uspol november: as it turns out they could not stump the trump

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > uspol november: as it turns out they could not stump the trump

«‹›594 »

white sauce: Apr 29, 2012; by R. Guyovich

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

I'm pretty sure that several members of Trump's team would insist that a certain Mr. B. Hussein Obama register also. I mean the whole point of a database is no *secret* Muslims

Don't you mean Barry Soetoro?

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 09:20

white sauce: Apr 29, 2012; by R. Guyovich

Potato Salad posted:

You have a weird way of trying to tack singular blame onto liberal politicians, giving the actual president from 2002 a free card on this one.

You ever heard of the term "the buck stops here"?

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:07

Hollismason: Jun 30, 2007; An alright dude.

I had hope that the Democrats may take back the Senate in 2018 but with Schumer on board I don't think it's going to happen. If Dems controlled the Senate that would lead to a lot of investigations.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:07

Former Everything: Nov 28, 2007; Is this right?

Pedro De Heredia posted:

They're saying Democrats need a message that appeals to everyone's material needs, and then they need to actually execute their plans and satisfy people's material needs.

The real question is why you think that would work in the face of Republican candidates that will literally lie about whatever seems most likely to strike a chord with the largest voting demographic (I will make all of your dreams come true, etc) and despite the fact that it's very well documented that Republican strategic governance has, for nearly a decade, been based entirely around obstructionism and has had substantial negative effects on people's (including their largest voting demographic) material needs.

Seriously. I'm not sure how the takeaway from the Republican wave elections and the 2016 GE is "appeal to everyone" and "execute your plans."

It appears the best way to get elected is to obstruct, lie, and pander to the 70% while blaming your obstructionism/failure to govern on the other party.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:08

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

fits my needs posted:

Are you delusional? Why wouldn't it pass congress? Paul Ryan and Mitch Turtleonell will stand in the way to protect Muslims?

Because it will get filibustered.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:08

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

DeathSandwich posted:

Except there is?

Speaking as a democrat in a blood red state (Kansas in this case), I feel like there actually are more Democrats (or democrat-leaning independents) around than anyone gives credit for. The problem as I see it is that a lot of Democrats in these states blow off voting, citing "It's not like my presidential vote counts anyway, the state is going red period". It's a systemically self-depressing mindset and really hurts Democratic downticket races.

Granted Kansas Democrats are notoriously lukewarm moderates, Full Socialism Now doesn't play quite as well here. But before the flaming shitshow of the Brownback governorship we had Sebillius, a democrat, who was also shockingly well liked during her tenure. Granted those good approval ratings completely tanked after she took a position in Obama's administration, she was still fairly beloved while she was in elected office.

If you guys want a fun-yet-somewhat-sad local politics story, in my state's legislative district, we had a notoriously anti-gay democrat that fervently squatted in her position for 25 years due to incumbency. In 2010 when republicans redistricted, she wound up in a new district that contained only 4% of her previous voters and where she didn't actually live in. She legally changed her residence to an abandoned church in order to run again in 2012, only to find that she was being primaried from the left by a gay man. She wound up winning her primary by something like 8 votes and had to go up against a republican who also attacked her from the left on social issues because he was also a gay man who was in the same LGBT coalition as the man who tried to primary her. She barely kept her position that election, and afterwards switched from a democrat to republican because it was easier to defend herself from the big mean gays as a republican.

This election, she was finally voted out of office to my surprise. The Kansas Senate picked up 1 new Democrat and 12 new seats in the state house as well as a number of Brownback toadies being primaried out and replaced with more moderate republicans. The state's legislative control is still firmly in the hands of the republicans, but it's a pretty significant inroad for 2018.

voting dem at the local level is good (though there's hardly any dems to vote for), but I don't see how voting hillary had any utility that I couldn't also get writing in gloria la riva. it sends more of a message to dems without actually harming hillary's chances.

also oklahoma went 60+% for trump (would be 70% if johnson didn't split trump's vote), as it's done for a long-rear end time, so it was the safest bet in my life.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:09

follow that camel!!: Jan 1, 2006

Luigi Thirty posted:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-registry-immigrants-policy-kris-bobach-reinstate-wall-a7420296.html

Well we're getting the Muslim Database according to Konach.

The same people who say a database of guns is the first step to government roundup will now defend this database of Muslims as totally not the first step to government roundup.

