2020 US Election (Part One)

[zazazuzu]

Democrats will retain control of the House. Republicans will retain control of the Senate. None of this will matter, as the American experiment will continue unraveling in the next few years, and eventually become a historical footnote.

 

[onejayhawk]

Sorry, wrong answer. The correct answer was, "no."

Do you propose thought police as well? It's a natural next step after one-party press.

J

 

[Tristan_C]

Did there need to be?

If you could read, then you'd see "need" was not the issue. Were @Birdjaguar 's post accurate, and Fox shilled for Trump, then yes, the newsroom would have defended him there. But they didn't, so he's wrong.

 

[Traitorfish]

In a police state only one opinion matters. This is why Anifa is neo-fascist. They seek to silence any opposing views.

You think that Antifa and MSNBC are in cahoots? And that the aim of their conspiracy is to oppress the governing party of the United States? Am I interpreting all this correctly?

 

[Truthy]

With this, and the united chorus from other outlets, parroted in this thread, that Trump effectively supports the Neo-Nazis, I am wondering what grounds you have for believing that the other outlets are intellectually competitive and have any substantial differentiation. Everyone seems to be thinking and repeating the same garbage. Criminal, bigot, Russian agent (and how is that compatible with alt-right sympathies?). The stupider it is, the more obsessive and myopic your diverse media outlets get over it, and the more parroting here at the ground level.

Objecting to his Charlottesville comments isn't just about saying "clearly he wants to kill the Jews," though that might be a mass media simplification a lot of people now believe. Doesn't mean that's what everyone (anyone?) in this thread is saying.

Let's say I agree that Trump is not really a neo-Nazi, but something different and more mainstream (i.e., he's a white nationalist). I can object to him putting neo-Nazis on the same "moral plane" as Antifa, BLM, UVA students, other Charlottesville residents, and the religious counter-protesters, even if members of those groups also engaged in violence. I don't need to think all violence is equally worthy of denunciation and I can expect him to strongly single out the neo-Nazis. I can interpret his equivocations as showing white nationalist sympathies, even if that doesn't mean he's, say, pro-Holocaust.

 

[zazazuzu]

The death throes of the American republic are excruciating. I'm glad I can watch it from a distance.

 

[cardgame]

Do you propose thought police as well? It's a natural next step after one-party press.

J

Another strawman! Maybe you are learning.

 

[Berzerker]

You're trying to say the media is cherry picking to make Trump look bad. This is wrong. For one, showing images of the Unite the Righters marching on the UVA lawn is not cherry picking, it's showing a big piece of what happened that weekend. The two days were barely separate events. They were a few miles from each other, separated by less than 12 hours, organized by the same people, and represented the same cause, which you call neo-Nazism. Yes, the tikki torch guys were a subset, but a large and representative subset, considering a big chunk (roughly 200) of the ~500 Unite the Righters were on the UVA lawn on the 11th, including the organizers of Unite the Right.

Trump wasn't asked about the weekend, just the protest that turned violent. If you agree the guys with tiki torches were a subset why did they become the fine people on both sides? Were neo-Nazis on both sides? No, therefore defining 'fine people' as neo-Nazis is illogical. Here's something from Vox about the attendees:

Police affidavit on tomorrow's "Unite the Right" attendees:
• 150+ Alt Knights
• 250-500 Klu Klux Klan
• 500 "3% Risen"
• 200-300 Militia

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/26/18517980/trump-unite-the-right-racism-defense-charlottesville

Now those are estimates that don't include unaffiliated people there strictly for the statue or some other cause. Which of those are the neo-Nazis?

Two, no one is actually cherry picking in this way. Everyone also always shows images of the Unite the Righters in/around Emancipation Park.

No they dont

Three, Trump also defended the tikki torch guys in that same press conference: "There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before. If you look, they were people protesting very quietly, the taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones."

