Switch Theme:

Politics - USA  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

Asterios wrote:


"Sen. Byrd, wasn't just a member of the KKK. He was a Klan leader holding titles of "Kleagle" and "Exalted Cyclops." The senator claimed to have left the organization in 1943, but later wrote a letter to the group's grand wizard, saying, quote, "The Klan is needed today more as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia," end quote.

As recently as 2005, in his memoir, Byrd describes the KKK as a fraternal assembly of, quote, "upstanding people," end quote. He was the only senator to vote against both African-American Supreme Court nominees Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas.

He personally filibustered the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. He opposed President Truman's initiative to integrate the Armed Forces. And he said he would never fight, quote, "with a negro by my side. Rather, I should die 1,000 times than to see this beloved land become degraded by race mongrels," end quote.

He once called Martin Luther King a, quote, "self-seeking rabble- rouser" and even told the FBI he could give a speech condemning King on the floor of the Senate, saying it was time that the civil rights leader, quote, "met his waterloo."

He also once said the writers of the Declaration of Independence did not intend for words "all men created equal" to be taken literally."

so essentially you are whitewashing his history to suit your needs?

No, I'm allowing people to change and evolve. I think the praise lumped on him by the NAACP was proof enough he had changed.

Also, post the sources you are quoting.


Hitler was a socialist liberal, is that a socialist?


The term was National Socialist, actually. Also, Hitler was a fascist. Not a socialist. But sure, try that line, see how far it gets you.

Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





Asterios wrote:so essentially you are whitewashing his history to suit your needs?


Lol. I get it.

Back to Trump, Clinton and Sanders, though:

Does anyone foresee the American public having a more favorable view of Clinton as the race wears on?
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

Asterios wrote:
Hitler was a socialist liberal, is that a socialist?


No, he absolutely was not.

We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Asterios wrote:


"Sen. Byrd, wasn't just a member of the KKK. He was a Klan leader holding titles of "Kleagle" and "Exalted Cyclops." The senator claimed to have left the organization in 1943, but later wrote a letter to the group's grand wizard, saying, quote, "The Klan is needed today more as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia," end quote.

As recently as 2005, in his memoir, Byrd describes the KKK as a fraternal assembly of, quote, "upstanding people," end quote. He was the only senator to vote against both African-American Supreme Court nominees Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas.

He personally filibustered the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. He opposed President Truman's initiative to integrate the Armed Forces. And he said he would never fight, quote, "with a negro by my side. Rather, I should die 1,000 times than to see this beloved land become degraded by race mongrels," end quote.

He once called Martin Luther King a, quote, "self-seeking rabble- rouser" and even told the FBI he could give a speech condemning King on the floor of the Senate, saying it was time that the civil rights leader, quote, "met his waterloo."

He also once said the writers of the Declaration of Independence did not intend for words "all men created equal" to be taken literally."

so essentially you are whitewashing his history to suit your needs?

No, I'm allowing people to change and evolve. I think the praise lumped on him by the NAACP was proof enough he had changed.

Also, post the sources you are quoting.


Hitler was a socialist liberal, is that a socialist?


The term was National Socialist, actually. Also, Hitler was a fascist. Not a socialist. But sure, try that line, see how far it gets you.


I would quote my sources but last time I did I got warned for spam from a moderator who did not agree with me since there is more then one source involved, as it goes its not hard to find its all part of the public record, also of course the NAACP would defend a democrat, they are democrats and yet fail to mention how Democrats founded the KKK.and actually you may call Hitler a fascist but he was a liberal socialist trying to fight for the little guy and that was his party stance.which started off as the worker's party.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/06 23:41:49


Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

Asterios wrote:


I would quote my sources but last time I did I got warned for spam from a moderator who did not agree with me since there is more then one source involved,


Just make the whole quote a link. Problem solved.
as it goes its not hard to find its all part of the public record, also of course the NAACP would defend a democrat, they are democrats

Yeah, no. The NAACP supports black people and isn't going ro protect someone who works against their wellbeing.

and yet fail to mention how Democrats founded the KKK.

