|
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 July 12 2018 01:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2018 01:38 a_flayer wrote:On July 12 2018 01:29 iamthedave wrote:On July 12 2018 00:35 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2018 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 17:20 Leporello wrote:
Another year, another chance for Trump to show us how wrong we are, and that he is in fact a defender of democracy and not a Putin-plant.
Oh, well, I guess there's next year? If NATO still exists by then?
I bet Germany is really happy it sent all those soldiers to Afghanistan. When every other country was done, Germany was still there. My brother served other there with Germans. He never saw the French or English. Just the Germans.
The most casualties Germany has faced since WW2 was this, Afghanistan, entirely for our sake and against the political-will of the German people. And this is the thanks we give them... Republicans are traitors to my country and to democracy, and I will treat them as such until they completely apologize for this shit. No civil war. I just pretend you're all dead already.
edit:
I mean, that sums it up, but the guy makes the tiresome mistake of acting like this is all just dumbfuckery, and not malicious intent. At this point, it is clearly the latter.
Trump doesn't need to "read history" (his voters certainly fucking do) he needs to be bayoneted by a ghost of a WW2 soldier.
If the Europeans really cared about NATO, they'd meet their defense funding obligations. Instead, they're freeloading on America's defense spending. Now, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and presume that you're someone who doesn't like the US spending as much as it does on defense. Surely you're not on board with the idea that the US should be subsidizing the national defense of foreign, wealthy countries. American global spending is an irrelevant and distractory argument when looking at NATO specific defence obligations. If the UK spent 2% due to commitments in the Falklands you’d not view that as a NATO contribution. Significantly more importantly, no sane person should want any particular European power from spending too much on defense. For fuck's sake, I know America came in at the end, but both World Wars started in Europe. The EU, NATO, the reduced defense spending, it's all about preventing the slow but inevitable rise of tensions in Europe that eventually boiled over into those two events from happening again. But hey, fuck it. Let's have Germany 'pull its weight' and start super spending on defense and military again. I'M SURE NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG. It amazes me how much people have forgotten about events that are only just outside living memory. Yeah... I'm not so worried about Germany this time around. The video in the spoiler was 15 years ago. They've gone from invading countries in 2001/2003 to locking up little kids in 2017/2018 in the same post-9/11 rise of xenophobia. I don't see Germany locking up little refugee kids. + Show Spoiler +And, just as expected, that train is right on time: https://forward.com/fast-forward/405235/jews-must-be-stopped-california-gop-congressional-candidate-robocall/Robocalls in support of California congressional candidate John Fitzgerald assert that Jews are taking over the world and ‘must be stopped.’ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/patrick-little-neo-nazi-california/We received several enquiries from readers about the authenticity of these statements. They are authentic quotations. On his account with the social network Gab, Little made the following statement:
"I propose a government that makes counter-semitism central to all aims of the state. A government:
1) Of a People, for that people, free from jews
2) That cannot revoke the right to bear arms, such that this people can remain free from jews
3) that forbids all immigration except of biological kin, where no person of jewish origin may live, vacation, or traverse" I honestly think it is kind of insulting that you would say what you did. The Germans today are a very moral people, I think. They have learned from their past. Some countries have not, it appears. The GOP has like 5 full blown Nazis running for office nation wide right now. I don't think any of them have a chance of winning, but it is a fucking problem that they are a nominee under the flag of one of the major parties. The primary laws/rules might need to be looked at to address this problem. Rather than taking the reddit/twitter stance that Nazis are impossible to deal.
what exactly do we mean by "under the flag of one of the major parties?" are they running in a primary and havent been kicked out? or are they actually receiving GOP party money and support as the GOP's chosen candidates?
|
For the sake of discussion: if he was a Russian stooge, I subscribe to the theory that their goal was to undermine the US political system and voter confidence. They never expected him to win, but knew he could command the news cycle. They saw the political divisions under Obama and that the US parties no longer represented a united front on foreign policy are trying to exploit that. And the political leadership of both parties were more than happy to play along for a domestic win.
I don't subscribe to the idea that Trump was ever aware that what was happening is unlawful. He sees all relationships through a business lens and doesn't really understand the boundaries created by national interests and relations. Russians offering to help him win a election just makes sense to him. And even if he was told it wasn't lawful, he assumed that wasn't a big deal because everyone that surrounded him was doing similar things.
