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.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Identity politics are a hard thing to really grasp for a majority of americans. It quite frankly doesnt really register with them. I know in my family, I spent hours trying to explain to them why someone can be a women, but born with a penis. It came back too "But they have a penis"
Its really something for a majority of people, they just cant understand because they have no real experiance with it. Anf Focusing on it so much, is relly detriment to the party IMO, Especially with the "You have to accept it" dogma many have to go through.
See here I accept that I don't understand it (very well), and take people at their word when they say it is an issue even if I don't understand that issue. It's amazing what people can achieve when they remember that other people are other people. But that's all too easy to forget, exponentially more so in this day and age, which leads back to the problem you stated here.
Starts with some more or less conventional ones - Sun Tzu's Art of War, Taleb's Black Swan, but then there's this:
Before he emerged on the political scene, an obscure Silicon Valley computer programmer with ties to Trump backer and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel was explaining his behavior. Curtis Yarvin, the self-proclaimed “neoreactionary” who blogs under the name “Mencius Moldbug,” attracted a following in 2008 when he published a wordy treatise asserting, among other things, that “nonsense is a more effective organizing tool than the truth.” When the organizer of a computer science conference canceled Yarvin’s appearance following an outcry over his blogging under his nom de web, Bannon took note: Breitbart News decried the act of censorship in an article about the programmer-blogger’s dismissal.
Moldbug’s dense, discursive musings on history—“What’s so bad about the Nazis?” he asks in one 2008 post that condemns the Holocaust but questions the moral superiority of the Allies—include a belief in the utility of spreading misinformation that now looks like a template for Trump’s approach to truth. “To believe in nonsense is an unforgeable [sic] demonstration of loyalty. It serves as a political uniform. And if you have a uniform, you have an army,” he writes in a May 2008 post.
In one January 2008 post, titled “How I stopped believing in democracy,” he decries the “Georgetownist worldview” of elites like the late diplomat George Kennan. Moldbug’s writings, coming amid the failure of the U.S. state-building project in Iraq, are hard to parse clearly and are open to multiple interpretations, but the author seems aware that his views are provocative. “It's been a while since I posted anything really controversial and offensive here,” he begins in a July 25, 2007, post explaining why he associates democracy with “war, tyranny, destruction and poverty.”
Moldbug, who does not do interviews and could not be reached for this story, has reportedly opened up a line to the White House, communicating with Bannon and his aides through an intermediary, according to a source. Yarvin said he has never spoken with Bannon. During the transition, he made clear his deep skepticism that the Russians were behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the source said—a message that Trump himself reiterated several times.
***
If Taleb and Yarvin laid some of the theoretical groundwork for Trumpism, the most muscular and controversial case for electing him president—and the most unrelenting attack on Trump’s conservative critics—came from Michael Anton, a onetime conservative intellectual writing under the pseudonym Publius Decius Mus.
Thanks to an entree from Thiel, Anton now sits on the National Security Council staff. Initial reports indicated he would serve as a spokesman, but Anton is set to take on a policy role, according to a source with knowledge of the situation. A former speechwriter for Rudy Giuliani and George W. Bush’s National Security Council, Anton most recently worked as a managing director for BlackRock, the Wall Street investment firm.
Hiring Anton puts one of the key intellectual forces behind Trump in the West Wing. In his blockbuster article “The Flight 93 Election,” a 4,300-plus-word tract published in September 2016 under his pseudonym, Anton strikes many of the same notes as Taleb and Yarvin. “America and the West are on a trajectory toward something very bad,” he writes. He blasts conservatives as “keepers of the status quo” for refusing to take account of the need for “truly fundamental” change—especially a crackdown on immigration that he argues is promoting “ethnic separatism” and risks entrenching a permanent Democratic majority.
Anton is no blind Trump supporter—the analogy in his essay’s title suggests that electing the Manhattan mogul was merely an alternative to the certain civilizational death of choosing another member of the “bipartisan junta” that he says is driving America “off a cliff.”