Here's the rest of that quote:

The following day, it looked like they had some rough, bad people, neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call ’em. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest, because you know, I don’t know if you know, but they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit.

So he called neo-Nazis bad people

Four, you're holding onto the belief a bunch of relatively innocuous traditionalists showed up just because they had a soft spot for old Bobby Lee or thought TJ statues would come down next. That's not what happened. The vast majority really were overt white supremacists, affiliated with white supremacist groups, and organized in Spencer and Kessler's Discord channels. And for any hypothetical fine people who were there, you really have to question if they were in fact very fine people given who they were with.

That isn't my belief... The majority were constitutionalists/militia/gun rights folk.

Well, if you don't accept racism motivated his comments, then you have to accept he had an easy way out and he squandered it out of stupidity and immaturity. Regardless, the ability of our president to see and express crucial moral distinctions matters.

He spoke the truth and expressed the crucial moral distinction between protesting the removal of a statue and attacking people for protesting the removal of a statue. He laid the blame for the brawl on the latter.

 

[Truthy]

Maybe you should just read that vox article you linked. I'm not sure there's much more I can do to help you at this point.

 

[Berzerker]

You're talking to the user who considers that Hillary is EVUL for voting for the Iraq War but the man who funded her campaign with full awareness of what she was doing deserves being voted over her because of her having voted for that war.

Trump said we should wait for the UN's permission and she voted against that very amendment. She voted to invade Iraq knowing damn well thats what the Bush crowd wanted. So she lied about wanting to give Bush more leverage negotiating with Saddam and thats why she was cheering the war from the outset even though Bush had just 'betrayed' her wish for peace.

She cited weapons inspections but blocked UN involvement, asserted terrorist ties to AQ while accusing Saddam of having a nuke program to support the image of a mushroom cloud over NYC. So she lets Bush have his war, if it goes well she wont be the dove who opposed the great war, yay. If it goes bad, she was wronged by the liars and runs for President.

How do you compare her to the people who made campaign contributions? I dont blame the people who put her in office, I blame her for voting to invade Iraq. If thats unfair why did Democrats vote against her in later elections?

The interview with Stern was ~6 months before the war. Here's what Trump said less than 2 months before the war.

Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn’t be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He’s under a lot of pressure. He’s — I think he’s doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned.

He's telling him to wait for the UN and focus on the economy, not Iraq. That means no war...

 

[Berzerker]

Maybe you should just read that vox article you linked. I'm not sure there's much more I can do to help you at this point.

You can quote it so I know what I'm looking for

 

[Birdjaguar]

Fox newsroom contributors on August 15, 2017 reacting to Trump's press conference following the rally. Since that is what's being discussed at the moment.

Trump doubles down on response to Charlottesville | Fox News Video

To save you twelve minutes, one of the panelists described several "unfair assessments" by the media of what the president had said. This was all of 30 seconds versus 11:30 worth of harsh condemnation of everything they heard during his press conference. Not a word is said directly in defense of Trump or the points he was making.

If you could read, then you'd see "need" was not the issue. Were @Birdjaguar 's post accurate, and Fox shilled for Trump, then yes, the newsroom would have defended him there. But they didn't, so he's wrong.

So you found an instance of Fox not praising Trump in 2017. If I looked, how many do you think I could find where they not only support him, but also repeat his lies? I'm guessing 520 in 2017 and 2018. (That's 5 days a week for two years.)

Hmm... If I find an instance of Rachel Maddow saying something nice about Trump, does that mean she is not out to end his presidency?

 

[El_Machinae]

Hmm... If I find an instance of Rachel Maddow saying something nice about Trump, does that mean she is not out to end his presidency?

Tristan was looking at Daytime reporting, iirc.

Hannity directly shilled for Trump after promising that he wouldn't. So, we're talking all types of crossover of professional boundaries.

That said, I sincerely think you cannot find a piece by Maddow where she's defending Trump in any serious way.

