By s y Go To PostFuck em both.Pretty much
By blackace Go To PostI disagree… classism and racism are different beast that touch at points in western societies.Not in America they aren't. I can't speak for other western countries but white supremacy in America is largely about economic power.
We are a capitalist society. Money is not just the currency of goods and services, but also the currency of power and influence.
By KingGondo Go To PostNot in America they aren't. I can't speak for other western countries but white supremacy in America is largely about economic power.Sure they are. Classism pits poor against poor while the wealthy can sit back and laugh.
We are a capitalist society. Money is not just the currency of goods and services, but also the currency of power and influence.
Well sure. But it just so happens that in America, non-whites are economically disadvantaged as a class. That isn't by accident.
America's race thing is.... like I'm honestly happy its Trump in there right now. This stuff isn't new, those statues didn't get built on his inauguration day, and a lot of the WS sites have been growing in prominent for a very long time prior as well. Its good that its out in the open and people have to confront it again. Its sad as fuck that people have to be entirely dependent on the 24 hour news cycle to be told when to give a damn though. I also hope that people grow to realize that 'slow and steady progress' doesn't address certain things. It inherently cannot because it implies that there's options other than immediate solutions regarding civil rights.
Not advocating the world burns or anything but gotta see if the fire alarms work at least.
Not advocating the world burns or anything but gotta see if the fire alarms work at least.
This article has been getting a lot of run.
Extremist right wingers are already moving up the ranks in many state legislatures. An Oklahoma state legislator called for the closing of mosques this past week.
Extremist right wingers are already moving up the ranks in many state legislatures. An Oklahoma state legislator called for the closing of mosques this past week.
Interesting.
Perhaps the GOP will not die the death progressives hoped for by electing the first female president and pushing politics to the left, but it will die because the next generation is even further right than the previous one.
Perhaps the GOP will not die the death progressives hoped for by electing the first female president and pushing politics to the left, but it will die because the next generation is even further right than the previous one.
I don't think the generation is further right, but there's a big risk of the GOP consolidating power via voter suppression, gerrymandering and the continued crushing of voter enthusiasm. Especially if the Dems continue to suck.
And if they're able to do that, many of the young people getting elected will be ones that had their political awakening under Obama and Trump. In other words: people motivated by racial animus or ethnonationalism (sold as "Libertarianism" most likely).
And if they're able to do that, many of the young people getting elected will be ones that had their political awakening under Obama and Trump. In other words: people motivated by racial animus or ethnonationalism (sold as "Libertarianism" most likely).
The Secret Service has spent some $60,000 on golf cart rentals alone this year to protect Trump at both Mar-a-Lago and Bedminster.
Straight into his own pocket. You guys are run by an actual thief.
Yeah, we knew this.
Golf carts pale in comparison to the fact that he hasn't bothered to divest from any of his businesses.
Superfund site of a human being.
Golf carts pale in comparison to the fact that he hasn't bothered to divest from any of his businesses.
Superfund site of a human being.
How much is the SS wasting to keep Melania in New York? Pretty sure whatever sum that is would cure all of NY's Metro problems.
A petition put up just days ago urging the Trump administration to label the left-wing Antifa a “terror group” has attracted well over the 100,000 signatures needed to merit a formal White House response.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/21/petition-urging-terror-label-for-antifa-gets-enough-signatures-for-white-house-response.html
Pray for Crud.
By livefromkyoto Go To Posthttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/21/petition-urging-terror-label-for-antifa-gets-enough-signatures-for-white-house-response.htmlAbsolutely ridiculous.
Pray for Crud.
By KingGondo Go To PostI don't think the generation is further right, but there's a big risk of the GOP consolidating power via voter suppression, gerrymandering and the continued crushing of voter enthusiasm. Especially if the Dems continue to suck.
And if they're able to do that, many of the young people getting elected will be ones that had their political awakening under Obama and Trump. In other words: people motivated by racial animus or ethnonationalism (sold as "Libertarianism" most likely).
I'm not sure how everything you said is different from being further right.
Libertarianism is indeed popular among the conservative youth. And like you said, the near 0 presence of PoC under those politics is a recipie for ethno-animus.
I'm saying that the opinions of the general public will continue to diverge from the positions of elected officials, if they don't widen further.
Congress and even individual congressmen and senators are extremely unpopular, yet they sit in safe districts because of voter apathy, vote suppression, moneyed organization on the GOP side and ineptitude from the Dems.
