Jump to content
Tornado

The General 'Murican Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, KHCast said:

Welp, as if the NFL wasn’t shit already, they’re now a tyranny. Now players can’t kneel during the anthem to protest, or they’ll get fined. Oh but jimbob can grab a hotdog and beer still during it, don’t worry. And people in the crowd and chat, sit, whatever still during it.

https://www.motherjones.com/media/2018/05/nfl-national-anthem-trump-colin-kaepernick-policy/

And trumps gloating naturally and letting it go to his head

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/05/24/politics/trump-nfl-national-anthem/index.html

I swear, the NFL used to be good. Siiiigh.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else rolling over laughing at how hypocritical Tomi is being regarding this fucking “water attack” on her? Luckily she’s a horrible person, so isn’t garnering much sympathy outside Fox News and other people drinking that trump kool aid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Richard Spencer has admitted that the alt-right don't actually give a shit about free speech:

The alt-right love drumming on about free speech when they're the ones under fire, but they will actively ignore or criticise the free speech rights of anyone they don't like. Free speech and morality is a cudgel that the right loves to use as a cudgel against their opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they’re just owning that on their sleeves now huh? I think most people knew this stuff, but nice to have it officially stated how they know very well they’re being hypocrites 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Candescence said:

Also, I'm gonna try and make it a point of calling the alt-right just straight-up nazis from here on out. Because, well, a spade is a goddamn spade, and alt-right is just "nazi" by another name to try and present a veneer of credibility.

Don’t do that! You’ll hurt their feelings and then you’ll be no better than those racists that actually go out and do harm! Least that’s what the alt righters tell me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think Rudy Giuliani has gone utterly senile were it not for the fact that he was always fucking crazy aside from his one moment of lucidity post-9/11 that caused everyone to forget that.

tl'dr, he just admitted "Spygate" is just a big load of bullshit designed to try and delegitimize the Mueller investigation in the eyes of the public.

 

Quote

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said on Sunday that his repeated imputations of a supposed scandal at the heart of the Robert Mueller investigation – which Donald Trump calls “Spygate” – amounted to a tactic to sway public opinion and limit the risk of the president being impeached.

“Of course we have to do it to defend the president,” Giuliani told CNN State of the Union host Dana Bash, who accused him of being part of a campaign to undermine the Mueller investigation. Trump has repeatedly called the special counsel’s work a “witch hunt” despite its producing five guilty pleas, including by three former Trump aides, and evidence of Russian tampering in US elections.

“It is for public opinion,” Giuliani said of his public campaign of dissimulation. “Because eventually the decision here is going to be impeach or not impeach. Members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, are going to be informed a lot by their constituents. And so our jury – and it should be – is the American people.

“So Republicans largely, many independents, even some Democrats now question the legitimacy of it [the Mueller investigation],” Giuliani said. “Democrats I would suggest for their own self interest, this is not a good issue to go into the midterms.”

As Giuliani acknowledged the political nature of his public campaign against Mueller, Trump advanced that campaign on Twitter, lamenting what he said were “young and beautiful lives” “devastated and destroyed” by the investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2018 at 2:22 AM, Candescence said:

Also, I'm gonna try and make it a point of calling the alt-right just straight-up nazis from here on out. Because, well, a spade is a goddamn spade, and alt-right is just "nazi" by another name to try and present a veneer of credibility.

Also basically why the term "alt-lite" has begun entering use, for the people who often find themselves as tools for Nazis but aren't full on Nazis themselves. It's useful to see the various degrees of any coalition to increase opportunities to break it apart. Never mind all the leaked conversations and documents showing Nazis want to eventually purge the alt-lite (like Milo) from their ranks. It's only fitting these Nazis are dreaming of a Night of the Long Knives scenario already.

Then you have the fact a lot of these guys openly disavow Richard Spencer and the like specifically because he makes their ideas harder to stomach for moderates. Yes: just as there are incremental socialists who will tolerate social democracy over revolution, there are fascists, Nazis, whatever you want to call them who are more interested in greatly restricting immigration than actively creating a white ethnostate (care must be made to say they're still Nazis; they're just being pragmatic and trying for what they could realistically get).

