politics Post Election Thread: Democracy Dies In Darkness And You Can Help

[Walter_Sobchak]

45 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

Yeah the OG night stalker was a sick fuck too

 

And it is crazy how far things have gone in such a short time. It's not even hard to remember a time the left valued Free Speach. 

 

There was a time when Chomsky was pretty much worshipped by the Left.  I wonder if any of the hip young "leftist" crowd in the US even care about him anymore considering his adament defense of free speech.

 

 

I doubt Antifa think much of this sort of reasoning.

[Lostwingman]

It's not about how far left you are, it's about how much you agree with them.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

18 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

There was a time when Chomsky was pretty much worshipped by the Left.  I wonder if any of the hip young "leftist" crowd in the US even care about him anymore considering his adament defense of free speech.

 

 

I doubt Antifa think much of this sort of reasoning.

 

 

I was just going to post about how most of the actual decent leftist intellectuals are concerned about free speech and get attacked for the views, Gnome C, who I think is a crank, is one. Chomsky can at least argue his points, and think the real reason the current left doesn't want free speech, is because a large part of their platform can't stand up in a decent debate, or worse, are completely proven wrong by science.  The postmodern view of there is no such thing of objective truth, and the Transgender activists push to politicize biology, with their blatant anti-science with there are no biological gender differences, just can't stand up in a debate with anyone remotely competent arguing against them. The push to throw away biology as a science by the left is a far greater crime than anything Christians ever tried to push on the education system.  That there are people on the left who will, with a straight face, say there are no biological differences between men and women, and then go on to say the science on it is settled is scary The Science is settled, and not they way they are claiming, any biologist worth their salt would laugh in their face.  Of course, doing so gets them fired, or stalked and harassed into quitting.  They are also just doubling down on this bullshit, to spite Trump, and I don't think it's going to end well. 

[Lostwingman]

Oh yea, more about this fucking ridiculous timeline.

[Donward]

4 hours ago, Lostwingman said:

 

Not a week goes by where you can't take a bunch of article titles and wonder how people even 3 or 4 years ago would have reacted.

 

They found the original night stalker too. Ooof. What a week.

 

Four years ago, CNN spent FIVE whole weeks, 24/7 covering the malaysia airliner which crashed/disappeared in the Indian Ocean, replete with experts, opinions, on-the-spot coverage of the Australia navy combing the sea floor, breaking news on satellite photos of "debris" which turned out to be old fishing gear, and so forth. 

 

You compare that to today with how quickly news grows stale given how quickly the media barks and pisses itself in Pavlovian fashion at every Tweet the Chief Executive issues and one would swear we're in an alternate universe. 

[Walter_Sobchak]

"Only the best people"

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/26/ronny-jackson-withdraws-va-secretary/552519002/

[Ramlaen]

His failing was becoming a target of #resist.

 

You don’t think the sudden wave of smear attacks on Kayne West are random?

[Walter_Sobchak]

Kanye pretty much smears himself.  He married a Kardashian for fuck's sake. How much lower do you get than that?

[Walter_Sobchak]

34 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

His failing was becoming a target of #resist.

 

You don’t think the sudden wave of smear attacks on Kayne West are random?

 

Trump nominated an unqualified candidate to a cabinet level position without properly vetting him.  This has nothing to do with #resist, it's an entirely self-inflicted wound on the part of the President.

[Ramlaen]

26 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

This has nothing to do with #resist

 

The president’s doctor getting drunk and wrecking a car would be scandalous. Strange that no one seemed to care during the Obama admin.

Edited April 26, 2018 by Ramlaen

[Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect]

Yeah, I don't see the personnel turnover as some sort of sign for anything other than the fact that Trump is the first president in a long ass time to come into office without a cabal of political figures and favors amassed from a life of work as a political figure.

[Walter_Sobchak]

23 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

The president’s doctor getting drunk and wrecking a car would be scandalous. Strange that no one seemed to care during the Obama admin.

 

Probably because Obama didn't nominate him to run a major federal agency?

[Ramlaen]

1 hour ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Probably because Obama didn't nominate him to run a major federal agency?

 

If Obama had nominated him you wouldn’t have seen the flurry of slander.

[roguetechie]

2 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Trump nominated an unqualified candidate to a cabinet level position without properly vetting him.  This has nothing to do with #resist, it's an entirely self-inflicted wound on the part of the President.

 

Why is it that the primary qualification people like you seem to worry about is whether or not someone hates Trump and agrees with you politically?

