|
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 March 03 2022 01:32 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 01:26 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 22:55 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 05:31 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 05:27 KwarK wrote:On March 02 2022 05:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 02 2022 05:15 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
They live in a bubble and repeat these gotchas to each other. I think they genuinely don’t know that they won’t be taken seriously when they use them outside their bubble. Even still, that first...whatever the hell you want to call it, should have set off some kind of alarm. I'm not a fan of bubbles/echo chambers and welcome differing opinions, but just blatant stupid should not be suffered. This isn't reddit and TL mods shouldn't allow such stupid. At the very least, some kind of warning or anything should be levied. For the shit xdaunt and danglars espoused, at least they have some kind of original thought structure. This is just...pathetic trolling. It’s hard to tell the difference between someone who deliberately argues in bad faith and someone who repeats bad faith arguments in good faith because they lack the skills to critically assess them. It took ages to reach consensus that xDaunt was deliberately posting in bad faith for example. While the arguments he’s making are obviously bad faith arguments beneath any real consideration that doesn’t mean that he is making them in bad faith. I am not posting in bad faith. I took offense to the claim that my party is racist, while it is the opposing party that has both historical practiced racism and continues to do so. I am all ears if anyone would like to explain why it is okay to discriminate against Asian Americans in college admissions. The fact that no one has engaged the issue makes me suspect that you all are ashamed of your party and hoping someone else does the dirty work of defending the blatant racism that affirmative action represents. You could actually get a good discussion going if you actually addressed the topic at hand, i.e. you've got Republicans in leadership roles that headline white nationalist events. You've chosen instead to engage in whataboutism, i.e. what about democrats? they are the racist ones! So don't be surprised if people don't engage. I personally would like to hear your opinion on what should be done about people that openly court the racist vote today. Do you think that it's okay for a member of a mainstream political party to headline a white nationalist event? What should the consequences be? I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. Well, I reject identity politics because there’s one thing I know. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is or any of these choices and all of these things that are said, it matters who you are as a person. It matters who you are and your character, and it matters how you treat other people and the type of life you live. And so we have to stand together as Americans. She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. I don't think I follow what you mean here by 'politics'. For instance, is being a pedophile part of somebody's politics? Criminal convictions would be a good reason for removal.
Yes, not going to disagree there, but that doesn't answer the question. Is being a pedophile part of somebody's politics?
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27359 Posts
On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 22:55 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 05:31 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 05:27 KwarK wrote:On March 02 2022 05:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 02 2022 05:15 KwarK wrote:On March 02 2022 05:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 02 2022 05:06 meadbert wrote:
[quote]
The Republican party is not the party that promoted slavery for 80 years.
It is the party that ended slavery.
The Republican party is not the party that promoted Jim Crow laws and segregation for 90 years. That party was the Democratic party.
The Republican party is not the party that currently discriminates against Americans of Asian ancestry because of their race in college admissions. That party is the Democratic party.
The Democratic party currently has more racists than the Republican party. If you believe in discriminating against Asians in college admissions, then you are a racist and I am calling out your racism.
This is a troll right? This has to be a troll. All of this is just...asinine to the nth lvl. They live in a bubble and repeat these gotchas to each other. I think they genuinely don’t know that they won’t be taken seriously when they use them outside their bubble. Even still, that first...whatever the hell you want to call it, should have set off some kind of alarm. I'm not a fan of bubbles/echo chambers and welcome differing opinions, but just blatant stupid should not be suffered. This isn't reddit and TL mods shouldn't allow such stupid. At the very least, some kind of warning or anything should be levied. For the shit xdaunt and danglars espoused, at least they have some kind of original thought structure. This is just...pathetic trolling. It’s hard to tell the difference between someone who deliberately argues in bad faith and someone who repeats bad faith arguments in good faith because they lack the skills to critically assess them. It took ages to reach consensus that xDaunt was deliberately posting in bad faith for example. While the arguments he’s making are obviously bad faith arguments beneath any real consideration that doesn’t mean that he is making them in bad faith. I am not posting in bad faith. I took offense to the claim that my party is racist, while it is the opposing party that has both historical practiced racism and continues to do so. I am all ears if anyone would like to explain why it is okay to discriminate against Asian Americans in college admissions. The fact that no one has engaged the issue makes me suspect that you all are ashamed of your party and hoping someone else does the dirty work of defending the blatant racism that affirmative action represents. You could actually get a good discussion going if you actually addressed the topic at hand, i.e. you've got Republicans in leadership roles that headline white nationalist events. You've chosen instead to engage in whataboutism, i.e. what about democrats? they are the racist ones! So don't be surprised if people don't engage. I personally would like to hear your opinion on what should be done about people that openly court the racist vote today. Do you think that it's okay for a member of a mainstream political party to headline a white nationalist event? What should the consequences be? I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. Well, I reject identity politics because there’s one thing I know. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is or any of these choices and all of these things that are said, it matters who you are as a person. It matters who you are and your character, and it matters how you treat other people and the type of life you live. And so we have to stand together as Americans. She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election.
A party can decide how it wishes to dole out committee appointments.
Party discipline is a huge part of why political parties even exist, to keep broader coalitions together and broadly in lockstep.
How that whip is wielded, and in which direction says a fair amount of the wider thrust of that coalition.
In recent times that messaging is MTG’s behaviour isn’t a bar on her serving on committees, by a landslide. And that the likes of Liz Cheney should shut up about Jan 6th or Trump in general.
I don’t recall anyone here advocating for people being booted out of Congress. In the gap between elections the check on legislators is their own party, aside from riding the political tides and making their next run likely to be successful.
The GOP is absolutely consistent in its refusal to meaningfully censure these folks, so the idea that ‘oh they’re outlying crazies and not representative’ starts to hold less and less weight.
I think it was entirely prudent to boot Marjorie Taylor Greene off social media. As to where the lines should be drawn as to what is bannable, I’m unsure but she took a hop, skip and full triple jump and is at least 9 foot over the most generous line.
It’s society’s wider problem, it’s not my problem to resolve, these people don’t represent my party.
If even a fraction of the collective energy put into endlessly defending Trump, or the wider GOP of accusations of courting unsavoury forces as racism, into ‘oh wait actually this person fucking sucks, I don’t want them they make my party worse’ and movement in direction, we might get somewhere.
It’s not like we’re talking about waiting for old racist dinosaurs to die off in the party, the party is getting worse in these areas with the new blood coming in.
|
On March 03 2022 01:38 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 01:32 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 01:26 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 22:55 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 05:31 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 05:27 KwarK wrote:On March 02 2022 05:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
Even still, that first...whatever the hell you want to call it, should have set off some kind of alarm. I'm not a fan of bubbles/echo chambers and welcome differing opinions, but just blatant stupid should not be suffered. This isn't reddit and TL mods shouldn't allow such stupid. At the very least, some kind of warning or anything should be levied. For the shit xdaunt and danglars espoused, at least they have some kind of original thought structure. This is just...pathetic trolling. It’s hard to tell the difference between someone who deliberately argues in bad faith and someone who repeats bad faith arguments in good faith because they lack the skills to critically assess them. It took ages to reach consensus that xDaunt was deliberately posting in bad faith for example. While the arguments he’s making are obviously bad faith arguments beneath any real consideration that doesn’t mean that he is making them in bad faith. I am not posting in bad faith. I took offense to the claim that my party is racist, while it is the opposing party that has both historical practiced racism and continues to do so. I am all ears if anyone would like to explain why it is okay to discriminate against Asian Americans in college admissions. The fact that no one has engaged the issue makes me suspect that you all are ashamed of your party and hoping someone else does the dirty work of defending the blatant racism that affirmative action represents. You could actually get a good discussion going if you actually addressed the topic at hand, i.e. you've got Republicans in leadership roles that headline white nationalist events. You've chosen instead to engage in whataboutism, i.e. what about democrats? they are the racist ones! So don't be surprised if people don't engage. I personally would like to hear your opinion on what should be done about people that openly court the racist vote today. Do you think that it's okay for a member of a mainstream political party to headline a white nationalist event? What should the consequences be? I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. Well, I reject identity politics because there’s one thing I know. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is or any of these choices and all of these things that are said, it matters who you are as a person. It matters who you are and your character, and it matters how you treat other people and the type of life you live. And so we have to stand together as Americans. She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. I don't think I follow what you mean here by 'politics'. For instance, is being a pedophile part of somebody's politics? Criminal convictions would be a good reason for removal. Yes, not going to disagree there, but that doesn't answer the question. Is being a pedophile part of somebody's politics?