The dempcratic party then and now are dramatically different, same for the republican party. But sure, democrats are the real racists.

and actually you may call Hitler a fascist but he was a liberal socialist trying to fight for the little guy and that was his party stance.which started off as the worker's party.


Oh, so you are just devoid from reality. Good to know. Because if you actually knew history, you would know that Hitler was extremely anti-communist. And was a fething fascist.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/06 23:53:14


Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?





Fort Worth, TX

xraytango wrote:
Here is an observation, you may research it a bit, but from all the history I have read it would seem to me that the ONLY way Communists and Socialists can take power is by violence, it is also how they maintain power.

It is less a consideration of the workers and the people than those at the top deciding how to divvy up YOUR stuff. The only way to take is by force or threat of force. Who gets more stuff? The people in power, and they do not share. They expect YOU to share but not them. Wealth redistribution is nothing less than theft with the threat of violence.

Look at history.
...


Last time I checked, it took quite a lot of violence to create the United States of America.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/06 23:58:26


"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me."
- Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Asterios wrote:


I would quote my sources but last time I did I got warned for spam from a moderator who did not agree with me since there is more then one source involved,


Just make the whole quote a link. Problem solved.
as it goes its not hard to find its all part of the public record, also of course the NAACP would defend a democrat, they are democrats

Yeah, no. The NAACP supports black people and isn't going ro protect someone who works against their wellbeing.

and yet fail to mention how Democrats founded the KKK.

The dempcratic party then and now are dramatically different, same for the republican party. But sure, democrats are the real racists.

and actually you may call Hitler a fascist but he was a liberal socialist trying to fight for the little guy and that was his party stance.which started off as the worker's party.


Oh, so you are just devoid from reality. Good to know. Because if you actually knew history, you would know that Hitler was extremely anti-communist. And was a fething fascist.


actually my sources are not one, albeit some sites may have combined them into one, but from various sources, the NAACP is one of the biggest racist organizations I know of on par with the KKK so I don't see any difference to be honest., no party is all racists and I didn't say Democrats are racists, just that the KKK was founded by Democrats, but hey your logic is your own but try not putting words into my mouth ok ? As to German fighting Russia, Socialism is not the same as Communism.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

com·mu·nism
ˈkämyəˌnizəm/Submit
noun
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

but if you want to believe they are the same thing, go for it.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/07 00:33:13


Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





So now you have proven beyond any doubt that your arguments have no basis in reality. Further discourse is pointless so on to the ignore list another troll goes.
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

Asterios wrote:


actually my sources are not one, albeit some sites may have combined them into one, but from various sources,

Then just make the relivent quotes a link. It's not rocket science.

the NAACP is one of the biggest racist organizations I know of on par with the KKK so I don't see any difference to be honest.,

Care to back that up?
no party is all racists and I didn't say Democrats are racists, just that the KKK was founded by Democrats,

Which is a completely irrleivant peice of information in totday's society, and the political parties are not the same as they were back then.
but hey your logic is your own but try not putting words into my mouth ok ?
And if you aren't trying to insunuate that the D's are racist, what was the point of that?

As to German fighting Russia, Socialism is not the same as Communism.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

com·mu·nism
ˈkämyəˌnizəm/Submit
noun
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

but if you want to believe they are the same thing, go for it.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism


I'm not saying they are, I'm saying they are directly linked. Communism is a radical off-shoot of Socialism. It takes the government control of the means of production one step further, to government constorl of everything. And Hitler being anti-communist is a good indication that he is not, in fact, a "liberal socialist". He wan't "a person who disagreed with communism", he was an "anti-communist".

Now can you stop avoiding the point and provide your proof that Hitler was a "liberal socialist", and not a fascist.

Edit: Also, actually use the period. Your run-ons are getting ridiculous.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/07 00:56:06


Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Traditio wrote:
Asterios wrote:so essentially you are whitewashing his history to suit your needs?


Lol. I get it.

Back to Trump, Clinton and Sanders, though:

Does anyone foresee the American public having a more favorable view of Clinton as the race wears on?

