The New American Politics thread

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Buster

Mr. Khan said in his speech that Trump should not be given the right to carry us into the future, and he cited that Trump had not sacrificed anything.

Either Trump's "sacrifice" is important, or it is not. Unless you are suggesting that Trump's detractors are only applying it to Trump and/or the presidency. Which makes no sense.

The argument here is clear, and Coulter is right: anti-Trumpers are suggesting that sacrifice is an important qualification for public office. It is a nonsense argument by them, and it is a nonsense argument by Khan. It formed the foundation for Khan's entire speech.

You're missing it by miles here. Again, you focus on the tree has missed the forest.

Sacrifice is not essential for public office. What's the argument here is these people sacrificed the most important thing they could ever have for the country: a child. Because of that sacrifice, a little extra respect is earned for their opinion whether you agree with it or not. Trump's answer was to equate his "success" with their's.

Mr Kahn was referring to the casual way he was discussing stopping the vet people who do sacrifice for the country when he has not.

That you or Coulter can't see that is frankly shocking. It's not complex

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Yes the Khans were on stage because they're Muslim, and their family sacrificed greatly for America. That's the point, it was a direct rebuke of a Trump position on Muslims.

I don't even get how this is a point of contention.

I'm not so sure. It all represents the minefield of identify politics in general.

The problem is driving claims on aggregate or nominal issues down to the individual, and then driving the issues of the individual up to represent the aggregate. I think Corsi might agree on the logical and/or statistical danger in doing this.

The Khans made this mistake right in their very statements. He said that they represent Muslims and Muslims' sacrifice to America. Then she made a statement that Muslim terrorists as individuals cannot represent Muslim ideals (I'm paraphrasing). It's an odd bit of inconsistent logic. Those who cynically participate in identity politics and the olympics of oppression tend to be selective on these things.

It's also why it is important to examine the claims that Muslim Americans sacrifice as much as other Americans in the wars. Again, I don't like these examinations, but here we are. As far as I can tell, more American Muslims have died fighting FOR isis, than American Muslim soldiers have been killed fighting isis. (Maybe someone can fact check that for me.)

Khan then went on say that "many ethnic groups" are represented at Arlington. Fine. But if representation gives substance to your argument, then he is inviting a demographic analysis of how many Muslims are represented as deaths (low, when controlled for overall population), and in the military (also low). And once again, I detest such examinations, unless I need to counter them when raised.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

You're missing it by miles here. Again, you focus on the tree has missed the forest.

Sacrifice is not essential for public office. What's the argument here is these people sacrificed the most important thing they could ever have for the country: a child. Because of that sacrifice, a little extra respect is earned for their opinion whether you agree with it or not. Trump's answer was to equate his "success" with their's.

Mr Kahn was referring to the casual way he was discussing stopping the vet people who do sacrifice for the country when he has not.

That you or Coulter can't see that is frankly shocking. It's not complex

That's just an argument from authority, regardless of whether the situation is emotional or not.

I don't consider their opinion any more or less valid, based on their sacrifice. And frankly, and argument could be made for the opposite. It would be a callous argument, of course.

[ResAlien]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politi...ent/index.html

Former acting CIA director Michael Morell endorses Clinton and says that Trump is "unqualified", that he "may well pose a threat to our national security", and is an "unwitting agent of the Russian federation"

Morell also suggested that Trump is being played by Russian President Vladimir Putin, writing: "President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated."

[Buster]

I like Morell.

But the Democrats need to stop accusing the Russians for orchestrating the current election. It sounds so 1950's.

[GirlySports]

in tonight's Opening Ceremony Michael Phelps has been voted to carry the flag for the US. However, he's under pressure now to give the flag to Ibtihaj Muhammad, a female fencer who's Muslim and competes wearing a hijab. We'll see what the decision is in a few hours.

I think he should give it to her. Then I want Trump to tweet about it.

[ResAlien]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/05...ww.google.com/

The NY Times piece itself for reading in case anyone wants to accuse him of partisanship. He's not registered to either party and has served under both Republicans and Democrats.

[PostandIn]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

in tonight's Opening Ceremony Michael Phelps has been voted to carry the flag for the US. However, he's under pressure now to give the flag to Ibtihaj Muhammad, a female fencer who's Muslim and competes wearing a hijab. We'll see what the decision is in a few hours.

I think he should give it to her. Then I want Trump to tweet about it.

