|
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 May 23 2020 13:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2020 13:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2020 13:35 Mohdoo wrote:On May 23 2020 13:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2020 13:12 Mohdoo wrote:On May 23 2020 13:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2020 12:59 Mohdoo wrote:
If Biden told someone they weren’t Hispanic if they are considering voting for Trump, I’d clap. While there are a lot of non Mexican Hispanics who vote for trump because they are racist towards Mexicans, they are generally the type trying to pretend they are white and feel shame for their ethnicity. But that’s a whole other can of worms.
The entire idea of self loathing minorities is a very real thing. It is a way to escape the anxiety and shame that comes from living among racism for so long. You start to try to convince yourself you’re different from what people are racist against. Some of them go on to resent poor minorities. It’s incredibly sad and a direct result of living a life as a victim of racism. The same also happens to black people. Choosing not to vote for Biden doesn’t make you not Hispanic, but voting for trump is a direct assault on your own people and I can’t explain that away. They are either deeply religious to the point of not caring for their fellow man or resentful of their race. I’ve seen it more than I care for.
If Biden said this about Hispanics, he’d be 100% right, in terms of what he actually meant. Clearly he was not disputing the genetics of the dude he was talking to lol I'd suggest thinking it would be acceptable for Biden to say it is internalized racism which is what you're describing would motivate Black and Hispanic people to vote for Trump. It's important to note this was in response to having more questions to ask him at a future unscheduled interview about what he was offering Black communities. So I see it as "you ain't getting shit, you have no choice but to vote for me" basically. Which matches what he said in response to joining the Democratic party voters to support medicare for all on CNBC and during his campaign when confronted on his atrocious immigration record.
Basically told people if you don't like his shitty policy/record/responses they should vote for Trump because he's going to be Joe Biden whether voters like it or not. No, that is clearly not what he meant. I'm not going to pretend that is a valid interpretation. I think you know you're grasping here. Not grasping, he literally said it to a voter confronting him on the gap between his rhetoric and his record on immigration: This "you ain't Black" response has the same energy. I’m 100% on board with the way he handled that. Dude was an idiot. I want someone who tells idiots they are idiots. Regardless of delivery or poor wording and all the various things that suck about Biden,I want someone who tells idiots, whether they are voters or not, to go fuck themselves. It’s like the women who hijacked bernies speech. Fools. They don’t deserve a podium. Tell them to shut up and sit down. This is reminiscent of your ranting about how Russia tricked Black people in 2016. The idea that these people don't have a right to expect policy that reflects the needs of their community before voting for the not-Republican" candidate is the racist position imo. They aren't idiots because they want policies that I also want. They are idiots because they plan their day around making a huge fuss and destroying their own voice by shooting their credibility in the head. No one cared what that guy had to say because he presented himself as a joke. Same with the women who interrupted Bernie. It was cringey and stupid. I don't even remember what they said and he gave them the podium. They have every right to want the same policies that I want, but they don't have the right to be belligerent idiots. I want full amnesty for all immigrants and billions injected into mental health programs rather than deporting or imprisoning undocumented immigrants who are criminals. While I do want those mental health programs to be 100% mandatory and to take away their personhood until they are decent people, I don't see value in dumping them at the border and I want our country to spend money helping them. Despite all of that, the guy in the video is an idiot. Biden shutting him down was excellent for me, as a Hispanic guy who wants full amnesty.
If you listened to them you might notice you don't want the same policy they do and would reconsider how you see these situations. To me they seem like bold, passionate, people and your argument comes off as belligerent and foolish (at least electorally) imo.
I once thought the same thing you do about the various people Biden's told to vote for someone else when they confronted him, about codepink, until I realized they were the only decent people in most of those rooms imo.
|
On May 23 2020 13:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2020 13:48 Mohdoo wrote:On May 23 2020 13:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2020 13:35 Mohdoo wrote:On May 23 2020 13:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2020 13:12 Mohdoo wrote:On May 23 2020 13:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2020 12:59 Mohdoo wrote:
If Biden told someone they weren’t Hispanic if they are considering voting for Trump, I’d clap. While there are a lot of non Mexican Hispanics who vote for trump because they are racist towards Mexicans, they are generally the type trying to pretend they are white and feel shame for their ethnicity. But that’s a whole other can of worms.
The entire idea of self loathing minorities is a very real thing. It is a way to escape the anxiety and shame that comes from living among racism for so long. You start to try to convince yourself you’re different from what people are racist against. Some of them go on to resent poor minorities. It’s incredibly sad and a direct result of living a life as a victim of racism. The same also happens to black people. Choosing not to vote for Biden doesn’t make you not Hispanic, but voting for trump is a direct assault on your own people and I can’t explain that away. They are either deeply religious to the point of not caring for their fellow man or resentful of their race. I’ve seen it more than I care for.
If Biden said this about Hispanics, he’d be 100% right, in terms of what he actually meant. Clearly he was not disputing the genetics of the dude he was talking to lol I'd suggest thinking it would be acceptable for Biden to say it is internalized racism which is what you're describing would motivate Black and Hispanic people to vote for Trump. It's important to note this was in response to having more questions to ask him at a future unscheduled interview about what he was offering Black communities. So I see it as "you ain't getting shit, you have no choice but to vote for me" basically. Which matches what he said in response to joining the Democratic party voters to support medicare for all on CNBC and during his campaign when confronted on his atrocious immigration record.
Basically told people if you don't like his shitty policy/record/responses they should vote for Trump because he's going to be Joe Biden whether voters like it or not. No, that is clearly not what he meant. I'm not going to pretend that is a valid interpretation. I think you know you're grasping here. Not grasping, he literally said it to a voter confronting him on the gap between his rhetoric and his record on immigration: https://twitter.com/ericbradner/status/1197686251819810816This "you ain't Black" response has the same energy. I’m 100% on board with the way he handled that. Dude was an idiot. I want someone who tells idiots they are idiots. Regardless of delivery or poor wording and all the various things that suck about Biden,I want someone who tells idiots, whether they are voters or not, to go fuck themselves. It’s like the women who hijacked bernies speech. Fools. They don’t deserve a podium. Tell them to shut up and sit down. This is reminiscent of your ranting about how Russia tricked Black people in 2016. The idea that these people don't have a right to expect policy that reflects the needs of their community before voting for the not-Republican" candidate is the racist position imo. They aren't idiots because they want policies that I also want. They are idiots because they plan their day around making a huge fuss and destroying their own voice by shooting their credibility in the head. No one cared what that guy had to say because he presented himself as a joke. Same with the women who interrupted Bernie. It was cringey and stupid. I don't even remember what they said and he gave them the podium. They have every right to want the same policies that I want, but they don't have the right to be belligerent idiots. I want full amnesty for all immigrants and billions injected into mental health programs rather than deporting or imprisoning undocumented immigrants who are criminals. While I do want those mental health programs to be 100% mandatory and to take away their personhood until they are decent people, I don't see value in dumping them at the border and I want our country to spend money helping them. Despite all of that, the guy in the video is an idiot. Biden shutting him down was excellent for me, as a Hispanic guy who wants full amnesty. If you listened to them you might notice you don't want the same policy they do and would reconsider how you see these situations. To me they seem like bold, passionate, people and your argument comes off as belligerent and foolish (at least electorally) imo. I once thought the same thing about codepink until I realized they were the only decent people in most of those rooms imo.
