The New American Politics thread

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

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.

This is particularly the case in that used as a symbol of solidarity with Muslims, the hijab itself is quite controversial, as explained very well by Asra Nomani here: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...tes-oppression

Meanwhile, Phelps is one of the greatest Olympians in history and is participating in his final games. That seems like a good reason to be the flag bearer.

[ResAlien]

Clinton currently leading in Georgia is interesting. I think it was SCD who said the worst case scenario is that she's peaking too early. If she's not then this is shaping up to be a vicious beatdown and definitely makes sense why Trump is preparing his "rigged" excuses already.

[troutman]

Obama (on his birthday) was laughing at the idea that the election could be rigged. Elections are run (often by Republicans) at the state and local level.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...ion-ridiculous

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Buster

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.

Sure, unpack it line by line, or simply find one passage you can critique on the actual content of the passage, not on the Coulter straw man BS.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Buster

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.

Then for crying out loud: what's wrong with the speech, and what's your point?

You mis quoted his speech to help build your strawman, then rail against thought police.

Is it thought police to abhor that Trump would compare his "sacrifice" with theirs? No. Is it thought police to suggest it's different to put up one kind of grieving mother over another? No.


Where's this thought police? Or is it just your catch phrase when people vehemently disagree? Because that's not what it means

[PsYcNeT]

I'm pretty sure we all know that "thought police" is just codeword for "big meanies who publicly call me out on being a ####ty racist/bigot/generic #######"

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Buster

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.

I absolutely would agree that this is a problem, and for other reasons beyond those you've stated.

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).

I don't agree with you that they did any of this in their speech. Consequently, I don't agree that the speech is a good example of the problem you identified in the first part of your post.

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.)

And I still am failing to understand why this is at all relevant.

EDIT: I love how Buster gets consistently accused of trolling but basically all of Psycnet's posts look like the one above, and not a peep in his direction.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Ahh the fun of this election. Trump supporters have been strongly backing Paul Ryan's opponent, calling Ryan a globalist shill, and imploring Trump to back Paul Nehlen instead. Tonight...Trump expected to endorse Ryan. I'm gonna guess rather than showing a spine and being angry, they'll be ####s and obey Trump.

[worth]

I can't wait until this election is over so I can read articles that quote people speaking in complete sentences. I have to be honest.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Sure, unpack it line by line, or simply find one passage you can critique on the actual content of the passage, not on the Coulter straw man BS.

Ok, I'll do a few.

Tonight we are honoured to stand here as parents of Captain Humayun Khan and as patriotic American Muslims -

This creates a worthwhile discussion on what aspects of Islam he may or may not agree with. Does he agree with Islamic doctrine, on say, the oppression of women? Or gays? Given what we know about Islamic doctrine on these topics, and perhaps the addition of a hijab an indication of her silence? We actually still do not know the answer to these questions. I would hate to think that the DNC put someone on the stage that believes, say, in the killing of apostates, or blasphemers against Muhammed.

To wonder about his beliefs after he indicated an association Islamic doctrine is not bigoted. And outrage does not make it bigoted.

If someone from the Westboro Baptist Church was speaking, and identified themselves as such, you might wonder how closely they associate themselves with WBT doctrine. (Ie, do they hate homosexuals.) This is an appropriate question to ask yourself. I would have no questions, if he had not identified himself as a Muslim. But then he wouldn't be on the stage, would he? You don't gain many points by throwing an atheist Pakistani up there.

He vows to build walls, and ban us from this country.

Who is "us"? Muslims? He doesn't want to ban Muslims from the United States. Does he mean the Khans? They are citizens. Banning citizens was never a consideration for Trump.

Let me ask you: have you even read the United States constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. [he pulls it out] In this document, look for the words 'liberty' and 'equal protection of law'.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but my understanding is that Trump's immigration proposals are not un-constitutional. Jimmy Carter did a similar thing. I don't like them, as I am a proponent of open-borders from a libertarian perspective. But I'm not sure there is a constitutional argument against the immigration policy, or the protection of liberty and equality for non-citizens.


Why is this important? I really wish it wasn't. But this type of victim-card, double-speak is not good for the discourse. Trump's response is not good for the discourse. And yet it dominated the week.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Ahh the fun of this election. Trump supporters have been strongly backing Paul Ryan's opponent, calling Ryan a globalist shill, and imploring Trump to back Paul Nehlen instead. Tonight...Trump expected to endorse Ryan. I'm gonna guess rather than showing a spine and being angry, they'll be ####s and obey Trump.

