General US Politics Discussion

[Eutyphro]

How do you go from railing against carpet bombings to railing against smashed windows?

 

When it comes to foreign policy I still generally hold similar beliefs.. But why wouldn't I rail against some juvenile dipsh*ts wearing black who break other people's property to be contrarian and for no apparent cause? Who inflate the word 'fascist' to the point that any right wing troll is the new coming of Mussolini. The fact that most liberals don't oppose 'collectivism' is because they can presently use it to manipulate intellectually challenged dipsh*ts. Did you miss the entire post I made about that? No, you responded to it with misinterpretations of remarks about gender from another topic.

 

And on the point whether what I'm doing has the pretense of being objective, I'm not the one judging whether something is a 'riot' on the basis of whether I agree with the people participating in it. I don't even think 'riot' is an ideologically laden term.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Eutyphro

[Clem Fandango]

 

How do you go from railing against carpet bombings to railing against smashed windows?

 

When it comes to foreign policy I still generally hold similar beliefs.. But why wouldn't I rail against some juvenile dipsh*ts wearing black who break other people's property to be contrarian and for no apparent cause?

 

Because it is hugely unimportant relative to what they're protesting? Your response to the DC riots was basically "who do these kids think they are smashing windows hmph" instead of being excited that people are mobilising against Trump. You aren't the only liberal on here, but you are the only person who felt sick to their stomach at the sight of a temporarily closed starbucks.

 

 

 

The fact that most liberals don't oppose 'collectivism' is because they can use it to manipulate intellectually challenged dipsh*ts. Did you miss the entire post I made about that?

You mean the one where you outlined how left-wing agendas and neoliberal agendas overlap? That wasn't about how the liberal establishment uses 'collectivism' to mobilise leftists, which is a pretty baffling statement.

 

At any rate my point wasn't that liberals accept collectivism (in fact I've repeatedly stated that I consider it a meaningless term) but that they don't levy it as an accusation, because they aren't militant.

 

 

 

And on the point whether what I'm doing has the pretense of being objective, I'm not the one judging whether something is a 'riot' on the basis of whether I agree with the people participating in it.

I was just pointing out that the constant accusations of ideological shuffling are hard to take seriously when you yourself rigidly adhere to an orthodox liberalism.

 

I don't know what ideology was in play either. Is being anti-Trump an ideology?

[RollsReus1959]

A protest and a riot aren't mutually exclusive. It can be both, and it was both, clearly, to anyone not judging it through some ideological lense.

 

Finally some logic and rationale.

 

That video I posted clearly showed a group's intention of causing violence and as the organizer would put it....'beat them up' and cause havoc. This is exactly what they did.

 

I see a lot of responses of...."why give Milo that medium to speak".....free speech perhaps? I forgot...we live in a world where free speech is only allowed as long as it agrees with the herd mentality of these so called 'liberals'.

 

brb...going to start Fully Loaded....

Edited February 14, 2017 by RollsReus1959

[sivispacem]

I see a lot of responses of...."why give Milo that medium to speak".....free speech perhaps?

Which would be a viable counter-argument if "right to free speech" equated to "right to be heard" or "right to a public platform to voice one's views", but it doesn't. Also, free speech doesn't protect one from public ridicule or critique. It's fairly clear given the reaction that the consensus view is that Milo was unwelcome, but at the end of the day the decision not to permit him to speak was made by either the university of Milo himself, not by the people you seem to suggest are denying him his First Amendment right.

 

But I'm sure the nuance of this is entirely lost on you.

[ten-a-penny]

Apparently "Free Speech" translates to "Whatever I'm gonna say better not be criticized because reasons".

[RollsReus1959]

Most likely he didn't want college students to get harmed since most were harmed as shown by the video I posted.

[sivispacem]

Most likely he didn't want college students to get harmed

It's far more likely to be self-preservation. People on the alt-right wank furiously over Ayn Rand so the notion they'd care about physical harm befalling other people, especially political adversaries, is laughable. Even moreso when you're talking about a self-confessed troll who actively encouraged threats of rape and violence against feminists and ethnic minorities.

 

 

since most were harmed

What? This is just nonsense.

[DangerZ0neX]

http://i.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/89399634/pregnant-womens-bodies-are-hosts-says-us-lawmaker?cid=facebook.post.89399634#

 

"A Republican politician says women's bodies don't belong to them while they are pregnant."

 

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

....I am talking about the ones we see when people block highways.

 

…absolutely zero f*cks to give about entire sections of interstate highways and/or major avenues being shut down for the Super Bowls, holiday parades that are essentially hours-long live action commercials, and the POTUS’ trips to his favorite burger joint?