Maybe we should swap the numbering on the First and Second Amendments. And treat the numbering like a prioirty, to more accurately reflect how we see them in the U.S.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:09

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

You're never, "gently caress the republicans and gently caress obama for not stopping it," its always "gently caress obama."

Do I need to auto insert the other half of culpability into your posts as a factually-granted but overlooked detail because the rhetorical spiciness of being edgy and solely blaming liberals is cool and hip, or do you really give the GOP a free pass on this one?

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:09

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

Skex posted:

Skipping several pages but this jumped out at me and deserves a real answer.

What is meant is that rather than pushing corporatist economic policies that maintain the status quo and attaching a veneer of progressive "value" on them by pushing for hot button but largely symbolic victories on minority causes to attract minority votes you push a progressive economic policy that serves all people equitably, recognizes that all issues of inequity are based in economic inequity, that racism, sexism and all the "identity politic" related issues are caused by power imbalances and have been historically encouraged and stoked by those with power to keep those without fighting amongst themselves over scraps rather than joining together in common cause to fight those who have real power and who profit obscenely from all the power imbalances in the world and society.

That a truly progressive movement would focus on eliminating power imbalances of all types but primarily economic since economic inequity is the root cause of all other inequities. It's not throwing minorities and their causes under the bus to focus on white people, but rather throwing the rich and powerful under the bus and in the words of Bobby Seale fighting to give all the power to all of the people regardless of race, gender, sexuality, nationality or any other criteria that people have no control over.

Too often what I see on the left, particularly among well to do white "liberals" is this belief that they can profit from the current status quo and their historical advantage while being "progressive" by supporting feel good policies that while important are mainly addressing symptoms of the continuing economic injustice that they themselves profit from. This is the DLC/Clinton wing of the party AKA the establishment. They're in good with Wallstreet they've achieved phenomenal success, wealth power and prestige, they hang out with the bankers and CEO's but think that because they oppose blatantly racism and misogyny they aren't a part of the problem.

That's what we mean when we talk about identity politics. Not that those causes lack value and shouldn't be fought for, but that simply fighting for those causes while ignoring the root cause of those inequities is a losing strategy.

Consider this, if Obama and the Democrats who were put into power in 2008 had actually enacted the platform that they had run on, Massive direct stimulus of the economy through public works infrastructure spending, Single-payer national healthcare, elimination of the preferential tax treatment for carried interest, reimplementation of a highly progressive tax structure with extreme rates on the top marginal rates, protections for home owners rather than mortgage brokers, nationalized the insolvent banks that were "too big to fail" and had done big progressive moves that benefited the masses rather than simply the massively wealthy the world would be a completely different place. We'd still have gotten marriage equality, and we'd probably have made more progress on other "identity" political causes such as immigration and pay equity. Consider if they had spent more time focusing the justice department on fighting voter suppression legislation at the state level than going after whistle-blowers who exposed the failings of the Bush administration?

Do you really think we'd be arguing about how the "racists and misogynists" won this election?

Of course those who want to continue to enjoy the benefits of the existing economic inequity are always ready to jump on anyone who suggests that said economic inequity should be the primary focus with claims that those of us who suggest such don't care about minorities and their issues. Sadly many who are in the political out groups are often so desperate for any relief that they will gladly grab onto any lifeline and I don't blame for doing so. But the reality is that I firmly believe that it only plays into the hands of the opposition.

Essentially it isn't an either support minorities or support economic equity, it's supporting both by recognizing that they are interrelated and that the lack of economic equity is largely responsible for the lack of equity for minorities.

I worry that not giving specific attention to minority issues and civil rights will cause them to lose importance and become ignored, be left on the chopping block, etc. What guarantees are there that this will not happen, or what can we do to mitigate it?

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:10

Admiral Ray: May 17, 2014; Proud Musk and Dogecoin fanboy

Tight Booty Shorts posted:

It's more than just Gitmo. It's about the surveillance state that Obama is responsible for. It's pretty insane to think he campaigned on ending the PATRIOT act and then the second he was elected decided to actually make it objectively worse.

I never thought he'd abandon the NSA programs because holy poo poo those give a lot of power to the executive. I remember assuming this from the word go because he's a Chicago politician and getting rid of enemies through subterfuge is something I associate with Chicago for some reason.

