|
Instant Sunrise posted:
Death to America
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 01:04 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 03:44 |
|
That actually looks pretty bad.
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 01:07 |
|
Koalas March posted:It's not "for Dems" it's "for" black people. I mean really think about the targeted campaigns against MLK, Malcom X, even Deray and Shaun King, and other civil rights leaders then and now. Think about the Tuskegee experiments and COINTELPRO and poo poo. Think about targeted voter suppression in black communities. Think about the bullshit "literacy tests" and every other hoop this country has made black people go though. Deray basically works for the CIA and any corporation willing to buy their way into his tweets.
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 01:08 |
Under the vegetable posted:Deray basically works for the CIA and any corporation willing to buy their way into his tweets. Lol. I'm not mad at him for getting his hustle on. I would too like
|
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 01:17 |
|
So I'm kinda torn here. My innate distrust of people (What a bunch of bastards) makes me inherently believe that all these rear end in a top hat congressmen that have been accused of sexual assault are guilty. BUT. That same innate distrust of people (What a bunch of bastards) cannot help but wonder whether or not there are unethical 'former aides' or 'former colleagues' and whatnot that are making unprovable accusations as either revenge or political assassination. But then I worry, does my personal political leanings influence my ability to trust whether or not someone's accusations are real? Is it fair to the accused when we simply accept all accusations at face value? Is it fair to the accusers if we insist on actual proof other than he-said-she-said when it's an incident from 15+ years ago? How can I make an educated opinion as to the person's supposed guilt? I don't want to accuse an innocent man of wrongdoing, but neither do I want to be the one to ignore the cries of a rape victim. What's my options here?
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 01:24 |
|
Condiv posted:i hate manchin almost as much as fluffdaddy apparently hates bernie sanders Yeah, no I get it now. He should be primaried by a popsickle stick. Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Just a little something for this thread: my son had a recital today and attends a Christian pre-school. They are all very sweet ladies and I've had no problem with their very kiddie occasional "Jesus loves me" stuff. They never hit or even raise their voices to my son, they're very good with him. Well I went into the church (Baptist) before the show and they were playing "Christmas" music, and it was the most vile poo poo I've ever heard. It was all that terrible brand of contemporary Christian vaguely country-sounding crap, and the lyrics were disgusting culture war vomit like "America's sleeping, a darkness rises in the east, liberals say: save a tree, kill the children" poo poo. I could not believe it, and this was supposed to be a fun thing for parents to enjoy...they thought nothing of it, nothing at all. Warped minds.
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 01:26 |
|
khy posted:So I'm kinda torn here. We shouldn't have heroes, only causes. We resist authoritarians by putting the rule of law and our ideals first, as soon as it becomes a question of a person being treated differently based on the affiliations they have, we've lost part of that.
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 01:33 |
|
Kozinski is getting called the gently caress out now: http://wapo.st/2zfKJnr
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 01:44 |
|
RuanGacho posted:We shouldn't have heroes, only causes. We resist authoritarians by putting the rule of law and our ideals first, as soon as it becomes a question of a person being treated differently based on the affiliations they have, we've lost part of that. Okay that is a pretty nice statement but I'm having a difficult time trying to actually apply it. Like, I've never HEARD of half to three quarters of the dems and repubs that have been accused of sexual assault/harassment and I'm trying to find actual evidence to help me understand who's the one telling the truth. I know how easily my opinions could end up being manipulated by what I read/see/hear on the news and internet so I'm trying to figure out a way to make a judgement of my own and that's very difficult.
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 01:49 |
|
That's the kind of dilemma that doesn't seem to exist in reality. Like in theory there could be a powerful person who abused their power in a sexual way just once and then never again. But... how? People like that do it specifically because they don't respect women/people/lower people and think they can get away with it. So they're just going to do it again. If one woman claimed something she couldn't prove I wouldn't believe her on face value, but I would expect it to be investigated fully and then I would keep her claim in mind for future reference. Then, when it inevitably comes out that the accused has a pattern for that sort of thing then you wouldn't have to rely on the completely unproven testimony of just one woman. If a powerful guy inappropriately touched a woman once and then somehow never ever ever repeated it in their life and so gets away with it it's like, eh, at least it never happened again and they obviously must have changed. We already just have to accept a certain number of criminals of every category get away with their crimes.