The best part about this whole garbage situation is we see this fascist movement as a hive mind but there are actually several different undercurrents within it that could actually be turned against each other.

Honestly, what we really need is someone like Trump to cave on a massive amnesty bill, which would cause the whole movement to implode in on itself. It's been shown it's the one thing that breaks their unconditional loyalty to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, we have to draw the line and shut down anyone who even entertain ideas advocated by Nazi ideology. Youatan Zunger provides a fairly good explanation for why even allowing Nazism any kind of legitimacy is dangerous. (Couldn't get the original twitter chain, had to get an imagine copy on a tumblr post.) It basically forces opponents to constantly prove that they are actually human and worth debating with, which is not something any of us want.

I don't care if some snowflake Nazis get their feelings hurt (ironic, really, the right accuse liberals of being 'snowflakes' when they're the ones complaining about being oppressed and shit), fuck 'em. It was especially cathartic when Bethesda doubled down on the "YEAH, FUCK NAZIS, BOOT 'EM OUTTA AMERICA" marketing for Wolfenstien II: The New Colossus and the right complained it was offensive towards them, even though everyone knows Wolfenstein is all about killing Nazis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find it funny that right wingers and moderates are coming to Roseanne’s defense and throwing the freedom of speech line and shit, all the while shaming athletes that kneel who are also expressing their freedom of speech. Wonder what the big differences that play a factor may be...(and their “well it was on her own time” retort doesn’t hold water since it wasn’t technically on the athletes work time since the game hasn’t started until kickoff. And even when it’s on their time, like that espn black reporter women who was on twitter, iirc, they still get shit, and are called ungrateful, unamerican, etc.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring the hypocrisy that is most definitely at play with the Roseanne situation, vis a vis the NFL's mishandling of the protest thing going all the way back to when they made the anthem part of the ceremony of the game in the first place, this:

55 minutes ago, KHCast said:

and their “well it was on her own time” retort doesn’t hold water since it wasn’t technically on the athletes work time since the game hasn’t started until kickoff.

Is not true. A professional athlete's "work time" encompasses far more than the time they are actively participating on the field in an individual game, no matter the sport. All the rule change the NFL enacted has done in that regard is shown that the NFLPA's collective bargaining agreement is even weaker than it was already suspected to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By contract they were allowed to protest. There was no breaking of rules which stated a requirement to stand. So again, their retort holds no water whether or not it is technically on their paying time or not, and even if it is, so what? People protest in work on a daily basis for one reason or another. Roseanne’s situation differs as clearly racist shit has consequences, and her contract likely was broken by her doing it. Kaepernick simply was acknowledging something white people are uncomfortable with admitting in a respectful manner that a veteran told him to do in that fashion. (Has it even been officially stated that it /is/ on work time by the time of the anthem playing? How is it determined?)

the rule change is clear racially biased pandering to the audience which the nfl tends to cater to(I mean trumps gloating about the thing, so it ain’t good), and doesn’t really intimidate black athletes from what I’m seeing. Black athletes are constantly fighting a systematic battle when it comes to this issue especially. This isn’t new. But also shows how blatant corporations like this favor institutional discrimination and biased trains of thought. I won’t be surprised if this doesn’t even effect white athletes like who protest for pro republican stances like when Tim Tebow knelt against abortion and specifically said he couldn’t  stand for a flag that allowed that, and didn’t face any major backlash or consequence 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, KHCast said:

By contract they were allowed to protest. There was no breaking of rules which stated a requirement to stand.

Which is probably the big reason why the NFL didn't dare hand out anything like fines or suspensions for it; since the full wrath of the NFLPA would have come down on them and the NFL would have lost when there was no provision for them to punish players in such a manner. But that still does not mean that NFL players are being paid only for what they do from when a football game starts to when it ends; nor does statement really hold true in any professional sport of any import.

Quote

So again, their retort holds no water whether or not it is technically on their paying time or not, and even if it is, so what?