Nope.

Which poison do you prefer? Cyanide, VX or Mustard?

Besides... there's always that Libertarian candidate.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

 whembly wrote:
 Traditio wrote:
Asterios wrote:so essentially you are whitewashing his history to suit your needs?


Lol. I get it.

Back to Trump, Clinton and Sanders, though:

Does anyone foresee the American public having a more favorable view of Clinton as the race wears on?

Nope.

Which poison do you prefer? Cyanide, VX or Mustard?

Besides... there's always that Libertarian candidate.

Ehh, to the undecided voters who haven't spent their entire lives fighting Clinton ( ), seeing Trump become more and more insane will make Clinton be a more palatable choice. She might not be likable , but at least she's sane (new campaign slogan!).

Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Secret Squirrel






Leerstetten, Germany

I'm sure the "NAACP is like the KKK" argument will go as well as the "BLM is like the KKK" argument.

If we can judge candidates by their supporters Trump should be worried!
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




looks like Clinton might finally have her delegates and secure the nomination, but doubt Sanders will go down without a fight:

http://fox40.com/2016/06/06/ap-projection-hillary-clinton-has-delegates-needed-to-win-democratic-nomination/

Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





whembly wrote:Nope.

Which poison do you prefer? Cyanide, VX or Mustard?

Besides... there's always that Libertarian candidate.


I'm not a fan of the libertarian political ideology.

I am cautiously optimistic about Trump. If he actually keeps his campaign promises, I'll be a very pleased Traditio (though I do wish that he would change his views on the environment/global warming).

To my mind, at this point, there's simply no real question of whether or not there will be a Trump presidency. Trump is closing on Clinton in most polls, and somewhat beating her in others, and public opinion of Clinton just keeps falling.

I think Sanders could have beaten Trump, but the democratic party fethed him over.

Trump's comments about the hispanic judge may come back to haunt him, but I seriously doubt it.

They basically jive with his political base anyway.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/06/07 02:13:56


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Now can you stop avoiding the point and provide your proof that Hitler was a "liberal socialist", and not a fascist.

Edit: Also, actually use the period. Your run-ons are getting ridiculous.



using this quote here to address this issue.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

"Liberalism is a political philosophy founded on Liberty and Equality..."

Hmm... what part of Hitler's "Lebensraum" or "master race," or subjugation, confinement, and eventual execution of all "undesirables" would even remotely equate to "Liberty" or "Equality"

I hope you realize that his "socialist" policies were actually well disguised Godfather type deals.... Hitler literally made them an offer they couldn't refuse. But, I know, like some other posters here that this will largely go in one ear and out the other, because it doesn't fit the perfect rose tinted world view.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran



South Portsmouth, KY USA

That's what is called true liberalism, however the leftist version of liberalism actually means to liberally apply government. Make government bigger, increase taxation to liberally pay for services and use taxation to redistribute wealth.

It is not the liberalism you think.

Liberalism for personal freedom and liberty with small government is actually called conservatism, and in the extreme libertarianism.

Usually liberalism in government refers to fiscal and regulatory being liberally applied in order to reach a government's objective.

Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.

Check out my friends over at Sea Dog Game Studios, they always have something cooking: http://www.sailpowergame.com. Or if age of sail isn't your thing check out the rapid fire sci-fi action of Techcommander http://www.techcommandergame.com
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





xraytango wrote:
That's what is called true liberalism, however the leftist version of liberalism actually means to liberally apply government. Make government bigger, increase taxation to liberally pay for services and use taxation to redistribute wealth.

It is not the liberalism you think.

Liberalism for personal freedom and liberty with small government is actually called conservatism, and in the extreme libertarianism.

Usually liberalism in government refers to fiscal and regulatory being liberally applied in order to reach a government's objective.


That is actually included in the Wiki link...

You are referring to Classical Liberalism and Progressive Liberalism. Yeah, I've taken Political Science 101 too, brah.