If it is just what they do, then I suppose not. If they call for modifying the law, then it becomes part of their politics.
I have lived through at least half a dozen changes to state law regarding who can have sex with whom. I have seen gay sex banned. I have seen 15 year olds allowed to sleep with 18 year olds. I have then seen that banned. I knew a couple who found themselves banned by a new law years into their relationship. That was awkward.
I do not call for banning people from congress because their opinion does not match my own, even if the issue is highly charged like pedophilia or abortion.
|
On March 03 2022 02:18 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 22:55 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 05:31 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 05:27 KwarK wrote:On March 02 2022 05:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 02 2022 05:15 KwarK wrote:On March 02 2022 05:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
This is a troll right? This has to be a troll. All of this is just...asinine to the nth lvl. They live in a bubble and repeat these gotchas to each other. I think they genuinely don’t know that they won’t be taken seriously when they use them outside their bubble. Even still, that first...whatever the hell you want to call it, should have set off some kind of alarm. I'm not a fan of bubbles/echo chambers and welcome differing opinions, but just blatant stupid should not be suffered. This isn't reddit and TL mods shouldn't allow such stupid. At the very least, some kind of warning or anything should be levied. For the shit xdaunt and danglars espoused, at least they have some kind of original thought structure. This is just...pathetic trolling. It’s hard to tell the difference between someone who deliberately argues in bad faith and someone who repeats bad faith arguments in good faith because they lack the skills to critically assess them. It took ages to reach consensus that xDaunt was deliberately posting in bad faith for example. While the arguments he’s making are obviously bad faith arguments beneath any real consideration that doesn’t mean that he is making them in bad faith. I am not posting in bad faith. I took offense to the claim that my party is racist, while it is the opposing party that has both historical practiced racism and continues to do so. I am all ears if anyone would like to explain why it is okay to discriminate against Asian Americans in college admissions. The fact that no one has engaged the issue makes me suspect that you all are ashamed of your party and hoping someone else does the dirty work of defending the blatant racism that affirmative action represents. You could actually get a good discussion going if you actually addressed the topic at hand, i.e. you've got Republicans in leadership roles that headline white nationalist events. You've chosen instead to engage in whataboutism, i.e. what about democrats? they are the racist ones! So don't be surprised if people don't engage. I personally would like to hear your opinion on what should be done about people that openly court the racist vote today. Do you think that it's okay for a member of a mainstream political party to headline a white nationalist event? What should the consequences be? I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. Well, I reject identity politics because there’s one thing I know. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is or any of these choices and all of these things that are said, it matters who you are as a person. It matters who you are and your character, and it matters how you treat other people and the type of life you live. And so we have to stand together as Americans. She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. A party can decide how it wishes to dole out committee appointments. Party discipline is a huge part of why political parties even exist, to keep broader coalitions together and broadly in lockstep. How that whip is wielded, and in which direction says a fair amount of the wider thrust of that coalition. In recent times that messaging is MTG’s behaviour isn’t a bar on her serving on committees, by a landslide. And that the likes of Liz Cheney should shut up about Jan 6th or Trump in general. I don’t recall anyone here advocating for people being booted out of Congress. In the gap between elections the check on legislators is their own party, aside from riding the political tides and making their next run likely to be successful. The GOP is absolutely consistent in its refusal to meaningfully censure these folks, so the idea that ‘oh they’re outlying crazies and not representative’ starts to hold less and less weight. I think it was entirely prudent to boot Marjorie Taylor Greene off social media. As to where the lines should be drawn as to what is bannable, I’m unsure but she took a hop, skip and full triple jump and is at least 9 foot over the most generous line. It’s society’s wider problem, it’s not my problem to resolve, these people don’t represent my party. If even a fraction of the collective energy put into endlessly defending Trump, or the wider GOP of accusations of courting unsavoury forces as racism, into ‘oh wait actually this person fucking sucks, I don’t want them they make my party worse’ and movement in direction, we might get somewhere. It’s not like we’re talking about waiting for old racist dinosaurs to die off in the party, the party is getting worse in these areas with the new blood coming in.
I would like to say that Greene is likely to lose her primary, but I think the last poll I saw still had her in the lead. I am still hoping this is her one and only term.
|
On March 03 2022 01:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 01:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 03 2022 00:55 JimmiC wrote:On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 22:55 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 05:31 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 05:27 KwarK wrote:On March 02 2022 05:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
Even still, that first...whatever the hell you want to call it, should have set off some kind of alarm. I'm not a fan of bubbles/echo chambers and welcome differing opinions, but just blatant stupid should not be suffered. This isn't reddit and TL mods shouldn't allow such stupid. At the very least, some kind of warning or anything should be levied. For the shit xdaunt and danglars espoused, at least they have some kind of original thought structure. This is just...pathetic trolling. It’s hard to tell the difference between someone who deliberately argues in bad faith and someone who repeats bad faith arguments in good faith because they lack the skills to critically assess them. It took ages to reach consensus that xDaunt was deliberately posting in bad faith for example. While the arguments he’s making are obviously bad faith arguments beneath any real consideration that doesn’t mean that he is making them in bad faith. I am not posting in bad faith. I took offense to the claim that my party is racist, while it is the opposing party that has both historical practiced racism and continues to do so. I am all ears if anyone would like to explain why it is okay to discriminate against Asian Americans in college admissions. The fact that no one has engaged the issue makes me suspect that you all are ashamed of your party and hoping someone else does the dirty work of defending the blatant racism that affirmative action represents. You could actually get a good discussion going if you actually addressed the topic at hand, i.e. you've got Republicans in leadership roles that headline white nationalist events. You've chosen instead to engage in whataboutism, i.e. what about democrats? they are the racist ones! So don't be surprised if people don't engage. I personally would like to hear your opinion on what should be done about people that openly court the racist vote today. Do you think that it's okay for a member of a mainstream political party to headline a white nationalist event? What should the consequences be? I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. Well, I reject identity politics because there’s one thing I know. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is or any of these choices and all of these things that are said, it matters who you are as a person. It matters who you are and your character, and it matters how you treat other people and the type of life you live. And so we have to stand together as Americans. She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. The proper solution, if your party is not a fan of racism is to beat them in the primary. There's always going to be a couple districts around the country that produce crazies in congress. Doesn't make the party as a whole racist, nor does the committee vote. What about when the leader of the party (Trump) is crazy racist and is supported by the majority of Republicans? That's far more significant than just a couple districts. These are tens of millions of Americans who are either explicitly racist, or - at the very least - don't mind Trump's racist rhetoric (to say nothing of the racism from other influential Republicans).
There were reasons to vote for trump that had nothing to do with his over the top rhetoric. It's about rejecting the democrats' national and foreign policy. Doing that is more important and consequential than rejecting Trump's over the top rhetoric (half of which is really just media exaggeration of what Trump says).