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 01:51 |
|
khy posted:Okay that is a pretty nice statement but I'm having a difficult time trying to actually apply it. Like, I've never HEARD of half to three quarters of the dems and repubs that have been accused of sexual assault/harassment and I'm trying to find actual evidence to help me understand who's the one telling the truth. I know how easily my opinions could end up being manipulated by what I read/see/hear on the news and internet so I'm trying to figure out a way to make a judgement of my own and that's very difficult. the vast majority of these allegations end up being correct. the few times people have tried to manipulate the process by making poo poo up have failed spectacularly (see the WaPo / project veritas thing). if an allegation occurs, the correct thing is to believe the accuser. investigations and defenses are going to happen on their own, they don't need you for that. but other potential victims who are not willing to come forward because they see people like them being disbelieved DO need the feeling that there's people who have their back. it costs you nothing to change your mind if it really should come out that an allegation was wrong. it costs genuine victims a lot to go through a gauntlet of disbelief.
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 01:53 |
|
Not having disbelief is the important part yeah. Unless you actually know the accuser or have power over the situation then you don't really have to do anything but listen to and respect them. You as a random person don't have any other responsibilities in the situation as you can't really do anything about it. It can sometimes be hard to believe that even if you do intellectually know it, but all you can do is keep telling yourself it's not on you to act on things beyond your control.
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 02:00 |
|
Futuresight posted:Not having disbelief is the important part yeah. Unless you actually know the accuser or have power over the situation then you don't really have to do anything but listen to and respect them. You as a random person don't have any other responsibilities in the situation as you can't really do anything about it. It can sometimes be hard to believe that even if you do intellectually know it, but all you can do is keep telling yourself it's not on you to act on things beyond your control. Well yeah, I know that my opinion means squat when it comes to Trump's accusers, or whether or not Moore actually touched teenagers in a mall, Conyer, that judge above, Franken, etc. But all the same it feels bad when I let myself get caught up in dislike and hatred for someone who later on is proven to have done no wrong, and a part of me wonders if someone out there will be getting shat on by an accuser and end up leaving office when they were genuinely a good person trying to do good things. I don't think it's happened YET but I worry that the more high-profile accusations come out that eventually it will happen. I almost want to say I want to avoid the issues because I don't want to come out on the wrong side of the pitchfork, but at the same time ignoring such important issues is what lets the powerful get away with it so I feel like I DEFINITELY can't do that. So I feel like as a part of NOT ignoring assaults I need to throw in support, and that's what prompted my question a bit earlier. This is helpful advice, thank you guys. khy fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Dec 16, 2017 |
# ? Dec 16, 2017 02:14 |
|
Instant Sunrise posted:
Forgiveness is cool, but if you molest kids you should go to jail, not handle it internally. People in authority in churches should be mandatory reporters so they don't get cover for tolerating child molesters in their ranks. People seem to think that forgiveness means you don't go to jail for crimes. Like it's a free pass. gently caress that and gently caress them.
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 03:42 |
|
Lightning Knight posted:That actually looks pretty bad.
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 04:31 |
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Welcome to the flip side of mass hysteria and trial-by-media! Doesn't matter if its a really blatant smear, the Dems will eat it. Are you one of those people mad that Franken had to resign?
