|
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 April 07 2019 11:45 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2019 11:33 NewSunshine wrote:On April 07 2019 11:28 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 07 2019 11:14 Danglars wrote:On April 07 2019 07:12 m4ini wrote:I’m going to continue to use the term to describe articles based on falsehoods, or articles whose primary objective is to mislead or obfuscate, Just quoting this here for the inevitable walkback once FOX articles get cited. Pretty much any political FOX news article. I'm absolutely convinced you'd call them fake news too, since they're designed to mislead, whatabout or obfuscate - i'd just like to make sure. Just to make sure, what do you call the original poster's tweet alleging Trump had called asylum seekers "animals?" Like you, I'm confident you'll use a condemning term for it, but I've gotten so much "Never mind about that bit, the real news is Trump is still a racist!" that I'd like to hear you on the record. In America, it fooled several politicians and several members of the media. Ok so the media fucked up there, by the looks of my googling around that was a poor job on their part on this, and one politicians shouldn’t have fallen for. Trump said wind turbines cause cancer and kill birds what, this week? Again, the media didn’t do a good job there, they were suckered in by ‘well it is Trump so he probably did say that’ without doing their job properly, and it’s perfectly right to criticise them, no arguments there. The criticism is valid. The problem is when Danglars tries to wave it around like it means Trump isn't actually racist as shit. Like he hasn't also done a ton of other shit to merit the description. The media isn't perfect. It has its own problems. But so do you, if you give Fox News a pass, while painting the rest of them the enemy of the people. Trump does enough bad stuff anyway you don’t need to be inaccurate, at all. Any time you do just gives fodder to the ‘I’m really the victim’ crowd, who will point to some conspiracy or another. I personally prefer Fox News to some of the alternatives that have sprung up in the Facebook era, at least Fox is subject to certain laws regarding veracity, libel etc despite their obvious bias.
Maybe I don’t consume much Fox so I might be wrong, it’s not that platform that promulgates the insane shit like Pizzagate or that Clinton kills everyone (except Anthony Weiner)It’s not complicated with Trump. If you had a person come into your life who basically everyone you asked said they were full of shit and not to be trusted, and their response was ‘everyone but me is a liar’ you’d give that person a wide berth. Apparently if they’re the President some don’t apply that rule of thumb. That Trump can somehow wield the ‘fake news’ charge as a weapon while simultaneously being the biggest provable bullshitter that’s ever come close to such an office in my time being aware of such things is bizarre. Like it’s honestly not even close at all.
I can't remember all of the times people on Fox News pushed conspiracy theories or whatever, but Sean Hannity spent a couple of weeks pushing the "Clinton had Seth Rich killed" conspiracy a while back. Basically no consequences for him or the network. I'm pretty sure they pushed some conspiracy-like stuff regarding the one really outspoken teen from the Parkland high school who was related to an FBI agent.
Fox News is a platform that promulgates insane shit. It just also promulgates enough actual news (albeit with severe conservative spin) that it can claim to be legitimate.
|
On April 07 2019 14:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2019 11:28 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 07 2019 11:14 Danglars wrote:On April 07 2019 07:12 m4ini wrote:I’m going to continue to use the term to describe articles based on falsehoods, or articles whose primary objective is to mislead or obfuscate, Just quoting this here for the inevitable walkback once FOX articles get cited. Pretty much any political FOX news article. I'm absolutely convinced you'd call them fake news too, since they're designed to mislead, whatabout or obfuscate - i'd just like to make sure. Just to make sure, what do you call the original poster's tweet alleging Trump had called asylum seekers "animals?" Like you, I'm confident you'll use a condemning term for it, but I've gotten so much "Never mind about that bit, the real news is Trump is still a racist!" that I'd like to hear you on the record. In America, it fooled several politicians and several members of the media. Ok so the media fucked up there, by the looks of my googling around that was a poor job on their part on this, and one politicians shouldn’t have fallen for. Trump said wind turbines cause cancer and kill birds what, this week? Again, the media didn’t do a good job there, they were suckered in by ‘well it is Trump so he probably did say that’ without doing their job properly, and it’s perfectly right to criticise them, no arguments there. You've gotten to my essential point. He says enough moronic stuff on a regular basis to ensure his reputation and character doesn't improve by regular journalistic malpractice. The media have an institutional reputation to try to build, if preserving it at this point is untenable. Trump's gone after two or six years, but we're stuck with a media that will spread stupid lies that are too good to check out. + Show Spoiler +The only truly noteworthy thing is the story only stood out to me because some national news source like CNN edited out the question to make it look like he was referring to all immigrants instead of MS-13 gangs. A year ago the fake news was on illegal immigrants, today it's about asylum seekers. The biggest hope for the future is to check out the stories before retweeting to millions of followers who think you must've checked it out to circulate it.
