Ryusei the Morning Star Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 I still don't trust Cruz with a seat of power. Not on the senate or anywhere else. I think Trump should distance himself from Cruz asap.Cruz in SCOTUS might be smart, gets him out of Trump's hair, and a strong pushback vs Roe That being said, I would not be suprised if Cruz turns down due to eying 2024 At the end of the day, I'm not gonna get what I wanted out of a SCOTUS judge I'd like someone pro-Marriage equality, anti-abortion, anti-Citizens United, pro-2A 1&3 are "liberal" positions2&4 are "conservative" positions Which is where I can be selfish, since my state approved SSM, and Trump is quite vocal about his distaste for CU, sucks for people stuck in Alabama tho Edit: Oh and voted ID, def need that. God knows how many illegals voted in Commifornia this election Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 I thought we talked about sources like Huffpo cr4Please do not dictate which sources people can cite. You may disagree with some sources, and I have my own issues with Huffington Post, but those issues are not necessarily relevant to a discussion about the upcoming Trump administration. Focus on the content of the article. A video will automatically play on this article, but I thought it worth sharing. China has refuted Trump's claim that they created climate change, and they point to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush's roles in climate change negotiations.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/china-tells-trump-that-climate-change-is-no-hoax-it-invented Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 Please do not dictate which sources people can cite. You may disagree with some sources, and I have my own issues with Huffington Post, but those issues are not necessarily relevant to a discussion about the upcoming Trump administration. Focus on the content of the article. A video will automatically play on this article, but I thought it worth sharing. China has refuted Trump's claim that they created climate change, and they point to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush's roles in climate change negotiations.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/china-tells-trump-that-climate-change-is-no-hoax-it-invented To be fair, I've been stern against people who cite Breitbart. I think criticizing the source is fine, but taking it to the point of attacking the OP in question is too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 There is nothing wrong with discrediting stories from known sources when sources are known to be really sheet. Say the Daily Mail - I will call out the Daily Mail everytime because it's known to lie and fabricate things. Unless it's something to which there's no risk of it being a fabrication (Normally video evidence) there's nothing wrong with promoting better sources by discrediting shitty ones. Can I also ask that the term 'Commifornia' not be used? Because you know, a state having a high concentration of left leaning voters doesn't making it communist anymore. Because it's not that far left. It's more like social democrats than Communists. No one is going around calling Texas fascist say, so there's no need to again slag off the opposition for having differening views to you. Not because of political correctness but because it makes one look like an arse incapable of impartial discussion. Which you know, is bad because this is debates, as ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 A video will automatically play on this article, but I thought it worth sharing. China has refuted Trump's claim that they created climate change, and they point to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush's roles in climate change negotiations.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/china-tells-trump-that-climate-change-is-no-hoax-it-inventedHoax is the wrong word, China does far more to contribute to CO2 levels than America does, pinning the majority of the blame on the US is the unfair part. Anyway, as much as I disagree with Paris, Obama might be able to get it finalized to the point where it's really difficult for Trump to undo it in the lame duck.To be fair, I've been stern against people who cite Breitbart. I think criticizing the source is fine, but taking it to the point of attacking the OP in question is too far.The context of the discussion was Crt and I were talking a few days back about more centrist news sources, and he affirmed that he wanted to look into them more. That's really all it was meant to be. I don't think HuffPo is a fair source, just as I don't think Breitbart is atm. I'm open to discussing how that conclusion is false howeverCan I also ask that the term 'Commifornia' not be used? Because you know, a state having a high concentration of left leaning voters doesn't making it communist anymore. Because it's not that far left. It's more like social democrats than Communists. No one is going around calling Texas fascist say, so there's no need to again slag off the opposition for having differening views to you. Not because of political correctness but because it makes one look like an arse incapable of impartial discussion. Which you know, is bad because this is debates, as ever. California keeps passing more and more economically regressive measures I'm not fond of. But if you feel it's detrimental to the convo, I'll stop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 To be fair, I've been stern against people who cite Breitbart. I think criticizing the source is fine, but taking it to the point of attacking the OP in question is too far. Oh yeah, I would absolutely not tolerate Breitbart. The response to cr47t just bothered me. There is nothing wrong with discrediting stories from known sources when sources are known to be really sheet. Say the Daily Mail - I will call out the Daily Mail everytime because it's known to lie and fabricate things. Unless it's something to which there's no risk of it being a fabrication (Normally video evidence) there's nothing wrong with promoting better sources by discrediting shitty ones. Can I also ask that the term 'Commifornia' not be used? Because you know, a state having a high concentration of left leaning voters doesn't making it communist anymore. Because it's not that far left. It's more like social democrats than Communists. No one is going around calling Texas fascist say, so there's no need to again slag off the opposition for having differening views to you. Not because of political correctness but because it makes one look like an arse incapable of impartial discussion. Which you know, is bad because this is debates, as ever.Very good point. And yes, I would be against saying "Commifornia", since that term sounds like it has no purpose beyond strawmanning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 Oh yeah, I would absolutely not tolerate Breitbart. The response to cr47t just bothered me. Very good point. And yes, I would be against saying "Commifornia", since that term sounds like it has no purpose beyond strawmanning.It's not strawmanning when prop 55 passed Speaking of California, it was one of two Obama states to actually go more Blue this year. Even Orange voted HRC. Which is intriguing given Trump outperform Romney with Hispanics in Arizona, but did worse in SoCal https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.gg2JXlgnn#.ojNEJbdzz Really neat piece of the guy behind Trump in 2014 http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-16/gop-conservatives-back-trump-s-wall-but-wary-of-costs Trump and GOP differences on both Wall and Obamacare GOP stands to lose massively on both issues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cr47t Posted November 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-respond-transition-chaos-231493 "Smoothly"? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/11/16/short-list-wednesday/93966444/ Bannon's appointment seems to get in the way of unity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/11/16/short-list-wednesday/93966444/ Bannon's appointment seems to get in the way of unity I don't doubt he's not the greatest person for the job, but the article's calling breitbart a website for white nationalists which is funking idiotic. It's just really really uncompromisingly conservative. Kinda like Huffington Post. People are still insistent on perpetuating the myth that anyone who isn't a bleeding heart liberal is calling for all non-whites to be lynched. It's making everything an even bigger pain in the ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 Smoothly? Doubtful, but it's going in a good direction with Pence firing the lobbyists and the triumvirate reconsolidating power As for Bannon, Dems will huff and puff, but outside of one testimony from his wife, nobody who worked underneath him is complaining. He's a wartime consigliere that we (Trump supporters) need badly Dems will work with Trump, he's half liberal. Watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cr47t Posted November 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 People are still insistent on perpetuating the myth that anyone who isn't a bleeding heart liberal is calling for all non-whites to be lynched. I didn't pick up on that sentiment on the article, and to clear things up, I'm not a believer in the myth you have expressed in the quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 I didn't pick up on that sentiment on the article, and to clear things up, I'm not a believer in the myth you have expressed in the quote.I've consistently been hearing people acting like they're going to undo the funking emancipation proclamation. It's not that those people don't exist, but the completely refusal to engage people directly and instead hurling insults from far away really grinds my gears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 As for Bannon, Dems will huff and puff, but outside of one testimony from his wife, nobody who worked underneath him is complaining.https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/11/14/steve-bannon-breitbart-donald-trump-white-house-be-terrified/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 Bill Krystal is a renegade jew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 Bill Krystal is a renegade jew What does that have to do with anything? Why is his ethnicity in question? Are you just making antisemitic remarks just because you can? Or is there another particular reason that you said this? Because the remarks in the story shouldn't be an argument. I question washintonian just for citing it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 Judaism is not an ethnicity. Renegades gonna renege. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 What does that have to do with anything? Why is his ethnicity in question? Are you just making antisemitic remarks just because you can? Or is there another particular reason that you said this? Because the remarks in the story shouldn't be an argument. I question washintonian just for citing it at all.He's a renegade, who happens to be a jew, due to his Never Trump sellout It's not really anti-semetic, it's like me supporting white nationalists, because I see them first as nationalists (a good thing) and then as white (a neutral thing)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 ^ I do agree with those articles though. Clarity is never a bad thing I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 Voters who fit the “Blue Dog Democrat” profile tend to be, roughly: Pro union.In favor of trade protectionism.Moderately liberal on social issues. They’re definitely in favor of fair treatment, but their support for affirmative action or similar programs would generally be weak. Anything as extreme as reparations would be straight out.Ranged from mildly pro-choice to mildly pro-life, but in either case not a single issue voter on the topic. Perhaps best summed up by Bill Clinton’s line, “safe, legal and rare” – but these voters would probably put the emphasis on rare.Strong on national defense.Pro second amendment.Religious – specifically Christian – but not in your face about itSouthernaka Trump https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/16/republican-lawmakers-move-to-restrain-president-elect-trump-on-russia/ >:( I've said it before, the GOP needs to excise these people, they're laying the ground for WW3 right after they impeach Trump. Trump needs to primary the NeoCons http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/us/politics/democrats-house-senate.html :) Good on Schumer and Pelosi for putting country first As usual the democrats care more about the country than the GOP http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-muslim-registry-constitution-231527 Excellent news! ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 It's not really anti-semetic, it's like me supporting white nationalists, because I see them first as nationalists (a good thing) and then as white (a neutral thing)are you really that overwhelmingly clueless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 Judaism is not an ethnicity. Renegades gonna renege. It is both a religion and an ethnicity, but someone can belong to one and not the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 are you really that overwhelmingly cluelessElaborate please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 Elaborate please White Nationalist movements generally tend pretty close to facism because the white nationalist movements that gain any traction are usually white supremacists or white separatists. In more general terms white nationalism has parallels to say the idea of forming a 'white nation'. It's fine to be proud of being white, but White nationalism has historically been a negative. It spawned groups like Neo Nazi's, the KKK and the BNP. So to say 'I am proud of white nationalists' implies the wrong connotations and associations. You can argue with that, but if you ask people to name white nationalists they'll pick those sorts of examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 White Nationalist movements generally tend pretty close to facism because the white nationalist movements that gain any traction are usually white supremacists or white separatists. In more general terms white nationalism has parallels to say the idea of forming a 'white nation'. It's fine to be proud of being white, but White nationalism has historically been a negative. It spawned groups like Neo Nazi's, the KKK and the BNP. So to say 'I am proud of white nationalists' implies the wrong connotations and associations. You can argue with that, but if you ask people to name white nationalists they'll pick those sorts of examples. Oh sure, I'm just a supporter of Nationalism, I don't really care what race comprises the movement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 Oh sure, I'm just a supporter of Nationalism, I don't really care what race comprises the movementNationalism as an ideology is fine. Because it's about a nation as a whole Nationalism with a racial component generally isn't. Because it's not about 'being proud of your nation', it's about 'making our nation our race and then being proud of it'. It's very very different. It's actually comparable to Islamic extremism. Because it's around the idea of making a ;great nation; focused around a specific ethnic group. It's not something where the addition of the word barely affects it, it really changes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.