And really... rereading what you wrote, it's just so laughably wrong.... the "leftist" idea of liberalism does not in any way mean to "liberally apply"... we're not talking about putting ketchup on fries here.


the left leaning people in the US follow the progressive liberal views, in that they see that while the Ideal is that all are equal, the reality is that we aren't. They mean to make progress through government programs that promote more equality within the populace, because they see the historical evidence that shows that conservatism is completely cool with keeping the downtrodden, downtrodden.... Progressives see that continuing to simply be lazy, and allow the "free market, private sector" to uphold and act on its whims, is detrimental to everyone.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/07 02:25:52


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran



South Portsmouth, KY USA

Ensis, you might want to cool your jets. You are being a bit inflammatory and condescending.

You really don't know my educational background and my distillation of that information.

If you re-read what I wrote you will see that my analysis of the difference is not wrong, just not textbook.

BTW my last poli-sci class was 355.

Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.

Check out my friends over at Sea Dog Game Studios, they always have something cooking: http://www.sailpowergame.com. Or if age of sail isn't your thing check out the rapid fire sci-fi action of Techcommander http://www.techcommandergame.com
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

Oh...

Teh Bern not liking AP "deciding" that Clinton secured the nomination right before CA's primary:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282435-sanders-camp-clinton-has-not-secured-nomination-yet

This might pizz off the Sanders voters... if I were them, I'd make sure I'd vote just out of spite.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





xraytango wrote:
If you re-read what I wrote you will see that my analysis of the difference is not wrong, just not textbook.



And again, what I'm seeing here, is you're apparently taking the definition of liberal to me something as a descriptor... As in, again, to liberally put ketchup on fries, or to liberally apply glue to a model.

That is quite well away from, and nowhere near textbook, I'll give you that.... I still think you're completely wrong in that definition.


Either way... as it relates to previous discussion... there is pretty much no way to use the political science term of "liberal" and Hitler in the same sentence, and be factually correct, unless it is a sentence that says he wasn't a liberal

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/07 03:27:02


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 whembly wrote:
Food for thought...

Which candidate will be held accountable by the media?


Well, given Clinton has actually received the most negative press coverage out of any of the final five candidates in the two primary races...
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11410160/hillary-clinton-media-bernie-sanders?version=meter+at+3&module=meter-Links&pgtype=Blogs&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.au%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/07 03:30:18


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 sebster wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Food for thought...

Which candidate will be held accountable by the media?


Well, given Clinton has actually received the most negative press coverage out of any of the final five candidates in the two primary races...



Honestly, I think that in today's political climate, all of the candidates will be held "accountable" by the media. While this is hyperbole, it just seems like we're getting to the point where if Bernie eats a pastrami sandwich, it's gonna face massive media scrutiny. A buddy of mine on FB posts a gakload of pictures that I often just scroll by. One of them today was about the "irony" of Clinton giving a speech on inequality, while wearing a $12k jacket. As seb's post shows, she gets the most negative coverage... but are we really to the point of scrutinizing wardrobe choices as legitimate political statements?
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Secret Squirrel






Leerstetten, Germany

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
xraytango wrote:
If you re-read what I wrote you will see that my analysis of the difference is not wrong, just not textbook.



And again, what I'm seeing here, is you're apparently taking the definition of liberal to me something as a descriptor... As in, again, to liberally put ketchup on fries, or to liberally apply glue to a model.

That is quite well away from, and nowhere near textbook, I'll give you that.... I still think you're completely wrong in that definition.


Either way... as it relates to previous discussion... there is pretty much no way to use the political science term of "liberal" and Hitler in the same sentence, and be factually correct, unless it is a sentence that says he wasn't a liberal


You are pretty liberal with the responses there.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/07 03:36:38


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 d-usa wrote:

You are pretty liberal with the responses there.


