The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Peter Parker on December 13, 2018, 08:22:15 AM
-
NOTE: I EDITED TO ASK BETTER QUESTIONS. I DON'T THINK MY ORIGINAL QUESTION WAS GETTING TO THE HEART OF THE ISSUE--APOLOGIES TO THOSE THAT ALREADY ANSWERED.
There have been several discussions about whether people regretted voting Republican in 2016. And I suppose that the 2018 election answered that question to some degree...But I'm interested in those of you who voted for Trump--
Given there have been 36 indictments and/or plea deals thus far, indications that at least 16 members of the Trump team have been connected to Russians, campaign finance concerns over payments to porn stars and playmates, Mexico isn't paying for the wall, the lack of civility in government, "dirty deeds" (done dirt cheap?) as Michael Cohen points out, that may not yet have come to light....
I'm wondering:
GIVEN A CHOICE BETWEEN CLINTON AND TRUMP, AND KNOWING ALL THAT YOU KNOW NOW, WOULD YOU STILL VOTE FOR TRUMP? WHY?
IF YOU VOTED FOR TRUMP, AND KNOWING ALL THAT YOU KNOW NOW, WILL YOU VOTE FOR HIM IN 2020? WHY WILL YOU (OR WON'T) VOTE FOR HIM?
Thanks for the honest discussion
Edited to correct many typos...
-
I wasn't really on the Trump Wagon. But I do consider myself to be conservative, and there's almost no candidate that's conservative these days (I voted for Gary Johnson). But I try to be thoughtful and I do understand the appeal of Trump. For many years, all the Democrat candidate had to do was label the Republican candidate as sexist, homophobic, white supremacist, or any other "ist" and the the Republican would cower away with his tail between his / her legs. Trump is the first person that doesn't back down. But he's obviously not a good guy.
But still, with that said, I think I match the majority of people in being fiscally conservative and socially liberal and it seems there's never anyone in either mainstream party that represents that model. It doesn't seem to be the type of model that gets people fired up. And I think that's too bad.
-
I didn't vote for Trump, I voted 3rd party in a solid blue state and was pleasantly surprised when Trump won.
Do I think he is a corrupt, crooked slimebag? Sure. But I thought that about both major party candidates that ran. At least the one who agrees with me on major issues is the one who won. I also think the left, and especially the media, are absolutely desperate to dig up any possible dirt they can find on him. Had the other candidate won (edit: fixed homonym), I absolutely agree the right would have acted the same way, but I do not believe the media (aside from Fox news and the fringe) would have, and they would have done what they could to shield her from criticism. I would find that extremely troubling.
I know this is "whataboutism" or whatever, but at the end of the day, we had two real options for President, so given a binary choice, I'm not unhappy with the one that was picked. Do I wish it was almost anyone other than him? Sure, but one of the few that I think would have been worse was his opponent, so I'm not sad he won.
-
But still, with that said, I think I match the majority of people in being fiscally conservative and socially liberal and it seems there's never anyone in either mainstream party that represents that model. It doesn't seem to be the type of model that gets people fired up. And I think that's too bad.
Exactly this. Compromise doesn't get voters, so politicians cater to the extremes. Unfortunately moderates are gone. Democrats aren't the same party as they were when our parents grew up, they have moved to the far left. The republican party is in shambles too. Logic would dictate a new party in the center, but as mentioned this doesn't appeal to people's emotions and get voters. As far as conservatives go, I'm hoping Ben Sasse makes a run, there's a true moderate and a brilliant guy. I voted for Trump because the alternative was a no go.
-
I dont really follow the Trump news in America that much - is Trump at risk of being booted out early? Or does the world have to suffer this fool's stupid faces and comments for another couple of years at minimum?
-
I dont really follow the Trump news in America that much - is Trump at risk of being booted out early? Or does the world have to suffer this fool's stupid faces and comments for another couple of years at minimum?
There's some kind of weird revenge fantasy among some in the US where Trump gets booted because Russia somehow and then we end up with Hillary on the throne where she belonged all along. Literally, there were articles written about it following the election.
https://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-president-lawrence-lessig-post-686077
-
I dont really follow the Trump news in America that much - is Trump at risk of being booted out early? Or does the world have to suffer this fool's stupid faces and comments for another couple of years at minimum?
Probably not, impeachment would have to get through the senate. However, the "witch hunt" of the Mueller investigation has found a LOT of "real witches", so we may be seeing interesting revelations soon. The most likely resolution is a political decision in 2020, but there are likely impeachable offenses (Don't forget impeachment is a 100% political process). Hillary wouldn't be president, don't be silly... but most people on the left would prefer a Mike Pence presidency over trump simply because of all of the norms trump has trampled upon that Pence wouldn't. (Souce, the extremely liberal podcast Opening Arguments makes this argument)
I'm not this threads target audience, I was a republican who voted blue in 2016, and after seeing what many of the GOP representatives pivoted to after trump gained power, including my representative, I denounced my affiliation and became a blue TICKET voter who donates to the left. Todays democratic party is a lot more centrist than it once was, the overton window has just shifted the goalposts...
-
I dont really follow the Trump news in America that much - is Trump at risk of being booted out early? Or does the world have to suffer this fool's stupid faces and comments for another couple of years at minimum?
We don’t have a parliamentary system, so it’s not as simple to get rid of a president as it is to get rid of a British prime minister. I was feeling a little jealous of that yesterday! In our history we’ve only had two presidents impeached and they both served the remainder of their terms. Nixon, of course, was not impeached but resigned. I don’t see our current president resigning any time soon.
-
Democrats aren't the same party as they were when our parents grew up, they have moved to the far left.
Depends on how you frame it: Democratic congressmen have, for most of the last 20 years, been noticeably to the right of the average Democrat voter or state rep, and are after this election more in line with their base. So the Democrats in congress have moved a lot.
But the average Democratic voter still polls basically where they did in the 80's: equally committed to gun control, equally committed to secular space; changes have occurred in sentiments about why racial, sexual, and LGBT discrimination are wrong, and what strategy best addresses them, but the sentiment that they are wrong, and how serious that is, is unchanged from Rodney King and Matthew Shepard.
-
Well, Hillary would shoot two people on fifth avenue...
-
Democrats aren't the same party as they were when our parents grew up, they have moved to the far left.
No, they really fucking haven't. I wish they would, because I want far left policies, but both Obama and Hillary Clinton were quite moderate.
-
There's some kind of weird revenge fantasy among some in the US where Trump gets booted because Russia somehow and then we end up with Hillary on the throne where she belonged all along. Literally, there were articles written about it following the election.
https://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-president-lawrence-lessig-post-686077
Nobody on the left cares about Clinton anymore. It's the right that won't shut up about her, because they need a boogeyman.
-
I dont really follow the Trump news in America that much - is Trump at risk of being booted out early? Or does the world have to suffer this fool's stupid faces and comments for another couple of years at minimum?
There's some kind of weird revenge fantasy among some in the US where Trump gets booted because Russia somehow and then we end up with Hillary on the throne where she belonged all along. Literally, there were articles written about it following the election.
https://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-president-lawrence-lessig-post-686077
From the article:
To be clear, constitutional law expert Lessig is not calling for a Clinton ascendancy, but was merely playing out a hypothetical chain of events should a conspiracy be proven
It was a nothing article from more than a year ago describing a way that it would be technically possible while acknowledging that it will not happen. When you say "some" people are hoping for this, I suppose that may be true, but it is in no way representative of what's going on in the US. "some in the US" also believe the earth is flat. If we want to have a productive conversation, we should ignore those people.
The answer to Zola's question is much more complex than this, but I would say yes, he is possibly at risk of impeachment and removal but that depends on what congress decides to do with the results of the Mueller investigation and what more comes out of that investigation.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slO0Uzk6u_w
-
I think I match the majority of people in being fiscally conservative and socially liberal and it seems there's never anyone in either mainstream party that represents that model. It doesn't seem to be the type of model that gets people fired up. And I think that's too bad.
Probably because that model doesn't really exist. Fiscal conservatism entails a smaller government which in turn means less protections against discrimination, the right to receive healthcare and basic food if you cannot afford it and workers comp, etc. Fiscal conservatives often agree with the scientific consensus on climate change and that something needs to be done about it. But rolling back environmental regulations contradicts fiscal conservatism.
Then you have tax cuts which disproportionately benefit the wealthy and corporations. This brings in less revenue for the government who in turn cut social programs to make up for this short fall.
It sounds great in theory, it really does. But it's not practical. You simply cannot have it both ways.
-
I didn't vote for trump last election, but probably will in the next. Primarily because of the current insanity of the left/media.
-
I didn't vote for trump last election, but probably will in the next. Primarily because of the current insanity of the left/media.
Lol
-
I didn't vote for trump last election, but probably will in the next. Primarily because of the current insanity of the left/media.
I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary. I like Trump on border security and immigration, and I liked Hillary on healthcare over Trump. There's never the perfect candidate.
-
I didn't vote for trump last election, but probably will in the next. Primarily because of the current insanity of the left/media.
Do you have any particular media outlets that you believe have gone insane? Or do you believe all of the mainstream media is being unreasonable?
Also relevant, how do you feel about what's come out of the Mueller investigation up to this point?
-
Another unrepentant Trump voter.
I would have chosen almost any other GOP candidate, but he's what we got. I wish he would keep his mouth closed more often and not use twitter. Other than that, I'm pretty happy with most of his policies except his adding to the debt with more deficit spending. I'll vote for him again unless we get a true third party candidate who better aligns with my values.
-
Total flame bait here, but I guess I'll throw some raw meat on the fire anyhow.
Add one more unrepentant Trump voter to that list. No, despite Trumps inane sophomoric Twitter rants and the unfortunate high turnover and corruption of his top staff, many, but not all, of his policy positions align with this independent voter's values. Maybe more importantly, he represents the most powerful opposition to the dangerous, vile policies/positions that Dems vehemently push. Sure, the coal/oil support is misguided, as is blowing up deficits, but damned if I'm going to let dems advance their open/no borders policies. Catch and release? This boots on the ground observer can honestly state that such dem policies have DESTROYED this once great state of CA. We cant let the infection spread across the remaining 49 states. There are many infections to battle; far too many to discuss here.
We'll see who runs in 2020; I'm certainly open to the possibility of voting for Trump again.
-
I hate trump with a fiery passion. I would’ve voted for any other republican (maybe not Cruz) over him.
My hate has grown stronger since his presidency.
That being said, I think the corruption in the DNC favoring Hillary is about as bad as anything Trump is being accused of and should’ve got a lot more publicity.
Not a chance in hell I’d vote for Bernie due to his extremist socialist beliefs. Probably wouldn’t vote for Hillary or Warren either.
If Biden ran I’d easily pick him over Trump. “Maybe” Beto as well.
As bad as Trump is, the left is just as pathetic for choosing their own candidates who are so terrible they couldn’t win. Really? Bernie or Hillary was the best options? No thanks.
-
Eh threads like this always remind me of probably the most honest thing Trump has ever said (paraphrasing of course) that he could commit a crime in full view of the American public, and still have supporters. Gotta give him credit, he knew how devoted his followers were.
-
I hate trump with a fiery passion. I would’ve voted for any other republican (maybe not Cruz) over him.
My hate has grown stronger since his presidency.
That being said, I think the corruption in the DNC favoring Hillary is about as bad as anything Trump is being accused of and should’ve got a lot more publicity.
Not a chance in hell I’d vote for Bernie due to his extremist socialist beliefs. Probably wouldn’t vote for Hillary or Warren either.
If Biden ran I’d easily pick him over Trump. “Maybe” Beto as well.
As bad as Trump is, the left is just as pathetic for choosing their own candidates who are so terrible they couldn’t win. Really? Bernie or Hillary was the best options? No thanks.
Can clarify this statement? Are you saying that a political organization operating a primary according to previously existing rules relating to delegate apportionment and according to a preset debate schedule is just as bad as anything Trump is accused of? Can you identify an action of the DNC that is as bad as selling off our foreign policy to benefit Vladimir Putin in exchange for receiving Russian help with the election? Because that is one of the things he's accused of. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that not moving a debate from a Saturday night to allegedly help Bernie is anywhere in the ballpark of not enforcing sanctions because Vladimir doesn't like it and he's the daddy now.
-
I hate trump with a fiery passion. I would’ve voted for any other republican (maybe not Cruz) over him.
My hate has grown stronger since his presidency.
That being said, I think the corruption in the DNC favoring Hillary is about as bad as anything Trump is being accused of and should’ve got a lot more publicity.
Not a chance in hell I’d vote for Bernie due to his extremist socialist beliefs. Probably wouldn’t vote for Hillary or Warren either.
If Biden ran I’d easily pick him over Trump. “Maybe” Beto as well.
As bad as Trump is, the left is just as pathetic for choosing their own candidates who are so terrible they couldn’t win. Really? Bernie or Hillary was the best options? No thanks.
Can clarify this statement? Are you saying that a political organization operating a primary according to previously existing rules relating to delegate apportionment and according to a preset debate schedule is just as bad as anything Trump is accused of? Can you identify an action of the DNC that is as bad as selling off our foreign policy to benefit Vladimir Putin in exchange for receiving Russian help with the election? Because that is one of the things he's accused of. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that not moving a debate from a Saturday night to allegedly help Bernie is anywhere in the ballpark of not enforcing sanctions because Vladimir doesn't like it and he's the daddy now.
Sorry - I shouldn’t have used the word “accused.” He has been accused of a wild list of things. I should have used the term “presently found personally guilty of.”
If you think all the DNC is guilty of is “allegedly” moving a debate to a Saturday to help Bernie, then you are vastly ill-informed. The reason the DNC chair resigned was due to favoring Hillary. It’s clear by your post that you are very liberal, so much that you aren’t even aware of this obvious corruption within your own party.
-
Great. Can you identify actions taken by the DNC that fall under the umbrella of corruption? Because-as vastly uninformed far left liberal-I'd really appreciate it. Consider me ready to be informed. I guess to be apples to apples, I could also require these actions to be "presently found guilty of" before I take them seriously since that's the standard you apply to Trump. But if we are just looking at resignations as a sign of guilt, then I direct you to the White House. I hear there's an open position or two.
I suspect that there won't be anything in that list since I'm unaware of any laws that dictate how superdelegates are apportioned, which primaries are scheduled first, how many debates there are, whether states run a caucus or not, if primaries are open or closed, etc. I'm also unaware of any laws that prevent members of a political organization from bitching about candidates in their primary who just joined the party and then start complaining about how everything is run. Can you please identify these laws for me? Can you specifically draw a line to how the actions of the DNC were breaking those laws and who performed those actions? How were these actions corrupt?
(I eagerly await a response that does not mention Seth Rich or that one guy from Pakistan working at the DNC who apparently stole money)
-
I should have edited to add that, even if we get a list of corrupt actions by the DNC, is that somehow comparable to the scores of indictments that Mueller has issued and the many guilty pleas? I think trix's thesis is that "I had to vote for Trump-did you see how corrupt the DNC is?" I'm just not sure that the DNC being corrupt (which hasn't exactly been established if we are only counting presently found guilty of as the standard) is comparable to the corruption of the Trump campaign. Manafort, Flynn, Gates, and Cohen have all plead guilty. These were Trump's main advisors during the campaign. So apples to apples, corrupt campaign machinery to corrupt campaign machinery, I'm pretty sure Trump's campaign takes the easy win here. Under your own "presently found guilty of" standard. I'm just not really sure why DNC corruption is such a persuasive issue to you when Trump's campaign is basically all headed to jail.
Again, please inform me otherwise, since you've said I'm vastly uninformed.
-
I should have edited to add that, even if we get a list of corrupt actions by the DNC, is that somehow comparable to the scores of indictments that Mueller has issued and the many guilty pleas? I think trix's thesis is that "I had to vote for Trump-did you see how corrupt the DNC is?" I'm just not sure that the DNC being corrupt (which hasn't exactly been established if we are only counting presently found guilty of as the standard) is comparable to the corruption of the Trump campaign. Manafort, Flynn, Gates, and Cohen have all plead guilty. These were Trump's main advisors during the campaign. So apples to apples, corrupt campaign machinery to corrupt campaign machinery, I'm pretty sure Trump's campaign takes the easy win here. Under your own "presently found guilty of" standard. I'm just not really sure why DNC corruption is such a persuasive issue to you when Trump's campaign is basically all headed to jail.
Again, please inform me otherwise, since you've said I'm vastly uninformed.
A brief look at you previous posting history of the last 50 posts and all but a few have been these elaborate political internet arguments. There is no dollar amount that I would be interested in to partake of this discussion with you. If it makes you feel better, you’ve won the Internet today, granted, I feel I’ve won the long haul for not wasting nearly as much time as you have getting worked up on the internet
You’d be better off going back to the blog posts..
Start here.. the low information diet: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/01/the-low-information-diet/
-
Maybe more importantly, he represents the most powerful opposition to the dangerous, vile policies/positions that Dems vehemently push. Sure, the coal/oil support is misguided, as is blowing up deficits, but damned if I'm going to let dems advance their open/no borders policies. Catch and release? This boots on the ground observer can honestly state that such dem policies have DESTROYED this once great state of CA. We cant let the infection spread across the remaining 49 states. There are many infections to battle; far too many to discuss here.
OK. Let's just talk about one problem, then.
The GOP could end illegal immigration overnight if they wanted to. But, then why should they do that? They have your vote now and forever. If you got zero illegal immigration, then you might not be motivated to vote for them. That problem would be solved and so your loyalty might waver. This is why the GOP prefers to have illegal immigration as a vote whip.
-
I should have edited to add that, even if we get a list of corrupt actions by the DNC, is that somehow comparable to the scores of indictments that Mueller has issued and the many guilty pleas? I think trix's thesis is that "I had to vote for Trump-did you see how corrupt the DNC is?" I'm just not sure that the DNC being corrupt (which hasn't exactly been established if we are only counting presently found guilty of as the standard) is comparable to the corruption of the Trump campaign. Manafort, Flynn, Gates, and Cohen have all plead guilty. These were Trump's main advisors during the campaign. So apples to apples, corrupt campaign machinery to corrupt campaign machinery, I'm pretty sure Trump's campaign takes the easy win here. Under your own "presently found guilty of" standard. I'm just not really sure why DNC corruption is such a persuasive issue to you when Trump's campaign is basically all headed to jail.
Again, please inform me otherwise, since you've said I'm vastly uninformed.
A brief look at you previous posting history of the last 50 posts and all but a few have been these elaborate political internet arguments. There is no dollar amount that I would be interested in to partake of this discussion with you. If it makes you feel better, you’ve won the Internet today, granted, I feel I’ve won the long haul for not wasting nearly as much time as you have getting worked up on the internet
You’d be better off going back to the blog posts..
Start here.. the low information diet: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/01/the-low-information-diet/
If you're not interested in a discussion I understand, but could you at least provide a few examples of the DNC corruption you're referring to? I think that would be staying on topic and I'm sure someone else would be willing to carry on the discussion if you can get it started.
-
I should have edited to add that, even if we get a list of corrupt actions by the DNC, is that somehow comparable to the scores of indictments that Mueller has issued and the many guilty pleas? I think trix's thesis is that "I had to vote for Trump-did you see how corrupt the DNC is?" I'm just not sure that the DNC being corrupt (which hasn't exactly been established if we are only counting presently found guilty of as the standard) is comparable to the corruption of the Trump campaign. Manafort, Flynn, Gates, and Cohen have all plead guilty. These were Trump's main advisors during the campaign. So apples to apples, corrupt campaign machinery to corrupt campaign machinery, I'm pretty sure Trump's campaign takes the easy win here. Under your own "presently found guilty of" standard. I'm just not really sure why DNC corruption is such a persuasive issue to you when Trump's campaign is basically all headed to jail.
Again, please inform me otherwise, since you've said I'm vastly uninformed.
A brief look at you previous posting history of the last 50 posts and all but a few have been these elaborate political internet arguments. There is no dollar amount that I would be interested in to partake of this discussion with you. If it makes you feel better, you’ve won the Internet today, granted, I feel I’ve won the long haul for not wasting nearly as much time as you have getting worked up on the internet
You’d be better off going back to the blog posts..
Start here.. the low information diet: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/01/the-low-information-diet/
We've all lost, not just you. Because Trump is President, partly because many Trump voters take their red hats and go home when faced with facts that contradict their world view.
I've been debating in good faith, but you've repeatedly called me names and implied that I'm hysterical all while presenting no facts to back up the thing I'm supposedly uninformed about.
-
Up on Hillbilly Mountain, they aren't happy with a lot of economic stuff going on right now with Trump, after things had started off relatively well. However, they are being presented with people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who want a state takeover of the economy (in their view) and that scares them, so they stick with Trump.
The only chance the Democrats have of winning the Presidency in 2020 would be if they nominated someone like Joe Biden. White male, so he wouldn't scare the Rust Belt states the Democrats need to win, plus he's a pugnacious and blunt straight talker, which appeals to the salt of the earth types on Hillbilly Mountain. I doubt it will happen, though, because the far left wing is being really loud and hysterical right now.
-
Up on Hillbilly Mountain, they aren't happy with a lot of economic stuff going on right now with Trump, after things had started off relatively well. However, they are being presented with people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who want a state takeover of the economy (in their view) and that scares them, so they stick with Trump.
The only chance the Democrats have of winning the Presidency in 2020 would be if they nominated someone like Joe Biden. White male, so he wouldn't scare the Rust Belt states the Democrats need to win, plus he's a pugnacious and blunt straight talker, which appeals to the salt of the earth types on Hillbilly Mountain. I doubt it will happen, though, because the far left wing is being really loud and hysterical right now.
He's too old. But maybe that's reassuring to rural, conservative, voters?
Even Clinton, poor candidate choice that she was, would've won if she had paid more attention to a few states. It's not like Trump won by a landslide.
-
I didn't vote for him but tried to give him a chance when he took office as I saw positives in some of the things in his platform (especially infrastructure). He has instead focused on things I disagreed with, acted like a child, and increased the deficit massively. I see very little positive coming out of his presidency and I look forward to him leaving office.
I find it interesting that a few have mentioned they have been happy with his accomplishments while in office? I feel like one of the benefits of having him in office (vs someone like Pence) is that he's a terrible politician and can't get people to coalesce behind an issue. He has passed one piece of notable legislation (tax cuts) while having single party control of all 3 branches of government...
I think I match the majority of people in being fiscally conservative and socially liberal and it seems there's never anyone in either mainstream party that represents that model. It doesn't seem to be the type of model that gets people fired up. And I think that's too bad.
Probably because that model doesn't really exist. Fiscal conservatism entails a smaller government which in turn means less protections against discrimination, the right to receive healthcare and basic food if you cannot afford it and workers comp, etc. Fiscal conservatives often agree with the scientific consensus on climate change and that something needs to be done about it. But rolling back environmental regulations contradicts fiscal conservatism.
Then you have tax cuts which disproportionately benefit the wealthy and corporations. This brings in less revenue for the government who in turn cut social programs to make up for this short fall.
It sounds great in theory, it really does. But it's not practical. You simply cannot have it both ways.
Yeah, I always find the "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" people to be making an argument for having your cake and eating it too. I can see positives on both sides of the fence but at the end of the day you can't fund large social programs without revenue.
-
If you're not interested in a discussion I understand, but could you at least provide a few examples of the DNC corruption you're referring to? I think that would be staying on topic and I'm sure someone else would be willing to carry on the discussion if you can get it started.
The DNC leadership was actively working against Sanders, or at least looking for ways to do so.
“It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God,” wrote Brad Marshall, the chief financial officer of the committee. “He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps.”
Brazile fed debate questions to Clinton's staff and not to Sanders' staff.
The Clinton team took over DNC fundraising a year before the Democrat nomination was made, giving them veto power over certain positions with the DNC. The Clinton team ran the DNC. This only happened previously to current-Presidents (or current-VPs, in Gore's case) and not to someone still in the primary race.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/here-are-the-latest-most-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/?noredirect=on
It's not corruption per se but it does indicate a certain...lack of honesty (not quite the word I'm looking for but it'll do).
-
I was never pro-trump but I was so incredibly disappointed that Hillary was the best candidate the democrats could come up with
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think I match the majority of people in being fiscally conservative and socially liberal and it seems there's never anyone in either mainstream party that represents that model. It doesn't seem to be the type of model that gets people fired up. And I think that's too bad.
Probably because that model doesn't really exist. Fiscal conservatism entails a smaller government which in turn means less protections against discrimination, the right to receive healthcare and basic food if you cannot afford it and workers comp, etc. Fiscal conservatives often agree with the scientific consensus on climate change and that something needs to be done about it. But rolling back environmental regulations contradicts fiscal conservatism.
Then you have tax cuts which disproportionately benefit the wealthy and corporations. This brings in less revenue for the government who in turn cut social programs to make up for this short fall.
It sounds great in theory, it really does. But it's not practical. You simply cannot have it both ways.
Yeah, I always find the "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" people to be making an argument for having your cake and eating it too. I can see positives on both sides of the fence but at the end of the day you can't fund large social programs without revenue.
There's a whole spectrum of socially liberal issues, not all of which cost $. By way of example, a former PM of Canada once said: "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation". A lack of interference in peoples' private lives should actually save $, unless and until certain accommodations (special bathrooms, funded sex changes) are decreed as basic human rights. Yes, it's complicated, but not impossible.
-
I like Trump on border security and immigration,
Why? How could you??
When Trump was running, I initially thought he might be more moderate than Cruz. He seemed affable, but like most people who ever lived in the NY Metro area since the 80s, I knew he was a sleaze, and could not believe that he would go as far as he did. But he did, and has turned out to be beyond amoral: evil, even. I didn't care much for Hillary, but Trump is unacceptable.
I disagree, I think you can be socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I look for value in government. I don't want waste. I don't mind paying tax dollars as long as the money is being well spent and effective. I do believe in responsibility and that people should be given incentives to work hard if they are able, and I'm not against deterrents either IF the deterrents are not unusually cruel. But all policy needs to be decided based on studies of what works.
-
I think when a lot of right-leaning people say they're socially liberal they mean they're socially libertarian.
It doesn't cost much money to have the government not meddle in abortion, allow gay rights/marriage, legalize pot, etc etc. Some of those SAVE big money (what could we save if drugs were decriminalized and we could spend a ton less on enforcement????)
There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free.
-
There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free.
This is what I consider myself but Trump is miles away from this. I don't think that people with my world view would support Trump. Trump doesn't to me seem to be at all economically sound. I think he is terrible from an economic perspective.
I don't really understand why people still support Trump. I find it fascinating but i can't see a rational reason to support him. To be fair I think Hillary was a pretty poor candidate. She was female which is good and smart but she comes across as completely immoral. Trump is no better though.
I'd vote for Sanders and his socialism ahead of either Trump or Hillary. It's pretty bad choice of people to head up a government though.
-
There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free.
This is what I consider myself but Trump is miles away from this. I don't think that people with my world view would support Trump. Trump doesn't to me seem to be at all economically sound. I think he is terrible from an economic perspective.
I don't think that's what Trump is, necessarily. I do think he has done a lot to roll back regulations on business in a positive way.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/25/kevin-oleary-says-trump-has-100-percent-chance-of-getting-reelected.html
-
There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free.
This is what I consider myself but Trump is miles away from this. I don't think that people with my world view would support Trump. Trump doesn't to me seem to be at all economically sound. I think he is terrible from an economic perspective.
I wouldn't say that, but I think his individual tax cuts should have leaned more toward helping people in the lower income brackets, and he shouldn't have tried to dismantle the ACA. But overall economically, just be thankful it's not Bernie Sanders in there!
-
There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free.
This is what I consider myself but Trump is miles away from this. I don't think that people with my world view would support Trump. Trump doesn't to me seem to be at all economically sound. I think he is terrible from an economic perspective.
I wouldn't say that, but I think his individual tax cuts should have leaned more toward helping people in the lower income brackets, and he shouldn't have tried to dismantle the ACA. But overall economically, just be thankful it's not Bernie Sanders in there!
Trump has put in tariffs. That is pretty bad. I'm not sure that Sanders would be worse than that.
-
There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free.
This is what I consider myself but Trump is miles away from this. I don't think that people with my world view would support Trump. Trump doesn't to me seem to be at all economically sound. I think he is terrible from an economic perspective.
I don't think that's what Trump is, necessarily. I do think he has done a lot to roll back regulations on business in a positive way.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/25/kevin-oleary-says-trump-has-100-percent-chance-of-getting-reelected.html
This is interesting. At the same time there aren't any really facts there and it sounds like a Trump supporter giving a reason to support Trump. At least that is a positive reason though.
-
I think when a lot of right-leaning people say they're socially liberal they mean they're socially libertarian.
It doesn't cost much money to have the government not meddle in abortion, allow gay rights/marriage, legalize pot, etc etc. Some of those SAVE big money (what could we save if drugs were decriminalized and we could spend a ton less on enforcement????)
There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free.
Yep you'll save money. Of course businesses will be free to discriminate at will. They will be free to dump more toxins in our waterways and release more CO2 into the atmosphere exacerbating climate change. Of course no one benefits from that. That's fine if that's what you want and what you stand for. But just don't claim you are socially liberal as well.
-
This article is relevant to the “whataboutism” discussion.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-hanson-mueller-mccabe-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-james-comey-huma-abedin-investigation-0430-story,amp.html
-
I think when a lot of right-leaning people say they're socially liberal they mean they're socially libertarian.
It doesn't cost much money to have the government not meddle in abortion, allow gay rights/marriage, legalize pot, etc etc. Some of those SAVE big money (what could we save if drugs were decriminalized and we could spend a ton less on enforcement????)
There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free.
Yep you'll save money. Of course businesses will be free to discriminate at will. They will be free to dump more toxins in our waterways and release more CO2 into the atmosphere exacerbating climate change. Of course no one benefits from that. That's fine if that's what you want and what you stand for. But just don't claim you are socially liberal as well.
Because of course if someone believes the government should stay out of one issue they should stay out of every issue, right? Thanks for the straw man.
-
There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free.
This is what I consider myself but Trump is miles away from this. I don't think that people with my world view would support Trump. Trump doesn't to me seem to be at all economically sound. I think he is terrible from an economic perspective.
I don't think that's what Trump is, necessarily. I do think he has done a lot to roll back regulations on business in a positive way.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/25/kevin-oleary-says-trump-has-100-percent-chance-of-getting-reelected.html
This is interesting. At the same time there aren't any really facts there and it sounds like a Trump supporter giving a reason to support Trump. At least that is a positive reason though.
Kevin O'leary's a bit like a mini-Trump himself. (Shark Tank is a variant on the Apprentice, yes?) He's probably just following Scott Adams' lead. If he's right, he looks like a genius. If he's wrong, he continues to be a relative unknown.
-
I think when a lot of right-leaning people say they're socially liberal they mean they're socially libertarian.
It doesn't cost much money to have the government not meddle in abortion, allow gay rights/marriage, legalize pot, etc etc. Some of those SAVE big money (what could we save if drugs were decriminalized and we could spend a ton less on enforcement????)
There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free.
Yep you'll save money. Of course businesses will be free to discriminate at will. They will be free to dump more toxins in our waterways and release more CO2 into the atmosphere exacerbating climate change. Of course no one benefits from that. That's fine if that's what you want and what you stand for. But just don't claim you are socially liberal as well.
Because of course if someone believes the government should stay out of one issue they should stay out of every issue, right? Thanks for the straw man.
So the government should step in and regulate pollution and toxins? Because according to you rolling back these regulations is positive.
I do think he has done a lot to roll back regulations on business in a positive way.
-
Yep you'll save money. Of course businesses will be free to discriminate at will. They will be free to dump more toxins in our waterways and release more CO2 into the atmosphere exacerbating climate change. Of course no one benefits from that. That's fine if that's what you want and what you stand for. But just don't claim you are socially liberal as well.
Because of course if someone believes the government should stay out of one issue they should stay out of every issue, right? Thanks for the straw man.
So the government should step in and regulate pollution and toxins? Because according to you rolling back these regulations is positive.
I do think he has done a lot to roll back regulations on business in a positive way.
I assume Chris22 meant only some business and envionmental regulations.
However, in the video posted, O'Leary only mentions one regulation:
He pointed to a restaurant he wanted to open in Aspen. "The frosted glass on the window had to be so many yards from the toilet, and the window had to open so many inches. It was complete chaos in the regulatory environment."
Does anyone (Chris22?) know which federal regulation that was and when Trump voided it? Because local cities and counties, and not the feds, decide on building codes.
(For the record, the window has to open so many inches because it's designated an egress window. That doesn't seem that onerous.)
From the numbers MDM posted last week (2 weeks ago?), Trump was no better at getting rid of regulations than Obama.
-
Yep you'll save money. Of course businesses will be free to discriminate at will. They will be free to dump more toxins in our waterways and release more CO2 into the atmosphere exacerbating climate change. Of course no one benefits from that. That's fine if that's what you want and what you stand for. But just don't claim you are socially liberal as well.
Because of course if someone believes the government should stay out of one issue they should stay out of every issue, right? Thanks for the straw man.
So the government should step in and regulate pollution and toxins? Because according to you rolling back these regulations is positive.
I do think he has done a lot to roll back regulations on business in a positive way.
I assume Chris22 meant only some business and envionmental regulations.
Chris is certainly free to correct him/herself if that is what they meant.
One could claim that regulation rollback is certainly positive for business. It's likely more financially beneficial for a business to dump toxins in the local lake than to dispose of them responsibly. But it's certainly not beneficial for the people who rely on that lake for drinking water. I could same the same for emissions etc. So depending on how you view it, yeah you could claim it's beneficial. Heck I could get to the grocery store a lot faster if I drove 150 mph. Probably not worth putting myself and other's lives in danger ( :
-
Reductio ad absurdam, the sign of a master debater.
-
Well, so far Trump has been pretty good for things that have a decent chance of affecting me.
1) The change in the tax code in regards to itemizing vs the standard deduction benefits me.
2) I live in steel country, so those 25% tariffs are certainly helping the local economy as the new 3-year contracts get negotiated.
3) I'm in favor of switching to a single-payer type system, and the ACA limping would sap support for a real change.
I care a lot more about those things than whether the president was getting campaign dirt from Russia or doing inappropriate things with interns in the oval office.
-
2) I live in steel country, so those 25% tariffs are certainly helping the local economy as the new 3-year contracts get negotiated.
Tariffs are one of the worst things you can do for an economy. It's basically taking money away from everyone else and giving it to people like yourself who get protection via tariffs. They make everything cost more for everyone to benefit a select few. The select few are also the ones who are inefficient. You basically state that guy can't do his job so let's make every pay for him to have a job and make every else less efficient.
You'd be better off simply paying out everyone like yourself who wants their own little kickback because that way you also aren't distorting every other business/consumer in the economy.
-
^It's even worse when you realize that is a tariff on raw materials which are marked up numerous times before reaching the end customer. I would bet that GM will be laying off more workers than the US steel industry adds thanks to the tariffs and that's just 1 company.
3) I'm in favor of switching to a single-payer type system, and the ACA limping would sap support for a real change.
So you want to take 2 steps backwards to move forwards? That's a rather odd strategy.
-
Predictably, just as on the other thread, most Trump voters who respond here are doubling down.
I just read this this morning. I will delete this if the OP wants me to, but it seems pretty relevant since we’re not getting people here saying they’ve jumped off the train but instead that they are happy with stuff he is doing.
https://newrepublic.com/article/152638/escape-trump-cult
-
Speaking of Hillary, and the Clintons in general, I've wondered why everyone accuses them of being corrupt.
I understand they claimed to be bankrupt around the turn of the century and now have an 8 or 9 figure net worth. Is this large increase in net worth the evidence of corruption?
-
https://newrepublic.com/article/152638/escape-trump-cult
That's some scary shit. :O
that 52 percent of [Republicans] would hypothetically support postponing the 2020 election if he proposed it.
-
I didn't vote for trump last election, but probably will in the next. Primarily because of the current insanity of the left/media.
Do you have any particular media outlets that you believe have gone insane? Or do you believe all of the mainstream media is being unreasonable?
Also relevant, how do you feel about what's come out of the Mueller investigation up to this point?
Predictably, just as on the other thread, most Trump voters who respond here are doubling down.
I just read this this morning. I will delete this if the OP wants me to, but it seems pretty relevant since we’re not getting people here saying they’ve jumped off the train but instead that they are happy with stuff he is doing.
https://newrepublic.com/article/152638/escape-trump-cult
Don't really have much interest in a protracted debate on a forum, but I figured it was only a matter of time ...
-
I think when a lot of right-leaning people say they're socially liberal they mean they're socially libertarian.
It doesn't cost much money to have the government not meddle in abortion, allow gay rights/marriage, legalize pot, etc etc. Some of those SAVE big money (what could we save if drugs were decriminalized and we could spend a ton less on enforcement????)
There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free.
Yep you'll save money. Of course businesses will be free to discriminate at will. They will be free to dump more toxins in our waterways and release more CO2 into the atmosphere exacerbating climate change. Of course no one benefits from that. That's fine if that's what you want and what you stand for. But just don't claim you are socially liberal as well.
Because of course if someone believes the government should stay out of one issue they should stay out of every issue, right? Thanks for the straw man.
You beat me to it. I was wondering what Roe vs Wade, equal rights, and removing marijuana from schedule 1 or the CSA altogether have to do with dumping toxins in waterways? I suppose I could connect some dots from the War on Drugs -> increase in difficulty of importation -> incentive to make synthetic drugs like meth in the US -> more meth labs -> pollution ... but that means the War on Drugs is causing the pollution not the people in favor of legal marijuana.
I voted 3rd party the last two Presidential elections. I was told that by doing so in a solidly blue state I was somehow helping Trump. IMHO Trump was mostly helped by the fact that Hillary got less total votes in 2016 than President Obama got in 2012. He in turn got less votes in 2012 than he got in 2008. I can't imagine Debbie Wassermann Schultz's fiasco helped.
-
I think when a lot of right-leaning people say they're socially liberal they mean they're socially libertarian.
It doesn't cost much money to have the government not meddle in abortion, allow gay rights/marriage, legalize pot, etc etc. Some of those SAVE big money (what could we save if drugs were decriminalized and we could spend a ton less on enforcement????)
There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free.
Yep you'll save money. Of course businesses will be free to discriminate at will. They will be free to dump more toxins in our waterways and release more CO2 into the atmosphere exacerbating climate change. Of course no one benefits from that. That's fine if that's what you want and what you stand for. But just don't claim you are socially liberal as well.
Because of course if someone believes the government should stay out of one issue they should stay out of every issue, right? Thanks for the straw man.
You beat me to it. I was wondering what Roe vs Wade, equal rights, and removing marijuana from schedule 1 or the CSA altogether have to do with dumping toxins in waterways? I suppose I could connect some dots from the War on Drugs -> increase in difficulty of importation -> incentive to make synthetic drugs like meth in the US -> more meth labs -> pollution ... but that means the War on Drugs is causing the pollution not the people in favor of legal marijuana.
I voted 3rd party the last two Presidential elections. I was told that by doing so in a solidly blue state I was somehow helping Trump. IMHO Trump was mostly helped by the fact that Hillary got less total votes in 2016 than President Obama got in 2012. He in turn got less votes in 2012 than he got in 2008. I can't imagine Debbie Wassermann Schultz's fiasco helped.
Yeah it's tough to understand when you cut off the rest of what Chris stated. Thus likely the confusion on your part.
I do think he has done a lot to roll back regulations on business in a positive way.
-
I quoted Post #46?
-
I wish people on the left would stop asking this question. Imagine if someone asked “Are you ready to admit Obama was a terrible president?” It just makes people dig their heels in and if anything, act more tribal.
People should study watergate more. Most people who supported Nixon supported him through watergate and only abandoned him at the bitter end, when it was clearly obvious that he was guilty. Even once he resigned, a lot of people felt he was innocent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/05/15/how-america-viewed-the-watergate-scandal-as-it-was-unfolding/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.08a5eaf28762
-
I quoted Post #46?
Yep, you missed post 42 and this:
"There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free."
Thus why I made sure to bold the word "free" in my response ( :
-
I quoted Post #46?
Yep, you missed post 42 and this:
"There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free."
Thus why I made sure to bold the word "free" in my response ( :
Post #42 wasn't included in the series of quotes making up what I quoted. I hit quote on #46.
"There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free.", however was part of #46.
-
I quoted Post #46?
Yep, you missed post 42 and this:
"There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free."
Thus why I made sure to bold the word "free" in my response ( :
Post #42 wasn't included in the series of quotes making up what I quoted. I hit quote on #46.
"There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free.", however was part of #46.
Good, looks like progress ( :
Do you understand now why I commented about freedom to discriminate and freedom to dump toxins?
-
No, not really.
-
Still happily riding along...
-
No, not really.
+1
-
Still happily riding along...
Incumbent on you to perhaps say why...?
-
No, not really.
Hmm, at the risk that I'm just being trolled now...
I don't think that's what Trump is, necessarily. I do think he has done a lot to roll back regulations on business in a positive way.
There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free.
Me: "They will be free to dump more toxins in our waterways and release more CO2 into the atmosphere exacerbating climate change"
The answer to your question is I didn't link gay marriage or pot to dumping toxins. It was a response to "freedom" from the government in the aspect of "rolling back regulations." There are many articles written about deregulation and it's link to "freedom" for more Americans.
The two issues aren't entirely separate in the aspect of the government limiting it's own power. As Chris stated, there are a lot of people that want that. I briefly pointed out the downside and how it tends to not result on good things from a socially liberal standpoint (since that is how this all came about).
-
So we're talking about https://www.bna.com/26-environmental-rules-n73014477330/
Not freedom from, for example, some Jim Crow laws that are still hanging around (https://www.wbur.org/npr/145175694/legal-scholar-jim-crow-still-exists-in-america).
-
No, not really.
Hmm, at the risk that I'm just being trolled now...
I don't think that's what Trump is, necessarily. I do think he has done a lot to roll back regulations on business in a positive way.
There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free.
Me: "They will be free to dump more toxins in our waterways and release more CO2 into the atmosphere exacerbating climate change"
The answer to your question is I didn't link gay marriage or pot to dumping toxins. It was a response to "freedom" from the government in the aspect of "rolling back regulations." There are many articles written about deregulation and it's link to "freedom" for more Americans.
The two issues aren't entirely separate in the aspect of the government limiting it's own power. As Chris stated, there are a lot of people that want that. I briefly pointed out the downside and how it tends to not result on good things from a socially liberal standpoint (since that is how this all came about).
I was away all weekend with my family and generally off the internet so I missed this shitstorm.
My comment "There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free" alluded to the idea that socially liberal ideas cost money and were therefore at odds with fiscal responsibility; being for, or agnostic towards, gay marriage costs nothing, and therefore shouldn't be at odds with fiscal responsibility; in fact it should be a money saver due to not having to fight in court about it.
On environmental regulations, I'm all for sensible environmental regulations. However, sensible is the key. If it costs $1M to get to 99.9% clean, and $10B to get to 99.99% clean, we really need to ask ourselves if that last .09% is worth it. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.
That said, I do believe the whole little side conversation there was a big strawman.
-
My comment "There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free" alluded to the idea that socially liberal ideas cost money and were therefore at odds with fiscal responsibility
I appreciate you clearing that up.
being for, or agnostic towards, gay marriage costs nothing, and therefore shouldn't be at odds with fiscal responsibility; in fact it should be a money saver due to not having to fight in court about it.
I am a little confused by this. The latest ruling by the Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage, being protected by the 14th amendment, is now legal in all 50 states. This is in contrast to allowing states to decide for themselves. Going with the ideal that the government should remove itself from the gay marriage debate would put the decision back into the hands of the states, ignoring the 14th amendment, thereby not Constitutionally protecting same sex marriage. This of course would lead to some states banning same sex marriage. I suppose it would save the government money . It would cost the states with same sex marriage bans some undetermined amount of revenue as weddings are often good for local business. But overall, it would seem odd to not step in when perceived Constitutional rights are being violated, just to save some cash.
On environmental regulations, I'm all for sensible environmental regulations. However, sensible is the key. If it costs $1M to get to 99.9% clean, and $10B to get to 99.99% clean, we really need to ask ourselves if that last .09% is worth it. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.
Couldn't agree more. But to be fair, that isn't what you stated. I absolutely agree that there are some unnecessary regulations and that rolling back regulations (unnecessary and necessary) will certainly save the business money. But I think it really needs to be considered against short and long term impacts. I am sure the environmental regulation discussion could take up many pages on another thread which I neither have the time or inclination to partake in.
-
That said, I do believe the whole little side conversation there was a big strawman.
I'm with you, it was absolutely a strawman.
-
Speaking of Hillary, and the Clintons in general, I've wondered why everyone accuses them of being corrupt.
I understand they claimed to be bankrupt around the turn of the century and now have an 8 or 9 figure net worth. Is this large increase in net worth the evidence of corruption?
Republicans don't like the Clintons because they did a lot of things that were considered very liberal at the time (although the Bernie Bros now call them uber-conservatives) and pretty much all their decisions led to tremendous success for the country. It showed that a lot of dopey Republican ideas like flat taxes, killing social security and Medicare, ending the social safety net for the poor, starting pointless wars in the Middle East etc. weren't in the best interest of the country. They have never forgiven the Clintons for that.
-
Speaking of Hillary, and the Clintons in general, I've wondered why everyone accuses them of being corrupt.
I understand they claimed to be bankrupt around the turn of the century and now have an 8 or 9 figure net worth. Is this large increase in net worth the evidence of corruption?
Republicans don't like the Clintons because they did a lot of things that were considered very liberal at the time (although the Bernie Bros now call them uber-conservatives) and pretty much all their decisions led to tremendous success for the country. It showed that a lot of dopey Republican ideas like flat taxes, killing social security and Medicare, ending the social safety net for the poor, starting pointless wars in the Middle East etc. weren't in the best interest of the country. They have never forgiven the Clintons for that.
I think that's a more sophisticated analysis than is necessary for most voters, although it sounds about right for Washington Republicans. Much more likely that many voters just fell for the Trump/Russia propaganda about "crooked Hillary" and for the Republican/Trump/Russia voter suppression tactics.
-
Speaking of Hillary, and the Clintons in general, I've wondered why everyone accuses them of being corrupt.
I understand they claimed to be bankrupt around the turn of the century and now have an 8 or 9 figure net worth. Is this large increase in net worth the evidence of corruption?
Republicans don't like the Clintons because they did a lot of things that were considered very liberal at the time (although the Bernie Bros now call them uber-conservatives) and pretty much all their decisions led to tremendous success for the country. It showed that a lot of dopey Republican ideas like flat taxes, killing social security and Medicare, ending the social safety net for the poor, starting pointless wars in the Middle East etc. weren't in the best interest of the country. They have never forgiven the Clintons for that.
I disagree with this assessment. From my vantage point, most politicians are sleazy; it's just a game of who can gain more power and money legally. As I see it, there were rape allegations during his presidency, his misconduct in office, Whitewater, people's fears over her e-mails (despite being cleared; it doesn't look good), the DNC & Clinton in bed together to oust Sanders (again, complex issue, but it doesn't look good), Clinton Foundation issues, etc. I would bet I'm missing a few scandals in there.
I don't like her, but I still voted for her. It's fair to be asked why I could overlook these issues (her husband's issues are his own) and vote for her anyway.
-
Speaking of Hillary, and the Clintons in general, I've wondered why everyone accuses them of being corrupt.
I understand they claimed to be bankrupt around the turn of the century and now have an 8 or 9 figure net worth. Is this large increase in net worth the evidence of corruption?
Republicans don't like the Clintons because they did a lot of things that were considered very liberal at the time (although the Bernie Bros now call them uber-conservatives) and pretty much all their decisions led to tremendous success for the country. It showed that a lot of dopey Republican ideas like flat taxes, killing social security and Medicare, ending the social safety net for the poor, starting pointless wars in the Middle East etc. weren't in the best interest of the country. They have never forgiven the Clintons for that.
I disagree with this assessment. From my vantage point, most politicians are sleazy; it's just a game of who can gain more power and money legally. As I see it, there were rape allegations during his presidency, his misconduct in office, Whitewater, people's fears over her e-mails (despite being cleared; it doesn't look good), the DNC & Clinton in bed together to oust Sanders (again, complex issue, but it doesn't look good), Clinton Foundation issues, etc. I would bet I'm missing a few scandals in there.
I don't like her, but I still voted for her. It's fair to be asked why I could overlook these issues (her husband's issues are his own) and vote for her anyway.
In this #MeToo era, Hillary A) stood by someone who AT MINIMUM used his powers to gain sexual favors, and B) took part in smearing the names of his alleged victims.
Compare that to Trump, who everyone loves to say bragged about "Grabbing them by the..." but in reality, he didn't say he grabbed anyone in particular, nor has he ever, to my knowledge, actually been accused of it. It was a vulgar and scummy thing to say, but as far as I can tell isn't actually backed up by any real action (okay he had a consensual affair with a Stormy, not illegal) he took.
So basically, you have someone who bragged about something (in abstract, not even with a specific person) he DIDN'T do, and you have someone else who help enable someone to do actual things that they denied doing. But the first one is the rapist/sexual assaulter????
To bring it full circle, the lack of critical thinking by reporters around that has always bugged me about the media. "Trump said he did something bad that we can't prove he did! He's horrific!!" "Clinton was not convicted in his impeachment, nothing to see here!!"
-
Speaking of Hillary, and the Clintons in general, I've wondered why everyone accuses them of being corrupt.
I understand they claimed to be bankrupt around the turn of the century and now have an 8 or 9 figure net worth. Is this large increase in net worth the evidence of corruption?
Republicans don't like the Clintons because they did a lot of things that were considered very liberal at the time (although the Bernie Bros now call them uber-conservatives) and pretty much all their decisions led to tremendous success for the country. It showed that a lot of dopey Republican ideas like flat taxes, killing social security and Medicare, ending the social safety net for the poor, starting pointless wars in the Middle East etc. weren't in the best interest of the country. They have never forgiven the Clintons for that.