I'm thinking we may get an actual election after all. Trump is getting curb stomped so badly now that he might realize the only way he has a chance is to play ball with the RNC. Hes set the bar so low now that even being moderately insane for the next 3 months may make him appear more palatable. "Trump's becoming more presidential!" they'll all shout. Then the Republicans can throw their weight behind him and try to cling to power.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I'm also guessing the fact a poll came out today with Ryan up 66 points (!!!) in that race might have had something to do with it. Will be hilarious when he inevitably claims most of the credit for the big win.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

EDIT: I love how Buster gets consistently accused of trolling but basically all of Psycnet's posts look like the one above, and not a peep in his direction.

Difference being, I'm just dropping truth bombs while Buster tries to divert attention from the main topic by focusing on minutiae.

Why you gotta hate man.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I absolutely would agree that this is a problem, and for other reasons beyond those you've stated.

I don't agree with you that they did any of this in their speech. Consequently, I don't agree that the speech is a good example of the problem you identified in the first part of your post.

And I still am failing to understand why this is at all relevant.

He was clearly appealing to represent the community of Muslims in his speech. He was defending the character and sacrifices of Muslims.

In her newspaper Op-ed a day later she said that an individual Muslim terrorist cannot represent the religion.

Neither of these claims make sense, and taken together they definitely do not make sense.

The statistics are relevant only because the entirety of the spurious "sacrifice" card playing by Mr. Khan in defense of the Muslim community only works if the entire Muslim community can be examined. This seems logical to me. Again, I don't like his argument, because I don't think it makes sense to gain victim points by counting bodies. But that is the unavoidable conclusion to Mr. Khan's line of thinking.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Difference being, I'm just dropping truth bombs while Buster tries to divert attention from the main topic by focusing on minutiae.

Of course you think they're "truth bombs". In fact, they're generally simplistic nonsense... but that's beside the point, because they're clearly drive-by troll jobs. Buster's at least arguing his point, even though I think he's wrong. I see no value in your posts. I mean, if they were funny, maybe. At least MMF sometimes manages that much.

Originally Posted by Buster

This creates a worthwhile discussion on what aspects of Islam he may or may not agree with. Does he agree with Islamic doctrine, on say, the oppression of women? Or gays? Given what we know about Islamic doctrine on these topics, and perhaps the addition of a hijab an indication of her silence? We actually still do not know the answer to these questions. I would hate to think that the DNC put someone on the stage that believes, say, in the killing of apostates, or blasphemers against Muhammed.

I disagree with the implication. The proper interpretation of Islamic doctrine is not the subject of the speech. What he thinks about it doesn't strike me as particularly relevant in this context. Suggesting "maybe he's an Islamist, we don't know, maybe he oppresses his wife" is just speculation without any point to it and isn't productive. It's just mind-reading, which is one of the problems typically associated with the regressive left. "He's saying this, but maybe he thinks this other thing based on who he is." Stick to the words actually coming out of the guy's mouth.

It's also statistically kind of silly; American Muslims are largely moderates, and there is nothing but moderate, secular rhetoric in what he actually talked about.

Who is "us"? Muslims? He doesn't want to ban Muslims from the United States.

He does want to prohibit Muslims from entering the USA on the basis of their religion, though, which I think is clearly what he's referring to.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but my understanding is that Trump's immigration proposals are not un-constitutional.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't suggesting they were, just sort of rhetorically and insubstantially bashing Trump for being ignorant and un-american in light of the concepts of "liberty" and "equal protection".

He was clearly appealing to represent the community of Muslims in his speech. He was defending the character and sacrifices of Muslims.

I again disagree. He mentioned that Trump had smeared the character of Muslims, but this was in no way the thrust of the speech. Rather, the point, I think, was summarized best in the following passage:

Originally Posted by Khan

Go look at the graves of the brave patriots who died defending America. You will see all faiths, genders, and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one. We cannot solve our problems by building walls, sowing division. We are stronger together.

Again, a lot of emotionally-charged rhetoric, but hardly divisive, identity-politics stuff. Quite the opposite, really.

In her newspaper Op-ed a day later she said that an individual Muslim terrorist cannot represent the religion.

Ok, well I didn't read the op-ed. That sounds like the usual sort of obfuscation and "No True Scotsman" nonsense one often hears, unfortunately, but I can't speak to it not having read it. I'm just looking at the speech transcript.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I disagree with the implication. The proper interpretation of Islamic doctrine is not the subject of the speech. What he thinks about it doesn't strike me as particularly relevant in this context. Suggesting "maybe he's an Islamist, we don't know, maybe he oppresses his wife" is just speculation without any point to it and isn't productive. It's just mind-reading, which is one of the problems typically associated with the regressive left. "He's saying this, but maybe he thinks this other thing based on who he is." Stick to the words actually coming out of the guy's mouth.