Well, I did get home from work, so no need to be conservative with my energy
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





In other Trump news...
Trump has continued his denouncement of regulations that protect the ozone layer. He thinks that hairspray isn't as good as it used to be, and that's more important.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/trump-on-hairspray-and-ozone/?version=meter+at+2&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F06%2F06%2Fopinion%2Fa-pause-that-distresses.html%3F_r%3D0&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click

Trump also thinks the drought in California is a conspiracy. Which is at least a classier kind of conspiracy, because that was the plot of Chinatown.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fea527c86dfe42c78609619c5ce7fd59/trump-vows-solve-californias-water-crisis?version=meter+at+2&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F06%2F06%2Fopinion%2Fa-pause-that-distresses.html%3F_r%3D0&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click

Rosebuddy wrote:
I believe it's moral to use violence to suppress the formation of a fascist movement because simply saying you disagree with them doesn't change anything.


You can believe it's moral if you want, that's really up to you.

But the simple reality is that it doesn't work. You think the KKK marches that have been met with violent counter-protests led to KKK members saying 'gee those other guys are really angry about us, they must have a point and I should cancel my KKK membership.' You think there's a single person anywhere who went to a Trump rally and gave up support for the guy because of violent protestors? You think anyone watching on tv sees the violent protest and becomes less likely to vote for Trump?

Obviously not. What becomes interesting then is to wonder why so many people opt for that kind of aggressive reaction when it obviously doesn't work. They claim its because the cause is so important... but if the cause was so important then wouldn't they focus on what works? It's actually nothing to do with the cause, it's about the protesters proving something to themselves, or to someone else. They are looking to play the role of the revolutionary, they want to look and feel important.

Ultimately it's not about the cause at all, but about the excitement of being part of a radical movement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Yeah, it's almost as if Trump is actually a racist douchebag and not just pretending to "tell it like it is" for the sake of votes. Shocking, I know...


Nah, he's just a liar who lies.

Thing is, while Trump is out in the media talking about how a judge with Mexican ancestry can't preside over a case he's involved in, his legal defence in that case has made no motion to disqualify the judge. Because Trump and his legal team know there is absolutely no legal precedent for what he's claiming, because it would blow up the legal system. It would mean, for instance, that if an issue of religious protection went before a court in which Catholics might be given a legal protection, no Catholic judge could rule on it, and also maybe no non-Catholic judge could rule on it either. It's a completely ridiculous view of judicial impartiality.

And the thing to understand is that Trump doesn't give a gak that it's ridiculous nonsense. He also doesn't care that people will view it as racist. What Trump is thinking is that actual coverage of the lawsuit against his pretend university would have shown that he was running a con, and that would be bad for his campaign. So instead he made some stupid comments about the judge having Mexican ancestry, so now the conversation is about whether or not Trump is racist. That's safer ground for Trump, and possibly even winning ground amongst a lot of his likely voters.

It's probably going to be a pattern through the campaign - when Trump gets hit on an issue he'll respond with some ridiculous claim referencing race.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jihadin wrote:
True. We would seriously chuckle though if Trump does something off the wall to negate the debt. I can see it now. "China you build Islands in East China Sea?" and charge them something crazy like placing American made navigational bouys or something. Like a Million a day


Yes, collapsing international trade and sinking the world economy. What a chuckle that'd be.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/06/07 04:30:57


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 sebster wrote:
But the simple reality is that it doesn't work. You think the KKK marches that have been met with violent counter-protests led to KKK members saying 'gee those other guys are really angry about us, they must have a point and I should cancel my KKK membership.' You think there's a single person anywhere who went to a Trump rally and gave up support for the guy because of violent protestors? You think anyone watching on tv sees the violent protest and becomes less likely to vote for Trump?


To be fair, you could argue that the reason the KKK hasn't been stopped by violence is that people haven't used enough violence. If every KKK march was met by counter-protesters with AR-15s gunning down as many KKK members as possible while the police looked the other way I suspect you would quickly see the end of KKK marches. I think the much greater factor in violence failing to suppress the KKK is that there wasn't really much of a period where the question was relevant. Over a fairly short time it went from enjoying widespread support to being an irrelevant bunch of s with no meaningful political power. And there's not a whole lot of motivation to take the risks of escalating to violence when the enemy is already defeated.

