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.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
While amusing and less nonsensical than Trump's political platform I'm not entirely sure this is on topic...

CPAC is one of the most influential political groups in the US, so their actions are on topic when it comes to US politics. This is not just the Trump thread.

I think he's referring to my threats of moose based tyranny

whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So...it appears that CPAC has disinvited Milo Yiannopoulos in light of ‘disturbing comments’.

Topkek.

Its not like his comments and stances havent been public knowledge for some time...

Its probably the video that surfaced of him defending pedophilia.

It really does seem like he is in a contest with the world to see how offensive he can be before someone says "feth no" so that he can then complain about it.

Pretty much... he's trying to be the next Howard Stern... and even Stern is like 'dude... chillax a bit?'.

The unfortunate thing here, is that this plays right into his notoriety... he's got a book to sell yo!

I didn't pay to much attention when Stern was culturally relevant (I mean, I bought the soundtrack to his biopic, but that had Ozzy doing a track with Type O Negative!)

Anyway... did a lot of people use his ridiculous persona to inform their political views?

LordofHats wrote:

 feeder wrote:


Am I wrong?

You dare question ME?!

Spoiler:

Me and moose get along like cheese curds and gravy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/us/politics/mcmaster-national-security-adviser-trump.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0


Looks like someone pulling the strings has finally figured out a way to shut McMaster up. . . Basically, he's spent a fine number of years rising through the ranks in all the "wrong" ways, people assumed he'd never make 3 stars (because he wasn't infantry, and because he spent his 2 star time in a non command/non-combat role).

I can speak from personal experience with the man that whoever is pulling Trump's strings here, made an excellent decision.

 skyth wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This is why democracy is the worst system of government that has been tried except for all the others, which were worse.

I suppose the answer is that everyone has to try to inform the uninformed voters, and hopefully they might open their minds to new information.

Yep. People should try and persuade each other that their cause is correct in the free market of ideas.

That can't happen when one side is convinced that someone is a "Secret Muslim!1!!".

I suppose that means that the other side has not done an adequate job of convincing their detractors that they're wrong?? To be fair, I don't think that "Obama is a secret Muslim" thing is a widespread belief. I live in redneck country, deep Trump territory, and the only place I've ever heard this is from wackaloons on TV.

Funny, I've heard from many of my wife's family here in New York.

Have they ever been on TV? (joke)

My understanding is that a single instance of bad stuff means that all Syrian refugees are bad, so obviously a single instance of good stuff means all Syrian refugees are good;

Shrödingers Syrians?

 jasper76 wrote:
Please refrain from rewording my posts. It's obnoxious and disingenuous. Thanks in advance!

What drugs are you giving that horse? Because that's one high horse if I ever saw one.
I was pointing to you how Trump wasn't adequately reacting to anti-American sentiment, he was creating more of it in place where it didn't exist. Which quite pant-on-head stupid. And you shouldn't praise him for doing so.

To be fair, Jasper has been nothing if not polite and there has certainly been hostility directed towards him in the last few pages.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Please refrain from rewording my posts. It's obnoxious and disingenuous. Thanks in advance!

What drugs are you giving that horse? Because that's one high horse if I ever saw one.
I was pointing to you how Trump wasn't adequately reacting to anti-American sentiment, he was creating more of it in place where it didn't exist. Which quite pant-on-head stupid. And you shouldn't praise him for doing so.

All the same, please refrain from rewording my posts. Please and thank you.

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So...it appears that CPAC has disinvited Milo Yiannopoulos in light of ‘disturbing comments’.

Topkek.

Its not like his comments and stances havent been public knowledge for some time...

Its probably the video that surfaced of him defending pedophilia.

It really does seem like he is in a contest with the world to see how offensive he can be before someone says "feth no" so that he can then complain about it.

Pretty much... he's trying to be the next Howard Stern... and even Stern is like 'dude... chillax a bit?'.

The unfortunate thing here, is that this plays right into his notoriety... he's got a book to sell yo!

Not anymore he doesn't.

Book has been cancelled. And it seems like me may have even managed to become too horrible for Breitbart.

Even murderers and rapists think kiddie diddlers are terrible, which says a lot about how people look at pedophiles XD

 LordofHats wrote:
Even murderers and rapists think kiddie diddlers are terrible, which says a lot about how people look at pedophiles XD

Yeah, as long it doesn't involve religion, college football or award winning directors people tend to get pretty worked up and outraged over pedophilia.

I'd say people got pretty worked up when it involved those things too, unless people have a bizarre investment in a given football team, or a famous singer, or the award winning director is really rich and like a lot of rich people totally gets away with it. Maybe someone is a famous leaker who totally raped two underage girls, but hey he made President X look bad so clearly he's a real hero and the girls are just sluts and liars.

