? As for Hillary, she has been looking for a way to rationalize a run in 2020 since the day she lost I'v enever for a second believed she was "out of politics" especially when her major project since has been keeping influence over donors. Also stuff like the messed up gofundme tweet for a former employee of hers (but currently employed by another Dem) who couldn't afford his healthcare bills despite working 20 hour days.
Let's call it a profile of whom I believe will be the nominee. Think Bernie Sanders but younger.
|
On October 20 2018 06:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2018 06:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2018 00:35 xDaunt wrote:BAHAHAHAHAHA!Ready to go through the 2016 election all over again?
Philippe Reines, who worked for Hillary Clinton going back to 2002 and was her senior adviser at the State Department, made the argument to Politico Friday that the former Democratic nominee might actually be the party's best hope for defeating Trump in 2020. He said no other Democrat has "anywhere near a base of 32 million people," especially not Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The party, he feels, shouldn't dismiss her as a failed candidate because she's "smarter" and "tougher" than most, and she "could raise money easier than most."
But it doesn't sound like this is just wishful thinking on his part. He really thinks it could happen, saying the chances of Clinton running in 2020 are "not zero.”
Publicly, Clinton has said she will not run again, but Reines doesn't sound so sure she'll keep her word on that. Politico explored Clinton's careful re-entry into the political arena, noting that she's going on tour with former President Bill Clinton this fall and has reportedly even called up journalists who cover the White House to put out "the occasional feeler."
Despite her non-zero interest in public office, her favorability is even lower than it was in 2016. A recent Gallup poll found that Clinton is now polling at 36 percent — five points lower than President Trump. Read more about her political future at Politico. This is what you call a trial balloon authorized by the Clinton camp. And it's pretty obvious what they're thinking. The current field of Democrat contenders is a wasteland, with the most likely candidate to emerge being a currently-under-the-radar progressive radical who will get ROFL-stomped in the election. Hillary knows that she'll easily suck up all of the big money Democrat donors, which should grease the treads for her nomination. Is this an actual person or a caricature you're imagining? As for Hillary, she has been looking for a way to rationalize a run in 2020 since the day she lost I'v enever for a second believed she was "out of politics" especially when her major project since has been keeping influence over donors. Also stuff like the messed up gofundme tweet for a former employee of hers (but currently employed by another Dem) who couldn't afford his healthcare bills despite working 20 hour days. Let's call it a profile of whom I believe will be the nominee. Think Bernie Sanders but younger.
So you're imagining someone that as of yet you have no idea who they are?
___________________________________________________________________
I said it from the start but now Politico is getting there too
Mueller report PSA: Prepare for disappointment
President Donald Trump's critics have spent the past 17 months anticipating what some expect will be among the most thrilling events of their lives: special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report on Russian 2016 election interference.
They may be in for a disappointment.
That’s the word POLITICO got from defense lawyers working on the Russia probe and more than 15 former government officials with investigation experience spanning Watergate to the 2016 election case. The public, they say, shouldn’t expect a comprehensive and presidency-wrecking account of Kremlin meddling and alleged obstruction of justice by Trump — not to mention an explanation of the myriad subplots that have bedeviled lawmakers, journalists and amateur Mueller sleuths.
Perhaps most unsatisfying: Mueller’s findings may never even see the light of day.
When Mueller is finished, he must turn in a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” — essentially why he chose to bring charges against some people but not others. His reasoning, according to veterans of such investigations, could be as simple as “there wasn’t enough evidence” to support a winning court case.
Then, it will be up to DOJ leaders to make the politically turbo-charged decision of whether to make Mueller’s report public.
www.politico.com
That Kavanaugh FBI re-investigation ever become public?
|
HA. You know, the one thing I didn't expect was that the findings might never become public. That'd be.. oddly hilarious.
|
Well, where's the body then?
Saudi Arabia said on Saturday that Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi has died, and said it fired two senior officials over the incident that has provoked an international outcry and strained relations between Riyadh and the West.
A statement from the Saudi public prosecutor said a fight broke out between Khashoggi and people who met him in the consulate and led to his death.
