|
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 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 06:23 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
DeathSandwich posted:Except there is? 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 |
|
Luigi Thirty posted:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-registry-immigrants-policy-kris-bobach-reinstate-wall-a7420296.html 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 |
|
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 |
|
Skex posted:Skipping several pages but this jumped out at me and deserves a real answer. 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 |
|
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 |
|
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." 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 |
|
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. 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 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,
|
# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:12 |
|
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 |
|
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. 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 |
|
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 |
|
Potato Salad posted:You're never, "gently caress the republicans and gently caress obama for not stopping it," its always "gently caress obama." 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 |
|
Potato Salad posted:I have. I sorta see where you're going, but to make sure: 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 |
|
Potato Salad posted:We need a starting point here. 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
the popes toes posted:1. do they get free stuff that I don't get? Stop reminding me of the most important issues
|
# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:16 |
|
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 |
|
the popes toes posted:1. do they get free stuff that I don't get?
|
# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:18 |
|
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 |
|
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. 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
|
# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:19 |
|
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 |
|
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 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Potato Salad posted:I have. I sorta see where you're going, but to make sure: 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 |
|
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 |
|
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. 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 |
|
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 |
|
Potato Salad posted:I have. I sorta see where you're going, but to make sure: 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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!!!" Bingo.
|
# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:32 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 06:23 |
|
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. they're all bad but the New York Post is bad like a Hammer film
|
# ? Nov 16, 2016 19:32 |