|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 06 2019 14:47 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2019 03:32 Plansix wrote:
Slander is spoken. If it is in print, it is libel. - JJJ
But it is nice that the champions of Free Speech turn to the goverment to silence other groups and people through lawsuits. Because free speech is all well and good if it is them, but it isn't for anyone else.
Seriously, the most amusing part of all of this is that their arguments are the same arguments used to create hate speech legislation. They want to be protected from speech that would harm their ability to function in a free society, while they employ speech that does the exact same thing.
But is always nice when people cheer on the racists and white supremacists, not because they agree with racism, but because they want to see a group dedicated to fighting racism taken down a couple pegs. I don't think it's inconsistent at all. Introvert is the first I've heard of someone being against defamation laws. Presumably he has been against it for some time. But I don't think any of these people that are defending themselves against defamation were against the defamation laws before, but suddenly changed their minds. It simply didn't come up before because they hadn't been defamed sufficiently to push back. Libel and slander is means there must be a false statement that can be objectively demonstrated to be false amongst other things. Hate speech is a nebulous term that if used in the way I've seen it used, would include the Bible. What is hate? Is it something that is disagreeable to you? Very often that seems to be the measure.
do you mean our libertarian friend? I do not oppose defamation laws, i was saying to P6 that i doubt the proud boys do either.
|
On February 06 2019 14:47 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2019 03:32 Plansix wrote:
Slander is spoken. If it is in print, it is libel. - JJJ
But it is nice that the champions of Free Speech turn to the goverment to silence other groups and people through lawsuits. Because free speech is all well and good if it is them, but it isn't for anyone else.
Seriously, the most amusing part of all of this is that their arguments are the same arguments used to create hate speech legislation. They want to be protected from speech that would harm their ability to function in a free society, while they employ speech that does the exact same thing.
But is always nice when people cheer on the racists and white supremacists, not because they agree with racism, but because they want to see a group dedicated to fighting racism taken down a couple pegs. I don't think it's inconsistent at all. Introvert is the first I've heard of someone being against defamation laws. Presumably he has been against it for some time. But I don't think any of these people that are defending themselves against defamation were against the defamation laws before, but suddenly changed their minds. It simply didn't come up before because they hadn't been defamed sufficiently to push back. Libel and slander is means there must be a false statement that can be objectively demonstrated to be false amongst other things. Hate speech is a nebulous term that if used in the way I've seen it used, would include the Bible. What is hate? Is it something that is disagreeable to you? Very often that seems to be the measure.
If Leviticus were written today, its author would rightfully be accused of hate speech... it gets a pass for being written a few thousand years ago. Even parts of the new testament have questionable passages describing what to do with women, gays, heathens, despite also preaching universal love and reserving the right of judgement for god alone. It's plenty contradictory, and modern interpretations mostly ignore the hateful bits (except for some southern Baptist preachers, who emphasize them purposefully, and are often accused of hate speech), but that doesn't mean they don't exist. But suffice to say, if Paul had written his letters today, I doubt he would be forgiven so easily for his appalling views on minorities.
And no, hate speech is not defined as "something disagreeable", it is quite narrowly defined as "abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."
|
On February 06 2019 15:28 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2019 14:47 Falling wrote:On February 06 2019 03:32 Plansix wrote:
Slander is spoken. If it is in print, it is libel. - JJJ
But it is nice that the champions of Free Speech turn to the goverment to silence other groups and people through lawsuits. Because free speech is all well and good if it is them, but it isn't for anyone else.
Seriously, the most amusing part of all of this is that their arguments are the same arguments used to create hate speech legislation. They want to be protected from speech that would harm their ability to function in a free society, while they employ speech that does the exact same thing.
But is always nice when people cheer on the racists and white supremacists, not because they agree with racism, but because they want to see a group dedicated to fighting racism taken down a couple pegs. I don't think it's inconsistent at all. Introvert is the first I've heard of someone being against defamation laws. Presumably he has been against it for some time. But I don't think any of these people that are defending themselves against defamation were against the defamation laws before, but suddenly changed their minds. It simply didn't come up before because they hadn't been defamed sufficiently to push back. Libel and slander is means there must be a false statement that can be objectively demonstrated to be false amongst other things. Hate speech is a nebulous term that if used in the way I've seen it used, would include the Bible. What is hate? Is it something that is disagreeable to you? Very often that seems to be the measure. do you mean our libertarian friend? I do not oppose defamation laws, i was saying to P6 that i doubt the proud boys do either.
Pretty sure the Proud Boy are uninterested in the rule of law if it doesn’t protect and empower white people. They are, after all, a bunch of white suprematist.
|
I think Warren's primary chances may be dead before they get off the ground (if they weren't already). Now they found her old bar card where she lists her race as ONLY American Indian. You can't send her against Trump. He will chew her up and spit her out.
|
United States44177 Posts
On February 06 2019 22:26 On_Slaught wrote:I think Warren's primary chances may be dead before they get off the ground (if they weren't already). Now they found her old bar card where she lists her race as ONLY American Indian. You can't send her against Trump. He will eat her up and spit her out. https://twitter.com/AmyEGardner/status/1092941590555971585
You don’t need to identify white heritage if it’s clearly the default.
|
On February 06 2019 22:27 KwarK wrote:You don’t need to identify white heritage if it’s clearly the default.