|
On July 12 2018 02:00 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2018 01:53 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2018 01:38 a_flayer wrote:On July 12 2018 01:29 iamthedave wrote:On July 12 2018 00:35 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2018 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 17:20 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/AP/status/1016952343450046464Another year, another chance for Trump to show us how wrong we are, and that he is in fact a defender of democracy and not a Putin-plant. Oh, well, I guess there's next year? If NATO still exists by then? I bet Germany is really happy it sent all those soldiers to Afghanistan. When every other country was done, Germany was still there. My brother served other there with Germans. He never saw the French or English. Just the Germans. The most casualties Germany has faced since WW2 was this, Afghanistan, entirely for our sake and against the political-will of the German people. And this is the thanks we give them... Republicans are traitors to my country and to democracy, and I will treat them as such until they completely apologize for this shit. No civil war. I just pretend you're all dead already. edit: https://twitter.com/GarthDerby/status/1016955906523783168I mean, that sums it up, but the guy makes the tiresome mistake of acting like this is all just dumbfuckery, and not malicious intent. At this point, it is clearly the latter. Trump doesn't need to "read history" (his voters certainly fucking do) he needs to be bayoneted by a ghost of a WW2 soldier. If the Europeans really cared about NATO, they'd meet their defense funding obligations. Instead, they're freeloading on America's defense spending. Now, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and presume that you're someone who doesn't like the US spending as much as it does on defense. Surely you're not on board with the idea that the US should be subsidizing the national defense of foreign, wealthy countries. American global spending is an irrelevant and distractory argument when looking at NATO specific defence obligations. If the UK spent 2% due to commitments in the Falklands you’d not view that as a NATO contribution. Significantly more importantly, no sane person should want any particular European power from spending too much on defense. For fuck's sake, I know America came in at the end, but both World Wars started in Europe. The EU, NATO, the reduced defense spending, it's all about preventing the slow but inevitable rise of tensions in Europe that eventually boiled over into those two events from happening again. But hey, fuck it. Let's have Germany 'pull its weight' and start super spending on defense and military again. I'M SURE NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG. It amazes me how much people have forgotten about events that are only just outside living memory. Yeah... I'm not so worried about Germany this time around. The video in the spoiler was 15 years ago. They've gone from invading countries in 2001/2003 to locking up little kids in 2017/2018 in the same post-9/11 rise of xenophobia. I don't see Germany locking up little refugee kids. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poqoClsEhR4 And, just as expected, that train is right on time: https://forward.com/fast-forward/405235/jews-must-be-stopped-california-gop-congressional-candidate-robocall/Robocalls in support of California congressional candidate John Fitzgerald assert that Jews are taking over the world and ‘must be stopped.’ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/patrick-little-neo-nazi-california/We received several enquiries from readers about the authenticity of these statements. They are authentic quotations. On his account with the social network Gab, Little made the following statement:
"I propose a government that makes counter-semitism central to all aims of the state. A government:
1) Of a People, for that people, free from jews
2) That cannot revoke the right to bear arms, such that this people can remain free from jews
3) that forbids all immigration except of biological kin, where no person of jewish origin may live, vacation, or traverse" I honestly think it is kind of insulting that you would say what you did. The Germans today are a very moral people, I think. They have learned from their past. Some countries have not, it appears. The GOP has like 5 full blown Nazis running for office nation wide right now. I don't think any of them have a chance of winning, but it is a fucking problem that they are a nominee under the flag of one of the major parties. The primary laws/rules might need to be looked at to address this problem. Rather than taking the reddit/twitter stance that Nazis are impossible to deal. what exactly do we mean by "under the flag of one of the major parties?" are they running in a primary and havent been kicked out? or are they actually receiving GOP party money and support as the GOP's chosen candidates?
As far as I know none of them are getting money or support. However, some of them did win because the GOP couldn't find anyone to run against them in the primary, which sort of presents a different problem.
I know folks don't like Vox, but they did a pretty good breakdown of all the candidates running as Nazis or White Supremacists, and how the GOP responded or kind of ignored the problem until it was to late.
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17525860/nazis-russell-walker-arthur-jones-republicans-illinois-north-carolina-virginia
The short version is that the GOP mostly didn't seem to consider it a problem until the national media started reporting on them winning the primaries. Now, faced with the reality that these people will covered side by side against Democratic candidates, the GOP sees it as an optics problem.
The scope of the problem is going to exist beyond this election. Paul Nehlen, the guy running for Paul Ryan's seat is full blown anti-Semitic clown who says he is "Pro-white". In that case, the real fear for the GOP is that Paul Nehlen somehow wins.
|
I am going to return for just a moment to say that any of you who are actually trying to defend Trump's catastrophic stances on NATO and our allies are the ones killing American influence abroad, and his/your sheer illiteracy on basic trans-Atlantic issues boggles the mind. The whole point of NATO was to reduce military spending in Europe to provide stability (and provide the means to properly integrate the commands of dozens of countries), and also give us foreign bases from which to strike the USSR (Turkey in particular) and project power elsewhere in the world. Yes, the Europeans benefit from our security umbrella and yes we spend alot as a percent of GDP, but that's part and parcel of being a global hegemon and a world power with interests and commitments globally, and we reap other benefits from being the cornerstone of the liberal world order, like everyone being basically forced to take dollars as reserve currency/US Government Bonds that basically funded effectively less than 0% interest rates on our debt a few years back.
And even if you take the line Europe should be paying more for their own defense (the money doesn't go to us so no, they aren't cheating us out of anything) he's just advocated for everyone to spend 4% GDP on defense. No one spends that much, not even the US, and literally no one mentioned that as a benchmark until now. At this point, I'm inclined to say he's actively sabotoging our relationship with allies we could/should be coordinating with for...???
His foreign policy has been an unending disaster to which I can point to literally no positive unlike any other president in recent memory, and accelerated the decline of American diplomacy and power internationally by at least a decade, probably more. To quote micro, we can't even say that we are on good terms with Canada.
