Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

269 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      88
    • No
      109
    • Maybe
      72
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      49
    • No
      108
    • Indifferent
      41


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Lushen said:

This is the issue with what people were responding to me about.  I was not discussing whether we could or couldn't trust the police.


...and that's the problem. Its like you're purposely trying to avoid understanding the argument that's being presented to you.

You keep bringing it back to Michael Brown; Michael Brown; Michael Brown.

As though the-point-of-origin is the be-all-and-end-all-of-the-movement; the whole legitimacy of BLM and every previously ignored issue of police accountability and criminal justice its brought to the forefront of the national discourse rises and falls on whether or not the shooting of Michael Brown was justified.

...you won't engage on the issue of over-policing and over-incarceration.
...you won't engage on the issue of excessive use of force + inadequate mechanisms at law to charge cops who cause unnecessary deaths in the line of duty with homicide
...you won't engage on the issue of general lack of accountability for police misconduct
...and you certainly won't engage on the issue of unpunished police misconduct disproportionately affecting minority communities. 

Consider the following.

In the 1960s, there were civil rights activists in the mold of MLK who practiced non-violent civil disobedience to advance a worthy cause. That cause was desegregation and passage of the Civil Rights Act.

You also had more--militant factions--the Black Panthers. The Nation of Islam. The Weather Underground. The Black Liberation Army. Guys who were of the opinion "MLK is taking too long and getting nothing done--nonviolent civil disobedience is bullshit. NEW PLAN: Fight the Power."   

And they were working for the same end-goal. But they were using very different methods.

Now a favored tactic of the Segregationists at this time was to point to the militants and say: "See here? This is the problem. Its not that the Blacks are oppressed. Its that they're violent, lazy criminals who would rather loot and riot and blame the White Man for their problems then be productive members of society; all this talk of civil rights is nonsense."

Then, if a proponent of Civil Rights tried to engage in an on-the-merits discussion of what they were fighting for. Desegregation. Civil Rights Laws. All that good stuff. The Segregationists answer would be: "We're not discussing segregation. The issue is [insert some Black Panther who assassinated a police officer here]."

...and that was the level they engaged...

They equivocated between the purpose of the Civil Rights Movement and the conduct of certain bad actors as though the existence of the latter invalidated the former; as though if you could point to some "lionized" figure in the movement who had done something terrible or said something false, that somehow negated the broader point that segregation and Jim Crow and institutional racism was an injustice that needed to be redressed with corrective policy.

They were, of course, idiots. And the civil rights movement advanced over their hyperbolics.

What I want you to recognize is that you are echoing their argument. You are using the same misapplication of fact to the same ends.

Stop doing that.

Every single thing you are saying about Michael Brown can be true and accurate, and that does not negate the broader point that BLM as a force-of-opposition to unchecked police powers and push for attention to criminal justice reform is a movement with legitimate grievances doing good work in

a) Getting issues that were previously being completely ignored on the public radar

b) Advocating for responsive change-of-law; mandatory bodycameras on all officers. Procedures for independent review of citizen complaints against a police officer. etc.
(This was work that needed to be done and wasn't getting done)

Think about it.

***

The other issue--specific to the state of Missouri--is that Missouri has the most horrifyingly permissive Lawful Use of Deadly Force by a Police Officer  statute in the country. That came to light as part of the debate as to whether or not Darren Wilson could be criminally charged. 

...When the point was raised that even if prosecutors could prove Michael Brown was subdued and compliant at the time of his death, his shooting still would not violate Missouri Law.

...and when no case to be tried before a jury could even be filed because of it. 

...and when people got to reading wait--what does this law say???

A police officer in the state of Missouri can basically kill you at-will--lawfully--so long as he believes  you have committed a crime for which you can be arrested and use of deadly force is necessary "to effect the arrest."

It is a stupidly archaic law.

And--again--we're only now talking about it and trying to fix it, because #Ferguson.

 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lushen said:

North Korea is "Considering" strike on Guam acc't the second link I referenced which means it can reach one of our military bases.  These bases include American Soldiers and Civilians.  Thus...They can hit us and their enemies...

I don't get it.  Your point is that it is very hard to manufacture and use a nuclear weapon despite my reference saying N Korea has a nuclear weapon they have attached to a missile that can hit Guam.  Like...do you not believe the source or...IDK what you're getting at...

