Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,773|4187|949

Jay wrote:

Generally, not in reference to Milo, what a lot of (white) people take issue with is that when a minority group advocates the destruction of the white race, or calls for reparations, or the expansion of affirmative action so that they can take power based on the color of their skin, it's treated as just them venting frustration and not a threat. If a white person were to do it, it would be an outrage and we'd have protest marches etc. Yes, I understand that the power dynamic is not equal, but it doesn't make it any less hateful.

People on the right look at the left as being exclusionary. They're incredibly focused on racial and minority status, with any combination not of the majority elevated above the majority. This is a problem. If you watched the election, Clinton spent a lot of her time talking about policy. If you read right wing news, they didn't care about policy, they spent their time scaring white people into not giving power to the loonies on campus who want to put white males in chains. It played a huge role in why the democrats lost. Milo getting banned from speaking on campuses played directly into that narrative and gave it teeth.
Let us know when a minority group advocating the destruction of the white race has a national speaking tour so we can protest.

People on the right don't want to recognize the institutional racism, even though some are active in promoting that institutional racism.  The right (only using this for consistency sake in response to jay; not a fan of using generic group terms when talking about certain elements within that group) is the group most focused on racial and minority status - old white men were the ones making the biggest fuss about Obama the black president, not college poli sci majors.

You even mention this yourself - Clinton talked about policy, scared old white men talked about what her policy would mean to the core American demographic.  It's not the fault of the people on the left promoting inclusion that the right miscasts their aspersions as wanting "to put white males in chains".

Jay, you're actually part of this problem - you constantly talk about SJW and college liberals policy as if they are some sort of standard bearer for Democratic/liberal policy in the US.  I'm not stupid enough to equate what Richard Spencer wants with what the Republican Party at-large wants, so why are you so dumb that you do the opposite?

@ Uzi: of course - that's the disconnect - liberal ideology is that racial inequality is class inequality is economic inequality.  American conservatives take that (a classic liberal concern for economic equality) to mean that liberals are too concerned with pandering to black people.  No, it's just that historically, minorities and immigrants are exposed to the greatest economic inequality.  The difference is American conservatives pander to dumb white people in the middle of America, whereas liberals pander to the poor immigrants in cities.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2913|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Generally, not in reference to Milo, what a lot of (white) people take issue with is that when a minority group advocates the destruction of the white race, or calls for reparations, or the expansion of affirmative action so that they can take power based on the color of their skin, it's treated as just them venting frustration and not a threat. If a white person were to do it, it would be an outrage and we'd have protest marches etc. Yes, I understand that the power dynamic is not equal, but it doesn't make it any less hateful.

People on the right look at the left as being exclusionary. They're incredibly focused on racial and minority status, with any combination not of the majority elevated above the majority. This is a problem. If you watched the election, Clinton spent a lot of her time talking about policy. If you read right wing news, they didn't care about policy, they spent their time scaring white people into not giving power to the loonies on campus who want to put white males in chains. It played a huge role in why the democrats lost. Milo getting banned from speaking on campuses played directly into that narrative and gave it teeth.
Let us know when a minority group advocating the destruction of the white race has a national speaking tour so we can protest.

People on the right don't want to recognize the institutional racism, even though some are active in promoting that institutional racism.  The right (only using this for consistency sake in response to jay; not a fan of using generic group terms when talking about certain elements within that group) is the group most focuses on racial and minority status - old white men were the ones making the biggest fuss about Obama the black president, not college poli sci majors.

You even mention this yourself - Clinton talked about policy, scared old white men talked about what her policy would mean to the core American demographic.  It's not the fault of the people on the left promoting inclusion that the right miscasts their aspersions as wanting "to put white males in chains".

Jay, you're actually part of this problem - you constantly talk about SJW and college liberals policy as if they are some sort of standard bearer for Democratic/liberal policy in the US.  I'm not stupid enough to equate what Richard Spencer wants with what the Republican Party at-large wants, so why are you so dumb that you do the opposite?
Did you actually read the nonsense that was the democratic platform? When I was watching the debates I thought she was kicking donald trump's ass right up until the moment she started ticking off the platform points. Then I was like holy bejeebus what a pile of stupid. It was all just opposion to the status quo, even where it didn't make any sense. It was the same crap I'd hear come out of a typical NYU grads mouth.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+138|1007
i'm sure the suny maritime grads were all highly intelligent people compared to those NYU bozos.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,773|4187|949

Jay is actually reinforcing my point.  It's OK.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+168|1274
Paid maternity leave. intense SJW opposition to the status quo.
uziq
Member
+138|1007
i think at a certain age and point in their lives, people of limited intelligence just give up and buy into that comforting conservative 'commonsense' schtick. when you're middle aged and complaining about liberal college professors and their 'agenda', that's when you know you're intellectually spent.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+168|1274
Your mental capabilities naturally degrade over time. No one ever talks about that. Society didn't seem to keep that in mind when we nominated two 70 year olds. Trump is our oldest president.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2913|London, England
So you can honestly look at the democrat platform and say it all gels and is rational?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+168|1274
Instead of trying to get us to defend all 55 pages of it, can you instead point out the things you don't like?
uziq
Member
+138|1007

Jay wrote:

So you can honestly look at the democrat platform and say it all gels and is rational?
say what you want, the democrats actually had a platform and actually had policies. to quibble about it not 'all gelling' is pretty rich considering trump got elected by ranting, making insupportable claims and impossible promises, and generally being a mendacious demagogue.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+168|1274
CNN and other news outlets were blocked Friday from an off-camera White House press briefing, raising alarm among media organizations and First Amendment watchdogs.