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 04:36 |
|
Ice Phisherman posted:Forgiveness is cool, but if you molest kids you should go to jail, not handle it internally. People in authority in churches should be mandatory reporters so they don't get cover for tolerating child molesters in their ranks. On the Hana thing I vaguely remember that as that happened around the time I was the same age as here. Evangelical people are scum in Washington, I think they double down on crazy because the average person is so much less religious up here and has no interest in their bullshit. Jack2142 fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Dec 16, 2017 |
# ? Dec 16, 2017 04:56 |
|
So Bobby Scott's accuser's attorney, who stood next to her during her annoucement, is a Seth Rich truther and Scott's office produced a pretty longass letter of recommendation he wrote for her that seems to undermine her contention that her rejecting his advances resulted in some kind of career blacklisting. More from the Virginian Pilot:The Virginian Pilot posted:A former Congressional Black Caucus Foundation fellow on Friday accused U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott of Newport News of sexual harassment while she was working in his Washington office in 2013. Ethics Investigation yes, "resign tomorrow" no, in my opinion. Definitely keeping an ear open for more accusers not represented by this same guy. Her employer/lawyer raises valid red flags about this that have me staying my pitchfork. TheScott2K fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Dec 16, 2017 |
# ? Dec 16, 2017 05:25 |
|
khy posted:So I'm kinda torn here. The important thing to keep in mind is that these aren't criminal punishments we're talking about. If we were discussing sending these people to prison, I would agree that evidence should be required. But in this case we're talking about very prominent public figures that certainly aren't relying on their employment as politicians to make a living, so it's a good "middle ground" to allow this sort of "lesser" punishment (relative to a criminal punishment, that is) with a lower burden of proof. edit: Also, in the case of people with multiple accusations, there's almost no chance of them not being guilty. Even in the cases with just one, it's still more likely than not that they're guilty. It obviously makes sense to err on the side of not punishing guilty people when discussing criminal punishments, but as mentioned before that isn't the level of severity of consequences here. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Dec 16, 2017 |
# ? Dec 16, 2017 05:29 |
|
I know I'm late, but I just saw the Ajit Pai - 7 Things video You Can Still on The Internet After Net Neutality Jesus Christ. What the gently caress. What the gently caress is happening
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 05:31 |
|
Kubrick posted:I know I'm late, but I just saw the Ajit Pai - 7 Things video You Can Still on The Internet After Net Neutality This actually got pulled from YouTube because the people who made the original Harlem Shake copyright struck them (they support Net Neutrality) lmao.
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 05:36 |
|
Alter Ego posted:This was not Virginia, a swing-leaning-blue state. This was Alabama. A blood-red hellhole that Trump won by 28 points. THEY DO NOT ELECT DEMOCRATS TO STATEWIDE OFFICES. PERIOD. I wanted to address this even tho it was pages ago. I live in the Deep South. It isn't as blood red as idiots like you think. For a long time, Louisiana has had democratic representatives and senators and even governors, like our current John Bel Edwards. Alabama going democrat isn't that amazing. That a race against a loving pedophile was so close IS. The south is quite receptive to leftist policy. We just haven't had anyone willing to really go whole hog on it since Huey Long.
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 05:57 |
|
gowb posted:I wanted to address this even tho it was pages ago. I live in the Deep South. It isn't as blood red as idiots like you think. For a long time, Louisiana has had democratic representatives and senators and even governors, like our current John Bel Edwards. Alabama going democrat isn't that amazing. That a race against a loving pedophile was so close IS. Quite receptive to leftist policy...until it stops being paired with racism anyway.
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 06:32 |
|
gowb posted:I wanted to address this even tho it was pages ago. I live in the Deep South. It isn't as blood red as idiots like you think. For a long time, Louisiana has had democratic representatives and senators and even governors, like our current John Bel Edwards. Alabama going democrat isn't that amazing. That a race against a loving pedophile was so close IS. I would vote for Reanimated Huey Long.
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 06:43 |
|
Lightning Knight posted:Are you one of those people mad that Franken had to resign?
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 07:06 |
|
Captain Oblivious posted:Quite receptive to leftist policy...until it stops being paired with racism anyway. Oh word??
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 07:22 |
|
gowb posted:I wanted to address this even tho it was pages ago. I live in the Deep South. It isn't as blood red as idiots like you think. For a long time, Louisiana has had democratic representatives and senators and even governors, like our current John Bel Edwards. Alabama going democrat isn't that amazing. That a race against a loving pedophile was so close IS. you would think 3 dems well to the left of manchin winning in oklahoma would make that p obvious, but people seem hellbent on sticking to the "centrism is the only way to win" narrative
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 08:06 |
|
khy posted:I don't want to accuse an innocent man of wrongdoing, but neither do I want to be the one to ignore the cries of a rape victim. What's my options here? Condiv posted:you would think 3 dems well to the left of manchin winning in oklahoma would make that p obvious, but people seem hellbent on sticking to the "centrism is the only way to win" narrative KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Dec 16, 2017 |
# ? Dec 16, 2017 08:18 |
Condiv posted:you would think 3 dems well to the left of manchin winning in oklahoma would make that p obvious, but people seem hellbent on sticking to the "centrism is the only way to win" narrative In Manchin's case in particular it's more "He's proven he can win and votes with us." When's the other senator's seat up? Definitely run someone more progressive there and see what happens. I can think of worse fates than having two reliable anti-trump votes from WV than neither of them because we gambled and lost. To be completely honest, I'm not entirely sure why you have such a hardon for getting Manchin out, given he's one of the better senators for voting against Trump and hasn't really done anything to gently caress us over that I'm aware of? I don't like using the term "purity test" much but this really feels like a straight up purity test for no reason. Also, obvious answer is "None of these places you point to are where Manchin is, therefore not really directly applicable the way you want them to be."
|
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 09:12 |
|
Capito is up for reelection in 2022. Condiv what state do you live in anyway, are all of your reps liberal?