The source is also from North Korean state propaganda networks. The type that has been making threats against the US for decades and hasn't done anything. Not to say they aren't serious this time with Trump fanning the flames, but I would treat it with a heavy dose of skepticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Bringing the conversation back to Trump for a moment...

Multiple sources now confirming that the FBI has conducted a raid on the home residence of former Trump campaign Chief of Staff, Paul Manafort.

FBI agents entered the premises pursuant to a search warrant for documents related to the Russia Investigation and seized several hundred pages worth of material from Manafort's home.

The search warrant was signed by a judge and lawfully executed, pursuant to concerns that Manafort would not comply with subpoenas for turnover of relevant documents.

Clearest indication to date that this is now being treated as a serious criminal investigation. Mueller isn't playing around.

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like they didn't find anything.

Spoiler

Documents seized during the raid included information Manafort had already provided to the congressional committees, the Post reported. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can somebody tell me what the "alt left" is supposed to be? This week is the first time I heard this term. I'm a liberal, and the democratic party isn't splintered in any comparable way. Yeah, it was pretty scary when a third party candidate threatened to highjack our party, but the most aggressive thing I've seen Bernie Bros do is a backlash about the Nevada caucus. Lots of (potentially Bernie supporting) delegates couldn't make it, apparently somebody picked up a chair - but didn't throw it. I just never felt like there was an "alternative" style of liberalism as outlandish as fake tea parties, Neo-nazis, radicalized Christian theocrats, etc. I know it sounds like I'm kicking conservative ideals while they're down right now, but I'd really appreciate it if somebody pointed at the bad eggs of the left so at least I can be aware of what looks bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

Can somebody tell me what the "alt left" is supposed to be? This week is the first time I heard this term. I'm a liberal, and the democratic party isn't splintered in any comparable way. Yeah, it was pretty scary when a third party candidate threatened to highjack our party, but the most aggressive thing I've seen Bernie Bros do is a backlash about the Nevada caucus. Lots of (potentially Bernie supporting) delegates couldn't make it, apparently somebody picked up a chair - but didn't throw it. I just never felt like there was an "alternative" style of liberalism as outlandish as fake tea parties, Neo-nazis, radicalized Christian theocrats, etc. I know it sounds like I'm kicking conservative ideals while they're down right now, but I'd really appreciate it if somebody pointed at the bad eggs of the left so at least I can be aware of what looks bad.

"alt-left" was something that mainline Democrats called those "Bernie Bros" (which was also meant to be derogatory term) in an attempt to liken them to the same as the alt-right.

so yeah, progressives that supported Bernie were called the "alt-left", even though that was obviously wrong

the "real" bad part of the left is the authoritarian left (i.e distinctively not liberals), but this is not really comparable in the same way to the alt-right.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tryhard said:

"alt-left" was something that mainline Democrats called those "Bernie Bros" (which was also meant to be derogatory term) in an attempt to liken them to the same as the alt-right.

so yeah, progressives that supported Bernie were called the "alt-left", even though that was obviously wrong

the "real" bad part of the left is the authoritarian left (i.e distinctively not liberals), but this is not really comparable in the same way to the alt-right.

I don't know, it depends on where you go. Plenty of Tankies out there, and some are just as cancerous as the Alt Right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

I don't know, it depends on where you go. Plenty of Tankies out there, and some are just as cancerous as the Alt Right. 

You also live in a country that the USSR made its bitch, and that some people around there still think it was the best thing to happen to Czech Republic/Slovakia since sliced bread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

You also live in a country that the USSR made its bitch, and that some people around there still think it was the best thing to happen to Czech Republic/Slovakia since sliced bread.

Really it's more that Tankies are by far the most self righteous, arrogant, smug assholes I've ever met. I mean, my least favorite person in the world that I know personally is a Tankie(well okay, second least favorite, one guy tried to kill me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2017 at 1:10 PM, Glennstavos said:

Can somebody tell me what the "alt left" is supposed to be? This week is the first time I heard this term. I'm a liberal, and the democratic party isn't splintered in any comparable way. Yeah, it was pretty scary when a third party candidate threatened to highjack our party, but the most aggressive thing I've seen Bernie Bros do is a backlash about the Nevada caucus. Lots of (potentially Bernie supporting) delegates couldn't make it, apparently somebody picked up a chair - but didn't throw it. I just never felt like there was an "alternative" style of liberalism as outlandish as fake tea parties, Neo-nazis, radicalized Christian theocrats, etc. I know it sounds like I'm kicking conservative ideals while they're down right now, but I'd really appreciate it if somebody pointed at the bad eggs of the left so at least I can be aware of what looks bad.