"The investigations are still underway and 18 Saudi nationals have been arrested," the statement on state media said, adding that royal court adviser Saud al-Qahtani and deputy intelligence chief Ahmed Asiri have been fired from their positions.
www.msn.com
It almost feels like this was a warning shot for muckrakers worldwide daring to challenge the establishment order. However, incompetence is the more likely explanation, so I'll presume that's why this mess is going to turnout poorly.
|
On October 20 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:
I'm rather disappointed in the progress on the Russia-gate stuff. The House is playing with kid gloves and not using the subpoena power to the fullest extent that it could. Unlike the charges being made against Trump, there is all sorts of evidence that parts of the DOJ, Fusion GPS, and even British Intelligence are dirty and implicated in this mess. Glenn Simpson pleading the 5th was yet another huge red flag. It simply boggles the mind that there isn't more urgency to surface this stuff. Also, I have absolutely no idea why they are playing footsies with Rod Rosenstein, though apparently he will be testifying to four members of the judiciary committee next week. Lastly, I'm disappointed in Trump for holding up the FISA application declassification. The country needs to know what happened.
Trump needs to go ham on declassification like yesterday. Give his people a week to consider if any “confidential sources and methods” claims aren’t actual bullshit up to this point, and release it. Congress doesn’t care (reauth’d FISA bill right after Nunes memo). The White House doesn’t care enough. One level of management from executive to the top is bungling this.
Don’t know or care about Rosenstein at this moment. If Mueller wraps up soon and does a good report, all is fine for me. It’s his immediate subordinates that are helping stall house and senate investigations and slowwalking document releases. And bullshit redactions. Rosenstein for all I know is just enabling this by inaction, and showing poor concern for long term justice department reputation.
|
On October 19 2018 07:10 xDaunt wrote:
Democrats have moved decidedly to the Left. Their positions on things like abortion, gun control, immigration, and various identity politics-related policies are unquestionably progressive and left wing. And the party demands nearly strict orthodoxy on this stuff. In fact, Democrats have become so left wing that they can't even openly campaign on what they they really believe. Project Veritas has recently released a series of videos from inside the Bredesan and McCaskill campaigns showing just that. America just isn't where the Democrat Party is right now, which is one of the reasons that it has been so substantially wiped out in local elections over the past 8 years.
I think you have the cause-effect pathways mostly reversed. Identity politics has not coopted a coherent Democratic platform so much as Democrats have lacked a political vision, at least since Obama’s campaign in ‘08, arguably before, and ‘political correctness’ is a reaction to that. It is a leftwing populism in the void, where moralism is the response to a lack of genuine political vision.
|
On October 20 2018 08:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:
I'm rather disappointed in the progress on the Russia-gate stuff. The House is playing with kid gloves and not using the subpoena power to the fullest extent that it could. Unlike the charges being made against Trump, there is all sorts of evidence that parts of the DOJ, Fusion GPS, and even British Intelligence are dirty and implicated in this mess. Glenn Simpson pleading the 5th was yet another huge red flag. It simply boggles the mind that there isn't more urgency to surface this stuff. Also, I have absolutely no idea why they are playing footsies with Rod Rosenstein, though apparently he will be testifying to four members of the judiciary committee next week. Lastly, I'm disappointed in Trump for holding up the FISA application declassification. The country needs to know what happened. Trump needs to go ham on declassification like yesterday. Give his people a week to consider if any “confidential sources and methods” claims aren’t actual bullshit up to this point, and release it. Congress doesn’t care (reauth’d FISA bill right after Nunes memo). The White House doesn’t care enough. One level of management from executive to the top is bungling this. Don’t know or care about Rosenstein at this moment. If Mueller wraps up soon and does a good report, all is fine for me. It’s his immediate subordinates that are helping stall house and senate investigations and slowwalking document releases. And bullshit redactions. Rosenstein for all I know is just enabling this by inaction, and showing poor concern for long term justice department reputation.
The last time he tried to do that the UK called him up and said “can you not? Like for real, don’t.” Which astute international observers took as a sign that any release would jeopardize UK sources, maybe ever directly.
