The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

If only those were the issues at the actual top of the list.

I got one for you (paraphrased from a Tweet I read this morning):

"If six Obama officials within his administration had ties to Russian officials, operatives, or the like, the GOP calls to impeach would be visible from space."

This is the last time I'm going to reply to you, and only for the benefit of everyone else in this thread. I'm not willing to let this intentionally false characterization of my position or my words stand. You are really something else.

1. Alex Jones is not an anti-semite, he's just most likely wrong about a conspiracy by specific Jewish intellectuals unless he can provide compelling evidence. Am I anti German if I say nazi's are horrible and it was right to fight the germans in ww2? Am I anti-muslim if I say ISIS is horrible and need to be exterminated? Am I anti-black if I say BLM is a terrorist group? The only one doing any actual racial generalisation is you, and you should be ashamed of yourself for it.

2. You very clearly conjured trump out of nowhere in response to an apolitical post in which I neither talked about Trump, Alex Jones support of him, me being a fan of Alex Jones, or even politics in general. You have so far continued to fail to see your own programming which is really quite funny. I say X, you think Y. You've been dog whistled.

3. No, I went on a rant about my own personal development when I was younger and how I see unhealthy similarities with your thought patterns. See point 2. I'm pointing out your blind spots so that you can see them. Up to you what you want to do with that information. You can be sure I won't be doing you any such courtesies in the future given your rather sour personality which I am again and again reminded of everytime you strawman another person's position.

4. I responded to a subtopic within this thread that essentially asked "does anyone like alex jones?" To defend against something requires there to be an attack to defend against. Admit it, you just don't like that someone has a different opinion on the guy and hasn't jumped to demonising him like you have.

Good day sir.

Unfortunately, this thread has thus far shown otherwise. And just from an objective basis, when equality is defined as equality of outcome as opposed to equality of opportunity or equality under the law, it becomes incompatible with liberty. Liberty is the freedom to strive to be unequal - both from yourself the previous day and from others.

Btw, I didn't take you to be a classical liberal nor a libertarian? Awesome, have I misunderstood you this entire time or did something change?

I've only tried to defend him from unfair attacks that I think muddy the waters and prevent us from talking about what (I think) are the more important structural issues. The usual attacks of racist, mysognist, liar etc. just aren't helpful.

What really gives me pause when it comes to Trump is not actually so much Trump himself as much as it is an ever increasing fanaticism towards national collectivism and authoritarianism within the wider cultural sphere. If this grows, I don't fear Trump as much as I fear the smooth talking right wing Obama type who will come after him. It's not exactly nazism/fascism as much as a resurgance of american protectionism. Those on the fringe legitimately advocating white purity etc. don't seem to be what's driving this, which is the silver lining.

You're spot on in recognising that whatever this may be is being fueled by the retarded behaviour of the left, either through identity politics or religious demonisation. If i was prone to conspiracy theories (which I am), I might even entertain the possibility of it being intentionally directed on some level as to create a future split on the right between the Trump fanatics who falsely see in him their own reflection, and the silent bulk of people in the center/center right who were pushed there in the first place by the left. Though intentionally driven or not, this eventual outcome seems somewhat likely at the moment.

1. Alex Jones is an anti-Semite. He is hostile and / or prejudiced against Jewish people. This has nothing to do with Nazis (well, apart from the obvious), IS, Black Lives Matter or whatever other red herring you wish to pull out of a hat.

This is the most "balanced" article I could find. People can make up their own minds; other articles (linked in that one) are decidedly less on the fence.

2. Yeah, it was called asking you a question. I didn't conjure him, I asked you a question because of the people you appear to "like" (not defend, sorry, but given that you're defending his reputation as an anti-Semite I think you shot yourself in the foot again).

You haven't been able to answer this question, which had nothing untowards about it at all.

3. I deconstructed your claims about a strawman. Please try again!

I am not you. I was never you. I appreciate your attempts at advice but they're based on a shallow understanding of my online persona - that same thing you criticise me for doing.

4. Well, you're currently defending him from claims that he is an anti-Semite.

Also, "does anyone like X" implies X is unpopular so an opposing stance is, in fact, a defense of character, yes. I don't particularly care that you like the guy (which is the precise question you're relying on replying to, so you can't avoid the inference that apparently you like him). You're the one who went on a rant, remember?

You're sounding obsessed, here. You're acting like I'm painting you as some kind of daemon from the inner circles of Hell. I don't think I need to admit anything. I think you need to take a step back and look at how you're presenting yourself to the thread because I called you on your support for what Slate characterises as a rather unbalanced man.

Private charity and funding doesn't exi-

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/03/02/millions-pledged--trump-funding-ban/98625392/

It's almost like nobody said what you're implying people said.

...

But really we both know that's just one example and that kind of discussion isn't about single cases.

So, if we're doing comparisons between Hillary and Trump (and their respective teams):

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/mike-pence-private-email/98637782/

Surprising. Yep. Not an intentional double-standard at all.

Lol, this isn't comparable. Yes, it's a bad look, but anyone hacking the governor of Indiana is going to find school reports and state grant and financial programs. Most of which is public anyhow.

The difference is the secretary of state is in the know. The govenor of indiana is in the "know" . That's why it's legal for him to use a private email for business and not former sos Clinton.

Actually if you read the article they also found:

Double standards alright.

It's more comparable than the image trophy posted, which I don't see you criticising. Thought you were fair?

I did and had it in my post accidentally deleted it. He would get updates on threats to indiana. The last time indiana was attack... ummm.. idk? Probably french Indian war? So it's really not important.

This arrest of people on terrorist charges isn't a state secret.

Plenty of posters defend the dems. I want you to be involved too .

I wish everybody would think this way when thinking about terror attacks. Politics could stop bother with imaginary threats for the most part and carry on to deal with real problems.

god every single person commenting on trump's speech on the Navy ship and Jeff Sessions clearly dropping the ball fail to notice Trump's ALMOST major slip of the tongue :
"the soon to be commissioned Gerald R. Ford USS What..."
he was SO OBVIOUSLY about to say "whatever!" I just know it! x'D

that's why what he goes into is so WEIRD it's because it's a recuperation! x'D
https://www.thesun.co.uk/video/news...ry-on-uss-gerald-r-ford-at-virginia-shipyard/
1:20

He speaks very poorly. Takei's facebook page had a typo today, I made a comment about how the typo renders his IQ single-digit and his political opinion invalid, because a liberal told me so. Just throwing that out there.

Note, I don't feel very sorry about that neither. It's a multi-administrated page, there's no excuse for lack of proofreading, it almost has as much if not more resources on proofreading and content "creation", as the White House does.

I'd probably call it the "Gerald R. Ford USS whatever" myself. Or, failing that, but having started backwards, probably call it the "Gerald R. Ford, newest ship of the USS title". Depending on how fancy I'm feeling, and it is literally a matter of "fancy", and he's obviously not turtle enough for the turtle club with liberals.

yeah also this :

George Takei is not the President of the United States, and his social media page which may or may not be managed by the man himself is not giving public addresses in his role as POTUS.

Enough with the false equivalences.

Made me laugh though, telling me the Facebook page for an actor and activist has the resources of the White House. Good one