On March 03 2022 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 01:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 03 2022 00:55 JimmiC wrote:On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 22:55 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 05:31 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 05:27 KwarK wrote:On March 02 2022 05:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
Even still, that first...whatever the hell you want to call it, should have set off some kind of alarm. I'm not a fan of bubbles/echo chambers and welcome differing opinions, but just blatant stupid should not be suffered. This isn't reddit and TL mods shouldn't allow such stupid. At the very least, some kind of warning or anything should be levied. For the shit xdaunt and danglars espoused, at least they have some kind of original thought structure. This is just...pathetic trolling. It’s hard to tell the difference between someone who deliberately argues in bad faith and someone who repeats bad faith arguments in good faith because they lack the skills to critically assess them. It took ages to reach consensus that xDaunt was deliberately posting in bad faith for example. While the arguments he’s making are obviously bad faith arguments beneath any real consideration that doesn’t mean that he is making them in bad faith. I am not posting in bad faith. I took offense to the claim that my party is racist, while it is the opposing party that has both historical practiced racism and continues to do so. I am all ears if anyone would like to explain why it is okay to discriminate against Asian Americans in college admissions. The fact that no one has engaged the issue makes me suspect that you all are ashamed of your party and hoping someone else does the dirty work of defending the blatant racism that affirmative action represents. You could actually get a good discussion going if you actually addressed the topic at hand, i.e. you've got Republicans in leadership roles that headline white nationalist events. You've chosen instead to engage in whataboutism, i.e. what about democrats? they are the racist ones! So don't be surprised if people don't engage. I personally would like to hear your opinion on what should be done about people that openly court the racist vote today. Do you think that it's okay for a member of a mainstream political party to headline a white nationalist event? What should the consequences be? I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. Well, I reject identity politics because there’s one thing I know. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is or any of these choices and all of these things that are said, it matters who you are as a person. It matters who you are and your character, and it matters how you treat other people and the type of life you live. And so we have to stand together as Americans. She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. The proper solution, if your party is not a fan of racism is to beat them in the primary. There's always going to be a couple districts around the country that produce crazies in congress. Doesn't make the party as a whole racist, nor does the committee vote. You haven't effectively shown why the committee vote isn't a form of support, so no, you don't get to just declare the committee vote doesn't mean anything. That was republican's opportunity to distance themselves and they chose not to. I'm being generous here by assuming you actually don't have any idea what is wrong with Greene or how well documented it is. Show nested quote +
Prior to her election to Congress last year, Greene expressed support on social media for the assassination of Speaker Nancy Pelosi; agreed with those who said the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., in 2018 was a “false flag” operation; questioned whether a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11; said President Barack Obama was Muslim; posted a photo of herself on Facebook holding a gun to images of Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib; mused that a space laser aligned with Jewish financial interests caused devastating wildfires in California; and aligned herself with QAnon, a baseless belief about an anti-Trump “deep state” that engages in child sex trafficking and satanism.
https://rollcall.com/2021/02/04/marjorie-taylor-greene-does-not-renounce-past-comments-as-house-moves-to-punish-her/Show nested quote +
Greene has also "liked" social media posts that called for executing "deep state" FBI agents, or that advocated removing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with "a bullet to the head." Greene supports QAnon and has said Muslims do not belong in government.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/30/962438098/as-democrats-call-for-marjorie-taylor-greenes-removal-republicans-stay-silentEarlier you said this was some sort of media outrage machine. Do you still feel that way? Does this change your perspective? Or was this already a part of your analysis? If you are able to read this and still think she should remain on committees, I can't help you and I won't be bothered by the views you hold. We'll never meet and we'll never impact each other's life. Just some dude out there. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to understand the situation better.
Yes, Greene is super crazy. But it does not follow that Republicans must consent to democrats' proposed solution or else be deemed a racist party. The solution of removing her from committees is democrats' idea, not a neutral test of whether the republican party is a racist party. And it would not be wise for Republicans to start capitulating to democrats' supposed racism tests. That would entail the destruction of the party (e.g. JimmiC's demand that people temporarily leave the party).
My point about the media outrage machine is that as soon as Republicans start giving in to that, they're on a slippery slope (even if the media is actually right about Greene, because in other situations the media is wrong).
|
On March 02 2022 17:22 Nick_54 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2022 12:08 Jerubaal wrote:
His speech was composed of the following:
1. Drumbeating on platitudes: Ukraine, Built in America
2. Pretending he was the solution to problems he and his party caused (lockdowns, inflation)
3. Taking credit for things he didn't do: Intel plant, some of them things Trump explicitly did
4. Nonsense distractions like the fake voting suppression and trans violence
User was temp banned for this post. A bit surprised this is ban worthy even though this guy's opinion is obviously out there. Wow
Are you really? There was also a call to ban the other guy that thought Republicans couldn't be racist cause Lincoln freed the slaves. Ironically, they were accused of living in a bubble. It sure seems like they were the ones exposing themselves to people that disagreed with them. A bubble would be a place that seeks to banish the people with the non-conforming opinions.
|
|
|
On March 03 2022 04:04 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2022 17:22 Nick_54 wrote:On March 02 2022 12:08 Jerubaal wrote:
His speech was composed of the following:
1. Drumbeating on platitudes: Ukraine, Built in America
2. Pretending he was the solution to problems he and his party caused (lockdowns, inflation)
3. Taking credit for things he didn't do: Intel plant, some of them things Trump explicitly did
4. Nonsense distractions like the fake voting suppression and trans violence
User was temp banned for this post. A bit surprised this is ban worthy even though this guy's opinion is obviously out there. Wow Are you really? There was also a call to ban the other guy that thought Republicans couldn't be racist cause Lincoln freed the slaves. Ironically, they were accused of living in a bubble. It sure seems like they were the ones exposing themselves to people that disagreed with them. A bubble would be a place that seeks to banish the people with the non-conforming opinions.
Yes, if you extract any and all nuance from the conversation so as to render it rhetorical and intellectual hard tack, that is the conclusion you would reach.
|
On March 03 2022 04:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 03:56 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 03 2022 01:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 03 2022 01:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 03 2022 00:55 JimmiC wrote:On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 22:55 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 05:31 meadbert wrote:
[quote]
I am not posting in bad faith. I took offense to the claim that my party is racist, while it is the opposing party that has both historical practiced racism and continues to do so.
I am all ears if anyone would like to explain why it is okay to discriminate against Asian Americans in college admissions. The fact that no one has engaged the issue makes me suspect that you all are ashamed of your party and hoping someone else does the dirty work of defending the blatant racism that affirmative action represents. You could actually get a good discussion going if you actually addressed the topic at hand, i.e. you've got Republicans in leadership roles that headline white nationalist events. You've chosen instead to engage in whataboutism, i.e. what about democrats? they are the racist ones! So don't be surprised if people don't engage. I personally would like to hear your opinion on what should be done about people that openly court the racist vote today. Do you think that it's okay for a member of a mainstream political party to headline a white nationalist event? What should the consequences be? I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. Well, I reject identity politics because there’s one thing I know. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is or any of these choices and all of these things that are said, it matters who you are as a person. It matters who you are and your character, and it matters how you treat other people and the type of life you live. And so we have to stand together as Americans. She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. The proper solution, if your party is not a fan of racism is to beat them in the primary. There's always going to be a couple districts around the country that produce crazies in congress. Doesn't make the party as a whole racist, nor does the committee vote. What about when the leader of the party (Trump) is crazy racist and is supported by the majority of Republicans? That's far more significant than just a couple districts. These are tens of millions of Americans who are either explicitly racist, or - at the very least - don't mind Trump's racist rhetoric (to say nothing of the racism from other influential Republicans). There were reasons to vote for trump that had nothing to do with his over the top rhetoric. It's about rejecting the democrats' national and foreign policy. Doing that is more important and consequential than rejecting Trump's over the top rhetoric (half of which is really just media exaggeration of what Trump says). On March 03 2022 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2022 01:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 03 2022 00:55 JimmiC wrote:On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 22:55 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 05:31 meadbert wrote:
[quote]
I am not posting in bad faith. I took offense to the claim that my party is racist, while it is the opposing party that has both historical practiced racism and continues to do so.