I'm talking about optics. Even if she has an excuse for saying she is Native American back then (family history or w/e), we now know that is bunk. It gives Trump such an easy attack line. Right or wrong, this will contribute to the idea that she was trying to get a career boost by claiming to be a minority. Not a good look.
|
The most shocking part for me is that there is a field for race in the first place.
|
It’s bad, but also nothing new. In 1977 Warren was claiming a heritage she had no real right to claim based on hypothetical stories told to her by her family. At the same time Trump was racially discriminating again black people trying to rent from him. This is why primaries exist.
|
On February 06 2019 22:34 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2019 22:27 KwarK wrote:On February 06 2019 22:26 On_Slaught wrote:I think Warren's primary chances may be dead before they get off the ground (if they weren't already). Now they found her old bar card where she lists her race as ONLY American Indian. You can't send her against Trump. He will eat her up and spit her out. https://twitter.com/AmyEGardner/status/1092941590555971585 You don’t need to identify white heritage if it’s clearly the default. I'm talking about optics. Even if she has an excuse for saying she is Native American back then (family history or w/e), we now know that is bunk. It gives Trump such an easy attack line. Right or wrong, this will contribute to the idea that she was trying to get a career boost by claiming to be a minority. Not a good look.
Yeah, the optics are terrible. The nail in the coffin was when she bragged about being between 1/64 and 1/1024 native American. Now we're just watching the slow death of her campaign, unable to recover because she doesn't have good messaging and she's not a good speaker.
|
On February 06 2019 22:38 Godwrath wrote:
The most shocking part for me is that there is a field for race in the first place.
I find that to be confusing, too. That sort of information on official documents sounds like something out of 1940 Germany to me.
It represents the idea that you are defined by something your ancestors were, and that you can never escape that. And that that is actually a defining part of your identity, whether you want it to be or not.
|
On February 07 2019 00:19 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2019 22:38 Godwrath wrote:
The most shocking part for me is that there is a field for race in the first place. I find that to be confusing, too. That sort of information on official documents sounds like something out of 1940 Germany to me. It represents the idea that you are defined by something your ancestors were, and that you can never escape that. And that that is actually a defining part of your identity, whether you want it to be or not.
It is a bar card from 1977, which I am not even sure would be a photo ID. They normally have some level of physical description, which included race. Also the bar association liked to know what their demographics are and it is a good way to request the information. Finally, 95% of those fields are voluntary anyways.
|
|
|
It depends on the staying power and how Warren handles it. I really don’t know how much the average voter is going to care or not. It is no deplorables or 47% are waiting for hand outs level of bad.
On the other hand, it could be a very real issue that the party could convince themselves that it doesn’t matter. Like running someone with a negative approval rating.
|
|
|
It wouldn't be her first round with Trump over the matter.
|
On February 07 2019 01:07 JimmiC wrote:
I think the best strategy would be to engage Trump on it and fight him. I think the Dem's want someone who can take Trump head on and this would show them she was capable. That is if she did well in the fight.
In the past saying it was a non issue and just letting it go to focus on other things was probably the best strategy. But with Trump up there it is going to be a fight in the mud and he will never let it go, so she would need to show shes ready for that fight.
She can't fight Trump on this issue because a significant number of voters already think she's a complete idiot for even touching the issue. She's losing more and more people the more she talks about it. I was mildly ok with Warren, despite her being among the worst speakers ever, until she presented her DNA results as some kinda "boom, mic drop" situation. I lost more faith in her than I knew I could ever lose after that. To me, it spoke to who she is as a strategist and what sort of people she trusts. Not only did she think it was a good idea, the people she trusted apparently agreed. However it came to be, it did happen. I can only assume she would trip over her own shoes more and more as a real campaign got started against someone who is legitimately amazing at messaging.
On the bright side, all the people who normally post pro-warren stuff on my FB have entirely stopped. That train is super derailed at this point and I hope it is never repaired. We have actual good candidates for 2020. Warren has absolutely no competitive advantage in 2020.
|
Just don't bring it up and let Trump harp on it endlessly. The best thing Warren could do is go nose down, hammer the issues and let Trump rail on about something she did in 1977 and when she got a job at Harvard. If a reporter asks the question, she should just ask if they are asking because Trump keeps bringing it up or because there is something new.
|
On February 07 2019 02:10 Plansix wrote:
Just don't bring it up and let Trump harp on it endlessly. The best thing Warren could do is go nose down, hammer the issues and let Trump rail on about something she did in 1977 and when she got a job at Harvard. If a reporter asks the question, she should just ask if they are asking because Trump keeps bringing it up or because there is something new.
This would be the appropriate response if she didn't mic drop her DNA test. She modernized it by making an enormous deal out of her DNA test.
|
I think it's pretty simple, if the Dems put forward a 100% party line candidate again, Trump will probably win, for the same reasons as last time. But, if they put forward someone like Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard, they will steal a lot of Trump's voters and win(just like Sanders would have last time had they not rigged everything)
|
On February 07 2019 02:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 02:10 Plansix wrote:
Just don't bring it up and let Trump harp on it endlessly. The best thing Warren could do is go nose down, hammer the issues and let Trump rail on about something she did in 1977 and when she got a job at Harvard. If a reporter asks the question, she should just ask if they are asking because Trump keeps bringing it up or because there is something new. This would be the appropriate response if she didn't mic drop her DNA test. She modernized it by making an enormous deal out of her DNA test.
I'm just going to say she should just what I said. She already talked about it and said what she had to say. Her story has always been "I believed my parents". It either sinks her in the primary or it doesn't.
On February 07 2019 02:18 travis wrote:
I think it's pretty simple, if the Dems put forward a 100% party line candidate again, Trump will probably win, for the same reasons as last time. But, if they put forward someone like Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard, they will steal a lot of Trump's voters and win(just like Sanders would have last time had they not rigged everything)
It is less about "Trump voters" and more about turn out. Clinton, so no one's surprise, did not turn out the vote. Get someone who can and they will have something. And positive approval ratings are pretty awesome and they should really focus on that first and foremost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
