|
Kilroy posted:Does Charles Krauthammer have some kind of agreement with RCP? I always see that dude in the right column with them quoting some some fresh bullshit he's giving out to anyone who wants it. Which is apparently RCP. RCP is biased as gently caress, 100% dedicated to false equivalency, and giving far right media equal footing with normal media. Check out a few days worth of their crap. There will be a piece from the Atlantic, then one from a pro-Trump shill at the New York Post. Then one from the LA Times and one from Lifezette (WTF?). Then one from the Washington Post, and another one from the New York Post. And then one from a Professor of Law at Harvard, followed by one from Jerry Falwell Junior. One from the Chicago Tribune, yet another one from the New York Post. One from a Nobel prize winning economist discussing how the national deficit has gone down for 8 straight years, and one from a complete hack who says Obama has outrageously incurred more debt than than all other Presidents combined. Etc. It's subtle, and extraordinarily effective in giving credibility to extreme right views.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Iirc, he's asked for an assurance not to be extradited to the US and Sweden has refused. This is brought up a lot, what you need to know is that in Sweden there is a thing called ministerial rule. It's when a member of the cabinet interferes with something, and it's illegal. So if government officials dealt in hypotheticals, and they don't. It would be illegal for any member of cabinet to offer any assuransces. Since Sweden has requested Assange with a European Arrest Warrant he would also only be on loan. The UK would have to approve, and why is there no whining that US best bud wouldn't just send him of directly? It's already been stated that extradition for political stuff is banned, and it's the supreme court who have a say so here. Which cannot be overridden. Also if Assange were sent to the US his human rights would probably be at risk and the ECHR is constitutional law in Sweden. I would also like to remind everyone that Assange applied for a permanent resident permit while in Sweden for his rape/sexual assault tour.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
Nessus posted:That said I do think we're going to see a lot more "plain spoken" "straight talking" people after this one, since between Trump and Bernie it's clear that there's some demand for that. But that's a rhetorical style thing. There is certainly a dollop of populism in their speaking styles, but they appeal to two completely different (parts of?) people's brains. Bernie resonates with people who listen, parse, and understand the content of the speech he is delivering. His personal style of oration, aside from his frequently reiterated policy positions, are just icing on the cake for his supporters. Trump grasps people by speaking at a very low level of vocabulary, in a more direct affectation, as evidenced by his 'locker room talk' angle on Pussygate. "Everybody talks like this in private places that normal people congregate! Just like I'm talking to you now, buddy! This is candor! Just words! Not snatches I actually assaulted!" Father O'Blivion fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
Father O'Blivion posted:There is certainly a dollop of populism in their speaking styles, but they appeal to two completely different (parts of?) people's brains. Bernie boils down to "eat the rich" and Trump boils down to "kill the brown people." I don't know if it's really any more complicated than that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 09:29
|
|
|
By the way, I'm not so sure the GOP will be shrinking to irrelevance so soon. The thing about their voter base being old and dying was said in 2008 and it was repeated in 2012. The Republican Party didn't implode then and while it may convulse or shake or change into something else, it won't implode now, either. Their shrinking voter base and descent into political extremism are problems, but as long as rich assholes find it a useful vehicle to channel their ambitions / get richer, the GOP will continue to exist and be somewhat successful. The Trumpkins maybe going their own way would make about as much of an impact as the Dixiecrats did in the '60s and '70s, and that's assuming that Trump and his cronies can actually establish a party structure, bureaucracy and branding that work (which I doubt).
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
lozzle posted:Bernie boils down to "eat the rich" and Trump boils down to "kill the brown people." I don't know if it's really any more complicated than that. Their directness is probably appreciated, as is their perceived honesty (Trump is in fact a complete liar, but his fans think he's honest).