“2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die,” he writes. “You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.”
Will Trumpism work, Anton asks? He’s not sure—but he argues that it’s worth trying, given the alternative: “[T]he ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle.”
Anton’s real target is his fellow conservative intellectuals, who by opposing Trump are “objectively pro-Hillary”—a choice he warns will lead to “Caesarism, secession/crack-up, collapse, or managerial Davoisie liberalism as far as the eye can see.”
If that sounds like a highbrow expression of Trumpism—his inaugural address ripping the “establishment” in both parties for allegedly selling out the American people to foreign interests—it’s because it is. Hiring Anton speaks to Bannon’s ambition to displace traditional American conservatism with the sort of populist nationalism that Trump rode to office, and that his allies say is merely a return to the country’s original ideals.
“To me, part of the attraction and the appeal of Trump was that actually, if you take a look at what Trump’s saying and what he’s trying to do, [it] is actually more in keeping with the founding principles than the rest of the Republicans,” said the White House aide.
Am I allowed to call them fascists yet then? Cause they seem to be fitting the definition more and more
You can call them whatever you want but, much like Patton, you still can't just smack them.
I'll punch um, and I'll take the assault charge cause I think I can live with it
hotsauceman1 wrote: Identity politics are a hard thing to really grasp for a majority of americans. It quite frankly doesnt really register with them. I know in my family, I spent hours trying to explain to them why someone can be a women, but born with a penis. It came back too "But they have a penis"
Its really something for a majority of people, they just cant understand because they have no real experiance with it. Anf Focusing on it so much, is relly detriment to the party IMO, Especially with the "You have to accept it" dogma many have to go through.
IOW, "this is complicated, just throw them under the bus". Maybe that's a good plan if all you care about is getting power, but it's hardly something we should approve of.
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.
Getting in power is all Politics is about. If something prevents them from getting into power, why should they wait. And I never said. I said they need to stop the mantra of that it has to be accepted by other people. I fully believe in it. But the Democrats have went about it all wrong IMO. They have went to "They have to accept this, or you are a hateful bigot" route. which isnt gonna garner support.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/11 07:53:38
hotsauceman1 wrote: Getting in power is all Politics is about. If something prevents them from getting into power, why should they wait.
And I never said. I said they need to stop the mantra of that it has to be accepted by other people.
If the Democrats threw reproductive rights for women under the bus to try to leech votes then that would move them from "probably some of the dumbest people alive" to "definitely the dumbest people alive". Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Getting in power is all Politics is about. If something prevents them from getting into power, why should they wait.
Because power without principles is hardly something we should wish for.
I said they need to stop the mantra of that it has to be accepted by other people.
IOW, "throw them under the bus". Acceptance here means not discriminating, not treating people badly, etc. If the price of getting democrats into power is approving of anti-gay discrimination, bathroom laws, etc, because "we can't demand that everyone accept it" then the party is no longer one I have any interest in supporting.
They have went to "They have to accept this, or you are a hateful bigot" route. which isnt gonna garner support.
I fail to see why coddling hateful bigots in an attempt to buy their votes is supposed to be a good thing. What's next, talking about how "genocide is just a matter of opinion, right?" in an effort to get the Nazi vote?
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.
because, contary to most opinions, people that disagree with you are not bigots or hateful. Like I said, for many people, the idea doesnt even factor in.
hotsauceman1 wrote: because, contary to most opinions, people that disagree with you are not bigots or hateful. Like I said, for many people, the idea doesnt even factor in.
No, of course disagreeing with me doesn't mean you're a bigot or hateful. For example, I don't make any moral judgement at all about the people disagreeing with me about space exploration policy. They're wrong, but not understanding the details of rocket engineering and design constraints isn't a moral flaw. But let's not excuse actual hate and bigotry as "just disagreement". The people advocating legalized discrimination and bathroom laws and such are bad people. This isn't just some abstract philosophical debate where every point of view is valid, real people are suffering as a result of their actions.