Also expecting the executive to limit its own power in the face of stubborn opposition, even if it's more ethical to do so, struck me as unlikely. I know the reason we want to is that we can never know the personality of the next president but I don't think Obama thought a guy like Trump would make it. I wonder if he'd have limited his expansion of the executive, and maybe trimmed it back a little, if he 100% knew Trump was coming.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:10

Telephones: Apr 28, 2013

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

Ok I'll give you that. But according to the article "Created in 2002 following the 9/11 attacks, the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEER) required Muslims from countries where extremist organisations were active to provide information about themselves, undergo interviews with officials and periodically notify the government of their whereabouts."

So we already had a database of Muslims from Muslim countries from 2002 to 2011. Which was hosed up and reprehensible but it means that this isn't some unprecedented leap for us.

Yes but this is coming from an unhinged authoritarian organization with ties to white nationalists. It's very different by that fact alone.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:11

greatn: Nov 15, 2006; by Lowtax

TheBigAristotle posted:

I always thought Alfred's speech about the Joker's motivations (or lack thereof) was the most accurate summation of Trump, but now I'm thinking it's this clip about the Joker chasing cars and not knowing what to do if he ever caught one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSkWrpH3H3Q

Alfred's speech was bullshit. The theif's motivation was obvious. The theif didn't want foreign governments bribing corrupt officials for control of his country. "Some men just want to watch the world burn" Alfred says, and in the next sentence admits that it was he in fact that actually burned down the forest to kill this guy.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:11

Quorum: Sep 24, 2014; REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?

Quorum posted:

Also where's that blog post from the disability rights activist, it seems appropriate for when people try to act like they didn't just do something lovely by repeating slurs

Found it:

John Franklin Stephens posted:

Dear Ann Coulter,

Come on Ms. Coulter, you aren�t dumb and you aren�t shallow. So why are you continually using a word like the R-word as an insult?

I�m a 30 year old man with Down syndrome who has struggled with the public�s perception that an intellectual disability means that I am dumb and shallow. I am not either of those things, but I do process information more slowly than the rest of you. In fact it has taken me all day to figure out how to respond to your use of the R-word last night.

I thought first of asking whether you meant to describe the President as someone who was bullied as a child by people like you, but rose above it to find a way to succeed in life as many of my fellow Special Olympians have.

Then I wondered if you meant to describe him as someone who has to struggle to be thoughtful about everything he says, as everyone else races from one snarkey sound bite to the next.

Finally, I wondered if you meant to degrade him as someone who is likely to receive bad health care, live in low grade housing with very little income and still manages to see life as a wonderful gift.

Because, Ms. Coulter, that is who we are � and much, much more.

After I saw your tweet, I realized you just wanted to belittle the President by linking him to people like me. You assumed that people would understand and accept that being linked to someone like me is an insult and you assumed you could get away with it and still appear on TV.

I have to wonder if you considered other hateful words but recoiled from the backlash.

Well, Ms. Coulter, you, and society, need to learn that being compared to people like me should be considered a badge of honor.

No one overcomes more than we do and still loves life so much.

Come join us someday at Special Olympics. See if you can walk away with your heart unchanged.

A friend you haven�t made yet,
John Franklin Stephens
Global Messenger
Special Olympics Virginia

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:12

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Tight Booty Shorts posted:

You ever heard of the term "the buck stops here"?

I have. I sorta see where you're going, but to make sure:

gently caress Obama because he's the most recent guy to let it continue, and that's what's important?

If that's the case, well, that's overly simplistic, especially if that's a position you share with other voters. We need to hold the Dems to the fire but also not let people forget the GOP's original culpability. They can't be allowed to be washed of that sin and see no repercussions for it.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:12

Pedro De Heredia: May 30, 2006

Former Everything posted:

The real question is why you think that would work in the face of Republican candidates that will literally lie about whatever seems most likely to strike a chord with the largest voting demographic (I will make all of your dreams come true, etc) and despite the fact that it's very well documented that Republican strategic governance has, for nearly a decade, been based entirely around obstructionism and has had substantial negative effects on people's (including their largest voting demographic) material needs.

Seriously. I'm not sure how the takeaway from the Republican wave elections and the 2016 GE is "appeal to everyone" and "execute your plans."

It appears the best way to get elected is to obstruct, lie, and pander to the 70% while blaming your obstructionism/failure to govern on the other party.

No one said 'appeal to everyone'.

