The Politics Thread v2

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Caught a live news interview of a Woman
who was in the music theatre bombing.
Pretty, very intense, sure of what she said.

This woman was quite compelling in her
only slightly accented English, saying
that Hollande was doing Nothing, etc.

US Juries are very influenced by Witness Statements.
idk how + what she said would play in France, maybe
by herself turn public opinion VERY pro-military.

[Samwise]

I think a bigger issue may be how pro-National Front/Marine Le Pen interviews like that turn things.
France has regional elections in less than a month. I've seen one article wondering is a National Front victory there could mean big wins in the national elections in 20 months.
Whether that lasts long enough to affect the EU elections is really hard to predict, but euroskeptics seem to be surging in a lot of places in Europe.

[MrWolfe]

Seems people always fall into the same trap.

The whole point of terrorist attacks are to cause terror and panic, and what do people do? They panic and sign off on a bunch of hasty, poorly thought out changes--letting their panic (and thus the attacks that caused it) drive policy instead of reason and sense.

Guess what happens?

More problems. More attacks. More terror and panic.

[Keldar]

The proper response to terrorism has never been to act terrorized.  Yet, time and time again, that's what happens.  Politicians chicken out and in an effort to be seen to do something, wind up doing something horrible.  Tons of jackassess are calling to turn away Syrian refugees now.  Despite the fact, no refugees had a part in the attacks.  Helping those people is one of the best things we can do to fight terrorism.  Because people who's lives don't suck, tend not to wind up terrorists.  And its way better PR overseas than any number of poorly placed missiles could ever hope to be.  The risk a few thousand, or even few tens of thousand refugees pose is trivial.  It'll prevent more radicalization than it could allow terrorists through.

And that isn't mutually exclusive to rounding up all the remaining culprits and putting them away forever.  (Or shooting them dead if that proves the safer option to capture.)

[bhu]

Since when?
Seriously, since when?
I see reports of women let off on a constant basis.

  Since there started to be backlash and people bitching about it.  A lot of those women do get light sentences, but if you follow up there's inevitable blowback and a lot of them get re-sentenced or the judge recuses himself to let someone else take over.himself

Who is being naïve now?
They are elected based on political party, and selected for election based on patronage with the local political machine.
"Tough on crime" is a campaign slogan/lie, nothing more.

 

Retired judges have stated that if they don't appear harsh on crime they don't get re-elected, and their voters idea of tough on crime is "fuck the poors, and fuck the non whites".  There was a recent news case where a judge and prosecutor may both face punishment as they felt they could be honest now that they no longer had to run for office.  They admitted deliberately sending innocent men to prison to get votes.  Tough on crime isn't just a slogan for elected judges and prosecutors.  For other politicals yes, but for those two it's their life blood. 

Once again you delve into extreme naiveté. Republicans don't become teachers because they are excluded by openly admitted bias in colleges. There are always Democrats willing to run as judges and prosecutors, and even more willing to accept appointments as judges and prosecutors by Democrat executives. Or are you going to somehow suggest that Obama has nominated nothing but Republicans to such positions?

  I' talking about state and local Judges, not federal.  The state and local courts are overwhelmingly republican as opposed to the federal courts.

I never suggested otherwise.
And so we are left with Democratic DAs making such deals and Democratic judges approving them.

  Who's being deliberately naive now to suggest corruption elongs to one political party alone? 

You mean like with Mike Nifong, Democratic DA in the Duke Lacross Rape Case?
Yeah, terrible how things like that happen.

  Again, not something restricted to one party.

So the Midwest experience trumps every other experience?
I take it you have you ever heard the principle that "anecdotes are not data". Perhaps you should investigate that, and not insist that just because you experienced something unpleasant it constitutes a universal condition that everyone must acknowledge.

  I wasn't suggesting it was a universal condition.  I'm reminding you that because things happen in one manner where you live that they are not universal as you so often seem to suggest.   

You would have to remove a greater percentage of Democrats from office to achieve it.

  Only the more conservative blue dog democrats (assuming many are left).  They'd pounce on a chance to legalize weed or any other drug for medical purposes because their constituency supports that.