It's not really all that unusual. People happily ignore the faults of other people when it suits them.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So...it appears that CPAC has disinvited Milo Yiannopoulos in light of ‘disturbing comments’.

Topkek.

Its not like his comments and stances havent been public knowledge for some time...

Its probably the video that surfaced of him defending pedophilia.

It really does seem like he is in a contest with the world to see how offensive he can be before someone says "feth no" so that he can then complain about it.

Pretty much... he's trying to be the next Howard Stern... and even Stern is like 'dude... chillax a bit?'.

The unfortunate thing here, is that this plays right into his notoriety... he's got a book to sell yo!

Not anymore he doesn't.

Book has been cancelled. And it seems like me may have even managed to become too horrible for Breitbart.

He was embarrassed pretty badly on the Bill Maher show on Friday. I wonder if that played into the CPAC and book deal decisions, as well.

I'm not familiar with this pro-pedophilia thing. Does anyone know the source for that?

EDIT: never mind, I found the quotes in question on CNNs website.

 jasper76 wrote:
Dude. With all due respect, get over yourself. Just because you have provided a response to a question, it does not follow at all that your answer was satisfying, and that I am not interested in what other people besides yourself have to say.

Of course, and you are welcome to disagree and point out any errors in my argument. Or simply drop the conversation. Whatever.

But what you did instead is just ignore the response, and then come back repeating the same argument. That's groundhog day. It's acting to defeat the point of conversation.

Just because individuals or interest groups want goodies at the expense of the tax payer does not necessarily make those goodies good policy.

It would be awesome if I could deduct my 40K hobby expenses from my taxes. I'd like that alot. But it doesn't mean that it would be good policy for the taxpayers to subsidize my hobby.

Kindly note that I am not attacking your line items specifically, but making a general point. Some of your examples, I actually support, at least in principle.

I didn't make it as clear as I should have, but I wasn't necessarily arguing that any of those items were good things. Some I'm ambivalent towards, others I think are unnecessary or even bad ideas. My point was that they’re very popular, either within the whole population, or with specific voter groups.

My point really is that it is very easy to talk about making government smaller, while not actually talking about what specific programs are going to be cut. Because everyone is in favour of smaller government, as long as the bits they benefit from don’t get cut


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Yet, for some reason our Federal government (and electorate) wants to follow the lead of states like Wisconsin in policy matters instead of states like Minnesota. There is a word for that.... and it isn't complimentary.

Yep. There's a lot of talk around policy about the US having '50 laboratories', meaning individual states can attempt bits of legislation and if they work other states or the federal government can adopt them. In Kansas Brownback even called his tax cut the big experiment.

But the thing about that approach is that you actually have to be open to learning about whether policies actually work or not. Clearly the Republicans either aren't able to assess success, or they just don't care. Because nothing that the Kansas tax cut was expected to produce happened. Job growth only matched other states, or fell behind. Wages didn't outpace other states. Economic growth was no better than other states, and nothing like what it needed to be to prevent a massive deficit blow out.

And now the Republicans are trying to sell a new tax cut for the rich by promising everything that Kansas failed to produce. Is there a term in science for running an experiment, getting the wrong results and then pretending you never ran an experiment and carrying on regardless? That's not a rhetorical question, is there such a term?

 Vaktathi wrote:
So...it appears that CPAC has disinvited Milo Yiannopoulos in light of ‘disturbing comments’.

 whembly wrote:
Pretty much... he's trying to be the next Howard Stern... and even Stern is like 'dude... chillax a bit?'.

The unfortunate thing here, is that this plays right into his notoriety... he's got a book to sell yo!

Too bad it got cancelled, because I knew one sure-fire sale.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1020/698575.page#8846409

Whembly wrote:Also... I fething love Milo and twittah's banning is a disgrace.

Nate Silvers posted a while back that if Trump miraculously wins the Presidency, then Milo Yiannopoulos needs to be Press Secretary.

I gotta say... that'd be fabulous

How quickly they turn on you, huh?

TFW white supremacism and masterminding a wave of racist abuse was A-OK, but pederasty is suddenly a bridge too far.

I missed you Ouze.

Thanks for that.

 jasper76 wrote:
Do you believe that Congress should serve as a check against the power of the executive branch, or do you think Executive power should be exercised unchecked?

Congress should serve as a check on government. But like any power, the power given to congress should be wielded with responsibility. Where it is wielded without responsibility, people have to understand there will be knock-on effects.

Do you believe government by Executive Order is a healthy way to govern?