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.
jasper76 wrote: -Come up with policies that protect American labor. Dems used to be THE party of labor, and they have lost touch.
[…]
- If Trump doesn't come up with a reasonable immigration policy, then come up with a reform platform that is sensible, compassionate, logical, and easy to understand and to communicate to voters.
[…]
-Admit the ACA has problems, and come up with solutions to fix those problems. Solutions that are easy to understand and to communicate to voters.
This is the “speak to the electors like they are stupid, offering simplistic solutions. Make promises you can't fulfill, and don't let internal contradiction in your own speech stop you”. It did indeed work for Trump.
jasper76 wrote: -Jettison identity politics.
-Jettison any thought of policies that force people to violate their religious convictions
-Broaden the tent to be welcoming to pro-lifers.
This is the “Take up the worst aspect of the right” part. The first one means “Let white Christian men be on top again, stop trying to reach equality”, the second one means “Let Christians get a free pass to discriminate” (because sure as hell you are not advocating for any other religion). Just no. The law is the law and you got to follow the law regardless of your religious conviction.Change the law if it's unjust, but you got to show it's unjust first. The law saying you don't have the right to murder people stops (literal) thugs from exercising their religion, but that's 100% fine because murder is bad. The law saying you don't have the right to discriminate people is preventing people whose religion order them to discriminate from exercising it but this is 100% fine because discrimination is bad. And so on.
jasper76 wrote: It probably won't be helpful to the Dems to use incendiary rhetoric like vile, ignorant, and hateful, because people in these States did indeed support Trumps policies, so you'd in effect be calling those voters vile, ignorant, and hateful, which will just entrench them further in the R column. It may have lost Clinton the election that she used terms like deplorablez irredeemable, racist, homophobic, and xenophobic. Don't insult the voters!
Why does Trump keep doing this, then? Sad!
jasper76 wrote: Will Smith is quite frankly a nutjob. He wouldn't even get a sniff of the Presidency.
I don't get the logical leap from the first sentence to the second sentence. I mean, we all know that being frankly a nutjob isn't something that stops people from being elected POTUS. It might stop people in France, maybe (I hope so), but not in the US.
jasper76 wrote: B - Nope. Become the party of ALL Americans, and stop demonizing Christians, white people, and males.
How about Christian white people stop being demons first . Seriously, how many elected Democrats are white Christian males and how many are not? If there is indeed a huge majority of white Christian males, then I rest my case that the Democrats is a party that does not exclude, contrarily to your claim, the Christian white males. Also Christianity is terrible so there's that .
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
A top deputy to National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was rejected for a critical security clearance, effectively ending his tenure on the National Security Council and escalating tensions between Flynn and the intelligence community.
The move came as Flynn’s already tense relationships with others in the Trump administration and the intelligence community were growing more fraught after reports that Flynn had breached diplomatic protocols in his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States.
On Friday, one of Flynn’s closest deputies on the National Security Council, senior director for Africa Robin Townley, was informed that the Central Intelligence Agency had rejected his request for an elite security clearance required for service on the NSC, according to two people with direct knowledge of the situation.
That forced Townley, a former Marine intelligence officer who had long maintained a top secret-level security clearance, out of his NSC post, explained the sources, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive personnel matters.
One of the sources said that the rejection was approved by Trump’s CIA director Mike Pompeo and that it infuriated Flynn and his allies.
Both sources said that the CIA did not offer much explanation for why Townley’s request for so-called “Sensitive Compartmented Information” clearance was rejected. But the sources said that Flynn and his allies believe it was motivated by Townley’s skepticism of the intelligence community’s techniques — sentiments shared by Flynn.
“They believe this is a hit job from inside the CIA on Flynn and the people close to him,” said one source, who argued that some in the intelligence community feel threatened by Flynn and his allies. “Townley believes that the CIA doesn’t run the world," the source said.