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
lozzle posted:Bernie boils down to "eat the rich" and Trump boils down to "kill the brown people." I don't know if it's really any more complicated than that. Very simple indeed, just make sure you tick the correct box with a #2 pencil after successfully completing your state's voter eligibility exam and paying any applicable poll taxes.  Wholly different approaches to candor, for sure. Father O'Blivion fucked around with this message at 09:40 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
The best way I've ever heard it put it this: "Trump acts the way poor people think they would act if they were rich." He's essentially his base's superhero, the ultimate manifestation of their power fantasies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
Father O'Blivion posted:Very simple indeed, just make sure you tick the correct box with a #2 pencil after successfully completing your state's voter eligibility exam and paying any applicable poll taxes. Where is harambe? You can pretty safely not vote for Hillary for whatever morality reason if you want cause she's going to win big regardless. Those down ballot boxes matter a hell of a lot more at this point. Nuclearmonkee fucked around with this message at 09:46 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 09:42
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:Where is harambe? The meteor. He's coming back, for revenge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
Tricky Ed posted:The best way I've ever heard it put it this: Makes sense. Trump himself just said he feels like a blue collar worker (lol). Hard to tell who's sentiment came first, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
Father O'Blivion posted:There is certainly a dollop of populism in their speaking styles, but they appeal to two completely different (parts of?) people's brains. Bernie is definitely working on a somewhat higher reading level than Trump does but in this case I am talking about the "impassioned outsider" speech. Bernie was basically giving the same speech over and over and it really worked on a particular audience. I would say that Trump's presentation technique is more advanced than Bernie's, probably in part because I doubt Bernie put a lot of work into consciously developing an oratorical style, and partly because Trump has a background in entertainment, by whatever means presented. Now I think that this actually is pretty important in political terms. You have to be engaging, you have to get people to listen, get them excited. I think if the Democrats can, in fact, speak on something nearer to Trump's level, their message is going to be outstanding and lead to great success. I don't mean saying pussy and oval office and insulting foreigners, I mean being impassioned, engaging, and not necessarily always abstract.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
call center manager posted:By the way, I'm not so sure the GOP will be shrinking to irrelevance so soon. The thing about their voter base being old and dying was said in 2008 and it was repeated in 2012. The Republican Party didn't implode then and while it may convulse or shake or change into something else, it won't implode now, either. Their shrinking voter base and descent into political extremism are problems, but as long as rich assholes find it a useful vehicle to channel their ambitions / get richer, the GOP will continue to exist and be somewhat successful. The Trumpkins maybe going their own way would make about as much of an impact as the Dixiecrats did in the '60s and '70s, and that's assuming that Trump and his cronies can actually establish a party structure, bureaucracy and branding that work (which I doubt). If in order for your candidates to win a primary they have to pander to a base whose views will make them unelectable to the general public, your party is irrelevant and is going to die.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:Maybe if she plans on hosting them, but why should she in a world where Samantha Bee exists? Samantha Bee as Hillary's Anger Translator would be good
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:You can pretty safely not vote for Hillary for whatever morality reason if you want cause she's going to win big regardless. Those down ballot boxes matter a hell of a lot more at this point. Hello Brexit protest voter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Trump's presentation technique is more advanced than Bernie's, probably in part because I doubt Bernie put a lot of work into consciously developing an oratorical style, and partly because Trump has a background in entertainment, by whatever means presented. I'd agree Trump's delivery was honed from his television appearances (with generous editing) and driven further by populist things like TV ratings. His live appearances were limited to beauty pagents probably? Maybe largish corporate groups? I have to imagine Bernie's arrival in the Congress gave him some cause to reflect on his stump presentation as evidenced from the plethora of his raw-meat C-Span clips on youtube, a tradition which Liz Warren is helping continue. Bernie's form at town hall style gatherings are also masterful, but enough gushing. They've both had shitloads of camera time but somehow I think Bernie's style is much less informed by uh... vanity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