No harm in disagreeing, we’ve disagreed plenty before and I’ll continue to value our conversations because you challenge me. I do want to make sure you see my edit, though I don’t think it will help us agree.
Edit: Also, want to be clear that while we disagree here, I do not only value but *respect* your views and I don't have any illusion that future analysis would show me to be right and you to be wrong. who knows. Just want to be clear that while I am comfortable fully disagreeing with you, I wouldn't elevate my views above yours.
|
On May 23 2020 14:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2020 13:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2020 13:48 Mohdoo wrote:On May 23 2020 13:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2020 13:35 Mohdoo wrote:On May 23 2020 13:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2020 13:12 Mohdoo wrote:On May 23 2020 13:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2020 12:59 Mohdoo wrote:
If Biden told someone they weren’t Hispanic if they are considering voting for Trump, I’d clap. While there are a lot of non Mexican Hispanics who vote for trump because they are racist towards Mexicans, they are generally the type trying to pretend they are white and feel shame for their ethnicity. But that’s a whole other can of worms.
The entire idea of self loathing minorities is a very real thing. It is a way to escape the anxiety and shame that comes from living among racism for so long. You start to try to convince yourself you’re different from what people are racist against. Some of them go on to resent poor minorities. It’s incredibly sad and a direct result of living a life as a victim of racism. The same also happens to black people. Choosing not to vote for Biden doesn’t make you not Hispanic, but voting for trump is a direct assault on your own people and I can’t explain that away. They are either deeply religious to the point of not caring for their fellow man or resentful of their race. I’ve seen it more than I care for.
If Biden said this about Hispanics, he’d be 100% right, in terms of what he actually meant. Clearly he was not disputing the genetics of the dude he was talking to lol I'd suggest thinking it would be acceptable for Biden to say it is internalized racism which is what you're describing would motivate Black and Hispanic people to vote for Trump. It's important to note this was in response to having more questions to ask him at a future unscheduled interview about what he was offering Black communities. So I see it as "you ain't getting shit, you have no choice but to vote for me" basically. Which matches what he said in response to joining the Democratic party voters to support medicare for all on CNBC and during his campaign when confronted on his atrocious immigration record.
Basically told people if you don't like his shitty policy/record/responses they should vote for Trump because he's going to be Joe Biden whether voters like it or not. No, that is clearly not what he meant. I'm not going to pretend that is a valid interpretation. I think you know you're grasping here. Not grasping, he literally said it to a voter confronting him on the gap between his rhetoric and his record on immigration: https://twitter.com/ericbradner/status/1197686251819810816This "you ain't Black" response has the same energy. I’m 100% on board with the way he handled that. Dude was an idiot. I want someone who tells idiots they are idiots. Regardless of delivery or poor wording and all the various things that suck about Biden,I want someone who tells idiots, whether they are voters or not, to go fuck themselves. It’s like the women who hijacked bernies speech. Fools. They don’t deserve a podium. Tell them to shut up and sit down. This is reminiscent of your ranting about how Russia tricked Black people in 2016. The idea that these people don't have a right to expect policy that reflects the needs of their community before voting for the not-Republican" candidate is the racist position imo. They aren't idiots because they want policies that I also want. They are idiots because they plan their day around making a huge fuss and destroying their own voice by shooting their credibility in the head. No one cared what that guy had to say because he presented himself as a joke. Same with the women who interrupted Bernie. It was cringey and stupid. I don't even remember what they said and he gave them the podium. They have every right to want the same policies that I want, but they don't have the right to be belligerent idiots. I want full amnesty for all immigrants and billions injected into mental health programs rather than deporting or imprisoning undocumented immigrants who are criminals. While I do want those mental health programs to be 100% mandatory and to take away their personhood until they are decent people, I don't see value in dumping them at the border and I want our country to spend money helping them. Despite all of that, the guy in the video is an idiot. Biden shutting him down was excellent for me, as a Hispanic guy who wants full amnesty. If you listened to them you might notice you don't want the same policy they do and would reconsider how you see these situations. To me they seem like bold, passionate, people and your argument comes off as belligerent and foolish (at least electorally) imo. I once thought the same thing about codepink until I realized they were the only decent people in most of those rooms imo. No harm in disagreeing, we’ve disagreed plenty before and I’ll continue to value our conversations because you challenge me. I do want to make sure you see my edit, though I don’t think it will help us agree.
Agreed.
I also want to be clear that I think making a ruckus is really good in a variety of situations. HK protests, MLK protests, certain forms of eco-terrorism, most protests are things that I think are A+ and 100% good. But it is really hard to do as an individual. I think that when people put themselves in those situations they end up breaking down and having panic attacks and it goes really poorly. That, in my eyes, is what happened in the two cases I am describing. Make a ruckus, shut down traffic, but do it well. They didn't do it well. Their timing was poor and their delivery was poor. They all hurt their causes and they needed to shut up.
CTG wasn't even "making a ruckus" he was just inviting him to come back between now and november to discuss what he was offering the communities CTG cares about and Biden basically blew him off as if there was nothing worth asking or anything more he needed to say to his audience to expect their vote.
The immigration example was just a normal town hall question when Biden told him to vote for Trump. The ruckus came after.
|
Biden looked better when he wasn't saying anything and all the attention was on how much of a fool Trump is making of himself. Every time he campaigns for too long, something like this happens.
|
On May 23 2020 14:40 LegalLord wrote:
Biden looked better when he wasn't saying anything and all the attention was on how much of a fool Trump is making of himself. Every time he campaigns for too long, something like this happens.