If it is then they are required to do it; just like players are required to do a whole list of things that are outside of the 3 hours or so they suit up and play on a Sunday afternoon. If the NFLPA can actually find something in the CBA that says that the NFL's new rule regarding the anthem is voided by it, they will bring a legal challenge to it and probably win in court (and either way the next CBA talks are certainly going to be a minefield as a result of this among other things); but that's not relevant to whether NFL players are being paid only for what they do from when a football game starts to when it ends.

Quote

People protest in work on a daily basis for one reason or another.

That is not relevant to the claim that NFL players are being paid only for what they do from when a football game starts to when it ends.

Quote

Roseanne’s situation differs as clearly racist shit has consequences, and her contract likely was broken by her doing it.

Most certainly, because ABC knew what they were getting into when they started the show; but since Roger Goodell has the power to fine a player or suspend them from the league for reasons only perceived as being against the rules that's not even much of a counterpoint. However, that's neither here nor there for whether NFL players are being paid only for what they do from when a football game starts to when it ends; and

 

 

 

Do you even read my posts, or do you see me not fall over agreeing with you and dig in so far in response that you're technically invading China?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The post in response wasn’t even in anger, but you taking it as me “seeing you’re not agreeing and frothing at the mouth” is cute. 

You’re the one taking one point of mine and expanding it as if it’s the main point of the original post, which it isn’t, and almost intentionally ignores the other shit.

15 minutes ago, Tornado said:

Do you even read my posts, or do you see me not fall over agreeing with you and dig in so far in response that you're technically invading China?

I could say the same. Seems like you look for one point to argue to decred my entire post.:/ so it’s on paying time, same for Tim Tebow, same for many athletes that have protested pro republican, yet black athletes get called out and it becomes national when we raise awareness of a issue to the point of the nfl needing to change rules writing out pretty much freedom of speech of athletes contracts. And when we do it on our own time, we’re STILL criticized or face loosing our jobs.

But if you wanna take one sentence and use it to disagree ultimately with my main point go ahead, clear you’re ignoring those bits. Unless you wanna argue against racially charged motives and biases being at play here 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, KHCast said:

You’re the one taking one point of mine and expanding it as if it’s the main point of the original post, which it isn’t, and almost intentionally ignores the other shit.

Yes. When I said "the hypocrisy that is most definitely at play with the Roseanne situation, vis a vis the NFL's mishandling of the protest thing", I was intentionally ignoring the crux of your point about how right wingers are defending Roseanne when they are also shaming athletes.

 

16 minutes ago, KHCast said:

I could say the same. Seems like you look for one point to argue to decred my entire post.:/

Yes. I was discrediting your entire post that I started my post off by agreeing with entirely over the topic I broached in the first place noting how Roseanne has been a far right nutjob for over twenty years.

 

 

 

 

Maybe, just fucking maybe, I can agree with your points on a topic but still want to correct the obviously false things that you tend to post in political threads to try and buttress them when they aren't even necessary for what you're trying to say. Roseanne can be a right wing nutjob that Trump sycophants will fall in line to defend while also hypocritically shaming people who kneel during an anthem even if those athletes aren't only paid for what they do after the game they are playing in officially starts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And MAYBE just...maybe, scary thought, I could disagree or ask a question in disagreement, and not have it be me frothing in rage because you don’t 200% agree with me.

1 hour ago, KHCast said:

Has it even been officially stated that it /is/ on work time by the time of the anthem playing? How is it determined?)

Lookie there, I asked you genuinely a reasonable question(which you never answered). It’s a common misconception regarding the nfl’s pay process if you’re right, so it’s not like willful lying on my end, which you seem to love acting as if that’s what going on with most people in here you accuse. Now, back to the question I asked, would I do that if I’m raging at you not agreeing? I’m mostly just annoyed at your assumptions and attitude at the fact I didn’t just eat up your response. Going through my posts for the last couple pages I can’t even seem to see instances of me actually lying or spreading misinformation, so seems you’re relying on past faults from way back to still act better. So yes, I still see this as you attempting to backhandedly agree with me while also using that “error” to make me look bad and discredit the post and come out looking better, since you mainly highlight the flaw more than anything else. The way you typically have come off in response to me in past doesn’t help either, so at this point, excuse me for having a perhaps biased outlook of how I take your replies to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing i kinda am leaning on the right on is defending humanism. Islamic religious culture i feel have not really developed that as compared to Christian culture. Now understandable the bleeding hearth liberal that cries through your veins when it comes to oppression is fine. But, what kind of solution would liberals propose if anything?. Hope for the best or just say conservatives don't have the right intent. I am just curious to what some of you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, posted this in the lgbt topic, but since that rarely gets much attention 

this probably won’t actually pass in terms of legislation, but I hate how this mentality is becomes credible and legitimized/normalized into society as something okay to do in many areas(especially red states). Though shouldn’t surprise me when the gop are trying to chip away at civil rights protections and the anti lgbt members in power atm. (Iirc isn’t there a state where it’s okay for doctors to refuse service to people or prioritize them based on their religious rights, or is that a policy they’re trying to legalize?) Seems they’re gonna constantly throw the ball at this thing no matter how many times it comes back at them with no results 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KHCast said:

And MAYBE just...maybe, scary thought, I could disagree or ask a question in disagreement, and not have it be me frothing in rage because you don’t 200% agree with me.

Lookie there, I asked you genuinely a reasonable question(which you never answered). It’s a common misconception regarding the nfl’s pay process if you’re right, so it’s not like willful lying on my end, which you seem to love acting as if that’s what going on with most people in here you accuse. Now, back to the question I asked, would I do that if I’m raging at you not agreeing? I’m mostly just annoyed at your assumptions and attitude at the fact I didn’t just eat up your response. Going through my posts for the last couple pages I can’t even seem to see instances of me actually lying or spreading misinformation, so seems you’re relying on past faults from way back to still act better. So yes, I still see this as you attempting to backhandedly agree with me while also using that “error” to make me look bad and discredit the post and come out looking better, since you mainly highlight the flaw more than anything else. The way you typically have come off in response to me in past doesn’t help either, so at this point, excuse me for having a perhaps biased outlook of how I take your replies to me

I'm not responsible to respond to you to answer questions you add to your post after I've already responded to you, so that's an attitude you don't get to cop.

 

Nor, frankly, have you ever given any indication that the person who once made a thread about Trump selling American's personal information to companies and then throwing an absolute shitfit when called on that not even being remotely what was happening rather than admitting that he was wrong is any different of a poster now than he was then. Source: Me agreeing with you but pointing out that a portion of your post is incorrect, and your response to go on a massive overreacting tirade about my bias against you and me trying to discredit you and a bunch of things wholly irrelevant to the single thing in your post I pointed out was wrong.

 

 

 

And, for the record, the thing that says you are wrong is the very same thing that the NFL just amended to put the new anthem rule in in the first place: the NFL Policy Manual for Member Clubs, which is what was originally changed in 2009 to require players (meaning not something optional because "they aren't on the clock until the game kicks off") to be on the sideline during the anthem in the first place. To say nothing of things that are completely unrelated to the anthem but still absolutely require, like athlete presses (most known for Marshawn Lynch's infamous one where he repeated "I'm just here so I won't get fined" at every question he was asked after being fined earlier in the year for the same thing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My tirade isn’t actually regarding that contents and trying to prove I didn’t make a mistake, but moreso your attitude, and me presenting yoy with a “why does that matter overall” point claiming that whether it’s paid time or not doesn’t make it any less of a racially charged ruling or shitty thing, which you seem to agree with sooo....yeah I think I’ve changed considering you’re now trying to link up two unrelated points and break down them as the same ignoring contexts behind them, which shows a bit of desperation on your end. My overall point, save for a small point in the grand scheme, was correct, my posts for quite awhile haven’t been what you claimed and the arguments had with others in which they clarified anything, aren’t done in dickish attitudes as a power complex because he can. And again, sorry, but if we’re gonna bring up history, I find you to be usually if we’re truly being honest about how we feel about eachother, a dick that needs to be on the last laugh “I’m right side”, so don’t expect me to always assume your responses to me are in positivity of any kind, even when they are. Yknow, cause why should I think you changed?

30 minutes ago, Tornado said:

And, for the record, the thing that says you are wrong is the very same thing that the NFL just amended to put the new anthem rule in in the first place: the NFL Policy Manual for Member Clubs, which is what was originally changed in 2009 to require players (meaning not something optional because "they aren't on the clock until the game kicks off") to be on the sideline during the anthem in the first place.