Congress and even individual congressmen and senators are extremely unpopular, yet they sit in safe districts because of voter apathy, vote suppression, moneyed organization on the GOP side and ineptitude from the Dems.
By KingGondo Go To PostCongress and even individual congressmen and senators are extremely unpopular, yet they sit in safe districts because of voter apathy, vote suppression, moneyed organization on the GOP side and ineptitude from the Dems.
This isn't some new phenomenon and the idea that "everyone loves their congressmen and not congress" is due to voter apathy and suppression is silly at best.
Bob Corker is a good example. He is strongly disliked in Tennessee yet he is considered to be in a safe seat. Democrats in charge don't seem to have much of an answer for why they can't manage to organize respectable campaigns in these states.
Dems liked to talk during the Obama years about how Texas would eventually turn purple and guarantee their hold on the White House for decades, but they aren't even running a Democratic nominee for Governor. It is absolutely embarrassing and inexcusable for a supposedly mega-rich national party not to even field a candidate for the highest office in our 2nd-largest state.
Dems liked to talk during the Obama years about how Texas would eventually turn purple and guarantee their hold on the White House for decades, but they aren't even running a Democratic nominee for Governor. It is absolutely embarrassing and inexcusable for a supposedly mega-rich national party not to even field a candidate for the highest office in our 2nd-largest state.
By KingGondo Go To PostBob Corker is a good example. He is strongly disliked in Tennessee yet he is considered to be in a safe seat. Democrats in charge don't seem to have much of an answer for why they can't manage to organize respectable campaigns in these states.
Dems liked to talk during the Obama years about how Texas would eventually turn purple and guarantee their hold on the White House for decades, but they aren't even running a Democratic nominee for Governor. It is absolutely embarrassing and inexcusable for a supposedly mega-rich national party not to even field a candidate for the highest office in our 2nd-largest state.
Incumbency advantage on top of party advantage. Paul Ryan isn't very liked, even in his own district, yet still gets elected. Everyone in Pelosi's super liberal district seems to love her but the rest of ultra left can't help buy into right wing rhetoric against her. In the meantime congress hasn't got shit done in a decade. What's there to like other than your congressman?
I'm not sure what the timing of Texas turning blue has to do with your original point. Would you rather us waste resources in areas we're not confident in? That seems like more of a strategic move than anything to do with dems being disliked at large because the country is yearning for socialist utopia.
My point is that Democrats were talking a big game about making Texas competitive not long ago, and now they appear to have completely abandoned the state. People notice that. Don't think that people in Oklahoma haven't noticed that the Democrats view our state as a lost cause.
I'm trying to understand how you can spin the Democrats *not even running a candidate* for Texas Governor as anything other than a massive embarrassment. Of course they probably won't win. But part of building a supporter base is having candidates out there expressing your ideas, even in losing efforts.
They have made excuses for well over a decade now: we have to be centrist to get elected, we have to be smart with our resources, etc. Yet all they do is fucking lose over and over, even in the races they deem worthy of their precious investment.
I'm trying to understand how you can spin the Democrats *not even running a candidate* for Texas Governor as anything other than a massive embarrassment. Of course they probably won't win. But part of building a supporter base is having candidates out there expressing your ideas, even in losing efforts.
They have made excuses for well over a decade now: we have to be centrist to get elected, we have to be smart with our resources, etc. Yet all they do is fucking lose over and over, even in the races they deem worthy of their precious investment.
By KingGondo Go To PostMy point is that Democrats were talking a big game about making Texas competitive not long ago, and now they appear to have completely abandoned the state. People notice that. Don't think that people in Oklahoma haven't noticed that the Democrats view our state as a lost cause.
I'm trying to understand how you can spin the Democrats *not even running a candidate* for Texas Governor as anything other than a massive embarrassment. Of course they probably won't win. But part of building a supporter base is having candidates out there expressing your ideas, even in losing efforts.
They have made excuses for well over a decade now: we have to be centrist to get elected, we have to be smart with our resources, etc. Yet all they do is fucking lose over and over, even in the races they deem worthy of their precious investment.
You continually do this and it's frustrating. You re-contextualize reality to fit your narrative. Had dems been losing for well over a decade, the 2006 and 2008 waves never happen.
I would like them to run someone in Texas as well. Though I can see why they're not, strategically. We just lost an election and one of my biggest fears post November 2016 was that the Dems would drop minority issues in support of economic ones as minority issues were a loser. Ignoring Texas here shows the party might be following through with that strat. We don't feel the Latino and youth vote numbers benefit us enough yet to try.