Your perception is mistaken. That or you suffer from projecting your failure of empathy onto me.
I am quite aware that my experience is in no way unique, unlike people who seem to think that "ghetto" was a word created for a place to store black people. That I take a longer and broader view of the "solutions" proposed and note that they are nothing but the new (bigoted) boss, same as the old (bigoted) boss is a sign that I understand such things all too well, and don't see how oppressing someone else will somehow salve any oppression I have suffered.

I have no failure of empathy.  I have never suggested oppressing anyone.  I have suggested that treating other people the way you would like to be treated yourself does not inherently reduce or take away any rights you possess.  You have yet to say a kind word about minorities or the poor but have said some very unkind things about them in previous posts, as though any wrong they have suffered cannot possibly compare to the ones you have endured. 

Or you're trolling again 

[bhu]

Bobby Jindal quit.  One theocratic fascist down, only a dozen or so more to go.

In weirder news Trump wants Cruz as his VP.  Given their egos I can't see that working too well....

[MrWolfe]

The proper response to terrorism has never been to act terrorized.  Yet, time and time again, that's what happens.  Politicians chicken out and in an effort to be seen to do something, wind up doing something horrible.  Tons of jackassess are calling to turn away Syrian refugees now.  Despite the fact, no refugees had a part in the attacks.  Helping those people is one of the best things we can do to fight terrorism.  Because people who's lives don't suck, tend not to wind up terrorists.  And its way better PR overseas than any number of poorly placed missiles could ever hope to be.  The risk a few thousand, or even few tens of thousand refugees pose is trivial.  It'll prevent more radicalization than it could allow terrorists through.

And that isn't mutually exclusive to rounding up all the remaining culprits and putting them away forever.  (Or shooting them dead if that proves the safer option to capture.)

I'm willing to bet a lot of those same people were calling for turning away the Syrian refugees before the attacks, it's just that now they have a big, emotional, reason-killing event to point to as support for their cause. Not that it does support their cause, but bring up something like that and it seems few people will be able to think straight enough to actually assess the merits of what you're saying.

Kind of like how 9/11 got used for pretty much everything in the U.S. for the next few years regardless of how bizarrely unrelated it was. Wasn't even limited to politics. If you wanted people to buy something or do something or not do something all you had to do was throw the phrase "or the terrorists win" out there and millions would nod in dazed agreement. Still works to some extent. The word "terrorist" has a lot of weight behind it these days--which is why I find it so amusing to recall that growing up all the terrorist bombings were being done by white Americans like Kaczynski and McVeigh. But yeah, let's totally bomb the Muslims, that'll put a stop to it. 

[Samwise]

Since there started to be backlash and people bitching about it.  A lot of those women do get light sentences, but if you follow up there's inevitable blowback and a lot of them get re-sentenced or the judge recuses himself to let someone else take over.himself

So . . . sort of like the expected backlash over absurdly light sentences for "disadvantaged" minorities allowing them to continue rampaging.
But that's wrong for some reason.

Retired judges have stated that if they don't appear harsh on crime they don't get re-elected, and their voters idea of tough on crime is "fuck the poors, and fuck the non whites".  There was a recent news case where a judge and prosecutor may both face punishment as they felt they could be honest now that they no longer had to run for office.  They admitted deliberately sending innocent men to prison to get votes.  Tough on crime isn't just a slogan for elected judges and prosecutors.  For other politicals yes, but for those two it's their life blood.

Which in no way contradicts what I said.
As for what ideas the voters have, how do you explain that when the majority of them are poor non-whites, such as in many parts of NYC, or even places like Ferguson? Are you suggesting that poor non-whites like to see other poor non-whites oppressed?

I' talking about state and local Judges, not federal.  The state and local courts are overwhelmingly republican as opposed to the federal courts.

So extreme naiveté. Or just that conflation of personal anecdote with universal experience, particularly in areas where whites are not the majority of the electorate.

Who's being deliberately naive now to suggest corruption elongs to one political party alone? 

Not belongs to one political party alone, just dominated by one. 

Again, not something restricted to one party.

No, just a peculiar dominance of one group, particularly for the most egregious violations.

I wasn't suggesting it was a universal condition.

Well yeah, you were.

I'm reminding you that because things happen in one manner where you live that they are not universal as you so often seem to suggest.   