The point is solid and one I feel like I've made before. I think people are fair to question the sincerity of the root concern of individuals who seem to hold this concern from a partisan perspective regardless of party, but I can admit, I find the hypocrisy-go-round as tiresome as anyone at this point.
So while the point is solid imo, the consistent application of concern isn't, and that applies to those who also took a partisan perspective from the other side as well. I'm not exactly sure what can be done to resolve it, but that's what it looks like from over here.
|
Northern Ireland27346 Posts
On April 07 2019 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2019 14:33 Danglars wrote:On April 07 2019 11:28 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 07 2019 11:14 Danglars wrote:On April 07 2019 07:12 m4ini wrote:I’m going to continue to use the term to describe articles based on falsehoods, or articles whose primary objective is to mislead or obfuscate, Just quoting this here for the inevitable walkback once FOX articles get cited. Pretty much any political FOX news article. I'm absolutely convinced you'd call them fake news too, since they're designed to mislead, whatabout or obfuscate - i'd just like to make sure. Just to make sure, what do you call the original poster's tweet alleging Trump had called asylum seekers "animals?" Like you, I'm confident you'll use a condemning term for it, but I've gotten so much "Never mind about that bit, the real news is Trump is still a racist!" that I'd like to hear you on the record. In America, it fooled several politicians and several members of the media. Ok so the media fucked up there, by the looks of my googling around that was a poor job on their part on this, and one politicians shouldn’t have fallen for. Trump said wind turbines cause cancer and kill birds what, this week? Again, the media didn’t do a good job there, they were suckered in by ‘well it is Trump so he probably did say that’ without doing their job properly, and it’s perfectly right to criticise them, no arguments there. You've gotten to my essential point. He says enough moronic stuff on a regular basis to ensure his reputation and character doesn't improve by regular journalistic malpractice. The media have an institutional reputation to try to build, if preserving it at this point is untenable. Trump's gone after two or six years, but we're stuck with a media that will spread stupid lies that are too good to check out. + Show Spoiler +The only truly noteworthy thing is the story only stood out to me because some national news source like CNN edited out the question to make it look like he was referring to all immigrants instead of MS-13 gangs. A year ago the fake news was on illegal immigrants, today it's about asylum seekers. The biggest hope for the future is to check out the stories before retweeting to millions of followers who think you must've checked it out to circulate it. The point is solid and one I feel like I've made before. I think people are fair to question the sincerity of the root concern of individuals who seem to hold this concern from a partisan perspective regardless of party, but I can admit, I find the hypocrisy-go-round as tiresome as anyone at this point. So while the point is solid imo, the consistent application of concern isn't, and that applies to those who also took a partisan perspective from the other side as well. I'm not exactly sure what can be done to resolve it, but that's what it looks like from over here.
Seems pretty reasonable to me, kind of where I'm at myself.
