You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
polluxlm wrote:He was a DNC plant.
Gong back through his facebook history, it doesn't look like that much of a plant.
Wouldn't be a very good plant then would he?
Fortunately you don't have to take my word for it when we have Hillary's campaign on tape:
“I’m saying we have mentally ill people, that we pay to do shit, make no mistake. Over the last twenty years, I’ve paid off a few homeless guys to do some crazy stuff, and I’ve also taken them for dinner, and I’ve also made sure they had a hotel, and a shower. And I put them in a program. Like I’ve done that. But the reality is, a lot of people especially our union guys. A lot of our union guys…they’ll do whatever you want. They’re rock and roll. When I need to get something done in Arkansas, the first guy I call is the head of the AFL-CIO down there, because he will say, ‘What do you need?’ And I will say, I need a guy who will do this, this and this. And they find that guy. And that guy will be like, Hell yeah, let’s do it.” - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/comm … 86OnM.dpuf
So with that in mind, when I see a deranged individual who was part of a viral video years ago suddenly making waves again, this time as a cassus belli for the anti Trump effort, I think the chances of him being a legit Trump supporter, representative of his movement, are pretty low.
polluxlm wrote:Using the same logic being used against Trump we can throw in "rapists, satanists and pedos" as well.
WTF?
Why wouldn't we? Don't worry he has 2/3 of those covered in his camp too. Not sure about Satanists, but their is a creature of the night vibe to Rudy and Nigel.
Well, you're not are you? Robert Byrd was a KKK member, George Soros was a Nazi collaborator, and there's more than suggestive evidence John Podesta is a satanist, Bill Clinton a rapist and his buddy Epstein a pedophile. Those are all people surrounding your preferred candidate, but it doesn't seem to matter. So why is it a big deal that Trump has a few people around him who may have said some bad words?
Re: US Politics Thread
I have no problem with Priebus. Perfectly fine choice. I wouldn't call him out.
I do with Bannon. I can form my own opinions reading the stories on his website, which I do frequently. I am on web 10 hours a day, and I run into his stuff intentionally and unintentionally all day. You, too, can form your opinion about him by reading the material he promotes. It'll take more than a google search, so I hope you are willing to spend some time doing it. I'm not going to do that for you.
If the SPLC isn't acceptable. Is the Anti-Defamation League? Or the ACLU? What group that assesses Bannon's overall philosophy do you want to see? What would be deemed non-biased?
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
I have a lot of respect for the ACLU. And I'm not dismissing them simply because I don't like their philosophy. I'm asking for actual evidence. An article written that is clearly racist or a comment made on tape that is clearly racist. So far all I've seen to connect Bannon to racism is that his ex-wife during divorce preceedings, claims that he didn't want to send their kids to a particular private school because of "Jews." If he said that. then yes, absolutely, that is anti-Semitic. I'm just saying that words of a spouse in a nasty divorce are hardly credible.
And with the history of the left, especially right now, calling anyone who doesn't agree with them a racist, I have a hard time taking their unqualified and unverified claims seriously.
Your argument is "I've read a lot of articles, but I'm not willing to link a single one to prove my thesis." If the best the left can do is link to a claim during a divorce and not to numerous articles or interviews that are on record, I'm inclined to believe this is just another example of them crying "race" because they lack the ability to make an intelligent argument.
Re: US Politics Thread
I have a lot of respect for the ACLU. And I'm not dismissing them simply because I don't like their philosophy. I'm asking for actual evidence. An article written that is clearly racist or a comment made on tape that is clearly racist. So far all I've seen to connect Bannon to racism is that his ex-wife during divorce preceedings, claims that he didn't want to send their kids to a particular private school because of "Jews." If he said that. then yes, absolutely, that is anti-Semitic. I'm just saying that words of a spouse in a nasty divorce are hardly credible.
And with the history of the left, especially right now, calling anyone who doesn't agree with them a racist, I have a hard time taking their unqualified and unverified claims seriously.
Your argument is "I've read a lot of articles, but I'm not willing to link a single one to prove my thesis." If the best the left can do is link to a claim during a divorce and not to numerous articles or interviews that are on record, I'm inclined to believe this is just another example of them crying "race" because they lack the ability to make an intelligent argument.
Honestly, I didn't know he was accused of anything in a divorce. Didn't know he was getting divorced or was married. I don't know if he has kids, etc.
This piece has a lot of coded language in it. I'm sure it'll be dismissed, but I recall it because it came out after a high-profile Chicago crime, which we deal with daily. There is a lot of false equivalency that seeks to dismiss and belittle concerns of black people across the country, while placing blame back on them.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government … ack-crime/
Here's another, from earlier this fall. Seeking to prove black oppression does not exist. I ran across this one during the Colin Kaepernick flap.
http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2016/09 … s-to-know/
Again, you'll dismiss it I'm sure. But the tone of these two in general are to dismiss totally that there is any problem whatsoever, to dismiss the concerns of black people and to place the blame on blacks.