Spokespeople for the NSC and the CIA declined to comment. Townley and the White House press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, dismissed as “baloney” any suggestion that the clearance was denied because the intelligence community was trying to brushback Flynn.
Trump and Flynn “see treachery everywhere they go,” Schiff said, adding “if a security clearance is denied, it’s for a reason.” Intelligence agencies tend to be careful in rejecting security clearances because “they know they’re going to have to justify it," Schiff concluded.
One person close to Trump said that, within the White House, Flynn is regarded by some as waging “a jihad against the intelligence community.” This person said Flynn is blamed by some people around Trump for trying to turn the new president against the intelligence community during the campaign and transition period, when Trump was openly skeptical about U.S. intelligence findings that Russia meddled in the election to try to help his campaign and damage that of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
Flynn’s own ties to Russia, a leading U.S. geopolitical foe, also have come under scrutiny.
Trump’s critics cited Flynn’s paid speech in Russia and dinner with Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2015 as evidence of ties between the Kremlin and Trump’s inner circle.
And the FBI has been looking into Flynn’s December communications with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak.
Flynn had maintained that those communications did not include discussion of U.S. sanctions levied against Russia for hacking into Democratic electronic communications during the 2016 presidential race.
But the Washington Post on Thursday reported that sanctions were in fact discussed, citing nine top current and former officials at multiple agencies.
Democrats on Friday seized on the report, calling for Flynn to be suspended and pleading with Republicans to investigate him. Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House oversight committee said he had "grave questions" about Flynn's honesty — and whether other White House officials were aware of his communications with Kislyak.
Inside the Trump administration, the ranks of Flynn’s critics seem to be growing — and becoming emboldened.
A White House official said there had been concerns about Flynn's calls to the Russian ambassador, which weren't known by all of Trump's top advisers and aides. The official said Flynn is not particularly close to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson or Defense Secretary James Mattis.
Someone close to Trump said "a lot of people are gunning for Flynn, but I think the president likes him."
"The president thinks he's loyal and has expertise," this person said. "Among others, there's this perception he is wild, outside the box, not suited for the office.”
A senior Trump official played down the idea that Flynn may be in danger, saying he remained in contact with top Trump officials and cabinet secretaries.
Trump in a Friday afternoon gaggle aboard Air Force One said he was unaware of the report that Flynn had discussed the sanctions with the Russian but said he would "look into that."
"“He’s had a full day,” a Trump official said to how @POTUS could be unaware of the Flynn-Russia story. Flynn was with him on board AF One"
Play Exclusive: Russia is Considering Offering Snowden as a 'Gift' to Trump Facebook Twitter Google Plus Embed
Exclusive: Russia is Considering Offering Snowden as a 'Gift' to Trump 2:26
U.S. intelligence has collected information that Russia is considering turning over Edward Snowden as a "gift" to President Donald Trump — who has called the NSA leaker a "spy" and a "traitor" who deserves to be executed.
That's according to a senior U.S. official who has analyzed a series of highly sensitive intelligence reports detailing Russian deliberations and who says a Snowden handover is one of various ploys to "curry favor" with Trump. A second source in the intelligence community confirms the intelligence about the Russian conversations and notes it has been gathered since the inauguration.
Oddly enough Snowden deleted his tweet saying "2016: a choice between Donald Trump and Goldman Sachs".
amateur hour really is taking off over there huh ?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/11 13:24:05
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Co'tor Shas wrote: I mean, if you think pieces of land are more important than people (and if your party benefits from it), I'm sure it works just fine. But you have yet to give a convincing argument beyond "It's how it was designed".
The land is more important in the sense that you mean we're the United STATES. The PotUS is President of these United States, the states choose the electors who choose the president so each state runs its own election. Those state elections are weighted for population and given an electoral value, the Electoral points are added up as the results of the state elections are certified. A straight popular vote ignores the fact that the states exist which is diametrically opposed to a federalist system.
Which ignores the difference in politics, technology, and communications when the constitution was written and now. And also how the elcectors were chosen and worked then vs now. Which is the point.