 

But ‘hell no’ to protestors? That’s pretty servile.

[RollsReus1959]

 

....I am talking about the ones we see when people block highways.

…absolutely zero f*cks to give about entire sections of interstate highways and/or major avenues being shut down for the Super Bowls, holiday parades that are essentially hours-long live action commercials, and the POTUS’ trips to his favorite burger joint?But ‘hell no’ to protestors? That’s pretty servile.

Again use some reason, logic and rationale...these events you mentioned are celebrations and the general public are aware of such events. Heck, they even shutdown streets for the Women's March in DC.

 

If you take the time to put what I said in context, I even went into specifics, these protests are coordinated on Facebook and motorists have no idea a blockade of pedestrians are going to block a highway.

 

Lets not equate celebrations with human walls on a highway.

 

I give you one thing though....I haven't checked the death/injured count of a Super Bowl versus a human wall on a highway. My gut tells me that I am right in regards to this stat or if they even want to release such a stat.

[Tchuck]

 

 

....I am talking about the ones we see when people block highways.

…absolutely zero f*cks to give about entire sections of interstate highways and/or major avenues being shut down for the Super Bowls, holiday parades that are essentially hours-long live action commercials, and the POTUS’ trips to his favorite burger joint?But ‘hell no’ to protestors? That’s pretty servile.

Again use some reason, logic and rationale...these events you mentioned are celebrations and the general public are aware of such events. Heck, they even shutdown streets for the Women's March in DC.

 

If you take the time to put what I said in context, I even went into specifics, these protests are coordinated on Facebook and motorists have no idea a blockade of pedestrians are going to block a highway.

 

Lets not equate celebrations with human walls on a highway.

 

I give you one thing though....I haven't checked the death/injured count of a Super Bowl versus a human wall on a highway. My gut tells me that I am right in regards to this stat or if they even want to release such a stat.

 

 

Right. Because everyone in Vancouver was expecting a riot when their team lost the Stanley Cup.

Oh wait.

 

All your gut is telling you is that you are full of sh*t. They are doing literally the same thing: blocking streets and highways, usually without any further notice to motorists.

In fact, most protests, specially the ones that tend to turn huge, DO check with the authorities and let them know of what will be happening, so that they can prepare. You clearly have no clue how protests work.

[darthYENIK]

So the plot thickens... https://nyti.ms/2lhzcxv

 

I am seriously beginning to believe all this Trump and Russia were working together to get him in office stuff. I was willing to believe Russia was definitely trying to influence the election, but with stuff like this, it isn't too far of a stretch to believe in a conspiracy.

[RollsReus1959]

 

 

 

....I am talking about the ones we see when people block highways.

…absolutely zero f*cks to give about entire sections of interstate highways and/or major avenues being shut down for the Super Bowls, holiday parades that are essentially hours-long live action commercials, and the POTUS’ trips to his favorite burger joint?But ‘hell no’ to protestors? That’s pretty servile.

Again use some reason, logic and rationale...these events you mentioned are celebrations and the general public are aware of such events. Heck, they even shutdown streets for the Women's March in DC.

 

If you take the time to put what I said in context, I even went into specifics, these protests are coordinated on Facebook and motorists have no idea a blockade of pedestrians are going to block a highway.

 

Lets not equate celebrations with human walls on a highway.

 

I give you one thing though....I haven't checked the death/injured count of a Super Bowl versus a human wall on a highway. My gut tells me that I am right in regards to this stat or if they even want to release such a stat.

 

 

Right. Because everyone in Vancouver was expecting a riot when their team lost the Stanley Cup.

Oh wait.

 

All your gut is telling you is that you are full of sh*t. They are doing literally the same thing: blocking streets and highways, usually without any further notice to motorists.

In fact, most protests, specially the ones that tend to turn huge, DO check with the authorities and let them know of what will be happening, so that they can prepare. You clearly have no clue how protests work.

 

 

I don't know how a Japanese protest works just like you wouldn't know how an American protest works.

 

EDIT: Looks like mainstream media is going after conservative PewDiePie, biggest star of Youtube now.

Edited February 15, 2017 by RollsReus1959

[Tchuck]

 

I don't know how a Japanese protest works just like you wouldn't know how an American protest works.

 

Are you serious? To start off, your assumption is wrong. I'm not Japanese, I'm a Brazilian. I live in Japan, after living in Canada and spending most of my life in my native Brazil.

 

And second, protests are protests. It is a fact that most of them will check with the authorities if they are expecting a large attendance. That is a fact. You literally cannot deny that.

 

And third, would you kindly respond to the my response to your bullsh*t? All the times I quote you and challenge you, you simply move the goalposts further or simply reject reality.

 

 

Don't NYT.

Remember that is the same site that spend an entire year duping the public into thinking Clinton was going to win. Reader beware.

 

I see that you have some bad reading comprehension too. News sites weren't duping the public into thinking Clinton was going to win. They were predicting her win (not all of them, mind you) based on polls conducted nationwide. With a margin of error. A far cry from "duping" the people into thinking she was going to win.

 

But then again, you are the one citing FoxNews as evidence.

[Svip]

If anything, The New York Times was duping themselves into thinking Clinton would win. They certainly believed it quite comfortably that Clinton was going to win, and as 538's series on the matter correctly points out, language in NYT did at times make it seem as it was certain, including referring to Clinton's "administration-in-waiting" as if it was a done deal.

 

This - however - doesn't make NYT less credible. Failing to accurately predict and then be consumed by confirmation bias, doesn't mean their sources and articles aren't credible. It just means that NYT - like almost every other news outlet - got way too confident in Clinton's chances.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

 

EDIT: Looks like mainstream media is going after conservative PewDiePie, biggest star of Youtube now.

 

Looking at the story in detail explains why he's been dropped left, right and centre (He's just had YT Red cancel a second season of his premium series as well, that happened a few minutes after I started this post).

 

Holding up a nazi sign in a YT video and saying it was a stunt about the internet is just plain stupid! Like what you're complaining about.

 

Why bring this up in this thread, Pewdiepie is a complete tosser and wanted his fame diminished anyway, he has just got his wish!

[Svip]

I am bemused by the fact that they are now referring to him as 'conservative'. Since when was PewDiePie conservative?

[sivispacem]

The only people referring to him as such are those who want to portray the ridicule and vitriol he's receiving as an attack on right wing political ideologies rather than someone whose generally being a bit of a c*nt.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

I guess I am now waiting on Donald appointing Pewdiepie as a replacement for Flynn.... He is a conservative after all now!

Edited February 15, 2017 by Uncle Sikee Atric

[Creed Bratton]

The only people referring to him as such are those who want to portray the ridicule and vitriol he's receiving as an attack on right wing political ideologies rather than someone whose generally being a bit of a c*nt.

It's like they collectively suffer from victim mentality.

[Eutyphro]

Because it is hugely unimportant relative to what they're protesting? Your response to the DC riots was basically "who do these kids think they are smashing windows hmph" instead of being excited that people are mobilising against Trump. You aren't the only liberal on here, but you are the only person who felt sick to their stomach at the sight of a temporarily closed starbucks.

 

I remember being positive about the fact that people are protesting against Trump. All I said was that I dislike vandalizing scumbags.

 

That wasn't about how the liberal establishment uses 'collectivism' to mobilise leftists, which is a pretty baffling statement.

 

It is about that. Neoliberal media with center right economic ideas appeal to leftist identity politics to manipulate people with a combination of the moral attractiveness of leftism and the divisiveness of identity politics as propaganda for their actual economic interest of exploiting illegal immigrants and open borders. Identity politics are collectivist in nature. "Collectivism, the opposite of individualism. Collectivism, the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it." yep

 

but that they don't levy it as an accusation, because they aren't militant.

 

How the f*ck am I 'militant'?

 

I don't know what ideology was in play either. Is being anti-Trump an ideology?

 

It's not politically neutral. And refusing to call something a 'riot' because you don't think that word shouldn't be used against people you agree with, is ideological.

 

This - however - doesn't make NYT less credible.

 

It does.

 

I'd also like to remember the fact that I warned all of you that Trump had a bigger chance than was accepted in the mainstream, lol.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Eutyphro

[Leftist Bastard]

 

 

 

 

....I am talking about the ones we see when people block highways.

…absolutely zero f*cks to give about entire sections of interstate highways and/or major avenues being shut down for the Super Bowls, holiday parades that are essentially hours-long live action commercials, and the POTUS’ trips to his favorite burger joint?But ‘hell no’ to protestors? That’s pretty servile.

Again use some reason, logic and rationale...these events you mentioned are celebrations and the general public are aware of such events. Heck, they even shutdown streets for the Women's March in DC.

 

If you take the time to put what I said in context, I even went into specifics, these protests are coordinated on Facebook and motorists have no idea a blockade of pedestrians are going to block a highway.

 

Lets not equate celebrations with human walls on a highway.

 

I give you one thing though....I haven't checked the death/injured count of a Super Bowl versus a human wall on a highway. My gut tells me that I am right in regards to this stat or if they even want to release such a stat.

 

 

Right. Because everyone in Vancouver was expecting a riot when their team lost the Stanley Cup.

Oh wait.

 

All your gut is telling you is that you are full of sh*t. They are doing literally the same thing: blocking streets and highways, usually without any further notice to motorists.

In fact, most protests, specially the ones that tend to turn huge, DO check with the authorities and let them know of what will be happening, so that they can prepare. You clearly have no clue how protests work.

 

 

I don't know how a Japanese protest works just like you wouldn't know how an American protest works.

 

EDIT: Looks like mainstream media is going after conservative PewDiePie, biggest star of Youtube now.

 

It's rather telling that anti Semitic remarks are the tell tale signs of what counts as ''conservative'' these days.

[Svip]

 

This - however - doesn't make NYT less credible.

It does.

 

Making predictions and doing good journalism are actually two separate things. One can be great at the former, but terrible at the latter, and vice versa. One could also be great at both.

 

Your "it does" without a hint of suggestion of why, beyond - I assume - it must be obvious. Has NYT's reputation been tarnished? Of course it has. Can we no longer trust NYT? Of course not.

 

I know that's not what you are saying, because you are deliberately parsing my words like that. In the context of dismissing a NYT article because of their 2016 election predictions, it's obvious I am saying NYT still remains a credible news source.

 

 

I'd also like to remember the fact that I warned all of you that Trump had a bigger chance than was accepted in the mainstream, lol.

I distinctly remember discussing this with you, where one of us thought 538 was too bullish on Trump. But we agreed on a 70-ish percentage change for Clinton to win.

 

Thanks for replying to my post, when I wasn't one of the ones you had to warn about Trump's chances.

[Eutyphro]

Yeah, I remember I thought it was 70/30 for clinton and you something similar but slightly lower. It does make the NYT less credible, because they were clearly holding on to a false narrative and ignoring relevant polls because they had a preferred candidate.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Eutyphro

[Leftist Bastard]

Trump's win as an electoral college upset with a popular vote lose. There is no real way of predicting those.

[Eutyphro]

There were delusional predictors like HuffPo that though Clinton had over 90% chance of winning, that she had a safe margin in Florida, and that she would win Ohio and Iowa, eventhough Trump won most state polls there, which was silly. But that Trump would win Pennsylvania and Wisconsin was incompatible with the polls and was very unexpected. Clinton won the state polls unanimously there, but still lost those states.

[darthYENIK]

It's funny how whenever a news source finds something bad regarding Trump, certain people blindly follow the "fake news" narrative that Trump wants them to follow. He wants that to happen so they never give any credibility to a news source unless it's favorable to him. Has he ever accepted responsibility for a negative story toward him? Don't they think it's a bit fishy that he hasn't?

 

Why do they trust this person on this subject who has given them no reason to trust him, and has everything to gain by casting doubt on the media. Republicans used to question the government. Now all I see is blind trust. That's not a good thing. That's a very bad thing.

[Creed Bratton]

So the plot thickens... https://nyti.ms/2lhzcxv

 

I am seriously beginning to believe all this Trump and Russia were working together to get him in office stuff. I was willing to believe Russia was definitely trying to influence the election, but with stuff like this, it isn't too far of a stretch to believe in a conspiracy.

Of course he's working with Russians. Why do you think Trump decided to put Rex Tillerson as his Secretary of State? That's all the evidence that anyone sane would need. The guy has a medal of friendship from Putin. While he was the CEO of Exxon Mobile, they had a very sweet oil deal with Russia that was nuked by the sanctions. And first during the campaign we've had Manafort with ties to Russia, then we've had Trump calling on Russia to hack the DNC, then Tillerson with ties to Russia and now Flynn having to resign because of ties to Russia. And to top it all off, the president who also happens to be a rich businessman doesn't want to release his tax returns. Just how much clearer does it have to be that Trump has a stake in Exxon Mobile and their deal with Russia? He wants to put Russia's interest ahead of his own country's interest for personal gain. That is quite literally treason.

Edited February 15, 2017 by The Yokel

[Eutyphro]

I am bemused by the fact that they are now referring to him as 'conservative'. Since when was PewDiePie conservative?

RollsReus1959 is the only person calling him that. But the witch hunt on Pewdiepie is f*cking stupid and the msm is retarded. Sad that a reputable news paper like the WSJ had to start this nonsense.

[trip]

I was alive when Nixon resigned. Too young to really remember it.

 

Gosh oh gosh I hope to see my very first impeachment. It's fun to live through historic moments.

 

To see a president get impeached for treason. Neat.