That's my line.

Only the more conservative blue dog democrats (assuming many are left).  They'd pounce on a chance to legalize weed or any other drug for medical purposes because their constituency supports that.

The Blue Dogs are pretty much gone.
And no, it is the more overt Marxists, who have always been as socially conservative as the most uptight evangelical.
The Westboro Baptist Church is the family business of a Democratic lawyer who was a player in the civil rights movement.

I have no failure of empathy.  I have never suggested oppressing anyone.  I have suggested that treating other people the way you would like to be treated yourself does not inherently reduce or take away any rights you possess.

Giving special privileges to one group inherently reduces or takes away rights someone else possesses, invariably on a premise of transferrable guilt.

You have yet to say a kind word about minorities or the poor but have said some very unkind things about them in previous posts, as though any wrong they have suffered cannot possibly compare to the ones you have endured.

I have the kindest words for minorities and the poor - give them freedom!
And that is whether they have suffered more than, the same as, or less than I have.
Let them have all the freedom they need to become a majority and the wealthy.
Just do not take away any of my culture or my wealth (such as it is - since I'm poor and all), or the culture or wealth of others, in the process.

How is wanting them to have such freedom in any way unkind?
Unless you think they are incapable of being free in such a manner. That seems a very unkind thing to say of them, but one quite popular among "progressives".

Or you're trolling again 

I don't need to troll.
The absurdities of the arguments you present and your inability to rebut any of my counters is sufficient trolling from you and others that any on my part would be egregiously superfluous. 

[Samwise]

The word "terrorist" has a lot of weight behind it these days--which is why I find it so amusing to recall that growing up all the terrorist bombings were being done by white Americans like Kaczynski and McVeigh. But yeah, let's totally bomb the Muslims, that'll put a stop to it. 

Selective memory.
People were more than eager to stomp on separatists like McVeigh when he launched his attack. Indeed just like the current Muslim terrorists he cited two such incidents - Ruby Ridge and Waco - as "justification" for his terrorism.
As for Kaczynski, people were also complaining about technophobes like him. But unlike the McVeigh-type separatists, the brand of terrorism that Kaczynski promoted has been mainstreamed by the global warming frauds, and so he is conveniently forgotten when possible.

[Samwise]

Bobby Jindal quit.  One theocratic fascist down, only a dozen or so more to go.

Jindal quit, not Sanders.
And why so much hate for an ethnic and religious minority?

In weirder news Trump wants Cruz as his VP.  Given their egos I can't see that working too well....

Probably not.
Though I'm wondering why you seem upset at the prospect that a Hispanic could become Vice President.

Or were you just trolling again?

[awaken_D_M_golem]

... France has regional elections in less than a month ...

Really?  Uh-oh.  Spain had elections close to it's bad subway bombing and that influenced the election very much.

At least Hollande is trying to bring more coordination with Obama and Putin.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

I'm not surprised Jindal's out.
I've mentioned before, the party flip voting right
after hurricane Katrina in Louisiana and Mississippi.
He was the beneficiary of that.
Pushing an immigration policy that would have denied himself citizenship ...

(on a d&d note, I was googling around to find any "necromancy" related verbs and randomly came across a non-politics related site where he claims he co-performed an honest to goodness Exorcism in college)

Nikki Haley compares very well to Jindal, she's worth keeping an eye on.
Especially if she can keep her job after the historic hurricane flooding in SC.

[Libertad]

Bobby Jindal quit.  One theocratic fascist down, only a dozen or so more to go.

Jindal quit, not Sanders.
And why so much hate for an ethnic and religious minority?

I probably shouldn't get involved, but...

The Nazis' self-defined version of socialism was not accepted as legitimate by most left-wing socialist parties, either then or now.  There was leeway for corporate overlords in the Third Reich to retain their wealth provided they contributed to the war effort.  They weren't as free as the United States (they wouldn't let groups like the Koch Bros. run roughshod over their economy), but they weren't as stringent as the Soviet Union for wealthy business leaders.  Quote by Joseph Gobbels:

Socialism [as the union of all citizens, not as an economic system] is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom. Socialism, therefore, is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total fighting brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book.