As to what can be done to resolve it, I have zero clue whatsoever. It just seems to be getting worse and worse across various aisles, not sure how to cram pandora back into her box.
|
Northern Ireland27346 Posts
On April 07 2019 14:34 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2019 11:45 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 07 2019 11:33 NewSunshine wrote:On April 07 2019 11:28 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 07 2019 11:14 Danglars wrote:On April 07 2019 07:12 m4ini wrote:I’m going to continue to use the term to describe articles based on falsehoods, or articles whose primary objective is to mislead or obfuscate, Just quoting this here for the inevitable walkback once FOX articles get cited. Pretty much any political FOX news article. I'm absolutely convinced you'd call them fake news too, since they're designed to mislead, whatabout or obfuscate - i'd just like to make sure. Just to make sure, what do you call the original poster's tweet alleging Trump had called asylum seekers "animals?" Like you, I'm confident you'll use a condemning term for it, but I've gotten so much "Never mind about that bit, the real news is Trump is still a racist!" that I'd like to hear you on the record. In America, it fooled several politicians and several members of the media. Ok so the media fucked up there, by the looks of my googling around that was a poor job on their part on this, and one politicians shouldn’t have fallen for. Trump said wind turbines cause cancer and kill birds what, this week? Again, the media didn’t do a good job there, they were suckered in by ‘well it is Trump so he probably did say that’ without doing their job properly, and it’s perfectly right to criticise them, no arguments there. The criticism is valid. The problem is when Danglars tries to wave it around like it means Trump isn't actually racist as shit. Like he hasn't also done a ton of other shit to merit the description. The media isn't perfect. It has its own problems. But so do you, if you give Fox News a pass, while painting the rest of them the enemy of the people. Trump does enough bad stuff anyway you don’t need to be inaccurate, at all. Any time you do just gives fodder to the ‘I’m really the victim’ crowd, who will point to some conspiracy or another. I personally prefer Fox News to some of the alternatives that have sprung up in the Facebook era, at least Fox is subject to certain laws regarding veracity, libel etc despite their obvious bias.
Maybe I don’t consume much Fox so I might be wrong, it’s not that platform that promulgates the insane shit like Pizzagate or that Clinton kills everyone (except Anthony Weiner)It’s not complicated with Trump. If you had a person come into your life who basically everyone you asked said they were full of shit and not to be trusted, and their response was ‘everyone but me is a liar’ you’d give that person a wide berth. Apparently if they’re the President some don’t apply that rule of thumb. That Trump can somehow wield the ‘fake news’ charge as a weapon while simultaneously being the biggest provable bullshitter that’s ever come close to such an office in my time being aware of such things is bizarre. Like it’s honestly not even close at all. I can't remember all of the times people on Fox News pushed conspiracy theories or whatever, but Sean Hannity spent a couple of weeks pushing the "Clinton had Seth Rich killed" conspiracy a while back. Basically no consequences for him or the network. I'm pretty sure they pushed some conspiracy-like stuff regarding the one really outspoken teen from the Parkland high school who was related to an FBI agent. Fox News is a platform that promulgates insane shit. It just also promulgates enough actual news (albeit with severe conservative spin) that it can claim to be legitimate.
Ok well, if that is the case I'm wrong and my points are wrong on that particular topic. I'd largely considered Fox to not make stuff up, be 'truthful' but have an obvious giant conservative slant with that.
|
There is a pretty wide gulf between the news department and political entertainment departments at Fox News. The reporting editors don’t get any say over Tucker Carlson rants about immigrants(legal or illegal) not assimilating.