Executive orders are an ordinary part of government. A president telling government departments where to focus is perfectly mundane.

The issue comes when presidents push the boundaries, instructing departments to act in things that aren't actually in the scope of existing laws. The reasons presidents do this is because they can't get their desired policies through congress. Obviously this isn't ideal. But it is also the inevitable consequence of a congress that won't or can't negotiate with the president.

That's the reality facing not just the president but also congress - if the two groups don't work together, then the president will pursue other means to enact his policy goals. For the president, this means his policies will last only as long as his time in the job - anything he did through an EO will be likely be undone by the next president. For congress this means they lose any input in to the process, they basically forfeit their primary role of writing law.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1020/698575.page#8846409

Whembly wrote:Also... I fething love Milo.

I'm not surprised

 Ouze wrote:
How quickly they turn on you, huh?

TFW white supremacism and masterminding a wave of racist abuse was A-OK, but pederasty is suddenly a bridge too far.

Yeah, this is the thing with so many people who love chuckling along to 'outrageous' people like Milo - they think it is all just good fun and everyone who is bothered is just being politically correct... until it moves to an issue that affects them.

I remember there was an Australian show that ran a comedy skit on giving wishes to kids with cancer, the 'joke' being the kids were wishing they didn't have cancer. It wasn't funny, but failed comedy happens sometimes. It ended up being discussed here on dakka, and it was interesting to see how many 'anti-PC' people were suddenly saying that you should never, ever be allowed to make jokes like that.

Before he was booted from CPAC, he had been invited as a keynote speaker. CPAC is the biggest annual convention in conservative politics. So despite the lies he spewed constantly, despite the on-line harassment campaigns he organised, he was being welcomed in to the tent. If asked to justify anything Milo said, how many conservatives would have declined to defend his nasty bs, but defend his right to say it? That it is all about free speech?

It turns out a lot of conservatives are in favour of free speech when that speech is used to attack people they don't like, but not such big fans when used to make awkward, attention grabbing throwaway lines about paedophilia.

 Vash108 wrote:


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1020/698575.page#8846409

Whembly wrote:Also... I fething love Milo.

I'm not surprised

Wow... ya'll are having a good time... eh?

As if I should be held to account for something that wasn't widely known...

Fine... Let's break it down...

1) Milo is actually the underage person preyed upon in this story. I guess one part of his crime is basically stating "It didn't bother me much" and making a flippant joke that it improved his hummer skills.

2) My disappointment in Milo, is when he told Rogen of the Hollywood parties he attended, and that there were very, very young boys there being given drugs and taken advantage of, but won't reveal whose parties these were... is extremely disappointing. Interestingly, no one isreally pointing that out... maybe because it isn't easy to out these sorts of thing? I can't image why... but, then again we hear this stories like this in Hollywood all the time.

3) CPAC is absolutely in the right to pull their invite, as this is a wholly private event. Unlike the college speaking invites....

4) For what it's worth, he posted a FB response:
https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/posts/851263248344905

But, hey, go ahead and have your fun at my expense.

 whembly wrote:
As if I should be held to account for something that wasn't widely known...

You should be held to account for celebrating a man who leads on-line harassment campaigns against people, up to and including death threats.

2) My disappointment in Milo, is when he told Rogen of the Hollywood parties he attended, and that there were very, very young boys there being given drugs and taken advantage of, but won't reveal whose parties these were... is extremely disappointing. Interestingly, no one isreally pointing that out... maybe because it isn't easy to out these sorts of thing? I can't image why... but, then again we hear this stories like this in Hollywood all the time.

Or maybe because Milo is a lying gak who is telling lies?! The man is a proven liar. He makes a wild and frankly ridiculous claim about very young boys being openly preyed upon in view of a whole party full of people, and gives no evidence for this, gives no verifiable details, and won't name a single person involved. And you fething believe it.

The only possible reason to buy in to Milo's claim is that you have a desire to believe any horrible thing claimed about Hollywood.

3) CPAC is absolutely in the right to pull their invite, as this is a wholly private event. Unlike the college speaking invites....

Actually, the colleges are also within their rights. Free speech is about not doing anything to infringe on a person's speech. It doesn't require any organisation, private or public, to give a platform to absolutely everyone who claims such.

The actual issue here is the bs story conservatives have been selling about Milo. Because they've been asked a whole bunch of times about the lies and the horrible, indefensible things Milo has said, the reply always came back 'I don't necessarily agree with what he was saying but he has a right to say it'. But as Milo's fame grew they brought closer in to the party, finally making him a CPAC keynote speaker.