It's kind of a similar situation when you look at violent opposition to Trump. You don't see mass assaults on Trump events or constant assassination attempts on Trump himself. There are just occasional punches exchanged with a small handful of violent counter-protestors. So in that situation it's safe to keep supporting Trump in defiance of the violent opposition. You know perfectly well that nobody is going to hurt you, and you can just sit around congratulating yourself on how brave you are for supporting Trump. But let's see a few Trump rallies gunned down and anti-fascist flags planted in the corpses and ask again whether or not people have been deterred from supporting Trump.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Asterios wrote:
no rulings have been made, me thinks Trump wants a different judge to handle his case.


You thinks wrong. Complaining about a judge in the media doesn't actually get you a new judge. To get a new judge you have to your lawyer file a brief saying 'this judge is biased'. Trump's lawyers haven't done that, because they know Trump's complaints are vapid nonsense.

Trump is playing this in the media. Because if people focused on how the court case shows that he ran a timeshare/hard sale scam that pretended to be a university, it would look bad for him. Instead Trump is changing this to a story about racism and a white person getting picked on, because a decent chunk of his base eats that nonsense up.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 sebster wrote:
Instead Trump is changing this to a story about racism and a white person getting picked on, because a decent chunk of his base eats that nonsense up.


And, just as importantly, the people who are going to refuse to vote for Trump over his racism are already refusing to do so. Short of him appearing on stage at a KKK rally there just isn't much Trump can do to hurt himself by continuing to be racist. But his business record (his only claimed qualification for being president) is an entirely different question. There are probably a lot of unenthusiastic Trump supporters who are willing to overlook the racism because he's the designated pro-business candidate. But if there's lots of media attention on his business being a fraud and a complete failure...

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Relapse wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
 Traditio wrote:
Funny; I don't recall Trump supporters rioting and attacking people at Sanders' rallies.


Neither have Clinton or Sanders endorsed supporters committing violence at Trumpo rallies. In fact there isn't actually any indication that the people protesting at Trumpo rallies actually are Clinton or Sanders supporters, rather than simply anti-Trumpo people.

OTOH Trumpo actually is on record as endorsing violence against protestors at his rallies.



It took about three seconds to find this:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-bernie-sanders-supporters-shut-down-donald-trump-rally-chicago

I know in Salt Lake, Sanders supporters tried, as a mob, to storm into the Trump rally. They ended up destroying some propert before they dispersed.


The article doesn't say that. It says they infiltrated carefully. There were some scuffles between both sides. When the rally was cancelled one of them ripped up a sign, and was attacked by Trump fans and had a bottle thrown at him.

I expect the sign being torn counts as property destruction in some sense of the term.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 TheMeanDM wrote:
In summary: Bernie has won more caucus states, which neither record nor award individual votes.

As examples:
Sanders won 81% of Alaska votes
Sanders win 71% of Oregon votes

No individual (i.e. popular) votes are awarded or counted for him.


This is just completely fething bonkers. I mean, this article observes that the states that held caucuses pretty consistently favoured Sanders, and it then asks us to believe that this has nothing to do with the caucus process itself, it was just a coincidence. It asks people to not even consider that a process that favours a smaller but more committed voter base over a larger but less committed vote base might just possibly have helped Sanders in the caucus states. No, it just takes the results of the caucus as gospel and representative of what the true will of the democatic base of that state must be.

At the same time, Sanders supporters are arguing that Clinton has done better in closed primaries and that's not fair. At no point did the Sanders supporters than maybe all the states with closed primaries just happen to like Clinton more... because obviously that's really stupid. But when it came to trying to pump up the Sanders campaign there's no reason applied, they just buy in to the very stupid idea that the caucuses can be used as a proxy for the popular vote and that's that.

The article starts by saying this isn't about one candidate or another, but about not lying or misleading anyone. That would be nice, yes. And any time the Sanders supporters decide to recognise that Clinton is winning because, as it was put brilliantly by Nate Silver;
"Clinton "strategy" is to persuade more "people" to "vote" for her, hence producing "majority" of "delegates"."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
xraytango wrote:
Here is an observation, you may research it a bit, but from all the history I have read it would seem to me that the ONLY way Communists and Socialists can take power is by violence, it is also how they maintain power.


