American Politics Thread: The Hunt for Blue November

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Red

I dont care if he is or isnt a republican. Just found it curious why a democrat is waging a war against their presidential candidate.

It's nothing new. There's a segment on the extreme left that did the same thing in 2016 and helped get Trump elected and that same segment is also looking to do the same this year to "teach the DNC a lesson", but I guess they don't realize that whatever mess Trump makes is only goimf to screw them personally and their family, while the DNC will be juuuust fine.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I guess I should have noted that I wasn't trying to say it was equivalent, just that the genesis began there. Hell, ICE was created back in 2003 and has always been a pretty garbage organization. My point was more that many of Trump's actions were him capitalizing on the groundwork laid by previous administrations.

Yes, direct result of the over-reaching powers of the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II. Every member of congress needs some roasting in hell for that draconian law dreamed up in a neo-con think tank.

I think one of the more telling admissions lately was Barbara Boxer saying she never would have voted in favour of creating the DHS if she had been able to envision its abuse against U.S. citizens, as if there's zero historical precedent for the U.S. taking egregious authoritarian actions against its citizens. Authoritarian policies are almost the Chekhov's Gun of U.S. history.

We are in complete agreement here. Too many members of congress were asleep at the switch after 9/11 and gave the neo-cons a free pass to implementing some of the most Machiavellian #### imaginable. People like to give Trump #### about taking the US back to 1954, but the Bush43 admin took us to 1984 - the Orwell version.

It was still horrible, racist policy and it's not unreasonable to think that maybe clearer minds should have prevailed. Canada deserves the same amount of criticism for doing the same ####.

But its context. This was long before civil rights and America was very much a homogeneous culture where racism was part and parcel to daily life. In today's context it was a horrible move. In the context of the day, it was completely acceptable. Ironically, after the end of WWII that context greatly shifted because of imagery that was shown from the Nazi concentration camps.

Where have I given Trump a pass on any of this? I've repeatedly said that Trump is a monster. My issue is with people treating the defeat of a Trump as return to the Garden of Eden. Trump represents the worst impulses of every American administration but he's still a product of those administrations, and removing him alone doesn't end the slide to authoritarianism that we've witnessed since at least the Bush years.

No one is suggesting that its going to be garden of Eden. In fact, it is likely to take years for the damage to repaired, if it can be repaired at all. But we have to start by cutting the head off the monster that is under all of our beds and getting people back into the system that actually believe in upholding the constitution.

There's a pretty good argument to be made that there still should have been due process, but I don't think you and I are in disagreement here.

Nope. Just like if a guy picks up a gun on the battle field and changes teams due process no longer exists. He was an enemy combatant and got what was coming. Citizenship and the protections afforded can be stripped at any time by the state with appropriate cause, and being a member of a terrorist organization tops those reasons.

If we're going to play the semantics game, it's the DHS in Portland and not the military.

No semantics involved. The National Guard is under the control of the state, not the federal government. It was the Ohio Governor who ordered the National Guard in, not the Feds. Trump has ordered Feds in and gone around the demands of the City and State.

I'm not the one who brought it up on a federal level. My point was that every Republican president has been a fervent supporter of it.

Still irrelevant because it is a states rights issue.

It's not exactly fringe thinking that theorizes that Clinton's 1998 bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Iraq was intentionally done to distract from the Lewisnky testimony. But I was wrong in that it wasn't a children's hospital. The U.S. has bombed a lot of ####. It's easy to get them confused.

Come on, you're way smarter than that. That's a well debunked conspiracy theory.

I'm more of a pastel-blue guy and my feet are way too flat and wide for Chucks.

Now THAT's funny!!! Made me chuckle. Well played sir!

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm just impressed that in the last two days alone I've gone from being a "Bernie Bro," to a Republican, to Antifa.

There's a lot of Bernie Bros who are closet Antifa types. Goes to that, if-I-can't-have-it-my-way-I'll-just-burn-the-whole-system-down mentality. Saw a lot of it with a certain age group in higher ed. Glad to get out of that environment.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Can we come up with a better term than Antifa for people who want to riot and burn the place to ashes?

The ultra right wing did a phenomenal job marketing being Anti-Fasist as bad.

[Senator Clay Davis]

His cult is dumb as #### and likely doesn't know this, but then again almost everyone else does, so this seems an odd play.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1291897089769652224

[OMG!WTF!]

Yeah that was really funny. "No one has ever done this before"....except Obama/Biden.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

His cult is dumb as #### and likely doesn't know this, but then again almost everyone else does, so this seems an odd play.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1291897089769652224

He’s trying to kill the law so maybe this is CYA

[Senator Clay Davis]

With the Kanye trying to take votes from Biden grift falling apart, should be fun to see what's next from the GOP in their attempt to steal the election.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1292090687203217410

[OldDutch]

No one has time to waste on Kanye. He has burnt himself out of relevance.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

No one has time to waste on Kanye. He has burnt himself out of relevance.