So you can see how the Nazis bounded it back in to ethnic and nationalist superiority, whereas genuine Socialist movements tend to emphasize a universal solidarity of working-class and marginalized groups.  It's part of why Castro supplied arms to anti-colonial forces in South Africa and Rhodesia, or the Kremlin arguing in favor of a free Palestine in spite of the Soviet Union's oppression of Muslims and other non-atheists (the Iron Curtain's radio-jammers and State media does wonders in covering up your own society's shortcomings).  Even the flawed socialists who didn't live up to their own principles attempted to toss the idea of nationalism in favor of a global fighting force.  "The fight against racism and the fight against capitalism are one and the same" is a common socialist slogan for these reasons, even if it misses the ball when it comes to realpolitik.

Socialists in general tend to be big on crushing capitalism, economic egalitarianism, supporting anti-colonial efforts in non-European countries, and have a tendency to focus on minority rights (although said focus isn't always universally or consistently applied, like in Stalin's Soviet Union).  Uprising of the lower class against their rich overlords was de-emphasized in Nazism, and even Benito Mussolini mocked the idea of Marxist class warfare in his Doctrine of Fascism: he said that economic inequality isn't a major problem, and that the assembly line worker has no idea about the skillsets of a factory manager.

Note: It should be pointed out that initially Hitler and other high-ranking Nazis attempted to use worker's revolution to win over left-leaning voters, and some Nazis did end up more radical left ideas (albeit casting rich overlords as "the Jews"), but by the time of Kristallnacht Hitler's forces violently purged them in favor of a truly fascist party.

[Samwise]

Really?  Uh-oh.  Spain had elections close to it's bad subway bombing and that influenced the election very much.

At least Hollande is trying to bring more coordination with Obama and Putin.

No idea.
I haven't followed France enough, or researched their electoral history enough, to be able to expect anything in particular from them, even with recent trends in Europe.
It seems like an avalanche for the NP should be brewing, but France has stepped back from that so many times in the past that 2017 is too far away to expect the mood to hold, at least not without continuing attacks.
And I don't think there's any De Gaulle lurking to stage a coup.
So I'll stick with mentioning factoids on this one for now.

[Samwise]

I probably shouldn't get involved, but...

You know what . . .
I won't.

We did that five pages ago.
Those comments were a deliberate tweak at bhu, not an attempt to reopen that.
If you want to go there anyway, start a new thread and we can get into it there.

[bhu]

So . . . sort of like the expected backlash over absurdly light sentences for "disadvantaged" minorities allowing them to continue rampaging.
But that's wrong for some reason.

  You're a minority yourself, why so much self-loathing?

Which in no way contradicts what I said.
As for what ideas the voters have, how do you explain that when the majority of them are poor non-whites, such as in many parts of NYC, or even places like Ferguson? Are you suggesting that poor non-whites like to see other poor non-whites oppressed?

No.  They live near a high crime city, and they have a very low voter participation turnout.  Virtually none of Fergusons police force lives there, and most of them are white.  They've made it abundantly clear in interviews they don't consider the people of ferguson human, and recent investigations suggest the police force there is runnin an extortion racket for lack of a better term against it's own citizens.  The police pay for their force with excessive fines, and by handing out said fines like candy.  The judges are also considered to have been possibly participating.  This is what happens when you let the 10% of your population who decides to vote decide elections.

So extreme naiveté. Or just that conflation of personal anecdote with universal experience, particularly in areas where whites are not the majority of the electorate.

  So we're back to trolling.  Knew  you wouldn't be able to resist forever.   

Not belongs to one political party alone, just dominated by one. 

  If you can say one party dominates corruption that virtually the same thing, you're equivocating.

No, just a peculiar dominance of one group, particularly for the most egregious violations.

  Trollin' trollin' trollin'..

Well yeah, you were.

No.  I wasn't.  You were making a fallse assumption.  The kind you liberally accuse others of. 

That's my line.

  I'd almost believe that if you had any form of self-awareness.

And no, it is the more overt Marxists, who have always been as socially conservative as the most uptight evangelical.
The Westboro Baptist Church is the family business of a Democratic lawyer who was a player in the civil rights movement.

True communists are atheist, and insanity does not make Phelps a marxist or even a political idealogue.  It just makes him dangerous.