I am all ears if anyone would like to explain why it is okay to discriminate against Asian Americans in college admissions. The fact that no one has engaged the issue makes me suspect that you all are ashamed of your party and hoping someone else does the dirty work of defending the blatant racism that affirmative action represents. You could actually get a good discussion going if you actually addressed the topic at hand, i.e. you've got Republicans in leadership roles that headline white nationalist events. You've chosen instead to engage in whataboutism, i.e. what about democrats? they are the racist ones! So don't be surprised if people don't engage. I personally would like to hear your opinion on what should be done about people that openly court the racist vote today. Do you think that it's okay for a member of a mainstream political party to headline a white nationalist event? What should the consequences be? I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. Well, I reject identity politics because there’s one thing I know. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is or any of these choices and all of these things that are said, it matters who you are as a person. It matters who you are and your character, and it matters how you treat other people and the type of life you live. And so we have to stand together as Americans. She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. The proper solution, if your party is not a fan of racism is to beat them in the primary. There's always going to be a couple districts around the country that produce crazies in congress. Doesn't make the party as a whole racist, nor does the committee vote. You haven't effectively shown why the committee vote isn't a form of support, so no, you don't get to just declare the committee vote doesn't mean anything. That was republican's opportunity to distance themselves and they chose not to. I'm being generous here by assuming you actually don't have any idea what is wrong with Greene or how well documented it is.
Prior to her election to Congress last year, Greene expressed support on social media for the assassination of Speaker Nancy Pelosi; agreed with those who said the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., in 2018 was a “false flag” operation; questioned whether a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11; said President Barack Obama was Muslim; posted a photo of herself on Facebook holding a gun to images of Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib; mused that a space laser aligned with Jewish financial interests caused devastating wildfires in California; and aligned herself with QAnon, a baseless belief about an anti-Trump “deep state” that engages in child sex trafficking and satanism.
https://rollcall.com/2021/02/04/marjorie-taylor-greene-does-not-renounce-past-comments-as-house-moves-to-punish-her/
Greene has also "liked" social media posts that called for executing "deep state" FBI agents, or that advocated removing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with "a bullet to the head." Greene supports QAnon and has said Muslims do not belong in government.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/30/962438098/as-democrats-call-for-marjorie-taylor-greenes-removal-republicans-stay-silentEarlier you said this was some sort of media outrage machine. Do you still feel that way? Does this change your perspective? Or was this already a part of your analysis? If you are able to read this and still think she should remain on committees, I can't help you and I won't be bothered by the views you hold. We'll never meet and we'll never impact each other's life. Just some dude out there. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to understand the situation better. Yes, Greene is super crazy. But it does not follow that Republicans must consent to democrats' proposed solution or else be deemed a racist party. The solution of removing her from committees is democrats' idea, not a neutral test of whether the republican party is a racist party. And it would not be wise for Republicans to start capitulating to democrats' supposed racism tests. That would entail the destruction of the party (e.g. JimmiC's demand that people temporarily leave the party). My point about the media outrage machine is that as soon as Republicans start giving in to that, they're on a slippery slope (even if the media is actually right about Greene, because in other situations the media is wrong). If you are not willing to hold your own people accountable then it says what it says, blatant racism and "white nationalism" is not your red line. Its not a democrat test, Im not a democrat, Im not even American. It is just the reality, its not just her either after Trump she is the person most sought after for an endorsement. This wierd obsession that Republicans seem to have about "their party" is so strange. The reality is that you are OK with her and her behavior as long as you get the votes. This has been the case for a while but now it is just out in the open. Your dear party went from quietly accepting white nationalist votes to openly courting them.
Just because we are okay with someone voting does mean we are okay with their behavior. Just because Democrats believe that convicted felons should still be allowed to vote does not mean they support the rapes those felons committed. Voting is part of democracy. The whole idea is that by involving as many people as possibly a small minority of bad actors do not mess up the greater result.
America is not imperiled by Marjorie Taylor Greene because she is on the fringe. What matters is the middle. If Bernie Sanders said he supported a 99% tax rate on incomes over $100k tomorrow it would not impact our politics. If Joe Manchin or Kirsten Sinema announced their support for Build Back Better then it would. The fringes don't matter and the middle does.
Likewise, allowing a few percent of the population who are felons to vote does not ruin democracy. They can't get anything done unless they get 48% of us to go along.
Marjorie Taylor Green is not a threat to the republic. Our system is too strong for that. What is a danger is a simple majority of congress banning the members who they disapprove of. If Republicans gained a slim majority and announced they were kicking out any congressman who supported abortion out of congress then that would be a very bad thing for democracy.
The great thing about democracy is that by involving so many people in decision making you are safe as long as most people are reasonable.
|
Northern Ireland27359 Posts
On March 03 2022 03:56 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 01:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 03 2022 01:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 03 2022 00:55 JimmiC wrote:On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 22:55 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 05:31 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 05:27 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
It’s hard to tell the difference between someone who deliberately argues in bad faith and someone who repeats bad faith arguments in good faith because they lack the skills to critically assess them.
It took ages to reach consensus that xDaunt was deliberately posting in bad faith for example. While the arguments he’s making are obviously bad faith arguments beneath any real consideration that doesn’t mean that he is making them in bad faith. I am not posting in bad faith. I took offense to the claim that my party is racist, while it is the opposing party that has both historical practiced racism and continues to do so. I am all ears if anyone would like to explain why it is okay to discriminate against Asian Americans in college admissions. The fact that no one has engaged the issue makes me suspect that you all are ashamed of your party and hoping someone else does the dirty work of defending the blatant racism that affirmative action represents. You could actually get a good discussion going if you actually addressed the topic at hand, i.e. you've got Republicans in leadership roles that headline white nationalist events. You've chosen instead to engage in whataboutism, i.e. what about democrats? they are the racist ones! So don't be surprised if people don't engage. I personally would like to hear your opinion on what should be done about people that openly court the racist vote today. Do you think that it's okay for a member of a mainstream political party to headline a white nationalist event? What should the consequences be? I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. Well, I reject identity politics because there’s one thing I know. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is or any of these choices and all of these things that are said, it matters who you are as a person. It matters who you are and your character, and it matters how you treat other people and the type of life you live. And so we have to stand together as Americans. She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. The proper solution, if your party is not a fan of racism is to beat them in the primary. There's always going to be a couple districts around the country that produce crazies in congress. Doesn't make the party as a whole racist, nor does the committee vote. What about when the leader of the party (Trump) is crazy racist and is supported by the majority of Republicans? That's far more significant than just a couple districts. These are tens of millions of Americans who are either explicitly racist, or - at the very least - don't mind Trump's racist rhetoric (to say nothing of the racism from other influential Republicans). There were reasons to vote for trump that had nothing to do with his over the top rhetoric. It's about rejecting the democrats' national and foreign policy. Doing that is more important and consequential than rejecting Trump's over the top rhetoric (half of which is really just media exaggeration of what Trump says). Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2022 01:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 03 2022 00:55 JimmiC wrote:On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 22:55 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 05:31 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 05:27 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
It’s hard to tell the difference between someone who deliberately argues in bad faith and someone who repeats bad faith arguments in good faith because they lack the skills to critically assess them.