|
On April 07 2019 14:34 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2019 11:45 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 07 2019 11:33 NewSunshine wrote:On April 07 2019 11:28 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 07 2019 11:14 Danglars wrote:On April 07 2019 07:12 m4ini wrote:I’m going to continue to use the term to describe articles based on falsehoods, or articles whose primary objective is to mislead or obfuscate, Just quoting this here for the inevitable walkback once FOX articles get cited. Pretty much any political FOX news article. I'm absolutely convinced you'd call them fake news too, since they're designed to mislead, whatabout or obfuscate - i'd just like to make sure. Just to make sure, what do you call the original poster's tweet alleging Trump had called asylum seekers "animals?" Like you, I'm confident you'll use a condemning term for it, but I've gotten so much "Never mind about that bit, the real news is Trump is still a racist!" that I'd like to hear you on the record. In America, it fooled several politicians and several members of the media. Ok so the media fucked up there, by the looks of my googling around that was a poor job on their part on this, and one politicians shouldn’t have fallen for. Trump said wind turbines cause cancer and kill birds what, this week? Again, the media didn’t do a good job there, they were suckered in by ‘well it is Trump so he probably did say that’ without doing their job properly, and it’s perfectly right to criticise them, no arguments there. The criticism is valid. The problem is when Danglars tries to wave it around like it means Trump isn't actually racist as shit. Like he hasn't also done a ton of other shit to merit the description. The media isn't perfect. It has its own problems. But so do you, if you give Fox News a pass, while painting the rest of them the enemy of the people. Trump does enough bad stuff anyway you don’t need to be inaccurate, at all. Any time you do just gives fodder to the ‘I’m really the victim’ crowd, who will point to some conspiracy or another. I personally prefer Fox News to some of the alternatives that have sprung up in the Facebook era, at least Fox is subject to certain laws regarding veracity, libel etc despite their obvious bias.
Maybe I don’t consume much Fox so I might be wrong, it’s not that platform that promulgates the insane shit like Pizzagate or that Clinton kills everyone (except Anthony Weiner)It’s not complicated with Trump. If you had a person come into your life who basically everyone you asked said they were full of shit and not to be trusted, and their response was ‘everyone but me is a liar’ you’d give that person a wide berth. Apparently if they’re the President some don’t apply that rule of thumb. That Trump can somehow wield the ‘fake news’ charge as a weapon while simultaneously being the biggest provable bullshitter that’s ever come close to such an office in my time being aware of such things is bizarre. Like it’s honestly not even close at all. I can't remember all of the times people on Fox News pushed conspiracy theories or whatever, but Sean Hannity spent a couple of weeks pushing the "Clinton had Seth Rich killed" conspiracy a while back. Basically no consequences for him or the network. I'm pretty sure they pushed some conspiracy-like stuff regarding the one really outspoken teen from the Parkland high school who was related to an FBI agent. Fox News is a platform that promulgates insane shit. It just also promulgates enough actual news (albeit with severe conservative spin) that it can claim to be legitimate.
Fox cables news network often defends its platform's liability by asserting legally they are opinion pieces not informative.
In general all the cable news channels are sycophants of this thinking. "So you are seeing people eating each other? No, we're just reporting it." W/e the south park joke is.
I mean the majority of the "fake news" hurr durr screen caps are of opinion pieces. Which is probably an apt description of the political discourse in the US. People with opinions not listening to each other. Facts becoming irrelevant to forming opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
So under that criteria Obama met and had a photo op with Louis Farrakhan, Does that mean Obama was an anti semite,or thinks jews are termites? or was he just courting Farrakhan's followers?
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-appearances/the-politics-of-race-and-the-photo-that-might-have-derailed-obama
This type of thinking is insane, the MAGA hat is a hat, supporting trump, not neo-nazis, not racists. Its a hat. I've never seen ANY proof trump is a racist so i'm not gonna bother "making the argument" against it when it seems to just not exist. Maybe you can call up Omarosa and ask her to give you the fabled N-word tape, that'd prob change my mind.
It seem's like the left is far more concerned with the MAGA hat then anyone on the right. But hey with out the hat we wouldn't have Jussie, or gems like this
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/04/04/maga-hat-confrontation-trump-supporter-palo-alto-starbucks/
This is a story about a woman who went into a starbucks and saw an elderly jewish man wearing a MAGA hat and decided to berate him and attempt to rally other patron's to her side. Luckily in this case, she got fired from her job for her lunacy.
The bringing up the the MS-13 animals clip out of context and edited down a year later is laughable and frankly I cant believe anyone here would fall for that. Trump was right in what he said at the time, and now.