Giving special privileges to one group inherently reduces or takes away rights someone else possesses, invariably on a premise of transferrable guilt.

  Equal privileges are not special.  You have fallen for the false idea that for a particular group to participate in society, they must take participation away from another instead of sharing.  This is how populations never end up questioning incompetence because they're too busy fighting to be on top, while those who are already on top watch and laugh.

[quoteI have the kindest words for minorities and the poor - give them freedom!
And that is whether they have suffered more than, the same as, or less than I have.[/quote]

I'm calling bullshit.  You've gone out of your way to imply you don't care for blacks, gays or hispanics without directly saying so.  It's an admirable effort at trolling, but you can only do it for so long before someone wonders if you're just trolling or you're actually a racist asshole claiming to be a minority so no one else will call you on your racism.

Let them have all the freedom they need to become a majority and the wealthy.
Just do not take away any of my culture or my wealth (such as it is - since I'm poor and all), or the culture or wealth of others, in the process.

  No one has suggested this should or will happen, except perhaps in your own mind.

I don't need to troll.
The absurdities of the arguments you present and your inability to rebut any of my counters is sufficient trolling from you and others that any on my part would be egregiously superfluous. 

Of course you need to troll.  So long as I keep responding you will keep responding because your ego will not let you do otherwise.  It's why you're invested in arguing in politics again, because people say things you find unacceptable and you simply can't ignore it.  You claim to be dispassionate in your arguments, but the very nature of your arguments disproves that. 

I eagerly await your inevitable reply

[bhu]

Jindal quit, not Sanders.
And why so much hate for an ethnic and religious minority?

 

You can do better than this.  Jindal is Catholic, which is hardly a minority.   

Probably not.
Though I'm wondering why you seem upset at the prospect that a Hispanic could become Vice President.

Or were you just trolling again?

Not yet, but now that you've started I might as well take up the sword again.

[bhu]

I probably shouldn't get involved, but...

You know what . . .
I won't.

We did that five pages ago.
Those comments were a deliberate tweak at bhu, not an attempt to reopen that.
If you want to go there anyway, start a new thread and we can get into it there.

Libertad he doesn't actually believe what he's saying, he just wants a rise out of people because the only way he can feel normal is by trying to make others look small.  Don't treat him seriously, he's just a troll.  A troll with a very small but obviously circumsized penis 

[Samwise]

You're a minority yourself, why so much self-loathing?

Not wanting to live as a thief, which is what you are if you are if you coerce "special privileges" and handouts from other people, is not self-loathing. It is self-respect.
Why do you have so much loathing for minorities that you believe they are incapable of improving themselves without special privileges?

However, it seems you missed the memo. As  "Jew", I am not a minority. I am just another kind of white, European, patriarchal, oppressor. My minority status, and any "special privileges" thereby, were revoked long ago, and I'm suited for nothing but being a target of violence.

No.  They live near a high crime city, and they have a very low voter participation turnout.

Which is completely contradicted by the vote tallies.

Virtually none of Fergusons police force lives there, and most of them are white.

The people of Fergsuon elected the people who hired that police force.
Why did they elect such racist representatives?

They've made it abundantly clear in interviews they don't consider the people of ferguson human, and recent investigations suggest the police force there is runnin an extortion racket for lack of a better term against it's own citizens.  The police pay for their force with excessive fines, and by handing out said fines like candy.  The judges are also considered to have been possibly participating.  This is what happens when you let the 10% of your population who decides to vote decide elections.

They police have made no thing clear.
The racket is run by the elected government, which is the group that sets the fines and makes the budget, not the police. If there is a problem with funding the community by fines on the poorest people, then it is the fault of the elected government, and ultimately the fault of the electorate, not of the police who are merely doing the job they are hired to do.

So we're back to trolling.  Knew  you wouldn't be able to resist forever.   

Yes, you are back to trolling.
No, I couldn't resist calling you on it forever.

If you can say one party dominates corruption that virtually the same thing, you're equivocating.

Not in the least.
You however are trying to divert.

Trollin' trollin' trollin'..

Actually, you've moved beyond trolling into outright hypocrisy.