The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and Politico were also excluded from the meeting, which is known as a gaggle and is less formal than the televised Q-and-A session in the White House briefing room. The gaggle was held by White House press secretary Sean Spicer.
In a brief statement defending the move, administration spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said the White House "had the pool there so everyone would be represented and get an update from us today."

However, four of the five major television networks -- NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox News -- were invited and attended the meeting, while CNN was blocked. The conservative media organizations Breitbart News, The Washington Times and One America News Network were also allowed in.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/24/media/c … index.html
Well this is not worrying at all.

Meh whatever. Unless Trump supporters somehow come around, the administration is just going to run roughshod over the media and everyone else.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2913|London, England

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

So you can honestly look at the democrat platform and say it all gels and is rational?
say what you want, the democrats actually had a platform and actually had policies. to quibble about it not 'all gelling' is pretty rich considering trump got elected by ranting, making insupportable claims and impossible promises, and generally being a mendacious demagogue.
Oh, I'm not claiming otherwise. Trump certainly said a bunch of nonsense of his own. Hillary just got pulled too far to the left by her platform. If she'd run as the centrist she always had been in the past I think she might have won. I think Bernie spooked her.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2913|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

CNN and other news outlets were blocked Friday from an off-camera White House press briefing, raising alarm among media organizations and First Amendment watchdogs.

The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and Politico were also excluded from the meeting, which is known as a gaggle and is less formal than the televised Q-and-A session in the White House briefing room. The gaggle was held by White House press secretary Sean Spicer.
In a brief statement defending the move, administration spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said the White House "had the pool there so everyone would be represented and get an update from us today."

However, four of the five major television networks -- NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox News -- were invited and attended the meeting, while CNN was blocked. The conservative media organizations Breitbart News, The Washington Times and One America News Network were also allowed in.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/24/media/c … index.html
Well this is not worrying at all.

Meh whatever. Unless Trump supporters somehow come around, the administration is just going to run roughshod over the media and everyone else.
Neat. My best friend is a regular guest talking head on one America news
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+138|1007

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

So you can honestly look at the democrat platform and say it all gels and is rational?
say what you want, the democrats actually had a platform and actually had policies. to quibble about it not 'all gelling' is pretty rich considering trump got elected by ranting, making insupportable claims and impossible promises, and generally being a mendacious demagogue.
Oh, I'm not claiming otherwise. Trump certainly said a bunch of nonsense of his own. Hillary just got pulled too far to the left by her platform. If she'd run as the centrist she always had been in the past I think she might have won. I think Bernie spooked her.
hillary too far to the left? the fuck? that is not what any of the criticisms of her campaign have said. what alternative news bubble do you live in?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2913|London, England
She coopted the free college stuff from bernie's platform among other things.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+138|1007
um i don't think that's why she lost the election
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2913|London, England
Ok
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,773|4187|949

yes, hillary went too far left, which is why the DNC is now seriously shifting more to the left, because she was too far left to begin with and that's what cost her the election.  It's all part of the Democrats plan to be irrelevant.

Seriously though, how could you possibly come to that conclusion?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2913|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

yes, hillary went too far left, which is why the DNC is now seriously shifting more to the left, because she was too far left to begin with and that's what cost her the election.  It's all part of the Democrats plan to be irrelevant.

Seriously though, how could you possibly come to that conclusion?
Moving to the left helps in the cities, which already vote democrat. They're doing nothing to broaden the base. They need to be appealing to working class vothers in the Midwest like they used to, not moving further away. Adding more votes in New York, California and Illinois doesn't help any. I think the only thing they took away from the election was the excitement Bernie commanded, but I don't think it would've stood up in the general election. Most of his positions were nonsensical.

They have to win over independents, not masturbate their  base.

Last edited by Jay (2017-02-24 15:21:44)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+168|1274
I don't think giving up on the issues people who vote for you care about to chase votes among sad people in Ohio is a good idea. Turnout and a bad candidate was the issue.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,773|4187|949

I'm thinking maybe you should cut your interviews short and apply to be a strategist for the DNC.  You clearly know what's best for them.

"Moving left helps in cities".

A+
uziq
Member
+138|1007

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I don't think giving up on the issues people who vote for you care about to chase votes among sad people in Ohio is a good idea. Turnout and a bad candidate was the issue.
exactly, it was an establishment versus anti-establishment vote before it was anything to do with political policy or ideology. hillary is just the biggest face for 'the establishment' and people were sick of the democrat consensus and the sense that they were going to continue pandering to coastal elites and wall street only. she definitely didn't discredit herself by going left or copying bernie. i didn't read any commentary or hateful comments online saying that hillary was too socialist. it was always that she was a crook, part of the washington-wall street set, etc.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,773|4187|949

Turnout and a bad candidate and this:

Electroral college votes:
Wyoming: 3
Calfiornia: 55

Population:
Wyoming: 584,153
California: 38,800,000

People per EC vote:
Wyoming: 194,717
California: 705,454

Wyoming people have >3.5x the say of people in California for Presidential Elections.  It's a serious issue that should be addressed.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+168|1274
We need the electoral college so that people in the middle of nowhere feel like their voice is being heard instead of facing the truth that they need to move and adapt.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,773|4187|949

not only is their voice heard, it's disproportionately louder than other voices.  Because it's not enough that Wyoming voters are just as important as California voters - they are actually 3.6x as important.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2017 Jeff Minard