When people talk about appealing to 'the white working class', they're not talking about appealing to the whole of white working class. They're talking about appealing to people who have voted for Democrats in the past.

There are many people who simply do not think Obama's presidency was 'good' for them, and in a material sense, they're right.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:13

Harik: Sep 9, 2001; From the hard streets of Moscow
First dog to touch the stars; Plaster Town Cop

cravius posted:

Maybe it is good that people vote on their own and are not "coached" on how to vote by large organizations.

Banning campaigns and media coverage of candidates? That's a pretty bold plan.

Oh, you meant "They shouldn't be influenced by people I disagree with".

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:13

white sauce: Apr 29, 2012; by R. Guyovich

Potato Salad posted:

You're never, "gently caress the republicans and gently caress obama for not stopping it," its always "gently caress obama."

Do I need to auto insert the other half of culpability into your posts as a factually-granted but overlooked detail because the rhetorical spiciness of being edgy and solely blaming liberals is cool and hip, or do you really give the GOP a free pass on this one?

Which one do you think it is? Do you think I like Bush or Reagan? Yes the republicans are many times responsible for starting terrible things like the Patriot Act but then instead of ending it, Obama and his allies actually increase it and make it objectively worse.

Now who do you think is more responsible now? The people that started a program or the people that took it and instead of making it better as promised, lie and make it worse?

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:14

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Potato Salad posted:

I have. I sorta see where you're going, but to make sure:

gently caress Obama because he's the most recent guy to let it continue, and that's what's important?

If that's the case, well, that's overly simplistic, especially if that's a position you share with other voters. We need to hold the Dems to the fire but also not let people forget the GOP's original culpability. They can't be allowed to be washed of that sin and see no repercussions for it.

definitely. a lot of us were complaining about the same poo poo when bush was doing it (or rumored to have been doing it). seeing our dem leaders and fellow dem voters suddenly embrace this poo poo when they had power was terrible though

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:14

the popes toes: Oct 10, 2004

Potato Salad posted:

We need a starting point here.

Does a Muslim registration program trip any red flags for you? If so, what are they?

1. do they get free stuff that I don't get?
2. do they get discounted government poo poo that I don't get?
3. this is so they can jump ahead of me for a job, isn't it?

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:15

DeathSandwich: Apr 24, 2008; I fucking hate puzzles.

Tight Booty Shorts posted:

It's more than just Gitmo. It's about the surveillance state that Obama is responsible for. It's pretty insane to think he campaigned on ending the PATRIOT act and then the second he was elected decided to actually make it objectively worse.

The one thing I will legitimately give Obama poo poo on is continuing to propagate the PATRIOT act and all of the fallout that has come from that, up to and including the reactionary punishment of whistleblowers trying to tell the american populace how hosed up the whole thing actually is. That whole piece of legislature was executive overreach from the start and should of died in 2009 when Democrats had legislative majority.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:15

Covok: May 27, 2013; Yet where is that woman now? Tell me, in what heave does she reside? None of them. Because no God bothered to listen or care. If that is what you think it means to be a God, then you and all your teachings are welcome to do as that poor women did. And vanish from these realms forever.

America would be objectively better if someone went back in time and erased the second amendment. Perhaps smacking up Thomas Jefferson a bit for being a rapist.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:16

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

the popes toes posted:

1. do they get free stuff that I don't get?
2. do they get discounted government poo poo that I don't get?
3. this is so they can jump ahead of me for a job, isn't it?

Stop reminding me of the most important issues :shepicide:

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:16

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

mcmagic posted:

Because it will get filibustered.

And even if it did pass Congress it would get murdered in court.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:17

DACK FAYDEN: Feb 25, 2013; Bear Witness

the popes toes posted:

1. do they get free stuff that I don't get?
2. do they get discounted government poo poo that I don't get?
3. this is so they can jump ahead of me for a job, isn't it?

Hey, you're that rural PA guy, right? Didn't a million people ask you questions about your post, I know I wanted to see you unpack something but I forgot what.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:18

Raccooon: Dec 5, 2009

Could Obama actually have ended the surveillance state given Congressional grid lock? Does the President have the power to do that?

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:18

white sauce: Apr 29, 2012; by R. Guyovich

Admiral Ray posted:

I never thought he'd abandon the NSA programs because holy poo poo those give a lot of power to the executive. I remember assuming this from the word go because he's a Chicago politician and getting rid of enemies through subterfuge is something I associate with Chicago for some reason.