I disagree with this assessment. From my vantage point, most politicians are sleazy; it's just a game of who can gain more power and money legally. As I see it, there were rape allegations during his presidency, his misconduct in office, Whitewater, people's fears over her e-mails (despite being cleared; it doesn't look good), the DNC & Clinton in bed together to oust Sanders (again, complex issue, but it doesn't look good), Clinton Foundation issues, etc. I would bet I'm missing a few scandals in there.
I don't like her, but I still voted for her. It's fair to be asked why I could overlook these issues (her husband's issues are his own) and vote for her anyway.
In this #MeToo era, Hillary A) stood by someone who AT MINIMUM used his powers to gain sexual favors, and B) took part in smearing the names of his alleged victims.
Compare that to Trump, who everyone loves to say bragged about "Grabbing them by the..." but in reality, he didn't say he grabbed anyone in particular, nor has he ever, to my knowledge, actually been accused of it. It was a vulgar and scummy thing to say, but as far as I can tell isn't actually backed up by any real action (okay he had a consensual affair with a Stormy, not illegal) he took.
So basically, you have someone who bragged about something (in abstract, not even with a specific person) he DIDN'T do, and you have someone else who help enable someone to do actual things that they denied doing. But the first one is the rapist/sexual assaulter????
To bring it full circle, the lack of critical thinking by reporters around that has always bugged me about the media. "Trump said he did something bad that we can't prove he did! He's horrific!!" "Clinton was not convicted in his impeachment, nothing to see here!!"
https://www.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12#kristin-anderson-3
Several of these 22 accusers claimed that he did in fact reach up their skirts without warning and they made these claims well before 2016. To say he DIDN'T do it is giving him an awful lot of the benefit of doubt.
-
Speaking of Hillary, and the Clintons in general, I've wondered why everyone accuses them of being corrupt.
I understand they claimed to be bankrupt around the turn of the century and now have an 8 or 9 figure net worth. Is this large increase in net worth the evidence of corruption?
Republicans don't like the Clintons because they did a lot of things that were considered very liberal at the time (although the Bernie Bros now call them uber-conservatives) and pretty much all their decisions led to tremendous success for the country. It showed that a lot of dopey Republican ideas like flat taxes, killing social security and Medicare, ending the social safety net for the poor, starting pointless wars in the Middle East etc. weren't in the best interest of the country. They have never forgiven the Clintons for that.
I disagree with this assessment. From my vantage point, most politicians are sleazy; it's just a game of who can gain more power and money legally. As I see it, there were rape allegations during his presidency, his misconduct in office, Whitewater, people's fears over her e-mails (despite being cleared; it doesn't look good), the DNC & Clinton in bed together to oust Sanders (again, complex issue, but it doesn't look good), Clinton Foundation issues, etc. I would bet I'm missing a few scandals in there.
I don't like her, but I still voted for her. It's fair to be asked why I could overlook these issues (her husband's issues are his own) and vote for her anyway.
In this #MeToo era, Hillary A) stood by someone who AT MINIMUM used his powers to gain sexual favors, and B) took part in smearing the names of his alleged victims.
Compare that to Trump, who everyone loves to say bragged about "Grabbing them by the..." but in reality, he didn't say he grabbed anyone in particular, nor has he ever, to my knowledge, actually been accused of it. It was a vulgar and scummy thing to say, but as far as I can tell isn't actually backed up by any real action (okay he had a consensual affair with a Stormy, not illegal) he took.
So basically, you have someone who bragged about something (in abstract, not even with a specific person) he DIDN'T do, and you have someone else who help enable someone to do actual things that they denied doing. But the first one is the rapist/sexual assaulter????
To bring it full circle, the lack of critical thinking by reporters around that has always bugged me about the media. "Trump said he did something bad that we can't prove he did! He's horrific!!" "Clinton was not convicted in his impeachment, nothing to see here!!"
https://www.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12#kristin-anderson-3
Several of these 22 accusers claimed that he did in fact reach up their skirts without warning and they made these claims well before 2016. To say he DIDN'T do it is giving him an awful lot of the benefit of doubt.
Yeah that's some hardcore confirmation bias wrapped up in whole shit load of whataboutism.
I always find it interesting that someone who makes sexually explicit comments towards women, including his own daughter, brags about walking in on naked/topless underage girls and has cheated on every spouse, somehow is suddenly lying about sexually assaulting women.
-
Speaking of Hillary, and the Clintons in general, I've wondered why everyone accuses them of being corrupt.
I understand they claimed to be bankrupt around the turn of the century and now have an 8 or 9 figure net worth. Is this large increase in net worth the evidence of corruption?
Republicans don't like the Clintons because they did a lot of things that were considered very liberal at the time (although the Bernie Bros now call them uber-conservatives) and pretty much all their decisions led to tremendous success for the country. It showed that a lot of dopey Republican ideas like flat taxes, killing social security and Medicare, ending the social safety net for the poor, starting pointless wars in the Middle East etc. weren't in the best interest of the country. They have never forgiven the Clintons for that.
I disagree with this assessment. From my vantage point, most politicians are sleazy; it's just a game of who can gain more power and money legally. As I see it, there were rape allegations during his presidency, his misconduct in office, Whitewater, people's fears over her e-mails (despite being cleared; it doesn't look good), the DNC & Clinton in bed together to oust Sanders (again, complex issue, but it doesn't look good), Clinton Foundation issues, etc. I would bet I'm missing a few scandals in there.
I don't like her, but I still voted for her. It's fair to be asked why I could overlook these issues (her husband's issues are his own) and vote for her anyway.
In this #MeToo era, Hillary A) stood by someone who AT MINIMUM used his powers to gain sexual favors, and B) took part in smearing the names of his alleged victims.
Compare that to Trump, who everyone loves to say bragged about "Grabbing them by the..." but in reality, he didn't say he grabbed anyone in particular, nor has he ever, to my knowledge, actually been accused of it. It was a vulgar and scummy thing to say, but as far as I can tell isn't actually backed up by any real action (okay he had a consensual affair with a Stormy, not illegal) he took.
That's a perfectly valid criticism of the Clintons. They both share blame and were involved in using power to obtain sex.
However, I'm surprised that you are ignorant regarding the many accusations of sexual misconduct against Trump. Quotes regarding unwanted sexual contact / harassment with Trump:
“He was like an octopus … His hands were everywhere.” - Jessica Leeds
"I referred to this as a ‘rape’, but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense." - Ivana Trump
“He pushed me up against the wall, and had his hands all over me and tried to get up my dress again.” - Jill Harth
"He did touch my vagina through my underwear." - Kristen Anderson
“[Trump] stuck his head right underneath their skirts.” - Lisa Boyne
“He took my hand, and grabbed me, and went for the lips.” - Cathy Heller
“He kissed me directly on the lips." - Temple Taggart
"I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, 'Oh my God, there’s a man in here.'" - Mariah Billado
"Then his hand touched the right side of my breast. I was in shock." - Karena Virginia
“The time that he walked through the dressing rooms was really shocking. We were all naked.” - Bridget Sullivan
"Our first introduction to him was when we were at the dress rehearsal and half-naked changing into our bikinis.” - Tasha Dixon
“All of a sudden I felt a grab, a little nudge." - Melinda McGillivray
"I was thinking ‘Oh, he’s going to hug me’, but when he pulled my face in and gave me a smooch. I was like ‘Oh – kay.’" - Jennifer Murphy
“[Trump] kissed me directly on the mouth.” - Rachel Crooks
"I turned around, and within seconds he was pushing me against the wall and forcing his tongue down my throat." - Natasha Stoynoff
“Trump stood right next to me and suddenly he squeezed my butt." - Ninni Laaksonen
"When we entered the room he grabbed each of us tightly in a hug and kissed each of us on the lips without asking for permission." - Jessica Drake
"He would step in front of each girl and look you over from head to toe like we were just meat, we were just sexual objects, that we were not people." - Samantha Holvey
“He then grabbed my shoulder and began kissing me again very aggressively and placed his hand on my breast." - Summer Zervos
“He probably doesn’t want me telling the story about that time he continually grabbed my ass and invited me to his hotel room.” - Cassandra Searles
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/nov/30/donald-trump-sexual-misconduct-allegations-full-list (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/nov/30/donald-trump-sexual-misconduct-allegations-full-list)
I don't know the details of every encounter. It certainly appears that there's a pattern of sexual harassment (at a minimum) though.
So basically, you have someone who bragged about something (in abstract, not even with a specific person) he DIDN'T do, and you have someone else who help enable someone to do actual things that they denied doing. But the first one is the rapist/sexual assaulter????
To bring it full circle, the lack of critical thinking by reporters around that has always bugged me about the media. "Trump said he did something bad that we can't prove he did! He's horrific!!" "Clinton was not convicted in his impeachment, nothing to see here!!"
There is a good reason that Trump's off hand comments about being perfectly OK with sexual harassment were a big deal . . . it's at least partly because of his personal history of sexually harassing women in an offhand manner.
It's valid to be disgusted with the Clintons on the sex/power front. I don't think it's valid to see Trump as being better in this regard though.
-
Speaking of Hillary, and the Clintons in general, I've wondered why everyone accuses them of being corrupt.
I understand they claimed to be bankrupt around the turn of the century and now have an 8 or 9 figure net worth. Is this large increase in net worth the evidence of corruption?
Republicans don't like the Clintons because they did a lot of things that were considered very liberal at the time (although the Bernie Bros now call them uber-conservatives) and pretty much all their decisions led to tremendous success for the country. It showed that a lot of dopey Republican ideas like flat taxes, killing social security and Medicare, ending the social safety net for the poor, starting pointless wars in the Middle East etc. weren't in the best interest of the country. They have never forgiven the Clintons for that.
I disagree with this assessment. From my vantage point, most politicians are sleazy; it's just a game of who can gain more power and money legally. As I see it, there were rape allegations during his presidency, his misconduct in office, Whitewater, people's fears over her e-mails (despite being cleared; it doesn't look good), the DNC & Clinton in bed together to oust Sanders (again, complex issue, but it doesn't look good), Clinton Foundation issues, etc. I would bet I'm missing a few scandals in there.
I don't like her, but I still voted for her. It's fair to be asked why I could overlook these issues (her husband's issues are his own) and vote for her anyway.
In this #MeToo era, Hillary A) stood by someone who AT MINIMUM used his powers to gain sexual favors, and B) took part in smearing the names of his alleged victims.
Compare that to Trump, who everyone loves to say bragged about "Grabbing them by the..." but in reality, he didn't say he grabbed anyone in particular, nor has he ever, to my knowledge, actually been accused of it. It was a vulgar and scummy thing to say, but as far as I can tell isn't actually backed up by any real action (okay he had a consensual affair with a Stormy, not illegal) he took.
So basically, you have someone who bragged about something (in abstract, not even with a specific person) he DIDN'T do, and you have someone else who help enable someone to do actual things that they denied doing. But the first one is the rapist/sexual assaulter????
To bring it full circle, the lack of critical thinking by reporters around that has always bugged me about the media. "Trump said he did something bad that we can't prove he did! He's horrific!!" "Clinton was not convicted in his impeachment, nothing to see here!!"
My point was more about his political issues being his own, but you have a very valid point. She did stand by him despite the rape allegations and sexual harassment and even defended him recently if I recall correctly.
However, to say Trump only bragged? No, I'm afraid you're in denial over that aspect. There are many statements and many women who have come forward about him as well. To ignore one is to ignore the other and to find fault with one is to find fault with the other.
-
In this #MeToo era, Hillary A) stood by someone who AT MINIMUM used his powers to gain sexual favors, and B) took part in smearing the names of his alleged victims.
Compare that to Trump, who everyone loves to say bragged about "Grabbing them by the..." but in reality, he didn't say he grabbed anyone in particular, nor has he ever, to my knowledge, actually been accused of it. It was a vulgar and scummy thing to say, but as far as I can tell isn't actually backed up by any real action (okay he had a consensual affair with a Stormy, not illegal) he took.
So basically, you have someone who bragged about something (in abstract, not even with a specific person) he DIDN'T do, and you have someone else who help enable someone to do actual things that they denied doing. But the first one is the rapist/sexual assaulter????
To bring it full circle, the lack of critical thinking by reporters around that has always bugged me about the media. "Trump said he did something bad that we can't prove he did! He's horrific!!" "Clinton was not convicted in his impeachment, nothing to see here!!"
Quite a number of women have accused Trump of improper sexual conduct:
https://www.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12#jessica-leeds-1
Anyway, I don't find much value in "but your side is worse!" type of arguments. The primarily issue with the Stormy Daniels incidence in my mind is that that type of behavior leaves the President of the United States vulnerable to blackmail. This is not hypothetical. He in fact was blackmailed by both Daniels and Karen McDougal who received large sums of cash in exchange for their silence.
Now we know Trump can be blackmailed, who else is blackmailing him?
-
My comment "There are still some small-government right wingers who want the government to spend more time leaving us alone, and that's free" alluded to the idea that socially liberal ideas cost money and were therefore at odds with fiscal responsibility
I appreciate you clearing that up.
being for, or agnostic towards, gay marriage costs nothing, and therefore shouldn't be at odds with fiscal responsibility; in fact it should be a money saver due to not having to fight in court about it.
I am a little confused by this. The latest ruling by the Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage, being protected by the 14th amendment, is now legal in all 50 states. This is in contrast to allowing states to decide for themselves. Going with the ideal that the government should remove itself from the gay marriage debate would put the decision back into the hands of the states, ignoring the 14th amendment, thereby not Constitutionally protecting same sex marriage. This of course would lead to some states banning same sex marriage. I suppose it would save the government money . It would cost the states with same sex marriage bans some undetermined amount of revenue as weddings are often good for local business. But overall, it would seem odd to not step in when perceived Constitutional rights are being violated, just to save some cash.
On environmental regulations, I'm all for sensible environmental regulations. However, sensible is the key. If it costs $1M to get to 99.9% clean, and $10B to get to 99.99% clean, we really need to ask ourselves if that last .09% is worth it. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.
Couldn't agree more. But to be fair, that isn't what you stated. I absolutely agree that there are some unnecessary regulations and that rolling back regulations (unnecessary and necessary) will certainly save the business money. But I think it really needs to be considered against short and long term impacts. I am sure the environmental regulation discussion could take up many pages on another thread which I neither have the time or inclination to partake in.
Thanks to DOMA the Feds had to get out of their own way in 2013 before the 14th Amendment case in 2015. Arguably the states never should have inserted themselves into marriage inequality either.
-
Less than 24 hours apart:
We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.
....Russia, Iran, Syria & many others are not happy about the U.S. leaving, despite what the Fake News says, because now they will have to fight ISIS and others, who they hate, without us. I am building by far the most powerful military in the world. ISIS hits us they are doomed!
-
Less than 24 hours apart:
We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.
....Russia, Iran, Syria & many others are not happy about the U.S. leaving, despite what the Fake News says, because now they will have to fight ISIS and others, who they hate, without us. I am building by far the most powerful military in the world. ISIS hits us they are doomed!
There's also Putin cackling with glee that Trump has turned tail and run away from the whole Syria thing. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/world/europe/putin-trump-syria.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/world/europe/putin-trump-syria.html) Y'know. If facts mattered any more.
-
Less than 24 hours apart:
We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.
....Russia, Iran, Syria & many others are not happy about the U.S. leaving, despite what the Fake News says, because now they will have to fight ISIS and others, who they hate, without us. I am building by far the most powerful military in the world. ISIS hits us they are doomed!
There's also Putin cackling with glee that Trump has turned tail and run away from the whole Syria thing. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/world/europe/putin-trump-syria.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/world/europe/putin-trump-syria.html) Y'know. If facts mattered any more.
I ha no idea if leaving Syria is good or bad, I'm just gonna enjoy the fact that the US government lied to get out of a foreign country instead of in for a change.
-
I ha no idea if leaving Syria is good or bad, I'm just gonna enjoy the fact that the US government lied to get out of a foreign country instead of in for a change.
Ha!
-
Hopefully Trump will pull us out of Afghanistan next.
-
Hopefully Trump will pull us out of Afghanistan next.
Well, that was fast...https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-agitating-for-major-military-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-advisers-say/2018/12/20/0c35f874-04a3-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html?utm_term=.7146e75a1592 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-agitating-for-major-military-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-advisers-say/2018/12/20/0c35f874-04a3-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html?utm_term=.7146e75a1592)
Seems like he's on a withdrawing kick right now. Makes me wonder if he's going to do a large pull back of troops from Germany, Japan, and South Korea.
-
...and Italy.
-
"Have you jumped off the Trump Wagon Yet"? That for me is a tough question because I am one of the few admitted republicans on MMM but I never "Jumped on the wagon". I even went as far as telling my friends I hope Trum wins i dont even care if he gets impeached in two years but with his big mouth he will expose so much shit that needs to be. I do not like the way he stirs shit up in the media and wish he would cool it BUT that's is who he is. And, I beleive he does it with purpose vs he doesnt know what hes doing. I will say the bigger problem imo is that we as a society do so much to condemn the opposite side of which we stand and that's escalated to a point that I just don't see how its going to get any better. For me as a republican of course I will say the last great president we have had was Reagan But I have always supported which ever president , left or right which won for the best of our country not bashed them. I am worried that the younger generation seeing how we have become will only escalate this attitude. I did not like Obama but wanted him to succeed. I could not stand the Clinton's ( mostly Hillary) but despite Bills indiscretions I thought he came around and did a good job. And its because he got the two sides communicating and working together. I don't like the way this country is going with the hate for one part or the other and violence etc.. But if we don't come together things are just going to go to shit like we haven't seen before imo.
-
I ha no idea if leaving Syria is good or bad, I'm just gonna enjoy the fact that the US government lied to get out of a foreign country instead of in for a change.
Ha!
IMHO the bad is that Trump is hanging the Kurds out to dry [again, if we're going back to 1991: https://www.claremoreprogress.com/oklahoma/opinion/column-once-again-u-s-leaves-kurds-high-and-dry/article_2b2f1953-0519-537b-a0bf-d9447a5cc605.html]. Combined with Trump's act in general I'd be surprised if anyone trusts the US again.
Then he claims that the Soviet coup/invasion of 1979 was a good thing!? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/we-gave-more-than-enough-sacrifices-afghans-blast-trumps-praise-of-the-soviet-invasion/2019/01/03/365b01f6-0f4a-11e9-92b8-6dd99e2d80e1_story.html?utm_term=.f413a7f70054
Of course he also drove Sec Mattis away. I didn't vote for the guy and wasn't on the wagon, but this last couple of incidents definitely would have shoved me off it.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Du49W50UwAAqxad?format=jpg&name=small)
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Du49W50UwAAqxad?format=jpg&name=small)
Nope. Not endless war. Just not pulling out on a whim with no rhyme or reason and leaving our friends high and dry.
How about a fuckin’ timeline, to give them some time to prepare? A timeline, that they have some input into?
Is that not a reasonable idea?
-
Nope. Not endless war. Just not pulling out on a whim with no rhyme or reason and leaving our friends high and dry.
Are you referring to the illegal invasion we made?
-
Nope. Not endless war. Just not pulling out on a whim with no rhyme or reason and leaving our friends high and dry.
Are you referring to the illegal invasion we made?
Yes, I am.
-
I'm surprised that you think there are so few Republicans on this site. I would think that a culture of careful financial management, LBYM, and wealth-building and personal responsibility would appeal to the best impulses of Republicans as it does to mine.
-
I'm surprised that you think there are so few Republicans on this site. I would think that a culture of careful financial management, LBYM, and wealth-building and personal responsibility would appeal to the best impulses of Republicans as it does to mine.
It would be easy to not associate those characteristics with Republicans given... almost everything we've seen of them at the national level since at least 2001.
-
I'm surprised that you think there are so few Republicans on this site. I would think that a culture of careful financial management, LBYM, and wealth-building and personal responsibility would appeal to the best impulses of Republicans as it does to mine.
It would be easy to not associate those characteristics with Republicans given... almost everything we've seen of them at the national level since at least 2001.
This. Fiscal conservatism and responsibility seem to be principles maybe held by republicans but not by Republicans (i.e., the GOP), at least in my adult lifetime (I’m 40).
-
Speaking of Hillary, and the Clintons in general, I've wondered why everyone accuses them of being corrupt.
I understand they claimed to be bankrupt around the turn of the century and now have an 8 or 9 figure net worth. Is this large increase in net worth the evidence of corruption?
Republicans don't like the Clintons because they did a lot of things that were considered very liberal at the time (although the Bernie Bros now call them uber-conservatives) and pretty much all their decisions led to tremendous success for the country. It showed that a lot of dopey Republican ideas like flat taxes, killing social security and Medicare, ending the social safety net for the poor, starting pointless wars in the Middle East etc. weren't in the best interest of the country. They have never forgiven the Clintons for that.
I disagree with this assessment. From my vantage point, most politicians are sleazy; it's just a game of who can gain more power and money legally. As I see it, there were rape allegations during his presidency, his misconduct in office, Whitewater, people's fears over her e-mails (despite being cleared; it doesn't look good), the DNC & Clinton in bed together to oust Sanders (again, complex issue, but it doesn't look good), Clinton Foundation issues, etc. I would bet I'm missing a few scandals in there.
I don't like her, but I still voted for her. It's fair to be asked why I could overlook these issues (her husband's issues are his own) and vote for her anyway.
In this #MeToo era, Hillary A) stood by someone who AT MINIMUM used his powers to gain sexual favors, and B) took part in smearing the names of his alleged victims.
Compare that to Trump, who everyone loves to say bragged about "Grabbing them by the..." but in reality, he didn't say he grabbed anyone in particular, nor has he ever, to my knowledge, actually been accused of it. It was a vulgar and scummy thing to say, but as far as I can tell isn't actually backed up by any real action (okay he had a consensual affair with a Stormy, not illegal) he took.
So basically, you have someone who bragged about something (in abstract, not even with a specific person) he DIDN'T do, and you have someone else who help enable someone to do actual things that they denied doing. But the first one is the rapist/sexual assaulter????
To bring it full circle, the lack of critical thinking by reporters around that has always bugged me about the media. "Trump said he did something bad that we can't prove he did! He's horrific!!" "Clinton was not convicted in his impeachment, nothing to see here!!"
"nor has he ever, to my knowledge, actually been accused of it"
In addition to these incidents others reported, there is credible evidence he raped a 13 year old. Who is now in hiding. Reported that she was threatened if she came out. http://www.justiceforkatie.com/
And, there are the transcripts from Ivana and Donald's divorce, where in addition to forced sex, he was angry at his botched scalp transplant and attacked her and pulled out clumps of her hair. This information was brought out during the divorce and are in sealed court depositions. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/documenting-trumps-abuse-of-women
You would support someone like this? You think this kind of person is fit to serve as President as the United States? I hope your mother, sister or daughter never comes across someone cut from the same cloth as Trump.
And while I know I won't sway anyone, Trump does not have any firm political or ethical, or constitutional convictions, other than to enrich himself. So while you may be getting some of what you want with him now, he will bend like a reed to save himself, even if it means betraying the country. How can I say, not worth it.
-
MAGA hats.
Coincidence? I think not.
https://www.wonkette.com/this-is-the-future-republicans-want-maga-brats-mock-native-american-drummer-just-to-be-assholes
-
The video reminds me of desegregation videos : (
https://www.annenbergphotospace.org/events/desegregating-education-past-and-present/
-
http://reason.com/blog/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan-phillips-video
-
http://reason.com/blog/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan-phillips-video
Yeah. I have watched that video. And anothe one that people on the right are claiming is “proof” those kids are just poor little victims.
The fact that the Black Hebrew group was calling out to those kids seems to be given as a justification for those kids then mocking and whooping at the Native group.
Nope.
-
http://reason.com/blog/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan-phillips-video
Yeah, the mainstream media really blew it on this story. The Black Hebrew Israelites were the real instigators here and were saying some horrible things. I recommend everyone read the updated story to get the facts rather than the fake news.
"The Left is allowing their political faith to dictate facts"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-left-is-allowing-their-political-faith-to-dictate-facts
-
http://reason.com/blog/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan-phillips-video
Yeah, the mainstream media really blew it on this story. The Black Hebrew Israelites were the real instigators here and were saying some horrible things. I recommend everyone read the updated story to get the facts rather than the fake news.
"The Left is allowing their political faith to dictate facts"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-left-is-allowing-their-political-faith-to-dictate-facts
What the Black Hebrew Israelites did has absolutely no bearing on those MAGA kids' decision to mock and deride the Native group.
-
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covington-catholic-black-paint/
Apparently this is a real photo from a Covington High basketball game. The High school states their superfans wear all black paint for "black out" days and to support their team. Me, it looks like blackface. Has any of the adults in the room explained blackface to them? Are they going to use this as another example of how they are "misunderstood"?
-
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covington-catholic-black-paint/
Apparently this is a real photo from a Covington High basketball game. The High school states their superfans wear all black paint for "black out" days and to support their team. Me, it looks like blackface. Has any of the adults in the room explained blackface to them?
Are they going to use this as another example of how they are "misunderstood"?
Yes. Yes, they are.
This whole thing is sickening.
-
Huh. The PR firm co-run by Mitch McConnell's advisor is helping the MAGA teen downplay the video and help to spin the public reaction. Hm. I wonder why that would be. Huh.
-
Being able to hire a PR firm when you're a fifteen-year-old HS student is...impressive.
-
Bringing this thread back to its original question, I didn't even vote for president. I voted for state senator, representative, and congressional representative, and just didn't select a presidential candidate. I knew Trump was a garbage human being, but so was Hillary, and Gary Johnson was an idiot. I voted for Cruz in the primary, since he was the only Republican who had a chance to beat Trump.
If I had to pick between the two, I'm glad Trump won, if only for Supreme Court picks. I have no idea what that is said about him is true and what isn't, since the mainstream media (on both sides) have lost all credibility. It has turned into the story of the boy who cried wolf, and I just don't care anymore. I'm actually far more concerned with local politics, which also has more bearing on my day-to-day life.
I probably won't vote in the next election either, unless someone other than Trump is the Republican nominee.
-
Bringing this thread back to its original question, I didn't even vote for president. I voted for state senator, representative, and congressional representative, and just didn't select a presidential candidate. I knew Trump was a garbage human being, but so was Hillary, and Gary Johnson was an idiot. I voted for Cruz in the primary, since he was the only Republican who had a chance to beat Trump.
If I had to pick between the two, I'm glad Trump won, if only for Supreme Court picks. I have no idea what that is said about him is true and what isn't, since the mainstream media (on both sides) have lost all credibility. It has turned into the story of the boy who cried wolf, and I just don't care anymore. I'm actually far more concerned with local politics, which also has more bearing on my day-to-day life.
I probably won't vote in the next election either, unless someone other than Trump is the Republican nominee.
And, that's why our country is going down the toliet. If the ability to choose the next supreme court picks, trumps everything else, then you are choosing party over your own country. You are choosing a situation (Republicans will sit on the Mueller findings and not file for impeachment, because of party) where the constitutional underpinnings of our country including checks and balanced are undermined and made meaningless. We are getting to the point the US is becoming a plutocracy, and is no longer a democracy. (sorry for typos trying to type with 1 hand). It's a disgusting situation and we are at the point maybe we should call the experiment in democracy "done".
-
We are getting to the point the US is becoming a plutocracy, and is no longer a democracy. (sorry for typos trying to type with 1 hand). It's a disgusting situation and we are at the point maybe we should call the experiment in democracy "done".
We were never a true democracy, always a republic.
-
We are getting to the point the US is becoming a plutocracy, and is no longer a democracy. (sorry for typos trying to type with 1 hand). It's a disgusting situation and we are at the point maybe we should call the experiment in democracy "done".
We were never a true democracy, always a republic.
The US is a republic, also known as a representative democracy. To refer to the US as a democracy is not incorrect, especially given the context.
-
Trump is going to meet with the Covington Catholic boys at the White House.
LMAO oh, brother...
www.rawstory.com/2019/01/president-trump-will-meet-covington-catholic-boys-white-house-report/
Prediction: Trump and his people are planning on turning the Covington MAGA kids into the right-wing answer to the Parkland kids.
-
This is a really interesting article, breakdown of who voted for Trump. Essentially, voters with evangelical views who do not attend church. They lost trust in the American dream. They are statistically less educated, and less involved with their community. Why they voted for him? Trump gives them - hope. You may say it seems like a misguided hope, but if you don't have church, you don't have community, and you distrust the government, Trump in a way has the same allure as those teleevangelists.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-ex-churchgoers-flocked-to-trump/
-
Why are we only holding teenage boys accountable for their behavior? Teenagers are idiots. I was an idiot when I was a teenager and every teen I've ever met had been an idiot at some point. Sure they didn't understand the situation that they were in and didn't act in the most respectable manner, but what about the adults. The Black Hebrew group is responsible for this entire situation. They were shouting racist remarks at these teens for over an hour? They didn't fight back. A Native America man confronts to crowd of teens and walks into the crowd and bangs his drum and chants in their face. These teens with raging hormones were able to contain themselves and not escalate the situation further. The ADULTS in the situation didn't even have that much restraint. What a world we live in that we expect our youth to be more responsible than adults just because they are white and had MAGA hats on. Such a sad world we live in. It's this type of media coverage and reaction that got that asshat Trump elected and will probably get him elected again.
-
Why are we only holding teenage boys accountable for their behavior? Teenagers are idiots. I was an idiot when I was a teenager and every teen I've ever met had been an idiot at some point. Sure they didn't understand the situation that they were in and didn't act in the most respectable manner, but what about the adults. The Black Hebrew group is responsible for this entire situation. They were shouting racist remarks at these teens for over an hour? They didn't fight back. A Native America man confronts to crowd of teens and walks into the crowd and bangs his drum and chants in their face. These teens with raging hormones were able to contain themselves and not escalate the situation further. The ADULTS in the situation didn't even have that much restraint. What a world we live in that we expect our youth to be more responsible than adults just because they are white and had MAGA hats on. Such a sad world we live in. It's this type of media coverage and reaction that got that asshat Trump elected and will probably get him elected again.
I think everyone can agree that what the Black Israeli group was saying (to both the teens AND the Native American group) was hateful and wrong. But - there were 4 black men, and they said about 100 of this High School students. I don't think the HS students felt unsafe, they felt they were with their tribe, and it was OK to yell things back. I also ask where were the adults with these kids? According to at least one other report they yelled at a couple women, build the wall, maga and "slut" I think they felt they were king of the hill.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/covington-catholic-high-school-nathan-philips-video-nick-sandman-native-american-man-maga-trump-a8740876.html
-
Why are we only holding teenage boys accountable for their behavior? Teenagers are idiots. I was an idiot when I was a teenager and every teen I've ever met had been an idiot at some point. Sure they didn't understand the situation that they were in and didn't act in the most respectable manner, but what about the adults. The Black Hebrew group is responsible for this entire situation. They were shouting racist remarks at these teens for over an hour? They didn't fight back. A Native America man confronts to crowd of teens and walks into the crowd and bangs his drum and chants in their face. These teens with raging hormones were able to contain themselves and not escalate the situation further. The ADULTS in the situation didn't even have that much restraint. What a world we live in that we expect our youth to be more responsible than adults just because they are white and had MAGA hats on. Such a sad world we live in. It's this type of media coverage and reaction that got that asshat Trump elected and will probably get him elected again.
I think everyone can agree that what the Black Israeli group was saying (to both the teens AND the Native American group) was hateful and wrong. But - there were 4 black men, and they said about 100 of this High School students. I don't think the HS students felt unsafe, they felt they were with their tribe, and it was OK to yell things back. I also ask where were the adults with these kids? According to at least one other report they yelled at a couple women, build the wall, maga and "slut" I think they felt they were king of the hill.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/covington-catholic-high-school-nathan-philips-video-nick-sandman-native-american-man-maga-trump-a8740876.html
Pretty much this. I mean, of freaking COURSE those four dudes were being a-holes. But uh, that doesn't exactly excuse the fact that the MAGA kids were mocking and deriding the Native American group.
I am quite disturbed that on-line, right-wingers seem to actually be CONFLATING the BHI and the Native Americans as some sort of justification for the MAGA kids' actions. You know, almost as though they see all brown people as kinda the same...
-
Why are we only holding teenage boys accountable for their behavior? Teenagers are idiots. I was an idiot when I was a teenager and every teen I've ever met had been an idiot at some point. Sure they didn't understand the situation that they were in and didn't act in the most respectable manner, but what about the adults. The Black Hebrew group is responsible for this entire situation. They were shouting racist remarks at these teens for over an hour? They didn't fight back. A Native America man confronts to crowd of teens and walks into the crowd and bangs his drum and chants in their face. These teens with raging hormones were able to contain themselves and not escalate the situation further. The ADULTS in the situation didn't even have that much restraint. What a world we live in that we expect our youth to be more responsible than adults just because they are white and had MAGA hats on. Such a sad world we live in.
Agreed. The Back Hebrew Israelites are mainly responsible for what developed, and then the native American getting in an innocent kid's personal space with his drum. Then a one sided misleading video got passed around and played repeatedly in the mainstream media. I see no fault on the kids' part. They were just being kids, and quite restrained really at that. The full video shows what really happened.
-
Why are we only holding teenage boys accountable for their behavior? Teenagers are idiots. I was an idiot when I was a teenager and every teen I've ever met had been an idiot at some point. Sure they didn't understand the situation that they were in and didn't act in the most respectable manner, but what about the adults. The Black Hebrew group is responsible for this entire situation. They were shouting racist remarks at these teens for over an hour? They didn't fight back. A Native America man confronts to crowd of teens and walks into the crowd and bangs his drum and chants in their face. These teens with raging hormones were able to contain themselves and not escalate the situation further. The ADULTS in the situation didn't even have that much restraint. What a world we live in that we expect our youth to be more responsible than adults just because they are white and had MAGA hats on. Such a sad world we live in.
Agreed. The Back Hebrew Israelites are mainly responsible for what developed, and then the native American getting in an innocent kid's personal space with his drum. Then a one sided misleading video got passed around and played repeatedly in the mainstream media. I see no fault on the kids' part. They were just being kids, and quite restrained really at that. The full video shows what really happened.
Welcome to Trump's America. Where a small group of black Hebrews, yelling nasty shit, get's blamed for a large group of privileged white boys mocking Native Americans through ridiculous dances, chanting and tomahawk chopping. Oh but let's also blame the Native American, you know, because he was beating on a drum trying to diffuse the situation. Those poor innocent white privileged kids.
-
Welcome to Trump's America. Where a small group of black Hebrews, yelling nasty shit, get's blamed for a large group of privileged white boys mocking Native Americans through ridiculous dances, chanting and tomahawk chopping. Oh but let's also blame the Native American, you know, because he was beating on a drum trying to diffuse the situation. Those poor innocent white privileged kids.
Do you think that beating a drum 2 inches from someone's face is trying to diffuse or escalate the situation? I'm not sure where you are from, but two inches from one's face is definitely invading one's personal space in the US. I originally thought the Native American was trying to diffuse when marching between the two groups but went way too far.
-
Welcome to Trump's America. Where a small group of black Hebrews, yelling nasty shit, get's blamed for a large group of privileged white boys mocking Native Americans through ridiculous dances, chanting and tomahawk chopping. Oh but let's also blame the Native American, you know, because he was beating on a drum trying to diffuse the situation. Those poor innocent white privileged kids.
Do you think that beating a drum 2 inches from someone's face is trying to diffuse or escalate the situation? I'm not sure where you are from, but two inches from one's face is definitely invading one's personal space in the US. I originally thought the Native American was trying to diffuse when marching between the two groups but went way too far.
Yeah I guess closely surrounding the Native Americans (invading their personal space) and mocking them was the appropriate course of action for the kids? Thanks for proving my point. I don't think anyone should be invading anyone's personal space. Each person/group should stand on their own merits and be responsible for their own actions.
It's a shame, this could be a great teaching/learning moment for some privileged youth. I don't believe they had any ill intent. They are teenagers who do stupid things. But exonerating them of any wrongdoing and even blaming others for the kids actions is teaching them the exact wrong message.
-
Have you even watched to full hour plus video? It shows the Native American walking in to the group not the group walking up to them and surrounding them. Did you see the one Native American shouting at the kids to go back to Europe? Did you hear them chant build a wall? No, because in that entire video that didn't happen. I could give a shit about the race of any of the groups. The problem that I have is the intellectual dishonesty of the media and everyone else who jumped to the conclusion of "Bunch of white kids with MAGA hats on scream racial threats and mock Native Americans." You really think those kids deserve to have their lives ruined because of their actions? Go to a chiefs game and ruin all those fans lives. They tomahawk chop every week.
-
The problem that I have is the intellectual dishonesty of the media and everyone else who jumped to the conclusion of "Bunch of white kids with MAGA hats on scream racial threats and mock Native Americans."
It's no dishonest to say the kids were mocking the Native American since there is indeed video footage of it.
You really think those kids deserve to have their lives ruined because of their actions? Go to a chiefs game and ruin all those fans lives. They tomahawk chop every week.
That's quite the racist rant backed by Argumentum ad populum.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-history-of-the-covington-maga-teens-racist-tomahawk-chop (https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-history-of-the-covington-maga-teens-racist-tomahawk-chop)
-
Welcome to Trump's America. Where a small group of black Hebrews, yelling nasty shit, get's blamed for a large group of privileged white boys mocking Native Americans through ridiculous dances, chanting and tomahawk chopping. Oh but let's also blame the Native American, you know, because he was beating on a drum trying to diffuse the situation. Those poor innocent white privileged kids.
Do you think that beating a drum 2 inches from someone's face is trying to diffuse or escalate the situation? I'm not sure where you are from, but two inches from one's face is definitely invading one's personal space in the US. I originally thought the Native American was trying to diffuse when marching between the two groups but went way too far.
Yeah I guess closely surrounding the Native Americans (invading their personal space) and mocking them was the appropriate course of action for the kids? Thanks for proving my point. I don't think anyone should be invading anyone's personal space. Each person/group should stand on their own merits and be responsible for their own actions.
It's a shame, this could be a great teaching/learning moment for some privileged youth. I don't believe they had any ill intent. They are teenagers who do stupid things. But exonerating them of any wrongdoing and even blaming others for the kids actions is teaching them the exact wrong message.
The full Shar Yaqataz Banyamyan facebook video proves my point not yours. Specifically, watch from 1 hour 12 minutes to 1 hour 14 minutes. Phillips walks up to and into the crowd of students who have been relatively stationary on the steps and right in front of the steps. The first few kids move to the side so he continues to advance. Now he is "surrounded" because he has moved a few rows deep into the crowd. The smiling kid then does not move. Of course, the smiling kid has committed a "face crime" and must not be exonerated as Winston describes in "1984"
And yes, when I was young, I chanted a chant similar to these kids at a college football game. Where should I report to for punishment? (seriously, doing this chant when younger may be why I don't think that the kids' first thought is "let's make fun of the Native Americans")
-
Have you even watched to full hour plus video? It shows the Native American walking in to the group not the group walking up to them and surrounding them. Did you see the one Native American shouting at the kids to go back to Europe? Did you hear them chant build a wall? No, because in that entire video that didn't happen. I could give a shit about the race of any of the groups. The problem that I have is the intellectual dishonesty of the media and everyone else who jumped to the conclusion of "Bunch of white kids with MAGA hats on scream racial threats and mock Native Americans." You really think those kids deserve to have their lives ruined because of their actions? Go to a chiefs game and ruin all those fans lives. They tomahawk chop every week.
I love how people on your side keep saying "the full video," meant to pretend that it is somehow "the truth." That is a video shot by one of the Black Hebrew Israelites, who narrates it as it is happening. It shows the BHI mocking and calling out to a lot of people, including those kids. The problem is, it's easy for people on the right to then say this "proves" that the kids are innocent victims (and weirdly, they seem to conflate the BHI with the Native group, as though they are the same, which raises its own questions). The problem is, that part of the video is far too distant to see anything that's actually happening between the Covington kids and the four Native men. What it shows is BHI.
At about 1:12, the Native group walks in between the MAGA kids and the BHI. Clearly in a non-confrontational way. There's plenty of room. And the kids start whooping and jumping around -- they are havin' a great old time, laughing their asses off. There is a lot of room between them. And the camera moves away, and when it comes back it shows the kids closing in. Still laughing and jostling each other. Uh, yeah. They're not scared. Notice, too, that the BHI guy is saying "Y'all better not touch him!" It seems he sees the kids closing in and is assuming they're about to get physical.
The Native men are pretty well surrounded by 1:14. Yeah. It sure looks like those kids are scared. They're pretty much ignoring BHI at this point, too.
You know what we don't see? Whether Nathan Philipps took the final step forward to be within one foot of the kid, or whether the kid took the final step forward to be within one foot of Philipps.
But you know what I wouldn't do, as a vastly outnumbered elderly Native American man in a crowd of rowdy, MAGA-hat wearing high school boys who are laughing and jeering at me and totally surrounding me at this point?
-
Welcome to Trump's America. Where a small group of black Hebrews, yelling nasty shit, get's blamed for a large group of privileged white boys mocking Native Americans through ridiculous dances, chanting and tomahawk chopping. Oh but let's also blame the Native American, you know, because he was beating on a drum trying to diffuse the situation. Those poor innocent white privileged kids.
Do you think that beating a drum 2 inches from someone's face is trying to diffuse or escalate the situation? I'm not sure where you are from, but two inches from one's face is definitely invading one's personal space in the US. I originally thought the Native American was trying to diffuse when marching between the two groups but went way too far.
Yeah I guess closely surrounding the Native Americans (invading their personal space) and mocking them was the appropriate course of action for the kids? Thanks for proving my point. I don't think anyone should be invading anyone's personal space. Each person/group should stand on their own merits and be responsible for their own actions.
It's a shame, this could be a great teaching/learning moment for some privileged youth. I don't believe they had any ill intent. They are teenagers who do stupid things. But exonerating them of any wrongdoing and even blaming others for the kids actions is teaching them the exact wrong message.
The full Shar Yaqataz Banyamyan facebook video proves my point not yours. Specifically, watch from 1 hour 12 minutes to 1 hour 14 minutes. Phillips walks up to and into the crowd of students who have been relatively stationary on the steps and right in front of the steps.
No thanks! My point was never to measure the length of drum to the face or whether Nathan walked into the crowd etc. That seems to be your angle. I don't think Nathan and his small group was getting ready to whoop some white boy ass so they deserved to be mocked in a disturbingly racist manner. If you want to keep make excuses for the kids, then you are actually proving the point I was making.
-
Have you even watched to full hour plus video? It shows the Native American walking in to the group not the group walking up to them and surrounding them. Did you see the one Native American shouting at the kids to go back to Europe? Did you hear them chant build a wall? No, because in that entire video that didn't happen. I could give a shit about the race of any of the groups. The problem that I have is the intellectual dishonesty of the media and everyone else who jumped to the conclusion of "Bunch of white kids with MAGA hats on scream racial threats and mock Native Americans." You really think those kids deserve to have their lives ruined because of their actions? Go to a chiefs game and ruin all those fans lives. They tomahawk chop every week.
I love how people on your side keep saying "the full video," meant to pretend that it is somehow "the truth." That is a video shot by one of the Black Hebrew Israelites, who narrates it as it is happening. It shows the BHI mocking and calling out to a lot of people, including those kids. The problem is, it's easy for people on the right to then say this "proves" that the kids are innocent victims (and weirdly, they seem to conflate the BHI with the Native group, as though they are the same, which raises its own questions). The problem is, that part of the video is far too distant to see anything that's actually happening between the Covington kids and the four Native men. What it shows is BHI.
At about 1:12, the Native group walks in between the MAGA kids and the BHI. Clearly in a non-confrontational way. There's plenty of room. And the kids start whooping and jumping around -- they are havin' a great old time, laughing their asses off. There is a lot of room between them. And the camera moves away, and when it comes back it shows the kids closing in. Still laughing and jostling each other. Uh, yeah. They're not scared. Notice, too, that the BHI guy is saying "Y'all better not touch him!" It seems he sees the kids closing in and is assuming they're about to get physical.
The Native men are pretty well surrounded by 1:14. Yeah. It sure looks like those kids are scared. They're pretty much ignoring BHI at this point, too.
You know what we don't see? Whether Nathan Philipps took the final step forward to be within one foot of the kid, or whether the kid took the final step forward to be within one foot of Philipps.
But you know what I wouldn't do, as a vastly outnumbered elderly Native American man in a crowd of rowdy, MAGA-hat wearing high school boys who are laughing and jeering at me and totally surrounding me at this point?
This isn't a "your side vs my side' issues. Its an issue of everyone looking at 1 small segment of a video and running with a narrative that they want to create. That's my issue. I just have a hard time understanding in this day in age that we are expecting teenagers to act more responsibly than adults. It appears to me that when the Native American small group went over to the kids that they were first joining in and were trying to have fun with the situation. The problem is that they misread the situation and it went from joining in to mocking. Where were the adult leaders of the kids. They should have recognized this behavior and corrected it. They didn't and that's on them. Do you think it's possible that Mr. Phillips was possible going in to the interaction with ulterior motives? Is it possible that they were looking to create a situation by behaving in the manner that they did? Who knows and apparently who cares.
I guess since we are no longer in the days of expecting teenagers to act like idiots that we should all check our privilege an start confessing each and every idiotic mistake we made as teens. Shall we start a new thread?
-
Have you even watched to full hour plus video? It shows the Native American walking in to the group not the group walking up to them and surrounding them. Did you see the one Native American shouting at the kids to go back to Europe? Did you hear them chant build a wall? No, because in that entire video that didn't happen. I could give a shit about the race of any of the groups. The problem that I have is the intellectual dishonesty of the media and everyone else who jumped to the conclusion of "Bunch of white kids with MAGA hats on scream racial threats and mock Native Americans." You really think those kids deserve to have their lives ruined because of their actions? Go to a chiefs game and ruin all those fans lives. They tomahawk chop every week.
I love how people on your side keep saying "the full video," meant to pretend that it is somehow "the truth." That is a video shot by one of the Black Hebrew Israelites, who narrates it as it is happening. It shows the BHI mocking and calling out to a lot of people, including those kids. The problem is, it's easy for people on the right to then say this "proves" that the kids are innocent victims (and weirdly, they seem to conflate the BHI with the Native group, as though they are the same, which raises its own questions). The problem is, that part of the video is far too distant to see anything that's actually happening between the Covington kids and the four Native men. What it shows is BHI.
At about 1:12, the Native group walks in between the MAGA kids and the BHI. Clearly in a non-confrontational way. There's plenty of room. And the kids start whooping and jumping around -- they are havin' a great old time, laughing their asses off. There is a lot of room between them. And the camera moves away, and when it comes back it shows the kids closing in. Still laughing and jostling each other. Uh, yeah. They're not scared. Notice, too, that the BHI guy is saying "Y'all better not touch him!" It seems he sees the kids closing in and is assuming they're about to get physical.
The Native men are pretty well surrounded by 1:14. Yeah. It sure looks like those kids are scared. They're pretty much ignoring BHI at this point, too.
You know what we don't see? Whether Nathan Philipps took the final step forward to be within one foot of the kid, or whether the kid took the final step forward to be within one foot of Philipps.
But you know what I wouldn't do, as a vastly outnumbered elderly Native American man in a crowd of rowdy, MAGA-hat wearing high school boys who are laughing and jeering at me and totally surrounding me at this point?
This isn't a "your side vs my side' issues. Its an issue of everyone looking at 1 small segment of a video and running with a narrative that they want to create. That's my issue. I just have a hard time understanding in this day in age that we are expecting teenagers to act more responsibly than adults. It appears to me that when the Native American small group went over to the kids that they were first joining in and were trying to have fun with the situation. The problem is that they misread the situation and it went from joining in to mocking. Where were the adult leaders of the kids. They should have recognized this behavior and corrected it. They didn't and that's on them. Do you think it's possible that Mr. Phillips was possible going in to the interaction with ulterior motives? Is it possible that they were looking to create a situation by behaving in the manner that they did? Who knows and apparently who cares.
I guess since we are no longer in the days of expecting teenagers to act like idiots that we should all check our privilege an start confessing each and every idiotic mistake we made as teens. Shall we start a new thread?
Well, he said he was not.
Or are you saying we shouldn't take him at his word?
-
It appears to me that when the Native American small group went over to the kids that they were first joining in and were trying to have fun with the situation. The problem is that they misread the situation and it went from joining in to mocking.
That's much more reasonable than just saying "hey go to a chiefs game." I'm not sure they were actually joining in though. Do you know any Native American chants and/or traditional dances? I sure don't. I saw a couple kids dancing like something out of a teenage dance club. Looked more like mockery.
Where were the adult leaders of the kids.
Good question. I saw one chaperone speak up and say he was trying to get the kids to clam down and relax. Trying to keep the kids from engaging. He was only mildly successful with a few of the kids
Do you think it's possible that Mr. Phillips was possible going in to the interaction with ulterior motives? Is it possible that they were looking to create a situation by behaving in the manner that they did?
Anything is possible. But I see nothing to suggest there was an ulterior motive. The kids sure weren't acting in fear. They seemed to be having a jolly old time.
I guess since we are no longer in the days of expecting teenagers to act like idiots that we should all check our privilege an start confessing each and every idiotic mistake we made as teens. Shall we start a new thread?
That's a great ideal. We just had a conversation the other day with our teenager after he was caught saying some pretty offensive stuff. He wasn't aware how offensive it was and why. But that's the problem I have with this whole situation. People jumping to the kid's defense are acting like they did nothing wrong and even in some cases blaming it on someone else.
-
I honestly don't know. I want to trust that he is being truthful. It's very hard to trust anything in this story based off of how it was covered. I would like to trust what the kid who was in front of him stated the other night on the news that he was attempting to deescalate the situation by standing there and not fighting back with words. I want to believe that I can trust him when he said that he didn't hear any of his group yelling insults back at the protesters. No one knows what was actually in the hearts of the teens or the Native American group. I just think that we as adults need to do a better job at not immediately jumping to conclusions.
-
I honestly don't know. I want to trust that he is being truthful. It's very hard to trust anything in this story based off of how it was covered. I would like to trust what the kid who was in front of him stated the other night on the news that he was attempting to deescalate the situation by standing there and not fighting back with words. I want to believe that I can trust him when he said that he didn't hear any of his group yelling insults back at the protesters. No one knows what was actually in the hearts of the teens or the Native American group. I just think that we as adults need to do a better job at not immediately jumping to conclusions.