It took ages to reach consensus that xDaunt was deliberately posting in bad faith for example. While the arguments he’s making are obviously bad faith arguments beneath any real consideration that doesn’t mean that he is making them in bad faith. I am not posting in bad faith. I took offense to the claim that my party is racist, while it is the opposing party that has both historical practiced racism and continues to do so. I am all ears if anyone would like to explain why it is okay to discriminate against Asian Americans in college admissions. The fact that no one has engaged the issue makes me suspect that you all are ashamed of your party and hoping someone else does the dirty work of defending the blatant racism that affirmative action represents. You could actually get a good discussion going if you actually addressed the topic at hand, i.e. you've got Republicans in leadership roles that headline white nationalist events. You've chosen instead to engage in whataboutism, i.e. what about democrats? they are the racist ones! So don't be surprised if people don't engage. I personally would like to hear your opinion on what should be done about people that openly court the racist vote today. Do you think that it's okay for a member of a mainstream political party to headline a white nationalist event? What should the consequences be? I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. Well, I reject identity politics because there’s one thing I know. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is or any of these choices and all of these things that are said, it matters who you are as a person. It matters who you are and your character, and it matters how you treat other people and the type of life you live. And so we have to stand together as Americans. She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. The proper solution, if your party is not a fan of racism is to beat them in the primary. There's always going to be a couple districts around the country that produce crazies in congress. Doesn't make the party as a whole racist, nor does the committee vote. You haven't effectively shown why the committee vote isn't a form of support, so no, you don't get to just declare the committee vote doesn't mean anything. That was republican's opportunity to distance themselves and they chose not to. I'm being generous here by assuming you actually don't have any idea what is wrong with Greene or how well documented it is.
Prior to her election to Congress last year, Greene expressed support on social media for the assassination of Speaker Nancy Pelosi; agreed with those who said the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., in 2018 was a “false flag” operation; questioned whether a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11; said President Barack Obama was Muslim; posted a photo of herself on Facebook holding a gun to images of Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib; mused that a space laser aligned with Jewish financial interests caused devastating wildfires in California; and aligned herself with QAnon, a baseless belief about an anti-Trump “deep state” that engages in child sex trafficking and satanism.
https://rollcall.com/2021/02/04/marjorie-taylor-greene-does-not-renounce-past-comments-as-house-moves-to-punish-her/
Greene has also "liked" social media posts that called for executing "deep state" FBI agents, or that advocated removing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with "a bullet to the head." Greene supports QAnon and has said Muslims do not belong in government.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/30/962438098/as-democrats-call-for-marjorie-taylor-greenes-removal-republicans-stay-silentEarlier you said this was some sort of media outrage machine. Do you still feel that way? Does this change your perspective? Or was this already a part of your analysis? If you are able to read this and still think she should remain on committees, I can't help you and I won't be bothered by the views you hold. We'll never meet and we'll never impact each other's life. Just some dude out there. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to understand the situation better. Yes, Greene is super crazy. But it does not follow that Republicans must consent to democrats' proposed solution or else be deemed a racist party. The solution of removing her from committees is democrats' idea, not a neutral test of whether the republican party is a racist party. And it would not be wise for Republicans to start capitulating to democrats' supposed racism tests. That would entail the destruction of the party (e.g. JimmiC's demand that people temporarily leave the party). My point about the media outrage machine is that as soon as Republicans start giving in to that, they're on a slippery slope (even if the media is actually right about Greene, because in other situations the media is wrong).
Or, make a decision on its own merits and roll with that.
What does the party think? Indeed what do you, personally think? Is this acceptable behaviour or is it not?
This is what, me and I believe everyone else on my rough side of the aisle is saying presently in this thread. What do the Democrats have to do with it, it’s your party? If my son is being a total prick I’ll be both disappointed and annoyed with him and discipline him in some fashion. I don’t sit there going ‘well other sons misbehave’ and leave it at that.
The party courted crazy, thinking it could control it and is now patently either unwilling, or unable to put crazy back in the box.
|
One thing that theory needs to account for is how the middle is located. Where the fringes are frames the Overton Window, and ultimately the middle is dependent on what looks extreme in comparison. The upshot is that the fringes still matter, they can't be written off as harmless if they're mainlining white supremacist gatherings and currying favor with Neo-Nazis, that should be unacceptable in any context. People laughing them off as though they couldn't possibly gain traction is how we were stuck with Trump for 4 witless years.
|
Northern Ireland27359 Posts
On March 03 2022 04:55 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 04:08 JimmiC wrote:On March 03 2022 03:56 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 03 2022 01:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 03 2022 01:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 03 2022 00:55 JimmiC wrote:On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 22:55 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
You could actually get a good discussion going if you actually addressed the topic at hand, i.e. you've got Republicans in leadership roles that headline white nationalist events. You've chosen instead to engage in whataboutism, i.e. what about democrats? they are the racist ones! So don't be surprised if people don't engage.
I personally would like to hear your opinion on what should be done about people that openly court the racist vote today. Do you think that it's okay for a member of a mainstream political party to headline a white nationalist event? What should the consequences be? I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. Well, I reject identity politics because there’s one thing I know. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is or any of these choices and all of these things that are said, it matters who you are as a person. It matters who you are and your character, and it matters how you treat other people and the type of life you live. And so we have to stand together as Americans. She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. The proper solution, if your party is not a fan of racism is to beat them in the primary. There's always going to be a couple districts around the country that produce crazies in congress. Doesn't make the party as a whole racist, nor does the committee vote. What about when the leader of the party (Trump) is crazy racist and is supported by the majority of Republicans? That's far more significant than just a couple districts. These are tens of millions of Americans who are either explicitly racist, or - at the very least - don't mind Trump's racist rhetoric (to say nothing of the racism from other influential Republicans). There were reasons to vote for trump that had nothing to do with his over the top rhetoric. It's about rejecting the democrats' national and foreign policy. Doing that is more important and consequential than rejecting Trump's over the top rhetoric (half of which is really just media exaggeration of what Trump says). On March 03 2022 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2022 01:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 03 2022 00:55 JimmiC wrote:On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 22:55 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
You could actually get a good discussion going if you actually addressed the topic at hand, i.e. you've got Republicans in leadership roles that headline white nationalist events. You've chosen instead to engage in whataboutism, i.e. what about democrats? they are the racist ones! So don't be surprised if people don't engage.
I personally would like to hear your opinion on what should be done about people that openly court the racist vote today. Do you think that it's okay for a member of a mainstream political party to headline a white nationalist event? What should the consequences be? I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. Well, I reject identity politics because there’s one thing I know. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is or any of these choices and all of these things that are said, it matters who you are as a person. It matters who you are and your character, and it matters how you treat other people and the type of life you live. And so we have to stand together as Americans. She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. The proper solution, if your party is not a fan of racism is to beat them in the primary. There's always going to be a couple districts around the country that produce crazies in congress. Doesn't make the party as a whole racist, nor does the committee vote. You haven't effectively shown why the committee vote isn't a form of support, so no, you don't get to just declare the committee vote doesn't mean anything. That was republican's opportunity to distance themselves and they chose not to. I'm being generous here by assuming you actually don't have any idea what is wrong with Greene or how well documented it is.
Prior to her election to Congress last year, Greene expressed support on social media for the assassination of Speaker Nancy Pelosi; agreed with those who said the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., in 2018 was a “false flag” operation; questioned whether a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11; said President Barack Obama was Muslim; posted a photo of herself on Facebook holding a gun to images of Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib; mused that a space laser aligned with Jewish financial interests caused devastating wildfires in California; and aligned herself with QAnon, a baseless belief about an anti-Trump “deep state” that engages in child sex trafficking and satanism.