 

I mean if you really want to play the qualifications game, who the fuck was Obama to even CONSIDER running for president?!

 

He damn sure didn't have any relevant life experience and his public statements on the subject of constitutional law were a disgrace for someone who is supposedly a specialist in the field!

 

Hey and then we can talk about shovel ready jobs if you want! (Aka the only program on earth ran worse than the Pentagon's moderate rebel training pipeline in Syria)

 

Team (D) really doesn't want to go there Walt...

 

It must get really depressing having to defend the indefensible all the time though just so your Democrat friends won't shun you though, so I totally get why you're so bitter Walt.

 

[Belesarius]

47 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

If Obama had nominated him you wouldn’t have seen the flurry of slander.

Yeah right...  If you actually believe that I've got some swampland in the mojave desert to sell you.

 

[Ramlaen]

2 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

Yeah right...  If you actually believe that I've got some swampland in the mojave desert to sell you.

 

 

Is that the ‘Trump colluded with Russia’ swamp?

[Donward]

I think there are enough "What-about" candidates in both parties. 

[Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect]

[Walter_Sobchak]

2 hours ago, roguetechie said:

 

Why is it that the primary qualification people like you seem to worry about is whether or not someone hates Trump and agrees with you politically?

 

I mean if you really want to play the qualifications game, who the fuck was Obama to even CONSIDER running for president?!

 

 

Obama's credentials were a bit thin compared to some older candidates, but US Senator is a pretty normal resume for a Presidential candidate.  State governors seem to do better overall in winning the Presidency, but in general congress-critters are regarded as qualified for the job.  The unique thing about Trump is his complete lack of experience at any level of governmental service.  It's a true break from precedent.  You might consider it a good thing, but there is no denying that it's a bit unusual.

 

2 hours ago, roguetechie said:

It must get really depressing having to defend the indefensible all the time though just so your Democrat friends won't shun you though, so I totally get why you're so bitter Walt.

 

 

I could say the same thing about your devotion to Mr. Trump.  Anyhow, it might shock you to know that not all my friends are "Democrats", nor do I discuss politics with all of them. Life is far too short to limit ones social circle along narrow political lines.  

[Walter_Sobchak]

3 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

If Obama had nominated him you wouldn’t have seen the flurry of slander.

 

If Obama (or Bush, or Clinton, or Reagon, or...) had nominated him, they would have properly vetted him first and said, oh, wait, this ain't gonna work.

 

You can't blame the opposition for doing what they are supposed to do and finding flaws in your candidates.  That's how politics work.  If an NFL coach names an unknown highschool player as his starting quarterback and he gets destroyed by the opposing team, is it the other teams fault that the highschool player lost?  No, you blame the coach for making such a bone-headed decision.  

[Belesarius]

1 hour ago, Donward said:

I think there are enough "What-about" candidates in both parties. 

Don is on point on this.

If it isn't one side slandering candidates, it's the other. Fox would be frothing at the mouth, and Alex Jones would be screaming, along with Brietbart and other websites. It's a media issue across the board.  US politics is so polarized that it's ridiculous.

 

[Walter_Sobchak]

11 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

Don is on point on this.

If it isn't one side slandering candidates, it's the other. Fox would be frothing at the mouth, and Alex Jones would be screaming, along with Brietbart and other websites. It's a media issue across the board.  US politics is so polarized that it's ridiculous.

 

 

I would add that it's becoming polarized along different lines than the traditional Dems vs Republicans debate.  As Colli and Don have pointed out in previous comments, Trump is something a bit new and different.  What is worrying to me is that rather than the older, more ideological lines that described the two parties, the lines are being drawn along racial, class and urban vs rural catagories.  

[Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect]

2 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

 urban vs rural catagories.  

This line has always been there.

[Walter_Sobchak]

Just now, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

This line has always been there.

Yes, but it seems to be sharper and more defined than it used to be.  

[Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect]

Just now, Walter_Sobchak said:

Yes, but it seems to be sharper and more defined than it used to be.  

Everything is sharper and more defined with our info-boxes dumping stuff at us 24/7. 

 

I'm not arguing that the political climate is a bit different from the previous 30 years. I just feel as though context is crucial. 

 

I feel like half the time articles, journalists, talking heads, twitter feeds, etc are trying to convince me how close we are to a radical violent split akin to a civil war.

 

And the rest of the time I can't help but notice how small the loudest contingent is, and how large the moderate and delightfully tolerant contingent is.