There is no attempt to understand, have dialog or do more than scratch the surface. And there's a whole lot of talking down to blacks. That's the overall tone of Bannon's site and staff all the time. That tells me a lot about his view of blacks.
That can get you started. There's probably stuff I'd categorize as worse than that, such as the "hoist the Confederate flag" after the Charleston church shooting, but I never saw them in the first place. That'd be disingenuous to say I formed my opinion based on stories I never read when they initially appeared.
Re: US Politics Thread
We're not changing minds here, I understand that. I actually am not as shocked by some of Trump's appointments as I thought I would be. He's going with a lot of establishment folks. He didn't really drawn the swamp. Either that, or there's nothing left when you drain the swamp.
Bannon, though, is a bridge too far. And I'm not gonna be OK with Ben Carson as education secretary, if that happens.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
I'm going to read your articles and give them fair consideration. Please don't assume I'm going to dismiss them unless you know the claim of racism is already weak since you've read them. I would hope participating in discussions with me the past couple of months you'd realize I'm not a partisan shrill.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
We're not changing minds here, I understand that. I actually am not as shocked by some of Trump's appointments as I thought I would be. He's going with a lot of establishment folks. He didn't really drawn the swamp. Either that, or there's nothing left when you drain the swamp.
Bannon, though, is a bridge too far. And I'm not gonna be OK with Ben Carson as education secretary, if that happens.
I think Carson is a better fit for Health or even surgeon general. I am hoping Trump appoints Cruz to the court though. I hate Cruz on a personal level, but I can think of no one any better to replace Scalia. Top of his class at Harvard and even argued in front of the Supreme Court. That's better than Obama who the left championed as a "constitutional scholar" during 2008.
Re: US Politics Thread
I'm going to read your articles and give them fair consideration. Please don't assume I'm going to dismiss them unless you know the claim of racism is already weak since you've read them. I would hope participating in discussions with me the past couple of months you'd realize I'm not a partisan shrill.
It's "weak" in the sense that its not overt. Racism that is overt is easy to deal with. It's the sly racism that is dangerous. The type of language that people can grab and use to say "I told you so! Blacks are to blame." The type of language that gives racists and white supremacists reason to continue their mission. The type of language that gives whites no reason to sympathize with blacks. That's what we're dealing with here. It can be found over and over on Breitbart. I mean, he's not set up that site for black people, right? Who's the audience? What's the point of saying blacks have killed more blacks than whites have lynched blacks?
You know what, maybe Bannon himself isn't intentionally being a racist or isn't one himself, but he's an enabler of racists or white nationalists or whatever you want to call them. He clearly has an agenda to elevate the white race. Or at least denigrate blacks.
Yes, I know you are not a shrill. You voted for Hillary, and I was a Johnson cheerleader. So, maybe I can get the same consideration.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
I read your articles. I agree that referring to BLM as being on a crack pipe was offensive and unnecessary. But citing statistics to show that police shootings of unarmed blacks is only 4% of of annual police shootings or that it would take 40 years of police shootings of blacks to equal one year of black on black crime isn't racist. It's showing that #BLM is full of shit and pushing a demonstrably false narrative.
If Blacks cared about the value of black lives, they wouldn't be murdering each other in excess of 4k a year. Shaun King, Clinton and the DNC never pay lip service to these facts. When the DoJ was called in to verify if Mike Brown was illegally shot, they concluded he wasn't. But rather than just state that, they had to pull the liberal trick of looking at random statistics to claim evidence of racism. Nevermind that the facts and crime statistics demonstrably show that blacks commit more violent crime despite only being 12% of the population (really 6.6% since males are predominately more likely to commit violent crimes). Never mind that the DoJ released a study a couple years ago saying that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of traffic violations, accounting for their disproportionate amount of police interactions.
We have facts and studies that show that the black community is incredibly more likely to commit violent crime and traffic crime - the two leading instances of police interaction. But this is never part of the discussion. It comes down to "Punk police spend too much time in our communities because they're racist" or "Racist police pulled me over because I'm black, not because I was driving erratically or driving on a suspended plate/license."
It's the same thing with guns. Less than 1% of gun crimes involve an "assault rifle." Yet if you watch the news, you get the impression people are getting shot up by M16s and AK-47s every other minute. The overwhelming majority of homicides and suicides are committed with hand guns. But when the pundits talk about gun control, they're worried about 30 round magazines and AR-15s. It's about as logical as having a discussion about Spanish Colonialism and someone taking over the conversation to talk about how peasants were treated in Feudal Japan.