No.  I wasn't.  You were making a fallse assumption.  The kind you liberally accuse others of. 

You mean I was taking you at your direct meaning and holding you to the same standards you are demanding of me.
Yes, I know that upsets you, and yes, that amuses me greatly.

I'd almost believe that if you had any form of self-awareness.

Well, you clearly recognize how much you loath minorities and thus loath yourself for it.

True communists are atheist, and insanity does not make Phelps a marxist or even a political idealogue.  It just makes him dangerous.

I didn't say Phelps was a Marxist.
I said his virulent homophobia based on corrupt evangelism is fully compatible with the Marxism of the Democrats, who ultimately despise sexual divergence to the same degree.

Equal privileges are not special.  You have fallen for the false idea that for a particular group to participate in society, they must take participation away from another instead of sharing.  This is how populations never end up questioning incompetence because they're too busy fighting to be on top, while those who are already on top watch and laugh.

But special privileges are. You want to keep playing with the terms until you can find a way to redefine language to make special privileges into equal privileges, and you are upset that I object.

And you are definitely baffled. The political and economic principles I espouse fully accept that there is room for everyone to get stuff without taking away from anyone else.
It is the Marxism and Marxist derived ideology that you promote that insists there are finite benefits, and that for one group to have gotten so much they must have done it by taking from another group and the only way to redress that is to take away from the group that benefited and give to the group that was stolen from.

I'm calling bullshit.  You've gone out of your way to imply you don't care for blacks, gays or hispanics without directly saying so.  It's an admirable effort at trolling, but you can only do it for so long before someone wonders if you're just trolling or you're actually a racist asshole claiming to be a minority so no one else will call you on your racism.

Bullshit right back at you. I've said nothing of the sort. You are projecting your own disdain for such groups onto me and I reject it utterly.
Nor has your effort been admirable as trolling, it has only been hypocrisy and projection because you've wallowed in your racism for so long you are simply shocked to have someone call you on it.

No one has suggested this should or will happen, except perhaps in your own mind.

They aren't special privileges. They aren't even proper reparations for what has been stolen from ethnic/cultural minorities, women, etc.

A group that is benefiting from the oppression of another does not automatically lose those benefits when the oppressive policies are repealed. They retain the head start they've been given unless something is done to place both groups on a more even playing field.

Something like, say, grants and policies designed to help that previously marginalized group catch up and gain an equal foothold in areas like education and business where they were previously forbidden to participate.

and

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3321190/F-filthy-white-s-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-scream-epithets-white-students-studying-Dartmouth-library.html

One of the keys to a successful lie is telling one that cannot be rebutted so completely by recent posts and events.

Of course you need to troll.  So long as I keep responding you will keep responding because your ego will not let you do otherwise.  It's why you're invested in arguing in politics again, because people say things you find unacceptable and you simply can't ignore it.  You claim to be dispassionate in your arguments, but the very nature of your arguments disproves that. 

I eagerly await your inevitable reply

Calling you on being a hypocrite is not trolling. I know you have an extreme emotional investment in trying to establish that but it simply doesn't make it true.
As for the rest, yet again, you are wrong. You are projecting your own failures onto me because your ego is so great you cannot conceive that anyone is not as hypocritical and bigoted as you, and thus you assume they must act from the same low motives that you do.

You can do better than this.  Jindal is Catholic, which is hardly a minority.

There are fewer Catholics than Protestants in the U.S., making Catholics a minority. And one that has historically suffered a great deal of discrimination.
Your ignorance has betrayed your bigotry.

Libertad he doesn't actually believe what he's saying, he just wants a rise out of people because the only way he can feel normal is by trying to make others look small.  Don't treat him seriously, he's just a troll.

Once again you are projecting.
I very much believe what I'm saying. Any flippancy is merely a result of me giving into schadenfreude at exposing people wallowing in bigotry and hypocrisy, like you.
Similarly, making others look small is something bullies like you are into, not me.

A troll with a very small but obviously circumsized penis 

Yeah, that's some serious projection there.
You really shouldn't brag to everyone about being so undersized.

[Raineh Daze]

I'm still trying to establish how you got from legalised gay marriage to special privileges, and at the same time claiming this takes rights away from people. Or how it's special privileges.