And once the President starts declassifying things to help him political, futures sources stop giving out information. Even ones unrelated to the investigation. Their contacts in the CIA and NSA can’t make any promises of safety to their sources any more. And that includes other counties, like Israel and the UK. It would be a harmful thing if Trump did it, but not immediately.
|
On October 20 2018 09:02 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2018 07:10 xDaunt wrote:
Democrats have moved decidedly to the Left. Their positions on things like abortion, gun control, immigration, and various identity politics-related policies are unquestionably progressive and left wing. And the party demands nearly strict orthodoxy on this stuff. In fact, Democrats have become so left wing that they can't even openly campaign on what they they really believe. Project Veritas has recently released a series of videos from inside the Bredesan and McCaskill campaigns showing just that. America just isn't where the Democrat Party is right now, which is one of the reasons that it has been so substantially wiped out in local elections over the past 8 years. I think you have the cause-effect pathways mostly reversed. Identity politics has not coopted a coherent Democratic platform so much as Democrats have lacked a political vision, at least since Obama’s campaign in ‘08, arguably before, and ‘political correctness’ is a reaction to that. It is a leftwing populism in the void, where moralism is the response to a lack of genuine political vision.
I was merely observing the status quo, not attributing any sort of causation. But yes, I agree that Democrats lack vision, though I disagree with you that this lack of vision started during or after Obama. If anything, Obama's election proved that the Democrats have no vision. Obama ran on smoke and mirrors, and his stale (if not failed) presidency was a reflection of that.
As for causation, you are right to hone in on the "political correctness" as being the central ailment of the Democrat Party. However, this ailment is more causative of the lack of vision than you give it credit for. Identity politics and the resulting tyranny of political correctness has completely crowded out real policy on the Left. Democrat leadership saw the identity politics of the progressive left as a tool for ginning up support from voters and dividing moderate voting blocks that might otherwise vote Republican on other issues. They thus embraced identity politics wholeheartedly, and the party of the blue collar worker and the little guy suddenly became the party of the feminist, the homosexual, the transgender, and the racially radical. That's a lot of mouths to feed, and their needs are often mutually exclusive. And that's before we even consider the position of the majority. It's rather hard to create a coherent, unifying national vision when so much time and effort has to be spent balancing the needs of the disparate identity groups.
|
So what's the clear vision of the Republican Party that contrasts this alleged murkiness?
I mean, your party's vision is so blurry that it got ramraided by Trump and completely taken over because the Republican branded guys were too... what? Milquetoast? Not outwardly awful enough?
Can we dispense with acting like the left are the only ones playing identity politics, too? The GOP has had a 30 odd year plan to appeal to white voters frightened about being replaced by dem durn immigrunts. What the fuck is that if not identity politics? You have candidates openly campaigning on being as UN-PC as possible. How is that not identity politics?
|
On October 20 2018 09:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2018 08:34 Danglars wrote:On October 20 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:
I'm rather disappointed in the progress on the Russia-gate stuff. The House is playing with kid gloves and not using the subpoena power to the fullest extent that it could. Unlike the charges being made against Trump, there is all sorts of evidence that parts of the DOJ, Fusion GPS, and even British Intelligence are dirty and implicated in this mess. Glenn Simpson pleading the 5th was yet another huge red flag. It simply boggles the mind that there isn't more urgency to surface this stuff. Also, I have absolutely no idea why they are playing footsies with Rod Rosenstein, though apparently he will be testifying to four members of the judiciary committee next week. Lastly, I'm disappointed in Trump for holding up the FISA application declassification. The country needs to know what happened. Trump needs to go ham on declassification like yesterday. Give his people a week to consider if any “confidential sources and methods” claims aren’t actual bullshit up to this point, and release it. Congress doesn’t care (reauth’d FISA bill right after Nunes memo). The White House doesn’t care enough. One level of management from executive to the top is bungling this. Don’t know or care about Rosenstein at this moment. If Mueller wraps up soon and does a good report, all is fine for me. It’s his immediate subordinates that are helping stall house and senate investigations and slowwalking document releases. And bullshit redactions. Rosenstein for all I know is just enabling this by inaction, and showing poor concern for long term justice department reputation. The last time he tried to do that the UK called him up and said “can you not? Like for real, don’t.” Which astute international observers took as a sign that any release would jeopardize UK sources, maybe ever directly. And once the President starts declassifying things to help him political, futures sources stop giving out information. Even ones unrelated to the investigation. Their contacts in the CIA and NSA can’t make any promises of safety to their sources any more. And that includes other counties, like Israel and the UK. It would be a harmful thing if Trump did it, but not immediately.