And, again, I'd like to see an argument as to why States should be more important than people, all I've heard so far is that they are.
None of the changes in politics technology or communications changes the fact that we are a republic made up of a union of semi autonomous states in a federal system of governance. The states make up the country, the states send representatives to Congress, the states ratified the constitution, statehood was granted to new parts of the country when we expanded. People can come and go, they are transient but the states remain. You're not seeing the importance of the states because your viewing the issue through the wrong perspective.
Then do explain why what states want is more important than what the people want. And why the changes to how the election is done haven't broken the system
It' s not exactly about what the state wants per say, but trying to give the people of these states a more equal say in the presidential election. If we didn't have it this way, the election would come down to a handful of population centers, instead of the broader United States. Having an entire branch of government put in by these same population centers everytime is really denying a fair voice to this branch to the rest of the government. I believe that having the house-style electorial system helps allow these people to have a weighted say in the election of the executive branch.
Which as we've shown before, is just not true. And it's not even the design.
First, all people don't have a say, in fact most people don't. It all comes down to a handful of swing states. Secondly, I've shown the numbers before, but you can't win on population centers alone, unless you get near 100 turnout all voting the same way. Which is unrealistic. We will see similar campainging to what we have now (area to area) just in every state because every vot counts. Thirdly, why should where you live have an effect on how much voice you have in government? For the extremes, look at our territories, Americans who live there have no say because of this.
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.
Sasori wrote: If we didn't have it this way, the election would come down to a handful of population centers, instead of the broader United States.
You mean like how the election comes down to a handful of states in the current system?
Swing states aren't a product of the Electoral system they are a product of the voters and the 2 party system. Convince voters not to be reliable D or R for generations making Red and Blie states that rarely ever change resulting in the focus on the handful of states that do. Nobody created the Electoral College thinking that states like NJ would've dominated by 1 party for decades.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I mean, if you think pieces of land are more important than people (and if your party benefits from it), I'm sure it works just fine. But you have yet to give a convincing argument beyond "It's how it was designed".
The land is more important in the sense that you mean we're the United STATES. The PotUS is President of these United States, the states choose the electors who choose the president so each state runs its own election. Those state elections are weighted for population and given an electoral value, the Electoral points are added up as the results of the state elections are certified. A straight popular vote ignores the fact that the states exist which is diametrically opposed to a federalist system.
Which ignores the difference in politics, technology, and communications when the constitution was written and now. And also how the elcectors were chosen and worked then vs now. Which is the point.
And, again, I'd like to see an argument as to why States should be more important than people, all I've heard so far is that they are.
None of the changes in politics technology or communications changes the fact that we are a republic made up of a union of semi autonomous states in a federal system of governance. The states make up the country, the states send representatives to Congress, the states ratified the constitution, statehood was granted to new parts of the country when we expanded. People can come and go, they are transient but the states remain. You're not seeing the importance of the states because your viewing the issue through the wrong perspective.
Then do explain why what states want is more important than what the people want. And why the changes to how the election is done haven't broken the system
It' s not exactly about what the state wants per say, but trying to give the people of these states a more equal say in the presidential election. If we didn't have it this way, the election would come down to a handful of population centers, instead of the broader United States. Having an entire branch of government put in by these same population centers everytime is really denying a fair voice to this branch to the rest of the government. I believe that having the house-style electorial system helps allow these people to have a weighted say in the election of the executive branch.
Which as we've shown before, is just not true. And it's not even the design.
First, all people don't have a say, in fact most people don't. It all comes down to a handful of swing states. Secondly, I've shown the numbers before, but you can't win on population centers alone, unless you get near 100 turnout all voting the same way. Which is unrealistic. We will see similar campainging to what we have now (area to area) just in every state because every vot counts. Thirdly, why should where you live have an effect on how much voice you have in government? For the extremes, look at our territories, Americans who live there have no say because of this.