Read more history. The Spanish Civil War is largely ignored, and that's a shame because the event should give people a great deal of political insight. Anyway, point is that a communist government was democratically elected, and then overthrown by fascists after a long and brutal civil war.

But in general communists and hardline socialists have a hard time winning power through the ballot box - their concepts just aren't that popular. But I have no idea why we're talking about communists and hardline socialists in a thread about US politics. Is this because Sanders says he's a democratic socialist? If socialist like Sanders argues for is the kind of socialism we're talking about, then pretty much all of the developed world has democratically elected governments that are to the left of Sanders.

Wealth redistribution is nothing less than theft with the threat of violence.


No, you may not like redistribution, it may even be economically harmful or just plain morally wrong, but that doesn't make it theft. This is because 'theft' is a word with an actual meaning, and that meaning requires the taking of the property to be outside of the law. Obviously if the government is enacting the taking of stuff by passing laws to do so, then the taking of stuff can't be in breach of those laws.

Ironically enough, socialists will often say 'property is theft', and be just as wrong for exactly the same reason as the anti-socialists.

Communist and Socialist countries neither produce nor innovate, they are regressive and are a shift back towards feudalism as there is no incentive for people to better themselves by chasing a profitable idea.


You are right about the stifling effect on innovation, but you are wrong about production.

Your overall point about communism stifling innovation was accurate, but you kind of let that down with the bit about sliding in to feudalism - that was just silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote:
Hitler was a socialist liberal, is that a socialist?


Describing Hitler as a liberal socialist means you really, really don't understand what it means when you put liberal in front of socialist. Go and read, learn.

Anyhow, as to whether Hitler was any kind of socialist... the party's original reason for being was fighting communists. They did have socialist elements in their platform (the right to work, a populist hatred of the banks, the normal kind of stuff). But within the party support for all that stuff was always highly contentious - and that was a conflict that was finally settled when the leading figure of the socialist element of the party, Gregor Strasser, was murdered by Hitler's men in The Night of Long Knives. Hitler's opinion on socialism was made pretty clear that night.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Traditio wrote:
To my mind, at this point, there's simply no real question of whether or not there will be a Trump presidency. Trump is closing on Clinton in most polls, and somewhat beating her in others, and public opinion of Clinton just keeps falling.


First up, it's fething June. Being certain about a two horse race that is happening 5 months from now is silly.

Second up, Trump consolidated Republican support after the rest of the field dropped out, while Clinton is still in a primary race. So what we're seeing is a point in time where temporary factors advantage Trump, and despite that advantage he's still trailing in average of polls.

As such, concluding that Trump is the favourite is dubious, and concluding that he has the race won is bonkers.

I think Sanders could have beaten Trump, but the democratic party fethed him over.


Holy gak that's silly. Clinton has more votes and more pledged delegates. She is winning because more of the base has supported her. This nonsense has been going on for months now and people are still oblivious about one number being higher than another number. How is that possible?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
xraytango wrote:
That's what is called true liberalism, however the leftist version of liberalism actually means to liberally apply government.


No, it doesn't. It came about in the first half of the 20th century, as the values of classical liberalism were extended to make a case for new progressive ideas, such as the New Deal. They would argue, as an example I'm making up right now, that in classical liberalism individual freedom is important, and they would then point out that a person isn't actually very free at all if he's living on a street corner and begging for change, and so jobs programs and a social safety net become important to individual liberty.

And I mean, really, just ask yourself if anyone, anywhere would actually be in favour of liberalism and think refer to their own policies as 'liberally applying government'? You really should be able to tell how that's a smear invented by people opposed to modern liberalism.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
Oh...

Teh Bern not liking AP "deciding" that Clinton secured the nomination right before CA's primary:


No-one should like what the AP has done. Counting super-delegates at this point is basically saying 'based on how this person says they're going to vote in a fortnight, we've announced the election'. It's bonkers.