https://rollcall.com/2021/02/04/marjorie-taylor-greene-does-not-renounce-past-comments-as-house-moves-to-punish-her/
Greene has also "liked" social media posts that called for executing "deep state" FBI agents, or that advocated removing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with "a bullet to the head." Greene supports QAnon and has said Muslims do not belong in government.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/30/962438098/as-democrats-call-for-marjorie-taylor-greenes-removal-republicans-stay-silentEarlier you said this was some sort of media outrage machine. Do you still feel that way? Does this change your perspective? Or was this already a part of your analysis? If you are able to read this and still think she should remain on committees, I can't help you and I won't be bothered by the views you hold. We'll never meet and we'll never impact each other's life. Just some dude out there. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to understand the situation better. Yes, Greene is super crazy. But it does not follow that Republicans must consent to democrats' proposed solution or else be deemed a racist party. The solution of removing her from committees is democrats' idea, not a neutral test of whether the republican party is a racist party. And it would not be wise for Republicans to start capitulating to democrats' supposed racism tests. That would entail the destruction of the party (e.g. JimmiC's demand that people temporarily leave the party). My point about the media outrage machine is that as soon as Republicans start giving in to that, they're on a slippery slope (even if the media is actually right about Greene, because in other situations the media is wrong). If you are not willing to hold your own people accountable then it says what it says, blatant racism and "white nationalism" is not your red line. Its not a democrat test, Im not a democrat, Im not even American. It is just the reality, its not just her either after Trump she is the person most sought after for an endorsement. This wierd obsession that Republicans seem to have about "their party" is so strange. The reality is that you are OK with her and her behavior as long as you get the votes. This has been the case for a while but now it is just out in the open. Your dear party went from quietly accepting white nationalist votes to openly courting them. Just because we are okay with someone voting does mean we are okay with their behavior. Just because Democrats believe that convicted felons should still be allowed to vote does not mean they support the rapes those felons committed. Voting is part of democracy. The whole idea is that by involving as many people as possibly a small minority of bad actors do not mess up the greater result. America is not imperiled by Marjorie Taylor Greene because she is on the fringe. What matters is the middle. If Bernie Sanders said he supported a 99% tax rate on incomes over $100k tomorrow it would not impact our politics. If Joe Manchin or Kirsten Sinema announced their support for Build Back Better then it would. The fringes don't matter and the middle does. Likewise, allowing a few percent of the population who are felons to vote does not ruin democracy. They can't get anything done unless they get 48% of us to go along. Marjorie Taylor Green is not a threat to the republic. Our system is too strong for that. What is a danger is a simple majority of congress banning the members who they disapprove of. If Republicans gained a slim majority and announced they were kicking out any congressman who supported abortion out of congress then that would be a very bad thing for democracy. The great thing about democracy is that by involving so many people in decision making you are safe as long as most people are reasonable.
‘While I vote Republican, I think Marjorie Taylor Green has said some egregious things, beyond the pale and I would like it known that I disavow those things and don’t think they represent me or my party’
Hey look it’s totally possible to piss out a statement like that
Nobody in this thread has even talked about booting people out of Congress, it is very specifically this circular thing
1. It’s unfair to label the GOP as racist, it’s the fringes I says!
2. Specific examples of people on said fringes
3. Refusal to just condemn those fringe behaviours in favour of equivocation. Possibly something about Hillary’s emails
4. …‘It’s unfair to generalise Republicans’
Ad nausea.
In the case of Magic the Grifting (hope but doubt that’ll catch on) she is a member of a party. She has the right to serve her constituents for her term, she doesn’t have the right to do whatever she wants without censure from the wider party.
Be that public rebuke, or ‘stop talking shite about space lazers or we’re primarying you’. We’ve seen a small amount of the former, but by and large these aren’t being wielded and the only conclusion one can reach is the party is alright having such a person, doing what they’re doing in Congress, under their banner.
In fairness to you specifically, you did say ‘I am still hoping this is her one and only term.’
Not the most hardcore rebuttal I’ve heard in my time, but hey at least you’ve taken a position one way or the other.
|
Northern Ireland27359 Posts
On March 03 2022 04:04 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2022 17:22 Nick_54 wrote:On March 02 2022 12:08 Jerubaal wrote:
His speech was composed of the following:
1. Drumbeating on platitudes: Ukraine, Built in America
2. Pretending he was the solution to problems he and his party caused (lockdowns, inflation)
3. Taking credit for things he didn't do: Intel plant, some of them things Trump explicitly did
4. Nonsense distractions like the fake voting suppression and trans violence
User was temp banned for this post. A bit surprised this is ban worthy even though this guy's opinion is obviously out there. Wow Are you really? There was also a call to ban the other guy that thought Republicans couldn't be racist cause Lincoln freed the slaves. Ironically, they were accused of living in a bubble. It sure seems like they were the ones exposing themselves to people that disagreed with them. A bubble would be a place that seeks to banish the people with the non-conforming opinions.
If we ignore the whole air of martyrdom and ‘you sheeple aren’t ready for this’ permeating those posts and general antagonism aye. Or liberal gish galloping.
My guess is it was specifically the claim that trans violence was fake that pushed the line into ban hammer territory. Considering it’s both nonsense and we have trans members here, it’s a ridiculous claim to make here.
That particular thing aside I think a temp ban was OTT, unless the rationale I listed was the reason and a short one is fair enough.
I come here and not elsewhere for a certain base level of civility and earnest discussion. I’d certainly welcome some more ideological divergence over what’s already here (which is quite substantial, although mostly between left and further left)
|
On March 03 2022 05:04 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 03:56 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 03 2022 01:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 03 2022 01:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 03 2022 00:55 JimmiC wrote:On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 22:55 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 05:31 meadbert wrote:
[quote]
I am not posting in bad faith. I took offense to the claim that my party is racist, while it is the opposing party that has both historical practiced racism and continues to do so.
I am all ears if anyone would like to explain why it is okay to discriminate against Asian Americans in college admissions. The fact that no one has engaged the issue makes me suspect that you all are ashamed of your party and hoping someone else does the dirty work of defending the blatant racism that affirmative action represents. You could actually get a good discussion going if you actually addressed the topic at hand, i.e. you've got Republicans in leadership roles that headline white nationalist events. You've chosen instead to engage in whataboutism, i.e. what about democrats? they are the racist ones! So don't be surprised if people don't engage. I personally would like to hear your opinion on what should be done about people that openly court the racist vote today. Do you think that it's okay for a member of a mainstream political party to headline a white nationalist event? What should the consequences be? I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. Well, I reject identity politics because there’s one thing I know. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is or any of these choices and all of these things that are said, it matters who you are as a person. It matters who you are and your character, and it matters how you treat other people and the type of life you live. And so we have to stand together as Americans. She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. The proper solution, if your party is not a fan of racism is to beat them in the primary. There's always going to be a couple districts around the country that produce crazies in congress. Doesn't make the party as a whole racist, nor does the committee vote. What about when the leader of the party (Trump) is crazy racist and is supported by the majority of Republicans? That's far more significant than just a couple districts. These are tens of millions of Americans who are either explicitly racist, or - at the very least - don't mind Trump's racist rhetoric (to say nothing of the racism from other influential Republicans). There were reasons to vote for trump that had nothing to do with his over the top rhetoric. It's about rejecting the democrats' national and foreign policy. Doing that is more important and consequential than rejecting Trump's over the top rhetoric (half of which is really just media exaggeration of what Trump says). On March 03 2022 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2022 01:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 03 2022 00:55 JimmiC wrote:On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 22:55 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 05:31 meadbert wrote:
[quote]
I am not posting in bad faith. I took offense to the claim that my party is racist, while it is the opposing party that has both historical practiced racism and continues to do so.
I am all ears if anyone would like to explain why it is okay to discriminate against Asian Americans in college admissions. The fact that no one has engaged the issue makes me suspect that you all are ashamed of your party and hoping someone else does the dirty work of defending the blatant racism that affirmative action represents. You could actually get a good discussion going if you actually addressed the topic at hand, i.e. you've got Republicans in leadership roles that headline white nationalist events. You've chosen instead to engage in whataboutism, i.e. what about democrats? they are the racist ones! So don't be surprised if people don't engage. I personally would like to hear your opinion on what should be done about people that openly court the racist vote today. Do you think that it's okay for a member of a mainstream political party to headline a white nationalist event? What should the consequences be? I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. Well, I reject identity politics because there’s one thing I know. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is or any of these choices and all of these things that are said, it matters who you are as a person. It matters who you are and your character, and it matters how you treat other people and the type of life you live. And so we have to stand together as Americans. She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. The proper solution, if your party is not a fan of racism is to beat them in the primary. There's always going to be a couple districts around the country that produce crazies in congress. Doesn't make the party as a whole racist, nor does the committee vote. You haven't effectively shown why the committee vote isn't a form of support, so no, you don't get to just declare the committee vote doesn't mean anything. That was republican's opportunity to distance themselves and they chose not to. I'm being generous here by assuming you actually don't have any idea what is wrong with Greene or how well documented it is.