Agreed and I honestly don't see why he's even leaving his bunker. He has nothing to gain from campaigning right now.
|
On May 23 2020 06:57 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2020 06:36 Gorsameth wrote:On May 23 2020 05:03 Doodsmack wrote:On May 22 2020 20:27 farvacola wrote:On May 22 2020 18:20 Gorsameth wrote:On May 22 2020 10:19 Doodsmack wrote:On May 22 2020 09:44 Gorsameth wrote:On May 22 2020 09:18 Doodsmack wrote:
Should be interesting to see what happens in Flynn's case. He's appealing the trial judge's decision to request briefs from third parties. I did not realize it before but there is actually a procedural rule which does apparently grant a trial judge discretion to decide whether to grant a prosecution's motion to dismiss (i.e. to end a criminal case with the consent of both the prosecution and defendant). But the question is whether the trial judge only has such discretion in the case of obvious misconduct in the prosecution's decision to dismiss.
You mean obvious misconduct like withdrawing a case despite multiple guilty pleas because the defendant is a friend of the President? Flynn's case is from what I can tell the textbook situation of why it is ultimately left up to the judge to decide on a dismissal. to avoid a situation where the defendant and DoJ conspire to avoid a trial/sentencing. Also from what I understand of this I can't see how this writ of mandamus has snowballs chance in hell. Its for a situation where a judge is acting unlawfully yet the law clearly states it is up to the judge to grant a dismissal. The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The mere fact that Flynn is the president's friend is not so important when you consider how unprecedented Flynn's entire case is. It all comes down to the events that transpired at the outset of his case. He was, effectively, surveilled by wiretap without any criminal or even national security predicate. He was the incoming national security advisor talking to a foreign diplomat and telling that diplomat not to escalate tensions; he should be encouraged to do that. His alleged lies consisted of him saying "I don't remember," which is a legal hedge against a charge of lying. And the FBI has no business policing the statements White House officials make to each, so it doesn't matter too much that Flynn "lied" to Pence about the phone call. Even granting that the FBI should be policing the conversations White House officials have among one another, the argument that Flynn was vulnerable to blackmail as a result of those conversations is just a total hail mary of an argument. And all of these facts make it a completely unprecedented case that reeks of law enforcement misconduct. A former head of military intelligence having undisclosed contacts with foreign governments when he is required to report them is very much a 'national security' predication. People who get their news from PJMedia, The Blaze, and National Review disagree, Gorsameth, tsk tsk. Members of incoming presidential administrations are not at all required to disclose contacts with foreign governments. EDIT: They probably have to for their security clearances but that's not grounds for an FBI criminal or counterintelligence investigation, let alone an amorphous investigation combining those two in order to achieve a desired outcome. He isn't just a member of an incoming presidential administration, he is a former head of military intelligence. As someone with some of the highest access to classified information additional rules apply and he is required to register things like payments from foreign governments. Which he didn't. Plus he was already known for messing up reporting his contacts while working for the DIA (like his contact with Svetlana Lokhova) And yes he lied on his security clearance papers and later in interviews with the FBI, which is what he plead guilty to and is now being tried for. I'm really puzzled that you think a former head of military intelligence accepting and failing to report foreign government money to promote their interests (both Russia and Turkey) being selected as the national security adviser is somehow not grounds for a counter intelligence investigation? If someone with access to some of the military's biggest secrets secretly accepting money from other countries isn't enough, what is? As far as Turkey goes, Flynn did do a registration in accordance with the advice he got from counsel, it just wasn't a FARA registration. His counsel advised him that way because at the time, FARA was not enforced by the gov't. So Flynn's practice was in accord with what the rest of DC was doing. The FARA stuff is on par with the Logan Act. And the FARA threats from Mueller's team occurred long after the outset of Flynn's case, so if Flynn's case lacked predication at the outset, any FARA charges would be "fruit of the poisonous tree." As far as Russia goes, he was not doing foreign agent work for Russia. He got paid by RT and to be at a dinner with Putin in the past, but he disclosed that to DIA at the time. Don't remember anything about him lying on security clearance papers. As far as Lokhova, his contact with her occurred at an event organized by Stefan Halper, who coincedentally was acting as an informant for the FBI. Just a total coincedence though. The FBI's sexual blackmail theory regarding Lokhova was coming from "tips" from Halper and Chris Steele (lol), and it was speculative at best. Not only that, the FBI concluded the theory had no merit, and accordingly planned to close the counterintel case on Flynn because it didn't bear out any evidence of collusion whatsoever. Flynn's case is unprecedented in that it amounts to selective prosecution (FARA, Logan Act, hail mary blackmail theory) against an incoming national security adviser. And with respect to any national security predicate, it came before any FARA stuff came up. The FBI's claimed counterintel predication was not his contracts with Turkey but his phone call with the Russian ambassador - which is an absurd theory. Flynn did show terrible judgment in taking the Turkey contract while receiving intel briefings as the incoming national security advisor. But in the US we only prosecute crimes, not generally shady behavior. And no one should be suspending their skepticism of law enforcement in a situation where the incoming presidential administration is subjected to selective prosecution under laws that were not otherwise being enforced at the time. Your hatred of Trump is causing you to disregard fundamental civil liberties. Flynn was subjected to a roving, amorphous investigation that mixed defunct criminal statutes with far-fetched national security theories. And his status as the incoming national security advisor makes it all the more egregious. You asked for a reason why Flynn would be involved in a counter intelligence investigation. His work with foreign, often adversarial, countries while having/having had top secret clearance is reason enough to look even if nothing comes of it. I imagine most counter intelligence investigations end up being nothing.
And when all this was winding down he talks to the Russian ambassador about US sanctions, something he was not allowed to do (regardless of whether you think an incoming national security adviser should be allowed to discuss US policy with foreign nations before he starts working) and, and this is the important bit, he then lied about it.
You can say Flynn lying to Pence is not the perview of the FBI and your right but again I asked you how a national security adviser lying to the vice president about his involvement with other nations doesn't constitute a reason for a counter intelligence investigation. Especially so with an open investigation still existing, regardless of whether or not it was on the verge of being closed.
So the FBI wants to interview Flynn, Flynn agrees and... lies again.
And this is Flynn's own admission as part of his plea deal. He admits he lied about his contact with the Russian ambassador about US santions,
He admitted lying about a UN resolution condemning Israel where he contacted foreign nations in an attempt to influence their vote.
He admitted lying that Turkey was paying his organisation to represent their interests.
He has plead guilty to lying to the FBI, multiple times. There is no if's or buts here. He has admitted guilt. And now the DoJ wants to throw out his case because he is a friend of the President.
There is, as far as I know, no formal investigation report into the Flynn investigation that found serious errors to warrant a dismissal.