In case it wasn’t clear, I consider the corruption in domestic surveillance an important enough consideration to give the middle finger to the UK, and frankly guffaw at anyone that brings up “help him political.” The last dozen or so redactions claimed to be for reasons of national security and confidential methods and sources were nothing of the kind. They were simply embarrassing errors in practice and judgement.
|
On October 20 2018 19:10 iamthedave wrote:
So what's the clear vision of the Republican Party that contrasts this alleged murkiness?
I mean, your party's vision is so blurry that it got ramraided by Trump and completely taken over because the Republican branded guys were too... what? Milquetoast? Not outwardly awful enough?
Can we dispense with acting like the left are the only ones playing identity politics, too? The GOP has had a 30 odd year plan to appeal to white voters frightened about being replaced by dem durn immigrunts. What the fuck is that if not identity politics? You have candidates openly campaigning on being as UN-PC as possible. How is that not identity politics?
Pre-Trump, the GOP had no vision. It was merely Democrat Party Lite. Trump gave the party a definitive vision: America first in all respects. There is no president is recent memory who campaigned on a vision and then worked so hard to deliver it once elected.
And you can’t really compare Democrat identity politics to what Trump is doing. Trump’s America First message is inclusive by design. Democrat identity politics decidedly are not.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 20 2018 19:10 iamthedave wrote:
I mean, your party's vision is so blurry that it got ramraided by Trump and completely taken over because the Republican branded guys were too... what? Milquetoast? Not outwardly awful enough?
Perhaps "too tone-deaf and incapable of offering a viable alternative to the status quo" would be a reasonable way of putting it. The Republican Party's favored candidate was Jeb Bush at the time (a pretty "status quo" candidate), and I have to say that Trump's brutish-but-effective teardown of Jeb! did at the very least show that he was offering something decidedly different. Maybe it's a vision you very strongly oppose, but you really couldn't look at the party at the time when Trump was gaining prominence and say that he didn't bring something very different to the table. The Democrats offered up the textbook definition of status quo as their candidate while being aggressively, obnoxiously dismissive of a similar candidate with at least a genuine vision for change (even if he was flawed) - the only difference is that the DNC was much more effective at getting rid of Sanders within the party apparatus than the RNC was at getting rid of Trump.
I'm not a fan of where it's going but it sure as hell looks more effective than a party that's still hoping to have one investigation or other somehow turn into a jackpot. And yes, it's worth noting that if Trump didn't win, the emails matter would probably still be on the agenda.
|
On October 21 2018 01:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2018 19:10 iamthedave wrote:
I mean, your party's vision is so blurry that it got ramraided by Trump and completely taken over because the Republican branded guys were too... what? Milquetoast? Not outwardly awful enough? Perhaps "too tone-deaf and incapable of offering a viable alternative to the status quo" would be a reasonable way of putting it. The Republican Party's favored candidate was Jeb Bush at the time (a pretty "status quo" candidate), and I have to say that Trump's brutish-but-effective teardown of Jeb! did at the very least show that he was offering something decidedly different. Maybe it's a vision you very strongly oppose, but you really couldn't look at the party at the time when Trump was gaining prominence and say that he didn't bring something very different to the table. The Democrats offered up the textbook definition of status quo as their candidate while being aggressively, obnoxiously dismissive of a similar candidate with at least a genuine vision for change (even if he was flawed) - the only difference is that the DNC was much more effective at getting rid of Sanders within the party apparatus than the RNC was at getting rid of Trump. I'm not a fan of where it's going but it sure as hell looks more effective than a party that's still hoping to have one investigation or other somehow turn into a jackpot. And yes, it's worth noting that if Trump didn't win, the emails matter would probably still be on the agenda.
Oh of course it would. The Republicans promised to have impeachment papers on the floor the Monday after Clinton was confirmed.
I just find this dissection of the Democrats a bit weird given that we've literally just admitted that the Republicans were exactly the same if not worse two years ago. The Democrats were directionless and useless after Obama, the Republicans were directionless and useless post-Bush.
Maybe it underscores the real importance of the President; giving life to the party. Or being the life of the party, maybe.