He’ll be a case study on “enabling mental health issues” for decades to come.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Can we come up with a better term than Antifa for people who want to riot and burn the place to ashes?

The ultra right wing did a phenomenal job marketing being Anti-Fasist as bad.

Black Lives Matter did a great job with this as well. The organization made it so that arguing against the Black Lives Matter agenda was synonymous with arguing against black lives matter, the concept.

They're all being quite clever.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Black Lives Matter did a great job with this as well. The organization made it so that arguing against the Black Lives Matter agenda was synonymous with arguing against black lives matter, the concept.

They're all being quite clever.

God imagine thinking a gotcha whataboutism like this made you clever.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

God imagine thinking a gotcha whataboutism like this made you clever.

"Whataboutism" is a (poor) argument people use against a position. I'm not arguing against anything - in fact I'm largely agreeing with the poster in his claim that how we use labels (both for ourselves and others), can significantly impact the conversation.

Or do you just scream "whataboutism" at things randomly because you read a meme with it previously?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

"Whataboutism" is a (poor) argument people use against a position. I'm not arguing against anything - in fact I'm largely agreeing with the poster in his claim that how we use labels (both for ourselves and others), can significantly impact the conversation.

Or do you just scream "whataboutism" at things randomly because you read a meme with it previously?

To be fair those were pretty piss poor comparables.

BLM is an organisation that aligned themselves with a concept which, at the time, was controversial (still largely is to a section of the population) and did it to promote the importance of that concept. Because they’re an organization, like any organization, they’re fairly criticised all the time. The right wing largely demonise the organization and deny the validity of the concept.

Anti-Fa is a label for a loose, unorganised group of anti-fascist activists. Their concept is entirely non-controversial on any level: fascists are bad. Because they aren’t organised in any way, however, the right wing have taken to labelling any rioters, looters, violence, etc. as “anti-fa” and because there is no actual organization to attach it to, it doubles as a direct critique of the concept.

BLM weren’t being “clever” like the right wing were in labelling any random bad act as “anti-fascist.” The two scenarios are wildly different, though I’m sure we’d all love if it were true that “black lives matter too” were as uncontroversial and widely accepted as “fascism is bad.”

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

To be fair those were pretty piss poor comparables.

BLM is an organisation that aligned themselves with a concept which, at the time, was controversial (still largely is to a section of the population) and did it to promote the importance of that concept. Because they’re an organization, like any organization, they’re fairly criticised all the time. The right wing largely demonise the organization and deny the validity of the concept.

Anti-Fa is a label for a loose, unorganised group of anti-fascist activists. Their concept is entirely non-controversial on any level: fascists are bad. Because they aren’t organised in any way, however, the right wing have taken to labelling any rioters, looters, violence, etc. as “anti-fa” and because there is no actual organization to attach it to, it doubles as a direct critique of the concept.

BLM weren’t being “clever” like the right wing were in labelling any random bad act as “anti-fascist.” The two scenarios are wildly different, though I’m sure we’d all love if it were true that “black lives matter too” were as uncontroversial and widely accepted as “fascism is bad.”

That's exactly my point.

"black lives matter" is pretty uncontroversial. You don't hear anyone really making an argument that black lives don't matter.

"Black Lives Matter" is controversial because the group also advocates for a number of other causes that are justifiably controversial.

So, yes, labels can be clever.

[activeStick]

I guess we shouldn't be surprised that the Narcissist in Chief wants this but still...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1292441617555693568

[Ashartus]

They should tell him it'll have to wait until they've done Obama.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

"Whataboutism" is a (poor) argument people use against a position. I'm not arguing against anything - in fact I'm largely agreeing with the poster in his claim that how we use labels (both for ourselves and others), can significantly impact the conversation.

Or do you just scream "whataboutism" at things randomly because you read a meme with it previously?

No I'm just smart enough to read all of the other right-wing talking points you've been ejaculating over the forum in the last 2 months, and recognize your half-assed attempt at dragging a civil rights group into a conversation that it has no relation to.

But yeah, let me know how colored my commentary is in relation to whatever the last thing the Blaze/Wire/Caller/Federalist wrote about.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

They should tell him it'll have to wait until they've done Obama.

They should explain to him that they're out of granite and will have to wait until more emerges. Shouldn't take more than 500, 550 million years.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

That's exactly my point.

"black lives matter" is pretty uncontroversial. You don't hear anyone really making an argument that black lives don't matter.

"Black Lives Matter" is controversial because the group also advocates for a number of other causes that are justifiably controversial.

So, yes, labels can be clever.

Well you have plenty of people who aren’t familiar with the “number of other causes” that BLM is involved with who still say “all lives matter” or “what about white lives” or “blue lives matter” in response, so to say it’s without controversy is fairly ignorant. Sure, most socially liberal people soundly agree with the concept, but there are plenty that don’t, or it wouldn’t be a conversation, would it?

What are the “number of causes” BLM advocates for that are justifiably controversial?

And can you provide an example of criticism of the BLM organization being seen as criticism of the concept of black lives matter?