I respectfully disagree with you, but I not going to go any further than this. You've clearly made up your mind on the issue, as have I. There is no point in further discussion.
jasper76 wrote: B - Nope. Become the party of ALL Americans, and stop demonizing Christians, white people, and males.
How about Christian white people stop being demons first . Seriously, how many elected Democrats are white Christian males and how many are not? If there is indeed a huge majority of white Christian males, then I rest my case that the Democrats is a party that does not exclude, contrarily to your claim, the Christian white males. Also Christianity is terrible so there's that .
The hatred for Christians whites is strong here. This is why identity politics has gone too far. Before you think a Christian white is first and foremost a human being (and in our case an American), you think they are a demon and terrible, and something by nature to be opposed. And then we simultaneously decry when people think that blacks are lazy and violent, or transgenders are subhuman, or Jew's are greedy, etc, with almost no self-awareness that many on "our team" that cling to identity politics do the same type of things to Christian whites.
This is not the dream MLK had, this is something very different. I'm with him, we should judge individuals on the content of their character, rather than incidentals that people don't even have any control over (race, gender, and sexual orientation as the best examples). And yes, gasp, this philosophy should even be extended to the dreaded Christian white.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'll just add that the overwhelming majority of Christian white people I have met are decent well-meaning people. Apparently, that needs to be said these days. The Christian white is not the terrible demon he or she is being made out to be by the champions of identity politics.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/02/11 16:07:27
Prestor Jon wrote: Swing states aren't a product of the Electoral system they are a product of the voters and the 2 party system.
Swing state are a result of each state having a different demographic, with different values and all. Some states have demographics that are more conservative and others have demographics that are more progressive. Remove that heterogeneity, and then THE VERY NEED FOR FEDERALISM DISAPPEAR. So you should get more internal coherency in your argument.
jasper76 wrote: The hatred for Christians whites is strong here.
You are very oblivious to obvious sarcasm, aren't you?
jasper76 wrote: you think they are a demon and terrible, and something by nature to be opposed.
Yeah sure, everyone on the left opposed Hillary: she was white and Christian. You know, I already asked you a question that you refused to answer. How many white Christians Democrat elected?
jasper76 wrote: And then we simultaneously decry when people think that blacks are lazy and violent, or transgenders are subhuman, or Jew's are greedy, etc, with almost no self-awareness that many on "our team" that cling to identity politics do the same type of things to Christian whites.
Cry me a river. My grand-mother has lived first-hand the reason why we decry people that say “Jews are greedy”. Our stupid, idiotic victim complex based on nothing, and that willfully ignores any and all evidence showing that white Christian people have it the best in the US is an insult to humanity. Even the slightest imagined slight against you is supposed to be worse than actual horrors perpetrated against other. That's disgusting. Really disgusting.
You have about zero credibility when trying to do MLK's prosopopoeia. How much do you actually know about his life, his ideas, his struggle?
jasper76 wrote: I'm with him, we should judge individuals on the content of their character, rather than incidentals that people don't even have any control over (race, gender, and sexual orientation as the best examples).
So you don't have any trouble with me, I just said Christianity was terrible . Surely people have control over whether or not they want to be Christians.
jasper76 wrote: I'll just add that the overwhelming majority of Christian white people I have met are decent well-meaning people. Apparently, that needs to be said these days.
Which kind of weird fantasy land do you live in? Because that's certainly not in the US. Can I find it on a map?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/11 17:39:55
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
You seem to be too deep in the cult of hatred against Christian whites for me to get through, so I won't try. I'll just say again the overwhelming majority of American Christian white people are decent and well-meaning, at least the ones that I have met. Maybe things are different in France.
Or perhaps you are using sarcasm too frequently for me to understand where you are serious, and where you are having a laugh.