EDIT: I also wanted to add I believe the daily stormer croud ( a neo-nazi esq white supremacist website ) supported rep Ilhan Omar after her anti-semitic comments, I don't even want to go to that website or link it here, but you can google it if inclined. Does that mean she's courting these people's votes? that's a weird marriage
|
The most bothersome thing about the "how racist is Trump" conversation for me, is that both sides are doing essentially the same thing.
Now I'm not saying Democrats are all as racist as Trump, but they are just as capable and willing as Trump supporters to turn a blind eye to racism that negatively impacts them politically (Chicago is a good example, Northam too). Many of the reactions to Biden serve as another example (regarding inappropriate physical contact), from rank and file democrats, to nationally televised pundits and elected officials.
Neither side believes the other sides sincerity because they largely aren't sincere, or at least don't behave like it imo.
|
The reaction's to Biden are predictably insane, If you had been following politics for the last 4+ year you already knew Biden had some creepy photo's (some cherry picked) out their, it was just a question of how fast would people on his own side of the aisle run with them. We are seeing it now, and its pretty grim.
|
Posting spree: Ben Shaprio did his weekly sit down discussion "The sunday special" with Andrew yang today, i'm half way through, its pretty interesting, lots of discussion about UBI, tech taking over blue collar jobs ect. Worth a watch id say if your at all interested in Mr Yang
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 07 2019 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
The most bothersome thing about the "how racist is Trump" conversation for me, is that both sides are doing essentially the same thing.
Now I'm not saying Democrats are all as racist as Trump, but they are just as capable and willing as Trump supporters to turn a blind eye to racism that negatively impacts them politically (Chicago is a good example, Northam too). Many of the reactions to Biden serve as another example (regarding inappropriate physical contact), from rank and file democrats, to nationally televised pundits and elected officials.
Neither side believes the other sides sincerity because they largely aren't sincere, or at least don't behave like it imo.
I believe the difference is that there are more Democratic voters and elected officials that openly discuss how shit Chicago is. That state is lousy with shit centrist democrats. The local power structure has favored them forever.
The same can’t be said for the Republican Party at this time. They stomped out any lingering members willing to admit they had a problem.
I agree on Biden. Forget the creepy photos, his record on racism in the US fucking sucks. People can change, for sure. But racial justice and reform has never been a issue he cared about. More often than not he was in the wing of Democrats opposing reform. So he can just retire.
ps: he can come back to support the Green New Deal if he wants, because he fucking loves trains. Like unapologetically loves them just because he thinks they are cool.
|
|
|
|
|
On April 08 2019 00:06 Plansix wrote:
ps: he can come back to support the Green New Deal if he wants, because he fucking loves trains. Like unapologetically loves them just because he thinks they are cool.
I'm glad to see at least someone in senior Democratic leadership has basic training.
|
On April 08 2019 00:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2019 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
The most bothersome thing about the "how racist is Trump" conversation for me, is that both sides are doing essentially the same thing.
Now I'm not saying Democrats are all as racist as Trump, but they are just as capable and willing as Trump supporters to turn a blind eye to racism that negatively impacts them politically (Chicago is a good example, Northam too). Many of the reactions to Biden serve as another example (regarding inappropriate physical contact), from rank and file democrats, to nationally televised pundits and elected officials.
Neither side believes the other sides sincerity because they largely aren't sincere, or at least don't behave like it imo. I believe the difference is that there are more Democratic voters and elected officials that openly discuss how shit Chicago is. That state is lousy with shit centrist democrats. The local power structure has favored them forever.
A distinction without a difference in my view when it comes to the results. It's not just Chicago though, NYC, Virginia, Baltimore, and several more are all terrible. That it's well known and nothing is done about it is exactly what I'm talking about though. I'll grant you Democrats certainly talk a better game, especially since they've had Trump as the bar.
The same can’t be said for the Republican Party at this time. They stomped out any lingering members willing to admit they had a problem.