The short version seems to be; the Democrats are aimless and useless until they aren't, and the Republicans are the same, and in both cases it takes someone with specific qualities to energise them and get them working.
On October 21 2018 00:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2018 19:10 iamthedave wrote:
So what's the clear vision of the Republican Party that contrasts this alleged murkiness?
I mean, your party's vision is so blurry that it got ramraided by Trump and completely taken over because the Republican branded guys were too... what? Milquetoast? Not outwardly awful enough?
Can we dispense with acting like the left are the only ones playing identity politics, too? The GOP has had a 30 odd year plan to appeal to white voters frightened about being replaced by dem durn immigrunts. What the fuck is that if not identity politics? You have candidates openly campaigning on being as UN-PC as possible. How is that not identity politics? Pre-Trump, the GOP had no vision. It was merely Democrat Party Lite. Trump gave the party a definitive vision: America first in all respects. There is no president is recent memory who campaigned on a vision and then worked so hard to deliver it once elected. And you can’t really compare Democrat identity politics to what Trump is doing. Trump’s America First message is inclusive by design. Democrat identity politics decidedly are not.
The fuck it is. Did you actually type that with a straight face? You telling me that the Puerto Rico debacle - American citizens remember - is evidence of 'inclusive by design'?
I mean. Come on, Daunt. You're not dumb. You know full well that 'America First' is not inclusive by design, at all, because 'America First' means completely different things to different people. You reckon all the racists and xenophobic shitheads who run around wearing MAGA hats think GH belongs in their vision of America First?
Let alone the fact that again, by design, it excludes literally everyone who isn't American. By definition, this excludes anyone who likes getting along with the rest of the world.
'America First' doesn't even pass the first, most basic checks for inclusivity.
|
On October 21 2018 03:19 iamthedave wrote:
The fuck it is. Did you actually type that with a straight face?
I mean. Come on, Daunt. You're not dumb.
Captain "Do you believe your own bullshit" strikes again.
I'll tell you one of the dumbest moves in politics. It's constantly putting on this act like each new thing is just so much dumber than the last thing, that you have to let everybody know you're taken aback by the stupidity and no way can they actually be serious.
Go back to the shitposter and troll thread, in my opinion. They like that kind of stuff and lap it up like dogs.
|
On October 21 2018 04:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2018 03:19 iamthedave wrote:
The fuck it is. Did you actually type that with a straight face?
I mean. Come on, Daunt. You're not dumb. Captain "Do you believe your own bullshit" strikes again. I'll tell you one of the dumbest moves in politics. It's constantly putting on this act like each new thing is just so much dumber than the last thing, that you have to let everybody know you're taken aback by the stupidity and no way can they actually be serious. Go back to the shitposter and troll thread, in my opinion. They like that kind of stuff and lap it up like dogs.
His post isn't super nice but it's far less of a shitpost than your response. Be advised that if it continues the argument will be about the merits of "America First" and the points raised by iamdave, not about the framing of the question. If you want to make a case that it needs to be moderated you can PM me (as you indicate this is an ongoing issue) otherwise keep it about argument at hand.
Besides when your party's president thought the previous president was part of a massive government-wide conspiracy illegally making them president, as well as climate change being a Chinese hoax, and perhaps it was "rogue killers" in Saudi Arabia you can't get mad when honest people have a hard time understanding whether or not Republicans believe all of this stuff or if when they hear "America First" they also hear how that's not inclusive to the billions of other people we share the planet with.
|
On October 21 2018 03:19 iamthedave wrote:
The fuck it is. Did you actually type that with a straight face? You telling me that the Puerto Rico debacle - American citizens remember - is evidence of 'inclusive by design'?
I mean. Come on, Daunt. You're not dumb. You know full well that 'America First' is not inclusive by design, at all, because 'America First' means completely different things to different people. You reckon all the racists and xenophobic shitheads who run around wearing MAGA hats think GH belongs in their vision of America First?
Let alone the fact that again, by design, it excludes literally everyone who isn't American. By definition, this excludes anyone who likes getting along with the rest of the world.
'America First' doesn't even pass the first, most basic checks for inclusivity.
Here's my face:
: |
Is that straight enough?