And consider Barr's far reaching personal involvement in trying to stop or stifle any investigation involving Trump or people close to Trump can it really be seen as any surprise that judge Sullivan wants an independent 3e party to look at and argue the case for not dismissing?
This is what happens when the Executive repeatedly tries to undermine the Judiciary branch. They start double checking what the hell the DoJ is doing.
If the DoJ has legitimate reasons to want to dismiss the Flynn case they can argue for that and present evidence in court. But they are not doing that, they are trying to make the appeals court force judge Sullivan to dismiss the case, despite the clear letter of the law leaving the decision to the court.
Something tells me its because they can't produce a legitimate reason for dismissal in the face of his multiple confessions.
|
Norway28706 Posts
How many people/women actually changed vote because of grab them by the pussy? (And not just changed stated preference for a two week period? )
I remember the initial backlash in polling was severe, enough to the point where I thought this was certainly enough to sink the Trump ship. But in the end it seemed not to have much impact? (To be honest, my question isn't purely rhetorical - if there are numbers, I'd be very interested to see them. )
|
On May 23 2020 19:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
How many people/women actually changed vote because of grab them by the pussy? (And not just changed stated preference for a two week period? )
I remember the initial backlash in polling was severe, enough to the point where I thought this was certainly enough to sink the Trump ship. But in the end it seemed not to have much impact? (To be honest, my question isn't purely rhetorical - if there are numbers, I'd be very interested to see them. )
Not sure it's possible to get any numbers at all. You would need large scale, very specific polling; Answering you would be extrapolating one variable out of a very complex equation. The only thing we know for sure is that at least the republican electorate tolerates a basically unlimited amount of depravity in this ultra polarized climate. It might be the same for the democrats, or not.
To me at least the last campaign has shown that the media and the public both held candidates at a very very different standard of morality and probity. The fact that Clinton was a woman complicates things further as I suspect it's a huge part of the equation (Trump or not, a 70 years old woman caught on tape saying that she can grab young men by the cock - and caught cheating her young husband with a male pornstar - would be shunned out of public life forever).
|
i’m going to try not to talk out both sides of my mouth too much here, but i think Biden said it after explaining his record on voting in alignment with most equal rights measures, etc. so i do think he was well intentioned.
but you don’t say that to charlemagne, much less anyone else, and do so respectfully? idk. charlemagne could’ve dunked him on the spot, it was merciful on his part that it ended like it did. he’s one of the most passionate ppl in radio, he’s far from stupid.
oh i’m sorry, i misunderstood which video had the idiot. my inner cthagod fanboy got triggered.
|
On May 23 2020 21:17 brian wrote:
i’m going to try not to talk out both sides of my mouth too much here, but i think Biden said it after explaining his record on voting in alignment with most equal rights measures, etc. so i do think he was well intentioned.
but you don’t say that to charlemagne, much less anyone else, and do so respectfully? idk. charlemagne could’ve dunked him on the spot, it was merciful on his part that it ended like it did. he’s one of the most passionate ppl in radio, he’s far from stupid.
oh i’m sorry, i misunderstood which video had the idiot. my inner cthagod fanboy got triggered.
Yeah, the one who had a chant ready and waiting (with other people ready and waiting to join the chant LOL) while he raddled off his shitty monologue, waiting for Biden to say he will deport convicted felons. Biden saying he'd deport felons (probably waiting for him to say he'd deport anyone at all) was clearly the pre-determined chant cue. It was a big swing and a miss.
I'm short, bravery isn't enough. You need to also make a positive difference. Bravery is situational and just like the women who interrupted Bernie, it was a clear example of how bravery can be misplaced and non productive. Gotta do a good job, can't just try your best.
|
On May 24 2020 00:25 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2020 21:17 brian wrote:
i’m going to try not to talk out both sides of my mouth too much here, but i think Biden said it after explaining his record on voting in alignment with most equal rights measures, etc. so i do think he was well intentioned.
but you don’t say that to charlemagne, much less anyone else, and do so respectfully? idk. charlemagne could’ve dunked him on the spot, it was merciful on his part that it ended like it did. he’s one of the most passionate ppl in radio, he’s far from stupid.
oh i’m sorry, i misunderstood which video had the idiot. my inner cthagod fanboy got triggered. Yeah, the one who had a chant ready and waiting (with other people ready and waiting to join the chant LOL) while he raddled off his shitty monologue, waiting for Biden to say he will deport convicted felons. Biden saying he'd deport felons (probably waiting for him to say he'd deport anyone at all) was clearly the pre-determined chant cue. It was a big swing and a miss. I'm short, bravery isn't enough. You need to also make a positive difference. Bravery is situational and just like the women who interrupted Bernie, it was a clear example of how bravery can be misplaced and non productive. Gotta do a good job, can't just try your best.
Is that how you would articulate your efforts toward rectifying the horrific treatment Biden shares responsibility for regarding immigrants and the children in cages denied basic sanitary supplies during his time as VP?
|
On May 24 2020 00:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2020 00:25 Mohdoo wrote:On May 23 2020 21:17 brian wrote:
i’m going to try not to talk out both sides of my mouth too much here, but i think Biden said it after explaining his record on voting in alignment with most equal rights measures, etc. so i do think he was well intentioned.
but you don’t say that to charlemagne, much less anyone else, and do so respectfully? idk. charlemagne could’ve dunked him on the spot, it was merciful on his part that it ended like it did. he’s one of the most passionate ppl in radio, he’s far from stupid.
oh i’m sorry, i misunderstood which video had the idiot. my inner cthagod fanboy got triggered. Yeah, the one who had a chant ready and waiting (with other people ready and waiting to join the chant LOL) while he raddled off his shitty monologue, waiting for Biden to say he will deport convicted felons. Biden saying he'd deport felons (probably waiting for him to say he'd deport anyone at all) was clearly the pre-determined chant cue. It was a big swing and a miss. I'm short, bravery isn't enough. You need to also make a positive difference. Bravery is situational and just like the women who interrupted Bernie, it was a clear example of how bravery can be misplaced and non productive. Gotta do a good job, can't just try your best. Is that how you would articulate your efforts toward rectifying the horrific treatment Biden shares responsibility for regarding immigrants and the children in cages denied basic sanitary supplies during his time as VP?
I'm not rectifying anything. The mistake you're making is thinking any of that would impact my decision to vote for him. All deportations are unethical in my eyes, but we've already been through your whole "only vote for people you truly believe in and share your core values and whatnot". I reject it. I've told you my reasons and you've heard them. No need to make people read the same shit over and over.