 

[Birdjaguar]

That said, I sincerely think you cannot find a piece by Maddow where she's defending Trump in any serious way.

She actually did say something nice about him within the last 30 days. I was pretty surprised and don't remember exactly what. She gave him credit for something she approved of.

 

[Takhisis]

Trump said we should wait for the UN's permission and she voted against that very amendment. She voted to invade Iraq knowing damn well thats what the Bush crowd wanted. So she lied about wanting to give Bush more leverage negotiating with Saddam and thats why she was cheering the war from the outset even though Bush had just 'betrayed' her wish for peace.

She cited weapons inspections but blocked UN involvement, asserted terrorist ties to AQ while accusing Saddam of having a nuke program to support the image of a mushroom cloud over NYC. So she lets Bush have his war, if it goes well she wont be the dove who opposed the great war, yay. If it goes bad, she was wronged by the liars and runs for President.

How do you compare her to the people who made campaign contributions? I dont blame the people who put her in office, I blame her for voting to invade Iraq. If thats unfair why did Democrats vote against her in later elections?

The interview with Stern was ~6 months before the war. Here's what Trump said less than 2 months before the war.

Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn’t be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He’s under a lot of pressure. He’s — I think he’s doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned.

He's telling him to wait for the UN and focus on the economy, not Iraq. That means no war...

Remind me not to buy a used car from you.

 

[onejayhawk]

You think that Antifa and MSNBC are in cahoots? And that the aim of their conspiracy is to oppress the governing party of the United States? Am I interpreting all this correctly?

Only in the broadest sense. For example, MSNBC and Antifa are not in cohoots but they do seek some of the same objectives.The oddity is that they are not the ruling though the act as if they were. That they are trying to silence dissent is self evident. Whether that rises to the level of oppression is a different question.

Hannity directly shilled for Trump after promising that he wouldn't. So, we're talking all types of crossover of professional boundaries. That said, I sincerely think you cannot find a piece by Maddow where she's defending Trump in any serious way.

In fairness to Hannity, he did not think Trump was conservative enough. He has since reconsidered in the light of Trump's performance.

It's telling that we equate Hannity and Maddow. Hannity self proclaims a bias but Maddow is theoretically fair and balanced.

J

 

[Berzerker]

Remind me not to buy a used car from you.

Thats a helluva comment coming from a Hillary supporter

This is a textbook example of projection if I ever saw one.

You never answered the question, did you hold her responsible for voting to invade Iraq?

 

[Takhisis]

No, it doesn't work like that.

 

[cardgame]

Which of those are the neo-Nazis?

Probably the ones chanting "blood and soil"

 

[FriendlyFire]

Trump said we should wait for the UN's permission and she voted against that very amendment. She voted to invade Iraq knowing damn well thats what the Bush crowd wanted. So she lied about wanting to give Bush more leverage negotiating with Saddam and thats why she was cheering the war from the outset even though Bush had just 'betrayed' her wish for peace.

She cited weapons inspections but blocked UN involvement, asserted terrorist ties to AQ while accusing Saddam of having a nuke program to support the image of a mushroom cloud over NYC. So she lets Bush have his war, if it goes well she wont be the dove who opposed the great war, yay. If it goes bad, she was wronged by the liars and runs for President.

Well then Trump said I guess so when asked if he supported the invasion of Iraq which is directly opposite to the position of being against the Invasion of Iraq
Trump also praised G.W.Bush for doing a good job which again is in support for the actions of the President in invading Iraq both are also statements for war

You see thats the problem with cherry picking one of Trump statements which are contradicted by hes other statements.
Just like you have with Clinton, its clear she was hedging her bets in such a way she could either claim credit or walk away. Now it is true she and Bill are both viewed quite rightly as hawks having been involved with both US intervention in Somalia and Kosovo.

The point is, Trump supported the Iraq invasion initially. You can argue it was luckwarm, or he hedged hes bets but you cannot say he was against it.