Rant over.
|
On July 12 2018 02:00 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2018 01:53 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2018 01:38 a_flayer wrote:On July 12 2018 01:29 iamthedave wrote:On July 12 2018 00:35 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2018 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 17:20 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/AP/status/1016952343450046464Another year, another chance for Trump to show us how wrong we are, and that he is in fact a defender of democracy and not a Putin-plant. Oh, well, I guess there's next year? If NATO still exists by then? I bet Germany is really happy it sent all those soldiers to Afghanistan. When every other country was done, Germany was still there. My brother served other there with Germans. He never saw the French or English. Just the Germans. The most casualties Germany has faced since WW2 was this, Afghanistan, entirely for our sake and against the political-will of the German people. And this is the thanks we give them... Republicans are traitors to my country and to democracy, and I will treat them as such until they completely apologize for this shit. No civil war. I just pretend you're all dead already. edit: https://twitter.com/GarthDerby/status/1016955906523783168I mean, that sums it up, but the guy makes the tiresome mistake of acting like this is all just dumbfuckery, and not malicious intent. At this point, it is clearly the latter. Trump doesn't need to "read history" (his voters certainly fucking do) he needs to be bayoneted by a ghost of a WW2 soldier. If the Europeans really cared about NATO, they'd meet their defense funding obligations. Instead, they're freeloading on America's defense spending. Now, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and presume that you're someone who doesn't like the US spending as much as it does on defense. Surely you're not on board with the idea that the US should be subsidizing the national defense of foreign, wealthy countries. American global spending is an irrelevant and distractory argument when looking at NATO specific defence obligations. If the UK spent 2% due to commitments in the Falklands you’d not view that as a NATO contribution. Significantly more importantly, no sane person should want any particular European power from spending too much on defense. For fuck's sake, I know America came in at the end, but both World Wars started in Europe. The EU, NATO, the reduced defense spending, it's all about preventing the slow but inevitable rise of tensions in Europe that eventually boiled over into those two events from happening again. But hey, fuck it. Let's have Germany 'pull its weight' and start super spending on defense and military again. I'M SURE NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG. It amazes me how much people have forgotten about events that are only just outside living memory. Yeah... I'm not so worried about Germany this time around. The video in the spoiler was 15 years ago. They've gone from invading countries in 2001/2003 to locking up little kids in 2017/2018 in the same post-9/11 rise of xenophobia. I don't see Germany locking up little refugee kids. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poqoClsEhR4 And, just as expected, that train is right on time: https://forward.com/fast-forward/405235/jews-must-be-stopped-california-gop-congressional-candidate-robocall/Robocalls in support of California congressional candidate John Fitzgerald assert that Jews are taking over the world and ‘must be stopped.’ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/patrick-little-neo-nazi-california/We received several enquiries from readers about the authenticity of these statements. They are authentic quotations. On his account with the social network Gab, Little made the following statement:
"I propose a government that makes counter-semitism central to all aims of the state. A government:
1) Of a People, for that people, free from jews
2) That cannot revoke the right to bear arms, such that this people can remain free from jews
3) that forbids all immigration except of biological kin, where no person of jewish origin may live, vacation, or traverse" I honestly think it is kind of insulting that you would say what you did. The Germans today are a very moral people, I think. They have learned from their past. Some countries have not, it appears. The GOP has like 5 full blown Nazis running for office nation wide right now. I don't think any of them have a chance of winning, but it is a fucking problem that they are a nominee under the flag of one of the major parties. The primary laws/rules might need to be looked at to address this problem. Rather than taking the reddit/twitter stance that Nazis are impossible to deal. what exactly do we mean by "under the flag of one of the major parties?" are they running in a primary and havent been kicked out? or are they actually receiving GOP party money and support as the GOP's chosen candidates? Remember the GOP took a 'moral' stance and dropped funding to a alleged child molester (Roy Moore) after it hit the national news.... and then restored funding when it looked like he might lose.
If they are willing to fund a child molester to win a seat they will fund a Nazi or white supremacist.
|
@LordTolkien: I think it is safe to say that Trump has had the mission to sabotage all of our agreements with NATO, Mexico, Canada and China. He is so ignorant that he believes we will be better off without these agreements.
|
As far as I know (and the article says), the crazily outspoken Nazis who have won nominations ran in districts where they know they'll be unopposed for the GOP nomination, and all the ones listed in the article aren't getting any support (Stewart might be, but the state GOP leader resigned). None that was opposed has actually won a contest as far as I'm aware again unless you count Stewart.
Personally, I don't think one of the handful of Republicans in each district should have to throw themselves on the sword that is the race for a national office so that they lose with an R next to their name instead of a crazy person losing with an R next to their name (just like I wouldn't expect a Democrat to do so if a wacko from rural Kentucky ran on a platform of eating the Rich), but last time this came up it was clear others felt differently.