As a Hispanic man looking to decrease Hispanic suffering, a vote for Biden is a slam dunk for me. If there's a point you feel you haven't made before, I'd love to hear it, but I don't think that is going to be the case. Let's not repeat arguments.
|
To complicate the picture, Biden has effectively baited Trump and his campaign into talking about race, even if only by proxy reference to Biden's gaffe, and if this leads to Trump thinking he can say something *smart* about blackness at a debate, I have little doubt that things will wash out, if not go back the other way.
Another angle is that Biden apologized that very same day, and while that's typically regarded as something a candidate does not want to do, it isn't a stretch to imagine that Biden could benefit from doing the one thing Trump never will. Naturally, that'll do little to assuage the concerns of black people tired of white people's apologies, but translating that into the ultimate question of whom to vote for isn't especially clear cut at a high level of generality.
|
On May 24 2020 00:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2020 00:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2020 00:25 Mohdoo wrote:On May 23 2020 21:17 brian wrote:
i’m going to try not to talk out both sides of my mouth too much here, but i think Biden said it after explaining his record on voting in alignment with most equal rights measures, etc. so i do think he was well intentioned.
but you don’t say that to charlemagne, much less anyone else, and do so respectfully? idk. charlemagne could’ve dunked him on the spot, it was merciful on his part that it ended like it did. he’s one of the most passionate ppl in radio, he’s far from stupid.
oh i’m sorry, i misunderstood which video had the idiot. my inner cthagod fanboy got triggered. Yeah, the one who had a chant ready and waiting (with other people ready and waiting to join the chant LOL) while he raddled off his shitty monologue, waiting for Biden to say he will deport convicted felons. Biden saying he'd deport felons (probably waiting for him to say he'd deport anyone at all) was clearly the pre-determined chant cue. It was a big swing and a miss. I'm short, bravery isn't enough. You need to also make a positive difference. Bravery is situational and just like the women who interrupted Bernie, it was a clear example of how bravery can be misplaced and non productive. Gotta do a good job, can't just try your best. Is that how you would articulate your efforts toward rectifying the horrific treatment Biden shares responsibility for regarding immigrants and the children in cages denied basic sanitary supplies during his time as VP? I'm not rectifying anything. The mistake you're making is thinking any of that would impact my decision to vote for him. All deportations are unethical in my eyes, but we've already been through your whole "only vote for people you truly believe in and share your core values and whatnot". I reject it. I've told you my reasons and you've heard them. No need to make people read the same shit over and over. As a Hispanic man looking to decrease Hispanic suffering, a vote for Biden is a slam dunk for me. If there's a point you feel you haven't made before, I'd love to hear it, but I don't think that is going to be the case. Let's not repeat arguments.
Basically just that the belligerence from Biden and in your argument toward these people seems preposterous to me. That your celebration of that belligerence is celebrated by racists who will imitate it. So when Trump tells some immigration protesters to shut up and says they are idiots hurting their cause when they protest about the same things, you'll celebrate them too or your hypocrisy will be on full display.
Also that the standard moderate line "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" is sufficient without the berating and belittling imo.
EDIT: As an aside, has anyone here talked with Black Trump supporters personally?
|
On May 24 2020 01:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2020 00:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2020 00:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2020 00:25 Mohdoo wrote:On May 23 2020 21:17 brian wrote:
i’m going to try not to talk out both sides of my mouth too much here, but i think Biden said it after explaining his record on voting in alignment with most equal rights measures, etc. so i do think he was well intentioned.
but you don’t say that to charlemagne, much less anyone else, and do so respectfully? idk. charlemagne could’ve dunked him on the spot, it was merciful on his part that it ended like it did. he’s one of the most passionate ppl in radio, he’s far from stupid.
oh i’m sorry, i misunderstood which video had the idiot. my inner cthagod fanboy got triggered. Yeah, the one who had a chant ready and waiting (with other people ready and waiting to join the chant LOL) while he raddled off his shitty monologue, waiting for Biden to say he will deport convicted felons. Biden saying he'd deport felons (probably waiting for him to say he'd deport anyone at all) was clearly the pre-determined chant cue. It was a big swing and a miss. I'm short, bravery isn't enough. You need to also make a positive difference. Bravery is situational and just like the women who interrupted Bernie, it was a clear example of how bravery can be misplaced and non productive. Gotta do a good job, can't just try your best. Is that how you would articulate your efforts toward rectifying the horrific treatment Biden shares responsibility for regarding immigrants and the children in cages denied basic sanitary supplies during his time as VP? I'm not rectifying anything. The mistake you're making is thinking any of that would impact my decision to vote for him. All deportations are unethical in my eyes, but we've already been through your whole "only vote for people you truly believe in and share your core values and whatnot". I reject it. I've told you my reasons and you've heard them. No need to make people read the same shit over and over. As a Hispanic man looking to decrease Hispanic suffering, a vote for Biden is a slam dunk for me. If there's a point you feel you haven't made before, I'd love to hear it, but I don't think that is going to be the case. Let's not repeat arguments. Basically just that the belligerence from Biden and in your argument toward these people seems preposterous to me. That your celebration of that belligerence is celebrated by racists who will imitate it. So when Trump tells some immigration protesters to shut up and says they are idiots hurting their cause when they protest about the same things, you'll celebrate them too or your hypocrisy will be on full display. Also that the standard moderate line "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" is sufficient without the berating and belittling imo. EDIT: As an aside, has anyone here talked with Black Trump supporters personally?
I think we fundamentally disagree on the role of civility in discourse. I don't see it as entirely necessary. It can be good. It can be bad. Sometimes you need to throw a molotov cocktail, sometimes you don't. It all depends on the situation. There are lots of ways to be very uncivil, but still successful, which I fully support. Interrupting Bernie's speech may have gone well, but it didn't. They did a bad job. Swing and miss. The little posse waiting for their moment to chant at Biden could have been done well, but it wasn't. Another swing and a miss.
If someone yelled some anti-vax thing, I'd totally support Trump or Biden or whoever saying "shut up you fucking idiot". The message and the quality both matter. Without both, big thumbs down from me. That girl who got meme'd for yelling at someone about "you're a fucking white male" likely had ideas I agree with somewhere in her head, but she was a disaster and made things worse.