It's also statistically kind of silly; American Muslims are largely moderates, and there is nothing but moderate, secular rhetoric in what he actually talked about.

He does want to prohibit Muslims from entering the USA on the basis of their religion, though, which I think is clearly what he's referring to.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't suggesting they were, just sort of rhetorically and insubstantially bashing Trump for being ignorant and un-american in light of the concepts of "liberty" and "equal protection".

I again disagree. He mentioned that Trump had smeared the character of Muslims, but this was in no way the thrust of the speech. Rather, the point, I think, was summarized best in the following passage:

Again, a lot of emotionally-charged rhetoric, but hardly divisive, identity-politics stuff. Quite the opposite, really.

Some of your comments I agree with, some I don't.

I'm just satisfied that we can have a normal discussion on the merits of Mr. Khan's speech.

Now in response: "We are Muslims" are the words that came out of his mouth. That wasn't speculation. And if you think it is completely irrelevant, then I disagree. His comment wasn't tangential to his point. It WAS his chief point in the speech. So to suggest that unpacking his meaning is not important is not exactly credible. This is the unfortunate rabbit hole of victim politics.

When he says "ban us", he is just simply incorrect. He would never be banned, so there is no "us". I don't think it's a minor point. It was one of the more inflammatory statements in a speech designed to manufacture outrage. They could have chosen to be accurate here, and they did not.

As for the constitutionality issue: that is a technique somewhat unique to Americans. Often implemented by the NRA with the 2nd amendment. I dont think any American would ever suggest that their constitution applies to non-americans elsewhere in the world. It's another inflammatory technique.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Buster

Some of your comments I agree with, some I don't.

I'm just satisfied that we can have a normal discussion on the merits of Mr. Khan's speech.

Now in response: "We are Muslims" are the words that came out of his mouth. That wasn't speculation. And if you think it is completely irrelevant, then I disagree. His comment wasn't tangential to his point. It WAS his chief point in the speech. So to suggest that unpacking his meaning is not important is not exactly credible. This is the unfortunate rabbit hole of victim politics.

When he says "ban us", he is just simply incorrect. He would never be banned, so there is no "us". I don't think it's a minor point. It was one of the more inflammatory statements in a speech designed to manufacture outrage. They could have chosen to be accurate here, and they did not.

As for the constitutionality issue: that is a technique somewhat unique to Americans. Often implemented by the NRA with the 2nd amendment. I dont think any American would ever suggest that their constitution applies to non-americans elsewhere in the world. It's another inflammatory technique.

Trump has made it pretty clear that if you're not white, he's coming for you.

Mexicans: 'bringing drugs, bringing crime, they're rapists, and some I assume are good people'.

Black people: 'I will restore law and order'. You don't have to be Alan Turing to decode that.

Muslims: He wants to ban all Muslim immigration. Well if he does that and there are still terror attacks in the United States (which there would be, because what he wants to do is impossible), what's his next logical step? Might it be to round up the Muslims already in America 'until we figure out what's going on'?

As to the point of Khan's speech: one doesn't need to be a white man to be considered a "Real American" and Donald Trump is a charlatan fraud. Anything missing?

[RougeUnderoos]

Funny that we're still talking about. The Big Orange Troll got trolled to perfection, and he's still paying the price for it.

If he'd said nothing, or swallowed it and said "I respect their sacrifice" or some meaningless platitude, we'd never have heard of those people beyond that night. Instead, he did exactly what they hoped he would, which is make an ass out of himself yet again.

We know the guy doesn't respect the military, and probably actually sneers at those who volunteer, and they let him prove it again.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Funny that we're still talking about. The Big Orange Troll got trolled to perfection, and he's still paying the price for it.

If he'd said nothing, or swallowed it and said "I respect their sacrifice" or some meaningless platitude, we'd never have heard of those people beyond that night. Instead, he did exactly what they hoped he would, which is make an ass out of himself yet again.

We know the guy doesn't respect the military, and probably actually sneers at those who volunteer, and they let him prove it again.

Factually inaccurate.

"Captain Humayun Khan was a hero to our country and we should honor all who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country safe. The real problem here are the radical Islamic terrorist who killed him, and the efforts of these radicals to enter our country and do us further harm," Trump said.

[DFO]

Originally Posted by Buster

Factually inaccurate.

"Captain Humayun Khan was a hero to our country and we should honor all who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country safe. The real problem here are the radical Islamic terrorist who killed him, and the efforts of these radicals to enter our country and do us further harm," Trump said.

Pretty sure that nicely crafted statement was well after his initial (and more representative) twitter rants