lozzle posted:Hello Brexit protest voter. If you honestly think there is even a small chance she loses just lol. Clutch those pearls. Besides it's not a national referendum. Most people live in states that are not in play. Nuclearmonkee fucked around with this message at 10:14 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
Not enough honkeys in America, we already went through our Scared White People Tear It All Down phase with Reagan Good thing there's no aging, 85%+ white countries with huge internal panics going on re: immigration and minorities left or else far right ethno-nationalism may find a home elsewhere once Trump gets shitcanned
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
berserker posted:Just FYI it's in the thread title we've had for 11 days :O I didn't see the "thinskin" part for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:If you honestly think there is even a small chance she loses just lol. Clutch those pearls. If you honestly throw away your vote because "lol we're gonna win anyways" just lol.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:15
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:If you honestly think there is even a small chance she loses just lol. Clutch those pearls. Protest votes are stupid, hth. Also lol'ing at the idea that Johnson and Stein are not worse candidates than Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
I watched the debate when it was on and that sure was a shitshow. What's happened since then?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
lozzle posted:If you honestly throw away your vote because "lol we're gonna win anyways" just lol. Not part of your we please tell me how terrible I am. I'm just here to watch the Republican party burn down. 1stGear posted:Protest votes are stupid, hth. They are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
Captain Invictus posted:I watched the debate when it was on and that sure was a shitshow. What's happened since then? Not a ton. Hillary is way, way up, media is still focused on Pussygate because Trump's "apology" and debate performance did little/nothing to sway most people's minds to the idea that he's not a sexual predator/criminal and probably rapist. The rest of the party is still working out whether to try to stand with Trump or flee from him as quickly as possible, with hilarious results. Basically Trump's campaign is continuing to circle the drain and is doing its best to drag the GOP down with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
Captain Invictus posted:I watched the debate when it was on and that sure was a shitshow. What's happened since then? Same old fisticuffs. Endangerment of lives to feed one's ego. http://www.statter911.com/2016/10/10/donald-trump-says-he-knows-fire-fire-marshals-as-he-returns-to-familiar-theme/
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
Captain Invictus posted:I watched the debate when it was on and that sure was a shitshow. What's happened since then? Current status of the Republican party. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:26
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:If you honestly think there is even a small chance she loses just lol. Clutch those pearls. A lot of people now view this election as exactly that. When one candidate is a blatant white-nationalist, running up the score as much as possible is a rejection of those politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
Father O'Blivion posted:Very simple indeed, just make sure you tick the correct box with a #2 pencil after successfully completing your state's voter eligibility exam and paying any applicable poll taxes. Where's the option for "wide-eyed I, a newly born globalist and centrist, vote gladly and vigorously for Hillary Clinton, now knowing that the masses must be controlled and suppressed"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:Where's the option for "wide-eyed I, a newly born globalist and centrist, vote gladly and vigorously for Hillary Clinton, now knowing that the masses must be controlled and suppressed"? If you flip the ballot over there's an option for 'Google Ron Paul'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Can they even legally give that kind of assurance in Sweden, especially since the US hasn't even requested it. No, they can't, and the refusal described exactly why Swedish prosecutors can't legally grant preemptive extradition immunity The Insect Court posted:Yeah, I'm not quite sure why anybody thinks the Obama(or a Clinton) administration wouldn't have done everything they could to put Assange in some supermax solitary cell for the next several hundred years. Manning got the biggest sentence in the history of the Espionage Act, they clearly would have tried to outdo themselves with Assange. Manning had access to classified information and then leaked a shitload of it while serving in the military. Assange is a civilian who just published what he was given and was never under any obligation to protect US classified documents. Even if he were ever charged under the Espionage Act, there's a very good chance that he'd never serve any time. There's even legal precedence for this; the New York Times won a legal challenge to publish government secrets back in the 70s, and as recent as 2009 two lobbyists had Espionage Act charges dropped. So no, it's unlikely that the US is going to put much effort into charging or prosecuting Assange, because even if they did the dude would probably walk free. Although there's one caveat to this: if there's evidence that Assange goaded Manning then they could probably convict him for conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