Let me let you in on a little secret about the MAGA crowd and conservatives in general. We really don't give a shit about race. You progressives like to pretend that we all wear white hoods at night, but there isn't a basis for it. If anything, too many conservatives go out of their way to "prove" to liberals that they're not racists. Just look at how much support black personalities who support conservatives receive, whether it be Candace Owens or Kanye West. If GH wanted to get wealthy real fast, he should brand himself as a former radical progressive who saw the light and is now a Trump support, and then go on a speaking junket. If he did it right, he'd get promotion from the likes of Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, which would create an audience for him virtually over night.
Here's what America First means to conservatives: the setting aside of all personal and societal differences to support the nation first and foremost. It's nationalism. We don't want to build a wall because we hate Mexicans. We want a wall because secure borders is sane policy. Literally any American can be a part of the national tribe. That's why it is inclusive. Compare that to all of the luminaries on the left who have decided that the white male is the single greatest evil to befall the world. There's nothing inclusive about that. It's merely the projection of a mental disorder.
As I have written about previously, the worst aspect of identity politics is that it is inherently divisive. Tearing down the ties that bind us together is a horrible idea and never leads to good things. There must be a glue that binds society together. I have always said that nationalism was the best one, because it supersedes race, religion, and virtually every other dividing line.
|
On October 21 2018 05:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2018 03:19 iamthedave wrote:
The fuck it is. Did you actually type that with a straight face? You telling me that the Puerto Rico debacle - American citizens remember - is evidence of 'inclusive by design'?
I mean. Come on, Daunt. You're not dumb. You know full well that 'America First' is not inclusive by design, at all, because 'America First' means completely different things to different people. You reckon all the racists and xenophobic shitheads who run around wearing MAGA hats think GH belongs in their vision of America First?
Let alone the fact that again, by design, it excludes literally everyone who isn't American. By definition, this excludes anyone who likes getting along with the rest of the world.
'America First' doesn't even pass the first, most basic checks for inclusivity. Here's my face: : | Is that straight enough? Let me let you in on a little secret about the MAGA crowd and conservatives in general. We really don't give a shit about race. You progressives like to pretend that we all wear white hoods at night, but there isn't a basis for it. If anything, too many conservatives go out of their way to "prove" to liberals that they're not racists. Just look at how much support black personalities who support conservatives receive, whether it be Candace Owens or Kanye West. If GH wanted to get wealthy real fast, he should brand himself as a former radical progressive who saw the light and is now a Trump support, and then go on a speaking junket. If he did it right, he'd get promotion from the likes of Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, which would create an audience for him virtually over night. Here's what America First means to conservatives: the setting aside of all personal and societal differences to support the nation first and foremost. It's nationalism. We don't want to build a wall because we hate Mexicans. We want a wall because secure borders is sane policy. Literally any American can be a part of the national tribe. That's why it is inclusive. Compare that to all of the luminaries on the left who have decided that the white male is the single greatest evil to befall the world. There's nothing inclusive about that. It's merely the projection of a mental disorder. As I have written about previously, the worst aspect of identity politics is that it is inherently divisive. Tearing down the ties that bind us together is a horrible idea and never leads to good things. There must be a glue that binds society together. I have always said that nationalism was the best one, because it supersedes race, religion, and virtually every other dividing line.
That's what it means TO YOU. And that's fine. But you can't speak for all Conservatives. That's the entire problem with the phrase, and why it speaks equally to you, x conservative, and David Duke, y conservative and also former leader of the Klan.
Let me let YOU in on a little secret. We 'progressives' don't think all Conservatives wear white hoods at night. But we KNOW that SOME of you do. And so do you, or you're simply choosing not to see what's been demonstrated in black and white multiple times in recent years. This is the exact problem GH pointed out a few posts back, where the language you use ends up defending people that I'm pretty sure you consider to be awful. I'm pretty sure of that.
But 'all conservatives' interpret America First to mean setting aside personal and societal differences? Nonsense. Arrant nonsense. Not all conservatives mean that. The alt-right definitely doesn't, given that the alt-right broadly embraces white nationalism, which is - I think we can agree - a little bit exclusive. The alt-right also love Donald Trump and embrace America First. But they have a vision of America that is - again, I'm guessing - very different to yours.