I see no reason not to belittle people in this circumstance. I see them as damaging to causes I believe in. It saddens me that they use their time making matters worse. So I won't hesitate to clearly articulate the extent to which I think they are poor performers. We are here discussing the role of activism in political movements/action. Critiquing what we think works and doesn't feels appropriate. I can recall a few times when you didn't think people were going a good direction with regards to political action. Critique is a part of the conversation. When I think someone is particularly bad, I will describe them as such. "white male", biden posse and the 2 girls interrupting bernie were all notably bad.
|
On May 24 2020 01:05 farvacola wrote:
To complicate the picture, Biden has effectively baited Trump and his campaign into talking about race, even if only by proxy reference to Biden's gaffe, and if this leads to Trump thinking he can say something *smart* about blackness at a debate, I have little doubt that things will wash out, if not go back the other way.
Another angle is that Biden apologized that very same day, and while that's typically regarded as something a candidate does not want to do, it isn't a stretch to imagine that Biden could benefit from doing the one thing Trump never will. Naturally, that'll do little to assuage the concerns of black people tired of white people's apologies, but translating that into the ultimate question of whom to vote for isn't especially clear cut at a high level of generality.
I for one am tired of white people paying lip service without action. I don't care that you've apologized. I want to know what actions you have taken either politically or in your personal life to make the situation better. If you are new and open to ideas/suggestions, then I'm sure there are avenues for you to take to learn more. Otherwise, it's all empty words and does nothing but what you've mentioned farva, make black people tired of apologies.
Along those same lines, I think ultimately, if played correctly, this won't hurt Biden at all if they can hammer home the disproportionate affects this pandemic has had on communities of color and how this administration has done little to nothing to help mitigate those issues. I also think that no matter how you cut it, there will be people voting against their best interests again just to spite the candidates. It'll be interesting to see the tone of the campaign going forward.
|
A thought occurred to me regarding this whole economic stimulus strategy the Trump administration (and friends in Congress, Rep and Dem alike). Perhaps one that's obvious - it certainly seems so in hindsight - but in case it isn't, it certainly does provide some context to what I see happening with most everything about its execution.
The entire strategy seems to be predicated on one core idea: that if you pump enough money into the system to keep things afloat just until we get over this brief lockdown hump, everything will go back to normal and we will have the economy we had before. A quarter of the year of locking down the entire economy, so if you pump about a quarter of the annual GDP - say, $6 trillion - into the system, it'll tide everyone over until things go back to normal. The government will just add $1 trillion to its debt and companies/individuals will take $5 trillion, and we'll all just pay it back over time after this virus blows over, so it should be little more than a bump in the road in the grand scheme of things.
That seems to be the way the government is operating, and the future that the stock market perceives (hence its aggressive optimism right now). And it is kind of how 2008 played out, albeit by masking dysfunction with a bigger bubble and never fixing any of the fundamental issues that led to the meltdown in the first place. It might even be a nice cover for certain corporations to shore up their advantages by reducing headcount at a time when that is more politically palatable (bad economy -> no one will bat an eye if you cut down your workforce to support automation / outsourcing / etc). Some winners some losers, but at the end it'll all just go back to the pre-crisis normal over time. Just have to count the days until one of these pharmaceutical companies find the magic cure that will get rid of the problem.
At this point that entire scenario seems quite unlikely. Long after the lockdowns expire, few people are going to want to travel for leisure or business when there's a very nontrivial risk of catching a respiratory illness that will kill you or at least put you in the hospital for a long time. By the time that risk abates, there probably won't be anywhere near as much of an economy based around unnecessary travel and people will just do less of it anyways because they've adapted to the new normal. Supply chains getting interrupted because some other country is locked down and everything falls apart if one link in a gigantic chain is troubled, that's another thing we might want to move away from. And of course don't forget all the businesses that will fail as a result of all that, and how a small-but-significant portion of the world's debt load going bad is contagious.
Here's to hoping the entire global airline industry falls apart within the next year or so. If we're ever to move past propping up a failed economic system and investing the resources left afterward into a better one, a long-term reduction in air travel is one of the many necessities. Otherwise we can look forward to a repeat of this whole crisis in 2032 or so, only with even more dysfunction.
|
On May 24 2020 01:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2020 01:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2020 00:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2020 00:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2020 00:25 Mohdoo wrote:On May 23 2020 21:17 brian wrote:
i’m going to try not to talk out both sides of my mouth too much here, but i think Biden said it after explaining his record on voting in alignment with most equal rights measures, etc. so i do think he was well intentioned.
but you don’t say that to charlemagne, much less anyone else, and do so respectfully? idk. charlemagne could’ve dunked him on the spot, it was merciful on his part that it ended like it did. he’s one of the most passionate ppl in radio, he’s far from stupid.
oh i’m sorry, i misunderstood which video had the idiot. my inner cthagod fanboy got triggered. Yeah, the one who had a chant ready and waiting (with other people ready and waiting to join the chant LOL) while he raddled off his shitty monologue, waiting for Biden to say he will deport convicted felons. Biden saying he'd deport felons (probably waiting for him to say he'd deport anyone at all) was clearly the pre-determined chant cue. It was a big swing and a miss. I'm short, bravery isn't enough. You need to also make a positive difference. Bravery is situational and just like the women who interrupted Bernie, it was a clear example of how bravery can be misplaced and non productive. Gotta do a good job, can't just try your best. Is that how you would articulate your efforts toward rectifying the horrific treatment Biden shares responsibility for regarding immigrants and the children in cages denied basic sanitary supplies during his time as VP? I'm not rectifying anything. The mistake you're making is thinking any of that would impact my decision to vote for him. All deportations are unethical in my eyes, but we've already been through your whole "only vote for people you truly believe in and share your core values and whatnot". I reject it. I've told you my reasons and you've heard them. No need to make people read the same shit over and over. As a Hispanic man looking to decrease Hispanic suffering, a vote for Biden is a slam dunk for me. If there's a point you feel you haven't made before, I'd love to hear it, but I don't think that is going to be the case. Let's not repeat arguments. Basically just that the belligerence from Biden and in your argument toward these people seems preposterous to me. That your celebration of that belligerence is celebrated by racists who will imitate it. So when Trump tells some immigration protesters to shut up and says they are idiots hurting their cause when they protest about the same things, you'll celebrate them too or your hypocrisy will be on full display. Also that the standard moderate line "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" is sufficient without the berating and belittling imo. EDIT: As an aside, has anyone here talked with Black Trump supporters personally? + Show Spoiler +I think we fundamentally disagree on the role of civility in discourse. I don't see it as entirely necessary. It can be good. It can be bad. Sometimes you need to throw a molotov cocktail, sometimes you don't. It all depends on the situation. There are lots of ways to be very uncivil, but still successful, which I fully support. Interrupting Bernie's speech may have gone well, but it didn't. They did a bad job. Swing and miss. The little posse waiting for their moment to chant at Biden could have been done well, but it wasn't. Another swing and a miss.