Also expecting the executive to limit its own power in the face of stubborn opposition, even if it's more ethical to do so, struck me as unlikely. I know the reason we want to is that we can never know the personality of the next president but I don't think Obama thought a guy like Trump would make it. I wonder if he'd have limited his expansion of the executive, and maybe trimmed it back a little, if he 100% knew Trump was coming.

He straight up campaigned on ending the surveillance state bush started. And then grew it. It took people like Snowden for us to learn just how awful it wasn't getting.

Maybe I'm just an idiot for falling for it :confused:

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:19

Angry_Ed: Mar 30, 2010; Grimey Drawer

Deadulus posted:

Could Obama actually have ended the surveillance state given Congressional grid lock? Does the President have the power to do that?

He signed an executive order to close Gitmo. Republicans somehow stalled out even that. I don't think ending the PATRIOT Act is even possible anymore because the GOP will just go "look at how weak those limp-wristed Democrats are on terror and national security". No amount of dead Osamas Bin Laden will offset that message.

EDIT: To be clear I don't think Obama really wanted to stop the surveillance either unfortunately, I'm just saying in the future I don't think anybody on the left can end this poo poo without losing the follow-up election.

Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Nov 16, 2016

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:21

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Deadulus posted:

Could Obama actually have ended the surveillance state given Congressional grid lock? Does the President have the power to do that?

What we didn't see was Obama publicly reprimanding the GOP for sustaining these programs, if that was the reason for Obama's inaction later on as things stalled.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:21

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

Pollyanna posted:

I worry that not giving specific attention to minority issues and civil rights will cause them to lose importance and become ignored, be left on the chopping block, etc. What guarantees are there that this will not happen, or what can we do to mitigate it?

Still looking for a response to this.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:21

white sauce: Apr 29, 2012; by R. Guyovich

DeathSandwich posted:

The one thing I will legitimately give Obama poo poo on is continuing to propagate the PATRIOT act and all of the fallout that has come from that, up to and including the reactionary punishment of whistleblowers trying to tell the american populace how hosed up the whole thing actually is. That whole piece of legislature was executive overreach from the start and should of died in 2009 when Democrats had legislative majority.

And then he wants to punish the people that helped bring this poo poo out to light.

Wtf

I truly understand now that the office of the president isn't about wonky policy, or being well qualified. It's about charism and charm. That's why Hillary lost (yes I know kill me now for bringing it up lol )

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:21

the popes toes: Oct 10, 2004

DACK FAYDEN posted:

Hey, you're that rural PA guy, right? Didn't a million people ask you questions about your post, I know I wanted to see you unpack something but I forgot what.

I forgot too

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:22

white sauce: Apr 29, 2012; by R. Guyovich

Potato Salad posted:

I have. I sorta see where you're going, but to make sure:

gently caress Obama because he's the most recent guy to let it continue, and that's what's important?

If that's the case, well, that's overly simplistic, especially if that's a position you share with other voters. We need to hold the Dems to the fire but also not let people forget the GOP's original culpability. They can't be allowed to be washed of that sin and see no repercussions for it.

It's about lying and actually making it worse. So yea I'm gonna mention the dude that lied about stopping it and actually made it worse more than the dude who started it.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:24

Hollismason: Jun 30, 2007; An alright dude.

Things would have been better if Obama had acted like a Chicago Politician and just started loving Republican's over hard core when they wouldn't step in line.

My criticism of him was that he never seems to want to play hard ball with people.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:25

DACK FAYDEN: Feb 25, 2013; Bear Witness

Angry_Ed posted:

He signed an executive order to close Gitmo. Republicans somehow stalled out even that. I don't think ending the PATRIOT Act is even possible anymore because the GOP will just go "look at how weak those limp-wristed Democrats are on terror and national security". No amount of dead Osamas Bin Laden will offset that message.

Ron Johnson ran an ad (now missing from YouTube apparently) attacking Russ Feingold for voting against "giving law enforcement the tools to keep Americans safe from international terror".

As in: Russ Feingold was the only Senator who voted against the PATRIOT Act. And Russ somehow had to defend himself over that.

This loving election. This loving country. You're not wrong at all.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:28

Gynocentric Regime: Jun 9, 2010; by Cyrano4747

Pollyanna posted:

Still looking for a response to this.