Prior to her election to Congress last year, Greene expressed support on social media for the assassination of Speaker Nancy Pelosi; agreed with those who said the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., in 2018 was a “false flag” operation; questioned whether a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11; said President Barack Obama was Muslim; posted a photo of herself on Facebook holding a gun to images of Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib; mused that a space laser aligned with Jewish financial interests caused devastating wildfires in California; and aligned herself with QAnon, a baseless belief about an anti-Trump “deep state” that engages in child sex trafficking and satanism.
https://rollcall.com/2021/02/04/marjorie-taylor-greene-does-not-renounce-past-comments-as-house-moves-to-punish-her/
Greene has also "liked" social media posts that called for executing "deep state" FBI agents, or that advocated removing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with "a bullet to the head." Greene supports QAnon and has said Muslims do not belong in government.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/30/962438098/as-democrats-call-for-marjorie-taylor-greenes-removal-republicans-stay-silentEarlier you said this was some sort of media outrage machine. Do you still feel that way? Does this change your perspective? Or was this already a part of your analysis? If you are able to read this and still think she should remain on committees, I can't help you and I won't be bothered by the views you hold. We'll never meet and we'll never impact each other's life. Just some dude out there. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to understand the situation better. Yes, Greene is super crazy. But it does not follow that Republicans must consent to democrats' proposed solution or else be deemed a racist party. The solution of removing her from committees is democrats' idea, not a neutral test of whether the republican party is a racist party. And it would not be wise for Republicans to start capitulating to democrats' supposed racism tests. That would entail the destruction of the party (e.g. JimmiC's demand that people temporarily leave the party). My point about the media outrage machine is that as soon as Republicans start giving in to that, they're on a slippery slope (even if the media is actually right about Greene, because in other situations the media is wrong). Or, make a decision on its own merits and roll with that. What does the party think? Indeed what do you, personally think? Is this acceptable behaviour or is it not? This is what, me and I believe everyone else on my rough side of the aisle is saying presently in this thread. What do the Democrats have to do with it, it’s your party? If my son is being a total prick I’ll be both disappointed and annoyed with him and discipline him in some fashion. I don’t sit there going ‘well other sons misbehave’ and leave it at that. The party courted crazy, thinking it could control it and is now patently either unwilling, or unable to put crazy back in the box.
The better analogy would be, your son misbehaves and then another kids parent says to you, "if you do not ground your son for two weeks, then you are a bad parent and you openly encourage misbehavior by your son." The parent's claim does not follow from your refusal to consent to that parent's chosen punishment.
|
On March 03 2022 06:01 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 05:04 WombaT wrote:On March 03 2022 03:56 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 03 2022 01:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 03 2022 01:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 03 2022 00:55 JimmiC wrote:On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 22:55 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
You could actually get a good discussion going if you actually addressed the topic at hand, i.e. you've got Republicans in leadership roles that headline white nationalist events. You've chosen instead to engage in whataboutism, i.e. what about democrats? they are the racist ones! So don't be surprised if people don't engage.
I personally would like to hear your opinion on what should be done about people that openly court the racist vote today. Do you think that it's okay for a member of a mainstream political party to headline a white nationalist event? What should the consequences be? I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. Well, I reject identity politics because there’s one thing I know. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is or any of these choices and all of these things that are said, it matters who you are as a person. It matters who you are and your character, and it matters how you treat other people and the type of life you live. And so we have to stand together as Americans. She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. The proper solution, if your party is not a fan of racism is to beat them in the primary. There's always going to be a couple districts around the country that produce crazies in congress. Doesn't make the party as a whole racist, nor does the committee vote. What about when the leader of the party (Trump) is crazy racist and is supported by the majority of Republicans? That's far more significant than just a couple districts. These are tens of millions of Americans who are either explicitly racist, or - at the very least - don't mind Trump's racist rhetoric (to say nothing of the racism from other influential Republicans). There were reasons to vote for trump that had nothing to do with his over the top rhetoric. It's about rejecting the democrats' national and foreign policy. Doing that is more important and consequential than rejecting Trump's over the top rhetoric (half of which is really just media exaggeration of what Trump says). On March 03 2022 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2022 01:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 03 2022 00:55 JimmiC wrote:On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 22:55 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
You could actually get a good discussion going if you actually addressed the topic at hand, i.e. you've got Republicans in leadership roles that headline white nationalist events. You've chosen instead to engage in whataboutism, i.e. what about democrats? they are the racist ones! So don't be surprised if people don't engage.
I personally would like to hear your opinion on what should be done about people that openly court the racist vote today. Do you think that it's okay for a member of a mainstream political party to headline a white nationalist event? What should the consequences be? I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. Well, I reject identity politics because there’s one thing I know. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is or any of these choices and all of these things that are said, it matters who you are as a person. It matters who you are and your character, and it matters how you treat other people and the type of life you live. And so we have to stand together as Americans. She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. The proper solution, if your party is not a fan of racism is to beat them in the primary. There's always going to be a couple districts around the country that produce crazies in congress. Doesn't make the party as a whole racist, nor does the committee vote. You haven't effectively shown why the committee vote isn't a form of support, so no, you don't get to just declare the committee vote doesn't mean anything. That was republican's opportunity to distance themselves and they chose not to. I'm being generous here by assuming you actually don't have any idea what is wrong with Greene or how well documented it is.
Prior to her election to Congress last year, Greene expressed support on social media for the assassination of Speaker Nancy Pelosi; agreed with those who said the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., in 2018 was a “false flag” operation; questioned whether a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11; said President Barack Obama was Muslim; posted a photo of herself on Facebook holding a gun to images of Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib; mused that a space laser aligned with Jewish financial interests caused devastating wildfires in California; and aligned herself with QAnon, a baseless belief about an anti-Trump “deep state” that engages in child sex trafficking and satanism.
https://rollcall.com/2021/02/04/marjorie-taylor-greene-does-not-renounce-past-comments-as-house-moves-to-punish-her/
Greene has also "liked" social media posts that called for executing "deep state" FBI agents, or that advocated removing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with "a bullet to the head." Greene supports QAnon and has said Muslims do not belong in government.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/30/962438098/as-democrats-call-for-marjorie-taylor-greenes-removal-republicans-stay-silentEarlier you said this was some sort of media outrage machine. Do you still feel that way? Does this change your perspective? Or was this already a part of your analysis? If you are able to read this and still think she should remain on committees, I can't help you and I won't be bothered by the views you hold. We'll never meet and we'll never impact each other's life. Just some dude out there. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to understand the situation better. Yes, Greene is super crazy. But it does not follow that Republicans must consent to democrats' proposed solution or else be deemed a racist party. The solution of removing her from committees is democrats' idea, not a neutral test of whether the republican party is a racist party. And it would not be wise for Republicans to start capitulating to democrats' supposed racism tests. That would entail the destruction of the party (e.g. JimmiC's demand that people temporarily leave the party). My point about the media outrage machine is that as soon as Republicans start giving in to that, they're on a slippery slope (even if the media is actually right about Greene, because in other situations the media is wrong). Or, make a decision on its own merits and roll with that. What does the party think? Indeed what do you, personally think? Is this acceptable behaviour or is it not? This is what, me and I believe everyone else on my rough side of the aisle is saying presently in this thread. What do the Democrats have to do with it, it’s your party? If my son is being a total prick I’ll be both disappointed and annoyed with him and discipline him in some fashion. I don’t sit there going ‘well other sons misbehave’ and leave it at that. The party courted crazy, thinking it could control it and is now patently either unwilling, or unable to put crazy back in the box. The better analogy would be, your son misbehaves and then another kids parent says to you, "if you do not ground your son for two weeks, then you are a bad parent and you openly encourage misbehavior by your son." The parent's claim does not follow from your refusal to consent to that parent's chosen punishment.