This is foolishness. As if the Olympics don't have enough problems without this kind of overt politicization. If Phelps was voted that flag bearer that should be end of story. She should not be 'awarded' flag bearer, nor should Phelps in any way be pressured, because she's a female Muslim who wears a hijab.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by PostandIn

This is foolishness. As if the Olympics don't have enough problems without this kind of overt politicization. If Phelps was voted that flag bearer that should be end of story. She should not be 'awarded' flag bearer, nor should Phelps in any way be pressured, because she's a female Muslim who wears a hijab.

The USOC is standing firm. Media and social media is pressuring Phelps. It's totally up to him.

[rubecube]

Clint Eastwood kind of needs to go away. "It wasn't racist in my day!" may be the worst defense of racism I've heard yet.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/arts/eas...ican-1.3707069

[puffnstuff]

I think this election has jumped the shark.

Every new thing I read is more ridiculous than the last.

[Senator Clay Davis]

"Everybody's walking on eggshells," said Eastwood, 86.

And yet Clint refuses to endorse Trump even though he clearly wants to, but knows he'll get negative backlash that could hurt his movies. Lol...

[PsYcNeT]

Yes Clint, no one ever says anything controversial ever anymore. Welcome to the PC gulag, enjoy your gruel and gender-free non-confrontational programming.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Clint Eastwood kind of needs to go away. "It wasn't racist in my day!" may be the worst defense of racism I've heard yet.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/arts/eas...ican-1.3707069

Looks like he played himself in Gran Torino.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Buster

That's just an argument from authority, regardless of whether the situation is emotional or not.

I don't consider their opinion any more or less valid, based on their sacrifice. And frankly, and argument could be made for the opposite. It would be a callous argument, of course.

Again. You're missing the point. You and your friend Ann are focusing on a point Khan never made and ignoring the cause of the furor over the event.


Khan never said you have to have sacrificed to be president.


There's a valid reason to be upset with Trump's comments, yet you need to invent reasons to go against the majority. Evidence yet again instead of contributing meaningfully you find a way to agree with Coulter to rile people up

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Again. You're missing the point. You and your friend Ann are focusing on a point Khan never made and ignoring the cause of the furor over the event.


Khan never said you have to have sacrificed to be president.


There's a valid reason to be upset with Trump's comments, yet you need to invent reasons to go against the majority. Evidence yet again instead of contributing meaningfully you find a way to agree with Coulter to rile people up

Some of the complaints about Khan's speech were legitimate. Some were not.

Some of what Trump said had at least a kernel of validity. Some comments were absurd.

There is an interesting conversation among those four categories.

You can't disregard useful ideas, just because they are adjacent to bad ones.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Buster

Some of the complaints about Khan's speech were legitimate. Some were not.

Some of what Trump said had at least a kernel of validity. Some comments were absurd.

There is an interesting conversation among those four categories.

You can't disregard useful ideas, just because they are adjacent to bad ones.

What was legitimate?

Here's the speech. What's wrong with it?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7161616.html

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Buster

Some of the complaints about Khan's speech were legitimate. Some were not.

Some of what Trump said had at least a kernel of validity. Some comments were absurd.

There is an interesting conversation among those four categories.

You can't disregard useful ideas, just because they are adjacent to bad ones.

Yeah I mean, Hitler revitalized the German automobile industry.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Buster

Some of the complaints about Khan's speech were legitimate. Some were not.

Some of what Trump said had at least a kernel of validity. Some comments were absurd.

There is an interesting conversation among those four categories.

You can't disregard useful ideas, just because they are adjacent to bad ones.

It is tiring to hear from the Trump apologists that there is a "kernel of validity" to a few things that Trump says. Sure, if you squint really hard, add a filter to make him sound less insane and adopt assumptions to add a layer of nuance that Trump seems incapable of, and yeah, maybe there is that tiny kernel. A blind squirrel will find the odd nut.
In totality however, he is an absurd choice for the commander in chief. It doesn't seem so hard to figure out.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

What was legitimate?

Here's the speech. What's wrong with it?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7161616.html

I'm not sure what you are asking. Do you want me to unpack the speech line by line?

Or are we still in a spot where a discussing grieving parents delivering a political speech gets you a label?

I think the whole situation represents the worst of both sides: Trump being a stupid donkey, and the left responding with thought-police double speak. Meanwhile any actual issues worth discussing get shouted down by the rabid anti-trump crowd spraying outrage all over the place like my 4 year old with silly string.