On July 12 2018 02:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2018 02:00 IgnE wrote:On July 12 2018 01:53 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2018 01:38 a_flayer wrote:On July 12 2018 01:29 iamthedave wrote:On July 12 2018 00:35 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2018 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 17:20 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/AP/status/1016952343450046464Another year, another chance for Trump to show us how wrong we are, and that he is in fact a defender of democracy and not a Putin-plant. Oh, well, I guess there's next year? If NATO still exists by then? I bet Germany is really happy it sent all those soldiers to Afghanistan. When every other country was done, Germany was still there. My brother served other there with Germans. He never saw the French or English. Just the Germans. The most casualties Germany has faced since WW2 was this, Afghanistan, entirely for our sake and against the political-will of the German people. And this is the thanks we give them... Republicans are traitors to my country and to democracy, and I will treat them as such until they completely apologize for this shit. No civil war. I just pretend you're all dead already. edit: https://twitter.com/GarthDerby/status/1016955906523783168I mean, that sums it up, but the guy makes the tiresome mistake of acting like this is all just dumbfuckery, and not malicious intent. At this point, it is clearly the latter. Trump doesn't need to "read history" (his voters certainly fucking do) he needs to be bayoneted by a ghost of a WW2 soldier. If the Europeans really cared about NATO, they'd meet their defense funding obligations. Instead, they're freeloading on America's defense spending. Now, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and presume that you're someone who doesn't like the US spending as much as it does on defense. Surely you're not on board with the idea that the US should be subsidizing the national defense of foreign, wealthy countries. American global spending is an irrelevant and distractory argument when looking at NATO specific defence obligations. If the UK spent 2% due to commitments in the Falklands you’d not view that as a NATO contribution. Significantly more importantly, no sane person should want any particular European power from spending too much on defense. For fuck's sake, I know America came in at the end, but both World Wars started in Europe. The EU, NATO, the reduced defense spending, it's all about preventing the slow but inevitable rise of tensions in Europe that eventually boiled over into those two events from happening again. But hey, fuck it. Let's have Germany 'pull its weight' and start super spending on defense and military again. I'M SURE NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG. It amazes me how much people have forgotten about events that are only just outside living memory. Yeah... I'm not so worried about Germany this time around. The video in the spoiler was 15 years ago. They've gone from invading countries in 2001/2003 to locking up little kids in 2017/2018 in the same post-9/11 rise of xenophobia. I don't see Germany locking up little refugee kids. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poqoClsEhR4 And, just as expected, that train is right on time: https://forward.com/fast-forward/405235/jews-must-be-stopped-california-gop-congressional-candidate-robocall/Robocalls in support of California congressional candidate John Fitzgerald assert that Jews are taking over the world and ‘must be stopped.’ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/patrick-little-neo-nazi-california/We received several enquiries from readers about the authenticity of these statements. They are authentic quotations. On his account with the social network Gab, Little made the following statement:
"I propose a government that makes counter-semitism central to all aims of the state. A government:
1) Of a People, for that people, free from jews
2) That cannot revoke the right to bear arms, such that this people can remain free from jews
3) that forbids all immigration except of biological kin, where no person of jewish origin may live, vacation, or traverse" I honestly think it is kind of insulting that you would say what you did. The Germans today are a very moral people, I think. They have learned from their past. Some countries have not, it appears. The GOP has like 5 full blown Nazis running for office nation wide right now. I don't think any of them have a chance of winning, but it is a fucking problem that they are a nominee under the flag of one of the major parties. The primary laws/rules might need to be looked at to address this problem. Rather than taking the reddit/twitter stance that Nazis are impossible to deal. what exactly do we mean by "under the flag of one of the major parties?" are they running in a primary and havent been kicked out? or are they actually receiving GOP party money and support as the GOP's chosen candidates? Remember the GOP took a 'moral' stance and dropped funding to a alleged child molester (Roy Moore) after it hit the national news.... and then restored funding when it looked like he might lose. If they are willing to fund a child molester to win a seat they will fund a Nazi or white supremacist.
So far as I know none of the self-avowed Nazis or white supremacists are receiving any GOP funding and in most cases the GOP has directly encouraged people to vote for the Democrat instead, which is a step further than Roy Moore. E.g. Ted Cruz directly anti-endorsing one of them.
|
My problem with that theory is that it all hinges on the belief that none of them will ever win. It is emblematic of the larger problem that we cannot even engage with the idea of preventing these overt racists from rising to public prominence.
|
Like I think I said last time it came up, as long as you'd personally run in the primary if some liberal-leaning psychopath in your district ran, I think that's fine. I wouldn't, and I can't blame the people in the district for not doing something I wouldn't even seriously consider doing myself.
The other wrinkle is that considering how many of the nomination processes work it might have been perfectly possible for a Democrat or Independent to run in the Republican Primary if the goal was just preventing them from public prominence, but I can't see many people doing that (and none did).
The one alternative to expecting people to run against crazies is allowing parties to exercise even more ideological control over the nomination process and interfere more directly in state laws, which seems perilous.
|
On July 12 2018 02:24 Plansix wrote:
@LordTolkien: I think it is safe to say that Trump has had the mission to sabotage all of our agreements with NATO, Mexico, Canada and China. He is so ignorant that he believes we will be better off without these agreements.
I don't care what shitty, birdbrained, and moronic reasons he has, it's fricking stupid and I don't exaggerate when I say they've accelerated American decline by at least a decade and done nothing but ceded power to and accomplished longtime foreign policy objectives of authoritarian states like Russia and China internationally.