quote:The Swedish authorities should issue assurances to the UK and to Julian Assange that if he leaves Ecuador’s London embassy and agrees to go to Sweden to face sexual assault claims, he will not be extradited to the USA in connection with Wikileaks, Amnesty International said. In the wake of the Wikileaks co-founder addressing the UN and with talks due between British Foreign Secretary William Hague and Ecuadorian officials, Amnesty International added that it was time to break the impasse. “If the Swedish authorities are able to confirm publicly that Assange will not eventually find himself on a plane to the USA if he submits himself to the authority of the Swedish courts then this will hopefully achieve two things,” said Nicola Duckworth, Senior Director for Research at Amnesty International. “First, it will break the current impasse and second it will mean the women who have levelled accusations of sexual assault are not denied justice. “It is vital that states show they are serious about dealing with allegations of sexual violence and that they respect both the rights of the women who made the complaints and the person accused." While Amnesty International has no evidence that Sweden plans to extradite Assange to the USA it seems evident that fears about such an outcome have played no small part in the current stand-off. Amnesty International believes that the forced transfer of Julian Assange to the USA in the present circumstances would expose him to a real risk of serious human rights violations, possibly including violation of his right to freedom of expression and the risk that he may be held in detention in conditions which violate the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Note that Amnesty International is a human rights organization that employs actual lawyers and is infinitely more credible than random posters on somethingawful dot com
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:46
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:Where's the option for "wide-eyed I, a newly born globalist and centrist, vote gladly and vigorously for Hillary Clinton, now knowing that the masses must be controlled and suppressed"? That's all downticket mang
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:51
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Note that Amnesty International is a human rights organization that employs actual lawyers and is infinitely more credible than random posters on somethingawful dot com I'm pretty sure Sweden knows whether or not it can grant preemptive immunity from extradition. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19426382 quote:Mr Assange's supporters have asked Sweden to guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US, which Swedish officials say they cannot legally do. lozzle fucked around with this message at 10:56 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
Father O'Blivion posted:Same old fisticuffs. Endangerment of lives to feed one's ego.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
lozzle posted:I'm pretty sure Sweden knows whether or not it can grant preemptive immunity from extradition. Then those Swedish officials are wrong. It's illegal to extradite someone to a country where there is a reasonable expectation they could face torture, which is the case with Assange. There is literally no way it is illegal for Sweden to affirm its commitment to treaties it has already signed and ratified.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Then those Swedish officials are wrong. It's illegal to extradite someone to a country where there is a reasonable expectation they could face torture, which is the case with Assange. There is literally no way it is illegal for Sweden to affirm its commitment to treaties it has already signed and ratified. Weren't you just going on about how lawyers are "infinitely more credible than random posters on somethingawful dot com," such as yourself?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 11:17
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Then those Swedish officials are wrong. It's illegal to extradite someone to a country where there is a reasonable expectation they could face torture, which is the case with Assange. There is literally no way it is illegal for Sweden to affirm its commitment to treaties it has already signed and ratified. Chomskyan posted:] lol the ironing is delicious e: gently caress beaten
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 11:20
|
|
|
Why is every poster with the word "Chomsky" in their poster name so bad (said forums poster "Minimalist Program")
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
Father O'Blivion posted:Same old fisticuffs. Endangerment of lives to feed one's ego.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 11:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Then those Swedish officials are wrong. It's illegal to extradite someone to a country where there is a reasonable expectation they could face torture, which is the case with Assange. There is literally no way it is illegal for Sweden to affirm its commitment to treaties it has already signed and ratified. It's also illegal for the US to torture people but I don't recall that stopping them. Lawyers and pundits can waffle about it as much as they like, if you were Assange or Snowden you'd still probably err on the side of caution and not put yourself at risk of US extradition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 11:24
|
|