There are plenty of people right now, wearing their MAGA hats, who want every Mexican or person of colour kicked out of the country, because they think being American also means being white. Some of them will include African-Americans, but not Mexican Americans. Some will include those two groups and exclude another. Don't listen to me, go on facebook. The facebook of your fellow Conserative Americans. You'll find plenty of them saying mean things about their fellow Americans of colour. Not the big kumbaya you're suggesting here. Better yet, go on reddit. There's several pure, unfiltered areas where conservatives get to hang out with their conservative buddies and generally be confident of agreement and support. People let it all hang out there. Have a look see what they have to say. You won't have to look long before you find some people who don't quite interpret the phrase the way you've done.
The trouble with the phrase 'America First' is that it is fundamentally meaningless. It doesn't 'mean' anything at all. It isn't fundamentally inclusive, not in the least bit. Just as a thought experiment, I figured, let's do the easy test: I'll google it. The first definition I got wasn't anything you just said. In fact, nothing you said appeared anywhere in that definition. In fact all it really talked about was non-intervention in warfare and economic isolationism/nationalism. And by that metric you've already failed to follow it because Syria is a thing. Didn't Alex Jones break down on air and scream and cry because America going to get involved in that is the opposite of his interpretation of America First?
As GH pointed out, I was brusque in my response, but that's not a dismissal of the phrase, just your overly optimistic and subjective interpretation of what a phrase means that has a lot of meanings to a lot of other people in your own country. If you believe what you said, you must also believe there's a serious messaging failure going on, because there's a lot of Americans who don't find 'America First' comforting in the least. Are these people thereby unAmerican? I think not. And how do you address the way Puerto Rico was treated during the recent disaster? There's tons of evidence that it received far less support and assistance than Texas did in a similar situation. Seems a bit 'barrier-esque' to me there, a bit of 'one group in America getting better treatment than another'. You might, being cynical, call it 'divisive'. Now that's not America First, is it?
I don't deny that identity politics is divisive. It involves an awful lot of confrontation of inherent biases people don't really want to think about. Potentially it involves upending the social order. For example, giving rights to black people was a really big deal. Those identity politics were really divisive. Martin Luther King and that Malcolm X guy said some provocative things that forced people in power to reexamine how the world worked. When women started the suffragettes movement, that was really divisive. It was, honest. But I think we're better off for those things having happened.
The same is true of the gay rights movement. Now you'd argue I think that nothing happening today is even faintly comparable. In terms of scale, you'd be right. But just because the broad strokes of the argument have been settled - and the identity politics side won every time, by the way - doesn't mean the entire thing is done. And even if every American embraced 'America First', that wouldn't mean those marginalised groups felt included. They'd feel just as ignored and forgotten as they already do.
Identity politics emerges from making the attempt - often clumsy and futile, but the attempt - to actually listen to those groups and try to bend to their needs, instead of pretending that they either don't exist or don't have needs in the first place.
|
This next attempt at creating a humanitarian crisis to blame the US for not being compassionate in the wake of a humanitarian crisis will probably backfire. The caravan might not even reach the border. Mexico knows this president imposes unilateral tariffs. It's in their best interest to detain lawbreakers and enforce their own borders.
I'll add one quick note on the kind of IAmTheDave sentiment on divisiveness and fear. If your politics are driven by fear of David Duke and Alex Jones and stuff you see on facebook, of course these things will terrify you. It's only natural! You see gremlins behind every conservative and another Charlottesville march coming next month. That's only the beast inside projecting his own fears onto conservatives. Then you wind up confusing America First inclusiveness to Americans with the nation before global citizenship division.
I don't really know exactly where this non-support support for identity politics because people have "biases they don't really want to think about" and oops the attempt was "clumsy and futile" but somebody really "actually listen[ed]" actually comes from. I swear you talk to ten Democrats for 10 minutes, and they'll condemn identity politics and support identity politics three times in succession. It might be the tug of war between knowing how fringe it is to the American experience, and realizing there's no other way to justify their politics.
Since I'm a charitable kind of person, I'll credit iamthedave for really believing what he says he believes (as insane as it appears to me, but we can debate that), and I wonder if he'll actually stop the mock incredulity in the future. I'm all about bringing people together, despite all the divisive rhetoric currently coming from him. PM me your answer if you'd rather not post in the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