I agree on Biden. Forget the creepy photos, his record on racism in the US fucking sucks. People can change, for sure. But racial justice and reform has never been a issue he cared about. More often than not he was in the wing of Democrats opposing reform. So he can just retire.
ps: he can come back to support the Green New Deal if he wants, because he fucking loves trains. Like unapologetically loves them just because he thinks they are cool.
Biden should just stop even floating his name if he wants to be remembered with any dignity. There is absolutely no way Biden can actually campaign in today's media atmosphere. It's not just the creepy part but many other things as you said that he just couldn't actually handle being confronted on except in the most controlled of situations. Biden will probably go viral in a negative way once a week if he actually runs and it's only hurting Democrats to have people trying to defend him.
As far as the 2020 primary goes, the media was so persistent I actually thought Bernie's support might be weak out of the gate with the flood of candidates and pushing of Harris and O'Rourke and talking up of Warren (before she had her horrible rollout) but so far it looks like Bernie is the distant front runner and has the most feasible path to the nomination. So despite Democratic leaderships best efforts, it looks like the people of the party are at least moving away from the centrists politics they supported in 2016 and we see in places from Chicago to Virginia.
Even if Bernie wins in 2020 and becomes president he and his supporters are going to be fighting Democrats from places like Chicago all the way to Virginia on the majority of their agenda so while a "coronation" primary would be nice and serve some benefit, I personally think this trial by fire primary serves the party well at least until after the first couple of debates. Then it might as well just be the 2-5 candidates with an actual chance (even if remote) rather than the ones that already know they have 0 chance and are just using this to build national online fundraising lists for other runs.
I'd except Gravel, he can be in every debate regardless of his support as far as I'm concerned, Joe Biden should disappear to a cabin on a lake somewhere in PA until after 2020 at minimum.
|
Remember when the Trump tape came out and some of the usuals here plus a lot of the conservative media were talking about it and defending it as if the issue was that he used a curse word? As if they genuinely didn't understand why someone bragging about grabbing people's genitals might take precedence over using the word 'pussy'?
I get the same impression with this Biden Foreheadgate. That they're pretending to understand the 'other side's' morality and turn it against them when they clearly have no clue why a weird hug or forehead to forehead touch, while being inappropriate, is not even in the same galaxy with the 'non-hypocritical' reaction they ask for.
That said, I do not want Biden to win the Democratic nomination next year for the simple reason that I never think it's a good idea to have a candidate that exactly zero people are excited about.
|
Northern Ireland27346 Posts
On April 07 2019 23:41 Taelshin wrote:So under that criteria Obama met and had a photo op with Louis Farrakhan, Does that mean Obama was an anti semite,or thinks jews are termites? or was he just courting Farrakhan's followers? https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-appearances/the-politics-of-race-and-the-photo-that-might-have-derailed-obamaThis type of thinking is insane, the MAGA hat is a hat, supporting trump, not neo-nazis, not racists. Its a hat. I've never seen ANY proof trump is a racist so i'm not gonna bother "making the argument" against it when it seems to just not exist. Maybe you can call up Omarosa and ask her to give you the fabled N-word tape, that'd prob change my mind. It seem's like the left is far more concerned with the MAGA hat then anyone on the right. But hey with out the hat we wouldn't have Jussie, or gems like this https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/04/04/maga-hat-confrontation-trump-supporter-palo-alto-starbucks/This is a story about a woman who went into a starbucks and saw an elderly jewish man wearing a MAGA hat and decided to berate him and attempt to rally other patron's to her side. Luckily in this case, she got fired from her job for her lunacy. The bringing up the the MS-13 animals clip out of context and edited down a year later is laughable and frankly I cant believe anyone here would fall for that. Trump was right in what he said at the time, and now. EDIT: I also wanted to add I believe the daily stormer croud ( a neo-nazi esq white supremacist website ) supported rep Ilhan Omar after her anti-semitic comments, I don't even want to go to that website or link it here, but you can google it if inclined. Does that mean she's courting these people's votes? that's a weird marriage
I highly doubt it.
I used to browse the likes of the Stormer pretty regularly, in my more masochistic moods I like to go direct to the source so to speak.