Maybe don’t respond like a dick then with an ego like that if you don’t want people going off on how you respond to them, there were better ways to point out the problem with the post you mostly agree with without needing to come off assolhish and continue to bring up the past in order to justify why you act like said dick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Trump moves to pardon a man convicted of campaign finance fraud, healthcare advocates have scored massive victories.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/overnights/389970-overnight-health-care-virginia-senate-votes-to-expand-medicaid

Virginia's Senate has passed a Medicaid expansion bill, and the bill is now going to the Governor's desk. It is expected 400,000 Virginians will receive care under the expanded plan.

The GOP requested a huge compromise as part of it, however: Virginia will move to impose work requirements on all beneficiaries while also imposing premiums on people above the poverty level.

Utah has also put a Medicaid expansion bill on the ballot.

Meanwhile, in a case of your mileage may vary, Trump has signed a "right to try" bill that allows the terminally ill to try experimental drugs that have not cleared the FDA. Democrats are screaming in response on the basis it could harm a patient but I'm just thinking that if I'm going to die anyway, give me whatever the fuck is available.

https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2018/05/30/new-jersey-becomes-second-state-to-adopt-individual-health-insurance-mandate-442183

New Jersey, meanwhile, has enacted a healthcare mandate. Everyone without insurance will pay a fine, the proceeds of which are earmarked towards a state reinsurance program.

23 hours ago, SonicandShadowrules said:

One thing i kinda am leaning on the right on is defending humanism. Islamic religious culture i feel have not really developed that as compared to Christian culture. Now understandable the bleeding hearth liberal that cries through your veins when it comes to oppression is fine. But, what kind of solution would liberals propose if anything?. Hope for the best or just say conservatives don't have the right intent. I am just curious to what some of you guys think?

There's such a thing as liberal Islam.

Most countries in the Islamic world are not particularly nice places. Such places tend to breed more extreme religiosity.

Western Muslims tend to see a drop in extremists (though they do not entirely disappear). Indeed, a leading source on radical Islamic plots in the United States is the rest of the Muslim community. No, any counterexamples you can list do not disprove this trend. Unless you're accepting a lunatic Christian fundamentalist bombing an abortion clinic as damning evidence against all Christians.

It isn't Islam that has ruined the Islamic world. It's centuries of imperialism that made the West rich and fat and allow it to boast about how morally upstanding it is while those poor folk in other countries are soooo backwards.

Let's remember the Christian world was once beholden to warfare, autocracy, and immense cruelty for centuries while Islam was in the midst of a scientific and economic Golden Age. It's not that either faith is "better" than the other, it's the circumstances.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple news stories. First up, a Virginia v

congressional candidate admites to being a pedophile and claims people are “tired of political correctness” as if that will give him beings pedo a pass

http://huffp.st/MnlkmYZ

Similar to what happened with Wolfe, Samantha Bee is under fire from republicans for a potshot taken at Ivanka, which is a shock to people cause...? Like I’m pretty sure she’s made remarks and jokes multiple times about her and trump. Suddenly even trump is calling for her to be fired? Is it that people never gave her attention until now or something? I don’t really get this outrage. I mean this is of course in the wake of the Roseanne shit, which I guess makes this even more amplified as republicans call hypocrisy on those defending Bee. I don’t even think that comparison is entirely sound. Roseanne was being needlessly racist and blamed it on drugs. Samatha was emotionally enraged by children getting split up from families, and later genuinely apologized for her choice of words. It’s even funnier cause Saunders had said the president would welcome Roseanne into the White House and applauded her for “saying what real Americans think”.

Trumps responses are typical on this “controversy”, attacking the ratings of whatever media outlet is attacking him or those associated with him and claiming how well they’re doing

I think what’s even more ironic at how republicans are trying to take the moral ground here when I can recall seeing bunches of republicans calling women like Bee a cunt, bitch, slut, shrill, etc. and trumps own deragatory word history with women 

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/01/politics/donald-trump-samantha-bee/index.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.