…so Imagine for a moment that the political spectrum is a coordinate plane…

The X-Axis, of course, represents the spectrum from Left to Right.

The Y-Axis represents the spectrum from authoritarianism (UP) to libertarianism (DOWN).

The political orientations of most persons—graphed out on this plane—will be broadly distributed across the X-Axis, representing a broad range of political opinions from Left to Right. But will display comparatively low variation from a value of zero (0) along the Y-Axis. Indicating that most mainstream political orientations—no matter how far left or how right—are neither extremely authoritarian nor extremely libertarian in nature, but somewhere in the middle.

This is your standard spectrum of opposition between Left wing politics and Right wing politics.

…now we start moving further up and down on the Y-Axis. This brings us to parties that—wherever their views may fall on the left/right spectrum—cannot be part of the mainstream dichotomy of left/right politics because they are so extremely authoritarian or libertarian as to be irredeemably off-putting to persons on all sides.


i.e. even if you have someone all the way on the far-right who believes that abortion is murder. And you can have a left/right disagreement on whether or not that's true. Everyone is generally going to be in agreement that women who have abortions should not be executed by firing squad. That would be an extreme authoritarian position, and anyone who holds it would be generally dismissed as a lunatic extremist.

This brings us to what has been labled  the “alt-right” and the “alt-left.”

Now I happen to despise both these terms. Because they are tame euphemisms for terms already in existence and that don’t need to be replaced; they serve only to put a positive spin on extremist political affiliations looking to rebrand themselves, after decades of being dismissed as lunatics under their preexisting labels.

Like we have a pre-existing name for extreme right-wing authoritarianism--It’s called fascism.

“Alt right” is literally  just a euphemism that some fascists made up because nobody likes being called a fascist.

...Then Hillary turned it into a pejorative during the 2016 campaign...

...Then the Right copied her and started throwing around the term "alt left" to describe the extreme left-wing 
libertarians on the opposite end of the spectrum from extreme right-wing authoritarians (we have a name for those too--they're called anarchists.)

This is completely unnecessary. Call an anarchist an anarchist and a fascist a fascist.  

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

…so Imagine for a moment that the political spectrum is a coordinate plane…

whoa there, you can put down the chart. I'm going to be teaching that lesson to students in a few years. I was mostly asking about what ideologies people have been ascribing to the "alt-left", that way I'm more equipped when it comes into conversation. Can't be as complicated as the alt-right term.

Take the Charlottesville nazis. They chanted "You will not replace us". So oh, they're talking about historic symbols being taken down and at worst it's their aggression toward immigrants and PoC taking jobs, that's pretty normal. Then they start chanting "Jews will not replace us" and you're left wondering where anti-semitism falls into the conversation. Alt right doesn't mean any one thing anymore, and even more frustrating is that some of those kids are just there to meme.

So, okay. I guess there's nothing to the alt-left term, besides a minor Bernie connection. Probably a buzz word our president heard on Fox News I guess. So how long can we go before we should be concerned about Steve Bannon not being fired? I know he was hired into a made up government position and probably has no power, but I think this is one firing Trump can use to gain back a lot of his party's good graces. It would also indirectly deal a blow to the efforts of nazis. A win for all of us, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i always thought the alt-left was a white middle class dude who voted for bernie sanders and donald trump

you know, the fuck it i worked for everything i have and im not privileged type

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

whoa there, you can put down the chart.

...you know it probably would have been simpler if I had just posted the chart.

Too many words. Here's a concise visual aid:

Political+compass+comp+center+just+for+the+laughs+center_13ba85_6249292.jpg

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Within one week of the incident. We're making good time these days. No, I don't think the threat of nazis is over, but kicking out the biggest man in the white house that validates their ideologies is a victory I will take. Now about Gorka...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/trump-goes-off-script-in-hour-long-public-meltdown

I was about to ask if he's at all capable of not making an issue all about himself for once, but then I remembered who I was talking about...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah not even Arizona likes the guy so what are the optics he was going for? "I hate immigrants, he hates immigrants, let's beat each other's dicks"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Mortarion said:

Unfortunately he decided to do this in the middle of hurricane Harvey's rampage so news outlets and many people in the affected areas will have their hands full.