There is no courting that crowd if you’re not white, a sizeable portion of which think the likes of Richard Spencer aren’t extreme enough
|
On April 07 2019 23:41 Taelshin wrote:So under that criteria Obama met and had a photo op with Louis Farrakhan, Does that mean Obama was an anti semite,or thinks jews are termites? or was he just courting Farrakhan's followers? https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-appearances/the-politics-of-race-and-the-photo-that-might-have-derailed-obamaThis type of thinking is insane, the MAGA hat is a hat, supporting trump, not neo-nazis, not racists. Its a hat. I've never seen ANY proof trump is a racist so i'm not gonna bother "making the argument" against it when it seems to just not exist. Maybe you can call up Omarosa and ask her to give you the fabled N-word tape, that'd prob change my mind. It seem's like the left is far more concerned with the MAGA hat then anyone on the right. But hey with out the hat we wouldn't have Jussie, or gems like this https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/04/04/maga-hat-confrontation-trump-supporter-palo-alto-starbucks/This is a story about a woman who went into a starbucks and saw an elderly jewish man wearing a MAGA hat and decided to berate him and attempt to rally other patron's to her side. Luckily in this case, she got fired from her job for her lunacy. The bringing up the the MS-13 animals clip out of context and edited down a year later is laughable and frankly I cant believe anyone here would fall for that. Trump was right in what he said at the time, and now. EDIT: I also wanted to add I believe the daily stormer croud ( a neo-nazi esq white supremacist website ) supported rep Ilhan Omar after her anti-semitic comments, I don't even want to go to that website or link it here, but you can google it if inclined. Does that mean she's courting these people's votes? that's a weird marriage
It sounds like you know the basics of the left's antisemitism. They know black community leaders are valuable on the identity politics scene even if they call Jews termites, blame Jews for the Jim Crow laws and the slave trade in general, and shadow manipulate Congress. So people like Obama visit and photograph with them. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib repeat portions of the rhetoric, like hypnotizing the world and possessing dual loyalties in their countries of residence. There will be no uproar like you see with far-right antisemitic figures. You might get some hand wringing in the NYT about microagressions at worst (NYT) + Show Spoiler +The identity politics fiasco surrounding Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar has been excruciating. Half of me is angry at her. The other half is furious for her.
Among the most basic anti-Semitic tropes are these: Jews employ semi-occult powers to control world events; they manipulate hapless gentiles with their money; and Jews in the diaspora are disloyal to the countries in which they live. Omar, in the course of making perfectly valid criticisms of Israel and its most powerful American lobby, has invoked each of these tropes.
Twice now, she has publicly expressed regret for saying things that many Jews — including some who are quite far to the left on Israel — see as freighted with anti-Semitism, only to reignite public controversy with new insensitive comments. Most recently, while speaking on a panel last week, she said, “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is O.K. for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”
The first appropriate response is to recognize the racist/bigoted standard they apply to Donald Trump will not be correspondingly applied to their own side. It can't be used as an excuse by Trump fans simply because as bad as the Democrats are on the subject, it doesn't legitimize some Trump's positions or statements in the least.
The last bit about the hat has been played to death. The logic moves in circles. Because Trump is racist, people wearing the hat supporting him are somewhat racist or excuse racism. Because they excuse racism, or worse, the hat they wear is a racist, anti-immigrant symbol. The same applies with derogatory interpretations of the phrase flowing into the phrase is nativist and racist. I think Democrats will already reap negative political headwinds from going too far on their interpretation of symbolism. It's just a campaign slogan and people know it can mean restoring America's economic prosperity through better foreign policy, or trade policy, or tax & regulation policy. Everything from "America doesn't win anymore" to "Obama mismanaged the economy and financial crisis" applies.
I don't really expect any change in the tides with interpretation and cultural analysis until the Democrats are delivered a major electoral defeat with their current campaign focus. If Trump loses in 2020, it may be several more years before the debate is reconciled between mutual, righteous vilification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