And yes, I'm doing what amounts to screaming into the void of space here, but this latest news has made me vent.
|
On July 12 2018 02:39 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2018 02:24 Plansix wrote:
@LordTolkien: I think it is safe to say that Trump has had the mission to sabotage all of our agreements with NATO, Mexico, Canada and China. He is so ignorant that he believes we will be better off without these agreements. I don't care what shitty, birdbrained, and moronic reasons he has, it's fricking stupid and I don't exaggerate when I say they've accelerated American decline by at least a decade and done nothing but ceded power to and accomplished longtime foreign policy objectives of authoritarian states like Russia and China internationally. And yes, I'm doing what amounts to screaming into the void of space here, but this latest news has made me vent.
People are foolishly under the impression that the US retreating from the global stage will have no impact on the international order. They don’t believe nations like China and Russia will imperialisticly expand their influence in the power vacuum. Or they believe that those nations will be less harmful than the US in their imperialism.
Of course, the problem has arisen due to our own internal divisions and because the voting public has no concept of a pre-NATO world.
|
I think the most effective way of us spending 4% GDP on defense would be to buy twitter and ban Trump, and buy Fox News and slowly change the narrative until Cletus and his boys cheer for jailing millionaire republicans instead of mexicans.
|
On July 12 2018 02:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Like I think I said last time it came up, as long as you'd personally run in the primary if some liberal-leaning psychopath in your district ran, I think that's fine. I wouldn't, and I can't blame the people in the district for not doing something I wouldn't even seriously consider doing myself.
The other wrinkle is that considering how many of the nomination processes work it might have been perfectly possible for a Democrat or Independent to run in the Republican Primary if the goal was just preventing them from public prominence, but I can't see many people doing that (and none did).
The one alternative to expecting people to run against crazies is allowing parties to exercise even more ideological control over the nomination process and interfere more directly in state laws, which seems perilous.
These primaries are a complete creation of the political parties and under their control. They didn't always exist. In fact, they are a result of 20th century politics. I am not suggesting they removing this person from the ballot, but a discussion about what the response will be if a overt white nationalist wins a seat in the House of Representatives or Senate.
|
On July 12 2018 02:48 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
I think the most effective way of us spending 4% GDP on defense would be to buy twitter and ban Trump, and buy Fox News and slowly change the narrative until Cletus and his boys cheer for jailing millionaire republicans instead of mexicans.
I like your thinking. I've said before maybe I should donate to Patreon accounts of far-left activists I've found in the Midwest.
That, by the way, is also what Russia has been doing with RT. Playing defense by going on the offensive in the media.
|
On July 12 2018 02:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:As far as I know (and the article says), the crazily outspoken Nazis who have won nominations ran in districts where they know they'll be unopposed for the GOP nomination, and all the ones listed in the article aren't getting any support (Stewart might be, but the state GOP leader resigned). None that was opposed has actually won a contest as far as I'm aware again unless you count Stewart. Personally, I don't think one of the handful of Republicans in each district should have to throw themselves on the sword that is the race for a national office so that they lose with an R next to their name instead of a crazy person losing with an R next to their name (just like I wouldn't expect a Democrat to do so if a wacko from rural Kentucky ran on a platform of eating the Rich), but last time this came up it was clear others felt differently. Show nested quote +On July 12 2018 02:23 Gorsameth wrote:On July 12 2018 02:00 IgnE wrote:On July 12 2018 01:53 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2018 01:38 a_flayer wrote:On July 12 2018 01:29 iamthedave wrote:On July 12 2018 00:35 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2018 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 17:20 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/AP/status/1016952343450046464Another year, another chance for Trump to show us how wrong we are, and that he is in fact a defender of democracy and not a Putin-plant. Oh, well, I guess there's next year? If NATO still exists by then? I bet Germany is really happy it sent all those soldiers to Afghanistan. When every other country was done, Germany was still there. My brother served other there with Germans. He never saw the French or English. Just the Germans. The most casualties Germany has faced since WW2 was this, Afghanistan, entirely for our sake and against the political-will of the German people. And this is the thanks we give them... Republicans are traitors to my country and to democracy, and I will treat them as such until they completely apologize for this shit. No civil war. I just pretend you're all dead already. edit: https://twitter.com/GarthDerby/status/1016955906523783168I mean, that sums it up, but the guy makes the tiresome mistake of acting like this is all just dumbfuckery, and not malicious intent. At this point, it is clearly the latter. Trump doesn't need to "read history" (his voters certainly fucking do) he needs to be bayoneted by a ghost of a WW2 soldier. If the Europeans really cared about NATO, they'd meet their defense funding obligations. Instead, they're freeloading on America's defense spending. Now, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and presume that you're someone who doesn't like the US spending as much as it does on defense. Surely you're not on board with the idea that the US should be subsidizing the national defense of foreign, wealthy countries. American global spending