Maybe we could avoid over reaction as well. I don't think anyone was a saint in the situation, but the hatred directed towards the kids is over the top. Many in the media were complicit in this.
-
It appears to me that when the Native American small group went over to the kids that they were first joining in and were trying to have fun with the situation. The problem is that they misread the situation and it went from joining in to mocking.
That's much more reasonable than just saying "hey go to a chiefs game." I'm not sure they were actually joining in though. Do you know any Native American chants and/or traditional dances? I sure don't. I saw a couple kids dancing like something out of a teenage dance club. Looked more like mockery.
My BIL and my nephews and niece are registered members of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma. I have attended a few of their Pow wows, but no I don't know any of the chants/prayers but had seen their traditional dances. I have reached out to my BIL's father as he is more involved with the tribe to get his perspective on the situation. I'm sure my biases are coming in to play, but I also think others aren't being honest with their biases. Everyone one hates Trump so much that anyone tied to him is a Racist. It's rather frustrating.
Edited to try and fix quote
-
It appears to me that when the Native American small group went over to the kids that they were first joining in and were trying to have fun with the situation. The problem is that they misread the situation and it went from joining in to mocking.
That's much more reasonable than just saying "hey go to a chiefs game." I'm not sure they were actually joining in though. Do you know any Native American chants and/or traditional dances? I sure don't. I saw a couple kids dancing like something out of a teenage dance club. Looked more like mockery.
My BIL and my nephews and niece are registered members of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma. I have attended a few of their Pow wows, but no I don't know any of the chants/prayers but had seen their traditional dances. I have reached out to my BIL's father as he is more involved with the tribe to get his perspective on the situation. I'm sure my biases are coming in to play, but I also think others aren't being honest with their biases. Everyone one hates Trump so much that anyone tied to him is a Racist. It's rather frustrating.
Edited to try and fix quote
You know, it's also pretty frustrating to constantly hear that not everyone tied to Trump is a racist. I get it, but it's not an unreasonable assumption to make and nobody is forcing anybody to associate with him. If people don't like others assuming that they're racist then they're entirely free (encouraged even) to stop associating themselves with him.
-
I wasn't clear I'm sorry. The frustration I have is that it often feels like that is the only assumption being made. It's they're racist and that's it. Is it only the white Trump supporters that are racist or are the minorities that support him racist as well? It's very confusing. Mitt Romney was considered racist when he ran in 2012. Is he still? Was he then? Or was it just because he was a conservative? It just seems that if you are conservative then you're automatically racist.
-
It appears to me that when the Native American small group went over to the kids that they were first joining in and were trying to have fun with the situation. The problem is that they misread the situation and it went from joining in to mocking.
That's much more reasonable than just saying "hey go to a chiefs game." I'm not sure they were actually joining in though. Do you know any Native American chants and/or traditional dances? I sure don't. I saw a couple kids dancing like something out of a teenage dance club. Looked more like mockery.
My BIL and my nephews and niece are registered members of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma. I have attended a few of their Pow wows, but no I don't know any of the chants/prayers but had seen their traditional dances. I have reached out to my BIL's father as he is more involved with the tribe to get his perspective on the situation. I'm sure my biases are coming in to play, but I also think others aren't being honest with their biases. Everyone one hates Trump so much that anyone tied to him is a Racist. It's rather frustrating.
Edited to try and fix quote
You know, it's also pretty frustrating to constantly hear that not everyone tied to Trump is a racist. I get it, but it's not an unreasonable assumption to make and nobody is forcing anybody to associate with him. If people don't like others assuming that they're racist then they're entirely free (encouraged even) to stop associating themselves with him.
Agreed. Statements like that seem to pretend that there are two fixed points on either end of a straight line: point A is "racist" and point B is "not a racist."
There's such a thing as "not overtly racist but more than willing to look at acts of racism by one's own party/team/tribe with a complacent or even a blind eye."
And hearing those people spend the majority of their energy constantly claiming that they're the good ones on the team and accusing "the other side" of demonizing them... and very little or no energy actually denouncing or working to stop the racism that's happening by the team they've picked... well, it gets old.
-
I wasn't clear I'm sorry. The frustration I have is that it often feels like that is the only assumption being made. It's they're racist and that's it. Is it only the white Trump supporters that are racist or are the minorities that support him racist as well? It's very confusing. Mitt Romney was considered racist when he ran in 2012. Is he still? Was he then? Or was it just because he was a conservative? It just seems that if you are conservative then you're automatically racist.
Bingo! Hit the nail right on the head. TDS is in full force and their only way to rationalize how any white conservative can align with the current administration is by oversimplistic stereotyping. It is this behavior that will ensure a full blown cultural war ahead of us.
-
I wasn't clear I'm sorry. The frustration I have is that it often feels like that is the only assumption being made. It's they're racist and that's it. Is it only the white Trump supporters that are racist or are the minorities that support him racist as well? It's very confusing. Mitt Romney was considered racist when he ran in 2012. Is he still? Was he then? Or was it just because he was a conservative?
What do you mean by this? Are there assumptions that you think should be made that aren't being made?
ETA:
It just seems that if you are conservative then you're automatically racist.
You seem to be ignoring all of the conservatives out there who haven't been called out for potentially racist actions. It usually takes some questionable action on the part of the conservative for anyone to care enough about them to call them out in the first place and I can't really blame liberals for not giving them the benefit of the doubt in these situations.
-
I wasn't clear I'm sorry. The frustration I have is that it often feels like that is the only assumption being made. It's they're racist and that's it. Is it only the white Trump supporters that are racist or are the minorities that support him racist as well? It's very confusing. Mitt Romney was considered racist when he ran in 2012. Is he still? Was he then? Or was it just because he was a conservative? It just seems that if you are conservative then you're automatically racist.
What do you mean by this? Are there assumptions that you think should be made that aren't being made?
How about the assumption that a person's actions are done with good intent? Even when you disagree with them and they voted Trump.
-
I wasn't clear I'm sorry. The frustration I have is that it often feels like that is the only assumption being made. It's they're racist and that's it. Is it only the white Trump supporters that are racist or are the minorities that support him racist as well? It's very confusing. Mitt Romney was considered racist when he ran in 2012. Is he still? Was he then? Or was it just because he was a conservative? It just seems that if you are conservative then you're automatically racist.
What do you mean by this? Are there assumptions that you think should be made that aren't being made?
How about the assumption that a person's actions are done with good intent? Even when you disagree with them and they voted Trump.
The assumption of good intent is gonna have to be at least somewhat dependent on how likely those actions are to have good intentions behind them. If you punch me in the face and then expect me to excuse you because you say your intentions were good... well, yeah, not so much without a REALLY good explanation.
-
I wasn't clear I'm sorry. The frustration I have is that it often feels like that is the only assumption being made. It's they're racist and that's it. Is it only the white Trump supporters that are racist or are the minorities that support him racist as well? It's very confusing. Mitt Romney was considered racist when he ran in 2012. Is he still? Was he then? Or was it just because he was a conservative? It just seems that if you are conservative then you're automatically racist.
What do you mean by this? Are there assumptions that you think should be made that aren't being made?
How about the assumption that a person's actions are done with good intent? Even when you disagree with them and they voted Trump.
I assume that almost every action ever taken by a human being has been done with 'good intent'. But if you* take an action with good intent that ends up having bad results for others then the proper thing to do is to apologize and take steps to avoid making the same mistake in the future. It shouldn't be hard, since you say that the bad result wasn't what you intended to happen anyway. Also, you definitely shouldn't snap at people who point out that your action failed to produce your desired result, they're just trying to help you achieve what you say you actually intended to achieve after all. If you can't handle that process properly, then I think it's reasonable to assume that you didn't actually have 'good intentions' after all.
*The royal you.
-
I wasn't clear I'm sorry. The frustration I have is that it often feels like that is the only assumption being made. It's they're racist and that's it. Is it only the white Trump supporters that are racist or are the minorities that support him racist as well? It's very confusing. Mitt Romney was considered racist when he ran in 2012. Is he still? Was he then? Or was it just because he was a conservative? It just seems that if you are conservative then you're automatically racist.
What do you mean by this? Are there assumptions that you think should be made that aren't being made?
How about the assumption that a person's actions are done with good intent? Even when you disagree with them and they voted Trump.
The assumption of good intent is gonna have to be at least somewhat dependent on how likely those actions are to have good intentions behind them. If you punch me in the face and then expect me to excuse you because you say your intentions were good... well, yeah, not so much without a REALLY good explanation.
So we can find common ground it is possible to assume a person's actions are done with good intent.
-
I wasn't clear I'm sorry. The frustration I have is that it often feels like that is the only assumption being made. It's they're racist and that's it. Is it only the white Trump supporters that are racist or are the minorities that support him racist as well? It's very confusing. Mitt Romney was considered racist when he ran in 2012. Is he still? Was he then? Or was it just because he was a conservative? It just seems that if you are conservative then you're automatically racist.
What do you mean by this? Are there assumptions that you think should be made that aren't being made?
How about the assumption that a person's actions are done with good intent? Even when you disagree with them and they voted Trump.
The assumption of good intent is gonna have to be at least somewhat dependent on how likely those actions are to have good intentions behind them. If you punch me in the face and then expect me to excuse you because you say your intentions were good... well, yeah, not so much without a REALLY good explanation.
So we can find common ground it is possible to assume a person's actions are done with good intent.
It is possible to assume that when there is a reasonable explanation available.
However, I'm with Shenlong above. If your actual intentions are good, then apologizing ought to be easy. As should be a willingness to accept that your intentions didn't match the actual outcome.
If your reaction is instead defensiveness -- which is a reaction that pulls the attention back on YOU rather than the person you've harmed... well, then yeah, it kind of calls into question your intention in the first place.
-
I wasn't clear I'm sorry. The frustration I have is that it often feels like that is the only assumption being made. It's they're racist and that's it. Is it only the white Trump supporters that are racist or are the minorities that support him racist as well? It's very confusing. Mitt Romney was considered racist when he ran in 2012. Is he still? Was he then? Or was it just because he was a conservative? It just seems that if you are conservative then you're automatically racist.
What do you mean by this? Are there assumptions that you think should be made that aren't being made?
How about the assumption that a person's actions are done with good intent? Even when you disagree with them and they voted Trump.
The assumption of good intent is gonna have to be at least somewhat dependent on how likely those actions are to have good intentions behind them. If you punch me in the face and then expect me to excuse you because you say your intentions were good... well, yeah, not so much without a REALLY good explanation.
So we can find common ground it is possible to assume a person's actions are done with good intent.
It is possible to assume that when there is a reasonable explanation available.
However, I'm with Shenlong above. If your actual intentions are good, then apologizing ought to be easy. As should be a willingness to accept that your intentions didn't match the actual outcome.
If your reaction is instead defensiveness -- which is a reaction that pulls the attention back on YOU rather than the person you've harmed... well, then yeah, it kind of calls into question your intention in the first place.
Are you referring to students? Has anyone else in this apologized? To add - I mean direct participants. I've seen several commentators apologize, but have any of the direct participants apologized?
-
I wasn't clear I'm sorry. The frustration I have is that it often feels like that is the only assumption being made. It's they're racist and that's it. Is it only the white Trump supporters that are racist or are the minorities that support him racist as well? It's very confusing. Mitt Romney was considered racist when he ran in 2012. Is he still? Was he then? Or was it just because he was a conservative? It just seems that if you are conservative then you're automatically racist.
What do you mean by this? Are there assumptions that you think should be made that aren't being made?
How about the assumption that a person's actions are done with good intent? Even when you disagree with them and they voted Trump.
The assumption of good intent is gonna have to be at least somewhat dependent on how likely those actions are to have good intentions behind them. If you punch me in the face and then expect me to excuse you because you say your intentions were good... well, yeah, not so much without a REALLY good explanation.
So we can find common ground it is possible to assume a person's actions are done with good intent.
It is possible to assume that when there is a reasonable explanation available.
However, I'm with Shenlong above. If your actual intentions are good, then apologizing ought to be easy. As should be a willingness to accept that your intentions didn't match the actual outcome.
If your reaction is instead defensiveness -- which is a reaction that pulls the attention back on YOU rather than the person you've harmed... well, then yeah, it kind of calls into question your intention in the first place.
Are you referring to students? Has anyone else in this apologized? To add - I mean direct participants. I've seen several commentators apologize, but have any of the direct participants apologized?
I'm not aware that the students apologized. The only actions I've seen from any of them has been to hire Mitch McConnell's buddy's PR firm.
-
From what is reported, both their High School and the Catholic diocese apologized.
From the Washington Post:
"In a joint statement to the Cincinnati Enquirer , the Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington and Covington Catholic High School apologized to Nathan Phillips, an Omaha elder and Vietnam veteran who attended the Indigenous Peoples March in Washington on Friday. The march coincided with the annual March for Life, an anti-abortion rally attended by some students at Covington Catholic High School in northern Kentucky.
Officials say the students’ behavior is opposed to the church’s teachings on the dignity and respect of the human person."
-
I wasn't clear I'm sorry. The frustration I have is that it often feels like that is the only assumption being made. It's they're racist and that's it. Is it only the white Trump supporters that are racist or are the minorities that support him racist as well? It's very confusing. Mitt Romney was considered racist when he ran in 2012. Is he still? Was he then? Or was it just because he was a conservative? It just seems that if you are conservative then you're automatically racist.
What do you mean by this? Are there assumptions that you think should be made that aren't being made?
How about the assumption that a person's actions are done with good intent? Even when you disagree with them and they voted Trump.
The assumption of good intent is gonna have to be at least somewhat dependent on how likely those actions are to have good intentions behind them. If you punch me in the face and then expect me to excuse you because you say your intentions were good... well, yeah, not so much without a REALLY good explanation.
So we can find common ground it is possible to assume a person's actions are done with good intent.
It is possible to assume that when there is a reasonable explanation available.
However, I'm with Shenlong above. If your actual intentions are good, then apologizing ought to be easy. As should be a willingness to accept that your intentions didn't match the actual outcome.
If your reaction is instead defensiveness -- which is a reaction that pulls the attention back on YOU rather than the person you've harmed... well, then yeah, it kind of calls into question your intention in the first place.
Are you referring to students? Has anyone else in this apologized? To add - I mean direct participants. I've seen several commentators apologize, but have any of the direct participants apologized?
I'm not aware that the students apologized. The only actions I've seen from any of them has been to hire Mitch McConnell's buddy's PR firm.
Has anyone else in the situation apologized? If not, is there a reason you are holding the students to a higher standard?
With regard to the PR firm, people were wishing them physical harm and trying to ruin their lives over this. Should they just let that happen?
-
From what is reported, both their High School and the Catholic diocese apologized.
From the Washington Post:
"In a joint statement to the Cincinnati Enquirer , the Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington and Covington Catholic High School apologized to Nathan Phillips, an Omaha elder and Vietnam veteran who attended the Indigenous Peoples March in Washington on Friday. The march coincided with the annual March for Life, an anti-abortion rally attended by some students at Covington Catholic High School in northern Kentucky.
Officials say the students’ behavior is opposed to the church’s teachings on the dignity and respect of the human person."
Yes, sorry, the school and diocese did apologize. Quickly, in fact. And they were right to do so.
It will be interesting to see what they do following all the PR firm stuff, and what is likely to be a lot of pressure from the MAGA kids' parents not to punish them. I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually release a statement backtracking on the apology and saying that no one really knows what happened. I'm guessing, given the reaction of the main kid's family, that many of the parents might be really pissed the school and diocese apologized, thereby acknowledging that what they did was, in fact, wrong.
-
Are you talking about the Black Hebrew group or the Native Americans? for the former it would certainly be nice if they acknowledged and apologized for yelling inciting language. But, they aren't really the subject of the video (students and phillips interaction was). Do you think the Phillips, or the Native Americans should apologize? If so, why? The students didn't seem to be in fear or threatened by him. He didn't yell anything inflammatory at them.
Do you think the students should also apologize to all the other people they yelled at during that day? I would be surprised if those two women were the only other people these students yelled at.
-
Are you talking about the Black Hebrew group or the Native Americans? for the former it would certainly be nice if they acknowledged and apologized for yelling inciting language. But, they aren't really the subject of the video (students and phillips interaction was). Do you think the Phillips, or the Native Americans should apologize? If so, why? The students didn't seem to be in fear or threatened by him. He didn't yell anything inflammatory at them.
Do you think the students should also apologize to all the other people they yelled at during that day? I would be surprised if those two women were the only other people these students yelled at.
I'm referring to everyone involved.
The Black Hebrews yelled all sorts of offensive things. I haven't heard an apology from them.
With regard to the Nathan Phillips, I think his actions could have been misinterpreted and confusing especially given the situation. In one portion of the video, he marched up to the kids. If we are arguing the kids should apologize for misinterpreted intentions, I think that could apply equally. If someone were banging a drum in my face, I would be confused as well.
I have no idea about other incidents. If there were other incidents, do we know which kids were even involved? I've been on trips with bad behaviors by my classmates that had nothing to do with me.
-
Are you talking about the Black Hebrew group or the Native Americans? for the former it would certainly be nice if they acknowledged and apologized for yelling inciting language. But, they aren't really the subject of the video (students and phillips interaction was). Do you think the Phillips, or the Native Americans should apologize? If so, why? The students didn't seem to be in fear or threatened by him. He didn't yell anything inflammatory at them.
Do you think the students should also apologize to all the other people they yelled at during that day? I would be surprised if those two women were the only other people these students yelled at.
I'm referring to everyone involved.
The Black Hebrews yelled all sorts of offensive things. I haven't heard an apology from them.
With regard to the Nathan Phillips, I think his actions could have been misinterpreted and confusing especially given the situation. In one portion of the video, he marched up to the kids. If we are arguing the kids should apologize for misinterpreted intentions, I think that could apply equally. If someone were banging a drum in my face, I would be confused as well.
I have no idea about other incidents. If there were other incidents, do we know which kids were even involved? I've been on trips with bad behaviors by my classmates that had nothing to do with me.
Have you heard anybody defending them and arguing that we should assume that their intentions were good?
-
Are you talking about the Black Hebrew group or the Native Americans? for the former it would certainly be nice if they acknowledged and apologized for yelling inciting language. But, they aren't really the subject of the video (students and phillips interaction was). Do you think the Phillips, or the Native Americans should apologize? If so, why? The students didn't seem to be in fear or threatened by him. He didn't yell anything inflammatory at them.
Do you think the students should also apologize to all the other people they yelled at during that day? I would be surprised if those two women were the only other people these students yelled at.
I'm referring to everyone involved.
The Black Hebrews yelled all sorts of offensive things. I haven't heard an apology from them.
With regard to the Nathan Phillips, I think his actions could have been misinterpreted and confusing especially given the situation. In one portion of the video, he marched up to the kids. If we are arguing the kids should apologize for misinterpreted intentions, I think that could apply equally. If someone were banging a drum in my face, I would be confused as well.
Lol, even if you were at a Native American rally?
I'm sorry, that's pretty disingenuous.
-
Are you talking about the Black Hebrew group or the Native Americans? for the former it would certainly be nice if they acknowledged and apologized for yelling inciting language. But, they aren't really the subject of the video (students and phillips interaction was). Do you think the Phillips, or the Native Americans should apologize? If so, why? The students didn't seem to be in fear or threatened by him. He didn't yell anything inflammatory at them.
Do you think the students should also apologize to all the other people they yelled at during that day? I would be surprised if those two women were the only other people these students yelled at.
I'm referring to everyone involved.
The Black Hebrews yelled all sorts of offensive things. I haven't heard an apology from them.
With regard to the Nathan Phillips, I think his actions could have been misinterpreted and confusing especially given the situation. In one portion of the video, he marched up to the kids. If we are arguing the kids should apologize for misinterpreted intentions, I think that could apply equally. If someone were banging a drum in my face, I would be confused as well.
I have no idea about other incidents. If there were other incidents, do we know which kids were even involved? I've been on trips with bad behaviors by my classmates that had nothing to do with me.
We don't know for sure but the two women stated these were the same kids. What little we can see they were dressed the same (including MAGA hats) yelling the same things "Maga, Build the Wall" (but also slut). Honestly they look like a bunch of pissants and at least in this case, not going to give them the doubt. OK, if you were a high school student and "confused" by a Native American singing and drumming right next to you, is your response a smirking stare down for minutes? while your friends howl behind you? Or would you at some point avert your eyes and step aside?
You know what? I went on a trip to DC in junior high and yeah some of the students (especially the boys) acted badly, yelling out of the school bus, unscrewing salt and pepper shakers so the next diner would dump salt or pepper on their food. But they knew they were being dickwads and if caught, would take the punishment. The fact you even have grown ups, even Trump trying to deflect or excuse their poor behavior is NOT making this a teachable moment for these kids. Do I think they need to expelled? No. But being publically shamed and seeing that their actions have consequences, including having to make an apology, I'm totally fine with that. Geesh. I sound like an old person.
-
Are you talking about the Black Hebrew group or the Native Americans? for the former it would certainly be nice if they acknowledged and apologized for yelling inciting language. But, they aren't really the subject of the video (students and phillips interaction was). Do you think the Phillips, or the Native Americans should apologize? If so, why? The students didn't seem to be in fear or threatened by him. He didn't yell anything inflammatory at them.
Do you think the students should also apologize to all the other people they yelled at during that day? I would be surprised if those two women were the only other people these students yelled at.
I'm referring to everyone involved.
The Black Hebrews yelled all sorts of offensive things. I haven't heard an apology from them.
With regard to the Nathan Phillips, I think his actions could have been misinterpreted and confusing especially given the situation. In one portion of the video, he marched up to the kids. If we are arguing the kids should apologize for misinterpreted intentions, I think that could apply equally. If someone were banging a drum in my face, I would be confused as well.
I have no idea about other incidents. If there were other incidents, do we know which kids were even involved? I've been on trips with bad behaviors by my classmates that had nothing to do with me.
Have you heard anybody defending them and saying how their intentions were good?
Nope, but the students are being criticized for not apologizing and nobody else involved is being criticized in this is in this thread. I don't think the students were blameless or perfect, but a) they are kids b) the situation is not as cut and dried as initially portrayed and c) the initial reaction and hatred by some against these kids has been horrifying.
You may think these kids are in the wrong, but joking about their deaths and trying to impact their lives is not acceptable. I've seen less anger against actual criminals than these kids.
-
Are you talking about the Black Hebrew group or the Native Americans? for the former it would certainly be nice if they acknowledged and apologized for yelling inciting language. But, they aren't really the subject of the video (students and phillips interaction was). Do you think the Phillips, or the Native Americans should apologize? If so, why? The students didn't seem to be in fear or threatened by him. He didn't yell anything inflammatory at them.
Do you think the students should also apologize to all the other people they yelled at during that day? I would be surprised if those two women were the only other people these students yelled at.
I'm referring to everyone involved.
The Black Hebrews yelled all sorts of offensive things. I haven't heard an apology from them.
With regard to the Nathan Phillips, I think his actions could have been misinterpreted and confusing especially given the situation. In one portion of the video, he marched up to the kids. If we are arguing the kids should apologize for misinterpreted intentions, I think that could apply equally. If someone were banging a drum in my face, I would be confused as well.
Lol, even if you were at a Native American rally?
I'm sorry, that's pretty disingenuous.
They weren't at a Native American rally. They were standing in a public place and a Native American marched up to them carrying a drum.
-
Are you talking about the Black Hebrew group or the Native Americans? for the former it would certainly be nice if they acknowledged and apologized for yelling inciting language. But, they aren't really the subject of the video (students and phillips interaction was). Do you think the Phillips, or the Native Americans should apologize? If so, why? The students didn't seem to be in fear or threatened by him. He didn't yell anything inflammatory at them.
Do you think the students should also apologize to all the other people they yelled at during that day? I would be surprised if those two women were the only other people these students yelled at.
I'm referring to everyone involved.
The Black Hebrews yelled all sorts of offensive things. I haven't heard an apology from them.
With regard to the Nathan Phillips, I think his actions could have been misinterpreted and confusing especially given the situation. In one portion of the video, he marched up to the kids. If we are arguing the kids should apologize for misinterpreted intentions, I think that could apply equally. If someone were banging a drum in my face, I would be confused as well.
I have no idea about other incidents. If there were other incidents, do we know which kids were even involved? I've been on trips with bad behaviors by my classmates that had nothing to do with me.
We don't know for sure but the two women stated these were the same kids. What little we can see they were dressed the same (including MAGA hats) yelling the same things "Maga, Build the Wall" (but also slut). Honestly they look like a bunch of pissants and at least in this case, not going to give them the doubt. OK, if you were a high school student and "confused" by a Native American singing and drumming right next to you, is your response a smirking stare down for minutes? while your friends howl behind you? Or would you at some point avert your eyes and step aside?
You know what? I went on a trip to DC in junior high and yeah some of the students (especially the boys) acted badly, yelling out of the school bus, unscrewing salt and pepper shakers so the next diner would dump salt or pepper on their food. But they knew they were being dickwads and if caught, would take the punishment. The fact you even have grown ups, even Trump trying to deflect or excuse their poor behavior is NOT making this a teachable moment for these kids. Do I think they need to expelled? No. But being publically shamed and seeing that their actions have consequences, including having to make an apology, I'm totally fine with that. Geesh. I sound like an old person.
At least you are honest. You aren't going to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were wearing MAGA hats and at pro-life rally. As a society, we are looking for a reason to destroy people we don't agree with. Both sides are guilty, but this is a pretty bad example.
They have been a lot more than publicly shamed. This kind of stuff - https://www.thewrap.com/film-producer-jack-morrissey-apologizes-for-deleted-covington-woodchipper-tweet/, is f'd up.
-
Are you talking about the Black Hebrew group or the Native Americans? for the former it would certainly be nice if they acknowledged and apologized for yelling inciting language. But, they aren't really the subject of the video (students and phillips interaction was). Do you think the Phillips, or the Native Americans should apologize? If so, why? The students didn't seem to be in fear or threatened by him. He didn't yell anything inflammatory at them.
Do you think the students should also apologize to all the other people they yelled at during that day? I would be surprised if those two women were the only other people these students yelled at.
I'm referring to everyone involved.
The Black Hebrews yelled all sorts of offensive things. I haven't heard an apology from them.
With regard to the Nathan Phillips, I think his actions could have been misinterpreted and confusing especially given the situation. In one portion of the video, he marched up to the kids. If we are arguing the kids should apologize for misinterpreted intentions, I think that could apply equally. If someone were banging a drum in my face, I would be confused as well.
Lol, even if you were at a Native American rally?
I'm sorry, that's pretty disingenuous.
They weren't at a Native American rally. They were standing in a public place and a Native American marched up to them carrying a drum.
You know freedom of assembly is a thing, right? And that the Rally for Indigenous People was scheduled for that day?
-
Are you talking about the Black Hebrew group or the Native Americans? for the former it would certainly be nice if they acknowledged and apologized for yelling inciting language. But, they aren't really the subject of the video (students and phillips interaction was). Do you think the Phillips, or the Native Americans should apologize? If so, why? The students didn't seem to be in fear or threatened by him. He didn't yell anything inflammatory at them.
Do you think the students should also apologize to all the other people they yelled at during that day? I would be surprised if those two women were the only other people these students yelled at.
I'm referring to everyone involved.
The Black Hebrews yelled all sorts of offensive things. I haven't heard an apology from them.
With regard to the Nathan Phillips, I think his actions could have been misinterpreted and confusing especially given the situation. In one portion of the video, he marched up to the kids. If we are arguing the kids should apologize for misinterpreted intentions, I think that could apply equally. If someone were banging a drum in my face, I would be confused as well.
Lol, even if you were at a Native American rally?
I'm sorry, that's pretty disingenuous.
They weren't at a Native American rally. They were standing in a public place and a Native American marched up to them carrying a drum.
You know freedom of assembly is a thing, right? And that the Rally for Indigenous People was scheduled for that day?
and the students were free to congregate in a public place when the approached by this gentlemen. You are implying they were attending a native american rally. Was Nathan Phillips attending a pro-life rally by virtue of being in DC on that day? Give me a break. I don't know what his intentions were or weren't, but the students were not attending in an native american rally. He approached them.
No matter what his intentions were or were not, it was a confusing situation.
-
Are you talking about the Black Hebrew group or the Native Americans? for the former it would certainly be nice if they acknowledged and apologized for yelling inciting language. But, they aren't really the subject of the video (students and phillips interaction was). Do you think the Phillips, or the Native Americans should apologize? If so, why? The students didn't seem to be in fear or threatened by him. He didn't yell anything inflammatory at them.
Do you think the students should also apologize to all the other people they yelled at during that day? I would be surprised if those two women were the only other people these students yelled at.
I'm referring to everyone involved.
The Black Hebrews yelled all sorts of offensive things. I haven't heard an apology from them.
With regard to the Nathan Phillips, I think his actions could have been misinterpreted and confusing especially given the situation. In one portion of the video, he marched up to the kids. If we are arguing the kids should apologize for misinterpreted intentions, I think that could apply equally. If someone were banging a drum in my face, I would be confused as well.
Lol, even if you were at a Native American rally?
I'm sorry, that's pretty disingenuous.
They weren't at a Native American rally. They were standing in a public place and a Native American marched up to them carrying a drum.
You know freedom of assembly is a thing, right? And that the Rally for Indigenous People was scheduled for that day?
and the students were free to congregate in a public place when the approached by this gentlemen. You are implying they were attending a native american rally. Was Nathan Phillips attending a pro-life rally by virtue of being in DC on that day? Give me a break. I don't know what his intentions were or weren't, but the students were not attending in an native american rally. He approached them.
No matter what his intentions were or were not, it was a confusing situation.
FFS.
My point -- which was a response to your totally disingenuous claim that the innocent MAGA lamb would be confused if someone came up to him banging a drum, was that UM FUCKING NO THEY WOULDN'T because there was a Native American rally scheduled right there. For that day. With drums and stuff.
Honestly this is just too ridiculous. I'm so grossed out by the level of blatant pretense here that I'm just gonna bow out.
-
Are you talking about the Black Hebrew group or the Native Americans? for the former it would certainly be nice if they acknowledged and apologized for yelling inciting language. But, they aren't really the subject of the video (students and phillips interaction was). Do you think the Phillips, or the Native Americans should apologize? If so, why? The students didn't seem to be in fear or threatened by him. He didn't yell anything inflammatory at them.
Do you think the students should also apologize to all the other people they yelled at during that day? I would be surprised if those two women were the only other people these students yelled at.
I'm referring to everyone involved.
The Black Hebrews yelled all sorts of offensive things. I haven't heard an apology from them.
With regard to the Nathan Phillips, I think his actions could have been misinterpreted and confusing especially given the situation. In one portion of the video, he marched up to the kids. If we are arguing the kids should apologize for misinterpreted intentions, I think that could apply equally. If someone were banging a drum in my face, I would be confused as well.
Lol, even if you were at a Native American rally?
I'm sorry, that's pretty disingenuous.
They weren't at a Native American rally. They were standing in a public place and a Native American marched up to them carrying a drum.
You know freedom of assembly is a thing, right? And that the Rally for Indigenous People was scheduled for that day?
and the students were free to congregate in a public place when the approached by this gentlemen. You are implying they were attending a native american rally. Was Nathan Phillips attending a pro-life rally by virtue of being in DC on that day? Give me a break. I don't know what his intentions were or weren't, but the students were not attending in an native american rally. He approached them.
No matter what his intentions were or were not, it was a confusing situation.
FFS.
My point -- which was a response to your totally disingenuous claim that the innocent MAGA lamb would be confused if someone came up to him banging a drum, was that UM FUCKING NO THEY WOULDN'T because there was a Native American rally scheduled right there. For that day. With drums and stuff.
Honestly this is just too ridiculous. I'm so grossed out by the level of blatant pretense here that I'm just gonna bow out.
a) I didn't claim the student was totally innocent b) There may have been a Native American rally going on, but the student was not a participant despite your assertions to the contrary.
This kid was standing in a public place and a guy came up and started beating a drum in his face. From the video I've seen, Nathan Phillips approached him drum in hand. It's a weird situation.
This kid was at a pro-life rally. If he was running up with to random people with his pro-life banner, it would be weird for them as well.
I don't think all of these kids were totally innocent, but you are holding them to a different standard.
-
This kid was standing in a public place and a guy came up and started beating a drum in his face. From the video I've seen, Nathan Phillips approached him drum in hand. It's a weird situation.
To be fair it was already pointed out (by someone else trying to exonerate the kids) that Nathan walked into the crowd. The boy he confronted happened to be the one that didn't move. He didn't purposefully single him out. Others did move and then closed back in to surround him and his friends.
This kid was at a pro-life rally. If he was running up with to random people with his pro-life banner, it would be weird for them as well.
Seems strange to me they were yelling "MAGA and "Build the Wall" to a couple women who perceived it as harassment. Pretty sure you can hear one of them yell "slut" as well. Listen closely:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/covington-catholic-high-school-nathan-philips-video-nick-sandman-native-american-man-maga-trump-a8740876.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/covington-catholic-high-school-nathan-philips-video-nick-sandman-native-american-man-maga-trump-a8740876.html)
I don't think all of these kids were totally innocent, but you are holding them to a different standard.
They are being held to a different standard. The black Hebrews are being called out for vile racist hatred. Nathan is apparently being called out for banging a drum too close to a kids face. And according to many, the kids are heroes and did nothing wrong.
-
I wasn't clear I'm sorry. The frustration I have is that it often feels like that is the only assumption being made. It's they're racist and that's it. Is it only the white Trump supporters that are racist or are the minorities that support him racist as well? It's very confusing. Mitt Romney was considered racist when he ran in 2012. Is he still? Was he then? Or was it just because he was a conservative? It just seems that if you are conservative then you're automatically racist.
What do you mean by this? Are there assumptions that you think should be made that aren't being made?
How about the assumption that a person's actions are done with good intent? Even when you disagree with them and they voted Trump.
This comment was in response to OneStep's feeling that many people are quick to assume Trump supporters are racist or have malicious intent in their support for Trump.
Not sure where the punch in the face analogy came from. Literally no one disagrees those who commit acts of violence against another do not have good intentions.
I suppose I could be more direct in that case: Do you think those that support Trump generally have good and non-racist intentions?
-
This kid was standing in a public place and a guy came up and started beating a drum in his face. From the video I've seen, Nathan Phillips approached him drum in hand. It's a weird situation.
To be fair it was already pointed out (by someone else trying to exonerate the kids) that Nathan walked into the crowd. The boy he confronted happened to be the one that didn't move. He didn't purposefully single him out. Others did move and then closed back in to surround him and his friends.
This kid was at a pro-life rally. If he was running up with to random people with his pro-life banner, it would be weird for them as well.
Seems strange to me they were yelling "MAGA and "Build the Wall" to a couple women who perceived it as harassment. Pretty sure you can hear one of them yell "slut" as well. Listen closely:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/covington-catholic-high-school-nathan-philips-video-nick-sandman-native-american-man-maga-trump-a8740876.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/covington-catholic-high-school-nathan-philips-video-nick-sandman-native-american-man-maga-trump-a8740876.html)
I don't think all of these kids were totally innocent, but you are holding them to a different standard.
They are being held to a different standard. The black Hebrews are being called out for vile racist hatred. Nathan is apparently being called out for banging a drum too close to a kids face. And according to many, the kids are heroes and did nothing wrong.
Stache - I don't hear them say those things. Maybe I missed it. If somebody did say it, should the entire group be vilified for the actions of a few? Especially the kid at the center of this. He's standing there looking at a guy beating a drum. Does anybody have any proof he did anything but that?
I don't think the kids are totally innocent, but they have been vilified and criticized for defending themselves. Then there are complaints they don't apologize but no similar calls to apology for the other parties that contributed to this.
Given the absurdity of some of the things said about some of them (doxing, trying to get them kicked out of school, etc), I'd have a hard apologizing at this point too.
-
This kid was standing in a public place and a guy came up and started beating a drum in his face. From the video I've seen, Nathan Phillips approached him drum in hand. It's a weird situation.
To be fair it was already pointed out (by someone else trying to exonerate the kids) that Nathan walked into the crowd. The boy he confronted happened to be the one that didn't move. He didn't purposefully single him out. Others did move and then closed back in to surround him and his friends.
This kid was at a pro-life rally. If he was running up with to random people with his pro-life banner, it would be weird for them as well.
Seems strange to me they were yelling "MAGA and "Build the Wall" to a couple women who perceived it as harassment. Pretty sure you can hear one of them yell "slut" as well. Listen closely:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/covington-catholic-high-school-nathan-philips-video-nick-sandman-native-american-man-maga-trump-a8740876.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/covington-catholic-high-school-nathan-philips-video-nick-sandman-native-american-man-maga-trump-a8740876.html)
I don't think all of these kids were totally innocent, but you are holding them to a different standard.
They are being held to a different standard. The black Hebrews are being called out for vile racist hatred. Nathan is apparently being called out for banging a drum too close to a kids face. And according to many, the kids are heroes and did nothing wrong.
Stache - I don't hear them say those things. Maybe I missed it. If somebody did say it, should the entire group be vilified for the actions of a few? Especially the kid at the center of this. He's standing there looking at a guy beating a drum. Does anybody have any proof he did anything but that?
I don't think the kids are totally innocent, but they have been vilified and criticized for defending themselves. Then there are complaints they don't apologize but no similar calls to apology for the other parties that contributed to this.
Given the absurdity of some of the things said about some of them (doxing, trying to get them kicked out of school, etc), I'd have a hard apologizing at this point too.
Click on the link I posted and scroll down to the video.
Regardless of what people are saying about them (and yes some if it is absurdly unfair) it's not an excuse to not own up to your actions. Perhaps the kid confronted by Nathan has nothing to apologize for, but some of them sure as shit do.
It's pointless to keep talking about this. I hope Nathan and Nick along with other students (perhaps the ones thinking it was funny to mock the Native Americans) can get together and talk. Again, it would be a great learning experience for all involved.
-
This kid was standing in a public place and a guy came up and started beating a drum in his face. From the video I've seen, Nathan Phillips approached him drum in hand. It's a weird situation.
To be fair it was already pointed out (by someone else trying to exonerate the kids) that Nathan walked into the crowd. The boy he confronted happened to be the one that didn't move. He didn't purposefully single him out. Others did move and then closed back in to surround him and his friends.
This kid was at a pro-life rally. If he was running up with to random people with his pro-life banner, it would be weird for them as well.
Seems strange to me they were yelling "MAGA and "Build the Wall" to a couple women who perceived it as harassment. Pretty sure you can hear one of them yell "slut" as well. Listen closely:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/covington-catholic-high-school-nathan-philips-video-nick-sandman-native-american-man-maga-trump-a8740876.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/covington-catholic-high-school-nathan-philips-video-nick-sandman-native-american-man-maga-trump-a8740876.html)
I don't think all of these kids were totally innocent, but you are holding them to a different standard.
They are being held to a different standard. The black Hebrews are being called out for vile racist hatred. Nathan is apparently being called out for banging a drum too close to a kids face. And according to many, the kids are heroes and did nothing wrong.
Stache - I don't hear them say those things. Maybe I missed it. If somebody did say it, should the entire group be vilified for the actions of a few? Especially the kid at the center of this. He's standing there looking at a guy beating a drum. Does anybody have any proof he did anything but that?
I don't think the kids are totally innocent, but they have been vilified and criticized for defending themselves. Then there are complaints they don't apologize but no similar calls to apology for the other parties that contributed to this.
Given the absurdity of some of the things said about some of them (doxing, trying to get them kicked out of school, etc), I'd have a hard apologizing at this point too.
Click on the link I posted and scroll down to the video.
Regardless of what people are saying about them (and yes some if it is absurdly unfair) it's not an excuse to not own up to your actions. Perhaps the kid confronted by Nathan has nothing to apologize for, but some of them sure as shit do.
I did look at the video, maybe I missed it. Some of them may have something to apologize for, but calling for their deaths is insane. I have seen no proof that the kid at the center of this did anything other than stand there. Since he's been the one interviewed and people in this thread are calling for an apology, I'm assuming they want one from him. If he did anything other than stand there with a smirk, I haven't seen it.
I don't think this kid is a hero, but he's not the anti-christ he's being portrayed to be. If he didn't do anything but stand there, he shouldn't apologize. Nothing he says will be good enough anyway.
I agree with you that everybody could learn from this.
-
I did look at the video, maybe I missed it.
When you click on the article the video is further down the page. It's only 8 second long as one of the girls being harassed filmed it.
-
I did look at the video, maybe I missed it.
When you click on the article the video is further down the page. It's only 8 second long as one of the girls being harassed filmed it.
Looks like immature high school assholes. If they are the same kids, it proves they are immature high school kids acting like assholes. If smirking kid is in that video, he should apologize for it but I certainly can't tell.
-
The Black Hebrews yelled all sorts of offensive things. I haven't heard an apology from them.
And you won't. The Black Hebrew Israelites are the most guilty ones here and started the whole thing, but we can't let Phillips off the hook. He was never deployed to Vietnam and was not truthful when discussing the event. The students were surprisingly reserved despite how they were being treated by the Black Israelites and having their personal space invaded by the native American. I doubt most adults on this forum would have kept their composure as well as those young students. A lesson can be learned here from those students, and a big one should have been learned by all of the people who jumped to conclusions about the fake news including the mainstream media, who completely left the racist Black Israelites out of the news story and tried to build up Phillips as a Vietnam veteran, when he isn't.
-
@Kris , for the Covington story, you do not have command of the facts, and as a result you’ve participated in and advanced the smearing of high school kids.
Here’s my suggestion: Watch the longform video with an open mind and decide for yourself. Here's the most complete version I could find. I'm serious, if you actually care about truth -- and I've always thought you did -- then watch the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igFBDp8wCEU
You'll see your mistake. After you confirm that mistake, then by your own standards, outlined on page 3, you should apologize:
If your actual intentions are good, then apologizing ought to be easy. As should be a willingness to accept that your intentions didn't match the actual outcome.
If your reaction is instead defensiveness -- which is a reaction that pulls the attention back on YOU rather than the person you've harmed... well, then yeah, it kind of calls into question your intention in the first place.
If you really, really don’t want to apologize, and abide by your own standards, then do what the NY Times did, and instead, just talk about how a “Fuller Picture is Emerging” of the story, which is maybe the shittiest non-apology I’ve seen from a reputable media outlet.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/nathan-phillips-interview-cnn-falsehoods-inconsistencies/
FFS. I have watched it. I watched it on Saturday Sunday morning. Pretty sure I've already said that above. I've watched it again since. I'm also pretty sure I outlined in a comment above two minutes of the video that to me refute what people seem to think that video proves.
But yeah. I get that the National Review is a conservative paper.
-
@Kris
It's pretty sad that a lifelong Democrat (me) had to get the real story from The National Review. Believe me, that was the last place I looked for it.
Were you going to apologize then, or no?
Um, to whom? To you? And for what?
-
Those kids have become the Emmanuel Goldstein of 2019.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvGmOZ5T6_Y
-
Those kids have become the Emmanuel Goldstein of 2019.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvGmOZ5T6_Y
So, 1984 is one of the many books still on my list of books to read, so I had to look up Emmanuel Goldstein. In doing so, I stumbled upon an interesting line on Wikipedia...
"The widespread vilification of Nixon in the wake of the Watergate scandal inspired commentary comparing his treatment in the media with the Two Minutes Hate sessions focused on Goldstein."
-
Are you talking about the Black Hebrew group or the Native Americans? for the former it would certainly be nice if they acknowledged and apologized for yelling inciting language. But, they aren't really the subject of the video (students and phillips interaction was). Do you think the Phillips, or the Native Americans should apologize? If so, why? The students didn't seem to be in fear or threatened by him. He didn't yell anything inflammatory at them.
Do you think the students should also apologize to all the other people they yelled at during that day? I would be surprised if those two women were the only other people these students yelled at.
I'm referring to everyone involved.
The Black Hebrews yelled all sorts of offensive things. I haven't heard an apology from them.
With regard to the Nathan Phillips, I think his actions could have been misinterpreted and confusing especially given the situation. In one portion of the video, he marched up to the kids. If we are arguing the kids should apologize for misinterpreted intentions, I think that could apply equally. If someone were banging a drum in my face, I would be confused as well.
I have no idea about other incidents. If there were other incidents, do we know which kids were even involved? I've been on trips with bad behaviors by my classmates that had nothing to do with me.
Have you heard anybody defending them and saying how their intentions were good?
Nope, but the students are being criticized for not apologizing and nobody else involved is being criticized in this is in this thread. I don't think the students were blameless or perfect, but a) they are kids b) the situation is not as cut and dried as initially portrayed and c) the initial reaction and hatred by some against these kids has been horrifying.
You may think these kids are in the wrong, but joking about their deaths and trying to impact their lives is not acceptable. I've seen less anger against actual criminals than these kids.
No one expects BHI to apologize b/c they are what they are. They are obnoxious and they were acting obnoxious. We don't expect any different.
We expect repercussions for the kids b/c they are supposedly good christian boys. I do not believe their lives should be ruined and I do not agree with people searching out and posting their names but I do believe there should be punishment for their actions. Not from me. From their parents and/or school. Regardless of who started what, they engaged. I'm not expecting much, even this would be better than nothing:
"yea we shouldn'ta been little shits there. Calling out "it's not rape if you like it" is not appropriate. And making racists comments isn't in line with our values....we'll learn from this."
-
Are you talking about the Black Hebrew group or the Native Americans? for the former it would certainly be nice if they acknowledged and apologized for yelling inciting language. But, they aren't really the subject of the video (students and phillips interaction was). Do you think the Phillips, or the Native Americans should apologize? If so, why? The students didn't seem to be in fear or threatened by him. He didn't yell anything inflammatory at them.
Do you think the students should also apologize to all the other people they yelled at during that day? I would be surprised if those two women were the only other people these students yelled at.
I'm referring to everyone involved.
The Black Hebrews yelled all sorts of offensive things. I haven't heard an apology from them.
With regard to the Nathan Phillips, I think his actions could have been misinterpreted and confusing especially given the situation. In one portion of the video, he marched up to the kids. If we are arguing the kids should apologize for misinterpreted intentions, I think that could apply equally. If someone were banging a drum in my face, I would be confused as well.
I have no idea about other incidents. If there were other incidents, do we know which kids were even involved? I've been on trips with bad behaviors by my classmates that had nothing to do with me.
Have you heard anybody defending them and saying how their intentions were good?
Nope, but the students are being criticized for not apologizing and nobody else involved is being criticized in this is in this thread. I don't think the students were blameless or perfect, but a) they are kids b) the situation is not as cut and dried as initially portrayed and c) the initial reaction and hatred by some against these kids has been horrifying.
You may think these kids are in the wrong, but joking about their deaths and trying to impact their lives is not acceptable. I've seen less anger against actual criminals than these kids.
No one expects BHI to apologize b/c they are what they are. They are obnoxious and they were acting obnoxious. We don't expect any different.
We expect repercussions for the kids b/c they are supposedly good christian boys. I do not believe their lives should be ruined and I do not agree with people searching out and posting their names but I do believe there should be punishment for their actions. Not from me. From their parents and/or school. Regardless of who started what, they engaged. I'm not expecting much, even this would be better than nothing:
"yea we shouldn'ta been little shits there. Calling out "it's not rape if you like it" is not appropriate. And making racists comments isn't in line with our values....we'll learn from this."
Thank you! That's pretty much what I was trying (and apparently failing) to express.
-
We expect repercussions for the kids b/c they are supposedly good christian boys. I do not believe their lives should be ruined and I do not agree with people searching out and posting their names but I do believe there should be punishment for their actions. Not from me. From their parents and/or school. Regardless of who started what, they engaged. I'm not expecting much, even this would be better than nothing:
"yea we shouldn'ta been little shits there. Calling out "it's not rape if you like it" is not appropriate. And making racists comments isn't in line with our values....we'll learn from this."
I don't expect any real repercussions for the kids because they're white Christian boys.
I also don't believe that their lives should be ruined . . . but also do believe there should be punishment for their actions from their parents and/or school. Given that the boys felt perfectly OK to do what they did, I'd be pretty surprised if such punishment were forthcoming though.
-
Are you talking about the Black Hebrew group or the Native Americans? for the former it would certainly be nice if they acknowledged and apologized for yelling inciting language. But, they aren't really the subject of the video (students and phillips interaction was). Do you think the Phillips, or the Native Americans should apologize? If so, why? The students didn't seem to be in fear or threatened by him. He didn't yell anything inflammatory at them.
Do you think the students should also apologize to all the other people they yelled at during that day? I would be surprised if those two women were the only other people these students yelled at.
I'm referring to everyone involved.
The Black Hebrews yelled all sorts of offensive things. I haven't heard an apology from them.
With regard to the Nathan Phillips, I think his actions could have been misinterpreted and confusing especially given the situation. In one portion of the video, he marched up to the kids. If we are arguing the kids should apologize for misinterpreted intentions, I think that could apply equally. If someone were banging a drum in my face, I would be confused as well.
I have no idea about other incidents. If there were other incidents, do we know which kids were even involved? I've been on trips with bad behaviors by my classmates that had nothing to do with me.
Have you heard anybody defending them and saying how their intentions were good?
Nope, but the students are being criticized for not apologizing and nobody else involved is being criticized in this is in this thread. I don't think the students were blameless or perfect, but a) they are kids b) the situation is not as cut and dried as initially portrayed and c) the initial reaction and hatred by some against these kids has been horrifying.
You may think these kids are in the wrong, but joking about their deaths and trying to impact their lives is not acceptable. I've seen less anger against actual criminals than these kids.
No one expects BHI to apologize b/c they are what they are. They are obnoxious and they were acting obnoxious. We don't expect any different.