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 10:11 |
|
Condiv posted:you would think 3 dems well to the left of manchin winning in oklahoma would make that p obvious, but people seem hellbent on sticking to the "centrism is the only way to win" narrative Oklahoma is another one yea. Republicans didn't capture our legislature until 2012, for the first time in our history. But liberals were so eager to write us off so they could become the party of white affluent suburban professionals that they breathed a sigh of relief and said "Oklahoma is lost forever thank God, now we can ignore them and divert money to do-nothing consultants"
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 11:44 |
Hmmm https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...9010_story.html CDC receives list of words they're not allowed to use in their budget documents, including fetus, science-based, threatened
|
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 14:26 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Oklahoma is another one yea. Republicans didn't capture our legislature until 2012, for the first time in our history. How were those pre-2012 Democrats politically
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 15:05 |
|
gowb posted:I wanted to address this even tho it was pages ago. I live in the Deep South. It isn't as blood red as idiots like you think. For a long time, Louisiana has had democratic representatives and senators and even governors, like our current John Bel Edwards. Alabama going democrat isn't that amazing. That a race against a loving pedophile was so close IS. Is that why they all voted for LBJ
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 15:43 |
|
Honestly, after this week the reason for push more left wing policy shouldn't be because of electoral politics, but because of the obvious outcomes of policy. Republicans will have essentially dismantled the market friendly parts of Obamacare while leaving the medicaid expansion in place. Likewise, they are dismantling all the student loan parts of Obama's education policy, while actually expanding pell grants. Publicly provided benefits all look to survive this republican presidency, while all the subsidy-based, market oriented programs will likely end. Only exception is CHIP, and that is because it was a policy with a phase out deadline.
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 16:38 |
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:In Manchin's case in particular it's more "He's proven he can win and votes with us." When's the other senator's seat up? Definitely run someone more progressive there and see what happens. I can think of worse fates than having two reliable anti-trump votes from WV than neither of them because we gambled and lost. Manchin voted to confirm Jeff Sessions. He actually votes in line with the republicans and trump more than any other Democratic Senator.
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 16:42 |
joepinetree posted:Honestly, after this week the reason for push more left wing policy shouldn't be because of electoral politics, but because of the obvious outcomes of policy. If I were drafting the policy proposals for the next Democratic congress, presuming control of the Presidency also: 1st would be lock in provisions to ensure permanent Democratic control. Add PR as a state, re-enact a new voting rights amendment, mandate non-gerrymandered districts according to the mathematical formulas from the recent supreme court cases. 2nd would be public option health care expansion via optional buy-in to Medicare and Medicaid, both. Meanwhile the executive would just go through and literally reverse every single thing the Trump did.
|
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 16:48 |
|
If the democrats don't expand voting rights the second they are back in power they deserve to lose for the rest of time.
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 16:56 |
|
joepinetree posted:If the democrats don't expand voting rights the second they are back in power they deserve to lose for the rest of time. The fact that they haven't made gerrymandering a cause to shout about from the rooftops is already a decent sign that they won't. I've heard 3 reasons why they avoid messing with voting access: 1- Makes the crusty old whites mad, and if they see a PoC in the same voting line as them they might defect to the GOP (assuming they haven't already). 2- That some of the imbalances benefit the Dems so they just sweep it under the rug (Hard to sustain given that several of the recent elections had good Dem turnout/engagement being translated to meager results once all votes were tallied, leading to the current hollowed out national congressional profile.) 3- That the lion's share of the electred reps and their staff are just fine with being the gatekeepers of liberal thought and don't want no extra people getting their say in and messing up their beautiful consensus. All three are either morally ghastly or tactically dumb to some degree, so feel free to decide what mix of them describes the current status quo. Compare your build with those of your friends! Fun for the whole family.
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 17:13 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 03:44 |
|
pretty sure they use excuse #1 to justify #3 even though actually doing things for the not-rich would net greater gains
|
# ? Dec 16, 2017 18:06 |