Probably the only effect it will have is that it will further confuse people's understanding of the Democratic primary race, a process that the media has already done a very good job of confusing everyone about. It will continue the nonsense myth that Clinton has only won because of super-delegates

That in turn might make it Clinton's plan to declare victory in New Jersey a little less dramatic, and a little less effective. Cheering your voters for giving you the most votes and most pledged delegates and calling the party around you is a solid strategy, but if there's nonsense out there about how super-delegates (who haven't even voted yet) have already decided the race, that message might get a little bit lost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Honestly, I think that in today's political climate, all of the candidates will be held "accountable" by the media. While this is hyperbole, it just seems like we're getting to the point where if Bernie eats a pastrami sandwich, it's gonna face massive media scrutiny. A buddy of mine on FB posts a gakload of pictures that I often just scroll by. One of them today was about the "irony" of Clinton giving a speech on inequality, while wearing a $12k jacket. As seb's post shows, she gets the most negative coverage... but are we really to the point of scrutinizing wardrobe choices as legitimate political statements?


Yeah, I think there's certainly a new media culture of heaping criticism on everyone in politics. Gotcha nonsense like Clinton wearing an expensive jacket is an example. I think this is largely because the media gets pulled by the nose... in the new media environment with skeleton staffs journalists are basically overworked and short on time, so if someone else has already written something, they'll just follow along. So they follow the sea of blogs and other internet noise that posts endless negative nonsense about people on the opposite side of politics.

The recent thing about Trump talking about a black guy as 'my African American' is a classic example. It was absolute nonsense - Trump didn't use the exact right words in the exact right way, but there's a vast number of racially conscious blogs who'll put up hundreds of thousands of words about this, and the media just follows along.

From there it shouldn't be too hard to see why Clinton has gotten the most negative media. Professional Clinton haters pre-date the internet, and were some of its earliest adopters. The media just eats that crap up and puts it in the mainstream.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
To be fair, you could argue that the reason the KKK hasn't been stopped by violence is that people haven't used enough violence. If every KKK march was met by counter-protesters with AR-15s gunning down as many KKK members as possible while the police looked the other way I suspect you would quickly see the end of KKK marches.


It might lead to the end of KKK marches, but not the KKK, because you don't change anyone's opinion by punching them. As such it should be pretty clear that people go about punching political opponents for reasons other than trying to advance their political ideals.

It's kind of a similar situation when you look at violent opposition to Trump. You don't see mass assaults on Trump events or constant assassination attempts on Trump himself. There are just occasional punches exchanged with a small handful of violent counter-protestors. So in that situation it's safe to keep supporting Trump in defiance of the violent opposition. You know perfectly well that nobody is going to hurt you, and you can just sit around congratulating yourself on how brave you are for supporting Trump.


The same thing is true of the anti-Trump protesters. They shout and get boisterous and maybe even get in a physical altercation. Then they feel good for how brave they were in standing up to Trump. They didn't actually do anything useful, but of course that's not the point.

But let's see a few Trump rallies gunned down and anti-fascist flags planted in the corpses and ask again whether or not people have been deterred from supporting Trump.


Again, there might be fewer people at Trump rallies, but you wouldn't see reduced support. People don't work that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
And, just as importantly, the people who are going to refuse to vote for Trump over his racism are already refusing to do so. Short of him appearing on stage at a KKK rally there just isn't much Trump can do to hurt himself by continuing to be racist. But his business record (his only claimed qualification for being president) is an entirely different question. There are probably a lot of unenthusiastic Trump supporters who are willing to overlook the racism because he's the designated pro-business candidate. But if there's lots of media attention on his business being a fraud and a complete failure...


Yep, that's exactly it. Trump doesn't want coverage of the actual case, because his Trump University wasn't just a scam, it was an amazingly lazy, gakky scam that was always going to blow up in his face. So instead he makes noise that touches on race, the media and blogging world falls for Trump's stupid trick, and that's that.

This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/06/07 07:43:59


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: