US Politics



  • @Wairau

    Thanks "river" guy

    Honestly Wairau thanks. It's been a while since anything legitimately like informative has been posted in this thread and while I don't understand all of it I'm better informed than reading some of the other diatribes and dick waving "do some research" contests

    Far too much playing the man and not the ball on these topics



  • @NTA said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    Have an example of a translator actually refused? Not just questioned.. but refused and sent home after they arrived at a US airport?

    It's only been a couple of days. Give it time.

    Reading the legislation, there are exceptions stated:

    and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

    That phrase is used later.

    If you've got something different for the SIV Program, I'm all ears.

    So you are outraged about something that has not actually happened?



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    So you are outraged about something that has not actually happened?

    The TPP isn't dead yet, but you had your knickers in a twist over it. And blamed Hilary, which was funny, but slightly confusing.



  • @mooshld said in US Politics:

    Wow I am shocked, shocked ,that several posters on this forum are not up in arms about this precious snowflake creating a safe space where only opinions they agree with are heard by firing someone who disagrees with them, on a point of law.

    After all the bleating about those evil liberal universities doing the same thing. Shocked I tell you.

    Cue the relevant parties coming in with but Obama did the same, or this is different because...... your an idiot for inferring an equivalency.

    She got fired for not doing her job. Her job is to fight cases for the US govt, she had an obligation to do her job, she decided to do politics. She needed to go. She is not a judge,she is not the president, she is a political appointment, she does not get to choose to just disregard the law.
    It was hubris and stupidity on an huge scale.
    You want to test the legality... go before a judge. Where both sides can argue the case. Not where one side argues the case and the other one refuses to... because .. politics

    And what tare you blathering on about safe spaces for?



  • @NTA said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    So you are outraged about something that has not actually happened?

    The TPP isn't dead yet, but you had your knickers in a twist over it. And blamed Hilary, which was funny, but slightly confusing.

    I am sure it was confusing for you, alot seems to be.
    I will explain why I blame Hilary, because she ran a shit campaign that allowed Trump to waltz in.
    And you dont think TPP with the US invlved is dead? wow... you really have not been paying attantion.

    BTW.. where is your condemnation of the this Obama flunky trying to stop Trumps EO being tested in court? You went very quiet on that front very quickly.



  • @Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:

    @NTA said in US Politics:

    @Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:

    It's just amusing that you and others have now become so very concerned with the wellbeing of Iraqi interpreters when it suddenly became a stick to hit Trump with.

    When did the topic ever come up on TSF? Find me a date, a post, even a vague recollection. Then you've got a position to argue from.

    Otherwise, you've got fuck all.

    This isn't about TSF FFS. The fact is Iraqi interpreters being granted US visas has been an issue for a number of years, particularly under the Obama administration which was often criticised for not doing enough. How odd that you (and god knows how many others now rallying to their cause) never gave a shit about them until you could use them as a key argument against a Trump policy.

    But Trump is in now.. so all these issues suddenly matter.. heck Chuck Schumer is now crying about it. Literally crying. Did he cry when terrorists actually murdered people?



  • BSG, we get that you didn't like Obama or Clinton. That's kind of quite clear after your hundreds of posts explaining away every Trump move as 'but Obama did this' or 'but Hillary says this'. I think you can take it that your position is known.
    Personally I'd be far more interested in your take on Trump's moves themselves because it puzzles me that your posts always read as 'support' for him (yes, you are also careful to never actually declare support) yet this seems entirely at odds to your opinion of someone like Winston Peters who ticks a lot of the same boxes as Trump.
    You seem very happy trying to shoot down other peoples views without actually declaring your own.



  • @Crucial said in US Politics:

    That's kind of quite clear after your hundreds of posts explaining away every Trump move as 'but Obama did this' or 'but Hillary says this'. I think you can take it that your position is known.

    Its only "whataboutery" when someone else does it.

    Rule of the Fern.



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    She got fired for not doing her job. Her job is to fight cases for the US govt,

    Bollocks, the AG's job is to give advice to the Pres & to any other department heads re the legality of actions. Which is 100% what she did.

    She spelled it out very clearly -

    "My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts."

    IE her job is to ensure that the government policy is legal & will stand up in court. Which she 100% did. Its no different to Nixon firing his AG when he refused to fire the special prosecutor investing Watergate.

    You clearly have zero fricking idea what the AG's job is. As does Trump.



  • @gollum said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    She got fired for not doing her job. Her job is to fight cases for the US govt,

    Bollocks, the AG's job is to give advice to the Pres & to any other department heads re the legality of actions. Which is 100% what she did.

    She spelled it out very clearly -

    "My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts."

    IE her job is to ensure that the government policy is legal & will stand up in court. Which she 100% did. Its no different to Nixon firing his AG when he refused to fire the special prosecutor investing Watergate.

    You clearly have zero fricking idea what the AG's job is. As does Trump.

    Oh just fuck off. lol

    After typing that steaming pile of horse manure you tell me I dont know what the AG's job is??? wow....
    Her job might be to advise, it is not to decide wether to argue for the legally binding EO. She did not just advise, she instructed her dept not to fight the cases... with no evidence, just her opinion, which was just a political opinion not a legal one. Let the courts decide if it is legal, not some Obama flunky making a political stand.
    If she didnt think she could fight the cases, resign.
    The EO had already been run through Office of Legal Counsel a the DOJ

    She can advise as much as she likes, but she made a politically motivated hachet job.

    And it is completely and utterly different to Nixon, I am not even going to bother debating that nonsense.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    "The Justice Department confirmed its Office of Legal Counsel had done a review of the order to determine whether it was "on its face, lawful, and properly drafted."

    But the objections Yates raised in her letter pointed out that the OLC review didn't consider statements "made by an administration or its surrogates...that may bear on the order's purpose."

    That passage appeared to refer to comments by Trump about the plight of Christians in the Middle East, and to remarks by Rudy Giuliani, who told Fox News that Trump had wanted to impose a "Muslim ban" but wanted advisers to find a way to do it "legally." Immigrants rights advocates said Giuliani's words could offer them evidence to prove the administration had a "discriminatory purpose."

    The Democratic National Committee blasted Trump for trying to "silence" Yates and predicted the confirmation of his nominee to lead the Justice Department would get tougher. Many top former DOJ officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. and civil rights chief Tom Perez, tweeted messages of support. "Person of integrity/attorney with great legal skill," Holder wrote. "Her judgment should be trusted."

    But some DOJ veterans and law professors found some fault with how she handled the conflict over the immigration order. On the Lawfare blog, professor Jack Goldsmith pointed out that Yates had not clearly determined the immigration order was unconstitutional or cited other legitimate bases for refusing to defend it.

    Goldsmith wrote: "she wrote a letter that appears to depart sharply from the usual criteria that an Attorney General would apply in deciding whether to defend an EO in court. As such, the letter seems like an act of insubordination that invites the President to fire her. Which he did.""

    http://www.npr.org/2017/01/30/512534805/justice-department-wont-defend-trumps-immigration-order



  • @Crucial said in US Politics:

    BSG, we get that you didn't like Obama or Clinton. That's kind of quite clear after your hundreds of posts explaining away every Trump move as 'but Obama did this' or 'but Hillary says this'. I think you can take it that your position is known.
    Personally I'd be far more interested in your take on Trump's moves themselves because it puzzles me that your posts always read as 'support' for him (yes, you are also careful to never actually declare support) yet this seems entirely at odds to your opinion of someone like Winston Peters who ticks a lot of the same boxes as Trump.
    You seem very happy trying to shoot down other peoples views without actually declaring your own.

    I would have answered, but you need to work on not asking question like a snide ass hat, because I just assume you not being genuine.

    ... you dont think I make my views known enough? Yeah that is a new one.. or maybe you are just full of it and don't pay attention to anyone who doesn't agree with you?



  • This post is deleted!


  • This post is deleted!


  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    BTW.. where is your condemnation of the this Obama flunky trying to stop Trumps EO being tested in court? You went very quiet on that front very quickly.

    Yeah still silent... just as I thought.



  • "But the objections Yates raised in her letter pointed out that the OLC review didn't consider statements "made by an administration or its surrogates...that may bear on the order's purpose.""

    So she knew the EO was legal.. but she thinks some comments MAY bear on the orders purpose? May?? MAY??? Shouldn't she be absolutely certain before abandoning the court cases?



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    Seriious? The one lawyer you find to back up Trump is the guy who authorised & wrote the basis for the US spying on its own citizens under Bush?

    Thats.. well.. not surprising from you, but pretty fucking funny!

    And again, you have zero idea what her job was, -

    "Her job might be to advise, it is not to decide wether to argue for the legally binding EO"

    Thats EXACTLY her fricking job, its to advise the departments & the Pres if its actions will stand up in court, and trhats exactly what she did. Her role is to ensure the US Government are not pushing laws in ciourt they cannot defend.

    As for the idea this had been run past the DOJ - she is THE HEAD of the DOJ... they literally ran down the line at the DOJ till they found someone low enough down to agree & got them to say "OK" despite not actually having the authority to say so.

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    I would have answered, but you need to work on not asking question like a snide ass hat, because I just assume you not being genuine.

    ... you dont think I make my views known enough? Yeah that is a new one.. or maybe you are just full of it and don't pay attention to anyone who doesn't agree with you?

    So that'll be a no then. STUNNED!



  • I've locked this thread as no progress is being made, and there's a lot of insulting each other.

    Lets cool off for a while.



  • @gollum said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    Seriious? The one lawyer you find to back up Trump is the guy who authorised & wrote the basis for the US spying on its own citizens under Bush?

    Thats.. well.. not surprising from you, but pretty fucking funny!

    And again, you have zero idea what her job was, -

    "Her job might be to advise, it is not to decide wether to argue for the legally binding EO"

    Thats EXACTLY her fricking job, its to advise the departments & the Pres if its actions will stand up in court, and trhats exactly what she did. Her role is to ensure the US Government are not pushing laws in ciourt they cannot defend.

    As for the idea this had been run past the DOJ - she is THE HEAD of the DOJ... they literally ran down the line at the DOJ till they found someone low enough down to agree & got them to say "OK" despite not actually having the authority to say so.

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    I would have answered, but you need to work on not asking question like a snide ass hat, because I just assume you not being genuine.

    ... you dont think I make my views known enough? Yeah that is a new one.. or maybe you are just full of it and don't pay attention to anyone who doesn't agree with you?

    So that'll be a no then. STUNNED!

    What part of it has already gone through the DOJ vetting process are you failing to get?
    And no they didn't run down the line, their is a department, which I named that is responsible, and they passed it, stop making stuff up.



  • I've unlocked the topic, but under the following condition; no more personal comments.

    I'll just delete anything with even with a hint of playing the man instead of the ball.


  • Banned

    @Kirwan said in US Politics:

    I've unlocked the topic, but under the following condition; no more personal comments.

    I'll just delete anything with even with a hint of playing the man instead of the ball.

    No problem dickhead.


  • Banned

    I apologize for the source, and the writer himself is also somewhat "special" but I think the content of the article is worthy of discussion regarding populism and how that's linked to the Trump phenomenon, Brexit etc.

    http://takimag.com/article/an_evil_virus_called_populism_jim_goad#axzz4XPqyY54a

    I liked this quote:

    "Listen here, all ye smacked, condescending asses, all you powderpuff socialist theorists who’ve never had to work an honest, sweaty day in your lives—one of the things I’m always ready to bang fists over is the accusation that I don’t know what it’s like to be working-class. On my way back from the inauguration, I stopped to take a picture in front of the house I grew up in outside Philly. The people in this neighborhood don’t give a soaring fuck about your tranny bathrooms and your crocodile tears for Muslim refugees and illegal immigrants, nor do they want to hear a single word about how uber-wealthy parlor pinks at The Nation understand what’s in their best interests—they just want to work an honest job, take care of their kids, and eat a couple Italian hoagies while watching yet another Super Bowl where the Eagles won’t be playing."

    Again I'm not endorsing the source and feel a bit dirty linking to it, but I think this article helps explain some of what went down this year.



  • @Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:

    and the writer himself is also somewhat "special"

    Goad has written some great shit over the years. 'Answer Me', 'the redneck manifesto', 'shit magnet' etc etc all brilliant.
    I disagree with a lot of his politics but enjoy his rants



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    What part of it has already gone through the DOJ vetting process are you failing to get?
    And no they didn't run down the line, their is a department, which I named that is responsible, and they passed it, stop making stuff up.

    So long as "someone" in the department - tho' very much not the HEAD of the dept,. who they purposfully tried to keep out, you are cool with that? OK. We will probably continue to disagree on that. Here's hoping he's not doing the ssame thing with the military - tho' sidelining the Joint Cheif of Staff is not a good pointer.

    So you've moved on gfrom her not doing her job? Lets not -

    http://www.vox.com/2017/1/31/14451228/sessions-yates-confirmation-trump-fired

    Jeff Sessions is Trumps nominee to be AG. Here he grills Yates when she was nominated (Sessions wanted the nominee to say she wasn't going to give Obama a free hand) -

    Sessions: You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things that you just need to say no about. Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that’s improper? A lot of people defended the [Loretta] Lynch nomination by saying well, [then-President Obama] appoints somebody who’s going to execute his views. What’s wrong with that? But if the views that the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?
    
    Yates: Senator, I believe that the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president.
    

    She got confirmed, because, um, thats her fricking job clearly stated to a hostile senator at her confirmation & he agreed.



  • Non offensive, factual post with clear opinion.
    It is vital that the Republicans get a productive first 2 years from the Senate. The reason for that is in 2018, Dems have 26 seats up for re-election-however in 2020 and 2022 the Republicans have 22 each time. So, a failure to do well will lead to them losing power later.
    So, the confirmation process for Gorsuch will be vital and fascinating.
    Further, if Trump is in office for 8 years, he will have 2-3 more opportunities to appoint a SC judge.



  • non offensive post factually showing Democratic Housel Leader blatantly using identity politics
    opinion: clear dishonesty, lying comes easy for liberals who think the ends justifies the means



  • @Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:

    Again I'm not endorsing the source and feel a bit dirty linking to it, but I think this article helps explain some of what went down this year.

    Yep, 100%

    There's a chunk of America - and very much the wider world, that don't see "tranny bathrooms" or civil liberties for blacks or gays or women as an expansion of those peoples rights up towards the levels of rights already afforded to the average white man, they see it as a destruction of the rights of the average white man.

    So you get people who have never met a gay person outraged at the attack on their rights presented by gay marriage or seeing accepting trannies exist as an attempt to set a tranny loose on their kids. They feel they've already lost so much that anything anyone else is getting must come from them, even when its a rights issue, not a job or a house.



  • @gollum said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    What part of it has already gone through the DOJ vetting process are you failing to get?
    And no they didn't run down the line, their is a department, which I named that is responsible, and they passed it, stop making stuff up.

    So long as "someone" in the department - tho' very much not the HEAD of the dept,. who they purposfully tried to keep out, you are cool with that? OK. We will probably continue to disagree on that. Here's hoping he's not doing the ssame thing with the military - tho' sidelining the Joint Cheif of Staff is not a good pointer.

    So you've moved on gfrom her not doing her job? Lets not -

    http://www.vox.com/2017/1/31/14451228/sessions-yates-confirmation-trump-fired

    Jeff Sessions is Trumps nominee to be AG. Here he grills Yates when she was nominated (Sessions wanted the nominee to say she wasn't going to give Obama a free hand) -

    Sessions: You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things that you just need to say no about. Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that’s improper? A lot of people defended the [Loretta] Lynch nomination by saying well, [then-President Obama] appoints somebody who’s going to execute his views. What’s wrong with that? But if the views that the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?
    
    Yates: Senator, I believe that the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president. She didnt follow the law, so she also lied when answering Sessions... and she sure as eggs was not independent.
    

    She got confirmed, because, um, thats her fricking job clearly stated to a hostile senator at her confirmation & he agreed.

    No, not someone, the actual team assigned to do exactly that, vet EO for legality. She didnt like what they decided so threw a political tantrum.
    The right process was followed, the right team at the DOJ signed it off as legal, and this Obama flunky just had a tantrum because she thought it MAY be illegal because of some things said by people afterwards? Because she played games she took away any chance of it being tested in court.
    She didnt give advice, she went against her own departments advice and made an order to not support a legal instruction.



  • @Wairau said in US Politics:

    non offensive post factually showing Democratic Housel Leader blatantly using identity politics
    opinion: clear dishonesty, lying comes easy for liberals who think the ends justifies the means

    That is so funny.



  • non offensive post stating the fact about immigrant bans by past presidents:
    not very offensive opinion: Democrats (be they politicians or media) are responsible for the scary deterioration in American political discourse. When you want to know what evil they are involved in or plotting, listen to their lies. Russia...Fake news...

    Obama issued 6 immigrant bans......
    White House documents also show that former President Bill Clinton issued six immigrant bans; George W. Bush six immigrant bans; and former President Ronald Reagan four. And in 1980, former President Jimmy Carter banned Iranians after Tehran seized the U.S. embassy.
    http://truthfeed.com/breaking-the-past-six-presidents-have-banned-immigrants/49400/



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback

    Again, her job is to ensure laws passed stand up in court. The day after this ban went out 4 federal judges at least partially revoked it.


  • Banned

    @gollum said in US Politics:

    @Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:

    Again I'm not endorsing the source and feel a bit dirty linking to it, but I think this article helps explain some of what went down this year.

    Yep, 100%

    There's a chunk of America - and very much the wider world, that don't see "tranny bathrooms" or civil liberties for blacks or gays or women as an expansion of those peoples rights up towards the levels of rights already afforded to the average white man, they see it as a destruction of the rights of the average white man.

    So you get people who have never met a gay person outraged at the attack on their rights presented by gay marriage or seeing accepting trannies exist as an attempt to set a tranny loose on their kids. They feel they've already lost so much that anything anyone else is getting must come from them, even when its a rights issue, not a job or a house.

    Yes they see it as a destruction of the rights of the average white man. Heysus Christus.

    That wasn't the point made in the article. The point was that people have far more important things to worry about than trannie rights in toilets and gay marriage. They wish that these were the most important concerns in their lives.



  • @Rancid-Schnitzel

    Yeah, they see it as zero sum, if congress or the president is giving rights to blacks, gays, women etc that must mean they are not trying to get the economy going again. Every smiling happy homo couple must represent a white guy with no job.

    That idea that progess can be made on multiple fronts is gone. The Trump vote were very much zero-sum, its me or them, if someone not like me is doing well, it is at my expense.



  • non offensive post with humor (check if you are a real person. If you don't laugh, you're not real...):
    Democrats still looking for real people

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/democrats-real-people-lessons-234198



  • @Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:

    I apologize for the source, and the writer himself is also somewhat "special" but I think the content of the article is worthy of discussion regarding populism and how that's linked to the Trump phenomenon, Brexit etc.

    http://takimag.com/article/an_evil_virus_called_populism_jim_goad#axzz4XPqyY54a

    I liked this quote:

    "Listen here, all ye smacked, condescending asses, all you powderpuff socialist theorists who’ve never had to work an honest, sweaty day in your lives—one of the things I’m always ready to bang fists over is the accusation that I don’t know what it’s like to be working-class. On my way back from the inauguration, I stopped to take a picture in front of the house I grew up in outside Philly. The people in this neighborhood don’t give a soaring fuck about your tranny bathrooms and your crocodile tears for Muslim refugees and illegal immigrants, nor do they want to hear a single word about how uber-wealthy parlor pinks at The Nation understand what’s in their best interests—they just want to work an honest job, take care of their kids, and eat a couple Italian hoagies while watching yet another Super Bowl where the Eagles won’t be playing."

    Again I'm not endorsing the source and feel a bit dirty linking to it, but I think this article helps explain some of what went down this year.

    Can't deny this isn't a real thing or that the tapping in to this demographic is probably the key to a lot of what is happening around the world at the moment.
    I disagree with holding this group up as some kind of paragon (if that was the intention of the writer) and ridiculing other groups.
    This group are hardly the ones you turn to to advance a society. Maybe they don't make mistakes when they make change but that's more because they don't participate in change rather than being mistake free.



  • @Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:

    @gollum said in US Politics:

    @Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:

    Again I'm not endorsing the source and feel a bit dirty linking to it, but I think this article helps explain some of what went down this year.

    Yep, 100%

    There's a chunk of America - and very much the wider world, that don't see "tranny bathrooms" or civil liberties for blacks or gays or women as an expansion of those peoples rights up towards the levels of rights already afforded to the average white man, they see it as a destruction of the rights of the average white man.

    So you get people who have never met a gay person outraged at the attack on their rights presented by gay marriage or seeing accepting trannies exist as an attempt to set a tranny loose on their kids. They feel they've already lost so much that anything anyone else is getting must come from them, even when its a rights issue, not a job or a house.

    Yes they see it as a destruction of the rights of the average white man. Heysus Christus.

    That wasn't the point made in the article. The point was that people have far more important things to worry about than trannie rights in toilets and gay marriage. They wish that these were the most important concerns in their lives.

    A great example of how different people can read the same thing and have a completely different take on its meaning.


  • Banned

    @gollum said in US Politics:

    @Rancid-Schnitzel

    Yeah, they see it as zero sum, if congress or the president is giving rights to blacks, gays, women etc that must mean they are not trying to get the economy going again. Every smiling happy homo couple must represent a white guy with no job.

    That idea that progess can be made on multiple fronts is gone. The Trump vote were very much zero-sum, its me or them, if someone not like me is doing well, it is at my expense.

    Since we're all being civil I'll just let that enormous generalisation go through to the keeper.



  • One of the big problems with economies where GDP per capita or real wages don't grow is that "zero-sum game" becomes the reality.


  • Banned

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:

    @gollum said in US Politics:

    @Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:

    Again I'm not endorsing the source and feel a bit dirty linking to it, but I think this article helps explain some of what went down this year.

    Yep, 100%

    There's a chunk of America - and very much the wider world, that don't see "tranny bathrooms" or civil liberties for blacks or gays or women as an expansion of those peoples rights up towards the levels of rights already afforded to the average white man, they see it as a destruction of the rights of the average white man.

    So you get people who have never met a gay person outraged at the attack on their rights presented by gay marriage or seeing accepting trannies exist as an attempt to set a tranny loose on their kids. They feel they've already lost so much that anything anyone else is getting must come from them, even when its a rights issue, not a job or a house.

    Yes they see it as a destruction of the rights of the average white man. Heysus Christus.

    That wasn't the point made in the article. The point was that people have far more important things to worry about than trannie rights in toilets and gay marriage. They wish that these were the most important concerns in their lives.

    A great example of how different people can read the same thing and have a completely different take on its meaning.

    So you think the author was saying that white people are threatened by civil liberties for blacks or gays or women? Seriously?



  • @gollum said in US Politics:

    @Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:

    Again I'm not endorsing the source and feel a bit dirty linking to it, but I think this article helps explain some of what went down this year.

    Yep, 100%

    There's a chunk of America - and very much the wider world, that don't see "tranny bathrooms" or civil liberties for blacks or gays or women as an expansion of those peoples rights up towards the levels of rights already afforded to the average white man, they see it as a destruction of the rights of the average white man.

    So you get people who have never met a gay person outraged at the attack on their rights presented by gay marriage or seeing accepting trannies exist as an attempt to set a tranny loose on their kids. They feel they've already lost so much that anything anyone else is getting must come from them, even when its a rights issue, not a job or a house.

    I'm not sure it's quite that way, I think it's more about the perception that when such issues are being focused on, other issues - which are more important to them - are not. I think there is a huge amount to learn from Trump supporters (as opposed to him) about the way that identify politics has shaped discourse and has led to them feeling alienated. To be fair, many people have been screwed by globalization, and the link from RS was quite telling for me, because the author basically admitted that he doesn't care that trump isn't a 'representative' of him in any sense, but rather that he speaks to that audience in a way that resonates with them. If Trump does what he says he will, he can keep that voting block - even if the results hurt them - is my bet.


  • Banned

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:

    I apologize for the source, and the writer himself is also somewhat "special" but I think the content of the article is worthy of discussion regarding populism and how that's linked to the Trump phenomenon, Brexit etc.

    http://takimag.com/article/an_evil_virus_called_populism_jim_goad#axzz4XPqyY54a

    I liked this quote:

    "Listen here, all ye smacked, condescending asses, all you powderpuff socialist theorists who’ve never had to work an honest, sweaty day in your lives—one of the things I’m always ready to bang fists over is the accusation that I don’t know what it’s like to be working-class. On my way back from the inauguration, I stopped to take a picture in front of the house I grew up in outside Philly. The people in this neighborhood don’t give a soaring fuck about your tranny bathrooms and your crocodile tears for Muslim refugees and illegal immigrants, nor do they want to hear a single word about how uber-wealthy parlor pinks at The Nation understand what’s in their best interests—they just want to work an honest job, take care of their kids, and eat a couple Italian hoagies while watching yet another Super Bowl where the Eagles won’t be playing."

    Again I'm not endorsing the source and feel a bit dirty linking to it, but I think this article helps explain some of what went down this year.

    Can't deny this isn't a real thing or that the tapping in to this demographic is probably the key to a lot of what is happening around the world at the moment.
    I disagree with holding this group up as some kind of paragon (if that was the intention of the writer) and ridiculing other groups.
    This group are hardly the ones you turn to to advance a society. Maybe they don't make mistakes when they make change but that's more because they don't participate in change rather than being mistake free.

    You just don't get it do you? It's not about claiming superiority or wanting to rule. It's about being shown some respect and being given a voice. Continuing to write them off as clueless, stupid, racist Neanderthals isn't going to unite society going forward.


Log in to reply