No, but if Child Protective Services thinks you're responsible, then maybe you're making a few fuckups here and there.
Where would we be without awful analogies?
|
Honestly the major reason MTG shouldn't be given any committee assignments is that her connection to reality is tenuous at best. Believing a Rothschild space laser ignited the 2018 forest fires isn't a political sentiment, it's a delusion.
|
On March 03 2022 06:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Honestly the major reason MTG shouldn't be given any committee assignments is that her connection to reality is tenuous at best. Believing a Rothschild space laser ignited the 2018 forest fires isn't a political sentiment, it's a delusion.
Indeed, the crazed and baseless beliefs are beside the point that she is demonstrably incompetent.
|
On March 03 2022 02:29 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 01:38 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 03 2022 01:32 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 01:26 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 22:55 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 05:31 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 05:27 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
It’s hard to tell the difference between someone who deliberately argues in bad faith and someone who repeats bad faith arguments in good faith because they lack the skills to critically assess them.
It took ages to reach consensus that xDaunt was deliberately posting in bad faith for example. While the arguments he’s making are obviously bad faith arguments beneath any real consideration that doesn’t mean that he is making them in bad faith. I am not posting in bad faith. I took offense to the claim that my party is racist, while it is the opposing party that has both historical practiced racism and continues to do so. I am all ears if anyone would like to explain why it is okay to discriminate against Asian Americans in college admissions. The fact that no one has engaged the issue makes me suspect that you all are ashamed of your party and hoping someone else does the dirty work of defending the blatant racism that affirmative action represents. You could actually get a good discussion going if you actually addressed the topic at hand, i.e. you've got Republicans in leadership roles that headline white nationalist events. You've chosen instead to engage in whataboutism, i.e. what about democrats? they are the racist ones! So don't be surprised if people don't engage. I personally would like to hear your opinion on what should be done about people that openly court the racist vote today. Do you think that it's okay for a member of a mainstream political party to headline a white nationalist event? What should the consequences be? I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. Well, I reject identity politics because there’s one thing I know. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is or any of these choices and all of these things that are said, it matters who you are as a person. It matters who you are and your character, and it matters how you treat other people and the type of life you live. And so we have to stand together as Americans. She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. I don't think I follow what you mean here by 'politics'. For instance, is being a pedophile part of somebody's politics? Criminal convictions would be a good reason for removal. Yes, not going to disagree there, but that doesn't answer the question. Is being a pedophile part of somebody's politics? If it is just what they do, then I suppose not. If they call for modifying the law, then it becomes part of their politics. I have lived through at least half a dozen changes to state law regarding who can have sex with whom. I have seen gay sex banned. I have seen 15 year olds allowed to sleep with 18 year olds. I have then seen that banned. I knew a couple who found themselves banned by a new law years into their relationship. That was awkward. I do not call for banning people from congress because their opinion does not match my own, even if the issue is highly charged like pedophilia or abortion.
Then I'm in agreement, people shouldn't be banned from congress for the politics they advocate -- within reason. I mean if they advocate for a law to make interracial marriage illegal, I'd like to see their party kicking them out.
Coming back to the question though, what do you feel the consequences should be for someone who does something egregious like paying a 17 year old for sex or the multiple crazy things that MTG has said?
|
Northern Ireland27359 Posts
On March 03 2022 06:16 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 06:01 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 03 2022 05:04 WombaT wrote:On March 03 2022 03:56 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 03 2022 01:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 03 2022 01:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 03 2022 00:55 JimmiC wrote:On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:[quote] I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. [quote] She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: [quote] If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. The proper solution, if your party is not a fan of racism is to beat them in the primary. There's always going to be a couple districts around the country that produce crazies in congress. Doesn't make the party as a whole racist, nor does the committee vote. What about when the leader of the party (Trump) is crazy racist and is supported by the majority of Republicans? That's far more significant than just a couple districts. These are tens of millions of Americans who are either explicitly racist, or - at the very least - don't mind Trump's racist rhetoric (to say nothing of the racism from other influential Republicans). There were reasons to vote for trump that had nothing to do with his over the top rhetoric. It's about rejecting the democrats' national and foreign policy. Doing that is more important and consequential than rejecting Trump's over the top rhetoric (half of which is really just media exaggeration of what Trump says). On March 03 2022 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2022 01:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 03 2022 00:55 JimmiC wrote:On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:[quote] I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. [quote] She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: [quote] If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. The proper solution, if your party is not a fan of racism is to beat them in the primary. There's always going to be a couple districts around the country that produce crazies in congress. Doesn't make the party as a whole racist, nor does the committee vote. You haven't effectively shown why the committee vote isn't a form of support, so no, you don't get to just declare the committee vote doesn't mean anything. That was republican's opportunity to distance themselves and they chose not to. I'm being generous here by assuming you actually don't have any idea what is wrong with Greene or how well documented it is.
Prior to her election to Congress last year, Greene expressed support on social media for the assassination of Speaker Nancy Pelosi; agreed with those who said the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., in 2018 was a “false flag” operation; questioned whether a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11; said President Barack Obama was Muslim; posted a photo of herself on Facebook holding a gun to images of Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib; mused that a space laser aligned with Jewish financial interests caused devastating wildfires in California; and aligned herself with QAnon, a baseless belief about an anti-Trump “deep state” that engages in child sex trafficking and satanism.
https://rollcall.com/2021/02/04/marjorie-taylor-greene-does-not-renounce-past-comments-as-house-moves-to-punish-her/
Greene has also "liked" social media posts that called for executing "deep state" FBI agents, or that advocated removing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with "a bullet to the head." Greene supports QAnon and has said Muslims do not belong in government.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/30/962438098/as-democrats-call-for-marjorie-taylor-greenes-removal-republicans-stay-silentEarlier you said this was some sort of media outrage machine. Do you still feel that way? Does this change your perspective? Or was this already a part of your analysis? If you are able to read this and still think she should remain on committees, I can't help you and I won't be bothered by the views you hold. We'll never meet and we'll never impact each other's life. Just some dude out there. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to understand the situation better. Yes, Greene is super crazy. But it does not follow that Republicans must consent to democrats' proposed solution or else be deemed a racist party. The solution of removing her from committees is democrats' idea, not a neutral test of whether the republican party is a racist party. And it would not be wise for Republicans to start capitulating to democrats' supposed racism tests. That would entail the destruction of the party (e.g. JimmiC's demand that people temporarily leave the party). My point about the media outrage machine is that as soon as Republicans start giving in to that, they're on a slippery slope (even if the media is actually right about Greene, because in other situations the media is wrong). Or, make a decision on its own merits and roll with that. What does the party think? Indeed what do you, personally think? Is this acceptable behaviour or is it not? This is what, me and I believe everyone else on my rough side of the aisle is saying presently in this thread. What do the Democrats have to do with it, it’s your party? If my son is being a total prick I’ll be both disappointed and annoyed with him and discipline him in some fashion. I don’t sit there going ‘well other sons misbehave’ and leave it at that. The party courted crazy, thinking it could control it and is now patently either unwilling, or unable to put crazy back in the box. The better analogy would be, your son misbehaves and then another kids parent says to you, "if you do not ground your son for two weeks, then you are a bad parent and you openly encourage misbehavior by your son." The parent's claim does not follow from your refusal to consent to that parent's chosen punishment. No, but if Child Protective Services thinks you're responsible, then maybe you're making a few fuckups here and there. Where would we be without awful analogies?
45% of my posting consists of analogies of varying degrees of tenuousness, so I’d be buggered anyway
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