is an irrelevant and distractory argument when looking at NATO specific defence obligations. If the UK spent 2% due to commitments in the Falklands you’d not view that as a NATO contribution. Significantly more importantly, no sane person should want any particular European power from spending too much on defense. For fuck's sake, I know America came in at the end, but both World Wars started in Europe. The EU, NATO, the reduced defense spending, it's all about preventing the slow but inevitable rise of tensions in Europe that eventually boiled over into those two events from happening again. But hey, fuck it. Let's have Germany 'pull its weight' and start super spending on defense and military again. I'M SURE NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG. It amazes me how much people have forgotten about events that are only just outside living memory. Yeah... I'm not so worried about Germany this time around. The video in the spoiler was 15 years ago. They've gone from invading countries in 2001/2003 to locking up little kids in 2017/2018 in the same post-9/11 rise of xenophobia. I don't see Germany locking up little refugee kids. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poqoClsEhR4 And, just as expected, that train is right on time: https://forward.com/fast-forward/405235/jews-must-be-stopped-california-gop-congressional-candidate-robocall/Robocalls in support of California congressional candidate John Fitzgerald assert that Jews are taking over the world and ‘must be stopped.’ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/patrick-little-neo-nazi-california/We received several enquiries from readers about the authenticity of these statements. They are authentic quotations. On his account with the social network Gab, Little made the following statement:
"I propose a government that makes counter-semitism central to all aims of the state. A government:
1) Of a People, for that people, free from jews
2) That cannot revoke the right to bear arms, such that this people can remain free from jews
3) that forbids all immigration except of biological kin, where no person of jewish origin may live, vacation, or traverse" I honestly think it is kind of insulting that you would say what you did. The Germans today are a very moral people, I think. They have learned from their past. Some countries have not, it appears. The GOP has like 5 full blown Nazis running for office nation wide right now. I don't think any of them have a chance of winning, but it is a fucking problem that they are a nominee under the flag of one of the major parties. The primary laws/rules might need to be looked at to address this problem. Rather than taking the reddit/twitter stance that Nazis are impossible to deal. what exactly do we mean by "under the flag of one of the major parties?" are they running in a primary and havent been kicked out? or are they actually receiving GOP party money and support as the GOP's chosen candidates? Remember the GOP took a 'moral' stance and dropped funding to a alleged child molester (Roy Moore) after it hit the national news.... and then restored funding when it looked like he might lose. If they are willing to fund a child molester to win a seat they will fund a Nazi or white supremacist. So far as I know none of the self-avowed Nazis or white supremacists are receiving any GOP funding and in most cases the GOP has directly encouraged people to vote for the Democrat instead, which is a step further than Roy Moore. E.g. Ted Cruz directly anti-endorsing one of them.
The fact that the GOP even allowed them to run within their party is more than enough that they want to play it safe as a seat taken is a seat taken.
|
Also, I would point out that Paul Ryan’s seat is not unwinnable for the white supremacist that is running for it.
|
On July 12 2018 03:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2018 02:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:As far as I know (and the article says), the crazily outspoken Nazis who have won nominations ran in districts where they know they'll be unopposed for the GOP nomination, and all the ones listed in the article aren't getting any support (Stewart might be, but the state GOP leader resigned). None that was opposed has actually won a contest as far as I'm aware again unless you count Stewart. Personally, I don't think one of the handful of Republicans in each district should have to throw themselves on the sword that is the race for a national office so that they lose with an R next to their name instead of a crazy person losing with an R next to their name (just like I wouldn't expect a Democrat to do so if a wacko from rural Kentucky ran on a platform of eating the Rich), but last time this came up it was clear others felt differently. On July 12 2018 02:23 Gorsameth wrote:On July 12 2018 02:00 IgnE wrote:On July 12 2018 01:53 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2018 01:38 a_flayer wrote:On July 12 2018 01:29 iamthedave wrote:On July 12 2018 00:35 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2018 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 17:20 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/AP/status/1016952343450046464Another year, another chance for Trump to show us how wrong we are, and that he is in fact a defender of democracy and not a Putin-plant. Oh, well, I guess there's next year? If NATO still exists by then? I bet Germany is really happy it sent all those soldiers to Afghanistan. When every other country was done, Germany was still there. My brother served other there with Germans. He never saw the French or English. Just the Germans. The most casualties Germany has faced since WW2 was this, Afghanistan, entirely for our sake and against the political-will of the German people. And this is the thanks we give them... Republicans are traitors to my country and to democracy, and I will treat them as such until they completely apologize for this shit. No civil war. I just pretend you're all dead already. edit: https://twitter.com/GarthDerby/status/1016955906523783168I mean, that sums it up, but the guy makes the tiresome mistake of acting like this is all just dumbfuckery, and not malicious intent. At this point, it is clearly the latter. Trump doesn't need to "read history" (his voters certainly fucking do) he needs to be bayoneted by a ghost of a WW2 soldier. If