Milo is only persuasive to those that would believe it's really about ethics in game journalism. That sad, small man did nothing more than learn how to use social media to mobilize hate. He's a joke and may carve an awful corner out on 8chan for himself but that's about it.
Anyhow, enough about the guy advocating grown men banging 13 year olds.
Now we have "so called" angry crowds meeting Republicans. I know Cory Gardner here is not going to show up to any because he's scared to meet the public. He's taken to only doing taped Facebook videos to interact with the voters of Colorado.
I think you make an excellent point the NDP have little to with the current state of the oil industry in Alberta. The macro economic conditions dwarf any decisions made by the government.
Governments never have influence on industries? News to industries crying about regulation or lack of protections from competition from other nations. Much of the macro economic condition is set through the actions and cooperation of governments. But I'm pretty sure you know that.
while these decisions do matter it takes a while and there is a large lag between implementation and affect. So the amount of anguish and anxiety spent is disproportionate to its affect.
The sub 10% approval and reelection has far more to do with gerrymandering than it does apathy IIRC.
I'm not sure it really does (or rather, I don't think it's about either apathy or gerrymandering). Everyone votes in their returning congressperson feeling that he's not really part of the problem (he's just one guy out of 435), and then is incredulous that everyone else does the same. People tend not to connect their frustration with congress with their congressperson. In-fact, the worse your opinions of congress are overall, the more likely you are to think that your congressperson is actually above average.
This isn't a uniquely american phenomenon. We even see it in municipal elections... People in all wards after any election: "What? Everyone got re-elected? But approval polls for council were so low! I mean, of course I voted for my councillor to get back in, they look after my ward's interests and do a good job... but why would those people in that other riding vote their horrible councillor back in?!"
He is right, the people who protest against him and his caucus, are in fact activists... who are unsurprisingly likely liberal in their beliefs. That is a shockingly uncontroversial statement coming from Trump. I know his implications are more nefarious though.
He is right, the people who protest against him and his caucus, are in fact activists... who are unsurprisingly likely liberal in their beliefs. That is a shockingly uncontroversial statement coming from Trump. I know his implications are more nefarious though.
Bull####! The people at these events are constituents and mad as hell. Believe it or not, not all the people in a district are voting for the representative. There are plenty of people who didn't vote for them and are still expecting to have their views represented. People are organizing so they are heard, but they are not activists. I will be at townhall this week for my representative and I am going with another five people who share the same concerns I have. I will be prepared with a half dozen well researched questions. Does that make me an activist? No. Just someone who thinks my representative is a dick and isn't doing his job of representing his constituents.
a person who believes strongly in political or social change and takes part in activities such as public protests to try to make this happen:
---
For the record, it is telling that the president and his minions are causing people to become more involved in the political process and raising their voices - becoming activists. It is admirable and I mean absolutely no disrespect at all. Trump and his backwards, foolish policies are causing people to become activists. That is the true story behind that tweet. He has done something I never thought he could do, mobilized the apathetic masses.
That's to wildly inflate the notion of what a 'war' is. That definition would likely include things like Reagan's airstrikes against Libya, the Dakota Pipeline standoff, or that Cliven Ranch nonsense as "wars."
The US was at peace from 1898-1917 (19 years) and then again from 1918-1941 (23 years) for 41 years of peace. Add in the years from 1973-1990 and then 1991 to 2001 and you've already got 68 years of peace in the 20th Century pointing to peace being the primary state to which the American public is accustomed.
I disagree.1973- 1990 was very much height of the cold war era.
For the record, it is telling that the president and his minions are causing people to become more involved in the political process and raising their voices - becoming activists. It is admirable and I mean absolutely no disrespect at all. Trump and his backwards, foolish policies are causing people to become activists. That is the true story behind that tweet. He has done something I never thought he could do, mobilized the apathetic masses.
Then in your world voting must be an activist activity. Questioning your representative at a Townhall is hardly protesting. I don't classify exercising my basic First Amendment right as being a protest activity.
That's to wildly inflate the notion of what a 'war' is. That definition would likely include things like Reagan's airstrikes against Libya, the Dakota Pipeline standoff, or that Cliven Ranch nonsense as "wars."
The US was at peace from 1898-1917 (19 years) and then again from 1918-1941 (23 years) for 41 years of peace. Add in the years from 1973-1990 and then 1991 to 2001 and you've already got 68 years of peace in the 20th Century pointing to peace being the primary state to which the American public is accustomed.
I'm not trying to make any strong claims or anything, which is why I said it's just the first thing that came up when googling. I don't claim much detailed knowledge of U.S. history. Here is a list of conflicts provided by someone else though. I had never heard of the Banana Wars, for example, but according to Wikipedia, they apparently did involve U.S. marines and military.
Bull####! The people at these events are constituents and mad as hell. Believe it or not, not all the people in a district are voting for the representative. There are plenty of people who didn't vote for them and are still expecting to have their views represented. People are organizing so they are heard, but they are not activists. I will be at townhall this week for my representative and I am going with another five people who share the same concerns I have. I will be prepared with a half dozen well researched questions. Does that make me an activist? No. Just someone who thinks my representative is a dick and isn't doing his job of representing his constituents.
Okay I know we shouldn't be talking about that cool dude Milo anymore, but I just read that his real last name is HANRAHAN (he apparently took his grandma's name at some point and for some reason).
From now on, every time I read his name or see his mug on TV, I will only be able to think of this, and I hope you do the same (NSFW):
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
No. I will be asking my representative very pointed questions about the performance of his job as he promised when he took his oath to uphold and protect the constitution of the United States of America. For my representative I will be asking about his support for the abandonment of the ACA without having a replacement program (a political decision that hurts his constituents), his committee's lack of support for investigating the Russian involvement in this past election (a political decision, especially when they invested Benghazi numerous times, the email issue past the point of reason, and had a long list of investigations planned before the election was even complete), and his support of killing the EPA (when a mine in his district is poisoning the aquafer which services my community). Speaking truth to power is not activism, it is an exercise demanded by the founding fathers and why they drafted the constitution the way they did.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
That's only because you have defined in your head activism as something negative.
No, not at all. Activism can be very positive. What I am doing is hardly activism. I am going to a townhall to ask questions of MY representative in congress to speak to issues which he is not representing the best interests of his constituents. Me thinks you should look up the definition of activism. I see no where do I vigorously campaign for change. I want my congressman to take ownership of his position on these important issues, in a public arena, so he will then have to rightfully answer to the people for his decisions, which are looking to be counter the well being of his constituents. If he proves to be a ######bag and refuses to be representative of the people, then I might get a little activist in the future.
Quote:
Speaking truth to power sounds like a message straight out of a protest movement
Speaking truth to power is a term coined in the 1950s by Quakers, promoting pacifism and the belief that love can overcome hatred and prejudice. It has become the term to use to speak to those in positions of authority, especially those who are perceived as being abusive of that authority. The term was later co-opted by Gen. H.R. McMaster as the theme for his book Dereliction of Duty where he wrote about the military having a responsibility to speak the truth about military operations in the face of the civilian power in politics. It has been a long standing tradition in the United States that the people have the right to question those in government.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 02-22-2017 at 09:08 AM.
Reason: F'n auto correct
And in a real twist of fate my representative has just canceled his townhall and will instead have a "teleconference" where his people can control the conversation and answer only approved questions. I'm curious to hear about what the activism experts think about that move, and whether that is in alignment with the oath of office these representatives take. Can't wait to hear the spin about a controlled teleconference meeting the spirit of the 1st amendment!
