By Elchele Go To PostGibraltar belongs to SpainIt belongs to the people who live on it. We bagsied it 🇬🇧
fuck the island of racist
By Fenderputty Go To PostSend him a link to the wiki on whataboutism and refer to him as comrade
I could kiss you on the mouth.
I did not know that this was a bonafide logical fallacy, lol!
looking at that bernie thread on gaf
the fact that moderate dems are still this enraged by him is pretty troubling imo
the fact that moderate dems are still this enraged by him is pretty troubling imo
By Dark PhaZe Go To Postlooking at that bernie thread on gafModerate dems are just hipster republicans
the fact that moderate dems are still this enraged by him is pretty troubling imo
By Dark PhaZe Go To Postlooking at that bernie thread on gaf
the fact that moderate dems are still this enraged by him is pretty troubling imo
So ... his comment is actually false. Racism did play a roll and it's been shown to have had an effect multiple times since the election. That being said that thread is a giant shit show.
Cliff notes? I ain't reading that shit.
There is definitely a deficit of leadership in the Democratic Party at the moment though. They need a standard-bearer to champion progressive causes instead of being defined by opposition to Trump.
There is definitely a deficit of leadership in the Democratic Party at the moment though. They need a standard-bearer to champion progressive causes instead of being defined by opposition to Trump.
By KingGondo Go To PostCliff notes? I ain't reading that shit.
.
A. Sanders says trumps voters aren't deplorable. Not why we lost
B. GAF points out that this is inaccurate per numerous sources which show racism was at play
C. Discussions about the merits of targeting racists to move progressive agenda forward
D. Discussion about rising tides lift all
E. Rehashing of the election cycle
F. Finger pointing at who isn't lib enough.
G. Lots of epeen and piss competitions.
H. Lots of people blaming Bernie for driving wedges.
Basically a shit show all around.
By Fenderputty Go To PostSo … his comment is actually false. Racism did play a roll and it's been shown to have had an effect multiple times since the election. That being said that thread is a giant shit show.Racism was used as a way to blame other people and not the rich about the state of the working class people. The real problem is inequality.
Pure racism wasn't the key reason
By Elchele Go To PostRacism was used as a way to blame other people and not the rich about the state of the working class people. The real problem is inequality.
Pure racism wasn't the key reason
I definitely don't want to rehash this here, but I think you're pretty off base. I think Bernie's insistence that this is the key will be what continues to drive his poor numbers with minorities. I think at best you can make the argument that class and race play a dichotomous and cyclical relationship.
The idea that there were enough minorities plugged into the issues to come away with "fuck bernie because of his views on race" strikes me as unlikely to say the least.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-democrats-race-racial-divide-213948
There's a politico hit piece on Bernie that puts a spotlight on this thing and as a black man I found myself shaking my head at a lot of it:
For fuck sake this is insanely out of touch imo. Almost offensively so.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-democrats-race-racial-divide-213948
There's a politico hit piece on Bernie that puts a spotlight on this thing and as a black man I found myself shaking my head at a lot of it:
People of color, like their white Democratic counterparts, may also want a revolution and more rapid progress than the halting kind that comes with pragmatism, but they’ve time and again seen incremental change improve their lives. That’s why they embrace Martin Luther King Jr. without question while revering Malcolm X from a distance. That’s why they are much more enthusiastic about the Affordable Care Act—which has helped minority Americans the most— than white progressives who have either been lukewarm or, in some cases, even hostile to health reform because they don’t believe it was radical enough.
For fuck sake this is insanely out of touch imo. Almost offensively so.
Bernie sold a simpleton message of "A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats" while not even addressing the systemic racism that exists when it comes to employment or making it into higher ed. Saying, "here's free education, that'll get you out of the ghetto" is fucking tonedeaf.
By reilo Go To PostBernie sold a simpleton message of "A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats" while not even addressing the systemic racism that exists when it comes to employment or making it into higher ed. Saying, "here's free education, that'll get you out of the ghetto" is fucking tonedeaf.
You actually think black people prefer some magic legislation to help change peoples hearts over actual policy that helps them not be a slave to the cycle of the 9-5 dead end job because they have no other options and a shit tier support system for if things hit rock bottom?
Bruh, we can't even get a group of people in a fucking jury to come to just decisions regarding race, and you think black people overall really have serious expectations about a government solution to this issue, let alone a PREFERENCE for it over actual tangible support and educational systems?
I think they prefer legislation that does both and not legislation that only serves white poor Americans that was pandered to white poor Americans every step of the way. "Rust Belt Rust Belt Rust Belt" -- that was all Bernie said throughout the entire primary before he actually got called out for just focusing on those core constituent. The entire "Bernie would've won" bullshit is built on the back that white poor voters that broke late for Trump would've stayed home with Bernie. Think about that.