the Europeans really cared about NATO, they'd meet their defense funding obligations. Instead, they're freeloading on America's defense spending. Now, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and presume that you're someone who doesn't like the US spending as much as it does on defense. Surely you're not on board with the idea that the US should be subsidizing the national defense of foreign, wealthy countries. American global spending is an irrelevant and distractory argument when looking at NATO specific defence obligations. If the UK spent 2% due to commitments in the Falklands you’d not view that as a NATO contribution. Significantly more importantly, no sane person should want any particular European power from spending too much on defense. For fuck's sake, I know America came in at the end, but both World Wars started in Europe. The EU, NATO, the reduced defense spending, it's all about preventing the slow but inevitable rise of tensions in Europe that eventually boiled over into those two events from happening again. But hey, fuck it. Let's have Germany 'pull its weight' and start super spending on defense and military again. I'M SURE NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG. It amazes me how much people have forgotten about events that are only just outside living memory. Yeah... I'm not so worried about Germany this time around. The video in the spoiler was 15 years ago. They've gone from invading countries in 2001/2003 to locking up little kids in 2017/2018 in the same post-9/11 rise of xenophobia. I don't see Germany locking up little refugee kids. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poqoClsEhR4 And, just as expected, that train is right on time: https://forward.com/fast-forward/405235/jews-must-be-stopped-california-gop-congressional-candidate-robocall/Robocalls in support of California congressional candidate John Fitzgerald assert that Jews are taking over the world and ‘must be stopped.’ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/patrick-little-neo-nazi-california/We received several enquiries from readers about the authenticity of these statements. They are authentic quotations. On his account with the social network Gab, Little made the following statement:
"I propose a government that makes counter-semitism central to all aims of the state. A government:
1) Of a People, for that people, free from jews
2) That cannot revoke the right to bear arms, such that this people can remain free from jews
3) that forbids all immigration except of biological kin, where no person of jewish origin may live, vacation, or traverse" I honestly think it is kind of insulting that you would say what you did. The Germans today are a very moral people, I think. They have learned from their past. Some countries have not, it appears. The GOP has like 5 full blown Nazis running for office nation wide right now. I don't think any of them have a chance of winning, but it is a fucking problem that they are a nominee under the flag of one of the major parties. The primary laws/rules might need to be looked at to address this problem. Rather than taking the reddit/twitter stance that Nazis are impossible to deal. what exactly do we mean by "under the flag of one of the major parties?" are they running in a primary and havent been kicked out? or are they actually receiving GOP party money and support as the GOP's chosen candidates? Remember the GOP took a 'moral' stance and dropped funding to a alleged child molester (Roy Moore) after it hit the national news.... and then restored funding when it looked like he might lose. If they are willing to fund a child molester to win a seat they will fund a Nazi or white supremacist. So far as I know none of the self-avowed Nazis or white supremacists are receiving any GOP funding and in most cases the GOP has directly encouraged people to vote for the Democrat instead, which is a step further than Roy Moore. E.g. Ted Cruz directly anti-endorsing one of them. The fact that the GOP even allowed them to run within their party is more than enough that they want to play it safe as a seat taken is a seat taken.
I mean, the GOP didn't "allow" them to run-generally they collected the requisite signatures under state law from voters in the district registered as R, likely by misinforming them or saying "we need to get someone on the ballot!" In the past the Illinois guy (who is truly vile) falsified the signatures, so the Illinois GOP managed to get them thrown off the ballot multiple times by suing with no replacement R candidate.
On July 12 2018 02:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2018 02:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Like I think I said last time it came up, as long as you'd personally run in the primary if some liberal-leaning psychopath in your district ran, I think that's fine. I wouldn't, and I can't blame the people in the district for not doing something I wouldn't even seriously consider doing myself.
The other wrinkle is that considering how many of the nomination processes work it might have been perfectly possible for a Democrat or Independent to run in the Republican Primary if the goal was just preventing them from public prominence, but I can't see many people doing that (and none did).
The one alternative to expecting people to run against crazies is allowing parties to exercise even more ideological control over the nomination process and interfere more directly in state laws, which seems perilous. These primaries are a complete creation of the political parties and under their control. They didn't always exist. In fact, they are a result of 20th century politics. I am not suggesting they removing this person from the ballot, but a discussion about what the response will be if a overt white nationalist wins a seat in the House of Representatives or Senate.
That kind of discussion, I find intriguing. The only downside of Roy Moore losing was that we didn't get to see whether Republicans would sack up and actually do something about it if he had ended up winning the election. I think the current environment is more anti-avowed Nazi (it's not just bad optics, but bad optics particularly with respect to precisely what the left has been trying to paint them with) than it is accused-pedophile (the anti-Metoo movement is a potent force for Republicans) but I'm not sure.