BTW, you attributed numerous post that I made to Preston Jon. I don't want him catching any flack for things that I have said.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/11 16:57:24
Guys, tone it down, this line has gone off the rails and is heading nowhere productive. The generalizations aren't going to win any arguments and is just going to get this thread locked.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Vaktathi wrote: Guys, tone it down, this line has gone off the rails and is heading nowhere productive. The generalizations aren't going to win any arguments and is just going to get this thread locked.
People who think abortion is murder are not dealing with reality.
It's a simple matter of when you believe life begins. For my part, once a genetically distinct being is formed, that is where a new life begins, and my own personal position proceeds from that, with ,"bend over backwards" accommodations for threats to life of the mother, and victims of incest and rape.
I figure you take a different view, and that is fine. I think the Democrat Party should be big enough a tent to accommodate both viewpoints. Your point is taken about numbers of supporters. Maybe you'ee right and doing this would turn off more people for the Dems than it would gain. I don't know.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/11 17:12:02
It's a simple matter of when you believe life begins. For my part, once a genetically distinct being is formed, that is where a new life begins, and my own personal position proceeds from that, with ,"bend over backwards" accommodations for threats to life of the mother, and victims of incest and rape.
I figure you take a different view, and that is fine. I think the Democrat Party should be big enough a tent to accommodate both viewpoints. Your point is taken about numbers of supporters. Maybe you'ee right and doing this would turn off more people for the Dems than it would gain. I don't know.
Define "genetically distinct being"
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
It's a simple matter of when you believe life begins. For my part, once a genetically distinct being is formed, that is where a new life begins, and my own personal position proceeds from that, with ,"bend over backwards" accommodations for threats to life of the mother, and victims of incest and rape.
I figure you take a different view, and that is fine. I think the Democrat Party should be big enough a tent to accommodate both viewpoints. Your point is taken about numbers of supporters. Maybe you'ee right and doing this would turn off more people for the Dems than it would gain. I don't know.
Define "genetically distinct being"
A being with a unique genome, in this case as distinct from the genome of the mother and father.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/11 17:32:45
jasper76 wrote: I think the Democrat Party should be big enough a tent to accommodate both viewpoints.
Purely on a practical level it isn't possible to accommodate two opposing viewpoints. Either abortion is legal or it is illegal. Neither side would settle for a compromise.
jasper76 wrote: I'll just say again the overwhelming majority of American Christian white people are decent and well-meaning, at least the ones that I have met.
Yeah of course.
jasper76 wrote: Or perhaps you are using sarcasm too frequently for me to understand where you are serious, and where you are having a laugh.
Every sentence ending with a is sarcasm.
jasper76 wrote: BTW, you attributed numerous post that I made to Preston Jon. I don't want him catching any flack for things that I have said.
Should be fixed now.
Anyway what with the obsession with “white Christians”? I'm pretty sure people that criticize Christians don't stop at white Christians only, and people that criticize white people don't give atheists a free pass either. Yet one more inexplicable part of your strange ideology.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
jasper76 wrote: B - Nope. Become the party of ALL Americans, and stop demonizing Christians, white people, and males.
How about Christian white people stop being demons first . Seriously, how many elected Democrats are white Christian males and how many are not? If there is indeed a huge majority of white Christian males, then I rest my case that the Democrats is a party that does not exclude, contrarily to your claim, the Christian white males. Also Christianity is terrible so there's that .
The hatred for Christians whites is strong here. This is why identity politics has gone too far. Before you think a Christian white is first and foremost a human being (and in our case an American), you think they are a demon and terrible, and something by nature to be opposed. And then we simultaneously decry when people think that blacks are lazy and violent, or transgenders are subhuman, or Jew's are greedy, etc, with almost no self-awareness that many on "our team" that cling to identity politics do the same type of things to Christian whites.
This is not the dream MLK had, this is something very different. I'm with him, we should judge individuals on the content of their character, rather than incidentals that people don't even have any control over (race, gender, and sexual orientation as the best examples). And yes, gasp, this philosophy should even be extended to the dreaded Christian white.