We expect repercussions for the kids b/c they are supposedly good christian boys. I do not believe their lives should be ruined and I do not agree with people searching out and posting their names but I do believe there should be punishment for their actions. Not from me. From their parents and/or school. Regardless of who started what, they engaged. I'm not expecting much, even this would be better than nothing:
"yea we shouldn'ta been little shits there. Calling out "it's not rape if you like it" is not appropriate. And making racists comments isn't in line with our values....we'll learn from this."
If a student said the things in bold, you are correct they should be punished by the school or their parents. Completely agree. The kid at the center of this, is there any proof he said those kind of thing? If not, then why should he apologize and why has he been vilified and singled out?
20, 30 40 kids without parents, with their buddies and then being yelled at by the Black Hebrews, I have little doubt somebody said something they shouldn't. Some of them might have done it without the Black Hebrews interaction, but the furor over this is insane.
-
The Black Hebrews yelled all sorts of offensive things. I haven't heard an apology from them.
And you won't. The Black Hebrew Israelites are the most guilty ones here and started the whole thing, but we can't let Phillips off the hook. He was never deployed to Vietnam and was not truthful when discussing the event. The students were surprisingly reserved despite how they were being treated by the Black Israelites and having their personal space invaded by the native American. I doubt most adults on this forum would have kept their composure as well as those young students. A lesson can be learned here from those students, and a big one should have been learned by all of the people who jumped to conclusions about the fake news including the mainstream media, who completely left the racist Black Israelites out of the news story and tried to build up Phillips as a Vietnam veteran, when he isn't.
I agree that the Black Hebrew Israelites were offensive fruitcakes who started the whole thing. It seems like there was a misunderstanding where the Native Americans saw a few old Black people in a conflict with a large number of young white men, and jumped to conclusions. However, some of the kids appeared to be mocking the Native Americans... only they know what was in their hearts as they did it.
With respect to reports in the conservative press that Nathan Phillips is a fake: Phillips should be honored for his service... he signed up to be a Marine when he was probably younger than those students, during a time when serving his country could have meant death. The fact he probably wasn't deployed overseas should not be a cause for shame. The last Marines did not leave Vietnam until 1975.
The "Recon Ranger" nickname may come from a Marine song, "Recon Ranger, Life of Danger", that apparently inspired a nickname for Marines stationed at or near Camp Pendleton, where there is a peak called Recon Ridge.
-
We expect repercussions for the kids b/c they are supposedly good christian boys. I do not believe their lives should be ruined and I do not agree with people searching out and posting their names but I do believe there should be punishment for their actions. Not from me. From their parents and/or school. Regardless of who started what, they engaged. I'm not expecting much, even this would be better than nothing:
"yea we shouldn'ta been little shits there. Calling out "it's not rape if you like it" is not appropriate. And making racists comments isn't in line with our values....we'll learn from this."
I don't expect any real repercussions for the kids because they're white Christian boys.
I also don't believe that their lives should be ruined . . . but also do believe there should be punishment for their actions from their parents and/or school. Given that the boys felt perfectly OK to do what they did, I'd be pretty surprised if such punishment were forthcoming though.
The facts as far as I know (someone correct me if I'm wrong):
- Members of a hate group are harassing teens with racial epithets and homophobic insults.
- Teens react by mocking hate group
- Nathan Philips decides intervenes because he sensed violence.
- Nathan is aware of this sense because he served State side during "Vietnam Times"
- Philips beats his drum into a crowd and is surrounded
- His camera man tells the teens they're white, only know how to be white, and need to go back to Europe
- Teens mock the drum
- Teens (only a few) parody Native Americans
- A twitter account @'2020fight accepted $20 to amplify a tweet
- Tweet says: "This MAGA loser gleefully bothering a Native American protestor at Indigenous Peoples March" with 1 minute snippet of the events
- The Media does a very, very poor job
What punishment would be warranted? How does being white excuse them OR how would a PoC be held to a different standard?
I ask because this seems to be an instance where scrutiny exists only because they're white.
The only reason this is a news story is because of the optics of MAGA hat, a smug grin, and a Native American all involved with a false narrative.
-
I ask because this seems to be an instance where scrutiny exists only because they're white.
No! Not a single person has excused the behavior of the Black Hebrews. Some kids did indeed mock the Native Americans and there is also video footage of them harassing a couple girls. You can argue the level of scrutiny all you want (and thus many are). But to say the scrutiny exist "only" because of their skin color is ridiculous.
-
Are you talking about the Black Hebrew group or the Native Americans? for the former it would certainly be nice if they acknowledged and apologized for yelling inciting language. But, they aren't really the subject of the video (students and phillips interaction was). Do you think the Phillips, or the Native Americans should apologize? If so, why? The students didn't seem to be in fear or threatened by him. He didn't yell anything inflammatory at them.
Do you think the students should also apologize to all the other people they yelled at during that day? I would be surprised if those two women were the only other people these students yelled at.
I'm referring to everyone involved.
The Black Hebrews yelled all sorts of offensive things. I haven't heard an apology from them.
With regard to the Nathan Phillips, I think his actions could have been misinterpreted and confusing especially given the situation. In one portion of the video, he marched up to the kids. If we are arguing the kids should apologize for misinterpreted intentions, I think that could apply equally. If someone were banging a drum in my face, I would be confused as well.
I have no idea about other incidents. If there were other incidents, do we know which kids were even involved? I've been on trips with bad behaviors by my classmates that had nothing to do with me.
Have you heard anybody defending them and saying how their intentions were good?
Nope, but the students are being criticized for not apologizing and nobody else involved is being criticized in this is in this thread. I don't think the students were blameless or perfect, but a) they are kids b) the situation is not as cut and dried as initially portrayed and c) the initial reaction and hatred by some against these kids has been horrifying.
You may think these kids are in the wrong, but joking about their deaths and trying to impact their lives is not acceptable. I've seen less anger against actual criminals than these kids.
No one expects BHI to apologize b/c they are what they are. They are obnoxious and they were acting obnoxious. We don't expect any different.
We expect repercussions for the kids b/c they are supposedly good christian boys. I do not believe their lives should be ruined and I do not agree with people searching out and posting their names but I do believe there should be punishment for their actions. Not from me. From their parents and/or school. Regardless of who started what, they engaged. I'm not expecting much, even this would be better than nothing:
"yea we shouldn'ta been little shits there. Calling out "it's not rape if you like it" is not appropriate. And making racists comments isn't in line with our values....we'll learn from this."
If a student said the things in bold, you are correct they should be punished by the school or their parents. Completely agree. The kid at the center of this, is there any proof he said those kind of thing? If not, then why should he apologize and why has he been vilified and singled out?
20, 30 40 kids without parents, with their buddies and then being yelled at by the Black Hebrews, I have little doubt somebody said something they shouldn't. Some of them might have done it without the Black Hebrews interaction, but the furor over this is insane.
There is no if - the bolded was said on video by someone at the front of the group. The kid at the centre of this didn't seem to say anything. But based on the video of him laughing and carrying on, he sure enjoyed it. This was before his "stand-off" with Phillips. He has been singled out because of the first tweet that included a pic of him and his shit-eating grin. That grin showed he knew he was being an arshole but he was doing it anyways and there was nothing anyone could do about it. I don't think it's fair that he is the face of this issue, to be honest, but he's not some angelic student saying a private prayer. We know that much is 100% bullshit.
Since it's hard to say who started what, I'd give the group of them detention for a week or something and make them do a project on not being an arshole in situations like that. If they don't get at least that amount of punishment, they will know they can do this again. Oh, except the guy who said the rape comment - he should get way worse punishment. When I went to catholic school it would have been the strap across his ass - whatever the 2019 version of that is, I suppose. I'd also levy harsher punishments against anyone caught on camera doing the tomahawk and the guy who took his jacket and shirts off to rile up the crowd.
To anyone saying: "yea I did stupid stuff like that as a kid" remember that if you got caught you would have been in major shit.
-
We expect repercussions for the kids b/c they are supposedly good christian boys. I do not believe their lives should be ruined and I do not agree with people searching out and posting their names but I do believe there should be punishment for their actions. Not from me. From their parents and/or school. Regardless of who started what, they engaged. I'm not expecting much, even this would be better than nothing:
"yea we shouldn'ta been little shits there. Calling out "it's not rape if you like it" is not appropriate. And making racists comments isn't in line with our values....we'll learn from this."
I don't expect any real repercussions for the kids because they're white Christian boys.
I also don't believe that their lives should be ruined . . . but also do believe there should be punishment for their actions from their parents and/or school. Given that the boys felt perfectly OK to do what they did, I'd be pretty surprised if such punishment were forthcoming though.
The facts as far as I know (someone correct me if I'm wrong):
- Members of a hate group are harassing teens with racial epithets and homophobic insults.
- Teens react by mocking hate group
- Nathan Philips decides intervenes because he sensed violence.
- Nathan is aware of this sense because he served State side during "Vietnam Times"
- Philips beats his drum into a crowd and is surrounded
- His camera man tells the teens they're white, only know how to be white, and need to go back to Europe
- Teens mock the drum
- Teens (only a few) parody Native Americans
- A twitter account @'2020fight accepted $20 to amplify a tweet
- Tweet says: "This MAGA loser gleefully bothering a Native American protestor at Indigenous Peoples March" with 1 minute snippet of the events
- The Media does a very, very poor job
What punishment would be warranted? How does being white excuse them OR how would a PoC be held to a different standard?
I ask because this seems to be an instance where scrutiny exists only because they're white.
The only reason this is a news story is because of the optics of MAGA hat, a smug grin, and a Native American all involved with a false narrative.
I don't know how you were raised, but can tell you that I'd never have considered publicly mocking a native man.
My mother and father usually took away privileges to play video games, watch TV, use the phone, would have docked my allowance, instituted a curfew, and would have required that I do additional chores as general punishments for acting inappropriately. Turns out this had the fringe benefit of preventing me from acting like a shit in public.
My suspicion is that the behavior seen from the children involved in the public mockery is a reflection of things that their parents find acceptable, which is why I doubt very much that any of the children will be reprimanded for any action.
You are right about one thing though. The MAGA hat did contribute to the outcry regarding this story. Wearing a MAGA hat is effectively an admission of racism. The MAGA hat is the symbol of the unabashed racist currently in the White House. It's similar to flying a confederate flag. Now, technically wearing a MAGA hat or flying a confederate flag doesn't make you a racist. There exist tepid arguments that it's not really about racism . . . and it's just coincidence that racists love and support both symbols wholeheartedly, but they're uniformly disingenuous. A person wearing a swastika is well within his rights to wear that hindu symbol. He's also going to catch a lot of shit when he does something remotely racist. That's completely understandable. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
-
@Kris
It's pretty sad that a lifelong Democrat (me) had to get the real story from The National Review. Believe me, that was the last place I looked for it.
Were you going to apologize then, or no?
Um, to whom? To you? And for what?
Your comments on this forum matter because many thousands of people read it. So: Are you going to apologize to members of this forum (and guests) for your misleading comments about the Covington teenagers? You were smearing teens with a story that was false. You were not advancing the truth. Your comments were painting dweeby teenagers as racist monsters. Are you going to apologize for THAT?
Remember: On page 3, you castigated the 16 year old boy for not apologizing, by suggesting that his refusal to apologize was somehow evidence of nefarious intent. But now, you've also made a mistake, and you're unwilling to apologize to this forum. Do you not find this hypocritical?
Here is your quote again:
If your actual intentions are good, then apologizing ought to be easy. As should be a willingness to accept that your intentions didn't match the actual outcome.
If your reaction is instead defensiveness -- which is a reaction that pulls the attention back on YOU rather than the person you've harmed... well, then yeah, it kind of calls into question your intention in the first place.
@MoMMMy :
The very first thing you said to me – the very first thing that you have said to me ever, I believe – was Reply #171:
“@Kris , for the Covington story, you do not have command of the facts, and as a result you’ve participated in and advanced the smearing of high school kids.
Here’s my suggestion: Watch the longform video with an open mind and decide for yourself. Here's the most complete version I could find. I'm serious, if you actually care about truth -- and I've always thought you did -- then watch the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igFBDp8wCEU
You'll see your mistake. After you confirm that mistake, then by your own standards, outlined on page 3, you should apologize:
[quoting me]
If you really, really don’t want to apologize, and abide by your own standards, then do what the NY Times did, and instead, just talk about how a “Fuller Picture is Emerging” of the story, which is maybe the shittiest non-apology I’ve seen from a reputable media outlet."
As I told you in my reply, I had watched that video. Twice. In fact, everything I have written about the situation beyond posting the link to the shorter video in Reply 105, I have written AFTER having watched the 1h45m video.
And by the way, I had already said that before you ever addressed me. In Reply #128. More than 40 replies before your first time addressing me. I am including the reply number so you can see it, and read it. In that reply, I comment at length on the video you said that I had not yet watched.
So, no. I’m not apologizing.
You, on the other hand, accused me of something that was not true. And which was demonstrably false. And of which there is a record in this very thread. And you insulted me in the bargain. Perhaps you should be the one apologizing to me.
-
Why isn't Nathan Phillips getting more $hit for straight up lying about what happened?
[....]
CNN: What really happened?
Phillips: They were there looking for trouble, looking for something. Everybody knows the right to life and (pro-choice), it’s been like this and they’re hateful to each other. And it’s because I’m a veteran — I’m a Vietnam veteran — that these two groups even have the right in this country to have protests, to have conflicting opinions. If they were doing that, they should’ve done that there and then when they come into public, that wasn’t the place for that. That was a public forum where we was at. We were still under the protection of our permit for the indigenous peoples rally. (Emphasis added.)
If you watch the available video, the first transcript entry is wrong. He says the more ambiguous “Vietnam-times.” I can’t find video of his second statement (CNN apparently aired only excerpts of the larger interview), but why emphasize Vietnam when you didn’t serve there? This is deceptive at best and an outright lie at worst.
Going through your post.
Quick point. Phillips brings up "Vietnam-times" because it was a very divided time. Completely relevant. He's trying to say that he lived through those times (as a Marine reservist) and thus surely experienced conflict based on the uniform he wore for four years.
Throughout his media history, he almost always has been careful to say "Vietnam-times" or "Vietnam-era" when referring to his veteran status. Lazy journalists usually abbreviate this to Vietnam Vet. I think there is one time where he slipped up and calls himself a Vietnam vet. Go ahead, hang him.
-
More on the National Review's take that Phillips's account is a lie.
Having seen several videos, including the 1 hour 46 minute one, which is mainly notable for how long and loud the Black Israelite guy could rant and how many fights he could pick with how many kinds of people in a short time, I think that there was probably a misunderstanding on Phillips's part.
He probably didn't see the hour preceding the events (you can hear the drums in the distance), so he must have first become aware of a mass of a hundred young men shouting and laughing and jumping around. It may have been irking to find that the noise was taking attention away from the rally. Then he saw the youths start to all squat as if they were planning mischief (probably just a big synchronized jump but he didn't know that). So he marched up to them, crooning and banging his drum. Why not use words? I guess that was not his way, and anyway there was so much shouting going on.
How was the behavior of the Covington youths? I'm not sure if the young men were collected at that spot and doing their chants there because they had to wait for their bus exactly there and were bored, or because it was amusing to tweak the all too excitable Black Hebrew guys. It seemed like the kid who took off his shirt was taunting them. Sandmann isn't doing anything worse than standing purposefully in Phillips's way and smirking a little... disrespectful, but disrespect and smirking is what teen boys do. The crowd of youths surrounds the Native Americans. The only voice I could make out with clarity during the Phillips/Sandmann encounter is the angry Native American telling the kids to "go back to Europe" (not good) though in response to what I don't know.
It looks to me as if Phillips is trying to talk to Sandmann with his drum; Sandmann eventually stops smirking and moves away for Phillips to continue his walk.
It's hard to hear their individual voices in the videos... probably most were just chanting their school songs, maybe some were saying hateful things, which would not be surprising in a group of teens. Did they say "Build that wall?" Not implausible given their politics, although it would have been a stupid thing to say to Native Americans, but the videos don't support it... nor do they rule it out.
Lest we let them all off the hook, though, the recorded behavior of at least one young man in the crowd present was very offensive.
https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/status/1087835791269814272
-
They weren't at a Native American rally. They were standing in a public place and a Native American marched up to them carrying a drum.
@Midwest My understanding was that they were on the location for a scheduled Native American rally, and that the March for Life was elsewhere. The Native Americans probably didn't understand that they were waiting for a bus; just saw a mob of MAGA hatted youths hanging around for an hour for no apparent reason.
** my current analysis is that some of the kids were disrespectful and mocking, some were bored and a little hopped up on being in a group outside of school, and nobody knew why they were hanging around so long. That many young men in MAGA hats may have been scary to nonwhite people (if you are white and don't understand, suppose it had been 200 black youths in hoodies milling around and surrounding you.)
-
They weren't at a Native American rally. They were standing in a public place and a Native American marched up to them carrying a drum.
@Midwest My understanding was that they were on the location for a scheduled Native American rally, and that the March for Life was elsewhere. The Native Americans probably didn't understand that they were waiting for a bus; just saw a mob of MAGA hatted youths hanging around for an hour for no apparent reason.
** my current analysis is that some of the kids were disrespectful and mocking, some were bored and a little hopped up on being in a group outside of school, and nobody knew why they were hanging around so long. That many young men in MAGA hats may have been scary to nonwhite people (if you are white and don't understand, suppose it had been 200 black youths in hoodies milling around and surrounding you.)
As a Mexican-American woman (born here to native-born parents), I can confirm that I would be far more afraid of a group of young white men wearing MAGA hats and shouting than I would be of the indigenous groups.
-
Meanwhile your Government is still closed.
Are you all distracted enough by this debacle? Amazing how such an insignificant protest rally comprising a disparate trio of non-intersecting issues has been enough to distract everyone to forget about other more important issues...
-
Meanwhile your Government is still closed.
Are you all distracted enough by this debacle? Amazing how such an insignificant protest rally comprising a disparate trio of non-intersecting issues has been enough to distract everyone to forget about other more important issues...
Generally, adults of average or higher intelligence are able to focus on multiple issues at once.
I agree that this particular issue has been blown out of proportion, but I suspect it has to do with the sense of powerlessness many of us currently feel. I have voted in every election since I was legally able to do so and have worked for years in an organization that promotes voter education and access, but I feel powerless over the fact that grocery chains are posting fliers to inform people that the early SNAP benefits are in fact intended for February and are not extra, and that there may not be any money for March because the giant orange toddler defiling the Oval Office refuses to stop throwing a tantrum over a wall. I feel powerless over the fact that I can't do a goddamned thing about the fact that some government employees are being forced to work without pay under penalty of law. My government and its ability to function are being held hostage by a failed businessman elected by less than half the voting population and an asshole from a fairly small state who currently has outsized and unchecked power in the Senate. There's not a thing I can personally do about that.
Regarding the various groups of idiots at various DC marches last weekend, I have no interest in stirring the pot. I don't know what happened; I wasn't there. I only commented regarding my sense of safety (or lack thereof) as a member of one of the most reviled ethnic minorities (keep in mind that a US-born Mexican-American veteran in my home state was recently slated for deportation based solely on his skin color and name). I suspect that much of the outrage stems from a sense of agency. We can't do a goddamned thing about Trump or McConnell until 2020; however, we can protest racial issues.
-
No matter where you stand on the issue, you have to admit Trump has done a great job uniting the country.
-
They weren't at a Native American rally. They were standing in a public place and a Native American marched up to them carrying a drum.
@Midwest My understanding was that they were on the location for a scheduled Native American rally, and that the March for Life was elsewhere. The Native Americans probably didn't understand that they were waiting for a bus; just saw a mob of MAGA hatted youths hanging around for an hour for no apparent reason.
** my current analysis is that some of the kids were disrespectful and mocking, some were bored and a little hopped up on being in a group outside of school, and nobody knew why they were hanging around so long. That many young men in MAGA hats may have been scary to nonwhite people (if you are white and don't understand, suppose it had been 200 black youths in hoodies milling around and surrounding you.)
I don't doubt that analysis. I'm not sure, however, that the kids intentionally intimidated the Native American Group. Walking into a group for whatever purpose, wasn't the best decision. I think there was some bad decision making on both sides and some misunderstanding.
-
We expect repercussions for the kids b/c they are supposedly good christian boys. I do not believe their lives should be ruined and I do not agree with people searching out and posting their names but I do believe there should be punishment for their actions. Not from me. From their parents and/or school. Regardless of who started what, they engaged. I'm not expecting much, even this would be better than nothing:
"yea we shouldn'ta been little shits there. Calling out "it's not rape if you like it" is not appropriate. And making racists comments isn't in line with our values....we'll learn from this."
If a student said the things in bold, you are correct they should be punished by the school or their parents. Completely agree. The kid at the center of this, is there any proof he said those kind of thing? If not, then why should he apologize and why has he been vilified and singled out?
20, 30 40 kids without parents, with their buddies and then being yelled at by the Black Hebrews, I have little doubt somebody said something they shouldn't. Some of them might have done it without the Black Hebrews interaction, but the furor over this is insane.
There is no if - the bolded was said on video by someone at the front of the group. The kid at the centre of this didn't seem to say anything. But based on the video of him laughing and carrying on, he sure enjoyed it. This was before his "stand-off" with Phillips. He has been singled out because of the first tweet that included a pic of him and his shit-eating grin. That grin showed he knew he was being an arshole but he was doing it anyways and there was nothing anyone could do about it. I don't think it's fair that he is the face of this issue, to be honest, but he's not some angelic student saying a private prayer. We know that much is 100% bullshit.
Since it's hard to say who started what, I'd give the group of them detention for a week or something and make them do a project on not being an arshole in situations like that. If they don't get at least that amount of punishment, they will know they can do this again. Oh, except the guy who said the rape comment - he should get way worse punishment. When I went to catholic school it would have been the strap across his ass - whatever the 2019 version of that is, I suppose. I'd also levy harsher punishments against anyone caught on camera doing the tomahawk and the guy who took his jacket and shirts off to rile up the crowd.
To anyone saying: "yea I did stupid stuff like that as a kid" remember that if you got caught you would have been in major shit.
The kid in the center is on a school trip. He's having a good time. Some of his friends/associates may have said some things they shouldn't. He may or may not have heard them. To the best of my knowledge, there is no video of him doing saying those things. He stands calmly there while some guy marches into his group and beats a drum in his face. He's probably wonder WTF the guy is doing especially with the shitshow that has preceded that (Black Hebrews, shirtless dancing boy). You want him punished because you don't like the look on his face in this confusing situation? Its a confusing situation all around which then went viral without the facts.
-
No matter where you stand on the issue, you have to admit Trump has done a great job uniting the country.
He sure has made racism and sexism perfectly acceptable:
When evidence then emerges that the kids, actually did nothing wrong..
-
They weren't at a Native American rally. They were standing in a public place and a Native American marched up to them carrying a drum.
@Midwest My understanding was that they were on the location for a scheduled Native American rally, and that the March for Life was elsewhere. The Native Americans probably didn't understand that they were waiting for a bus; just saw a mob of MAGA hatted youths hanging around for an hour for no apparent reason.
** my current analysis is that some of the kids were disrespectful and mocking, some were bored and a little hopped up on being in a group outside of school, and nobody knew why they were hanging around so long. That many young men in MAGA hats may have been scary to nonwhite people (if you are white and don't understand, suppose it had been 200 black youths in hoodies milling around and surrounding you.)
I don't doubt that analysis. I'm not sure, however, that the kids intentionally intimidated the Native American Group. Walking into a group for whatever purpose, wasn't the best decision. I think there was some bad decision making on both sides and some misunderstanding.
I don't think the kids intentionally intimidated the Native Americans. I think they were just in a rowdy mood and thought that the Native Americans were some sort of street theater, whereas Phillips and his group were dead serious, thinking that here was a gang of roughs ready to pounce on the Black Israelites. I do think that Sandmann was a little obnoxious... In the same situation, if a procession started to weave its way through my group, I'd move aside for it, just like many of the boys did. On the other hand, maybe he thought he'd been picked for some sort of performance art. I doubt he was praying; that explanation makes me think less of him. Also, I thought that some of the dances and war-whoop like sounds the boys were making (though not clear in the videos) were disrespectful. I'm not sure what the role of an elder is to Native Americans, but would this be like a bishop's procession walking into a group of youths and having them sarcastically crossing themselves and emotionally singing Ave Maria?
-
(reminder that I've been a consistent registered republican and #nevertrump er)
You can criticize Trump for dividing the country, but I'm still not sure the division we're seeing today is worse than if Clinton had won. I think you would have seen the same uncontrollable rage and derangement from the opposition Republicans. You would have seen constant hearings a la Benghazi. There was a large part of this country for whom the very idea that she could be President was simply unfathomable. It took years for the conservative movement to build this atmosphere.
-
(reminder that I've been a consistent registered republican and #nevertrump er)
You can criticize Trump for dividing the country, but I'm still not sure the division we're seeing today is worse than if Clinton had won. I think you would have seen the same uncontrollable rage and derangement from the opposition Republicans. You would have seen constant hearings a la Benghazi. There was a large part of this country for whom the very idea that she could be President was simply unfathomable. It took years for the conservative movement to build this atmosphere.
I agree. I also think there would be a rash of enraged Trumpers shooting liberals in the streets.
-
(reminder that I've been a consistent registered republican and #nevertrump er)
You can criticize Trump for dividing the country, but I'm still not sure the division we're seeing today is worse than if Clinton had won. I think you would have seen the same uncontrollable rage and derangement from the opposition Republicans. You would have seen constant hearings a la Benghazi. There was a large part of this country for whom the very idea that she could be President was simply unfathomable. It took years for the conservative movement to build this atmosphere.
I agree. I also think there would be a rash of enraged Trumpers shooting liberals in the streets.
Why would you say that?
-
(reminder that I've been a consistent registered republican and #nevertrump er)
You can criticize Trump for dividing the country, but I'm still not sure the division we're seeing today is worse than if Clinton had won. I think you would have seen the same uncontrollable rage and derangement from the opposition Republicans. You would have seen constant hearings a la Benghazi. There was a large part of this country for whom the very idea that she could be President was simply unfathomable. It took years for the conservative movement to build this atmosphere.
I agree. I also think there would be a rash of enraged Trumpers shooting liberals in the streets.
Why would you say that?
Because of how badly Trump was repeating over and over that if Hillary won, the election was rigged. He was stopping just short of openly inciting violence in a number of instances in the weeks leading up to the election. I think that her winning would have tipped a few loonies over the edge.
-
(reminder that I've been a consistent registered republican and #nevertrump er)
You can criticize Trump for dividing the country, but I'm still not sure the division we're seeing today is worse than if Clinton had won. I think you would have seen the same uncontrollable rage and derangement from the opposition Republicans. You would have seen constant hearings a la Benghazi. There was a large part of this country for whom the very idea that she could be President was simply unfathomable. It took years for the conservative movement to build this atmosphere.
I agree. I also think there would be a rash of enraged Trumpers shooting liberals in the streets.
Why would you say that?
Because of how badly Trump was repeating over and over that if Hillary won, the election was rigged. He was stopping just short of openly inciting violence in a number of instances in the weeks leading up to the election. I think that her winning would have tipped a few loonies over the edge.
Unfortunately, there's plenty of crazy on both sides at this point as demonstrated by death threat against this kid. Everybody needs to take it down.
-
(reminder that I've been a consistent registered republican and #nevertrump er)
You can criticize Trump for dividing the country, but I'm still not sure the division we're seeing today is worse than if Clinton had won. I think you would have seen the same uncontrollable rage and derangement from the opposition Republicans. You would have seen constant hearings a la Benghazi. There was a large part of this country for whom the very idea that she could be President was simply unfathomable. It took years for the conservative movement to build this atmosphere.
I agree. I also think there would be a rash of enraged Trumpers shooting liberals in the streets.
Why would you say that?
Because of how badly Trump was repeating over and over that if Hillary won, the election was rigged. He was stopping just short of openly inciting violence in a number of instances in the weeks leading up to the election. I think that her winning would have tipped a few loonies over the edge.
Unfortunately, there's plenty of crazy on both sides at this point as demonstrated by death threat against this kid. Everybody needs to take it down.
There are plenty of crazies on both sides. Only the Republicans are explicitly pandering to their crazies though.
-
(reminder that I've been a consistent registered republican and #nevertrump er)
You can criticize Trump for dividing the country, but I'm still not sure the division we're seeing today is worse than if Clinton had won. I think you would have seen the same uncontrollable rage and derangement from the opposition Republicans. You would have seen constant hearings a la Benghazi. There was a large part of this country for whom the very idea that she could be President was simply unfathomable. It took years for the conservative movement to build this atmosphere.
I agree. I also think there would be a rash of enraged Trumpers shooting liberals in the streets.
Why would you say that?
Because of how badly Trump was repeating over and over that if Hillary won, the election was rigged. He was stopping just short of openly inciting violence in a number of instances in the weeks leading up to the election. I think that her winning would have tipped a few loonies over the edge.
Unfortunately, there's plenty of crazy on both sides at this point as demonstrated by death threat against this kid. Everybody needs to take it down.
There are plenty of crazies on both sides. Only the Republicans are explicitly pandering to their crazies though.
Really? Antifa? Everybody needs to take it down a notch (or ten).
-
(reminder that I've been a consistent registered republican and #nevertrump er)
You can criticize Trump for dividing the country, but I'm still not sure the division we're seeing today is worse than if Clinton had won. I think you would have seen the same uncontrollable rage and derangement from the opposition Republicans. You would have seen constant hearings a la Benghazi. There was a large part of this country for whom the very idea that she could be President was simply unfathomable. It took years for the conservative movement to build this atmosphere.
I agree. I also think there would be a rash of enraged Trumpers shooting liberals in the streets.
Why would you say that?
Because of how badly Trump was repeating over and over that if Hillary won, the election was rigged. He was stopping just short of openly inciting violence in a number of instances in the weeks leading up to the election. I think that her winning would have tipped a few loonies over the edge.
Unfortunately, there's plenty of crazy on both sides at this point as demonstrated by death threat against this kid. Everybody needs to take it down.
I'm not talking about whatabouts or false equivalencies. I'm talking about Trump supporters and fanning the flames of violence. And frankly, that there has been a rise in far-right extremism lately, and that's with Trump in office and their side "winning."
-
(reminder that I've been a consistent registered republican and #nevertrump er)
You can criticize Trump for dividing the country, but I'm still not sure the division we're seeing today is worse than if Clinton had won. I think you would have seen the same uncontrollable rage and derangement from the opposition Republicans. You would have seen constant hearings a la Benghazi. There was a large part of this country for whom the very idea that she could be President was simply unfathomable. It took years for the conservative movement to build this atmosphere.
I agree. I also think there would be a rash of enraged Trumpers shooting liberals in the streets.
Why would you say that?
Because of how badly Trump was repeating over and over that if Hillary won, the election was rigged. He was stopping just short of openly inciting violence in a number of instances in the weeks leading up to the election. I think that her winning would have tipped a few loonies over the edge.
Unfortunately, there's plenty of crazy on both sides at this point as demonstrated by death threat against this kid. Everybody needs to take it down.
I'm not talking about whatabouts or false equivalencies. I'm talking about Trump supporters and fanning the flames of violence. And frankly, that there has been a rise in far-right extremism lately, and that's with Trump in office and their side "winning."
If you can't acknowledge the parallel problems on the far right and left, you are part of the problem.
-
(reminder that I've been a consistent registered republican and #nevertrump er)
You can criticize Trump for dividing the country, but I'm still not sure the division we're seeing today is worse than if Clinton had won. I think you would have seen the same uncontrollable rage and derangement from the opposition Republicans. You would have seen constant hearings a la Benghazi. There was a large part of this country for whom the very idea that she could be President was simply unfathomable. It took years for the conservative movement to build this atmosphere.
I agree. I also think there would be a rash of enraged Trumpers shooting liberals in the streets.
Why would you say that?
Because of how badly Trump was repeating over and over that if Hillary won, the election was rigged. He was stopping just short of openly inciting violence in a number of instances in the weeks leading up to the election. I think that her winning would have tipped a few loonies over the edge.
Unfortunately, there's plenty of crazy on both sides at this point as demonstrated by death threat against this kid. Everybody needs to take it down.
There are plenty of crazies on both sides. Only the Republicans are explicitly pandering to their crazies though.
Really? Antifa? Everybody needs to take it down a notch (or ten).
I agreed that there are crazies on both sides. But only Republicans explicitly pander to them.
Trump for example, explicitly panders to neo-nazis.
Which Democrats do the same with Antifa?
-
(reminder that I've been a consistent registered republican and #nevertrump er)
You can criticize Trump for dividing the country, but I'm still not sure the division we're seeing today is worse than if Clinton had won. I think you would have seen the same uncontrollable rage and derangement from the opposition Republicans. You would have seen constant hearings a la Benghazi. There was a large part of this country for whom the very idea that she could be President was simply unfathomable. It took years for the conservative movement to build this atmosphere.
I agree. I also think there would be a rash of enraged Trumpers shooting liberals in the streets.
Why would you say that?
Because of how badly Trump was repeating over and over that if Hillary won, the election was rigged. He was stopping just short of openly inciting violence in a number of instances in the weeks leading up to the election. I think that her winning would have tipped a few loonies over the edge.
Unfortunately, there's plenty of crazy on both sides at this point as demonstrated by death threat against this kid. Everybody needs to take it down.
There are plenty of crazies on both sides. Only the Republicans are explicitly pandering to their crazies though.
Really? Antifa? Everybody needs to take it down a notch (or ten).
I agreed that there are crazies on both sides. But only Republicans explicitly pander to them.
Trump for example, explicitly panders to neo-nazis.
Which Democrats do the same with Antifa?
https://twitter.com/keithellison/status/948657342308147202?lang=en
Let me be clear on this, there are many responsible Democrats appalled by Antifa just as there are many responsible Republicans appalled by persons on the fringes of their party.
-
(reminder that I've been a consistent registered republican and #nevertrump er)
You can criticize Trump for dividing the country, but I'm still not sure the division we're seeing today is worse than if Clinton had won. I think you would have seen the same uncontrollable rage and derangement from the opposition Republicans. You would have seen constant hearings a la Benghazi. There was a large part of this country for whom the very idea that she could be President was simply unfathomable. It took years for the conservative movement to build this atmosphere.
I agree. I also think there would be a rash of enraged Trumpers shooting liberals in the streets.
Why would you say that?
Because of how badly Trump was repeating over and over that if Hillary won, the election was rigged. He was stopping just short of openly inciting violence in a number of instances in the weeks leading up to the election. I think that her winning would have tipped a few loonies over the edge.
Unfortunately, there's plenty of crazy on both sides at this point as demonstrated by death threat against this kid. Everybody needs to take it down.
I'm not talking about whatabouts or false equivalencies. I'm talking about Trump supporters and fanning the flames of violence. And frankly, that there has been a rise in far-right extremism lately, and that's with Trump in office and their side "winning."
If you can't acknowledge the parallel problems on the far right and left, you are part of the problem.
I can acknowledge that there are problems on both sides.
But pretending they are the same in scope and degree is part of the problem.
-
(reminder that I've been a consistent registered republican and #nevertrump er)
You can criticize Trump for dividing the country, but I'm still not sure the division we're seeing today is worse than if Clinton had won. I think you would have seen the same uncontrollable rage and derangement from the opposition Republicans. You would have seen constant hearings a la Benghazi. There was a large part of this country for whom the very idea that she could be President was simply unfathomable. It took years for the conservative movement to build this atmosphere.
I agree. I also think there would be a rash of enraged Trumpers shooting liberals in the streets.
Why would you say that?
Because of how badly Trump was repeating over and over that if Hillary won, the election was rigged. He was stopping just short of openly inciting violence in a number of instances in the weeks leading up to the election. I think that her winning would have tipped a few loonies over the edge.
Unfortunately, there's plenty of crazy on both sides at this point as demonstrated by death threat against this kid. Everybody needs to take it down.
I'm not talking about whatabouts or false equivalencies. I'm talking about Trump supporters and fanning the flames of violence. And frankly, that there has been a rise in far-right extremism lately, and that's with Trump in office and their side "winning."
If you can't acknowledge the parallel problems on the far right and left, you are part of the problem.
I can acknowledge that there are problems on both sides.
But pretending they are the same in scope and degree is part of the problem.
I think you are pretending they aren't similar or equal in size and scope.
In less than 2 minutes I found a pic of a DNC member seemingly supporting Antifa that is less than a month old. That is messed up. I'm sure you could find equally appalling actions on the republican side, but that's not the point. Both sides need to move towards the center and condemn the fringes.
-
(reminder that I've been a consistent registered republican and #nevertrump er)
You can criticize Trump for dividing the country, but I'm still not sure the division we're seeing today is worse than if Clinton had won. I think you would have seen the same uncontrollable rage and derangement from the opposition Republicans. You would have seen constant hearings a la Benghazi. There was a large part of this country for whom the very idea that she could be President was simply unfathomable. It took years for the conservative movement to build this atmosphere.
I agree. I also think there would be a rash of enraged Trumpers shooting liberals in the streets.
Why would you say that?
Because of how badly Trump was repeating over and over that if Hillary won, the election was rigged. He was stopping just short of openly inciting violence in a number of instances in the weeks leading up to the election. I think that her winning would have tipped a few loonies over the edge.
Unfortunately, there's plenty of crazy on both sides at this point as demonstrated by death threat against this kid. Everybody needs to take it down.
I'm not talking about whatabouts or false equivalencies. I'm talking about Trump supporters and fanning the flames of violence. And frankly, that there has been a rise in far-right extremism lately, and that's with Trump in office and their side "winning."
If you can't acknowledge the parallel problems on the far right and left, you are part of the problem.
I can acknowledge that there are problems on both sides.
But pretending they are the same in scope and degree is part of the problem.
I think you are pretending they aren't similar or equal in size and scope.
In less than 2 minutes I found a pic of a DNC member seemingly supporting Antifa that is less than a month old. That is messed up. I'm sure you could find equally appalling actions on the republican side, but that's not the point. Both sides need to move towards the center and condemn the fringes.
Oh, I'm not surprised you don't agree.
But I just wanted to go on record as saying it.
Also, ONE. Also "seemingly."
Lol
-
(reminder that I've been a consistent registered republican and #nevertrump er)
You can criticize Trump for dividing the country, but I'm still not sure the division we're seeing today is worse than if Clinton had won. I think you would have seen the same uncontrollable rage and derangement from the opposition Republicans. You would have seen constant hearings a la Benghazi. There was a large part of this country for whom the very idea that she could be President was simply unfathomable. It took years for the conservative movement to build this atmosphere.
I agree. I also think there would be a rash of enraged Trumpers shooting liberals in the streets.
Why would you say that?
Because of how badly Trump was repeating over and over that if Hillary won, the election was rigged. He was stopping just short of openly inciting violence in a number of instances in the weeks leading up to the election. I think that her winning would have tipped a few loonies over the edge.
Unfortunately, there's plenty of crazy on both sides at this point as demonstrated by death threat against this kid. Everybody needs to take it down.
I'm not talking about whatabouts or false equivalencies. I'm talking about Trump supporters and fanning the flames of violence. And frankly, that there has been a rise in far-right extremism lately, and that's with Trump in office and their side "winning."
If you can't acknowledge the parallel problems on the far right and left, you are part of the problem.
I can acknowledge that there are problems on both sides.
But pretending they are the same in scope and degree is part of the problem.
I think you are pretending they aren't similar or equal in size and scope.
In less than 2 minutes I found a pic of a DNC member seemingly supporting Antifa that is less than a month old. That is messed up. I'm sure you could find equally appalling actions on the republican side, but that's not the point. Both sides need to move towards the center and condemn the fringes.
Oh, I'm not surprised you don't agree.
But I just wanted to go on record as saying it.
Also, ONE. Also "seemingly."
Lol
I didn't do an exhaustive scope, nor was I previously aware of this tweet. The word "seemingly" was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Do you have any exonerating information on his behalf?
I'm sure numerous other examples could be found, just as I'm sure you could find endless examples on the republican side.
If you can't admit both sides have significant issues, you are part of the problem.
-
(reminder that I've been a consistent registered republican and #nevertrump er)
You can criticize Trump for dividing the country, but I'm still not sure the division we're seeing today is worse than if Clinton had won. I think you would have seen the same uncontrollable rage and derangement from the opposition Republicans. You would have seen constant hearings a la Benghazi. There was a large part of this country for whom the very idea that she could be President was simply unfathomable. It took years for the conservative movement to build this atmosphere.
I agree. I also think there would be a rash of enraged Trumpers shooting liberals in the streets.
Why would you say that?
Because of how badly Trump was repeating over and over that if Hillary won, the election was rigged. He was stopping just short of openly inciting violence in a number of instances in the weeks leading up to the election. I think that her winning would have tipped a few loonies over the edge.
Unfortunately, there's plenty of crazy on both sides at this point as demonstrated by death threat against this kid. Everybody needs to take it down.
There are plenty of crazies on both sides. Only the Republicans are explicitly pandering to their crazies though.
Really? Antifa? Everybody needs to take it down a notch (or ten).
I agreed that there are crazies on both sides. But only Republicans explicitly pander to them.
Trump for example, explicitly panders to neo-nazis.
Which Democrats do the same with Antifa?
https://twitter.com/keithellison/status/948657342308147202?lang=en
Let me be clear on this, there are many responsible Democrats appalled by Antifa just as there are many responsible Republicans appalled by persons on the fringes of their party.
Fair enough. Keith Ellison is an idiot for pandering to Antifa.
-
(reminder that I've been a consistent registered republican and #nevertrump er)
You can criticize Trump for dividing the country, but I'm still not sure the division we're seeing today is worse than if Clinton had won. I think you would have seen the same uncontrollable rage and derangement from the opposition Republicans. You would have seen constant hearings a la Benghazi. There was a large part of this country for whom the very idea that she could be President was simply unfathomable. It took years for the conservative movement to build this atmosphere.
I agree. I also think there would be a rash of enraged Trumpers shooting liberals in the streets.
Why would you say that?
Because of how badly Trump was repeating over and over that if Hillary won, the election was rigged. He was stopping just short of openly inciting violence in a number of instances in the weeks leading up to the election. I think that her winning would have tipped a few loonies over the edge.
Unfortunately, there's plenty of crazy on both sides at this point as demonstrated by death threat against this kid. Everybody needs to take it down.
I'm not talking about whatabouts or false equivalencies. I'm talking about Trump supporters and fanning the flames of violence. And frankly, that there has been a rise in far-right extremism lately, and that's with Trump in office and their side "winning."
If you can't acknowledge the parallel problems on the far right and left, you are part of the problem.
I can acknowledge that there are problems on both sides.
But pretending they are the same in scope and degree is part of the problem.
I think you are pretending they aren't similar or equal in size and scope.
In less than 2 minutes I found a pic of a DNC member seemingly supporting Antifa that is less than a month old. That is messed up. I'm sure you could find equally appalling actions on the republican side, but that's not the point. Both sides need to move towards the center and condemn the fringes.
Oh, I'm not surprised you don't agree.
But I just wanted to go on record as saying it.
Also, ONE. Also "seemingly."
Lol
I didn't do an exhaustive scope, nor was I previously aware of this tweet. The word "seemingly" was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Do you have any exonerating information on his behalf?
I'm sure numerous other examples could be found, just as I'm sure you could find endless examples on the republican side.
If you can't admit both sides have significant issues, you are part of the problem.
The Ellison tweet is a year old. If you found it in less than two minutes, my guess is not that you went through his and other politicians' tweets for the past year. My guess is some right-wing site has crowed about it. So, yeah, that's the exception that proves the rule?
As I said, I admit both sides have issues. I just don't admit that the scope or size are equal. As I said above. Already. But even so, you are still saying I "can't admit" both sides have issues.
Since your "if" is untrue, I'm going to ignore the "then" side of your sentence. Because it doesn't apply to me.
-
(reminder that I've been a consistent registered republican and #nevertrump er)
You can criticize Trump for dividing the country, but I'm still not sure the division we're seeing today is worse than if Clinton had won. I think you would have seen the same uncontrollable rage and derangement from the opposition Republicans. You would have seen constant hearings a la Benghazi. There was a large part of this country for whom the very idea that she could be President was simply unfathomable. It took years for the conservative movement to build this atmosphere.
I agree. I also think there would be a rash of enraged Trumpers shooting liberals in the streets.
Why would you say that?
Because of how badly Trump was repeating over and over that if Hillary won, the election was rigged. He was stopping just short of openly inciting violence in a number of instances in the weeks leading up to the election. I think that her winning would have tipped a few loonies over the edge.
Unfortunately, there's plenty of crazy on both sides at this point as demonstrated by death threat against this kid. Everybody needs to take it down.
I'm not talking about whatabouts or false equivalencies. I'm talking about Trump supporters and fanning the flames of violence. And frankly, that there has been a rise in far-right extremism lately, and that's with Trump in office and their side "winning."
If you can't acknowledge the parallel problems on the far right and left, you are part of the problem.
I can acknowledge that there are problems on both sides.
But pretending they are the same in scope and degree is part of the problem.
I think you are pretending they aren't similar or equal in size and scope.
In less than 2 minutes I found a pic of a DNC member seemingly supporting Antifa that is less than a month old. That is messed up. I'm sure you could find equally appalling actions on the republican side, but that's not the point. Both sides need to move towards the center and condemn the fringes.
Oh, I'm not surprised you don't agree.
But I just wanted to go on record as saying it.
Also, ONE. Also "seemingly."
Lol
I didn't do an exhaustive scope, nor was I previously aware of this tweet. The word "seemingly" was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Do you have any exonerating information on his behalf?
I'm sure numerous other examples could be found, just as I'm sure you could find endless examples on the republican side.
If you can't admit both sides have significant issues, you are part of the problem.
The Ellison tweet is a year old. If you found it in less than two minutes, my guess is not that you went through his and other politicians' tweets for the past year. My guess is some right-wing site has crowed about it. So, yeah, that's the exception that proves the rule?
As I said, I admit both sides have issues. I just don't admit that the scope or size are equal. As I said above. Already. But even so, you are still saying I "can't admit" both sides have issues.
Since your "if" is untrue, I'm going to ignore the "then" side of your sentence. Because it doesn't apply to me.
I stand corrected, it is a year old. As to the source, I googled it. I haven't watched cable news for nearly a year nor do I frequent right wing sites as my new source. That was direct from his twitter feed and found quickly with a search of Antifa democrat. I intentionally didn't include any editorial comments as the pic itself says enough as is the fact its still there apparently a year later. WTF.
My "if" is untrue as in both sides don't have significant issues?
-
...snip
I didn't do an exhaustive scope, nor was I previously aware of this tweet. The word "seemingly" was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Do you have any exonerating information on his behalf?
I'm sure numerous other examples could be found, just as I'm sure you could find endless examples on the republican side.
If you can't admit both sides have significant issues, you are part of the problem.
The Ellison tweet is a year old. If you found it in less than two minutes, my guess is not that you went through his and other politicians' tweets for the past year. My guess is some right-wing site has crowed about it. So, yeah, that's the exception that proves the rule?
As I said, I admit both sides have issues. I just don't admit that the scope or size are equal. As I said above. Already. But even so, you are still saying I "can't admit" both sides have issues.
Since your "if" is untrue, I'm going to ignore the "then" side of your sentence. Because it doesn't apply to me.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=keith+ellison+support+antifa&qs=HS&pq=keith+ellison+&sk=HS2&sc=8-14&cvid=6D51117429E14700888DD93EF7F06283&FORM=QBRE&sp=3
Yep, first result is Fox news. Most of the other results are conservative news sites citing the same tweet.
The idea that both sides are on the same level is nonsense. The AG of Minnesota posting about a book he hasn't read does not compare to the president of the US posting false statistics that demonize a particular race or religion, citing false information from conspiracy theory organizations like infowars, and refusing to condemn extremist groups. I don't need to search for examples, he provides them on a regular basis. There are other republicans guilty as well but the main reason many of them have lost my respect is that they condone his behavior.
-
...snip
I didn't do an exhaustive scope, nor was I previously aware of this tweet. The word "seemingly" was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Do you have any exonerating information on his behalf?
I'm sure numerous other examples could be found, just as I'm sure you could find endless examples on the republican side.
If you can't admit both sides have significant issues, you are part of the problem.
The Ellison tweet is a year old. If you found it in less than two minutes, my guess is not that you went through his and other politicians' tweets for the past year. My guess is some right-wing site has crowed about it. So, yeah, that's the exception that proves the rule?
As I said, I admit both sides have issues. I just don't admit that the scope or size are equal. As I said above. Already. But even so, you are still saying I "can't admit" both sides have issues.
Since your "if" is untrue, I'm going to ignore the "then" side of your sentence. Because it doesn't apply to me.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=keith+ellison+support+antifa&qs=HS&pq=keith+ellison+&sk=HS2&sc=8-14&cvid=6D51117429E14700888DD93EF7F06283&FORM=QBRE&sp=3
Yep, first result is Fox news. Most of the other results are conservative news sites citing the same tweet.
The idea that both sides are on the same level is nonsense. The AG of Minnesota posting about a book he hasn't read does not compare to the president of the US posting false statistics that demonize a particular race & religion, citing false information from conspiracy theory organizations like infowars, and refusing to condemn extremist groups. I don't need to search for examples, he provides them on a regular basis. There are other republicans guilty as well but the main reason many of them have lost my respect is that they condone his behavior.
I appreciate that you outed yourself as one of the 11 bing users on the internet to provide us this information. :P
-
(reminder that I've been a consistent registered republican and #nevertrump er)
You can criticize Trump for dividing the country, but I'm still not sure the division we're seeing today is worse than if Clinton had won. I think you would have seen the same uncontrollable rage and derangement from the opposition Republicans. You would have seen constant hearings a la Benghazi. There was a large part of this country for whom the very idea that she could be President was simply unfathomable. It took years for the conservative movement to build this atmosphere.
I agree. I also think there would be a rash of enraged Trumpers shooting liberals in the streets.
Why would you say that?
Because of how badly Trump was repeating over and over that if Hillary won, the election was rigged. He was stopping just short of openly inciting violence in a number of instances in the weeks leading up to the election. I think that her winning would have tipped a few loonies over the edge.