If someone yelled some anti-vax thing, I'd totally support Trump or Biden or whoever saying "shut up you fucking idiot". The message and the quality both matter. Without both, big thumbs down from me. That girl who got meme'd for yelling at someone about "you're a fucking white male" likely had ideas I agree with somewhere in her head, but she was a disaster and made things worse. I see no reason not to belittle people in this circumstance. I see them as damaging to causes I believe in. It saddens me that they use their time making matters worse. So I won't hesitate to clearly articulate the extent to which I think they are poor performers. We are here discussing the role of activism in political movements/action. Critiquing what we think works and doesn't feels appropriate. I can recall a few times when you didn't think people were going a good direction with regards to political action. Critique is a part of the conversation. When I think someone is particularly bad, I will describe them as such. "white male", biden posse and the 2 girls interrupting bernie were all notably bad.
Are you doing this kind of work providing you with relevant experience and insight on capabilities and effectiveness or is this more like shouting at the players from the stands?
Can't help but wonder if you could do any better and what excuse you would have for not doing it?
|
On May 24 2020 01:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2020 01:05 farvacola wrote:
To complicate the picture, Biden has effectively baited Trump and his campaign into talking about race, even if only by proxy reference to Biden's gaffe, and if this leads to Trump thinking he can say something *smart* about blackness at a debate, I have little doubt that things will wash out, if not go back the other way.
Another angle is that Biden apologized that very same day, and while that's typically regarded as something a candidate does not want to do, it isn't a stretch to imagine that Biden could benefit from doing the one thing Trump never will. Naturally, that'll do little to assuage the concerns of black people tired of white people's apologies, but translating that into the ultimate question of whom to vote for isn't especially clear cut at a high level of generality. I for one am tired of white people paying lip service without action. I don't care that you've apologized. I want to know what actions you have taken either politically or in your personal life to make the situation better. If you are new and open to ideas/suggestions, then I'm sure there are avenues for you to take to learn more. Otherwise, it's all empty words and does nothing but what you've mentioned farva, make black people tired of apologies. Along those same lines, I think ultimately, if played correctly, this won't hurt Biden at all if they can hammer home the disproportionate affects this pandemic has had on communities of color and how this administration has done little to nothing to help mitigate those issues. I also think that no matter how you cut it, there will be people voting against their best interests again just to spite the candidates. It'll be interesting to see the tone of the campaign going forward.
A lot of Trump's most potent attacks on Democrats and Clinton were birthed from outrageous, seemingly insane gaffes. After a little walk back and a little commitment, he was able to make some pretty big attacks by having the camera on him and explaining why Clinton was satan or whatever. I like the idea of Biden adopting the same tactic.
This is also good for Biden to develop what I am thinking of as "gaffe antibodies". Trump immunized himself from gaffes by being super aggressive/offensive for a long time. "Blood coming out of her wherever" for example. Biden should do the same. Saying someone isn't black is a good bait to talk about Trump's policies hurting people of color.
On May 24 2020 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2020 01:34 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2020 01:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2020 00:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2020 00:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2020 00:25 Mohdoo wrote:On May 23 2020 21:17 brian wrote:
i’m going to try not to talk out both sides of my mouth too much here, but i think Biden said it after explaining his record on voting in alignment with most equal rights measures, etc. so i do think he was well intentioned.
but you don’t say that to charlemagne, much less anyone else, and do so respectfully? idk. charlemagne could’ve dunked him on the spot, it was merciful on his part that it ended like it did. he’s one of the most passionate ppl in radio, he’s far from stupid.
oh i’m sorry, i misunderstood which video had the idiot. my inner cthagod fanboy got triggered. Yeah, the one who had a chant ready and waiting (with other people ready and waiting to join the chant LOL) while he raddled off his shitty monologue, waiting for Biden to say he will deport convicted felons. Biden saying he'd deport felons (probably waiting for him to say he'd deport anyone at all) was clearly the pre-determined chant cue. It was a big swing and a miss. I'm short, bravery isn't enough. You need to also make a positive difference. Bravery is situational and just like the women who interrupted Bernie, it was a clear example of how bravery can be misplaced and non productive. Gotta do a good job, can't just try your best. Is that how you would articulate your efforts toward rectifying the horrific treatment Biden shares responsibility for regarding immigrants and the children in cages denied basic sanitary supplies during his time as VP? I'm not rectifying anything. The mistake you're making is thinking any of that would impact my decision to vote for him. All deportations are unethical in my eyes, but we've already been through your whole "only vote for people you truly believe in and share your core values and whatnot". I reject it. I've told you my reasons and you've heard them. No need to make people read the same shit over and over. As a Hispanic man looking to decrease Hispanic suffering, a vote for Biden is a slam dunk for me. If there's a point you feel you haven't made before, I'd love to hear it, but I don't think that is going to be the case. Let's not repeat arguments. Basically just that the belligerence from Biden and in your argument toward these people seems preposterous to me. That your celebration of that belligerence is celebrated by racists who will imitate it. So when Trump tells some immigration protesters to shut up and says they are idiots hurting their cause when they protest about the same things, you'll celebrate them too or your hypocrisy will be on full display. Also that the standard moderate line "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" is sufficient without the berating and belittling imo. EDIT: As an aside, has anyone here talked with Black Trump supporters personally? + Show Spoiler +I think we fundamentally disagree on the role of civility in discourse. I don't see it as entirely necessary. It can be good. It can be bad. Sometimes you need to throw a molotov cocktail, sometimes you don't. It all depends on the situation. There are lots of ways to be very uncivil, but still successful, which I fully support. Interrupting Bernie's speech may have gone well, but it didn't. They did a bad job. Swing and miss. The little posse waiting for their moment to chant at Biden could have been done well, but it wasn't. Another swing and a miss.
If someone yelled some anti-vax thing, I'd totally support Trump or Biden or whoever saying "shut up you fucking idiot". The message and the quality both matter. Without both, big thumbs down from me. That girl who got meme'd for yelling at someone about "you're a fucking white male" likely had ideas I agree with somewhere in her head, but she was a disaster and made things worse. I see no reason not to belittle people in this circumstance. I see them as damaging to causes I believe in. It saddens me that they use their time making matters worse. So I won't hesitate to clearly articulate the extent to which I think they are poor performers. We are here discussing the role of activism in political movements/action. Critiquing what we think works and doesn't feels appropriate. I can recall a few times when you didn't think people were going a good direction with regards to political action. Critique is a part of the conversation. When I think someone is particularly bad, I will describe them as such. "white male", biden posse and the 2 girls interrupting bernie were all notably bad. Are you doing this kind of work providing you with relevant experience and insight on capabilities and effectiveness or is this more like shouting at the players from the stands? Can't help but wonder if you could do any better and what excuse you would have for not doing it?