We do it by making sure the progressive people of color are represented at all levels in the new organization. If you go to a meeting of your local Democratic Party and there are no people of color there make sure that people are aware that it is an issue that needs to be resolved before any other progress can be made. If you are a person of color and you can afford either timewise or financially to participate in your local Democratic meetings, do so.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:29

A Wizard of Goatse: Dec 14, 2014

Potato Salad posted:

I have. I sorta see where you're going, but to make sure:

gently caress Obama because he's the most recent guy to let it continue, and that's what's important?

If that's the case, well, that's overly simplistic, especially if that's a position you share with other voters. We need to hold the Dems to the fire but also not let people forget the GOP's original culpability. They can't be allowed to be washed of that sin and see no repercussions for it.

I don't think anyone except the most bad-faith neocon shill is pretending that the Bush administration didn't start eroding our rights bigtime post-9/11, even the Bushies I've spoken to just quibble on whether Obama was still worse because he kept and expanded the security state, but Democrats have been fully enthusiastic participants in that and like clockwork when challenged on this from within the party wash their hands of their own ongoing policy with a "Bush did it first!!!"

It's just whataboutism that lets politicians and their fanboys dodge answering for what they are actively doing, and will continue to do.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:30

Cup Runneth Over: Aug 8, 2009; She said life's
Too short to worry
Life's too long to wait
It's too short
Not to love everybody
Life's too long to hate

So the New York Times is good, but the New York Post is bad. And the Washington Post is good, but the Washington Times is bad.

Why did they do this?!

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:30

Skex: Feb 22, 2012; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Quorum posted:

So, essentially, no war but class war? Wrong. There are challenges minorities face that are not caused by economic inequality, though they may be worsened by it. You cannot simply smile patronizingly at people and say "don't worry, we're not doing anything to fix specifically racism, but this universal healthcare will do away with it, just you wait!" They will justifiably tell you to gently caress off.

Where did I say anything about ignoring those challenges? What I said is that the we need to stop ignoring the economic inequity.

Here's the current situation. Establishment democratic politicians almost completely ignore the economic inequity, no not ignore it but rather support policies that perpetuate and worsen it while smiling patronizingly at people and saying "don't worry about feeding your family we'll fight to make sure that people don't call you names or stop you from spending the money you aren't earning"

Oh and remember that we're fighting for you so don't get mad when we through you under the bus by pushing tough on crime policies that lock away a disproportionate number of you in order to placate the opposition and carve out a few more right wing votes.

And yes they are all caused by economic inequity, racism in America has always been a tool of the powerful to maintain their power and that power is based on economic inequity. You show an extreme ignorance of history to think otherwise. White privilege was created specifically to keep poor whites in line. it's the classic divide and conquer strategy. Poor whites are co-opted into the system by giving them "privilege" which provides them some advantage over the group who should be their natural allies, just like some slaves were given privileges to bind them to their masters over other slaves. Just as managers are bound to the executives in the corporate world by giving them power over the grunt workers.

It's all about power imbalances and economics is all about power, so extreme concentrations of wealth are by definition extreme concentrations of power. And while it's true that eliminating such imbalances would not instantly resolve all other inequities ignoring those imbalances is just paying lip service to the needs of minorities while leaving the underlying cause of the inequities unaddressed. Which will only lead to other inequities in the future in an ultimately futile game of whack-a-mole.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:31

white sauce: Apr 29, 2012; by R. Guyovich

A Wizard of Goatse posted:

I don't think anyone except the most bad-faith neocon shill is pretending that the Bush administration didn't start eroding our rights bigtime post-9/11, even the Bushies I've spoken to just quibble on whether Obama was still worse because he kept and expanded the security state, but Democrats have been fully enthusiastic participants in that and like clockwork when challenged on this from within the party wash their hands of their own ongoing policy with a "Bush did it first!!!"

It's just whataboutism that lets politicians and their fanboys dodge answering for what they are actively doing, and will continue to do.

Bingo.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 09:20

A Wizard of Goatse: Dec 14, 2014

Cup Runneth Over posted:

So the New York Times is good, but the New York Post is bad. And the Washington Post is good, but the Washington Times is bad.

Why did they do this?!

they're all bad

but the New York Post is bad like a Hammer film

# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:32

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > uspol november: as it turns out they could not stump the trump

«‹›594 »