I remember reading about how one othe few and very accepted people its ok to make fun of are country folk. And considering the political demographics.........
jasper76 wrote: I'll just say again the overwhelming majority of American Christian white people are decent and well-meaning, at least the ones that I have met.
Yeah of course.
jasper76 wrote: Or perhaps you are using sarcasm too frequently for me to understand where you are serious, and where you are having a laugh.
Every sentence ending with a is sarcasm.
jasper76 wrote: BTW, you attributed numerous post that I made to Preston Jon. I don't want him catching any flack for things that I have said.
Should be fixed now.
Anyway what with the obsession with “white Christians”? I'm pretty sure people that criticize Christians don't stop at white Christians only, and people that criticize white people don't give atheists a free pass either. Yet one more inexplicable part of your strange ideology.
Really, I was just responding to Peregrine's assertion that abandoning identity politics would make the Democrats the Party of the "Christian white male...no thanks" as though Christian white males were some sort of boogeyman. My opinion is that the Democrats should be the party of ALL Americans, and that the demonization of Christians, and whites, and males as espoused by certain elements of the left needs to go. IMO identity politics are on the main divisive, creating buckets to throw people into, then characterizing and generalizing people by the bucket(s) they've been placed into.
See Clinton's demonization of Trump supporters as deplorable, irredeemable, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, you name it...as a recent example of identity politics gone wrong.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/11 17:58:07
jasper76 wrote: Really, I was just responding to Peregrine's assertion that abandoning identity politics would make the Democrats the Party of the "Christian white male...no thanks" as though Christian white males were some sort of boogeyman.
Let me translate that for you. Christian white male are the dominant force in the US. They don't need more help because they are christian white males, it's the opposite: they are less in need of help than blacks, atheists, women.
Here, giving up “identity politics” is a codeword for “keeping the status quo and not bothering to work for more equality”, and the status quo favor only christians, whites, males, and rich peoples.
jasper76 wrote: My opinion is that the Democrats should be the party of ALL Americans, and that the demonization of Christians, and whites, and males as espoused by certain elements of the left needs to go.
This demonization happens only in your head. You still have not answered my question about the elected Democrats, by the way. Answering it would prove you that this demonization only happens in your head, and that all actual facts point otherwise.
jasper76 wrote: See Clinton's demonization of Trump supporters as deplorable, irredeemable, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, you name it...as a recent example of identity politics gone wrong.
But Trump does have some deplorable, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic fans. He even got some on his government. Saying so is not an attack on “white christian males”, it's an attack specifically on Trump and Bannon and other terrible people from the alt-right. You do realize that Clinton herself is a white christian, do you?
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
jasper76 wrote: I think the Democrat Party should be big enough a tent to accommodate both viewpoints.
Purely on a practical level it isn't possible to accommodate two opposing viewpoints. Either abortion is legal or it is illegal. Neither side would settle for a compromise.
In my vision here, the pro-choices could still advocate for pro-choice policies, and the pro-lifers could still advocate for pro-life policies. I don't see that ever changing. There should be room for opposing viewpoints within a single party.
And, in fact, there are pro-life Democrats, just as there were pro-life women who wanted to join the women's March, but got disinvited from attending. I don't think the Democrats need to continue to hold a hardline pro-choice platform here a d alienate pro-life liberals or fellow travelers.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Jasper, the problem I think people are having you use of the term "identity politics" is that you seem to be using as "things that white male Christians don't care about." One could accurately say the Republican party is the party of "identify politics" as the promote the ideals of a decidedly white Christian nation. Just look at the Republican platform that was approved at their national convention. Why are you not condemning the Republican party as identify politics gone wrong?
Historically Blacks and Hispanics have had a greater percentage of members who consider themselves Christian and attend church regularly. Yet, these groups vote democrat. Hillary Clinton was a devout Methodist. There are lots of religious democrats. One can be religious while still agreeing that there should be a strong boundaries between church and state.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
4000+
6000+ Order. Unity. Obedience.
Thousand Sons 4000+