All you do is focus on the national level when people in states like mine have been completely abandoned by the Democrats. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/
It isn't just a pendulum swing, it's a complete lack of commitment and infrastructure in huge parts of the country. The Dems can't really be called a national party anymore. They're an urban and coastal party.
And the Republicans are competent, ruthless and amoral enough to capitalize by tilting the field in their favor while they're in power. If any future pendulum swings happen, the effect will be blunted because of voter suppression and gerrymandering.
It isn't just a pendulum swing, it's a complete lack of commitment and infrastructure in huge parts of the country. The Dems can't really be called a national party anymore. They're an urban and coastal party.
And the Republicans are competent, ruthless and amoral enough to capitalize by tilting the field in their favor while they're in power. If any future pendulum swings happen, the effect will be blunted because of voter suppression and gerrymandering.
We touched on this before. I do agree that Obama should have never dropped party politics and let the DNC suffer after his initial election. We're here though, dealing with what we got. In that context spending money and resources on lost areas doesn't benefit us in the short term.
The short term is extremely important here. Winning the short term will allow us to stifle the effects of gerrymandering and voter suppression for the next decade. If we can win 2018 and 2020 and even the playing field some, we will have an easier time driving the party where it needs to go.
The short term is extremely important here. Winning the short term will allow us to stifle the effects of gerrymandering and voter suppression for the next decade. If we can win 2018 and 2020 and even the playing field some, we will have an easier time driving the party where it needs to go.
I hope that happens and I'm gonna do my part. But Dem party leadership does not inspire much confidence in me, nor does their overall strategy.
I'm still secretly hoping Kennedy feels the new "metric" used to weight partisanship in the drawing of districts flips him on gerrymandering before 2018 even comes. That's a legitimate possibility. The lack of a "metric" used to weigh how fucked a democracy is was the reason he didn't stop political gerrymandering in the first place.
By reilo Go To Postbecause he surrounds himself with generals, far more dangerous than the traditional businessmen that he surrounds himself with. Most of these senior military folks just want war and make money for their private contractors.
But why
By DY_nasty Go To PostBecause it'll turn into outer heaven if we don't
I thought it was because I yearn for victory.
By KingGondo Go To PostReally though, what can 4K troops accomplish?Depends on the purpose and goal.
Didn't take 12,000 to turn Iraq around
By DY_nasty Go To PostSo what do yal want? lol
I mean it's more that he basically ran on being the brightest military mind who's also an isolationist, he shat all over Obama for increasing troops in Afghanistan and the reason he's flipping is because I yearn for victory as an American while not giving me and criteria for what victory is.
By the way. I agree with the power vacuum logic. There has to be a line though. We can't just occupy the country and wait for a stable government in perpetuity. So what's your timeline? Two decades? Three? Half century? Are we ever pot committed?
By DY_nasty Go To PostDepends on the purpose and goal.
Didn't take 12,000 to turn Iraq around
If it's to stop a power vacuum the actual goal is a stable government. Which seems to be more challenging than Iraq
By KingGondo Go To PostIs Iraq "turned around"? Honest question.I hate yal low key
But yeah. Two-three years ago a solid portion of the standing army straight up surrendered and was executed immediately after, they lost major cities entirely (imagine if the US straight up "lost" an area the size of a state. Again ppl just don't grasp that kinda stuff), and women were straight up herded like cattle. I distinctly remember an event where some few thousand people were surrounded and essentially waiting to die on a mountain top. I'm shocked that things turned as they did without a huge commitment, relatively speaking.
I mean, the battle of Mosul is over for the most part as of last month but Iraq was headed to failed state status which is straight up outrageous.
By Fenderputty Go To PostIf it's to stop a power vacuum the actual goal is a stable government. Which seems to be more challenging than IraqI don't think that's the goal. Afghanistan is far too disjointed for that to apply. Once you leave the major cities, you getting into places and populations that aren't even in the same realm of thought. "Stable government" just isn't applicable to that region.
By DY_nasty Go To PostI don't think that's the goal. Afghanistan is far too disjointed for that to apply. Once you leave the major cities, you getting into places and populations that aren't even in the same realm of thought. "Stable government" just isn't applicable to that region.