Sebastian Gorka recently resigned too.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/controversial-trump-adviser-sebastian-gorka-leaves-white-house/story?id=49427323

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/08/2017 at 3:26 AM, Lord Raven said:

i always thought the alt-left was a white middle class dude who voted for bernie sanders and donald trump

you know, the fuck it i worked for everything i have and im not privileged type

it could be, I've heard that around 12% of Sanders supporters went on to vote for Trump - but this ignores the fact that many of them were actually registered Republicans previously, so they obviously felt that there was some overlap despite the party affiliation

still, it is most likely used more for what I was saying according to the Washington Post - okay it is an opinion piece but still gives details (incognito mode for no paywall):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/08/17/the-alt-right-didnt-invent-alt-left-liberals-did/?utm_term=.4c24cd04e9f2

 

back when trump was elected even though it should have been obvious to see the type of person he is I could at least understand on some level why someone may support him. when the united states government seems preoccupied on avoiding the needs of its people for years it's no real surprise that people didn't like the system and someone who is likely to blow it up may seem appealing to some degree

i can't understand anyone who supports him after seven months of this shit. it's not even that he's anti-establishment, because he's clearly continuing the status quo while also sprinkling in other unnecessary shit that isn't radically changing anything. not one trump supporter has been able to make a lengthy and legitimate case for what good trump is done that i've seen and I don't even understand what the game plan is. it's clear to see there isn't ever going to be a compromise, either

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2017 at 8:55 PM, Tryhard said:

it could be, I've heard that around 12% of Sanders supporters went on to vote for Trump - but this ignores the fact that many of them were actually registered Republicans previously, so they obviously felt that there was some overlap despite the party affiliation

still, it is most likely used more for what I was saying according to the Washington Post - okay it is an opinion piece but still gives details (incognito mode for no paywall):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/08/17/the-alt-right-didnt-invent-alt-left-liberals-did/?utm_term=.4c24cd04e9f2

 

back when trump was elected even though it should have been obvious to see the type of person he is I could at least understand on some level why someone may support him. when the united states government seems preoccupied on avoiding the needs of its people for years it's no real surprise that people didn't like the system and someone who is likely to blow it up may seem appealing to some degree

i can't understand anyone who supports him after seven months of this shit. it's not even that he's anti-establishment, because he's clearly continuing the status quo while also sprinkling in other unnecessary shit that isn't radically changing anything. not one trump supporter has been able to make a lengthy and legitimate case for what good trump is done that i've seen and I don't even understand what the game plan is. it's clear to see there isn't ever going to be a compromise, either

The 35% still supporting Trump at this point are the single-issue voters who think [insert Republican nightmare-fuel here] is the single biggest threat to the country, and will ignore everything else about the man to support Him so long as he crudely and bombastically speaks to their fears on the issue in ways that other politicians are not quite cynical or shameless enough to speak. Immigration and the boogeyman of "globalism" is still the big hook, by the look of it. We'll see what happens if he actually tries to force a government shutdown to fund that wall Mexico was supposed to "pay" for.

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

The 35% still supporting Trump at this point are the single-issue voters who think [insert Republican nightmare-fuel here] is the single biggest threat to the country, and will ignore everything else about the man to support Him so long as he crudely and bombastically speaks to their fears on the issue in ways that other politicians are not quite cynical or shameless enough to speak. Immigration and the boogeyman of "globalism" is still the big hook, by the look of it. We'll see what happens if he actually tries to force a government shutdown to fund that wall Mexico was supposed to "pay" for.

That's part of it, but there's also the fact that right-wing media outlets are:

a) Significantly under-reporting all the shit things he does.

b) Spinning things so that things that are going well are attributed to him i.e. posts and articles praising him for how good the economy is/was doing at the time, even though that would've been off the back of Obama's policies.

And let's not forget the cult of personality that are just gonna support him no matter what he does and attribute everything he does to playing Paradox-Billards-Vostroyan-Roulette-Fourth Dimensional-Hypercube-Chess-Strip Poker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...