|
On July 12 2018 03:25 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2018 03:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On July 12 2018 02:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:As far as I know (and the article says), the crazily outspoken Nazis who have won nominations ran in districts where they know they'll be unopposed for the GOP nomination, and all the ones listed in the article aren't getting any support (Stewart might be, but the state GOP leader resigned). None that was opposed has actually won a contest as far as I'm aware again unless you count Stewart. Personally, I don't think one of the handful of Republicans in each district should have to throw themselves on the sword that is the race for a national office so that they lose with an R next to their name instead of a crazy person losing with an R next to their name (just like I wouldn't expect a Democrat to do so if a wacko from rural Kentucky ran on a platform of eating the Rich), but last time this came up it was clear others felt differently. On July 12 2018 02:23 Gorsameth wrote:On July 12 2018 02:00 IgnE wrote:On July 12 2018 01:53 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2018 01:38 a_flayer wrote:On July 12 2018 01:29 iamthedave wrote:On July 12 2018 00:35 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2018 23:53 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
If the Europeans really cared about NATO, they'd meet their defense funding obligations. Instead, they're freeloading on America's defense spending. Now, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and presume that you're someone who doesn't like the US spending as much as it does on defense. Surely you're not on board with the idea that the US should be subsidizing the national defense of foreign, wealthy countries. American global spending is an irrelevant and distractory argument when looking at NATO specific defence obligations. If the UK spent 2% due to commitments in the Falklands you’d not view that as a NATO contribution. Significantly more importantly, no sane person should want any particular European power from spending too much on defense. For fuck's sake, I know America came in at the end, but both World Wars started in Europe. The EU, NATO, the reduced defense spending, it's all about preventing the slow but inevitable rise of tensions in Europe that eventually boiled over into those two events from happening again. But hey, fuck it. Let's have Germany 'pull its weight' and start super spending on defense and military again. I'M SURE NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG. It amazes me how much people have forgotten about events that are only just outside living memory. Yeah... I'm not so worried about Germany this time around. The video in the spoiler was 15 years ago. They've gone from invading countries in 2001/2003 to locking up little kids in 2017/2018 in the same post-9/11 rise of xenophobia. I don't see Germany locking up little refugee kids. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poqoClsEhR4 And, just as expected, that train is right on time: https://forward.com/fast-forward/405235/jews-must-be-stopped-california-gop-congressional-candidate-robocall/Robocalls in support of California congressional candidate John Fitzgerald assert that Jews are taking over the world and ‘must be stopped.’ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/patrick-little-neo-nazi-california/We received several enquiries from readers about the authenticity of these statements. They are authentic quotations. On his account with the social network Gab, Little made the following statement:
"I propose a government that makes counter-semitism central to all aims of the state. A government:
1) Of a People, for that people, free from jews
2) That cannot revoke the right to bear arms, such that this people can remain free from jews
3) that forbids all immigration except of biological kin, where no person of jewish origin may live, vacation, or traverse" I honestly think it is kind of insulting that you would say what you did. The Germans today are a very moral people, I think. They have learned from their past. Some countries have not, it appears. The GOP has like 5 full blown Nazis running for office nation wide right now. I don't think any of them have a chance of winning, but it is a fucking problem that they are a nominee under the flag of one of the major parties. The primary laws/rules might need to be looked at to address this problem. Rather than taking the reddit/twitter stance that Nazis are impossible to deal. what exactly do we mean by "under the flag of one of the major parties?" are they running in a primary and havent been kicked out? or are they actually receiving GOP party money and support as the GOP's chosen candidates? Remember the GOP took a 'moral' stance and dropped funding to a alleged child molester (Roy Moore) after it hit the national news.... and then restored funding when it looked like he might lose. If they are willing to fund a child molester to win a seat they will fund a Nazi or white supremacist. So far as I know none of the self-avowed Nazis or white supremacists are receiving any GOP funding and in most cases the GOP has directly encouraged people to vote for the Democrat instead, which is a step further than Roy Moore. E.g. Ted Cruz directly anti-endorsing one of them. The fact that the GOP even allowed them to run within their party is more than enough that they want to play it safe as a seat taken is a seat taken. I mean, the GOP didn't "allow" them to run-generally they collected the requisite signatures under state law from voters in the district registered as R, likely by misinforming them or saying "we need to get someone on the ballot!" In the past the Illinois guy (who is truly vile) falsified the signatures, so the Illinois GOP managed to get them thrown off the ballot multiple times by suing with no replacement R candidate. Show nested quote +On July 12 2018 02:59 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2018 02:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Like I think I said last time it came up, as long as you'd personally run in the primary if some liberal-leaning psychopath in your district ran, I think that's fine. I wouldn't, and I can't blame the people in the district for not doing something I wouldn't even seriously consider doing myself.
The other wrinkle is that considering how many of the nomination processes work it might have been perfectly possible for a Democrat or Independent to run in the Republican Primary if the goal was just preventing them from public prominence, but I can't see many people doing that (and none did).
The one alternative to expecting people to run against crazies is allowing parties to exercise even more ideological control over the nomination process and interfere more directly in state laws, which seems perilous. These primaries are a complete creation of the political parties and under their control. They didn't always exist. In fact, they are a result of 20th century politics. I am not suggesting they removing this person from the ballot, but a discussion about what the response will be if a overt white nationalist wins a seat in the House of Representatives or Senate. That kind of discussion, I find intriguing. The only downside of Roy Moore losing was that we didn't get to see whether Republicans would sack up and actually do something about it if he had ended up winning the election. I think the current environment is more anti-avowed Nazi (it's not just bad optics, but bad optics particularly with respect to precisely what the left has been trying to paint them with) than it is accused-pedophile (the anti-Metoo movement is a potent force for Republicans) but I'm not sure. The GOP resumed funding for Roy Moore when it became apparent he might actually lose.
I think their position is crystal clear.
|
Yeah, if these white supremacists looked like they had some kind of shot at winning against the Dem, I would not be surprised if the GOP or GOP-aligned PAC's surreptitiously started funneling resources to them.
|
Interesting and dire open letter to Yale Law from over 200 alumni about Kavanaugh being selected. Basically a long list of the problems with his nomination, similar to some voiced here. I'm glad his peers are speaking up. I imagine when it's all said and done the associations these schools have with anything Trump related will be more embarrassing than worthy of pride.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