If an unstable government is inevitable, why are we still there? Seems like a shit storm is brewing regardless of when we pull out. It's not like we haven't been there a decade already too, ya know?
By Fenderputty Go To PostIf an unstable government is inevitable, why are we still there? Seems like a shit storm is brewing regardless of when we pull out. It's not like we haven't been there a decade already too, ya know?The shit storm comes from when we leave imo. People always laugh at the US killing asshole #2 or raiding bullshit hut, but that's foot on neck stuff that many take for granted. Those weeds stamped out will grow into a thriving jungle 0-100 - and with a shrinking world, its real easy for for guys to travel, train, and perpetuate fukkery. The US leaves and it doesn't take much for those who want to see us fucked to drop a few stacks, point goons in our direction, and have us on our heels wherever is convenient.
The way I see it, we're paying for Afghanistan one way or another.
Also, there was never "stable government" there. At least not in the context in which people are accustomed.
That's kinda my point, it's not Iraq and isn't likely to be in a scenario in which our leaving doesn't result in collapse soon. So how long are we there for? Are we ever pot committed? Are we currently?
Giving me some bulkshit about victory without even setting a goal beyond "kill the bad guys". Just salt in the wound at this point. He's gotta score points with that isolationist base though.
Giving me some bulkshit about victory without even setting a goal beyond "kill the bad guys". Just salt in the wound at this point. He's gotta score points with that isolationist base though.
Like he even pulled the "we're not nation building" crap when it's clear that has to be part of any plan that doesn't result in chaos.
By Fenderputty Go To PostThat's kinda my point, it's not Iraq and isn't likely to be in a scenario in which our leaving doesn't result in collapse soon. So how long are we there for? Are we ever pot committed? Are we currently?Iraq and Afghanistan aren't all that comparable.
Giving me some bulkshit about victory without even setting a goal beyond "kill the bad guys". Just salt in the wound at this point. He's gotta score points with that isolationist base though.
Like, Iraq was pretty fucking together and actually had weight in its region. Real influence, real direction. A baseline. Afghanistan has been at war like.... forever. And not conventional, all of us under one flag type shit either. There's beef in Afghanistan that tribes can't even explain. They might've fought the Russians together, but that was primarily because the Russians were out gassing entire villages and handing out soccer balls with bombs inside. The thing about fighting that long though, is that you get really fucking good at it. All my bitching about Libya? At least Libya was connected with itself. Afghanistan... you've got guys who've fought well against Russians, Americans, Chinese, and other local nationals and they're damn near impossible to track because unless you're born in Kabul, Jalalabad, Khost, or Kandahar, you can live an entire life off the grid. Its hard enough to follow criminals with real records through real airports. Afghanistan? lolz.
So if you let up, and let these guys coordinate, travel, build real infrastructure knowing that they've still got the intent to target - you're just asking for shit. Straight up.
You're worried about collapse and stability.... again, that doesn't really apply. This isn't a 1st world country. This is a massive area that doesn't recognize most of its borders, internal or external. Foreign fighters are the wave right now. Afghanistan without a large coalition presence to stay on top of it would be one of the best places to train in the world.
So you can either fight and struggle there or fight and struggle later in the chain.
but again, if we're saying how the base is satisfied and stuff i'm just gonna again go to the track record so far and say that we're more or less not at war with everyone with nukes flying nonstop - and pretty much the contrary... if trump wanted to go full hawk, there've been plenty of times to do so already.
By Fenderputty Go To PostLike he even pulled the "we're not nation building" crap when it's clear that has to be part of any plan that doesn't result in chaos.We're not, because you can't.
I'm not sure how many other ways I can say that lol. Obama tried the whole nation building thing first and it was horrible. Building highways and infrastructure with local national support - then watching the same tribal shit lead to bombs being carried right through their own security because they aren't just 'one' people like that. It goes beyond Sunni/Shia and Taliban/HIG/ALQ. They're not connected and don't want to be. There is no nation building scenario that's possible. If there was, then the blank checks we've been sending to that region would've at least established a foundation by now.
There's no way to create a government there that touches even a majority of the country. There's no way to prevent a 'collapse' in a normal sense because there has to be something there in the first place. Your frame of reference doesn't work.
By Fenderputty Go To PostBreitbart is straight hilarious right now
many tears.
So when do we pull out and claim victory, DY? So far you're making a case for not ever doing that.
I'm asking this legitimately, man. Because I see no end in sight
I'm asking this legitimately, man. Because I see no end in sight