Unfortunately, there's plenty of crazy on both sides at this point as demonstrated by death threat against this kid. Everybody needs to take it down.
I'm not talking about whatabouts or false equivalencies. I'm talking about Trump supporters and fanning the flames of violence. And frankly, that there has been a rise in far-right extremism lately, and that's with Trump in office and their side "winning."
If you can't acknowledge the parallel problems on the far right and left, you are part of the problem.
I can acknowledge that there are problems on both sides.
But pretending they are the same in scope and degree is part of the problem.
I think you are pretending they aren't similar or equal in size and scope.
In less than 2 minutes I found a pic of a DNC member seemingly supporting Antifa that is less than a month old. That is messed up. I'm sure you could find equally appalling actions on the republican side, but that's not the point. Both sides need to move towards the center and condemn the fringes.
Oh, I'm not surprised you don't agree.
But I just wanted to go on record as saying it.
Also, ONE. Also "seemingly."
Lol
I didn't do an exhaustive scope, nor was I previously aware of this tweet. The word "seemingly" was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Do you have any exonerating information on his behalf?
I'm sure numerous other examples could be found, just as I'm sure you could find endless examples on the republican side.
If you can't admit both sides have significant issues, you are part of the problem.
The Ellison tweet is a year old. If you found it in less than two minutes, my guess is not that you went through his and other politicians' tweets for the past year. My guess is some right-wing site has crowed about it. So, yeah, that's the exception that proves the rule?
As I said, I admit both sides have issues. I just don't admit that the scope or size are equal. As I said above. Already. But even so, you are still saying I "can't admit" both sides have issues.
Since your "if" is untrue, I'm going to ignore the "then" side of your sentence. Because it doesn't apply to me.
I stand corrected, it is a year old. As to the source, I googled it. I haven't watched cable news for nearly a year nor do I frequent right wing sites as my new source. That was direct from his twitter feed and found quickly with a search of Antifa democrat. I intentionally didn't include any editorial comments as the pic itself says enough as is the fact its still there apparently a year later. WTF.
My "if" is untrue as in both sides don't have significant issues?
Reread your own sentence.
-
...snip
I didn't do an exhaustive scope, nor was I previously aware of this tweet. The word "seemingly" was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Do you have any exonerating information on his behalf?
I'm sure numerous other examples could be found, just as I'm sure you could find endless examples on the republican side.
If you can't admit both sides have significant issues, you are part of the problem.
The Ellison tweet is a year old. If you found it in less than two minutes, my guess is not that you went through his and other politicians' tweets for the past year. My guess is some right-wing site has crowed about it. So, yeah, that's the exception that proves the rule?
As I said, I admit both sides have issues. I just don't admit that the scope or size are equal. As I said above. Already. But even so, you are still saying I "can't admit" both sides have issues.
Since your "if" is untrue, I'm going to ignore the "then" side of your sentence. Because it doesn't apply to me.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=keith+ellison+support+antifa&qs=HS&pq=keith+ellison+&sk=HS2&sc=8-14&cvid=6D51117429E14700888DD93EF7F06283&FORM=QBRE&sp=3
Yep, first result is Fox news. Most of the other results are conservative news sites citing the same tweet.
The idea that both sides are on the same level is nonsense. The AG of Minnesota posting about a book he hasn't read does not compare to the president of the US posting false statistics that demonize a particular race & religion, citing false information from conspiracy theory organizations like infowars, and refusing to condemn extremist groups. I don't need to search for examples, he provides them on a regular basis. There are other republicans guilty as well but the main reason many of them have lost my respect is that they condone his behavior.
I appreciate that you outed yourself as one of the 11 bing users on the internet to provide us this information. :P
It was a shameless effort to make fox the number one result. Google brought it in at number 3 or so and that just didn't have the same effect.
Just Bing it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHuZ5qrYX4
-
(reminder that I've been a consistent registered republican and #nevertrump er)
You can criticize Trump for dividing the country, but I'm still not sure the division we're seeing today is worse than if Clinton had won. I think you would have seen the same uncontrollable rage and derangement from the opposition Republicans. You would have seen constant hearings a la Benghazi. There was a large part of this country for whom the very idea that she could be President was simply unfathomable. It took years for the conservative movement to build this atmosphere.
I agree. I also think there would be a rash of enraged Trumpers shooting liberals in the streets.
Why would you say that?
Because of how badly Trump was repeating over and over that if Hillary won, the election was rigged. He was stopping just short of openly inciting violence in a number of instances in the weeks leading up to the election. I think that her winning would have tipped a few loonies over the edge.
Unfortunately, there's plenty of crazy on both sides at this point as demonstrated by death threat against this kid. Everybody needs to take it down.
I'm not talking about whatabouts or false equivalencies. I'm talking about Trump supporters and fanning the flames of violence. And frankly, that there has been a rise in far-right extremism lately, and that's with Trump in office and their side "winning."
If you can't acknowledge the parallel problems on the far right and left, you are part of the problem.
I can acknowledge that there are problems on both sides.
But pretending they are the same in scope and degree is part of the problem.
+1
-
We expect repercussions for the kids b/c they are supposedly good christian boys. I do not believe their lives should be ruined and I do not agree with people searching out and posting their names but I do believe there should be punishment for their actions. Not from me. From their parents and/or school. Regardless of who started what, they engaged. I'm not expecting much, even this would be better than nothing:
"yea we shouldn'ta been little shits there. Calling out "it's not rape if you like it" is not appropriate. And making racists comments isn't in line with our values....we'll learn from this."
If a student said the things in bold, you are correct they should be punished by the school or their parents. Completely agree. The kid at the center of this, is there any proof he said those kind of thing? If not, then why should he apologize and why has he been vilified and singled out?
20, 30 40 kids without parents, with their buddies and then being yelled at by the Black Hebrews, I have little doubt somebody said something they shouldn't. Some of them might have done it without the Black Hebrews interaction, but the furor over this is insane.
There is no if - the bolded was said on video by someone at the front of the group. The kid at the centre of this didn't seem to say anything. But based on the video of him laughing and carrying on, he sure enjoyed it. This was before his "stand-off" with Phillips. He has been singled out because of the first tweet that included a pic of him and his shit-eating grin. That grin showed he knew he was being an arshole but he was doing it anyways and there was nothing anyone could do about it. I don't think it's fair that he is the face of this issue, to be honest, but he's not some angelic student saying a private prayer. We know that much is 100% bullshit.
Since it's hard to say who started what, I'd give the group of them detention for a week or something and make them do a project on not being an arshole in situations like that. If they don't get at least that amount of punishment, they will know they can do this again. Oh, except the guy who said the rape comment - he should get way worse punishment. When I went to catholic school it would have been the strap across his ass - whatever the 2019 version of that is, I suppose. I'd also levy harsher punishments against anyone caught on camera doing the tomahawk and the guy who took his jacket and shirts off to rile up the crowd.
To anyone saying: "yea I did stupid stuff like that as a kid" remember that if you got caught you would have been in major shit.
The kid in the center is on a school trip. He's having a good time. Some of his friends/associates may have said some things they shouldn't. He may or may not have heard them. To the best of my knowledge, there is no video of him doing saying those things. He stands calmly there while some guy marches into his group and beats a drum in his face. He's probably wonder WTF the guy is doing especially with the shitshow that has preceded that (Black Hebrews, shirtless dancing boy). You want him punished because you don't like the look on his face in this confusing situation? Its a confusing situation all around which then went viral without the facts.
Yep. All of them punished for engaging with BHI at all. BHI stood in one place spewing their shit and the MAGA kids surrounded them. There's a good lesson here for these kids to be taught about not engaging with dickheads spewing bullshit.
That was not a confused look. That was a shit-eating grin. I'm not saying he gets punishment for the grin, I'm saying he gets the same punishment as the rest of his school mates for engaging at all. And then the ones who did more, get more punishment.
Honestly, it's like you didn't even read my post. Instead you picked out a couple things to argue about - some of which are things I didn't actually say, like he should be punished for the grin.
-
We expect repercussions for the kids b/c they are supposedly good christian boys. I do not believe their lives should be ruined and I do not agree with people searching out and posting their names but I do believe there should be punishment for their actions. Not from me. From their parents and/or school. Regardless of who started what, they engaged. I'm not expecting much, even this would be better than nothing:
"yea we shouldn'ta been little shits there. Calling out "it's not rape if you like it" is not appropriate. And making racists comments isn't in line with our values....we'll learn from this."
If a student said the things in bold, you are correct they should be punished by the school or their parents. Completely agree. The kid at the center of this, is there any proof he said those kind of thing? If not, then why should he apologize and why has he been vilified and singled out?
20, 30 40 kids without parents, with their buddies and then being yelled at by the Black Hebrews, I have little doubt somebody said something they shouldn't. Some of them might have done it without the Black Hebrews interaction, but the furor over this is insane.
There is no if - the bolded was said on video by someone at the front of the group. The kid at the centre of this didn't seem to say anything. But based on the video of him laughing and carrying on, he sure enjoyed it. This was before his "stand-off" with Phillips. He has been singled out because of the first tweet that included a pic of him and his shit-eating grin. That grin showed he knew he was being an arshole but he was doing it anyways and there was nothing anyone could do about it. I don't think it's fair that he is the face of this issue, to be honest, but he's not some angelic student saying a private prayer. We know that much is 100% bullshit.
Since it's hard to say who started what, I'd give the group of them detention for a week or something and make them do a project on not being an arshole in situations like that. If they don't get at least that amount of punishment, they will know they can do this again. Oh, except the guy who said the rape comment - he should get way worse punishment. When I went to catholic school it would have been the strap across his ass - whatever the 2019 version of that is, I suppose. I'd also levy harsher punishments against anyone caught on camera doing the tomahawk and the guy who took his jacket and shirts off to rile up the crowd.
To anyone saying: "yea I did stupid stuff like that as a kid" remember that if you got caught you would have been in major shit.
The kid in the center is on a school trip. He's having a good time. Some of his friends/associates may have said some things they shouldn't. He may or may not have heard them. To the best of my knowledge, there is no video of him doing saying those things. He stands calmly there while some guy marches into his group and beats a drum in his face. He's probably wonder WTF the guy is doing especially with the shitshow that has preceded that (Black Hebrews, shirtless dancing boy). You want him punished because you don't like the look on his face in this confusing situation? Its a confusing situation all around which then went viral without the facts.
Yep. All of them punished for engaging with BHI at all. BHI stood in one place spewing their shit and the MAGA kids surrounded them. There's a good lesson here for these kids to be taught about not engaging with dickheads spewing bullshit.
That was not a confused look. That was a shit-eating grin. I'm not saying he gets punishment for the grin, I'm saying he gets the same punishment as the rest of his school mates for engaging at all. And then the ones who did more, get more punishment.
Honestly, it's like you didn't even read my post. Instead you picked out a couple things to argue about - some of which are things I didn't actually say, like he should be punished for the grin.
I read your post and if he participated in bad behavior before or after the Native American exchange, he should be punished by his parents or the school. Not publicly shamed, no death threats, but that's not how this went.
The look on his face however, has drawn the ire of many and has resulted in the mob insanity against these kids.
-
I read your post and if he participated in bad behavior before or after the Native American exchange, he should be punished by his parents or the school. Not publicly shamed, no death threats, but that's not how this went.
The look on his face however, has drawn the ire of many and has resulted in the mob insanity against these kids.
Context is important. The kid was wearing a MAGA hat while doing what he was doing, which significantly changes the context of the look on his face.
As previously posted:
Wearing a MAGA hat is effectively an admission of racism. The MAGA hat is the symbol of the unabashed racist currently in the White House. It's similar to flying a confederate flag. Now, technically wearing a MAGA hat or flying a confederate flag doesn't make you a racist. There exist tepid arguments that it's not really about racism . . . and it's just coincidence that racists love and support both symbols wholeheartedly, but they're uniformly disingenuous. A person wearing a swastika is well within his rights to wear that hindu symbol. He's also going to catch a lot of shit when he does something remotely racist. That's completely understandable. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
-
We expect repercussions for the kids b/c they are supposedly good christian boys. I do not believe their lives should be ruined and I do not agree with people searching out and posting their names but I do believe there should be punishment for their actions. Not from me. From their parents and/or school. Regardless of who started what, they engaged. I'm not expecting much, even this would be better than nothing:
"yea we shouldn'ta been little shits there. Calling out "it's not rape if you like it" is not appropriate. And making racists comments isn't in line with our values....we'll learn from this."
If a student said the things in bold, you are correct they should be punished by the school or their parents. Completely agree. The kid at the center of this, is there any proof he said those kind of thing? If not, then why should he apologize and why has he been vilified and singled out?
20, 30 40 kids without parents, with their buddies and then being yelled at by the Black Hebrews, I have little doubt somebody said something they shouldn't. Some of them might have done it without the Black Hebrews interaction, but the furor over this is insane.
There is no if - the bolded was said on video by someone at the front of the group. The kid at the centre of this didn't seem to say anything. But based on the video of him laughing and carrying on, he sure enjoyed it. This was before his "stand-off" with Phillips. He has been singled out because of the first tweet that included a pic of him and his shit-eating grin. That grin showed he knew he was being an arshole but he was doing it anyways and there was nothing anyone could do about it. I don't think it's fair that he is the face of this issue, to be honest, but he's not some angelic student saying a private prayer. We know that much is 100% bullshit.
Since it's hard to say who started what, I'd give the group of them detention for a week or something and make them do a project on not being an arshole in situations like that. If they don't get at least that amount of punishment, they will know they can do this again. Oh, except the guy who said the rape comment - he should get way worse punishment. When I went to catholic school it would have been the strap across his ass - whatever the 2019 version of that is, I suppose. I'd also levy harsher punishments against anyone caught on camera doing the tomahawk and the guy who took his jacket and shirts off to rile up the crowd.
To anyone saying: "yea I did stupid stuff like that as a kid" remember that if you got caught you would have been in major shit.
The kid in the center is on a school trip. He's having a good time. Some of his friends/associates may have said some things they shouldn't. He may or may not have heard them. To the best of my knowledge, there is no video of him doing saying those things. He stands calmly there while some guy marches into his group and beats a drum in his face. He's probably wonder WTF the guy is doing especially with the shitshow that has preceded that (Black Hebrews, shirtless dancing boy). You want him punished because you don't like the look on his face in this confusing situation? Its a confusing situation all around which then went viral without the facts.
Yep. All of them punished for engaging with BHI at all. BHI stood in one place spewing their shit and the MAGA kids surrounded them. There's a good lesson here for these kids to be taught about not engaging with dickheads spewing bullshit.
That was not a confused look. That was a shit-eating grin. I'm not saying he gets punishment for the grin, I'm saying he gets the same punishment as the rest of his school mates for engaging at all. And then the ones who did more, get more punishment.
Honestly, it's like you didn't even read my post. Instead you picked out a couple things to argue about - some of which are things I didn't actually say, like he should be punished for the grin.
I read your post and if he participated in bad behavior before or after the Native American exchange, he should be punished by his parents or the school. Not publicly shamed, no death threats, but that's not how this went.
The look on his face however, has drawn the ire of many and has resulted in the mob insanity against these kids.
On that we agree. The public shaming was/is too much. I agree with public shaming / name finding / people getting fired for adults, like the guy who kept asking the black family for ID at their own community pool. But not for kids being a bunch of arsholes.
-
On that we agree. The public shaming was/is too much. I agree with public shaming / name finding / people getting fired for adults, like the guy who kept asking the black family for ID at their own community pool. But not for kids being a bunch of arsholes.
I generally disagree with public shaming for minor indiscretions. It seems to be guilty until proven innocent, indiscriminate as to who it applies to, and rarely does the punishment fit the crime.
The mob wants to ruin peoples lives over minor things in many cases. My social media footprint is very small for many reasons one of which is the reputation risk greatly outweighs the reward.
PS - I think Trump should get the hell off twitter as well.
-
A good way to view these conflicts, is switch around the races of the players, and see how you react. Like I said, what if it had been 200 black youths waiting for a bus, many wearing, I don't know, let's say Antifa T-shirts, surrounding 4 white men who turn out later to be Westboro Baptist church members. They're making noise, a little wild. Then a priest starts to lead a procession through the crowd, swinging his censer and singing a hymn of peace. One boy holds his ground in front of the priest, who is still singing and swinging. The boy is grinning and some of his peers are pretending to pray, some are singing along with the hymn either seriously or mockingly, and others are just dancing around or looking confused, because where did this priest come from?
Yep. All of them punished for engaging with BHI at all. BHI stood in one place spewing their shit and the MAGA kids surrounded them. There's a good lesson here for these kids to be taught about not engaging with dickheads spewing bullshit.
Here's what I'd like to see come out of this (though it may not):
1. School assembly and discussions on how and when to engage with the community in public, and how wearing political clothing, although protected speech, is more than a fashion statement.
2. Discipline and retraining of chaperones regarding point #1
3. Signed letter from several students to Phillips, apologizing for any disrespect shown. Sandmann could simply note that as a younger person he should have shown respect to a senior by moving out of his way, and will do better next time such a situation arises.
4. Gracious acknowledgement by Phillips and a statement of regret for the misunderstanding of the youths' intentions.
5. Apology from Phillips Native American associate for his statements to one of the boys, unless it was in response to a racist comment. In which case the young man should step up and own his part.
6. Apologies from media of BOTH left and right for vilifying the players in the conflict. Better media practices and better consumption habits (keep dreaming!)
7. A meeting between Native Americans and the high school students, hopefully resulting in better understanding of one another.
-
Here's what I'd like to see come out of this (though it may not):
1. School assembly and discussions on how and when to engage with the community in public, and how wearing political clothing, although protected speech, is more than a fashion statement.
2. Discipline and retraining of chaperones regarding point #1
3. Signed letter from several students to Phillips, apologizing for any disrespect shown. Sandmann could simply note that as a younger person he should have shown respect to a senior by moving out of his way, and will do better next time such a situation arises.
4. Gracious acknowledgement by Phillips and a statement of regret for the misunderstanding of the youths' intentions.
5. Apology from Phillips Native American associate for his statements to one of the boys, unless it was in response to a racist comment. In which case the young man should step up and own his part.
6. Apologies from media of BOTH left and right for vilifying the players in the conflict. Better media practices and better consumption habits (keep dreaming!)
7. A meeting between Native Americans and the high school students, hopefully resulting in better understanding of one another.
This is what ought to have happened all along. And to be fair, step 1 might have been on its way of coming, given that the school and diocese issued a statement apologizing very quickly.
-
On that we agree. The public shaming was/is too much. I agree with public shaming / name finding / people getting fired for adults, like the guy who kept asking the black family for ID at their own community pool. But not for kids being a bunch of arsholes.
I generally disagree with public shaming for minor indiscretions. It seems to be guilty until proven innocent, indiscriminate as to who it applies to, and rarely does the punishment fit the crime.
The mob wants to ruin peoples lives over minor things in many cases. My social media footprint is very small for many reasons one of which is the reputation risk greatly outweighs the reward.
PS - I think Trump should get the hell off twitter as well.
I think the current overuse of public shaming (if there is one) is an understandable over correction in response to the lack of consequences for bad behavior for certain people and that fixing that lack of consequences will fix the over correction.
-
Here's what I'd like to see come out of this (though it may not):
1. School assembly and discussions on how and when to engage with the community in public, and how wearing political clothing, although protected speech, is more than a fashion statement.
2. Discipline and retraining of chaperones regarding point #1
3. Signed letter from several students to Phillips, apologizing for any disrespect shown. Sandmann could simply note that as a younger person he should have shown respect to a senior by moving out of his way, and will do better next time such a situation arises.
4. Gracious acknowledgement by Phillips and a statement of regret for the misunderstanding of the youths' intentions.
5. Apology from Phillips Native American associate for his statements to one of the boys, unless it was in response to a racist comment. In which case the young man should step up and own his part.
6. Apologies from media of BOTH left and right for vilifying the players in the conflict. Better media practices and better consumption habits (keep dreaming!)
7. A meeting between Native Americans and the high school students, hopefully resulting in better understanding of one another.
This is what ought to have happened all along. And to be fair, step 1 might have been on its way of coming, given that the school and diocese issued a statement apologizing very quickly.
I completely agree with all points above. That would go along way to show that both sides are looking to move forward and learn from the interaction.
-
Here's what I'd like to see come out of this (though it may not):
1. School assembly and discussions on how and when to engage with the community in public, and how wearing political clothing, although protected speech, is more than a fashion statement.
2. Discipline and retraining of chaperones regarding point #1
3. Signed letter from several students to Phillips, apologizing for any disrespect shown. Sandmann could simply note that as a younger person he should have shown respect to a senior by moving out of his way, and will do better next time such a situation arises.
4. Gracious acknowledgement by Phillips and a statement of regret for the misunderstanding of the youths' intentions.
5. Apology from Phillips Native American associate for his statements to one of the boys, unless it was in response to a racist comment. In which case the young man should step up and own his part.
6. Apologies from media of BOTH left and right for vilifying the players in the conflict. Better media practices and better consumption habits (keep dreaming!)
7. A meeting between Native Americans and the high school students, hopefully resulting in better understanding of one another.
This is what ought to have happened all along. And to be fair, step 1 might have been on its way of coming, given that the school and diocese issued a statement apologizing very quickly.
I completely agree with all points above. That would go along way to show that both sides are looking to move forward and learn from the interaction.
Local reporting talked about how a Trump supporter and Native American were at Cov Cath and decided to shake hands and sit down to have a conversation. It's good to see that.
-
Wearing a MAGA hat is effectively an admission of racism. The MAGA hat is the symbol of the unabashed racist currently in the White House. It's similar to flying a confederate flag.
That's absurb.
-
Wearing a MAGA hat is effectively an admission of racism. The MAGA hat is the symbol of the unabashed racist currently in the White House. It's similar to flying a confederate flag.
That's absurb.
You can find a picture of a black dude with a confederate flag too . . . but it doesn't change the well established meaning of the symbol.
As mentioned in my post, when you associate with a symbol of racism and then do something publicly that seems racist you will likely get some backlash. I have no problem with people wearing symbols of hate like a MAGA hat or a swastika . . . but I do take issue with the pretense of surprise when the public is suspicious of their intentions.
-
Wearing a MAGA hat is effectively an admission of racism. The MAGA hat is the symbol of the unabashed racist currently in the White House. It's similar to flying a confederate flag.
That's absurb.
You can find a picture of a black dude with a confederate flag too . . . but it doesn't change the well established meaning of the symbol.
As mentioned in my post, when you associate with a symbol of racism and then do something publicly that seems racist you will likely get some backlash. I have no problem with people wearing symbols of hate like a MAGA hat or a swastika . . . but I do take issue with the pretense of surprise when the public is suspicious of their intentions.
Mark Robinson is a well know conspiracy theorist gun nut who rips on gays, spews anti-Muslim rehetoric. Any one who disagrees with him is a Marxist. For fun tin foil hat reading check out his views on the Black Panther movie. I think the MAGA hat and tin foil hat are interchangeable. I guess DreamFIRE was trying to prove you right?
-
MAGA - More Are Getting Arrested
-
Wearing a MAGA hat is effectively an admission of racism. The MAGA hat is the symbol of the unabashed racist currently in the White House. It's similar to flying a confederate flag.
That's absurb.
You can find a picture of a black dude with a confederate flag too . . . but it doesn't change the well established meaning of the symbol.
As mentioned in my post, when you associate with a symbol of racism and then do something publicly that seems racist you will likely get some backlash. I have no problem with people wearing symbols of hate like a MAGA hat or a swastika . . . but I do take issue with the pretense of surprise when the public is suspicious of their intentions.
Mark Robinson is a well know conspiracy theorist gun nut who rips on gays, spews anti-Muslim rehetoric. Any one who disagrees with him is a Marxist.
The way you are down-talking this black man makes you sound racist.
The point I was trying to make was that MAGA is a pro-American message that has nothing to do with racism.
-
Wearing a MAGA hat is effectively an admission of racism. The MAGA hat is the symbol of the unabashed racist currently in the White House. It's similar to flying a confederate flag.
That's absurb.
You can find a picture of a black dude with a confederate flag too . . . but it doesn't change the well established meaning of the symbol.
I have no problem with people wearing symbols of hate like a MAGA hat or a swastika
The point I'm trying to make is that MAGA is a pro-American message that has nothing to do with racism. Since you're Canadian, I guess you wouldn't look favorably on anything pro-American, so it make sense. Confederate flags and swastikas have no relevance.
-
The way you are down-talking this black man makes you sound racist.
I talked about his views, not about his skin color. You associating it with his skin color doesn't make me sound racist.
-
The way you are down-talking this black man makes you sound racist.
I talked about his views, not about his skin color. You associating it with his skin color doesn't make me sound racist.
This meme is even more ridiculous when you look at it without reference to race - the MAGA dude is accusing Alyssa Milano of being a pedophile rapist...
-
This is the only one I could find, but there was similar graffitti on a jewish center in a college as well. Same type of stuff.
http://www.dbknews.com/2017/04/18/trump-chalking-umd-stamp/
There has definitely been an uptick in hate crime since Trump has been elected.
http://msmagazine.com/blog/2018/12/03/hate-crimes-increasing-likely-realize/
https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-04-20/they-spewed-hate-then-they-punctuated-it-president-s-name
When many of these hate crimes are committed, there is reference to Trump, including Maga.
Maybe you need to tell these people, since they didn't get the message?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nr2LWcsTCE
-
What really sucks is the term "racist" or "racism" has been used so freely in bullshit political banter that it has lost it's meaning. It holds the same value as "you're mean" today. We all know whoever brings it up first is a virtue signalling weirdo.
-
What really sucks is the term "racist" or "racism" has been used so freely in bullshit political banter that it has lost it's meaning. It holds the same value as "you're mean" today. We all know whoever brings it up first is a virtue signalling weirdo.
Hm.
So, racism isn’t real anymore? It’s just a bunch of people wanting to feel smug?
-
What really sucks is the term "racist" or "racism" has been used so freely in bullshit political banter that it has lost it's meaning. It holds the same value as "you're mean" today. We all know whoever brings it up first is a virtue signalling weirdo.
You're not kidding. That's true 99% of the time. Those on the left use the term as a common talking point to try to shut down those they don't agree with, when racism has nothing to do with the point being discussed. It's easier for them to resort to insults and attacks than to try to come up with a rational argument. When someone states that "making America great" is racist, that's absolutely ridiculous. I'm not sure how any patriotic American could think such a thing for real, so it's the partisan B.S. or anti-American rhetoric talking.
-
What really sucks is the term "racist" or "racism" has been used so freely in bullshit political banter that it has lost it's meaning. It holds the same value as "you're mean" today. We all know whoever brings it up first is a virtue signalling weirdo.
You're not kidding. That's true 99% of the time. Those on the left use the term as a common talking point to try to shut down those they don't agree with, when racism has nothing to do with the point being discussed. It's easier for them to resort to insults and attacks than to try to come up with a rational argument. When someone states that "making America great" is racist, that's absolutely ridiculous. I'm not sure how any patriotic American could think such a thing for real, so it's the partisan B.S. or anti-American rhetoric talking.
When was America great? I mean, what time period are we talking about going back to?
-
What really sucks is the term "racist" or "racism" has been used so freely in bullshit political banter that it has lost it's meaning. It holds the same value as "you're mean" today. We all know whoever brings it up first is a virtue signalling weirdo.
I'm not sure how any patriotic American could think such a thing for real, so it's the partisan B.S. or anti-American rhetoric talking.
One must appreciate the irony.
-
What really sucks is the term "racist" or "racism" has been used so freely in bullshit political banter that it has lost it's meaning. It holds the same value as "you're mean" today. We all know whoever brings it up first is a virtue signalling weirdo.
Move over everyone, heavy hitter coming through. Anyone wondered why it was OK for some March Leaders to openly support anti-Semites and say hateful things against Jews?
Racism today is defined as uni-directional and only possible from white to minorities (namely ONLY blacks, latinos, "browns") , ie, blacks could never be racist to whites by their definition. Quite convenient isn't it?
This, of course, is utter bullshit. The racism rule must be the same for everyone for the word to actually carry weight again. This is a case of "trojan horse words", activists took words that had one meaning and twisted them to fit their own narratives. Many more of these trojan horse words exist today, for example, inclusion, equity, etc.
Now back to the incident itself:
1. Phillips was a marine, his record was less than stellar, but he did serve for 4 years nonetheless.
2. There has been no discernible audio implicating the kids chanting build the/that wall, weeks after the incident took place. I think we can lay this accusation to rest, if one wishes to prove it actually happened, let them present the evidence, and not just the chant was "Not implausible given their politics, but the videos don't ... rule it out."
3. MAGA hats is a symbol of hate to some people. This I fully understand, but do not project your own feelings to how everyone thinks. As an individual, I will accept the hat to be a symbol of hate if and when their supporters carried out their version of "final solution" and murdered millions of minorities for no reason other than their race and gender and sexual orientation.
4. Some kids looked like were doing chops with their hands, I don't support that.
5. The man that shouted for whites to go back to Europe, I will do you one better: EVERYONE GO BACK TO AFRICA WHERE WE ALL CAME FROM.
6. Walking up to someone and beating a drum in their face is not ok. That's textbook behavior of being confrontational and looking for trouble.
7. Sandman did not make way for Phillips. Why should he? He knew nothing about the man that approached him, why did he need to move and make way for this person?
8. The lawsuits (so i have been told) are coming, that ought to be quite entertaining.
-
2. There has been no discernible audio implicating the kids chanting build the/that wall, weeks after the incident took place. I think we can lay this accusation to rest, if one wishes to prove it actually happened, let them present the evidence, and not just the chant was "Not implausible given their politics, but the videos don't ... rule it out."
This was posted earlier. Some of the same kids harassing a couple girls. "Build the wall" is clearly heard. So is "slut!"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/covington-catholic-high-school-nathan-philips-video-nick-sandman-native-american-man-maga-trump-a8740876.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/covington-catholic-high-school-nathan-philips-video-nick-sandman-native-american-man-maga-trump-a8740876.html)
Edit to add you'll need the scroll down to the 8 second video clip. It's not the main video that pops up.
-
2. There has been no discernible audio implicating the kids chanting build the/that wall, weeks after the incident took place. I think we can lay this accusation to rest, if one wishes to prove it actually happened, let them present the evidence, and not just the chant was "Not implausible given their politics, but the videos don't ... rule it out."
This was posted earlier. Some of the same kids harassing a couple girls. "Build the wall" is clearly heard. So is "slut!"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/covington-catholic-high-school-nathan-philips-video-nick-sandman-native-american-man-maga-trump-a8740876.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/covington-catholic-high-school-nathan-philips-video-nick-sandman-native-american-man-maga-trump-a8740876.html)
Edit to add you'll need the scroll down to the 8 second video clip. It's not the main video that pops up.
I saw the video the day it came out. I think based on the hats (not red maga hats but the white/blue hats) those are likely kids from covington. I did not however, hear "build the wall". I heard "Who*e", which would fit nicely with the "sl*t" insult. It also doesnt make much sense to say build the wall to the girls.
-
2. There has been no discernible audio implicating the kids chanting build the/that wall, weeks after the incident took place. I think we can lay this accusation to rest, if one wishes to prove it actually happened, let them present the evidence, and not just the chant was "Not implausible given their politics, but the videos don't ... rule it out."
This was posted earlier. Some of the same kids harassing a couple girls. "Build the wall" is clearly heard. So is "slut!"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/covington-catholic-high-school-nathan-philips-video-nick-sandman-native-american-man-maga-trump-a8740876.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/covington-catholic-high-school-nathan-philips-video-nick-sandman-native-american-man-maga-trump-a8740876.html)
Edit to add you'll need the scroll down to the 8 second video clip. It's not the main video that pops up.
I saw the video the day it came out. I think based on the hats (not red maga hats but the white/blue hats) those are likely kids from covington. I did not however, hear "build the wall". I heard "Who*e", which would fit nicely with the "sl*t" insult. It also doesnt make much sense to say build the wall to the girls.
You are right it doesn't make sense. But it doesn't make sense to say "MAGA" either. Problem is the girls were long past the kids and we have no ideal what sort of exchange leading up to this point. My guess is it was nasty enough the girls felt the need to record. I've stopped it at various times and slowed it down/slow reverse and can see 3 kids yelling (have their hands around their mouths) and can make out 3 red MAGA hats, a couple white hats and 1 blue hat. It's a bit difficult to make out among the yelling but you can hear "build the wall" with "the wall" being very prominent.
-
This is what I heard off the 8 sec video, without using any fancy voice analytic software:
Boys: "NOW" "FAGG*T" "What a WHO*E" "Sl*t"
Girls to themselves: "(mockingly) MAGA" "I am so tired of this already" "Yaaa"
I think what sounded "what a who*e" to me sounded like "build a wall" to you and the prominent part sound like "Who*e". I also did not hear "maga" from the boys. The presence of both red and white/blue hats to me means those were very likely a group of Covington boys. The white/blue hat is quite unique to Covington.
EDIT: I want to reiterate my main point on Holocaust Memorial Day. In this incident, Sandman was vilified for no reason, at least not by any objective standard. MAGA hats is a symbol of hate to some people. This I fully understand, but do not project your own feelings to how everyone should think. As an individual, I will accept the hat to be a symbol of hate if and when their supporters carried out their version of "final solution" and murdered millions of minorities for no reason other than their race and gender and sexual orientation. Until that happens, take your religion and get out of my face.
-
Saw this over the weekend and thought it relates well to last week's videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxxKUikZ7YY&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxxKUikZ7YY&feature=youtu.be)
-
I want to reiterate my main point on Holocaust Memorial Day. In this incident, Sandman was vilified for no reason, at least not by any objective standard. MAGA hats is a symbol of hate to some people. This I fully understand, but do not project your own feelings to how everyone should think. As an individual, I will accept the hat to be a symbol of hate if and when their supporters carried out their version of "final solution" and murdered millions of minorities for no reason other than their race and gender and sexual orientation.Until that happens, take your religion and get out of my face.
Genocide is the only form of hate that you accept as legitimate?
-
I will accept the black mold in my apartment to be a symbol of deadly rot if and when it gives my newborn pneumonia and kills her. Until that happens...
-
EDIT: I want to reiterate my main point on Holocaust Memorial Day. In this incident, Sandman was vilified for no reason, at least not by any objective standard. MAGA hats is a symbol of hate to some people. This I fully understand, but do not project your own feelings to how everyone should think. As an individual, I will accept the hat to be a symbol of hate if and when their supporters carried out their version of "final solution" and murdered millions of minorities for no reason other than their race and gender and sexual orientation. Until that happens, take your religion and get out of my face.
I'm just going to leave this here for anistropy--https://twitter.com/auschwitzmuseum/status/1067175336184606720?lang=en
For those who don't do the twitter thing: 'When we look at Auschwitz we see the end of the process. It's important to remember that the Holocaust actually did not start from gas chambers. This hatred gradually developed from words, stereotypes & prejudice through legal exclusion, dehumanisation & escalating violence.'
-
EDIT: I want to reiterate my main point on Holocaust Memorial Day. In this incident, Sandman was vilified for no reason, at least not by any objective standard. MAGA hats is a symbol of hate to some people. This I fully understand, but do not project your own feelings to how everyone should think. As an individual, I will accept the hat to be a symbol of hate if and when their supporters carried out their version of "final solution" and murdered millions of minorities for no reason other than their race and gender and sexual orientation. Until that happens, take your religion and get out of my face.
I'm just going to leave this here for anistropy--https://twitter.com/auschwitzmuseum/status/1067175336184606720?lang=en
For those who don't do the twitter thing: 'When we look at Auschwitz we see the end of the process. It's important to remember that the Holocaust actually did not start from gas chambers. This hatred gradually developed from words, stereotypes & prejudice through legal exclusion, dehumanisation & escalating violence.'
And it would be worth a hard look at yourself and asking yourself what role you would be playing in the process.
-
I will accept the black mold in my apartment to be a symbol of deadly rot if and when it gives my newborn pneumonia and kills her. Until that happens...
Until that happens, let's keep sprinkling the mold with water to grow our fuzzy friend and Make the Apartment Great Again!
-
and maybe it's just me, but even the "phrase" Make America Great Again" has so many assumptions and implications wrapped in. That American was once GREAT but now is definitely not. That when America was GREAT was in the past. People who are nostalgic for some mythic America that no longer exists but did at some time. Exactly what time was America great? Was it when we had slavery? when women couldn't vote? Before women worked outside the home? Before the equal rights act? Before Black Lives matter? to me, it seems to hint of a mourning of a time when everyone was equal, but some were, let's say a little more equal.
If the reference to MAGA is regarding economic prosperity, and the post war boom economy, there was a larger middle class and less of a financial divide before the most wealthy and the rest of us, both in corporate compensation for CEOS, safety nets such as social security and pensions, tax rate brackets, education costs, and checks and balances on wall street.
I would be happy to go back to that past situation so that everyone shares in the economic success that the US is. Unfortunately all of Trump's agendas are exactly regressive of the economic reforms of the past where we were doing the best economically-wise for all its people.
-
MAGA hats is a symbol of hate to some people. This I fully understand, but do not project your own feelings to how everyone should think. As an individual, I will accept the hat to be a symbol of hate if and when their supporters carried out their version of "final solution" and murdered millions of minorities for no reason other than their race and gender and sexual orientation. Until that happens, take your religion and get out of my face.
Hm. So. Okay. Are you saying that this act wasn't an act of hate? Or that the MAGA thing is a pure coincidence in this case? Like, they could have just as easily been singing Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up," and the fact that they yelled "This is MAGA country" while beating and pouring bleach on this person has nothing to do at all with their actions?
I would really like to know. Really.
https://www.tmz.com/2019/01/29/empire-star-jussie-smollett-attacked-hospitalized-homophobic-hate-crime/?fbclid=IwAR2oDRaO6G6fQCK6oSWJ3IQIZC_n9BABtuG-xjVQvC7onkgWzo4r-5BxHTc
-
and maybe it's just me, but even the "phrase" Make America Great Again" has so many assumptions and implications wrapped in. That American was once GREAT but now is definitely not. That when America was GREAT was in the past. People who are nostalgic for some mythic America that no longer exists but did at some time. Exactly what time was America great? Was it when we had slavery? when women couldn't vote? Before women worked outside the home? Before the equal rights act? Before Black Lives matter? to me, it seems to hint of a mourning of a time when everyone was equal, but some were, let's say a little more equal.
If the reference to MAGA is regarding economic prosperity, and the post war boom economy, there was a larger middle class and less of a financial divide before the most wealthy and the rest of us, both in corporate compensation for CEOS, safety nets such as social security and pensions, tax rate brackets, education costs, and checks and balances on wall street.
I would be happy to go back to that past situation so that everyone shares in the economic success that the US is. Unfortunately all of Trump's agendas are exactly regressive of the economic reforms of the past where we were doing the best economically-wise for all its people.
For me it was the post war boom that I always though MAGA referred to. There's some nuance to be had, about what policies help with that and which don't... but that discussion is beside the point right now. At any rate, I don't believe it's the racist part of that simpler, prosperous, idealized time period that people are thinking of when the say 'the good ol' days" or "Make America Great Again."
As a conservative, even I recognize that the Red MAGA hat has been co-opted as a symbol of hate. Even if it doesn't mean that for me, or for 95% of the people who may have worn it/do wear it, the meaning of that hat has become tainted, and I'd never wear one again.
-
and maybe it's just me, but even the "phrase" Make America Great Again" has so many assumptions and implications wrapped in. That American was once GREAT but now is definitely not. That when America was GREAT was in the past. People who are nostalgic for some mythic America that no longer exists but did at some time. Exactly what time was America great? Was it when we had slavery? when women couldn't vote? Before women worked outside the home? Before the equal rights act? Before Black Lives matter? to me, it seems to hint of a mourning of a time when everyone was equal, but some were, let's say a little more equal.
If the reference to MAGA is regarding economic prosperity, and the post war boom economy, there was a larger middle class and less of a financial divide before the most wealthy and the rest of us, both in corporate compensation for CEOS, safety nets such as social security and pensions, tax rate brackets, education costs, and checks and balances on wall street.
I would be happy to go back to that past situation so that everyone shares in the economic success that the US is. Unfortunately all of Trump's agendas are exactly regressive of the economic reforms of the past where we were doing the best economically-wise for all its people.
For me it was the post war boom that I always though MAGA referred to. There's some nuance to be had, about what policies help with that and which don't... but that discussion is beside the point right now. At any rate, I don't believe it's the racist part of that simpler, prosperous, idealized time period that people are thinking of when the say 'the good ol' days" or "Make America Great Again."
As a conservative, even I recognize that the Red MAGA hat has been co-opted as a symbol of hate. Even if it doesn't mean that for me, or for 95% of the people who may have worn it/do wear it, the meaning of that hat has become tainted, and I'd never wear one again.
Can't be the post war boom. The people who yell MAGA don't support taxes.
(http://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/gop-tax-rate-cut-wealthy/images/share.png)
-
and maybe it's just me, but even the "phrase" Make America Great Again" has so many assumptions and implications wrapped in. That American was once GREAT but now is definitely not. That when America was GREAT was in the past. People who are nostalgic for some mythic America that no longer exists but did at some time. Exactly what time was America great? Was it when we had slavery? when women couldn't vote? Before women worked outside the home? Before the equal rights act? Before Black Lives matter? to me, it seems to hint of a mourning of a time when everyone was equal, but some were, let's say a little more equal.
If the reference to MAGA is regarding economic prosperity, and the post war boom economy, there was a larger middle class and less of a financial divide before the most wealthy and the rest of us, both in corporate compensation for CEOS, safety nets such as social security and pensions, tax rate brackets, education costs, and checks and balances on wall street.
I would be happy to go back to that past situation so that everyone shares in the economic success that the US is. Unfortunately all of Trump's agendas are exactly regressive of the economic reforms of the past where we were doing the best economically-wise for all its people.
For me it was the post war boom that I always though MAGA referred to. There's some nuance to be had, about what policies help with that and which don't... but that discussion is beside the point right now. At any rate, I don't believe it's the racist part of that simpler, prosperous, idealized time period that people are thinking of when the say 'the good ol' days" or "Make America Great Again."
As a conservative, even I recognize that the Red MAGA hat has been co-opted as a symbol of hate. Even if it doesn't mean that for me, or for 95% of the people who may have worn it/do wear it, the meaning of that hat has become tainted, and I'd never wear one again.
Can't be the post war boom. The people who yell MAGA don't support taxes.
(http://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/gop-tax-rate-cut-wealthy/images/share.png)
That chart is deliberately misleading.
The top marginal rate doesn't tell you much. Only about 10,000 families were subjected to that marginal rate in the 1950s. As whole, the top 1% paid around 42% of their income as taxes in the 1950s, and they pay nearly 38% of it now. (and that's after the trump cuts.)
(Sure, they have a noticeable 5% advantage, but to think you can just change our current top bracket percentage from 37% to 90% and not have some immediate and severe consequences to the prosperity of this country, is beyond silly.)
-
What really sucks is the term "racist" or "racism" has been used so freely in bullshit political banter that it has lost it's meaning. It holds the same value as "you're mean" today. We all know whoever brings it up first is a virtue signalling weirdo.
You're not kidding. That's true 99% of the time. Those on the left use the term as a common talking point to try to shut down those they don't agree with, when racism has nothing to do with the point being discussed. It's easier for them to resort to insults and attacks than to try to come up with a rational argument. When someone states that "making America great" is racist, that's absolutely ridiculous. I'm not sure how any patriotic American could think such a thing for real, so it's the partisan B.S. or anti-American rhetoric talking.
...really? Let me remind you of your very own post where you accused someone (who did not mention race at all) of sounding racist:
Mark Robinson is a well know conspiracy theorist gun nut who rips on gays, spews anti-Muslim rehetoric. Any one who disagrees with him is a Marxist.
The way you are down-talking this black man makes you sound racist.
The point I was trying to make was that MAGA is a pro-American message that has nothing to do with racism.
-
and maybe it's just me, but even the "phrase" Make America Great Again" has so many assumptions and implications wrapped in. That American was once GREAT but now is definitely not. That when America was GREAT was in the past. People who are nostalgic for some mythic America that no longer exists but did at some time. Exactly what time was America great? Was it when we had slavery? when women couldn't vote? Before women worked outside the home? Before the equal rights act? Before Black Lives matter? to me, it seems to hint of a mourning of a time when everyone was equal, but some were, let's say a little more equal.
If the reference to MAGA is regarding economic prosperity, and the post war boom economy, there was a larger middle class and less of a financial divide before the most wealthy and the rest of us, both in corporate compensation for CEOS, safety nets such as social security and pensions, tax rate brackets, education costs, and checks and balances on wall street.
I would be happy to go back to that past situation so that everyone shares in the economic success that the US is. Unfortunately all of Trump's agendas are exactly regressive of the economic reforms of the past where we were doing the best economically-wise for all its people.
For me it was the post war boom that I always though MAGA referred to. There's some nuance to be had, about what policies help with that and which don't... but that discussion is beside the point right now. At any rate, I don't believe it's the racist part of that simpler, prosperous, idealized time period that people are thinking of when the say 'the good ol' days" or "Make America Great Again."
As a conservative, even I recognize that the Red MAGA hat has been co-opted as a symbol of hate. Even if it doesn't mean that for me, or for 95% of the people who may have worn it/do wear it, the meaning of that hat has become tainted, and I'd never wear one again.
Can't be the post war boom. The people who yell MAGA don't support taxes.
(http://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/gop-tax-rate-cut-wealthy/images/share.png)
That chart is deliberately misleading.
The top marginal rate doesn't tell you much. Only about 10,000 families were subjected to that marginal rate in the 1950s. As whole, the top 1% paid around 42% of their income as taxes in the 1950s, and they pay nearly 38% of it now. (and that's after the trump cuts.)
(Sure, they have a noticeable 5% advantage, but to think you can just change our current top bracket percentage from 37% to 90% and not have some immediate and severe consequences to the prosperity of this country, is beyond silly.)
How is that misleading? That's how marginal tax rates work. The only way this chart is misleading is if you don't understand how marginal tax rates work (or you think most people don't understand how they work) and therefore think this chart is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.
-
and maybe it's just me, but even the "phrase" Make America Great Again" has so many assumptions and implications wrapped in. That American was once GREAT but now is definitely not. That when America was GREAT was in the past. People who are nostalgic for some mythic America that no longer exists but did at some time. Exactly what time was America great? Was it when we had slavery? when women couldn't vote? Before women worked outside the home? Before the equal rights act? Before Black Lives matter? to me, it seems to hint of a mourning of a time when everyone was equal, but some were, let's say a little more equal.
If the reference to MAGA is regarding economic prosperity, and the post war boom economy, there was a larger middle class and less of a financial divide before the most wealthy and the rest of us, both in corporate compensation for CEOS, safety nets such as social security and pensions, tax rate brackets, education costs, and checks and balances on wall street.
I would be happy to go back to that past situation so that everyone shares in the economic success that the US is. Unfortunately all of Trump's agendas are exactly regressive of the economic reforms of the past where we were doing the best economically-wise for all its people.
For me it was the post war boom that I always though MAGA referred to. There's some nuance to be had, about what policies help with that and which don't... but that discussion is beside the point right now. At any rate, I don't believe it's the racist part of that simpler, prosperous, idealized time period that people are thinking of when the say 'the good ol' days" or "Make America Great Again."
As a conservative, even I recognize that the Red MAGA hat has been co-opted as a symbol of hate. Even if it doesn't mean that for me, or for 95% of the people who may have worn it/do wear it, the meaning of that hat has become tainted, and I'd never wear one again.
Can't be the post war boom. The people who yell MAGA don't support taxes.
(http://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/gop-tax-rate-cut-wealthy/images/share.png)
That chart is deliberately misleading.
The top marginal rate doesn't tell you much. Only about 10,000 families were subjected to that marginal rate in the 1950s. As whole, the top 1% paid around 42% of their income as taxes in the 1950s, and they pay nearly 38% of it now. (and that's after the trump cuts.)
Your argument is that there aren't very many few ultra rich, so what we tax them doesn't matter? I disagree.
Wealth distribution isn't a straight line. The top 1% controls 35% of all wealth in the US, but the top .1% controls the largest share of that. What we tax the richest absolutely matters.
(Sure, they have a noticeable 5% advantage, but to think you can just change our current top bracket percentage from 37% to 90% and not have some immediate and severe consequences to the prosperity of this country, is beyond silly.)
I didn't say that we should change the top bracket percentage at all. Just pointed out that during one of the most prosperous times in US history, the top bracket was an awful lot higher than it is today. If lowering taxes for the ultra rich (as we have done) is better for society, why isn't this leading to higher prosperity?
-
Oh, look.
*eyeroll*
https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/gop-senators-make-repealing-the-inheritance-tax-a-legislative-priority-hp58sRAJrUqa3W8axJynCQ/?utm_source=Amplify&utm_medium=Intellectualist&utm_campaign=Facebook
-
Just pointed out that during one of the most prosperous times in US history, the top bracket was an awful lot higher than it is today.
Interestingly, the effective tax rate on the rich during that period was actually lower than it is now. There was a good article recently in the WSJ covering this. There were far many more loopholes the wealthy could take advantage of during that period which were finally eliminated. What should really be looked at is the effective tax rates paid by the wealthy (after all deductions and loopholes, etc), not the marginal tax rates which don't tell you much. Yes Reagan lowered the marginal rates, but he also removed much of the loopholes during that time.
-
That chart is deliberately misleading.
The top marginal rate doesn't tell you much. Only about 10,000 families were subjected to that marginal rate in the 1950s. As whole, the top 1% paid around 42% of their income as taxes in the 1950s, and they pay nearly 38% of it now. (and that's after the trump cuts.)
(Sure, they have a noticeable 5% advantage, but to think you can just change our current top bracket percentage from 37% to 90% and not have some immediate and severe consequences to the prosperity of this country, is beyond silly.)
How is that misleading? That's how marginal tax rates work. The only way this chart is misleading is if you don't understand how marginal tax rates work (or you think most people don't understand how they work) and therefore think this chart is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.
It is misleading in the context of this discussion because taking on tiny facet of a tax system - the top marginal% - and comparing them is DELIBERATELY misleading people to think that taxes were massively higher in those days. In fact, the effective tax rate was a little higher than now, but not much higher.
Also I don't think most people really understand marginal tax rates. See the "overheard at work thread; "I won't work overtime because taxes take it all!" edition.
our argument is that there aren't very many few ultra rich, so what we tax them doesn't matter? I disagree.
Wealth distribution isn't a straight line. The top 1% controls 35% of all wealth in the US, but the top .1% controls the largest share of that. What we tax the richest absolutely matters.
My argument is that the top marginal % of the taxrate does not accurately portray the tax situation of that era... that the top 1% is being taxed almost as hard now as they were then, and therefore that tax% is irrelevant.
I also don't think being wealthy is a sin, so I'm not going to be in strong support of confiscatory tax rates for the top 1% either.
-
That chart is deliberately misleading.
The top marginal rate doesn't tell you much. Only about 10,000 families were subjected to that marginal rate in the 1950s. As whole, the top 1% paid around 42% of their income as taxes in the 1950s, and they pay nearly 38% of it now. (and that's after the trump cuts.)
(Sure, they have a noticeable 5% advantage, but to think you can just change our current top bracket percentage from 37% to 90% and not have some immediate and severe consequences to the prosperity of this country, is beyond silly.)
How is that misleading? That's how marginal tax rates work. The only way this chart is misleading is if you don't understand how marginal tax rates work (or you think most people don't understand how they work) and therefore think this chart is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.
It is misleading in the context of this discussion because taking on tiny facet of a tax system - the top marginal% - and comparing them is DELIBERATELY misleading people to think that taxes were massively higher in those days. In fact, the effective tax rate was a little higher than now, but not much higher.
Also I don't think most people really understand marginal tax rates. See the "overheard at work thread; "I won't work overtime because taxes take it all!" edition.
our argument is that there aren't very many few ultra rich, so what we tax them doesn't matter? I disagree.
Wealth distribution isn't a straight line. The top 1% controls 35% of all wealth in the US, but the top .1% controls the largest share of that. What we tax the richest absolutely matters.
My argument is that the top marginal % of the taxrate does not accurately portray the tax situation of that era... that the top 1% is being taxed almost as hard now as they were then, and therefore that tax% is irrelevant.
I also don't think being wealthy is a sin, so I'm not going to be in strong support of confiscatory tax rates for the top 1% either.
"Sin" or not, somehow it seems wrong that we have people dying from lack of health care while 0.1% of the population owns 90% of the wealth (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/19/bernie-sanders-is-right-the-top-0-1-have-as-much-as-the-bottom-90/).
-
What exactly is your definition of a confiscatory tax?
-
EDIT: I want to reiterate my main point on Holocaust Memorial Day. In this incident, Sandman was vilified for no reason, at least not by any objective standard. MAGA hats is a symbol of hate to some people. This I fully understand, but do not project your own feelings to how everyone should think. As an individual, I will accept the hat to be a symbol of hate if and when their supporters carried out their version of "final solution" and murdered millions of minorities for no reason other than their race and gender and sexual orientation. Until that happens, take your religion and get out of my face.
I'm just going to leave this here for anistropy--https://twitter.com/auschwitzmuseum/status/1067175336184606720?lang=en
For those who don't do the twitter thing: 'When we look at Auschwitz we see the end of the process. It's important to remember that the Holocaust actually did not start from gas chambers. This hatred gradually developed from words, stereotypes & prejudice through legal exclusion, dehumanisation & escalating violence.'
You want to talk about the beginning of the process? Let's.
Who seems to be allied with most of the anti-semites these days? Who is in league with the person that referred to them publicly as "termites"?
Book burning? Oh we are way ahead these days, how about some pre-burning books?
Incriminating people based on race, gender, and sexual orientation?
Who are the main targets of legal exclusion (presumption of innocence) these days?
Who are the ones being denied "near-essential" services (visa, mc, etc)?
Dehumanisation? Have you been to an intersectional-anything rally?
"This hatred gradually developed from words, stereotypes & prejudice through legal exclusion, dehumanisation & escalating violence."
Eerily familiar don't you think. The neo Auschwitz construction has already begun, at long last it finally got out of the schools and into our lives. You are supporting something you don't fully understand. Critical race theory and intersectional-anything are poison. They target people's immutable characteristics such as skin color (i dont like the word race because race doesnt exist biologically), sex, and gender. The social justice movement as it exists is one that privileges victimhood over recovery, accusation over conviction, reversal of fortune over actual equality. It is cloaking a mission antithetical to justice and civil rights.
Like Nazis once did they assert people are essentially members from either desired or undesired groups and not individuals, basing their claims on unfalsifiable claims. One rarely sees experimental of field studies lending validity to Intersectional claims. Anecdotal 'lived experience' & supposition in fancy jargon are presented as facts beyond reproach. Whatever one's politics or 'lived experience', this fraud's unacceptable as scholarship or basis for policies and behaviors.
"Good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them in order to gain public acceptance" Fighting racism is a good cause. It is a GREAT cause. It does not require us to believe things that are not true. And it cannot afford for us to believe things that aren't true.
"We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law" --- Arthur Miller, The Crucible
-
Wow. Just ... wow.
It continues to amaze me how willfully blind people can be. Especially when you can look around in the real world and see the answers in front of your face.
Who is getting incarcerated more?
Who are being shot, beaten and otherwise abused by law enforcement more?
Who occupies a clear majority of almost every possible position of power and prestige in the U.S.? In the world?
What gender and ethnicity (since apparently you don't like 'race') compose the majority of the 1 percenters?
Why have we never had an all-female House of Congress? An all-female Supreme Court? An all-POC Supreme Court? Why is this concept so horrific that most people can't even consider it without crying out about 'discrimination!' Why did it never bother them when it was the reverse?
How many powerful men's careers/lives have been 'ruined'--(and what is the definition of 'ruin'? Lawsuits? A public shaming of actions they freely took, so that they have to slink off to enjoy their millions in private?)--vs how many women's careers have been destroyed before they could ever begin?
Why aren't the history books filled with the achievements of women and POC? After all, they constitute far more than 50% of the population. Surely they should have accomplished at least 50% of everything humankind has ever discovered or done?
How many great artists, scientists, philosophers, and other great minds were never allowed to contribute or flourish because they had the wrong genitals, the wrong skin color, the wrong religion, the wrong beliefs?
How exactly do you 'pre-burn' a book? Do you burn it before it's published? That doesn't work so well in the age of the internet. The fascists and the neo-Nazis don't seem to have any problem getting their beliefs out there.
"This hatred gradually developed from words, stereotypes & prejudice through legal exclusion, dehumanisation & escalating violence."
Who exactly is in power right now to benefit from 'legal exclusion, dehumanisation and escalating violence?' Cause when I look at the current composition of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the WH, I don't think it's women. Or POC. Or LGBTQA folks.
People-women, POCs, LGBTQA folks, trans folks and every kind of 'othered' minority--are finally standing up for their rights as equal human beings, demanding acknowledgement of the complexity of human existence--but certain people see that as a threat. As 'poison'. Gee, I wonder which people? I wonder what they're so frightened of? (which they will never admit, of course)
I'll leave it there. The answers are pretty obvious, after all, if you care to look. Which of course, you don't.
-
You want to talk about the beginning of the process? Let's.
OK.
Who seems to be allied with most of the anti-semites these days? Who is in league with the person that referred to them publicly as "termites"?
Please tell me.
Book burning? Oh we are way ahead these days, how about some pre-burning books?
What is a pre-burning of books?
Incriminating people based on race, gender, and sexual orientation?
Is this a question? It has a question mark, but is not structured as such. Can you elaborate?
Who are the main targets of legal exclusion (presumption of innocence) these days?
Black people are measurably treated differently (worse) by law enforcement and courts. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5614457/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5614457/)
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/5/14/17353040/racial-disparity-marijuana-arrests-new-york-city-nypd (https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/5/14/17353040/racial-disparity-marijuana-arrests-new-york-city-nypd)
https://eji.org/news/black-children-five-times-more-likely-than-whites-to-be-incarcerated (https://eji.org/news/black-children-five-times-more-likely-than-whites-to-be-incarcerated)
Numbers on this issue have been moving in positive directions for the past few years, but there is still a long way to go.
Who are the ones being denied "near-essential" services (visa, mc, etc)?
Due to relatively recent rule changes, the answer to arbitrary denial of visas would be non-whites: https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/visa-policy-changes/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/visa-policy-changes/index.html)
By MC, do you mean mastercard? Could you expand upon what you're arguing here?
Dehumanisation? Have you been to an intersectional-anything rally?
No. What's an interesctional anything rally?
"This hatred gradually developed from words, stereotypes & prejudice through legal exclusion, dehumanisation & escalating violence."
Eerily familiar don't you think. The neo Auschwitz construction has already begun, at long last it finally got out of the schools and into our lives. You are supporting something you don't fully understand. Critical race theory and intersectional-anything are poison. They target people's immutable characteristics such as skin color (i dont like the word race because race doesnt exist biologically), sex, and gender. The social justice movement as it exists is one that privileges victimhood over recovery, accusation over conviction, reversal of fortune over actual equality. It is cloaking a mission antithetical to justice and civil rights.
I get that you're railing hard against the alleged injustices of the social justice movement here, but can you provide concrete examples of what you're talking about here?
Like Nazis once did they assert people are essentially members from either desired or undesired groups and not individuals, basing their claims on unfalsifiable claims. One rarely sees experimental of field studies lending validity to Intersectional claims. Anecdotal 'lived experience' & supposition in fancy jargon are presented as facts beyond reproach. Whatever one's politics or 'lived experience', this fraud's unacceptable as scholarship or basis for policies and behaviors.
"Good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them in order to gain public acceptance" Fighting racism is a good cause. It is a GREAT cause. It does not require us to believe things that are not true. And it cannot afford for us to believe things that aren't true.
"We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law" --- Arthur Miller, The Crucible
Hmm.
OK, so we're saying that a bunch of people are acting like nazis in this post.
What is your stance on the actions taken by self-identified actual nazis:
(https://www.algemeiner.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/charlottesville.png)
?
Y'know, the ones that Trump feels are good people. Why do you suppose that the conservative right in America has so thoroughly embraced and overtly welcomed them?
-
You want to talk about the beginning of the process? Let's.
OK.
Who seems to be allied with most of the anti-semites these days? Who is in league with the person that referred to them publicly as "termites"?
Please tell me.
Book burning? Oh we are way ahead these days, how about some pre-burning books?
What is a pre-burning of books?
Incriminating people based on race, gender, and sexual orientation?
Is this a question? It has a question mark, but is not structured as such. Can you elaborate?
Who are the main targets of legal exclusion (presumption of innocence) these days?
Black people are measurably treated differently (worse) by law enforcement and courts. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5614457/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5614457/)
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/5/14/17353040/racial-disparity-marijuana-arrests-new-york-city-nypd (https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/5/14/17353040/racial-disparity-marijuana-arrests-new-york-city-nypd)
https://eji.org/news/black-children-five-times-more-likely-than-whites-to-be-incarcerated (https://eji.org/news/black-children-five-times-more-likely-than-whites-to-be-incarcerated)
Numbers on this issue have been moving in positive directions for the past few years, but there is still a long way to go.
Who are the ones being denied "near-essential" services (visa, mc, etc)?
Due to relatively recent rule changes, the answer to arbitrary denial of visas would be non-whites: https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/visa-policy-changes/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/visa-policy-changes/index.html)
By MC, do you mean mastercard? Could you expand upon what you're arguing here?
Dehumanisation? Have you been to an intersectional-anything rally?
No. What's an interesctional anything rally?
"This hatred gradually developed from words, stereotypes & prejudice through legal exclusion, dehumanisation & escalating violence."
Eerily familiar don't you think. The neo Auschwitz construction has already begun, at long last it finally got out of the schools and into our lives. You are supporting something you don't fully understand. Critical race theory and intersectional-anything are poison. They target people's immutable characteristics such as skin color (i dont like the word race because race doesnt exist biologically), sex, and gender. The social justice movement as it exists is one that privileges victimhood over recovery, accusation over conviction, reversal of fortune over actual equality. It is cloaking a mission antithetical to justice and civil rights.
I get that you're railing hard against the alleged injustices of the social justice movement here, but can you provide concrete examples of what you're talking about here?
Like Nazis once did they assert people are essentially members from either desired or undesired groups and not individuals, basing their claims on unfalsifiable claims. One rarely sees experimental of field studies lending validity to Intersectional claims. Anecdotal 'lived experience' & supposition in fancy jargon are presented as facts beyond reproach. Whatever one's politics or 'lived experience', this fraud's unacceptable as scholarship or basis for policies and behaviors.
"Good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them in order to gain public acceptance" Fighting racism is a good cause. It is a GREAT cause. It does not require us to believe things that are not true. And it cannot afford for us to believe things that aren't true.
"We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law" --- Arthur Miller, The Crucible
Hmm.
OK, so we're saying that a bunch of people are acting like nazis in this post.
What is your stance on the actions taken by self-identified actual nazis:
(https://www.algemeiner.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/charlottesville.png)
?
Y'know, the ones that Trump feels are good people. Why do you suppose that the conservative right in America has so thoroughly embraced and overtly welcomed them?
Trump speaks for himself. I don't know of any conservative in my life who has embraced and welcomed people who identify themselves as Nazis.
I hope you realize that the left's enthusiasm for calling anyone to the right of hillary clinton a Nazi certainly makes it easy to shrug our shoulders when YOU call someone a Nazi... as they probably are no such thing.
-
Y'know, the ones that Trump feels are good people. Why do you suppose that the conservative right in America has so thoroughly embraced and overtly welcomed them?
Trump speaks for himself. I don't know of any conservative in my life who has embraced and welcomed people who identify themselves as Nazis.
I hope you realize that the left's enthusiasm for calling anyone to the right of hillary clinton a Nazi certainly makes it easy to shrug our shoulders when YOU call someone a Nazi... as they probably are no such thing.
I would agree with the first part of this. The lack of condemnation by public figures is a bit concerning but by no means is a majority of the conservative right embracing Nazis.
But then you committed the same kind of unfair generalization of the left. The idea that the left will call anyone on the right a Nazi is cultivated by conservative media. Outside of irresponsible media figures looking for attention, I don't know of anyone crying "Nazi" unless the person they're accusing is wearing the Nazi symbol.
-
I would do exactly what I did the election and vote 3rd party again. The two party system is broken beyond repair and they only care about either the extreme left or extreme right.
-
I would do exactly what I did the election and vote 3rd party again. The two party system is broken beyond repair and they only care about either the extreme left or extreme right.
I've never understood why and how this "registered to vote as a democrat/republican/independent thing works? Don't you just register to vote with the relevant authorities and let the parties work out who is who from their own records?
Telling the government what party you belong to and how you are likely to vote seems incredibly undemocratic to me - the UK got rid of that sort of knowledge at a public institution level a century or more ago.
-
You want to talk about the beginning of the process? Let's.
OK.
Who seems to be allied with most of the anti-semites these days? Who is in league with the person that referred to them publicly as "termites"?
Please tell me.
Book burning? Oh we are way ahead these days, how about some pre-burning books?
What is a pre-burning of books?
Incriminating people based on race, gender, and sexual orientation?
Is this a question? It has a question mark, but is not structured as such. Can you elaborate?
Who are the main targets of legal exclusion (presumption of innocence) these days?
Black people are measurably treated differently (worse) by law enforcement and courts. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5614457/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5614457/)
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/5/14/17353040/racial-disparity-marijuana-arrests-new-york-city-nypd (https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/5/14/17353040/racial-disparity-marijuana-arrests-new-york-city-nypd)
https://eji.org/news/black-children-five-times-more-likely-than-whites-to-be-incarcerated (https://eji.org/news/black-children-five-times-more-likely-than-whites-to-be-incarcerated)
Numbers on this issue have been moving in positive directions for the past few years, but there is still a long way to go.
Who are the ones being denied "near-essential" services (visa, mc, etc)?
Due to relatively recent rule changes, the answer to arbitrary denial of visas would be non-whites: https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/visa-policy-changes/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/visa-policy-changes/index.html)
By MC, do you mean mastercard? Could you expand upon what you're arguing here?
Dehumanisation? Have you been to an intersectional-anything rally?
No. What's an interesctional anything rally?
"This hatred gradually developed from words, stereotypes & prejudice through legal exclusion, dehumanisation & escalating violence."
Eerily familiar don't you think. The neo Auschwitz construction has already begun, at long last it finally got out of the schools and into our lives. You are supporting something you don't fully understand. Critical race theory and intersectional-anything are poison. They target people's immutable characteristics such as skin color (i dont like the word race because race doesnt exist biologically), sex, and gender. The social justice movement as it exists is one that privileges victimhood over recovery, accusation over conviction, reversal of fortune over actual equality. It is cloaking a mission antithetical to justice and civil rights.
I get that you're railing hard against the alleged injustices of the social justice movement here, but can you provide concrete examples of what you're talking about here?
Like Nazis once did they assert people are essentially members from either desired or undesired groups and not individuals, basing their claims on unfalsifiable claims. One rarely sees experimental of field studies lending validity to Intersectional claims. Anecdotal 'lived experience' & supposition in fancy jargon are presented as facts beyond reproach. Whatever one's politics or 'lived experience', this fraud's unacceptable as scholarship or basis for policies and behaviors.
"Good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them in order to gain public acceptance" Fighting racism is a good cause. It is a GREAT cause. It does not require us to believe things that are not true. And it cannot afford for us to believe things that aren't true.
"We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law" --- Arthur Miller, The Crucible
Hmm.
OK, so we're saying that a bunch of people are acting like nazis in this post.
What is your stance on the actions taken by self-identified actual nazis:
(https://www.algemeiner.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/charlottesville.png)
?
Y'know, the ones that Trump feels are good people. Why do you suppose that the conservative right in America has so thoroughly embraced and overtly welcomed them?
Trump speaks for himself. I don't know of any conservative in my life who has embraced and welcomed people who identify themselves as Nazis.
I hope you realize that the left's enthusiasm for calling anyone to the right of hillary clinton a Nazi certainly makes it easy to shrug our shoulders when YOU call someone a Nazi... as they probably are no such thing.
Republican candidate for Illinois 3rd and self described nazi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_J._Jones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_J._Jones)
Republican who got 16% of the votes from Republicans (and an endorsement from Sarah Palin, Laura Ingram, and Breitbart) in Winsconsin's 1st, self described white supremacist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Nehlen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Nehlen)
Republican running in California's 11th, appears on neo-nazi podcasts: https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/07/03/gop-congressional-candidate-california-has-been-appearing-neo-nazi-podcasts/220588 (https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/07/03/gop-congressional-candidate-california-has-been-appearing-neo-nazi-podcasts/220588)
NC House of Representative candidate who said "God is a racist and a white supremacist": https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russell-walker-candidate/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russell-walker-candidate/) (To their credit, most NC republicans have done what they could to pull party support from him).
Trump speaks for himself maybe . . . but has had the full backing of the Republican party in just about everything he has done, including overtly racist actions.
-
Also GOP Rep. Steve King, IA-4, from a NY Times interview earlier this month (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/us/politics/steve-king-trump-immigration-wall.html):
White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?
He has a long history of racism and association with Neo-Nazis (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/us/politics/steve-king-offensive-quotes.html?module=inline). It is indeed curious that people are only starting to figure this out. (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/steve-king-has-said-racist-things-before-what-made-the-gop-pay-attention-now/)
-
Guitar,
We had a very similar discussion 6 months ago, you brought up the same picture then. If you recall, my position then was that not everyone that marched or even affiliated with the Nazi flag were racist.
That is the same position I take now, not only regarding the Charlottesville protestors, but also regarding the Women's March. I think you and I can agree that just because some individuals (or even organizers/leaders) are affiliated with anti-Semitism, it doesn't automatically make the entire group of protestors racist or even Nazis.
What I do find concerning, is the minimum amount of effort required by one side, with the help of media, to brush it off and see it as insignificant. The conservatives has long ago drew a line in the ground and said white-supremacy is bad, very few conservatives these days would even consider white-supremacy a point with any merit. Yet on the end other of the scale we are seeing white-inferiority, an unfalsifiable claim, being touted as "serious scholarly" work and implemented into policies.
This "white-supremacy bad" mentality is so ingrained in our society today (and it is bad), when we see incidences of non-white groups being overtly racist, it gets a "no-biggy" reaction and we simply move on, looking for the next white perpetrator. Whereas when a white person, such as Sandman, was declared for having a "punch-able Nazi face" not for any racist acts or speeches he had done, but simply wearing a cap that nearly half of the country stood behind (~40% now).
My point is, if you point out an act where actual racism is committed by the classical definition of racism, I would denounce it with you. But if you want to simply say a cap is a symbol of hate with very subjective standards, my reply to you is that many things could be called a symbol of hate, heck, even the pink p*ssyhat could be viewed as such by your standards, given the affiliation with anti-Semites.
Pre-burning book is perhaps a bad term, but it refers to destroying books before they were published, as we are seeing in the YA genres these days, as social activists tend to read that genre in particular.
EDIT: Guitar, you quoted Justin Murphy in our last correspondence (regarding Free Speech). I thought it would be relevant he had also recently wrote a new article: "The Alt-Right is not all Right (https://jmrphy.net/blog/the-alt-right-is-not-all-right)". Alt-right is almost synonymous with Fascism today, even thought "its origin was demonstrably not fascist or racist". This yet again shows the sneaky new clothing geared to redefine meanings of words by social activists, ie, Trojan Horse Words/Phrases. In fact, he has also been accused of being alt-right, "not by any empirical demonstration but by presumption". I am assuming you quoted Murphy because you find him palatable and more agreeable, so don't take my word for it, read his.
-
Guitar,
We had a very similar discussion 6 months ago, you brought up the same picture then. If you recall, my position then was that not everyone that marched or even affiliated with the Nazi flag were racist.
That is the same position I take now, not only regarding the Charlottesville protestors, but also regarding the Women's March. I think you and I can agree that just because some individuals (or even organizers/leaders) are affiliated with anti-Semitism, it doesn't automatically make the entire group of protestors racist or even Nazis.
What percentage of the people involved in the Women's March were anti-semitic? Can you show me some pictures of the anti-semitic equivalents to the nazi flags in Charlottesville? How many Jewish people died during the Women's March?
How are the two events comparable at all?
What I do find concerning, is the minimum amount of effort required by one side, with the help of media, to brush it off and see it as insignificant. The conservatives has long ago drew a line in the ground and said white-supremacy is bad, very few conservatives these days would even consider white-supremacy a point with any merit. Yet on the end other of the scale we are seeing white-inferiority, an unfalsifiable claim, being touted as "serious scholarly" work and implemented into policies.
6,600 Republicans voted for neo-Nazi Paul Nehlen in Wisconsin, and he had the endorsement of Sara Palin. How does that square with your view that conservatives long ago drew a line in the sand and said that white-supremacy is bad?
This "white-supremacy bad" mentality is so ingrained in our society today (and it is bad), when we see incidences of non-white groups being overtly racist, it gets a "no-biggy" reaction and we simply move on, looking for the next white perpetrator. Whereas when a white person, such as Sandman, was declared for having a "punch-able Nazi face" not for any racist acts or speeches he had done, but simply wearing a cap that nearly half of the country stood behind (~40% now).
Wearing a symbol of racism is likely to get you treated as a racist in public. You're free to wear what you want though, just as others are free to judge you for your choices.
My point is, if you point out an act where actual racism is committed by the classical definition of racism, I would denounce it with you. But if you want to simply say a cap is a symbol of hate with very subjective standards, my reply to you is that many things could be called a symbol of hate, heck, even the pink p*ssyhat could be viewed as such by your standards, given the affiliation with anti-Semites.
Can you describe some of the hate crimes committed by people wearing pink pussy hats? They are quite easy to find by people wearing MAGA hats and people holding swastika flags.
Pre-burning book is perhaps a bad term, but it refers to destroying books before they were published, as we are seeing in the YA genres these days, as social activists tend to read that genre in particular.
The last major outcry over books that I recall was the religious based fervor over The Golden Compass and Harry Potter, but if you can point out some particular examples of this from the Women's March or similar, I will be quick to denounce the action in solidarity with you.
-
Well, there's really not much to argue about then, if you don't even accept that Nazis are racist, is there? You do realize the textbook definition of Nazi is: pro tolitarian government, pro nationalist, pro Aryan (aka white) supremacy and anti-Semitic (as well as any person not considered Ayran) views. That's what a Nazi is. If you don't think that Nazis are racists, then you are using a different definition of racism than anyone else in the planet. And if someone is wearing a swastika it is entirely reasonable to believe that person is racist. Symbols of Nazis are used to intimidate and make fearful those who are jewish, non white, etc. Based on the actions of many people including physical attacks, MAGA hats also have a connotation while not quite as bad as swastikas, is getting there.
And a black person can certainly be prejudiced against white people. As a women might be prejudiced against men. It's only considered racism if that prejudice is based on a belief that for example white, males are INFERIOR to say blacks or women.
I wouldn't automatically consider inner city black youth as racist if they have a certain hostile response to seeing a white police officer. That is something different.
Racism usually refers to "a belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity".
-
The two events are comparable because they both had leaders/organizers that affiliated with racism. Don't pretend that's not the case. As I've said time and time again, the two fringes of the society share many similarities, both authoritarian and racist to name a few.
A big difference is that the right (for the most part) does not believe in restricting expression of personal beliefs. Many conservatives take it to heart the old saying that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". This is markedly absent on the Liberal side today, Classical Liberals used to believe that, but that's now a dying breed. The fringe on the right are the ones advocating for violence, but it's all too common to find even mainstream lefties shouting punch Nazis or other violent acts against conservatives (dehumanization) as we all witnessed in the Sandman fiasco.
As i said many times regarding the cap being a symbol of hate, that is your opinion, I do not share your opinion. And in case you missed it from my edit:
Guitar, you quoted Justin Murphy in our last correspondence (regarding Free Speech). I thought it would be relevant he had also recently wrote a new article: "The Alt-Right is not all Right (https://jmrphy.net/blog/the-alt-right-is-not-all-right)". Alt-right is almost synonymous with Fascism today, even thought "its origin was demonstrably not fascist or racist". This yet again shows the sneaky new clothing geared to redefine meanings of words by social activists, ie, Trojan Horse Words/Phrases. In fact, he has also been accused of being alt-right, "not by any empirical demonstration but by presumption". I am assuming you quoted Murphy because you find him palatable and more agreeable, so don't take my word for it, read his.
partgypsy,
I never said Nazis are not racists, you are mistaken. I have no idea why you would assume that, Nazis are racist. But Sandman is not a Nazi by any stretch of imagination. And yes, that's the classic definition of racism, which i wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately today the word Racism has a new definition from the intersectionality crowd (another trojan horse term), which essentially claims that Racism is uni-directional, only perpetrated by privileged groups against under-privileged groups. They have wedded the notion of race (again, not real) with power/wealth, which is why by their definition, which is the one mainstream media adopted, Blacks can be prejudiced against Whites, but never racist. Same goes for Asians and Jews.
-
The two events are comparable because they both had leaders/organizers that affiliated with racism. Don't pretend that's not the case. As I've said time and time again, the two fringes of the society share many similarities, both authoritarian and racist to name a few.
A big difference is that the right (for the most part) does not believe in restricting expression of personal beliefs. Many conservatives take it to heart the old saying that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". This is markedly absent on the Liberal side today, Classical Liberals used to believe that, but that's now a dying breed. The fringe on the right are the ones advocating for violence, but it's all too common to find even mainstream lefties shouting punch Nazis or other violent acts against conservatives (dehumanization) as we all witnessed in the Sandman fiasco.
As i said many times regarding the cap being a symbol of hate, that is your opinion, I do not share your opinion. And in case you missed it from my edit:
Guitar, you quoted Justin Murphy in our last correspondence (regarding Free Speech). I thought it would be relevant he had also recently wrote a new article: "The Alt-Right is not all Right (https://jmrphy.net/blog/the-alt-right-is-not-all-right)". Alt-right is almost synonymous with Fascism today, even thought "its origin was demonstrably not fascist or racist". This yet again shows the sneaky new clothing geared to redefine meanings of words by social activists, ie, Trojan Horse Words/Phrases. In fact, he has also been accused of being alt-right, "not by any empirical demonstration but by presumption". I am assuming you quoted Murphy because you find him palatable and more agreeable, so don't take my word for it, read his.
partgypsy,
I never said Nazis are not racists, you are mistaken. I have no idea why you would assume that, Nazis are racist. But Sandman is not a Nazi by any stretch of imagination. And yes, that's the classic definition of racism, which i wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately today the word Racism has a new definition from the intersectionality crowd (another trojan horse term), which essentially claims that Racism is uni-directional, only perpetrated by privileged groups against under-privileged groups. They have wedded the notion of race (again, not real) with power/wealth, which is why by their definition, which is the one mainstream media adopted, Blacks can be prejudiced against Whites, but never racist. Same goes for Asians and Jews.
Wasn't there a thing about literally killing Nazis a while back? Pretty sure the whole world was involved.
Anyway, I would like to point out that it sure looks like you just equated someone expressing a personal belief (i.e. that Nazis should be punched) with a member of the alt-right murdering someone. That's a ridiculous stretch even for you.
-
The two events are comparable because they both had leaders/organizers that affiliated with racism. Don't pretend that's not the case. As I've said time and time again, the two fringes of the society share many similarities, both authoritarian and racist to name a few.
A big difference is that the right (for the most part) does not believe in restricting expression of personal beliefs. Many conservatives take it to heart the old saying that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". This is markedly absent on the Liberal side today, Classical Liberals used to believe that, but that's now a dying breed. The fringe on the right are the ones advocating for violence, but it's all too common to find even mainstream lefties shouting punch Nazis or other violent acts against conservatives (dehumanization) as we all witnessed in the Sandman fiasco.
As i said many times regarding the cap being a symbol of hate, that is your opinion, I do not share your opinion. And in case you missed it from my edit:
Guitar, you quoted Justin Murphy in our last correspondence (regarding Free Speech). I thought it would be relevant he had also recently wrote a new article: "The Alt-Right is not all Right (https://jmrphy.net/blog/the-alt-right-is-not-all-right)". Alt-right is almost synonymous with Fascism today, even thought "its origin was demonstrably not fascist or racist". This yet again shows the sneaky new clothing geared to redefine meanings of words by social activists, ie, Trojan Horse Words/Phrases. In fact, he has also been accused of being alt-right, "not by any empirical demonstration but by presumption". I am assuming you quoted Murphy because you find him palatable and more agreeable, so don't take my word for it, read his.
partgypsy,
I never said Nazis are not racists, you are mistaken. I have no idea why you would assume that, Nazis are racist. But Sandman is not a Nazi by any stretch of imagination. And yes, that's the classic definition of racism, which i wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately today the word Racism has a new definition from the intersectionality crowd (another trojan horse term), which essentially claims that Racism is uni-directional, only perpetrated by privileged groups against under-privileged groups. They have wedded the notion of race (again, not real) with power/wealth, which is why by their definition, which is the one mainstream media adopted, Blacks can be prejudiced against Whites, but never racist. Same goes for Asians and Jews.
Wasn't there a thing about literally killing Nazis a while back? Pretty sure the whole world was involved.
Ya, in case your are fuzzy with the chronological order of events: Nazis had a racist platform before they were even elected. Book burning happened in 1933, 1935 Nuremberg Laws, by 1939 many concentration camps were established, the War then broke out. When did the war break out?
To quote a marvel superhero: "Everytime someone tries to win a war before it starts, innocent people die, everytime". The primary threat we face today is not from the fringe right, but from the left where the radicals have taken over, instilling policies based on unfalsifiable claims from their race/gender/intersectional theories. That is my opinion.
-
The two events are comparable because they both had leaders/organizers that affiliated with racism. Don't pretend that's not the case. As I've said time and time again, the two fringes of the society share many similarities, both authoritarian and racist to name a few.
A big difference is that the right (for the most part) does not believe in restricting expression of personal beliefs. Many conservatives take it to heart the old saying that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". This is markedly absent on the Liberal side today, Classical Liberals used to believe that, but that's now a dying breed. The fringe on the right are the ones advocating for violence, but it's all too common to find even mainstream lefties shouting punch Nazis or other violent acts against conservatives (dehumanization) as we all witnessed in the Sandman fiasco.
As i said many times regarding the cap being a symbol of hate, that is your opinion, I do not share your opinion. And in case you missed it from my edit:
Guitar, you quoted Justin Murphy in our last correspondence (regarding Free Speech). I thought it would be relevant he had also recently wrote a new article: "The Alt-Right is not all Right (https://jmrphy.net/blog/the-alt-right-is-not-all-right)". Alt-right is almost synonymous with Fascism today, even thought "its origin was demonstrably not fascist or racist". This yet again shows the sneaky new clothing geared to redefine meanings of words by social activists, ie, Trojan Horse Words/Phrases. In fact, he has also been accused of being alt-right, "not by any empirical demonstration but by presumption". I am assuming you quoted Murphy because you find him palatable and more agreeable, so don't take my word for it, read his.
partgypsy,
I never said Nazis are not racists, you are mistaken. I have no idea why you would assume that, Nazis are racist. But Sandman is not a Nazi by any stretch of imagination. And yes, that's the classic definition of racism, which i wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately today the word Racism has a new definition from the intersectionality crowd (another trojan horse term), which essentially claims that Racism is uni-directional, only perpetrated by privileged groups against under-privileged groups. They have wedded the notion of race (again, not real) with power/wealth, which is why by their definition, which is the one mainstream media adopted, Blacks can be prejudiced against Whites, but never racist. Same goes for Asians and Jews.
Wasn't there a thing about literally killing Nazis a while back? Pretty sure the whole world was involved.
Ya, in case your are fuzzy with the chronological order of events: Nazis had a racist platform before they were even elected. Book burning happened in 1933, 1935 Nuremberg Laws, by 1939 many concentration camps were established, the War then broke out. When did the war break out?
To quote a marvel superhero: "Everytime someone tries to win a war before it starts, innocent people die, everytime". The primary threat we face today is not from the fringe right, but from the left where the radicals have taken over, instilling policies based on unfalsifiable claims from their race/gender/intersectional theories. That is my opinion.
Let's throw some data at that, shall we?
https://qz.com/1435885/data-shows-more-us-terror-attacks-by-right-wing-and-religious-extremists/
An analysis of the Global Terrorism Database by researchers at the University of Maryland published in 2017 shows a “sharp increase” in the share of attacks by right-wing extremists, from 6% in the 2000s to 35% in the 2010s. The share of attacks by religious extremists also increased, from 9% to 53% between the two decades.
Meanwhile, the share of attacks by left-wing terrorists and environmentalist extremists dropped from 64% in the 2000s to 12% in the 2010s.
-
And another one, just because.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-far-right-extremism-united-states
Right-wing extremism in the United States appears to be growing. The number of terrorist attacks by far-right perpetrators rose over the past decade, more than quadrupling between 2016 and 2017. The recent pipe bombs and the October 27, 2018, synagogue attack in Pittsburgh are symptomatic of this trend. U.S. federal and local agencies need to quickly double down to counter this threat. There has also been a rise in far-right attacks in Europe, jumping 43 percent between 2016 and 2017.
-
The two events are comparable because they both had leaders/organizers that affiliated with racism. Don't pretend that's not the case. As I've said time and time again, the two fringes of the society share many similarities, both authoritarian and racist to name a few.
Can I confirm my understanding that you are equating the Unite the Right, white supremacist Charlottesville rally, complete with Nazi regalia, anti-Semitic chants and the deliberate killing of an unarmed woman, with the 2017 Women's March? That the 7 million or so women who worldwide marched peacefully in the Women's March are "a fringe of society"? (I'm one of the women who marched and I've never before been called fringe, authoritarian or racist. I'm not aware that any of the leaders of the Women's March ever have been called those things either, and I'm sure Trump would have found a way to do so if he could.) Cheers.
-
I've never understood why and how this "registered to vote as a democrat/republican/independent thing works? Don't you just register to vote with the relevant authorities and let the parties work out who is who from their own records?
Telling the government what party you belong to and how you are likely to vote seems incredibly undemocratic to me - the UK got rid of that sort of knowledge at a public institution level a century or more ago.
It varies from state to state, but typically in primary elections you can only vote for candidates of your party, hence the need for party registration. That's not true for general elections.
And I agree, it is total bullshit. The government has no right to know what my political leanings are. I've never registered for a political party.
-
The more I re-read anistropy's last post, the more it looks like they're arguing that it's not OK to fight for anything until there's a literal war. Specifically, attempting to abolish racist societies earlier on in their development cycle is not okay, and one should wait until a legitimate armed conflict arises.
You're right, though. Innocent people are dying.
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2018/03/americans-are-more-likely-be-attacked-far-right-terrorists-islamists
According to the Extremist Crime Database, the far right carried out nine fatal attacks in the US in 2017. In February of that year, Adam Purinton shot two Indian men, one of whom was killed, at a restaurant in Kansas, reportedly yelling “get out of my country” and “terrorist” before opening fire.
In March 2017, James H Jackson, an avid reader of the Daily Stormer, fatally stabbed an elderly African-American man in New York, after travelling from Baltimore to kill as many black men as possible and “make a statement”, according to the authorities.
In May, Jeremy Joseph Christian, an admirer of both Trump and the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh, was charged with stabbing two men to death on a train in Portland, Oregon, after they tried to prevent him from harassing two female passengers who appeared to be Muslim.
In August, James Fields Jr, a proud neo-Nazi, was charged with killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer after allegedly driving his car into a crowd in Charlottesville, Virginia, which had gathered to protest against a white supremacist rally. (“You also had some very fine people on both sides,” Trump would later remark .)
In December, a 17-year-old boy who had mowed a swastika into the grass of a community field was charged with murdering his girlfriend’s parents after they objected to their teenage daughter’s relationship with the youth because of his neo-Nazi views.
-
And another one, just because.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-far-right-extremism-united-states
Right-wing extremism in the United States appears to be growing. The number of terrorist attacks by far-right perpetrators rose over the past decade, more than quadrupling between 2016 and 2017. The recent pipe bombs and the October 27, 2018, synagogue attack in Pittsburgh are symptomatic of this trend. U.S. federal and local agencies need to quickly double down to counter this threat. There has also been a rise in far-right attacks in Europe, jumping 43 percent between 2016 and 2017.
And one more from just a few days ago... why not?
"All of the extremist killings in the US in 2018 had links to right-wing extremism, according to new report" (https://www.businessinsider.com/extremist-killings-links-right-wing-extremism-report-2019-1)
Granted the real head scratcher here is that the report came from the Anti Defamation League.... and given that apparently the far left seems to be 'allied with most of the anti-semites these days' (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/have-you-jumped-off-the-trump-wagon-yet/msg2278280/#msg2278280) it's interesting that they would claim data points to the far right wing as the real danger.
(yes, I was being sarcastic)
-
The two events are comparable because they both had leaders/organizers that affiliated with racism. Don't pretend that's not the case. As I've said time and time again, the two fringes of the society share many similarities, both authoritarian and racist to name a few.
Can I confirm my understanding that you are equating the Unite the Right, white supremacist Charlottesville rally, complete with Nazi regalia, anti-Semitic chants and the deliberate killing of an unarmed woman, with the 2017 Women's March? That the 7 million or so women who worldwide marched peacefully in the Women's March are "a fringe of society"? (I'm one of the women who marched and I've never before been called fringe, authoritarian or racist. I'm not aware that any of the leaders of the Women's March ever have been called those things either, and I'm sure Trump would have found a way to do so if he could.) Cheers.
Yes, he is.
One of the organizers of the Women's March was Jewish, and was given the boot from the planning committee. She believed that this was anti-Semitic, particularly after one of the organizer made comments praising a known anti-Semite, Mr. Farrakhan (leader of the Nation of Islam). This led to a variety of hard questions, and was followed by both women's march leaders to categorically condemn anti-Semitism. Near as I'm aware, no instances of anti-Semitic behvaiour or related violence happend during the actual march. There was obviously some drama, and a lot of hurt feelings.
This is somewhat different from the gathering, openly racist rhetoric, waving of Nazi flags, and eventual murder that occurred in Charlottesville . . . but they are being equated by anistropy.
-
The two events are comparable because they both had leaders/organizers that affiliated with racism. Don't pretend that's not the case. As I've said time and time again, the two fringes of the society share many similarities, both authoritarian and racist to name a few.
Can I confirm my understanding that you are equating the Unite the Right, white supremacist Charlottesville rally, complete with Nazi regalia, anti-Semitic chants and the deliberate killing of an unarmed woman, with the 2017 Women's March? That the 7 million or so women who worldwide marched peacefully in the Women's March are "a fringe of society"? (I'm one of the women who marched and I've never before been called fringe, authoritarian or racist. I'm not aware that any of the leaders of the Women's March ever have been called those things either, and I'm sure Trump would have found a way to do so if he could.) Cheers.
Yes, he is.
One of the organizers of the Women's March was Jewish, and was given the boot from the planning committee. She believed that this was anti-Semitic, particularly after one of the organizer made comments praising a known anti-Semite, Mr. Farrakhan (leader of the Nation of Islam). This led to a variety of hard questions, and was followed by both women's march leaders to categorically condemn anti-Semitism. Near as I'm aware, no instances of anti-Semitic behvaiour or related violence happend during the actual march. There was obviously some drama, and a lot of hurt feelings.
This is somewhat different from the gathering, openly racist rhetoric, waving of Nazi flags, and eventual murder that occurred in Charlottesville . . . but they are being equated by anistropy.
Thanks. So, a connection to an anti-Semite that was retracted is all he's got? Pshaw. And women are a fringe of society? Right. Good luck with that one, anistrophy, old mate.
-
...
partgypsy,
I never said Nazis are not racists, you are mistaken. I have no idea why you would assume that, Nazis are racist. But Sandman is not a Nazi by any stretch of imagination. And yes, that's the classic definition of racism, which i wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately today the word Racism has a new definition from the intersectionality crowd (another trojan horse term), which essentially claims that Racism is uni-directional, only perpetrated by privileged groups against under-privileged groups. They have wedded the notion of race (again, not real) with power/wealth, which is why by their definition, which is the one mainstream media adopted, Blacks can be prejudiced against Whites, but never racist. Same goes for Asians and Jews.
you said "If you recall, my position then was that not everyone that marched or even affiliated with the Nazi flag were racist.
That is the same position I take now, not only regarding the Charlottesville protestors, but also regarding the Women's March."
-
The two events are comparable because they both had leaders/organizers that affiliated with racism. Don't pretend that's not the case. As I've said time and time again, the two fringes of the society share many similarities, both authoritarian and racist to name a few.
Can I confirm my understanding that you are equating the Unite the Right, white supremacist Charlottesville rally, complete with Nazi regalia, anti-Semitic chants and the deliberate killing of an unarmed woman, with the 2017 Women's March? That the 7 million or so women who worldwide marched peacefully in the Women's March are "a fringe of society"? (I'm one of the women who marched and I've never before been called fringe, authoritarian or racist. I'm not aware that any of the leaders of the Women's March ever have been called those things either, and I'm sure Trump would have found a way to do so if he could.) Cheers.
Yes, he is.
One of the organizers of the Women's March was Jewish, and was given the boot from the planning committee. She believed that this was anti-Semitic, particularly after one of the organizer made comments praising a known anti-Semite, Mr. Farrakhan (leader of the Nation of Islam). This led to a variety of hard questions, and was followed by both women's march leaders to categorically condemn anti-Semitism. Near as I'm aware, no instances of anti-Semitic behvaiour or related violence happend during the actual march. There was obviously some drama, and a lot of hurt feelings.
This is somewhat different from the gathering, openly racist rhetoric, waving of Nazi flags, and eventual murder that occurred in Charlottesville . . . but they are being equated by anistropy.
The evidence of certain organizers of the Women's March being anti-Semite is as good as the fringe right being anti-Semite. Have they condemned such sentiment in public after the fact? Yes. Have they severed ties with Farrakhan? No, not even close. In plain speak, they condemned anti-Semitism but not people who are anti-Semite.
The openly racist rhetoric is present, I've mentioned it many times, which you don't seem to understand. "Racism" and "racist" are now Trojan horse words and mean very different things these days. Racism should and used to mean "a belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity" but now it's uni-directional and power based. It is now so entwined with the social movements untrained eyes barely recognize it.
"All whites are racist" - Stephanie Wildman with Adrienne Davis
"a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy" - Robin DiAngelo
"Asians contribute to White supremacy" - mentioned by Bret Weinstein in the Evergreen ordeal
"White Jews uphold White supremacy" - Tamika you know who
No reasonable conservatives outside of the fringe today would accept the following:
"sacrifices will be necessary, and, though we must remain aware of the real and material barriers feminists and others may face that limit their potential for activism, no accessible sacrifice that abnegates neoliberalism should be considered too great."
Let alone to advocate for multi-point guide on how to radicalize and gain support among the majority for their own political gains.
But you know who accepted all of it in a heartbeat? The intersectional crowd. Yes I refer to the famous hoax paper which was essentially a rewrite of ch.12 of mein kampf.
While we are on the topic of intersectionality, I suppose I would bring up some "lived experience". I grew up a Commie in a 3rd world country, I have seen how it works first hand, and this is how it begins. Things will get a lot worse before they can get more "normal". Do you not find it strange, Guitar, that Justin Murphy would all the sudden be considered an "out" person, or Ayaan Ali and Bret Weinstein for that matter.
partgypsy,
the key word is everyone. By your logic then, the affiliation with anti-semites and even holocaust deniers would make everyone participating in the womens march racist or even Nazis. That is equally absurd.
-
Dude, seriously? Again the whole raison d-etre of Nazis, is that they believe in white supremacy. You can't take the peanut butter out of the peanut butter sandwich.
There were Millions of women marching in the womens march, to state that women have rights and are equal to men. But you are saying since one of the organizers was an anti-semite, the purpose of all the marchers is racist or anti-semitic. You can't be arguing that, can you?
Here's the mission statement of the Women's march:
We believe that Women’s Rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are Women’s Rights. We must create a society in which women - including Black women, Indigenous women, poor women, immigrant women, disabled women, Jewish women, Muslim women, Latinx women, Asian and Pacific Islander women, lesbian, bi, queer, and trans women - are free and able to care for and nurture their families, however they are formed, in safe and healthy environments free from structural impediments."
Personally the statement is a little woo woo for me, but specific objectives like like physical safety, health care access, employment, seem pretty mainstream.
I can't find a mission statement or "goal" of the Unite the Right Rally on the website but a list of the speakers were:
David Duke (former grand wizard of KKK), as well as Patrick Little, Simon Roche, Kevin Cormier, Avi Horton, Corey Mahler and Tom Kawcyznki. These were the scheduled, invited speakers. This is NOT a mainstream movement, but considered a hate group.
Here's another question. How many Jewish people proudly participated in the women's march, and did so proudly with no harrassment or issue with it whatsoever?
How many Jewish people participated in the Unite the Right march, proudly and openly?
-
You are equating Nazis with white supremacy. White supremacy is an aspect of being Nazis, it's not the whole picture. Being a white supremacist does not automatically make you a Nazi. Ever since the 1700s Whites had the idea of "Europeans" and "Whites" being superiors to various natives they encountered, that does not retrospectively make them Nazis.
Too many people simply equate Nazis with white supremacy, another example of how distorted white identity has become by all the Trojan horse words. They see white supremacists, and shout, NAZIS! Having failed to distinguish the two groups. Did you know the Japenese also went through a racial-superiority phase during the War? Does that make them Nazis?
In 19th century America, especially the Southern parts, Whites had long held views they were superior to Blacks. That does not retrospectively make them Nazis.
Once again, simply being a white supremacist does not make you a Nazi. What does? One needs to adhere to most if not ALL of the Nazi doctrines. They must view various groups of people undesirable and work to systematically eradicate them by force, while also invading other countries. Are you seriously claiming that's what the MAGA crowd is doing today?
That womens march mission is NEW. People called them out on it in December for missing Jewish and Asian women, etc. I am glad they have updated it.
I have no clue how many Jewish people proudly participated in the women's march, notice how the media simply swept the much lower turnout this year under the rug. There are plenty of good people who can tell something is not quite right, as Haaretz (https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-as-women-s-march-kicks-off-a-look-at-how-it-lost-so-much-jewish-support-1.6851349) pointed out, but some simply refuse to believe what most people can see.
Are they both affiliated with racists? Yes. Are they equal in the level of racism? Not in the slightest. But to denounce one while giving the other a pass is hypocrisy.
-
No reasonable conservatives outside of the fringe today would accept the following:
"sacrifices will be necessary, and, though we must remain aware of the real and material barriers feminists and others may face that limit their potential for activism, no accessible sacrifice that abnegates neoliberalism should be considered too great."
Let alone to advocate for multi-point guide on how to radicalize and gain support among the majority for their own political gains.
But you know who accepted all of it in a heartbeat? The intersectional crowd. Yes I refer to the famous hoax paper which was essentially a rewrite of ch.12 of mein kampf.
Ahh yes, the mysterious and elusive "fem-nazi" responsible for exactly 0 deaths. Not to be confused with real Nazis who are responsible for millions of actual deaths. The only thing you are highlighting is that a particular publication did a piss poor job of peer-review. Claiming the intersectional crowd accepted all of it is extremely disingenuous.
-
Just to be clear, all white supremacists are not Nazis. I agree with you. But it is incorrect to then conclude all nazis are not white supremacists. You are having some basic logic problems.
And again, I'm notsure how why saying there are white supremacists who are not Nazis, is somehow supporting your arguments? It's still not a good thing to be a white supremacist or alt-right winger, even if you're not waving a Nazi flag. In fact many white supremacists and far right-wing people use a myriad of symbols. Still doesn't make their beliefs right.
-
I feel like the thing that is being ignored in this conversation is the actual data that was linked to.
The data makes it pretty clear that actual violence is overwhelmingly coming form the far right, not the far left.
That is data, not anecdotes.
So while a potential pre-emptive war may be being fought by the left (according to some), the data suggests that the far right is already fighting an actual war.
You seem to want to stop the left due to what you perceive as the danger of their ideology.
Meanwhile many on the left would like to stop the right due to the danger of their actions.
-
Just to be clear, all white supremacists are not Nazis. I agree with you. But it is incorrect to then conclude all nazis are not white supremacists. You are having some basic logic problems.
I also agree with you ALL Nazis are white supremacists, I am really not sure why we are arguing? But just to be clear, alt-right are not all Right, read Justin Murphy's article I had linked. Thanks.
MrD
Yes, actual physical violence is overwhelmingly coming from the far right, I agree with this 100%. You can disagree on me but this is where I stand:
Actions are relatively easy to spot and stop and prevent.
Ideology, left unchecked, is far more dangerous.
Call it an ex-Commie's "lived experience".
-
Yes, actual physical violence is overwhelmingly coming from the far right, I agree with this 100%. You can disagree on me but this is where I stand:
Actions are relatively easy to spot and stop and prevent.
Ideology, left unchecked, is far more dangerous.
Call it an ex-Commie's "lived experience".
I am going to assume that you hold that belief because you think that ideology can lead to action.
Otherwise, what would the danger be?
In which case - do you not see any connection between the ideologies of the far right and their violent actions?
-
In which case - do you not see any connection between the ideologies of the far right and their violent actions?
Yes that could very well be. But we need to keep in mind it is difficult to determine how much of it was caused by MAGA.
Bowers (Pittsburgh shooter), for example, has publicly stated he never voted for Trump nor ever had anything to do with MAGA, but most people still think it's MAGA induced. This goes back to how alt-right are not all right. The majority of MAGA supporters, as Murphy had shown, are to the left of Ted Cruz.
Anti-Semitism runs deep in the far right and it is not tolerable. I am sure you've heard plenty of crazy theories on how Jews worship the devil or the lizardmen. Much of it fundamentally was because Jews had been historically more wealthy as a group, or as we call it today, more privilege. Scary to see the left pulling the same thing and anti-Semitism growing on the left too.
-
In which case - do you not see any connection between the ideologies of the far right and their violent actions?
Yes that could very well be. But we need to keep in mind it is difficult to determine how much of it was caused by MAGA.
Bowers (Pittsburgh shooter), for example, has publicly stated he never voted for Trump nor ever had anything to do with MAGA, but most people still think it's MAGA induced. This goes back to how alt-right are not all right. The majority of MAGA supporters, as Murphy had shown, are to the left of Ted Cruz.
Anti-Semitism runs deep in the far right and it is not tolerable. I am sure you've heard plenty of crazy theories on how Jews worship the devil or the lizardmen. Much of it fundamentally was because Jews had been historically more wealthy as a group, or as we call it today, more privilege. Scary to see the left pulling the same thing and anti-Semitism growing on the left too.
I think it would be really great to hear from some Jewish people as to whether they think anti-Semitism is growing on the left.
-
I do think there are extreme people on either end. I do know some fringy very left wing people, who are into conspiracies. Maybe I'm just lucky? but when I talk to these people, jewish people don't come up. Their conspiracy stuff has more to do with the government and chem trails and survelliance type stuff.
Where I have heard impromptu anti-semitic stuff is in rural areas, and in yes older family members by marriage who lived in smaller towns who would drop some "The Jews..." lines.
I never said that blacks couldn't be racist. Only that the definition of racist has to do with superior of one race over another (not about say perceived injustices). So for example it is safe to say the Farrahkan is racist as well as an anti-semite.
-
In which case - do you not see any connection between the ideologies of the far right and their violent actions?
Yes that could very well be. But we need to keep in mind it is difficult to determine how much of it was caused by MAGA.
Bowers (Pittsburgh shooter), for example, has publicly stated he never voted for Trump nor ever had anything to do with MAGA, but most people still think it's MAGA induced. This goes back to how alt-right are not all right. The majority of MAGA supporters, as Murphy had shown, are to the left of Ted Cruz.
Anti-Semitism runs deep in the far right and it is not tolerable. I am sure you've heard plenty of crazy theories on how Jews worship the devil or the lizardmen. Much of it fundamentally was because Jews had been historically more wealthy as a group, or as we call it today, more privilege. Scary to see the left pulling the same thing and anti-Semitism growing on the left too.
I agree, we are not talking about 'all right' just like we are not talking about 'all left.'
We are talking about the extremes of each, which is what we both seem to be concerned about.
We both agree that ideologies can be dangerous insofar as the actions they can lead to.
We both agree that "physical violence is overwhelmingly coming from" extreme adherents of ideology A.
You seem to believe that there is potential danger in extreme adherents of ideology B.
So there are two competing ideologies, one which is connected to real acts of violence and one which you believe has the potential for violence. Yet somehow you walk away from that concluding that ideology B is the worse of the two? Can you explain that logic to me? (i'm sincerely asking, not trying to sound combative)
Do you think it's coincidence that violence is coming from the far right, while simultaneously dropping over the past decade from the far left? Yet somehow you seem to simultaneously believe that the ideology of the far left is somehow guaranteed to lead to violence? There seems to be a logical disconnect there, at least from my vantage point.
Ideologies either affect action or they do not.
And if they do, I fail to see how an ideology with the perceived potential for violence is somehow more dangerous than one that is demonstrably tied to increased violence.
-
Call it an ex-Commie's "lived experience".
You keep mentioning that you lived in a communist country like it has some bearing on this conversation.
Are you implying that people in the Women's March were communists, that everyone politically left of the Republican party is communist, that speaking out against racism/sexism makes one a communist, or something else?
-
In which case - do you not see any connection between the ideologies of the far right and their violent actions?
Yes that could very well be. But we need to keep in mind it is difficult to determine how much of it was caused by MAGA.
Bowers (Pittsburgh shooter), for example, has publicly stated he never voted for Trump nor ever had anything to do with MAGA, but most people still think it's MAGA induced. This goes back to how alt-right are not all right. The majority of MAGA supporters, as Murphy had shown, are to the left of Ted Cruz.
Anti-Semitism runs deep in the far right and it is not tolerable. I am sure you've heard plenty of crazy theories on how Jews worship the devil or the lizardmen. Much of it fundamentally was because Jews had been historically more wealthy as a group, or as we call it today, more privilege. Scary to see the left pulling the same thing and anti-Semitism growing on the left too.
I just reread what you wrote and realize I may have misunderstood what you were saying. My fault for reading too quickly. Let me repeat what I think I'm hearing and you tell me if I'm getting it.
You seem to be trying to split MAGA from the right by pointing out that the majority of MAGA supporters are to the left of Ted Cruz, and therefore not all right wing.
Is that correct?
If so, MAGA probably needs to be defined, because that is not an ideology or system that I'm familiar with, aside from a political tagline on a hat. Unless you are simply using MAGA as a substitute for Trump?
I would also point out that Ted Cruz is far from a centrist, and one can easily be to the left of Ted Cruz while still being squarely on the right, politically.
-
I think it would be really great to hear from some Jewish people as to whether they think anti-Semitism is growing on the left.
You mean like my wife?
Partgypsy,
I think we actually agree on quite a bit, and I am really glad to hear you say Farrakhan is a racist. Too many on the left these days give the ilk like him a free pass because.... well, as I repeatedly said, they've made racism a uni-directional word now. I reject the new definition of racism (power based) and I uphold its classical meanings. I think all racists are despicable for they target groups on their immutable characteristics. I also denounce those white supremacists we saw in Charlottesville, like you do. But, and here comes the but, which ties into my reply to MrD. ps. next time you converse with the left fringe, ask them who they think run the govt. Big Corp? Banks? well... you know where that is headed.
MrD,
Ted Cruz is not Centrist, yet he is also not far right. Far right to me has a very specific meaning: white supremacist or right-wing-authoritarian. They often go hand-in-hand (like Nazis), but occasionally we get those white supremacist anarchist. Ted Cruz is clearly neither.
Let us assume MAGA and Alt-right have significant overlap, as many self-identify as such according to Murphy.
MAGA and Alt-right these days are almost synonymous to "Far-right" by media and the Left. You know what I am about to say, more examples of Trojan-Horse words. But as Murphy had shown, that is decidedly not the case. Over 2/3 of the Alt-right crowd is to the left of Ted Cruz, yet they are routinely given the label of Far-right, Nazis, Racists, which I don't think they deserve. Perhaps up to a quarter of them are left of the moderates with a long tail of Lefties. In fact, Murphy address this in the sections: "A Closer Look at the Kekistani Left" and "A Closer Look at Kekistani Racism" of the article.
Indeed I am proposing we, especially the Progressives, need to re-evaluate our understanding of the MAGA and Alt-right crowd. Instead of labelling them all racists and Nazis (like they had done with Sandman) simply because the fringe of this crowd are indeed white supremacists.
What is my view of the MAGA crowd? Well for one they are definitely pro-Trump. They also view themselves as true patriots, although I am not sure if that would be an adequate description objectively. Many of them want a wall in the South for reasons other than racism. They hope to see MAGA come to pass, meaning good-paying, secure jobs would be plentiful again. Oh, and for some reason, they are ok with ceding international leaderships to Russia and China.
So my view of MAGA is not only political (ie right or left) per se, but also economic in nature. I think it's definitely strikes a cord with traditional conservative values, which is why it has a mode just to the left of Cruz. But at the same time, its "supposed" economic allure entraps many moderates and centrists as well.
EDIT: This is Murphy's take on Alt-right:
"Overall, I would summarize Kekistan [Alt-right] as a virtual “country” populated by emigrants from existing countries who all share a strong commitment to free speech (and nearly nothing else). While the center of gravity is certainly to the right, it is unlikely to be much farther to the right (if at all) than the right-wing of the American Congress. An overwhelming majority of these right-wing Kekistanis express no interest in racial politics (indeed, it is clear that the Kekistani “ethnicity” is mostly a mockery of anyone who cares very much about ethnic identity). That said, there is a clear non-trivial minority of explicit racists and White Nationalists. Most interestingly, I find clear evidence that there is a non-trivial “long tail” of centrists and even leftists, using a technique for Bayesian ideal point estimation that has been validated by previous research (Barberá 2015). "
'While many would be inclined to take this as evidence that Kekistan has a latent racist character generally (because Trump is seen as a unifier of white racism), I think the upshot of this analysis is different.'
"Although Kekistan’s [Alt-right] favorite American politician is Donald Trump, the most empirically warranted interpretation, in my view, is that Kekistani Trump supporters love The Donald primarily because they love freedom of speech above all else. Racism or white supremacy is simply not the shared factor explaining why thousands of people have moved to (or occasionally vacation in) the country of Kekistan. "
-
No, like some people on this forum.
-
I'm confused by all this stuff about Cruz, wives, Kekistan.
To me, the equation seems quite simple. Trump is at least a functional racist, which is even worse than an outspoken racist, because he is hurting people. He makes changes that disproportionately hurt people with darker skin (detention/separation of non-European immigrants). He fails to help same (Puerto Rico). He brings attention to people with darker skin when they seem to behave badly; he takes no notice when people with darker skin do well.
Wearing a MAGA hat means you support Trump's policies. This means at the least, poor judgement, a selfish outlook on life, and passive racism. At the worst, active racism.
-
You are going to have to back up and explain who Kek or Kekistan is
-
After a few references to Murphy and not being familiar with the 'study' you were talking about I finally dug into it last night and read it. You are giving entirely too much weight to one person's statistical analysis of a sample of tweets. First, we are only looking at people who use Twitter (which is roughly 1/5th of the nation). We have no idea what percentage of 'MAGA' supporters (since we're insisting on continuing to use that ill defined term) are twitter users. We have no way of knowing how those on twitter may differ from non-twitter using MAGA supporters. On top of that, the vast majority of Americans (MAGA supporters included) have no idea what 'Kekistan' is, which was the first threshold for him to include a tweet in his 'study.' (I had no idea what it was and it took me a some internet searching to find out and even make sense of Murphy's post). And from there there was inference on top of inference.
Yes, perhaps there is something that can be concluded about twitter users who are familiar with the niche term 'Kekistan' from Murphy's article, but I don't see how you can take anything from his 'findings' and apply it to the real world.
As far as Ted Cruz goes, you are right in that he is not a nazi. But he is very much far to the right. To quote the NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/us/politics/ted-cruz-conservative.html) on him:
On perhaps the defining issue of the 2016 Republican primary, Senator Ted Cruz falls well to the right of Ronald Reagan, who supported granting legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants.
He opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest, and has called for a federal amendment that would allow states to avoid performing or recognizing same-sex marriages.
He wants to return to the gold standard, abolish the Internal Revenue Service and create a tax structure simple enough for Americans to file on postcards.
He has criticized Donald J. Trump on deportation policy. From the right.
Throughout his Senate career, Republican opponents have cast Mr. Cruz as a master of the ill-considered — a “wacko bird,” as Senator John McCain of Arizona once called him — whose seemingly reckless pursuits were thought to place him well outside the mainstream.
Regardless - let's go ahead and assume that the majority of the MAGA crowd is not on the extreme right wing (which is a fair assumption). It is still quite possible that the MAGA crowd has emboldened and allowed the violence which is overwhelmingly coming from the right.
We know that right wing violence has increased dramatically since Trump took office, that is what the data shows. We also know that the KKK and many other extreme right wing group supported and endorsed him. To paraphrase Gillum, 'I’m not calling him a racist. I’m simply saying the racists believe he’s a racist.”
For example - you pointed out Bowers as a defense, saying:
Bowers (Pittsburgh shooter), for example, has publicly stated he never voted for Trump nor ever had anything to do with MAGA, but most people still think it's MAGA induced.
And you're right, Bowers never voted for Trump. What you failed to point out is that there is also reason to believe (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/29/donald-trump-robert-bowers-racist-anti-semitic-synagogue-shooting-column/1800755002/) Bowers felt Trump “betrayed” right-wing radical protesters at Charlottesville. You don't feel someone betrayed you if you didn't feel they were supporting you initially. Bower's may not be a Trump supporter, but apparently he felt Trump was at one point an alt-right supporter. And that is the portion of this equation I feel you might be overlooking. I don't know that the majority of people feel that all MAGA supporters are white supremacists, but the majority of americans do seem to believe that this administration has encouraged white supremacists. (https://www.businessinsider.com/most-americans-think-trumps-encouraged-white-supremacists-2018-10)
So yes, perhaps the majority of MAGA supporters are not part of the extreme right wing. But for some reason the vast majority of the extreme right wing seem to feel they have the support and permission of the MAGA supporters, and they are taking that permission and turning it into violence.
So again - we have two ideologies.
One is proven and demonstrably tied to violent acts in which Americans have been killed.
The other, which is opposed to the first, you feel has the potential to lead to violence.
And somehow you feel the later is more dangerous than the former.
That doesn't make any logical sense.
-
After a few references to Murphy and not being familiar with the 'study' you were talking about I finally dug into it last night and read it. You are giving entirely too much weight to one person's statistical analysis of a sample of tweets. We have no idea what percentage of 'MAGA' supporters (since we're insisting on continuing to use that ill defined term) are twitter users. The vast majority of Americans have no idea what 'Kekistan' is, which was the first threshold for him to include a tweet in his 'study.' (I had no idea what it was and it took me a some internet searching to find out and even make sense of Murphy's post). And from there there was inference on top of inference.
Yes, perhaps there is something that can be concluded about right wing twitter users from Murphy's article, but I don't see how you can take anything from his 'findings' and apply it to the real world.
As far as Ted Cruz goes, you are right in that he is not a nazi. But he is very much far to the right. To quote the NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/us/politics/ted-cruz-conservative.html) on him:
On perhaps the defining issue of the 2016 Republican primary, Senator Ted Cruz falls well to the right of Ronald Reagan, who supported granting legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants.
He opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest, and has called for a federal amendment that would allow states to avoid performing or recognizing same-sex marriages.
He wants to return to the gold standard, abolish the Internal Revenue Service and create a tax structure simple enough for Americans to file on postcards.
He has criticized Donald J. Trump on deportation policy. From the right.
Throughout his Senate career, Republican opponents have cast Mr. Cruz as a master of the ill-considered — a “wacko bird,” as Senator John McCain of Arizona once called him — whose seemingly reckless pursuits were thought to place him well outside the mainstream.
Regardless - let's go ahead and assume that the majority of the MAGA crowd is not on the extreme right wing (which is a fair assumption). It is still quite possible that the MAGA crowd has emboldened and allowed the violence which is overwhelmingly coming from the right.
We know that right wing violence has increased dramatically since Trump took office, that is what the data shows. We also know that the KKK and many other extreme right wing group supported and endorsed him. To paraphrase Gillum, 'I’m not calling him a racist. I’m simply saying the racists believe he’s a racist.”
For example - you pointed out Bowers as a defense, saying:
Bowers (Pittsburgh shooter), for example, has publicly stated he never voted for Trump nor ever had anything to do with MAGA, but most people still think it's MAGA induced.
And you're right, Bowers never voted for Trump. What you failed to point out is that Bowers also said he felt Trump “betrayed” right-wing radical protesters at Charlottesville. You don't feel someone betrayed you if you didn't feel they were supporting you initially. Bower's may not be a Trump supporter, but apparently he felt Trump was at one point an alt-right supporter.
So yes, perhaps the majority of MAGA supporters are not part of the extreme right wing. But for some reason the vast majority of the extreme right wing seem to feel they have the support and permission of the MAGA supporters, and they are taking that permission and turning it into violence.
So again - we have two ideologies.
One is proven and demonstrably tied to violent acts in which Americans have been killed.
The other, which is opposed to the first, you feel has the potential to lead to violence.
And somehow you feel the later is more dangerous than the former.
That doesn't make any logical sense.
+1.
Thank you for taking the time to write this, MrDelane.
-
Indeed I am proposing we, especially the Progressives, need to re-evaluate our understanding of the MAGA and Alt-right crowd. Instead of labelling them all racists and Nazis (like they had done with Sandman) simply because the fringe of this crowd are indeed white supremacists.
You seem stuck on this particular straw man, so I just wanted to point out that Sandmann wasn't labeled a racist or Nazi solely because he wore a MAGA hat. He also engaged in questionable activity, activity that others could reasonably interpret as racist within a certain context. I think if someone wants to wear a MAGA hat for reasons other than racism then it's their responsibility to avoid engaging in such questionable activity or else accept that they may be mistakenly labeled a racist. If someone wants to redeem a term/symbol that has been co-opted by a fringe group then they should do it by using the term/symbol while exhibiting exceptionally good behavior, not by whining about people mistaking them for one of the fringe elements in the group that they choose to associate with. It's the responsibility of those who choose to continue wearing the MAGA cap/using the term to reclaim the positive meaning of MAGA if there is one.
-
Indeed I am proposing we, especially the Progressives, need to re-evaluate our understanding of the MAGA and Alt-right crowd. Instead of labelling them all racists and Nazis (like they had done with Sandman) simply because the fringe of this crowd are indeed white supremacists.
You seem stuck on this particular straw man, so I just wanted to point out that Sandmann wasn't labeled a racist or Nazi solely because he wore a MAGA hat. He also engaged in questionable activity, activity that others could reasonably interpret as racist within a certain context. I think if someone wants to wear a MAGA hat for reasons other than racism then it's their responsibility to avoid engaging in such questionable activity or else accept that they may be mistakenly labeled a racist. If someone wants to redeem a term/symbol that has been co-opted by a fringe group then they should do it by using the term/symbol while exhibiting exceptionally good behavior, not by whining about people mistaking them for one of the fringe elements in the group that they choose to associate with. It's the responsibility of those who choose to continue wearing the MAGA cap/using the term to reclaim the positive meaning of MAGA if there is one.
What did Sandman do that was racist? Not his classmates, just him?
-
Indeed I am proposing we, especially the Progressives, need to re-evaluate our understanding of the MAGA and Alt-right crowd. Instead of labelling them all racists and Nazis (like they had done with Sandman) simply because the fringe of this crowd are indeed white supremacists.
You seem stuck on this particular straw man, so I just wanted to point out that Sandmann wasn't labeled a racist or Nazi solely because he wore a MAGA hat. He also engaged in questionable activity, activity that others could reasonably interpret as racist within a certain context. I think if someone wants to wear a MAGA hat for reasons other than racism then it's their responsibility to avoid engaging in such questionable activity or else accept that they may be mistakenly labeled a racist. If someone wants to redeem a term/symbol that has been co-opted by a fringe group then they should do it by using the term/symbol while exhibiting exceptionally good behavior, not by whining about people mistaking them for one of the fringe elements in the group that they choose to associate with. It's the responsibility of those who choose to continue wearing the MAGA cap/using the term to reclaim the positive meaning of MAGA if there is one.
What did Sandman do that was racist? No his classmates, just him?
Why would you ask me that? I didn't say that he did anything that was racist.
-
Indeed I am proposing we, especially the Progressives, need to re-evaluate our understanding of the MAGA and Alt-right crowd. Instead of labelling them all racists and Nazis (like they had done with Sandman) simply because the fringe of this crowd are indeed white supremacists.
You seem stuck on this particular straw man, so I just wanted to point out that Sandmann wasn't labeled a racist or Nazi solely because he wore a MAGA hat. He also engaged in questionable activity, activity that others could reasonably interpret as racist within a certain context. I think if someone wants to wear a MAGA hat for reasons other than racism then it's their responsibility to avoid engaging in such questionable activity or else accept that they may be mistakenly labeled a racist. If someone wants to redeem a term/symbol that has been co-opted by a fringe group then they should do it by using the term/symbol while exhibiting exceptionally good behavior, not by whining about people mistaking them for one of the fringe elements in the group that they choose to associate with. It's the responsibility of those who choose to continue wearing the MAGA cap/using the term to reclaim the positive meaning of MAGA if there is one.
What did Sandman do that was racist? No his classmates, just him?
Why would you ask me that? I didn't say that he did anything that was racist.
Am I misinterpreting the bolded? It was a genuine question, not a gotcha.
-
Indeed I am proposing we, especially the Progressives, need to re-evaluate our understanding of the MAGA and Alt-right crowd. Instead of labelling them all racists and Nazis (like they had done with Sandman) simply because the fringe of this crowd are indeed white supremacists.
You seem stuck on this particular straw man, so I just wanted to point out that Sandmann wasn't labeled a racist or Nazi solely because he wore a MAGA hat. He also engaged in questionable activity, activity that others could reasonably interpret as racist within a certain context. I think if someone wants to wear a MAGA hat for reasons other than racism then it's their responsibility to avoid engaging in such questionable activity or else accept that they may be mistakenly labeled a racist. If someone wants to redeem a term/symbol that has been co-opted by a fringe group then they should do it by using the term/symbol while exhibiting exceptionally good behavior, not by whining about people mistaking them for one of the fringe elements in the group that they choose to associate with. It's the responsibility of those who choose to continue wearing the MAGA cap/using the term to reclaim the positive meaning of MAGA if there is one.
What did Sandman do that was racist? No his classmates, just him?
Why would you ask me that? I didn't say that he did anything that was racist.
Am I misinterpreting the bolded? It was a genuine question, not a gotcha.
Seems like it...
I specifically said "activity that others could reasonably interpret as racist within a certain context." I'm not interested in arguing over whether the actions were or were not ultimately racist, but I don't think it's unreasonable to interpret them as racist in the limited context that was initially given.
-
MrD,
We can certainly debate if Murphy's twitter data is representative of the MAGA/alt-right population. But it is one of the only "quantitative" analysis I have seen done by someone on the Left that uses empirical evidence to determine if this specific group is as racist as most claim. And yes, this was essentially inference on top of inference, but if you are aware of better empirical studies that are quantitative in nature, please alert me and I will give it a read. But in the absence of such studies, my opinion stands.
A key strength of studies like this is we can simply critique the data and the method on its own merit so we are not necessarily constrained by our ideology and prior beliefs.
I don't know that the majority of people feel that all MAGA supporters are white supremacists
Seems plentiful enough in this thread alone don't you think. It is clear to me, and I hope you as well, that majority of the Left (perhaps only progressives) see most MAGA supporters as white supremacists, which is how the Sandman fiasco happened and why I decided to enter the discussion here. Recall many forum members said MAGA hat is a symbol of hate and racism, and that is something I vehemently disagree with because it simply does not have empirical basis.
It is still quite possible that the MAGA crowd has emboldened and allowed the violence which is overwhelmingly coming from the right
Now let's talk about violence perpetrated by the Right after Trump got in. First Bowers. I am sure you've heard people on the Right claim the Left (https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/01/left-betrayal-america/) have all betrayed America. Are you saying the Right had at one point felt the Left supported them? Betrayal is simply a word to convey disgust on behaviors you do not agree with.
The increase of political violence likely has multiple factors and it is something poli sci people worked on to decipher for many decades. To attribute the rise of violence all to Trump and MAGA is merely a similar assertion on how MAGA hats are a symbol of hate and racism because of one's perspective. Violence is a complicated thing. Murphy wrote on this subject as well: "Liberal pacification" "Inequality and the pacification of militant protests".
You can also read Peter Turkin's (he's a little weird) many articles on political-related violence on a long term scale. We can draw a comparison between now and the 60s-70s where political violence was much higher.
Society was/is greatly polarized, is it fair we blame it all on Trump and MAGA?
Wealth inequality (which is known to incite violence) was/is very high, is it fair we blame it all on Trump and MAGA?
Mainstream Media was/is overwhelmingly biased to one side (it was conservative back then but very progressive today), is it fair we blame it all on Trump and MAGA?
I think on the big picture scale what is happening is that the social movement that began in occupy wall-st is finally manifesting itself as extreme polarization of the society and no productive public discourse is being conducted so people are looking for other avenues of venting their anger. Which unfortunately leads to violence.
Simply look at the old threads on this forum alone, count the number of members that were/are conservative or moderates. The number kept dropping not because they've turned liberal, rather they have been radicalized buy the constant "aggression".
For every violent crime three factors must be met: Motivation, Opportunity, and Rationalization. I am saying the rationalization and motivation factors have gone way up, and it has been going up since 2011 (slide 10 (https://www.adl.org/media/12480/download)), which spiked in 2015, before Trump and MAGA.
When Trump was first elected, I had falsely believed that Trump was the cure since he would do great harm to his own base and destroy them for us. I now see how stupid and naïve I was. What the Left ended up embracing to defeat Trump is something far worse. It is racism, Marxism, sexism, religion all wrapped in secular scholarly clothes.
Farrakhan for example, is widely known as an anti-Semite. Notice few in the media would refer to him simply as a racist? Why? Because "Racist" is now a term reserved mostly for the Alt-Right and MAGA crowd, "Racism" is now by their definition impossible against Whites, Jews, and Asians. Racist is also a term now synonymous to Nazis, but not anti-Semites. Any reasonable person should be able to see it and detect something fundamentally wrong with this mentality.
for some reason the vast majority of the extreme right wing seem to feel they have the support and permission of the MAGA supporters,
The vast majority of the extreme left wing seem to feel they have the support and permission of the academia and mainstream media to carry out the dehumanization process against Whites, Jews, and Asians. The way the Left is redefining all these Trojan Horse words is leaving "loopholes" to be exploited later. Increasingly people are buying into the idea that a Black or Latino could not be racist against Whites, Jews, and Asians, this is dehumanization in process. And you wonder why I am particularly worried about the ideology.
-
MrD,
We can certainly debate if Murphy's twitter data is representative of the MAGA/alt-right population. But it is one of the only "quantitative" analysis I have seen done by someone on the Left that uses empirical evidence to determine if this specific group is as racist as most claim. And yes, this was essentially inference on top of inference, but if you are aware of better empirical studies that are quantitative in nature, please alert me and I will give it a read. But in the absence of such studies, my opinion stands.
Given the empirical information provided earlier in this thread - namely this (https://qz.com/1435885/data-shows-more-us-terror-attacks-by-right-wing-and-religious-extremists/), this (https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-far-right-extremism-united-states), and this (https://www.businessinsider.com/extremist-killings-links-right-wing-extremism-report-2019-1), has your opinion below changed to reflect the actual data?
The primary threat we face today is not from the fringe right, but from the left where the radicals have taken over, instilling policies based on unfalsifiable claims from their race/gender/intersectional theories. That is my opinion.
-
MrD
The vast majority of the extreme left wing seem to feel they have the support and permission of the academia and mainstream media to carry out the dehumanization process against Whites, Jews, and Asians. The way the Left is redefining all these Trojan Horse words is leaving "loopholes" to be exploited later. Increasingly people are buying into the idea that a Black or Latino could not be racist against Whites, Jews, and Asians, this is dehumanization in process. And you wonder why I am particularly worried about the ideology.
You can worry all you want. A magazine demonstrating some piss poor peer review to let a paper slip through where part of it resembled a part of Mein Kampf isn't even on my radar of things to worry about. Again these mysterious "fem-Nazis" are responsible for 0 actual deaths. Compare and contrast that to actual Nazis and they are on different sides of the universe. Dehumanization is mainstream on the right (even the use of words "illegals" constitutes dehumanization). Dehumanization on the far left is really tough to find. And in some cases you are really reaching to try and find it. Good luck with that.
-
MrD
The vast majority of the extreme left wing seem to feel they have the support and permission of the academia and mainstream media to carry out the dehumanization process against Whites, Jews, and Asians. The way the Left is redefining all these Trojan Horse words is leaving "loopholes" to be exploited later. Increasingly people are buying into the idea that a Black or Latino could not be racist against Whites, Jews, and Asians, this is dehumanization in process. And you wonder why I am particularly worried about the ideology.
You can worry all you want. A magazine demonstrating some piss poor peer review to let a paper slip through where part of it resembled a part of Mein Kampf isn't even on my radar of things to worry about. Again these mysterious "fem-Nazis" are responsible for 0 actual deaths. Compare and contrast that to actual Nazis and they are on different sides of the universe. Dehumanization is mainstream on the right (even the use of words "illegals" constitutes dehumanization). Dehumanization on the far left is really tough to find. And in some cases you are really reaching to try and find it. Good luck with that.
And at some point, when one is pretending so desperately that something is there when it kinda isn't... and at the same time trying really hard to downplay something that's really present as though it's not... one gets to the point of wading dangerously close to racism apologist territory.
-
Seems plentiful enough in this thread alone don't you think. It is clear to me, and I hope you as well, that majority of the Left (perhaps only progressives) see most MAGA supporters as white supremacists, which is how the Sandman fiasco happened and why I decided to enter the discussion here. Recall many forum members said MAGA hat is a symbol of hate and racism, and that is something I vehemently disagree with because it simply does not have empirical basis.
These two things are not equivalent...
-
MrD
The vast majority of the extreme left wing seem to feel they have the support and permission of the academia and mainstream media to carry out the dehumanization process against Whites, Jews, and Asians. The way the Left is redefining all these Trojan Horse words is leaving "loopholes" to be exploited later. Increasingly people are buying into the idea that a Black or Latino could not be racist against Whites, Jews, and Asians, this is dehumanization in process. And you wonder why I am particularly worried about the ideology.
You can worry all you want. A magazine demonstrating some piss poor peer review to let a paper slip through where part of it resembled a part of Mein Kampf isn't even on my radar of things to worry about. Again these mysterious "fem-Nazis" are responsible for 0 actual deaths. Compare and contrast that to actual Nazis and they are on different sides of the universe. Dehumanization is mainstream on the right (even the use of words "illegals" constitutes dehumanization). Dehumanization on the far left is really tough to find. And in some cases you are really reaching to try and find it. Good luck with that.
Sokal Squared (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/) was more than just "a magazine". It demonstrated a systematic failure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_Studies_affair) much like Trumpism's rise in power. Intentionally broken papers get published simply because they fit the ideological tilt, in the areas which are now the basis of policies being implemented.
Much of these studies have little substance and are made up of pretend-knowledge. Yes I am afraid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH2WeWgcSMk
-
"Simply look at the old threads on this forum alone, count the number of members that were/are conservative or moderates. The number kept dropping not because they've turned liberal, rather they have been radicalized buy the constant "aggression"."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE8hO79bsOc
-
"Simply look at the old threads on this forum alone, count the number of members that were/are conservative or moderates. The number kept dropping not because they've turned liberal, rather they have been radicalized buy the constant "aggression"."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE8hO79bsOc
Oh I missed this doozy. Yeah it's probably not because they were banned for trolling (even though many were). Blame it on the liberal "aggressor." Nice straw-man!
-
MrD,
We can certainly debate if Murphy's twitter data is representative of the MAGA/alt-right population. But it is one of the only "quantitative" analysis I have seen done by someone on the Left that uses empirical evidence to determine if this specific group is as racist as most claim. And yes, this was essentially inference on top of inference, but if you are aware of better empirical studies that are quantitative in nature, please alert me and I will give it a read. But in the absence of such studies, my opinion stands.
Honestly I think Murphy's article is irrelevant because I am happy to simply assume that the majority of MAGA supporters are not on the extreme right. I'll simply grant that for the sake of argument, as I mentioned earlier. That said, the response to not having confident data should not simply be 'my opinion stands,' it should be 'we don't know.'
But, like I said, I'm happy to accept for the sake of argument that the majority of MAGA supporters are not on the extreme right.
I don't find that to be a controversial idea.
I don't know that the majority of people feel that all MAGA supporters are white supremacists
Seems plentiful enough in this thread alone don't you think. It is clear to me, and I hope you as well, that majority of the Left (perhaps only progressives) see most MAGA supporters as white supremacists, which is how the Sandman fiasco happened and why I decided to enter the discussion here. Recall many forum members said MAGA hat is a symbol of hate and racism, and that is something I vehemently disagree with because it simply does not have empirical basis.
There are two different issues here.
For example, I do not believe that all people who fly the confederate flag are white supremacists.
However, I don't find it rationally incompatible to simultaneously believe that the confederate flag is a symbol of 'hate and racism' (I don't know that I would actually use those words myself, but I'm using them to prove a point).
You seem very drawn to hyperbole and keep using words like "all" or "none," when the world is most obviously not that black and white (and I don't believe you see it as black and white, but you seem to want to strawman the left into these hyperbolic categories). At least, that is how it reads... or, I should say, how I am reading it.
It is still quite possible that the MAGA crowd has emboldened and allowed the violence which is overwhelmingly coming from the right
Now let's talk about violence perpetrated by the Right after Trump got in. First Bowers. I am sure you've heard people on the Right claim the Left (https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/01/left-betrayal-america/) have all betrayed America. Are you saying the Right had at one point felt the Left supported them? Betrayal is simply a word to convey disgust on behaviors you do not agree with.
No I would not agree with your statement, but the structure of your example is fundamentally different from my Bowers comment.
In your example I would agree with the idea that the Right had at one point felt that the left at least supported America (the thing which they perceive has been betrayed).
Much like, it seems, Bowers felt that Trump at one point supported the Alt-Right, and had eventually betrayed them.
Betrayal is not simply a word to convey disgust of behaviors. Betrayal conveys a violation of trust or confidence.
Betrayal can only occur where there was once the perception of loyalty.
Moving on - I just want to point out the hyperbole that I mentioned earlier. Please try to put yourself in my shoes to see how it reads. If I somehow gave you the impression that I was condemning ALL people on the right, then I have not done a good job of communicating - but the following reads like a textbook strawman to me:
Society was/is greatly polarized, is it fair we blame it all on Trump and MAGA?
Wealth inequality (which is known to incite violence) was/is very high, is it fair we blame it all on Trump and MAGA?
Mainstream Media was/is overwhelmingly biased to one side (it was conservative back then but very progressive today), is it fair we blame it all on Trump and MAGA?
The answer is... of course not, and I don't believe I ever argued for that.
But, because we cannot put ALL blame on a thing does not mean we can put NO blame on it.
We have both already agreed, the vast majority of violence is coming form the extreme right, and it is rising.
The extreme right has also shown it feels it has (or, in some cases, had) the support of Trump.
In the face of these facts it seems disingenuous to insinuate that because we cannot blame EVERYTHING on Trump then we cannot blame anything on Trump.
I think on the big picture scale what is happening is that the social movement that began in occupy wall-st is finally manifesting itself as extreme polarization of the society and no productive public discourse is being conducted so people are looking for other avenues of venting their anger. Which unfortunately leads to violence.
That's a strange outlook to me, given that the occupy wall street movement was driven by the left.... and if it led to no productive public discourse you would think it would be the left that would be left looking for 'other avenues of venting their anger.' Yet the violence that you mentions is coming form the right. You seem to be trying to connect the dots from a left wing protest to right wing violence.
So now the left wing ideology is to blame for the violence perpetrated by those they are protesting against?
I am sincerely confused, and I hope I misunderstood what you were saying there.
What the Left ended up embracing to defeat Trump is something far worse. It is racism, Marxism, sexism, religion all wrapped in secular scholarly clothes.
I genuinely don't see it. And, unless I missed it, your examples have been limited to Farrakhan and this Sandman debacle.
I personally don't know anyone who takes Farrakhan seriously, or believes that he is anywhere near mainstream.
He is on the extreme left. But, unlike the extreme right, the extreme left doesn't seem to be actually committing violent acts in general.
The slide you linked to said it itself:
"In terms of lethal violence, 2018 was dominated by
right-wing extremism. Every one of the 50 murders
documented by the COE was committed by a person
or persons with ties to right-wing extremism"
The vast majority of the extreme left wing seem to feel they have the support and permission of the academia and mainstream media to carry out the dehumanization process against Whites, Jews, and Asians.
Okay, that is a claim. That is not an argument.
I haven't seen any support for that belief.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that I'm skeptical - but if you have data and argument to back it up, I am happy to consider it.
The way the Left is redefining all these Trojan Horse words is leaving "loopholes" to be exploited later. Increasingly people are buying into the idea that a Black or Latino could not be racist against Whites, Jews, and Asians, this is dehumanization in process. And you wonder why I am particularly worried about the ideology.
Again, you seem afraid of some nebulous future potential danger... yet somewhat unfazed by the actual violence and danger that is happening today. As quoted above, 50 murders committed by a person with ties to right-wing extremism.
It honestly reads as if you feel an idea is more dangerous than people who have literally killed Americans.
I have a hard time believing that... so maybe I'm not understanding you correctly. But if I am, I'm afraid we're at an impasse, because your position is simply irrational. It seems akin to being afraid that the milk might be poisoned and drinking the drano instead.
EDITED TO ADD:
I see you posted some links while I was writing this reply - so my comment about your examples being limited to Farrakhan may have been premature. I'll take a look when I have a moment.
-
MrD
The vast majority of the extreme left wing seem to feel they have the support and permission of the academia and mainstream media to carry out the dehumanization process against Whites, Jews, and Asians. The way the Left is redefining all these Trojan Horse words is leaving "loopholes" to be exploited later. Increasingly people are buying into the idea that a Black or Latino could not be racist against Whites, Jews, and Asians, this is dehumanization in process. And you wonder why I am particularly worried about the ideology.
You can worry all you want. A magazine demonstrating some piss poor peer review to let a paper slip through where part of it resembled a part of Mein Kampf isn't even on my radar of things to worry about. Again these mysterious "fem-Nazis" are responsible for 0 actual deaths. Compare and contrast that to actual Nazis and they are on different sides of the universe. Dehumanization is mainstream on the right (even the use of words "illegals" constitutes dehumanization). Dehumanization on the far left is really tough to find. And in some cases you are really reaching to try and find it. Good luck with that.
Sokal Squared (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/) was more than just "a magazine". It demonstrated a systematic failure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_Studies_affair) much like Trumpism's rise in power. Intentionally broken papers get published simply because they fit the ideological tilt, in the areas which are now the basis of policies being implemented.
Much of these studies have little substance and are made up of pretend-knowledge. Yes I am afraid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH2WeWgcSMk
No I get it. A handful of journals accepted some pretty outlandish papers (some were down right funny). And this to you constitutes worry above actual real life absolute atrocities current and historical. Again I'm not too worried about fem-Nazis, dog rape in Oregon parks, and sexist and imperialist "western astronomy." I suppose we all have our "vices." I just don't give those a second thought.
-
MrD
The vast majority of the extreme left wing seem to feel they have the support and permission of the academia and mainstream media to carry out the dehumanization process against Whites, Jews, and Asians. The way the Left is redefining all these Trojan Horse words is leaving "loopholes" to be exploited later. Increasingly people are buying into the idea that a Black or Latino could not be racist against Whites, Jews, and Asians, this is dehumanization in process. And you wonder why I am particularly worried about the ideology.
You can worry all you want. A magazine demonstrating some piss poor peer review to let a paper slip through where part of it resembled a part of Mein Kampf isn't even on my radar of things to worry about. Again these mysterious "fem-Nazis" are responsible for 0 actual deaths. Compare and contrast that to actual Nazis and they are on different sides of the universe. Dehumanization is mainstream on the right (even the use of words "illegals" constitutes dehumanization). Dehumanization on the far left is really tough to find. And in some cases you are really reaching to try and find it. Good luck with that.
Sokal Squared (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/) was more than just "a magazine". It demonstrated a systematic failure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_Studies_affair) much like Trumpism's rise in power. Intentionally broken papers get published simply because they fit the ideological tilt, in the areas which are now the basis of policies being implemented.
Much of these studies have little substance and are made up of pretend-knowledge. Yes I am afraid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH2WeWgcSMk
No I get it. A handful of journals accepted some pretty outlandish papers (some were down right funny). And this to you constitutes worry above actual real life absolute atrocities current and historical. Again I'm not too worried about fem-Nazis, dog rape in Oregon parks, and sexist and imperialist "western astronomy." I suppose we all have our "vices." I just don't give those a second thought.
Re: getting accepted by a journal--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phxht9U2yZk
-
MrD,
Your criticism of me making the same mistake of "all or none" is valid. It is, however, difficult to convey ideas on a draft without such figurative phrases. And yes, I understand in our communication it is not All or None, but rather, well, let's say %. I apologize and will try to be more careful.
Suppose you are correct that Bowers' feeling of Trump betrayal. This leads to a strange interpretation of how Trumps' actions in Charlottesville incited and motivated Bowers:
Presumably Bowers feel betrayed because Trump did not side with nutcases like himself and other white supremacists. Bowers then became determined to go all in on innocent people. Does this mean it was caused by Trump not siding with white supremacists? If so, how much blame does MAGA really bear in this case? If your argument is that Bowers was falsely led to believe Trump or MAGA provided a home to racists like him, then I would counter that it was the media that distributed such false image.
I want to clarify what I meant regarding OWS, because I dont think I conveyed my idea clearly:
I am very fazed with actual violence and danger that is happening today, the strong correlation of murders committed by a person with ties to right-wing extremism is undeniable. My point is, these number had long been rising since 2011, before Trump and MAGA, as your data shows (slide 10). In my opinion, this had its roots from back in OWS. You are right most of the protesters back then were Liberals, but there was no cohesive goal other than "we are the 99% no longer tolerates the top 1%", which was just a play on wealth/privilege.
Some among them became extremely right wing and white supremacist. Jason Kessler (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/inside-jason-kesslers-hate-fueled-rise/2018/08/11/335eaf42-999e-11e8-b60b-1c897f17e185_story.html?utm_term=.0e40200a5081), for example, was a known Obama supporter. Johnny Benitez (https://mic.com/articles/187062/with-the-rise-of-the-alt-right-latino-white-supremacy-may-not-be-a-contradiction-in-terms#.JmTAkYWwd), yet another example.
"Benitez shared how he went from Occupy Wall Street protester and Bernie Sanders supporter to alt-right nationalist, claiming he was exiled from Occupy and called a bigot after he questioned the need for the group to support transgender people."
If we are being realistic here, OWS achieved very little, the inequality persisted, its underlying factions eventually splintered into different directions. Many moved on to various forms of identity politics to continue their misguided crusade against privilege/wealth, others went another direction and found a home in Trump's lap with the aid of media. What is common among them, is resentment, grieve, and a thirst for vengeance.
EDIT: Apparently someone already wrote (http://fortune.com/2016/03/23/occupy-wall-street-donald-trump-rise/) about the link between OWS and Trump before the 2016 election. I was not aware of this article.
you feel an idea is more dangerous than people who have literally killed Americans.
I do, in the sense that we KNOW and almost universally denounce and punish the nuts and murderers on the Right. Their powers are quite limited in comparison to the Left. Unfortunately, given the gun laws, we are left vulnerable against mostly individuals. And again, I am not sure if MAGA is responsible or even half responsible for providing rationalization to these murderers. Using the Bowers as an example, he killed because he perceived Trump had betrayed "their cause", even though MAGA was clearly not what he was led to believe by the media.
Many are largely unaware of the same danger coming from the dominant Left now (obviously not all but you get what i mean), this is a systematic danger. As the dehumanization process continues, we are in for a rough ride. Many Poli.Sci academics are recognizing this threat and are writing about it, you can read Murphy's "LIBERAL PACIFICATION AND THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF VIOLENCE (https://jmrphy.net/files/Baron_et_al_Violence_ISQ_Preprint.pdf)", where
"We counter that the spread of liberal institutions does not necessarily decrease violence but transforms it".
"This type of phenomenological violence includes threats, coercion, intimidation and surveillance to restructure and sustain social and political relations. When this type of violence operates
effectively, it appears as though there is no violence; the violence is in the structuring of the prevailing order. While such an outcome may appear peaceful (in the sense of an absence of
direct and even indirect violence), it is, at best, a negative peace that operates through a violent and coercive reordering of society"
-
I just want to reply quickly to acknowledge your response so that you wouldn't think I was ducking out. I have a couple of houseguests who are coming in for the weekend (in the next few minutes) and, I imagine, will take up the majority of the next two days.
In case I'm unable to get back to this quickly, just know that I do intent to check out the links you provided as soon as I'm able.
Thank you for the interesting discussion so far.
-
I just want to reply quickly to acknowledge your response so that you wouldn't think I was ducking out. I have a couple of houseguests who are coming in for the weekend (in the next few minutes) and, I imagine, will take up the majority of the next two days.
In case I'm unable to get back to this quickly, just know that I do intent to check out the links you provided as soon as I'm able.
Thank you for the interesting discussion so far.
No worries, always a pleasure conversing with you. Enjoy your weekend. ❤
-
Responding to an event that’s been in current events today:
If I went into a restaurant and sat down for a meal, and a few minutes later a couple of guys in MAGA hats came in and sat down at the table next to me, I would be frightened. If I were a POC, I would probably leave, out of fear of being hurt. If I were visibly trans, or if I were gay and there with someone who was visibly my partner, I would leave immediately.
-
Responding to an event that’s been in current events today:
If I went into a restaurant and sat down for a meal, and a few minutes later a couple of guys in MAGA hats came in and sat down at the table next to me, I would be frightened. If I were a POC, I would probably leave, out of fear of being hurt. If I were visibly trans, or if I were gay and there with someone who was visibly my partner, I would leave immediately.
"If ifs were fifths we'd all be drunk." It's common knowledge that many homosexuals support Trump. My world is Seattle immersion so I acknowledge I live in a bubble. No one gets frightened over clothing at restaurants here. Difference of opinion is common and celebrated. I don't know where you live Kris, but it doesn't sound pleasant.
-
Responding to an event that’s been in current events today:
If I went into a restaurant and sat down for a meal, and a few minutes later a couple of guys in MAGA hats came in and sat down at the table next to me, I would be frightened. If I were a POC, I would probably leave, out of fear of being hurt. If I were visibly trans, or if I were gay and there with someone who was visibly my partner, I would leave immediately.
"If ifs were fifths we'd all be drunk." It's common knowledge that many homosexuals support Trump. My world is Seattle immersion so I acknowledge I live in a bubble. No one gets frightened over clothing at restaurants here. Difference of opinion is common and celebrated. I don't know where you live Kris, but it doesn't sound pleasant.
I expected this response.
-
Responding to an event that’s been in current events today:
If I went into a restaurant and sat down for a meal, and a few minutes later a couple of guys in MAGA hats came in and sat down at the table next to me, I would be frightened. If I were a POC, I would probably leave, out of fear of being hurt. If I were visibly trans, or if I were gay and there with someone who was visibly my partner, I would leave immediately.
"If ifs were fifths we'd all be drunk." It's common knowledge that many homosexuals support Trump. My world is Seattle immersion so I acknowledge I live in a bubble. No one gets frightened over clothing at restaurants here. Difference of opinion is common and celebrated. I don't know where you live Kris, but it doesn't sound pleasant.
Is it?
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/record-lgbt-support-democrats-midterms-nbc-news-exit-poll-shows-n934211 (https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/record-lgbt-support-democrats-midterms-nbc-news-exit-poll-shows-n934211)
Yes, that's mid-terms. Less than 15% of LGBT voters voted for Trump in the election. As to the few left that still do support Trump, it's been highlighted ad nauseam that there exist people that will in fact vote against their own self interest.
-
Responding to an event that’s been in current events today:
If I went into a restaurant and sat down for a meal, and a few minutes later a couple of guys in MAGA hats came in and sat down at the table next to me, I would be frightened. If I were a POC, I would probably leave, out of fear of being hurt. If I were visibly trans, or if I were gay and there with someone who was visibly my partner, I would leave immediately.
"If ifs were fifths we'd all be drunk." It's common knowledge that many homosexuals support Trump. My world is Seattle immersion so I acknowledge I live in a bubble. No one gets frightened over clothing at restaurants here. Difference of opinion is common and celebrated. I don't know where you live Kris, but it doesn't sound pleasant.
Is it?
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/record-lgbt-support-democrats-midterms-nbc-news-exit-poll-shows-n934211 (https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/record-lgbt-support-democrats-midterms-nbc-news-exit-poll-shows-n934211)
As to the few left that still do support Trump, it's been highlighted ad nauseam that there exist people that will in fact vote against their own self interest.
Yeah, I don't think "gays for Trump" is a thing outside of maybe small, delusional bubbles. My LGBTQ friends (and I'm a hobbyist musician, I have many) uniformly despise him and are afraid for their rights. One gay friend and I were morbidly joking recently about whether things in Trump's America are likely to be worse for him or for me (Mexican-American).
-
Responding to an event that’s been in current events today:
If I went into a restaurant and sat down for a meal, and a few minutes later a couple of guys in MAGA hats came in and sat down at the table next to me, I would be frightened. If I were a POC, I would probably leave, out of fear of being hurt. If I were visibly trans, or if I were gay and there with someone who was visibly my partner, I would leave immediately.
"If ifs were fifths we'd all be drunk." It's common knowledge that many homosexuals support Trump. My world is Seattle immersion so I acknowledge I live in a bubble. No one gets frightened over clothing at restaurants here. Difference of opinion is common and celebrated. I don't know where you live Kris, but it doesn't sound pleasant.
I expected this response.
As I counted on yours.
-
Responding to an event that’s been in current events today:
If I went into a restaurant and sat down for a meal, and a few minutes later a couple of guys in MAGA hats came in and sat down at the table next to me, I would be frightened. If I were a POC, I would probably leave, out of fear of being hurt. If I were visibly trans, or if I were gay and there with someone who was visibly my partner, I would leave immediately.
"If ifs were fifths we'd all be drunk." It's common knowledge that many homosexuals support Trump. My world is Seattle immersion so I acknowledge I live in a bubble. No one gets frightened over clothing at restaurants here. Difference of opinion is common and celebrated. I don't know where you live Kris, but it doesn't sound pleasant.
I expected this response.
As I counted on yours.
May I ask, are you a woman or a member of any of the groups I mentioned above? And are you quite sure that “no one” in Seattle would feel this way if they were, say, to travel out of that self-described bubble into someplace where they might actually encounter a situation like I described above? Have you asked any POC, gay, or trans people what it would be like for them in such a situation?
-
Responding to an event that’s been in current events today:
If I went into a restaurant and sat down for a meal, and a few minutes later a couple of guys in MAGA hats came in and sat down at the table next to me, I would be frightened. If I were a POC, I would probably leave, out of fear of being hurt. If I were visibly trans, or if I were gay and there with someone who was visibly my partner, I would leave immediately.
"If ifs were fifths we'd all be drunk." It's common knowledge that many homosexuals support Trump. My world is Seattle immersion so I acknowledge I live in a bubble. No one gets frightened over clothing at restaurants here. Difference of opinion is common and celebrated. I don't know where you live Kris, but it doesn't sound pleasant.
I expected this response.
As I counted on yours.
May I ask, are you a woman or a member of any of the groups I mentioned above? And are you quite sure that “no one” in Seattle would feel this way if they were, say, to travel out of that self-described bubble into someplace where they might actually encounter a situation like I described above? Have you asked any POC, gay, or trans people what it would be like for them in such a situation?
I am a man and a member of the Pink Pistols http://www.pinkpistols.org/ (http://www.pinkpistols.org/). My bubble is self reliant and strong in the LGBTQ community. We are not as rare as people think. I don't know what it would be like outside of the PNW but I can assure you we discuss all these issues and celebrate open thought.
-
Responding to an event that’s been in current events today:
If I went into a restaurant and sat down for a meal, and a few minutes later a couple of guys in MAGA hats came in and sat down at the table next to me, I would be frightened. If I were a POC, I would probably leave, out of fear of being hurt. If I were visibly trans, or if I were gay and there with someone who was visibly my partner, I would leave immediately.
"If ifs were fifths we'd all be drunk." It's common knowledge that many homosexuals support Trump. My world is Seattle immersion so I acknowledge I live in a bubble. No one gets frightened over clothing at restaurants here. Difference of opinion is common and celebrated. I don't know where you live Kris, but it doesn't sound pleasant.
I expected this response.
As I counted on yours.
May I ask, are you a woman or a member of any of the groups I mentioned above? And are you quite sure that “no one” in Seattle would feel this way if they were, say, to travel out of that self-described bubble into someplace where they might actually encounter a situation like I described above? Have you asked any POC, gay, or trans people what it would be like for them in such a situation?
I am a man and a member of the Pink Pistols http://www.pinkpistols.org/ (http://www.pinkpistols.org/). My bubble is self reliant and strong in the LGBTQ community. We are not as rare as people think. I don't know what it would be like outside of the PNW but I can assure you we discuss all these issues and celebrate open thought.
Awesome. But I find it interesting that the raison d’etre of that organization seems to be gays arming themselves in part against perceived threats to them specifically because of their sexual orientation. Like, it says that explicitly in their “About” section.
-
MAGA hats is a symbol of hate to some people. This I fully understand, but do not project your own feelings to how everyone should think. As an individual, I will accept the hat to be a symbol of hate if and when their supporters carried out their version of "final solution" and murdered millions of minorities for no reason other than their race and gender and sexual orientation. Until that happens, take your religion and get out of my face.
Hm. So. Okay. Are you saying that this act wasn't an act of hate? Or that the MAGA thing is a pure coincidence in this case? Like, they could have just as easily been singing Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up," and the fact that they yelled "This is MAGA country" while beating and pouring bleach on this person has nothing to do at all with their actions?
I would really like to know. Really.
https://www.tmz.com/2019/01/29/empire-star-jussie-smollett-attacked-hospitalized-homophobic-hate-crime/?fbclid=IwAR2oDRaO6G6fQCK6oSWJ3IQIZC_n9BABtuG-xjVQvC7onkgWzo4r-5BxHTc
So...care to revisit that @Kris ?
-
MAGA hats is a symbol of hate to some people. This I fully understand, but do not project your own feelings to how everyone should think. As an individual, I will accept the hat to be a symbol of hate if and when their supporters carried out their version of "final solution" and murdered millions of minorities for no reason other than their race and gender and sexual orientation. Until that happens, take your religion and get out of my face.
Hm. So. Okay. Are you saying that this act wasn't an act of hate? Or that the MAGA thing is a pure coincidence in this case? Like, they could have just as easily been singing Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up," and the fact that they yelled "This is MAGA country" while beating and pouring bleach on this person has nothing to do at all with their actions?
I would really like to know. Really.
https://www.tmz.com/2019/01/29/empire-star-jussie-smollett-attacked-hospitalized-homophobic-hate-crime/?fbclid=IwAR2oDRaO6G6fQCK6oSWJ3IQIZC_n9BABtuG-xjVQvC7onkgWzo4r-5BxHTc
So...care to revisit that @Kris ?
I mean, not really, or not yet, anyway, since we don’t really know what’s going on right now...
??
-
I mean, not really, or not yet, anyway, since we don’t really know what’s going on right now...
??
This is a great sentiment. Let's remember that the next time that something like the Covington high students or something like this comes about. Everyone should wait until we know what is going on. (I'm betting that no one waits next time either.)
-
I mean, not really, or not yet, anyway, since we don’t really know what’s going on right now...
??
This is a great sentiment. Let's remember that the next time that something like the Covington high students or something like this comes about. Everyone should wait until we know what is going on. (I'm betting that no one waits next time either.)
Which with the Covington situation, then, is never?
-
Last post on this as I finish packing for my winter vacation.
I dont entirely blame smollett, i blame the msm, and I blame us.
Because together we incentivized such things to happen, we created a false reality, so a large proportion of the population is of the belief that racial attacks and homophobia have skyrocketed because of evil orange man trump.
Time and time again someone comes forward and claims they were victimized by maga hat crowds, the msm created the environment that this will keep happening. Without bothering to investigate and skeptical, some initial stories didn't even bother to put in the caveat "allegedly". Are they going to retract this? hell no. just look at what they did with covington.
The definition of what constitutes as hate has certainly expanded and even re-defined over the years. 10 years ago it was the kkk is marching down the street with guns and shit, and now its simply someone posting an edgy rant on the internet, feeding into that moral panic because trump exists.
The msm (heck they all do) make money SELLING FEAR, a lot of times they are the same ones propagating the idea of hate violence. With covington, they gobbled down the initial rage and repeated it ad nauseam; they were wrong the whole time, yet barely half of them retracted. The media had a field day for 2 days, then they wanted a "wall of silence" because they turned out to be dead wrong regarding nick sandman.
And now the same is true (at least appears to be) with this, as soon as few days ago they were saying if you dont think smollett attack was a sign of a bigger problem in our society then you are a racist bigot. how dare you even suggesting some of what was reported didnt make sense and/or question his account?
But that's the thing, there is an incentive now to do things like this. I really hate to say it, but like metoo, an initial kernel of truth was manufactured into a crisis that's way over blown out of proportion. The initial reformist situation was quickly hijacked by opportunists to grind their own cases, and now it's fallen apart and imploded in the wake of kavanaugh accusers retractions (which seriously i had no idea).
This did a huge disservice to people that have been legitimately victimized. They are not going to get the support they need and we are going back to non-belief because bunch of opportunist hacks lied about it.
The tracked number of fake hate crimes have skyrocketed in recent years, along with hate crime reports (just reports). This can be tied back to the bs ideology of intersectionality, essentially one that worships and glorifies victimhood.
this paragraph is largely a quote:
In a victimhood culture, accusations of hate crimes are generally taken at face value, & calls for caution or due process are seen as being unfair to victims. Hoaxers generally escape punishment unless police get involved. Before the hoax is discovered, the "victim" receives special moral status--he or she is put on a pedastal and is deferred to on all sorts of matters. The incentives for faking one's victimhood status are obvious. Victimehood status has morphed into a form of social currency and is actively driving out (per Gresham's Law) due process and evidence.
I supported Clinton in 2016, I am largely a centrist with liberal views, yet increasingly i feel the msm is reflecting a very distorted reality. Today's culture wars are framed as a contest between Left & Right, but it's about epistemology more than politics. On one side we have those who value evidence and reason, and on the other we have those who lay claim to knowledge via emotion, drama, and victimhood.
Just stop with the virtue signaling. Wait at least a week before you make decisions. Take additional information from sources in addition from wapo, nyt, cnn, nbc, etc. Be informed from more than just one angle.
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as ‘racists’ -- Thomas Sowell (allegedly)
-
I'm not going to apologize for taking someone at his word.
But yes. I did just read the latest information on this situation, and I'm disappointed, and angry. Because Smollett's opportunistic lies affect other people. Because on the totem pole of "who do we believe/take seriously/care about," black men and queer men are pretty near the bottom already. And what he has done will just push them even lower, and give racists and homophobes even more of an excuse to discount, deny, or even mock the very real problem of violence against POC and LGBTQ. He has done harm to the very communities he exploited by staging this "crime," and he should be ashamed. I hope one day he will be horrified and sorry for what he's done. Though I imagine, he'll probably only be horrified and sorry that he got caught.
-
Anisotropy -
I owe you an apology for not coming back to this thread as I intended (I haven't been on the site at all recently). Life has a way of getting in the way, and at this point I'm not sure it's worth it to dive back into the weeds on this topic (though I'm happy to if you'd prefer it, just let me know).
In a broad sense I want to point out one thing I read that you wrote recently as I was playing catch up:
Today's culture wars are framed as a contest between Left & Right, but it's about epistemology more than politics.
That is definitely something I can agree with (though I don't particularly agree with the way you went on to frame it). But I do think we definitely have a battle of epistemology going on in this world at the moment, and I will agree it is not cleanly drawn across party lines.
We may never agree on the particular problems we face, or their solutions... but at least we can agree on that.
-
I cannot speak on other subjects, but I am a professional economist, and my background includes a Ph.D. in economics.
In economics, at least, the left versus right has completely broken down. There were professional economists often defending conservative positions, guys like Greg Mankiw, Marty Feldstein, etc., and they have been completely sidelined within this current administration. The whole discipline has been thrown in the trash by our modern Republican party. So--at least for where I am professionally--the evidence and reason people are all on the Democrats' side.
yes, there seem to be crazy socialists within the Democratic party, too, but the power and influence within Republican circles is completely unmoored from our science. Consider:
1. Chair of Council of economic advisors removed from being a cabinet position, (and he's basically a journalist)
2. Chair of Federal reserve has a JD (and there was no reason to remove Yellen from that position),
3. The whole tariff thing, when basically the entirety of our profession has advised against tariffs for decades
4. Congress ignoring the budget scoring of our non-partisan CBO that was created to be a non-partisan scorekeeper for legislature.
-
I supported Clinton in 2016, I am largely a centrist with liberal views, yet increasingly i feel the msm is reflecting a very distorted reality. Today's culture wars are framed as a contest between Left & Right, but it's about epistemology more than politics. On one side we have those who value evidence and reason, and on the other we have those who lay claim to knowledge via emotion, drama, and victimhood.
Unfortunately, the internet mob supports the drama.
Look at the entire caravan "problem" -- an invading horde (two of them!) of Central Americans was marching on our southern borders to...get jobs. Yet some of the MSM (led by Foxnews) was going ballistic and worried about being victims of these minorities. Oddly, the caravan stories were missing from the front page of Fox the day after the midterm elections. It's as if the fear and drama was being manufactured for a purpose.
It won't get any better.
-
America’s largest cities saw a 176 percent spike in anti-Latino hate crimes the first two weeks after the 2016 election. In 2017, reports of anti–Hispanic/Latino crimes rose by more than 24 percent, according to FBI numbers.
It's clear how racist attitudes are emboldened when those attitudes are projected from the White House.
I’m hoping we will correct this in 2020.
-
I cannot speak on other subjects, but I am a professional economist, and my background includes a Ph.D. in economics.
... The whole discipline has been thrown in the trash by our modern Republican party. So--at least for where I am professionally--the evidence and reason people are all on the Democrats' side.
yes, there seem to be crazy socialists within the Democratic party, too, but the power and influence within Republican circles is completely unmoored from our science. Consider:
This. If it’s true that as individuals age they drift rightward, there maybe a room for a Moderate Pro-Business party. Except for evangelicals and alt-right types, I can’t see millennials joining the socially conservative Republican Party unless it has a massive sea-change. Meanwhile the purported drift leftward in the Democratic Party (which is NOT what we saw in the midterms... that was a reaffirmation of moderate values) scares me too. A party that based its ideology on acceptance that Wall Street may be evil but it’s a necessarily evil that most Americans need (protecting markets and protecting individuals) and on maximizing economic performance (this may be counterintuitive like national health insurance might increase labor mobility and productivity and breaking up concentrations of wealth) would get my vote.
-
This. If it’s true that as individuals age they drift rightward, there maybe a room for a Moderate Pro-Business party. Except for evangelicals and alt-right types, I can’t see millennials joining the socially conservative Republican Party unless it has a massive sea-change. Meanwhile the purported drift leftward in the Democratic Party (which is NOT what we saw in the midterms... that was a reaffirmation of moderate values) scares me too. A party that based its ideology on acceptance that Wall Street may be evil but it’s a necessarily evil that most Americans need (protecting markets and protecting individuals) and on maximizing economic performance (this may be counterintuitive like national health insurance might increase labor mobility and productivity and breaking up concentrations of wealth) would get my vote.
Listening to the radio on my way in this morning there was a DNC rep that was highly critical of the Dems focus on social issues over class. The argument he was making was basically that the GOP under Trump has left the door wide open to woo the bottom 80% of the economic ladder - yet most of their time is spent talking about social issues where people have already formed solid opinions (ie abortion, immigration/ICE, LGBTQ, firearms...)
-
This. If it’s true that as individuals age they drift rightward, there maybe a room for a Moderate Pro-Business party. Except for evangelicals and alt-right types, I can’t see millennials joining the socially conservative Republican Party unless it has a massive sea-change. Meanwhile the purported drift leftward in the Democratic Party (which is NOT what we saw in the midterms... that was a reaffirmation of moderate values) scares me too. A party that based its ideology on acceptance that Wall Street may be evil but it’s a necessarily evil that most Americans need (protecting markets and protecting individuals) and on maximizing economic performance (this may be counterintuitive like national health insurance might increase labor mobility and productivity and breaking up concentrations of wealth) would get my vote.
Listening to the radio on my way in this morning there was a DNC rep that was highly critical of the Dems focus on social issues over class. The argument he was making was basically that the GOP under Trump has left the door wide open to woo the bottom 80% of the economic ladder - yet most of their time is spent talking about social issues where people have already formed solid opinions (ie abortion, immigration/ICE, LGBTQ, firearms...)
I would agree with this.
-
This. If it’s true that as individuals age they drift rightward, there maybe a room for a Moderate Pro-Business party. Except for evangelicals and alt-right types, I can’t see millennials joining the socially conservative Republican Party unless it has a massive sea-change. Meanwhile the purported drift leftward in the Democratic Party (which is NOT what we saw in the midterms... that was a reaffirmation of moderate values) scares me too. A party that based its ideology on acceptance that Wall Street may be evil but it’s a necessarily evil that most Americans need (protecting markets and protecting individuals) and on maximizing economic performance (this may be counterintuitive like national health insurance might increase labor mobility and productivity and breaking up concentrations of wealth) would get my vote.
Listening to the radio on my way in this morning there was a DNC rep that was highly critical of the Dems focus on social issues over class. The argument he was making was basically that the GOP under Trump has left the door wide open to woo the bottom 80% of the economic ladder - yet most of their time is spent talking about social issues where people have already formed solid opinions (ie abortion, immigration/ICE, LGBTQ, firearms...)
I would agree with this.
100% agree.
-
...
Trump 2020: it's too late to fix it now anyway.
My FIL shares this sentiment, and I find it infuriating. The logic-train seems to be that a split from Trump now would mean a split of the party, and that in turn would lead to the most left-wing progressive government in the history of our country. It's basically the 'slippery slope' fallacy. Meanwhile the formerly GOP stances on free trade, federal-government over-reach, foreign policy and other aspects have been tossed into the wind.
It seems like an enormous price to pay for some judges and a tax plan - particularly since *any* future GOP president could have given them the same with less compromising of their core values.
-
Conservative writer and radio host Erick Erickson: “Some of my concerns about President Trump remain,” he wrote in a recent column. “But I also recognize that we cannot have the Trump administration policies without President Trump and there is much to like.”
I get that conservatives want conservative judges and lower taxes and they want to get rid of unions and a bunch of other stuff... fine. But shouldn't the #1 conservative goal be to protect our form of government and faith in our institutions? Because right now it seems like they are putting up with a bunch of banana republic type BS, just so they can get a tax cut and some judges. Trading trust in government and our institutions for conservative judges and lower taxes... seems a bit like an ice cream sundae shop trading all the ice cream for chocolate syrup and a cherry.
Do conservatives think we'll just go back to normal after 8 years of Trump? After we trash the FBI, after we trash our Intelligence professionals, after we don't protect our election from Russia, we'll what -- just go back to having faith in things and protecting our democracy?
Go too far, and there will be no going back to normal. It may already be too late.
Trump 2020: it's too late to fix it now anyway.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/opinion/trump-william-weld.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
This is what conservatives felt like after 1930-1968. New Deal, WWII, Civil Rights, and Johnson's massive social programs irrevocably broke the social contract as conservatives understood it.
-
Conservative writer and radio host Erick Erickson: “Some of my concerns about President Trump remain,” he wrote in a recent column. “But I also recognize that we cannot have the Trump administration policies without President Trump and there is much to like.”
I get that conservatives want conservative judges and lower taxes and they want to get rid of unions and a bunch of other stuff... fine. But shouldn't the #1 conservative goal be to protect our form of government and faith in our institutions? Because right now it seems like they are putting up with a bunch of banana republic type BS, just so they can get a tax cut and some judges. Trading trust in government and our institutions for conservative judges and lower taxes... seems a bit like an ice cream sundae shop trading all the ice cream for chocolate syrup and a cherry.
Do conservatives think we'll just go back to normal after 8 years of Trump? After we trash the FBI, after we trash our Intelligence professionals, after we don't protect our election from Russia, we'll what -- just go back to having faith in things and protecting our democracy?
Go too far, and there will be no going back to normal. It may already be too late.
Trump 2020: it's too late to fix it now anyway.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/opinion/trump-william-weld.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
This is what conservatives felt like after 1930-1968. New Deal, WWII, Civil Rights, and Johnson's massive social programs irrevocably broke the social contract as conservatives understood it.
That is an interesting perspective. I thought that history has mostly looked kindly on most of those events. The New Deal certainly did much to put impoverished people back to work, stimulating the economy when it desperately needed it and gave us infrastructure projects that are still paying dividends a century later. While WWII was not anything we want again, America’s involvement in it was key to finally bringing the war to an end and ensuring that the Nazis didn’t remain in power with all of their human rights abuses. The economy in the US certainly flourished after as well. Additionally, anyone today who isn’t straight white Christian male is directly and indirectly benefiting from the civil rights movements as the lot of everyone else has slowly been improving, turbo charged by the incredible work of those who gave so much during the civil rights movement.
I suppose you are welcome to your view that this broke a social contract in some way, but I feel society is doing its job when grandma doesn’t starve on the street when she is too old or sick to work, when we can deliver electricity and clean water to our citizens, when people are able to start life out on an even footing with equal opportunities to make themselves a success. The entire point of coming together in this thing called “society” is that we are all better off when we help each other out.
-
Conservative writer and radio host Erick Erickson: “Some of my concerns about President Trump remain,” he wrote in a recent column. “But I also recognize that we cannot have the Trump administration policies without President Trump and there is much to like.”
I get that conservatives want conservative judges and lower taxes and they want to get rid of unions and a bunch of other stuff... fine. But shouldn't the #1 conservative goal be to protect our form of government and faith in our institutions? Because right now it seems like they are putting up with a bunch of banana republic type BS, just so they can get a tax cut and some judges. Trading trust in government and our institutions for conservative judges and lower taxes... seems a bit like an ice cream sundae shop trading all the ice cream for chocolate syrup and a cherry.
Do conservatives think we'll just go back to normal after 8 years of Trump? After we trash the FBI, after we trash our Intelligence professionals, after we don't protect our election from Russia, we'll what -- just go back to having faith in things and protecting our democracy?
Go too far, and there will be no going back to normal. It may already be too late.
Trump 2020: it's too late to fix it now anyway.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/opinion/trump-william-weld.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
This is what conservatives felt like after 1930-1968. New Deal, WWII, Civil Rights, and Johnson's massive social programs irrevocably broke the social contract as conservatives understood it.
That's a pretty damning indictment of conservatives.
-
Conservative writer and radio host Erick Erickson: “Some of my concerns about President Trump remain,” he wrote in a recent column. “But I also recognize that we cannot have the Trump administration policies without President Trump and there is much to like.”
I get that conservatives want conservative judges and lower taxes and they want to get rid of unions and a bunch of other stuff... fine. But shouldn't the #1 conservative goal be to protect our form of government and faith in our institutions? Because right now it seems like they are putting up with a bunch of banana republic type BS, just so they can get a tax cut and some judges. Trading trust in government and our institutions for conservative judges and lower taxes... seems a bit like an ice cream sundae shop trading all the ice cream for chocolate syrup and a cherry.
Do conservatives think we'll just go back to normal after 8 years of Trump? After we trash the FBI, after we trash our Intelligence professionals, after we don't protect our election from Russia, we'll what -- just go back to having faith in things and protecting our democracy?
Go too far, and there will be no going back to normal. It may already be too late.
Trump 2020: it's too late to fix it now anyway.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/opinion/trump-william-weld.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
This is what conservatives felt like after 1930-1968. New Deal, WWII, Civil Rights, and Johnson's massive social programs irrevocably broke the social contract as conservatives understood it.
That's a pretty damning indictment of conservatives.
Not really. Primarily, anyone can say anything like this with no support. Doesn't mean its true.
It's also not an indictment of conservatives if you can set aside your coloring book propaganda about what the New Deal and Johnson's war on povery actually accomplished.
WW2 was infact great for our economy. I don't know any conservatives who have a problem with our involvement in that war. As a person looking back on the war 80 years later, it's easy to see that we HAD to join to end European fascism, and that afterward we would enjoy a boom like no other as we were the last economy standing. At the time, WW1 with its trench warefare, and pointless victory were very fresh in their minds. I can understand why many were reluctant to engage in another of Europe's wars at that time.
The new deal probably extended the great depression by about 7 years. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409
It's easy to look at the infrastructure we have out of it now, but 7 years of misery for an entire nation may be too high of a price for it.
And Johnson's 'War on Poverty..." Well, that's quite clearly a failure. 50 years, 22 Trillion dollars, and the poverty rate is still at 14.5% - the same as it was when the started the program.
Civil rights - look which part was resisting civil rights.
-
Civil rights - look which part was resisting civil rights.
Was it conservatives? I think it was conservatives.
-
I found this today -- https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/asioa5/mccabe_i_think_its_possible_trump_is_a_russian/eguoo9q/
-
This is what conservatives felt like after 1930-1968. New Deal, WWII, Civil Rights, and Johnson's massive social programs irrevocably broke the social contract as conservatives understood it.
Yup, it sure did. The "social contract" was that rich, white male citizens had unquestioned power and authority over everyone else. It's a damn good thing that was broken.
-
This is what conservatives felt like after 1930-1968. New Deal, WWII, Civil Rights, and Johnson's massive social programs irrevocably broke the social contract as conservatives understood it.
Yup, it sure did. The "social contract" was that rich, white male citizens had unquestioned power and authority over everyone else. It's a damn good thing that was broken.
Amen. I’d never be in this position of having accomplished as much with my life as I have so far if it weren’t for that change.
-
This is what conservatives felt like after 1930-1968. New Deal, WWII, Civil Rights, and Johnson's massive social programs irrevocably broke the social contract as conservatives understood it.
Yup, it sure did. The "social contract" was that rich, white male citizens had unquestioned power and authority over everyone else. It's a damn good thing that was broken.
Amen. I’d never be in this position of having accomplished as much with my life as I have so far if it weren’t for that change.
Exactly. I'm pretty sure I would have had an absolutely miserable life if those changes hadn't occurred.
-
That is an interesting perspective. I thought that history has mostly looked kindly on most of those events. The New Deal certainly did much to put impoverished people back to work, stimulating the economy when it desperately needed it and gave us infrastructure projects that are still paying dividends a century later. While WWII was not anything we want again, America’s involvement in it was key to finally bringing the war to an end and ensuring that the Nazis didn’t remain in power with all of their human rights abuses. The economy in the US certainly flourished after as well. Additionally, anyone today who isn’t straight white Christian male is directly and indirectly benefiting from the civil rights movements as the lot of everyone else has slowly been improving, turbo charged by the incredible work of those who gave so much during the civil rights movement.
I suppose you are welcome to your view that this broke a social contract in some way, but I feel society is doing its job when grandma doesn’t starve on the street when she is too old or sick to work, when we can deliver electricity and clean water to our citizens, when people are able to start life out on an even footing with equal opportunities to make themselves a success. The entire point of coming together in this thing called “society” is that we are all better off when we help each other out.
Good post. I agree with you.
-
Civil rights - look which part was resisting civil rights.
Was it conservatives? I think it was conservatives.
You would be wrong.
only 61% of democrats supported the bill. 81% of republicans did. Ergo, Democrats were the party in resistance to civil rights.
-
And Johnson's 'War on Poverty..." Well, that's quite clearly a failure. 50 years, 22 Trillion dollars, and the poverty rate is still at 14.5% - the same as it was when the started the program.
Civil rights - look which part was resisting civil rights.
Is living in poverty the same in 2019 as it was in the 1960s? In the 1970s I remember driving to see relatives in my grandfather's pickup truck on dirt roads to see people who barely had electricity very much living like the TV Clampetts on TV in literal shacks. We live in that same part of the state now and people don't live like that now here. Sure there are some lousy single wide trailers but people generally have the basic comforts and if they want more there is plenty of opportunity to earn enough income to do better. If they live amid a tumble down mess its because of extenuating circumstances like health problems or drug dependency or mental illness.
-
But you do realize that the Democrats and the republicans basically did a swap with the civil rights being the main issue that forced that, right?
-
"The new deal probably extended the great depression by about 7 years. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409
It's easy to look at the infrastructure we have out of it now, but 7 years of misery for an entire nation may be too high of a price for it."
I disagree. People were literally dying of starvation. People's whose life savings were wiped out committed suicide. There was the creation of social security. Before social security most elderly were living in poverty. Regulations helped prevent future bank runs and bank crashes, as well as give people holding money in banks some assurance of being paid, which increased economic stability and investment into the economy.
I think avoiding those kind of outcomes comes before a few more years of economic depression.
-
But you do realize that the Democrats and the republicans basically did a swap with the civil rights being the main issue that forced that, right?
I always get the chuckles too when people say "But Lincoln was a Republican". Not understanding that Republicans back then are the Democrats of today.
-
Civil rights - look which part was resisting civil rights.
Was it conservatives? I think it was conservatives.
You would be wrong.
only 61% of democrats supported the bill. 81% of republicans did. Ergo, Democrats were the party in resistance to civil rights.
Just want to point out that the word democrat is not equivalent to liberal and the word republican is not equivalent to conservative. Not sure if it matters in this particular instance, but I suspect it might.
-
But you do realize that the Democrats and the republicans basically did a swap with the civil rights being the main issue that forced that, right?
I always get the chuckles too when people say "But Lincoln was a Republican". Not understanding that Republicans back then are the Democrats of today.
Damn you and your pesky facts
-
The new deal probably extended the great depression by about 7 years. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409
It's easy to look at the infrastructure we have out of it now, but 7 years of misery for an entire nation may be too high of a price for it.
I disagree. People were literally dying of starvation. People's whose life savings were wiped out committed suicide. There was the creation of social security. Before social security most elderly were living in poverty. Regulations helped prevent future bank runs and bank crashes, as well as give people holding money in banks some assurance of being paid, which increased economic stability and investment into the economy.
I think avoiding those kind of outcomes comes before a few more years of economic depression.
The article is actually blaming a very specific part of the New Deal that was deemed unconstitutional a few years after being passed, not the entire New Deal. So it didn't really mention any of what you probably think about when you think of the New Deal and it was kind of disingenuous to use it to cast aspersion on those things.
-
But you do realize that the Democrats and the republicans basically did a swap with the civil rights being the main issue that forced that, right?
I always get the chuckles too when people say "But Lincoln was a Republican". Not understanding that Republicans back then are the Democrats of today.
Yup. There’s a reason Jesse “fuck civil rights” Helms switched parties in 1970.
-
Civil rights - look which part was resisting civil rights.
Was it conservatives? I think it was conservatives.
You would be wrong.
only 61% of democrats supported the bill. 81% of republicans did. Ergo, Democrats were the party in resistance to civil rights.
Absolutely true. Historically the democrats were pretty resistant to civil rights and tolerated it much more. This completely reversed over time though. Modern conservatism's support of racist ideology really came into it's own with Nixon's southern strategy, and has never really looked back. Both explicitly and implicitly since then, a large portion of the Republican group has supported racism ever since. This is why for many people of my generation, Republican is synonymous with racist . . . it's all the party has done since we were alive.
-
This is what conservatives felt like after 1930-1968. New Deal, WWII, Civil Rights, and Johnson's massive social programs irrevocably broke the social contract as conservatives understood it.
Yup, it sure did. The "social contract" was that rich, white male citizens had unquestioned power and authority over everyone else. It's a damn good thing that was broken.
Amen. I’d never be in this position of having accomplished as much with my life as I have so far if it weren’t for that change.
Exactly. I'm pretty sure I would have had an absolutely miserable life if those changes hadn't occurred.
Same here.
-
Civil rights - look which part was resisting civil rights.
Was it conservatives? I think it was conservatives.
You would be wrong.
only 61% of democrats supported the bill. 81% of republicans did. Ergo, Democrats were the party in resistance to civil rights.
Absolutely true. Historically the democrats were pretty resistant to civil rights and tolerated it much more. This completely reversed over time though. Modern conservatism's support of racist ideology really came into it's own with Nixon's southern strategy, and has never really looked back. Both explicitly and implicitly since then, a large portion of the Republican group has supported racism ever since. This is why for many people of my generation, Republican is synonymous with racist . . . it's all the party has done since we were alive.
Really? I agree with the rest, but comments like this just drag the conversation down.
-
Civil rights - look which part was resisting civil rights.
Was it conservatives? I think it was conservatives.
You would be wrong.
only 61% of democrats supported the bill. 81% of republicans did. Ergo, Democrats were the party in resistance to civil rights.
Absolutely true. Historically the democrats were pretty resistant to civil rights and tolerated it much more. This completely reversed over time though. Modern conservatism's support of racist ideology really came into it's own with Nixon's southern strategy, and has never really looked back. Both explicitly and implicitly since then, a large portion of the Republican group has supported racism ever since. This is why for many people of my generation, Republican is synonymous with racist . . . it's all the party has done since we were alive.
Really? I agree with the rest, but comments like this just drag the conversation down.
Why does it drag the conversation down? It is a commentary that parties change, and people's perception of them depends on what their recent policies are. The same is true for any country.
-
Back in the day, the Dem's used to be the the "Party of sticking up for the little guy" and the Repubs were the party of the big guy (ie, businessmen).
Then in the 50's and 60's, the Dem leadership started to say "wait, minorities in this country are getting an even worse shake than the average white person and we need to stick up for them, too!".
Well, there goes all your southern blue collar workers. By the end of the 60's and throughout the 70's you saw a mass exodus of southern blue collar voters from the Dems to the Repubs who were now saying "Hey, come be with the job creators (white people!) and screw those "takers" (minorities).
Even though the Repubs went on being the party of big business, systematically screwing over the workers (via NAFTA, support of offshoring, undermining workers unions, etc) now you see the results, the middle of this country is much worse off because of these "business friendly" policies.
Here's the thing. I'm from the South. Those people are racist as hell. That's not going to change. The more you challenge them on it, the more they just double down. If the Dems want to win again, they'll stop talking about race and start talking about economics and go back to being the party of the little guy.
And in fact, this is my theory why Trump got elected. Even though he's not really a classic Republican. It's really because he's the first Republican in a generation to say "Wow, our trade policies (like NAFTA) are terrible and it really screwed you people in the middle of the country!". And THAT's the reason Trump carried those middle swing states. He's finally saying that the policies of the past 40 years have screwed the blue collar workers and they are like "Hell yeah".
-
I only consider what a party's policies have been through the last decade or two, and completely ignore their platforms more than ~30 years ago, because parties change. The GOP may trace its routes to Lincoln, but that doesn't mean it bares any resemblance to its platform during the 19th century. Heck, Ronald Reagan would have a hard time identifying the current GOP platform. Likewise the Democrats had an absolute lock on southern states for over half a century - today is seems unthinkable that any Democrat could win the majority of southern votes.
-
Civil rights - look which part was resisting civil rights.
Was it conservatives? I think it was conservatives.
You would be wrong.
only 61% of democrats supported the bill. 81% of republicans did. Ergo, Democrats were the party in resistance to civil rights.
Absolutely true. Historically the democrats were pretty resistant to civil rights and tolerated it much more. This completely reversed over time though. Modern conservatism's support of racist ideology really came into it's own with Nixon's southern strategy, and has never really looked back. Both explicitly and implicitly since then, a large portion of the Republican group has supported racism ever since. This is why for many people of my generation, Republican is synonymous with racist . . . it's all the party has done since we were alive.
Really? I agree with the rest, but comments like this just drag the conversation down.
Why does it drag the conversation down? It is a commentary that parties change, and people's perception of them depends on what their recent policies are. The same is true for any country.
I probably could have been more clear but what I meant was I agree with most of the comment, it's the strikethrough portion that harms the discussion. Racism is not all the Republicans have done in the last 30 years. Absolute statements like that do not foster productive discussion, especially in a thread where we're looking for honest opinions from Trump supporters, likely Republicans.
-
Civil rights - look which part was resisting civil rights.
Was it conservatives? I think it was conservatives.
You would be wrong.
only 61% of democrats supported the bill. 81% of republicans did. Ergo, Democrats were the party in resistance to civil rights.
Absolutely true. Historically the democrats were pretty resistant to civil rights and tolerated it much more. This completely reversed over time though. Modern conservatism's support of racist ideology really came into it's own with Nixon's southern strategy, and has never really looked back. Both explicitly and implicitly since then, a large portion of the Republican group has supported racism ever since. This is why for many people of my generation, Republican is synonymous with racist . . . it's all the party has done since we were alive.
Really? I agree with the rest, but comments like this just drag the conversation down.
Why does it drag the conversation down? It is a commentary that parties change, and people's perception of them depends on what their recent policies are. The same is true for any country.
I probably could have been more clear but what I meant was I agree with most of the comment, it's the strikethrough portion that harms the discussion. Racism is not all the Republicans have done in the last 30 years. Absolute statements like that do not foster productive discussion, especially in a thread where we're looking for the honest opinions from Trump supporters, likely Republicans.
Ok, so it doesn't seem that you object to all of what you striked out, but perhaps only the latter half, and maybe just the word "all" (i.e. "...it's all the party has done since we were alive").
no doubt there's much in the way of legislation and EO that both parties have pushed over the last ~30 years
-
Civil rights - look which part was resisting civil rights.
Was it conservatives? I think it was conservatives.
You would be wrong.
only 61% of democrats supported the bill. 81% of republicans did. Ergo, Democrats were the party in resistance to civil rights.
Absolutely true. Historically the democrats were pretty resistant to civil rights and tolerated it much more. This completely reversed over time though. Modern conservatism's support of racist ideology really came into it's own with Nixon's southern strategy, and has never really looked back. Both explicitly and implicitly since then, a large portion of the Republican group has supported racism ever since. This is why for many people of my generation, Republican is synonymous with racist . . . it's all the party has done since we were alive.
Really? I agree with the rest, but comments like this just drag the conversation down.
Why does it drag the conversation down? It is a commentary that parties change, and people's perception of them depends on what their recent policies are. The same is true for any country.
I probably could have been more clear but what I meant was I agree with most of the comment, it's the strikethrough portion that harms the discussion. Racism is not all the Republicans have done in the last 30 years. Absolute statements like that do not foster productive discussion, especially in a thread where we're looking for the honest opinions from Trump supporters, likely Republicans.
Ok, so it doesn't seem that you object to all of what you striked out, but perhaps only the latter half, and maybe just the word "all" (i.e. "...it's all the party has done since we were alive").
no doubt there's much in the way of legislation and EO that both parties have pushed over the last ~30 years
Saying that Republican is synonymous with racist is also an absolute statement and in my opinion unfair to many Republicans. I acknowledge that anyone who identifies with the Republican party is either accepting of, ignorant of, or willing to overlook racist policy and actions within the party, but that does not make them de facto racist.
The statement was prefaced with "for many people of my generation" which I'll admit makes it a bit ambiguous since it was not stated as fact but rather that the idea exists within some peoples' minds. Even so, I doubt anyone who identifies as Republican or even votes Republican occasionally is going to take the less offensive interpretation.
Even if I thought the statements were true, the point I was trying to make was that the first part of the comment got the message across. Adding that last sentence was poking the bear for no good reason.
-
if you can set aside your coloring book propaganda
Civil rights - look which part was resisting civil rights.
Was it conservatives? I think it was conservatives.
You would be wrong.
only 61% of democrats supported the bill. 81% of republicans did. Ergo, Democrats were the party in resistance to civil rights.
Lol.
-
if you can set aside your coloring book propaganda
Civil rights - look which part was resisting civil rights.
Was it conservatives? I think it was conservatives.
You would be wrong.
only 61% of democrats supported the bill. 81% of republicans did. Ergo, Democrats were the party in resistance to civil rights.
Lol.
Actually, the Dems at the time were mostly southern working class (ie, racists). So no surprise it wasn't super popular with the Dems at the time.
What's more interesting is that the passage of this bill caused a massive defection of southern working class people from Dem to Repub.
The fact is, these voters have alway been an albatross around the neck of American progress, whether they identify as R or D doesn't matter, it's the same group that's been holding us back, since before the civil war.
-
if you can set aside your coloring book propaganda
Civil rights - look which part was resisting civil rights.
Was it conservatives? I think it was conservatives.
You would be wrong.
only 61% of democrats supported the bill. 81% of republicans did. Ergo, Democrats were the party in resistance to civil rights.
Lol.
Actually, the Dems at the time were mostly southern working class (ie, racists). So no surprise it wasn't super popular with the Dems at the time.
What's more interesting is that the passage of this bill caused a massive defection of southern working class people from Dem to Repub.
The fact is, these voters have alway been an albatross around the neck of American progress, whether they identify as R or D doesn't matter, it's the same group that's been holding us back, since before the civil war.
I'm very much aware, and I feel like that obviously true fact has already been beaten to death in this thread (which is why I didn't bother repeating it).
I was just laughing at @ncornilsen accusing other people of having a "coloring book propoganda" understanding of something and then immediately repeating a "coloring book propaganda" understanding of the history of the parties and racist oppression.
-
Civil rights - look which part was resisting civil rights.
Was it conservatives? I think it was conservatives.
You would be wrong.
only 61% of democrats supported the bill. 81% of republicans did. Ergo, Democrats were the party in resistance to civil rights.
Absolutely true. Historically the democrats were pretty resistant to civil rights and tolerated it much more. This completely reversed over time though. Modern conservatism's support of racist ideology really came into it's own with Nixon's southern strategy, and has never really looked back. Both explicitly and implicitly since then, a large portion of the Republican group has supported racism ever since. This is why for many people of my generation, Republican is synonymous with racist . . . it's all the party has done since we were alive.
Really? I agree with the rest, but comments like this just drag the conversation down.
Why does it drag the conversation down? It is a commentary that parties change, and people's perception of them depends on what their recent policies are. The same is true for any country.
I probably could have been more clear but what I meant was I agree with most of the comment, it's the strikethrough portion that harms the discussion. Racism is not all the Republicans have done in the last 30 years. Absolute statements like that do not foster productive discussion, especially in a thread where we're looking for the honest opinions from Trump supporters, likely Republicans.
Ok, so it doesn't seem that you object to all of what you striked out, but perhaps only the latter half, and maybe just the word "all" (i.e. "...it's all the party has done since we were alive").
no doubt there's much in the way of legislation and EO that both parties have pushed over the last ~30 years
Saying that Republican is synonymous with racist is also an absolute statement and in my opinion unfair to many Republicans. I acknowledge that anyone who identifies with the Republican party is either accepting of, ignorant of, or willing to overlook racist policy and actions within the party, but that does not make them de facto racist.
The statement was prefaced with "for many people of my generation" which I'll admit makes it a bit ambiguous since it was not stated as fact but rather that the idea exists within some peoples' minds. Even so, I doubt anyone who identifies as Republican or even votes Republican occasionally is going to take the less offensive interpretation.
Even if I thought the statements were true, the point I was trying to make was that the first part of the comment got the message across. Adding that last sentence was poking the bear for no good reason.
As I see it, no one was making an absolute statement that Republicans are racists. What was said was that "for many people of my generation, Republican is synonymous with racist." That is not the same, and is also likely true. Regardless of whether it is true or not (and to what degree and what percentage), many people do view Republicans in this manner.
A similar thing can be said about Democrats, where 'Many people view Democrat as synonymous with socialist." Its a frequent criticism and derogatory label placed on the party from many on the right, just as 'racist' is a frequent criticism and derogatory label placed on the GOP from those on the left. Do you see the distinction?
-
Civil rights - look which part was resisting civil rights.
Was it conservatives? I think it was conservatives.
You would be wrong.
only 61% of democrats supported the bill. 81% of republicans did. Ergo, Democrats were the party in resistance to civil rights.
Absolutely true. Historically the democrats were pretty resistant to civil rights and tolerated it much more. This completely reversed over time though. Modern conservatism's support of racist ideology really came into it's own with Nixon's southern strategy, and has never really looked back. Both explicitly and implicitly since then, a large portion of the Republican group has supported racism ever since. This is why for many people of my generation, Republican is synonymous with racist . . . it's all the party has done since we were alive.
Really? I agree with the rest, but comments like this just drag the conversation down.
Why does it drag the conversation down? It is a commentary that parties change, and people's perception of them depends on what their recent policies are. The same is true for any country.
I probably could have been more clear but what I meant was I agree with most of the comment, it's the strikethrough portion that harms the discussion. Racism is not all the Republicans have done in the last 30 years. Absolute statements like that do not foster productive discussion, especially in a thread where we're looking for the honest opinions from Trump supporters, likely Republicans.
Ok, so it doesn't seem that you object to all of what you striked out, but perhaps only the latter half, and maybe just the word "all" (i.e. "...it's all the party has done since we were alive").
no doubt there's much in the way of legislation and EO that both parties have pushed over the last ~30 years
Saying that Republican is synonymous with racist is also an absolute statement and in my opinion unfair to many Republicans. I acknowledge that anyone who identifies with the Republican party is either accepting of, ignorant of, or willing to overlook racist policy and actions within the party, but that does not make them de facto racist.
The statement was prefaced with "for many people of my generation" which I'll admit makes it a bit ambiguous since it was not stated as fact but rather that the idea exists within some peoples' minds. Even so, I doubt anyone who identifies as Republican or even votes Republican occasionally is going to take the less offensive interpretation.
Even if I thought the statements were true, the point I was trying to make was that the first part of the comment got the message across. Adding that last sentence was poking the bear for no good reason.
As I see it, no one was making an absolute statement that Republicans are racists. What was said was that "for many people of my generation, Republican is synonymous with racist." That is not the same, and is also likely true. Regardless of whether it is true or not (and to what degree and what percentage), many people do view Republicans in this manner.
A similar thing can be said about Democrats, where 'Many people view Democrat as synonymous with socialist." Its a frequent criticism and derogatory label placed on the party from many on the right, just as 'racist' is a frequent criticism and derogatory label placed on the GOP from those on the left. Do you see the distinction?
I do, I addressed this in the bolded above.
-
I'm very much aware, and I feel like that obviously true fact has already been beaten to death in this thread (which is why I didn't bother repeating it).
I was just laughing at @ncornilsen accusing other people of having a "coloring book propoganda" understanding of something and then immediately repeating a "coloring book propaganda" understanding of the history of the parties and racist oppression.
I am very clear on how party change over time. I was addressing, specifically, this:
This is what conservatives felt like after 1930-1968. New Deal, WWII, Civil Rights, and Johnson's massive social programs irrevocably broke the social contract as conservatives understood it.
Look at the time period. At that TIME, it was not Conservatives or Republicans who felt the social contract was broken by civil rights. It was democrats.
The rest of my post was to put some context around the other programs mentioned. I don't think extending the period where people were starving and suffering by 7 years was worth getting a few bridges and dams that probably would have been built anyways. There were elements of the New Deal that were good, but those elements could have easily existed without the new deal, and indeed probably would have.
And for 22 trillion dollars, I'd think we should have gotten more than upgrading people from shacks to shitty mobile homes someone's anecdote above said.
That said, while looking for more data to support and clarify my arguments, it appears that the official poverty figure does not include after-benefits income levels and is therefore somewhat of a flawed measure. At first blush it seems that if the same % of people are in poverty now as then, and the only reason poverty is lower by other measures is the 'income' from handouts, then the 'war' has indeed failed to rehabilitate people and convert them to self reliant members of society. I'll have to read on this more.
-
I'm very much aware, and I feel like that obviously true fact has already been beaten to death in this thread (which is why I didn't bother repeating it).
I was just laughing at @ncornilsen accusing other people of having a "coloring book propoganda" understanding of something and then immediately repeating a "coloring book propaganda" understanding of the history of the parties and racist oppression.
I am very clear on how party change over time. I was addressing, specifically, this:
This is what conservatives felt like after 1930-1968. New Deal, WWII, Civil Rights, and Johnson's massive social programs irrevocably broke the social contract as conservatives understood it.
Look at the time period. At that TIME, it was not Conservatives or Republicans who felt the social contract was broken by civil rights. It was democrats.
The rest of my post was to put some context around the other programs mentioned. I don't think extending the period where people were starving and suffering by 7 years was worth getting a few bridges and dams that probably would have been built anyways. There were elements of the New Deal that were good, but those elements could have easily existed without the new deal, and indeed probably would have.
And for 22 trillion dollars, I'd think we should have gotten more than upgrading people from shacks to shitty mobile homes someone's anecdote above said.
That said, while looking for more data to support and clarify my arguments, it appears that the official poverty figure does not include after-benefits income levels and is therefore somewhat of a flawed measure. At first blush it seems that if the same % of people are in poverty now as then, and the only reason poverty is lower by other measures is the 'income' from handouts, then the 'war' has indeed failed to rehabilitate people and convert them to self reliant members of society. I'll have to read on this more.
At that time, the conservatives were Democrats.
-
I'm very much aware, and I feel like that obviously true fact has already been beaten to death in this thread (which is why I didn't bother repeating it).
I was just laughing at @ncornilsen accusing other people of having a "coloring book propoganda" understanding of something and then immediately repeating a "coloring book propaganda" understanding of the history of the parties and racist oppression.
I am very clear on how party change over time. I was addressing, specifically, this:
This is what conservatives felt like after 1930-1968. New Deal, WWII, Civil Rights, and Johnson's massive social programs irrevocably broke the social contract as conservatives understood it.
Look at the time period. At that TIME, it was not Conservatives or Republicans who felt the social contract was broken by civil rights. It was democrats.
The rest of my post was to put some context around the other programs mentioned. I don't think extending the period where people were starving and suffering by 7 years was worth getting a few bridges and dams that probably would have been built anyways. There were elements of the New Deal that were good, but those elements could have easily existed without the new deal, and indeed probably would have.
And for 22 trillion dollars, I'd think we should have gotten more than upgrading people from shacks to shitty mobile homes someone's anecdote above said.
That said, while looking for more data to support and clarify my arguments, it appears that the official poverty figure does not include after-benefits income levels and is therefore somewhat of a flawed measure. At first blush it seems that if the same % of people are in poverty now as then, and the only reason poverty is lower by other measures is the 'income' from handouts, then the 'war' has indeed failed to rehabilitate people and convert them to self reliant members of society. I'll have to read on this more.
At that time, the conservatives were Democrats.
The social conservatives were Democrats, yes. I think it's probably true that the Republicans were more fiscally conservative. The New Deal was hardly a fiscally conservative plan.
Even if the authors of that one paper are right, the "7-year lengthening" of the depression was due to one specific anti-competition clause of the New Deal, not the whole thing like @ncornilsen is trying to claim. It wasn't anything that we would recognize as being part of the New Deal today because it was struck down almost immediately, as @shenlong55 already pointed out. So you know, we won't do that part again, because it's unconstitutional. Problem solved.
NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.
"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."
Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.
I forget, which side is it these days that looks the other way when companies engage in price-fixing and anticompetitive practices? Maybe then-Democrats were more "fiscally conservative" after all.