I'm not going to get into one of these personal back and forth conversations you have with people. You are welcome to think what you will.
|
On May 24 2020 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2020 01:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 24 2020 01:05 farvacola wrote:
To complicate the picture, Biden has effectively baited Trump and his campaign into talking about race, even if only by proxy reference to Biden's gaffe, and if this leads to Trump thinking he can say something *smart* about blackness at a debate, I have little doubt that things will wash out, if not go back the other way.
Another angle is that Biden apologized that very same day, and while that's typically regarded as something a candidate does not want to do, it isn't a stretch to imagine that Biden could benefit from doing the one thing Trump never will. Naturally, that'll do little to assuage the concerns of black people tired of white people's apologies, but translating that into the ultimate question of whom to vote for isn't especially clear cut at a high level of generality. I for one am tired of white people paying lip service without action. I don't care that you've apologized. I want to know what actions you have taken either politically or in your personal life to make the situation better. If you are new and open to ideas/suggestions, then I'm sure there are avenues for you to take to learn more. Otherwise, it's all empty words and does nothing but what you've mentioned farva, make black people tired of apologies. Along those same lines, I think ultimately, if played correctly, this won't hurt Biden at all if they can hammer home the disproportionate affects this pandemic has had on communities of color and how this administration has done little to nothing to help mitigate those issues. I also think that no matter how you cut it, there will be people voting against their best interests again just to spite the candidates. It'll be interesting to see the tone of the campaign going forward. A lot of Trump's most potent attacks on Democrats and Clinton were birthed from outrageous, seemingly insane gaffes. After a little walk back and a little commitment, he was able to make some pretty big attacks by having the camera on him and explaining why Clinton was satan or whatever. I like the idea of Biden adopting the same tactic. This is also good for Biden to develop what I am thinking of as "gaffe antibodies". Trump immunized himself from gaffes by being super aggressive/offensive for a long time. "Blood coming out of her wherever" for example. Biden should do the same. Saying someone isn't black is a good bait to talk about Trump's policies hurting people of color. Show nested quote +On May 24 2020 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2020 01:34 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2020 01:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2020 00:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2020 00:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2020 00:25 Mohdoo wrote:On May 23 2020 21:17 brian wrote:
i’m going to try not to talk out both sides of my mouth too much here, but i think Biden said it after explaining his record on voting in alignment with most equal rights measures, etc. so i do think he was well intentioned.
but you don’t say that to charlemagne, much less anyone else, and do so respectfully? idk. charlemagne could’ve dunked him on the spot, it was merciful on his part that it ended like it did. he’s one of the most passionate ppl in radio, he’s far from stupid.
oh i’m sorry, i misunderstood which video had the idiot. my inner cthagod fanboy got triggered. Yeah, the one who had a chant ready and waiting (with other people ready and waiting to join the chant LOL) while he raddled off his shitty monologue, waiting for Biden to say he will deport convicted felons. Biden saying he'd deport felons (probably waiting for him to say he'd deport anyone at all) was clearly the pre-determined chant cue. It was a big swing and a miss. I'm short, bravery isn't enough. You need to also make a positive difference. Bravery is situational and just like the women who interrupted Bernie, it was a clear example of how bravery can be misplaced and non productive. Gotta do a good job, can't just try your best. Is that how you would articulate your efforts toward rectifying the horrific treatment Biden shares responsibility for regarding immigrants and the children in cages denied basic sanitary supplies during his time as VP? I'm not rectifying anything. The mistake you're making is thinking any of that would impact my decision to vote for him. All deportations are unethical in my eyes, but we've already been through your whole "only vote for people you truly believe in and share your core values and whatnot". I reject it. I've told you my reasons and you've heard them. No need to make people read the same shit over and over. As a Hispanic man looking to decrease Hispanic suffering, a vote for Biden is a slam dunk for me. If there's a point you feel you haven't made before, I'd love to hear it, but I don't think that is going to be the case. Let's not repeat arguments. Basically just that the belligerence from Biden and in your argument toward these people seems preposterous to me. That your celebration of that belligerence is celebrated by racists who will imitate it. So when Trump tells some immigration protesters to shut up and says they are idiots hurting their cause when they protest about the same things, you'll celebrate them too or your hypocrisy will be on full display. Also that the standard moderate line "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" is sufficient without the berating and belittling imo. EDIT: As an aside, has anyone here talked with Black Trump supporters personally? + Show Spoiler +I think we fundamentally disagree on the role of civility in discourse. I don't see it as entirely necessary. It can be good. It can be bad. Sometimes you need to throw a molotov cocktail, sometimes you don't. It all depends on the situation. There are lots of ways to be very uncivil, but still successful, which I fully support. Interrupting Bernie's speech may have gone well, but it didn't. They did a bad job. Swing and miss. The little posse waiting for their moment to chant at Biden could have been done well, but it wasn't. Another swing and a miss.
If someone yelled some anti-vax thing, I'd totally support Trump or Biden or whoever saying "shut up you fucking idiot". The message and the quality both matter. Without both, big thumbs down from me. That girl who got meme'd for yelling at someone about "you're a fucking white male" likely had ideas I agree with somewhere in her head, but she was a disaster and made things worse. I see no reason not to belittle people in this circumstance. I see them as damaging to causes I believe in. It saddens me that they use their time making matters worse. So I won't hesitate to clearly articulate the extent to which I think they are poor performers. We are here discussing the role of activism in political movements/action. Critiquing what we think works and doesn't feels appropriate. I can recall a few times when you didn't think people were going a good direction with regards to political action. Critique is a part of the conversation. When I think someone is particularly bad, I will describe them as such. "white male", biden posse and the 2 girls interrupting bernie were all notably bad. Are you doing this kind of work providing you with relevant experience and insight on capabilities and effectiveness or is this more like shouting at the players from the stands? Can't help but wonder if you could do any better and what excuse you would have for not doing it? I'm not going to get into one of these personal back and forth conversations you have with people. You are welcome to think what you will.
Just trying to give the critique what I see as appropriate context and offer a bit of my own. After all, 'no reason not to belittle people in this circumstance. I see them as damaging to causes I believe in. It saddens me that they use their time making matters worse. So I won't hesitate to clearly articulate the extent to which I think they are poor performers. We are here discussing the role of activism in political movements/action. Critiquing what we think works and doesn't feels appropriate.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