Then Milo said something about a victim group that conservatives actually care about. Suddenly Milo's right to say what he wanted wasn't so important. And it is absolutely fine for CPAC to say they don't want him speaking at their conference. But when they invited him they knew Milo had once called a reporter a 'thick as pig gak media Jew'. They knew he organised and prompted his on-line followers to harass people he didn't like, up to and including death threats. They knew he outed a trans student during a talk in Wisconsin. They knew he threatened to publish an embarrassing photo of an ex-employee to end a pay dispute. They knew he uses 'tranny' as a slur.

But none of that prompted them to distance themselves from Milo, because ultimately stuff like antisemitic slurs, harassment of journalists and minor celebrities, outing transgender people and using tranny as a slur just don't matter to them.

But, hey, go ahead and have your fun at my expense.

It isn't fun, but it is necessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
They have plans... they're too chicken gak to push it through now.

They don't have plans. They have no policy written, they have no costings for any of their suggestions. And those suggestions can't even agree on basic principles.

This is what happens when you elect in to government people who have spent all their time in opposition running disingenuous attack campaigns, and no time at all formulating policy on what they want to do when they win office.

If they don't repeal it, they'll fething lose the Senate AND the House in two years.

Maybe. I think you're massively overstating the actual concern over ACA. Most of the outrage was media driven, and as soon as Republicans no longer have any reason to pump bad news stories in to the press the whole thing will drift out of the public consciousness. Look how much talk about it has dropped away since Trump came to power. The only reason it's being discussed now is because the left is using Republican inaction on the issue to mock Republicans who made so much noise about immediate repeal.

Moving on from Milo...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-39027611

President Donald Trump should be given a chance to prove himself, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe says.

He went on to express his support for Mr Trump's America-first policy, saying "America for Americans" and "Zimbabwe for Zimbabweans".

Such interesting bedfellows does politics make...

 Vaktathi wrote:
Moving on from Milo...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-39027611

President Donald Trump should be given a chance to prove himself, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe says.

He went on to express his support for Mr Trump's America-first policy, saying "America for Americans" and "Zimbabwe for Zimbabweans".

Such interesting bedfellows does politics make...

Wait, isn't that the guy who walked in front of cameras and preached racial reconciliation with the former white minority rulers while simultaneously rounding all the white people up and shipping them out of the country after burning their properties to the ground?

Or am I thinking of a different African state?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Moving on from Milo...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-39027611

President Donald Trump should be given a chance to prove himself, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe says.

He went on to express his support for Mr Trump's America-first policy, saying "America for Americans" and "Zimbabwe for Zimbabweans".

Such interesting bedfellows does politics make...

Wait, isn't that the guy who walked in front of cameras and preached racial reconciliation with the former white minority rulers while simultaneously rounding all the white people up and shipping them out of the country after burning their properties to the ground?

Or am I thinking of a different African state?

Among many other things, such as blatant and repeated voting fraud and manipulation, collapsing his economy, etc. Yup, that guy.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/us/politics/mcmaster-national-security-adviser-trump.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0


Looks like someone pulling the strings has finally figured out a way to shut McMaster up. . . Basically, he's spent a fine number of years rising through the ranks in all the "wrong" ways, people assumed he'd never make 3 stars (because he wasn't infantry, and because he spent his 2 star time in a non command/non-combat role).

I can speak from personal experience with the man that whoever is pulling Trump's strings here, made an excellent decision.

In actual politics, there's still the H.R. McMaster nomination.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/us/politics/mcmaster-national-security-adviser-trump.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0


Looks like someone pulling the strings has finally figured out a way to shut McMaster up. . . Basically, he's spent a fine number of years rising through the ranks in all the "wrong" ways, people assumed he'd never make 3 stars (because he wasn't infantry, and because he spent his 2 star time in a non command/non-combat role).

I can speak from personal experience with the man that whoever is pulling Trump's strings here, made an excellent decision.

In actual politics, there's still the H.R. McMaster nomination.

By all accounts he's a capable pick without too much suspicious political baggage. I don't think there's a particularly great amount of opposition to that pick. On paper at least he's the kind of candidate Trump should have picked in the first place.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
In actual politics, there's still the H.R. McMaster nomination.

Appointment. He'll be joining the executive office of the president, which does need senate confirmation.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Moving on from Milo...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-39027611

President Donald Trump should be given a chance to prove himself, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe says.

He went on to express his support for Mr Trump's America-first policy, saying "America for Americans" and "Zimbabwe for Zimbabweans".

Such interesting bedfellows does politics make...

Mugabe has flawed idea in assuming Trump wasn't given chance to prove himself. He had the chance. He blew it.