EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1301
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
PoulsenB
Poland7711 Posts
| ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On April 10 2019 13:59 KwarK wrote: Honestly it’d probably just be for the best if American politicians avoided attempts to excuse or mitigate the political stances of Adolf Hitler. I'm personally waiting for one of these dingbats to say that if Hitler had been an American they'd vote him for President. It's pointless saying it because everyone here with sense already knows it, but the violence was inherently part of what Hitler did in Germany. The 'economic miracle' had to end in war. It was based on unsustainable economic improvements that required a war economy - and thus wars - to sustain itself. And if I remember correctly it didn't sustain itself for long even then. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21952 Posts
On April 10 2019 10:27 Danglars wrote: Trying to place 'if only Hitler kept to making Germany great" (which btw still leads to war because Germany needed more 'lebensraum' (living space)) in a context feels like a discussion we once had about creating ethnostates in America.The fun didn't end there, Wombat_NI. She fired back with her context for the comments. She roasted Ted Lieu alive, according to my Republicans viewing her response. She basically said the Ted Lieu tactic is presuming people are too stupid to look up the context for her comments (Given Wombat's quoting of only one side of the roasting, maybe she has a point). Nationalism doesn't involve racial superiority and conquest. Etc. First off, the committee chairman framed it foolishly + Show Spoiler [Wombat_NI[] + I don't even like her style or employer. Any even-handed treatment of what she's said and done will hurt her image. Why anyone would go through this path to that end is puzzling. It was crazy neo-nazi shit then, and it is now. And if that sounds insulting, consider your defending someone trying to look on the good side of fucking Hitler. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12326 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11630 Posts
On April 10 2019 19:05 Gorsameth wrote: Trying to place 'if only Hitler kept to making Germany great" (which btw still leads to war because Germany needed more 'lebensraum' (living space)) in a context feels like a discussion we once had about creating ethnostates in America. It was crazy neo-nazi shit then, and it is now. And if that sounds insulting, consider your defending someone trying to look on the good side of fucking Hitler. I, too, am a bit confused by this need of finding "the good side of Hitler" He is Hitler. The only way to make him look not totally evil is through some SciFi Plot where Hitler is a timetraveller that needed to make sure that no one has the Hitler mustache in the future or the world will end, and thus made that mustache be directly attached to the most evil people can think off. Hitler did evil stuff in Germany from the second he took power onward. Afterwards, he started the worst war in world history. Why do you feel the need to find something positive to say about this person? I can only explain it through extreme tribalism. "I am rightwing, Hitler was rightwing, thus i need to protect Hitler against those evil lefties, otherwise the lefties win if they can prove that a rightwing person was bad" Funnily enough, i don't really see the same effect of lefties defending Stalin or Pol Pot. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26032 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26032 Posts
As an aside not sure if folks agree or not, I tend to find the Candace Owens of the world worse overall than the Richard Spencers. One is akin to a Ted Bundy, sure you’ll take a ride he looks nice, at least the other is frothing at the mouth and talking to himself so you give him a wide berth. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12326 Posts
On April 10 2019 19:19 Simberto wrote: I, too, am a bit confused by this need of finding "the good side of Hitler" He is Hitler. The only way to make him look not totally evil is through some SciFi Plot where Hitler is a timetraveller that needed to make sure that no one has the Hitler mustache in the future or the world will end, and thus made that mustache be directly attached to the most evil people can think off. Hitler did evil stuff in Germany from the second he took power onward. Afterwards, he started the worst war in world history. Why do you feel the need to find something positive to say about this person? I can only explain it through extreme tribalism. "I am rightwing, Hitler was rightwing, thus i need to protect Hitler against those evil lefties, otherwise the lefties win if they can prove that a rightwing person was bad" Funnily enough, i don't really see the same effect of lefties defending Stalin or Pol Pot. The tribalism is not that extreme, because Owens is quite far right, not just rightwing. A lot of the fascist influence is already there (With the caveat that, as usual, she isn't an honest actor so it's hard to parse what she really believes and what she feels she has to say for her brand). If you go far enough to the left, you will find people defending Stalin or Pol Pot, or finding some elaborate solution why Pol Pot is not a problem for their ideology kind of like Owens does with Hitler here. It's just that these people won't be asked to go in front of congress any time soon. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5765 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8640 Posts
On April 10 2019 14:07 Wombat_NI wrote: Tbh that’s fair. On the other hand it’s Candace Owens squirming for a bit, a person whose crap I’m pretty familiar with beyond the ‘listen to this two hour clip’ And in context, was actively invited to something surrounding white nationalism and has said such things in the past. Her stance on those is dangerous naive, namely that you can court such forces and they’ll stop at the ‘acceptable’ level you want them to. If you’re going to get some talking head with name recognition in to talk about issues pertaining to white nationalism, hell get in Ben Shapiro. At least he both actively condemns it but more critically actually isn’t doing so hypothetically but thinks, To some degree it’s actually a phenomenon that is there and a threat of some kind. Or if you’re not doing a big name, someone who might have a real particular knowledge and expertise on the subject at hand. Shapiro is a white male, you think it's a coincidence they chose a black woman to fight the "white nationalist" narrative?  identity politics all around guys. Trump is, among many many other things - such as a bible signing debaucher, adulterer and sleaze bag of the highest magnitute, a reaction to the "white man's fear" that his time at the top of the food chain has come to an end - or again? //edit: for clarity | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge. 2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On April 11 2019 00:39 xDaunt wrote: I'm enjoying watching senate democrats flail wildly against Barr with regards to his summary of the Mueller report. Van Holland's questioning was particularly sad. Barr has been very clear that he will give full explanations regarding what happened and why after the report is released in the next several days, yet Democrats keep demanding that he explain himself. A couple interesting points: 1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge. 2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. Pretty sure the point is democrats don't believe him. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 11 2019 00:41 IyMoon wrote: Pretty sure the point is democrats don't believe him. That's a pretty deranged (not to mention highly premature) position to take. | ||
| ||