I also vehemently disagree that Hillary didn't offer solutions that were progressive enough and in line with what Sanders wanted, as well, which is seemingly what is being argued here.
I also vehemently disagree that Hillary didn't offer solutions that were progressive enough and in line with what Sanders wanted, as well, which is seemingly what is being argued here.
They are dying to start a war... it's the only thing that can get people to stop talking impeachment
I mean it's not like America has a horrible record of fighting wars in Asia. Or that China is gonna freak out if we do anything against NK or that SK one of our biggest allies in the region isn't likely to feel the fall out of something like that...... Nope
I mean it's not like America has a horrible record of fighting wars in Asia. Or that China is gonna freak out if we do anything against NK or that SK one of our biggest allies in the region isn't likely to feel the fall out of something like that...... Nope
By DY_nasty Go To PostYou can't start a war with this kind of approval rating and a fake news blanket
You can if your a fucking idiot who tends to do/say things without any care for the consequences.
Just so we're clear Trump is a fucking idiot
By Zeus Ex Machina Go To PostYou can if your a fucking idiot who tends to do/say things without any care for the consequences.Yeah but we ain't dealing with Iraq or Afghanistan anymore. American people can barely stomach a dead paratrooper these days. A boat gets sunk, a mass cas of not just a few dozen of our allies with world media jumping into it without fear of getting beheaded by whodafuq militants - this is the president you think will have Congress signing blank checks? To drum up public support?
Just so we're clear Trump is a fucking idiot
lol not unless we start losing whole states, and I don't even think Hawaii counts for the record lol
Just so we're clear, are we talking about one of those "wars" where congress never approves, or are we talking full blown congressionally backed war? Not that there's a huge difference but the outcome of one is more likely than another.
By Fenderputty Go To PostJust so we're clear, are we talking about one of those "wars" where congress never approves, or are we talking full blown congressionally backed war? Not that there's a huge difference but the outcome of one is more likely than another.
Mz,
,
This dude Trump ain't working through congress. He's going to befuddle his way through a president approved war just like he does through his executive actions. Presidents get congressional approval for war when they realize that a long term military campaign will ruin them and their party unless they get congress to sign off on it....... You think the orange dumb ass can even fathom that level of political responsibility to party? While at the same time he is trying to keep people from talking about impeaching him? Nah he is in Hail Mary mode. He just threw Obama's and Susan Rice's names out there and it's taking less than a day for people to start that Impeachment talk again.
Also don't forget he just removed the law mthat says he is suppose to give numbers for boots on the ground for deployment. In his mind we'll "sneak attack" kill a bunch of people ..... and then sneak out.
By Fenderputty Go To PostJust so we're clear, are we talking about one of those "wars" where congress never approves, or are we talking full blown congressionally backed war? Not that there's a huge difference but the outcome of one is more likely than another.Again, this wouldn't be Iraq or Afghanistan type stuff at all. A few hundred dead brown people at a time vs tens of thousands of dead south koreans in -hours- (in the best of best cases, no exaggeration), some of our own bases leveled, and an ugly, ugly conventional force on force war that the world hasn't had to witness in decades isn't something you entertain without support at basically any level of government.
Mz,
,
And that's before you even think about "winning". People think Syria is bad, NK after however long they can fight a war would immediately become the greatest refugee crisis in modern times.
Iraq was ez pz, you could wing it and they did - 15 years later ppl know better top to bottom.
By DY_nasty Go To PostAgain, this wouldn't be Iraq or Afghanistan type stuff at all. A few hundred dead brown people at a time vs tens of thousands of dead south koreans in -hours- (in the best of best cases, no exaggeration), some of our own bases leveled, and an ugly, ugly conventional force on force war that the world hasn't had to witness in decades isn't something you entertain without support at basically any level of government.
And that's before you even think about "winning". People think Syria is bad, NK after however long they can fight a war would immediately become the greatest refugee crisis in modern times.
Iraq was ez pz, you could wing it and they did - 15 years later ppl know better top to bottom.
You're bringing every reasonable reason no president until now has done anything...... we're not dealing with that kind of intelligence here.
By Zeus Ex Machina Go To PostYou're bringing every reasonable reason no president until now has done anything…… we're not dealing with that kind of intelligence here.If it was King Trump, sure.
Or fucking around in Africa with brown people no one cares about outside of exploitation. NK? Whole different ballgame. And the whole "but Trump's ego!" thing doesn't really work because no president wants that mess on tied to them forever.
By all means check out the history behind the entire world tip toeing around the greatest hostage situation in human history.
He/we can't afford it. That's a century long mortgage.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything DY said, but still have to admit Trump has me a little shook. He's shown a complete lack of ability to grasp policy detail. He's also shown that lack of ability has lead him to support a bill that has a 17% approval rating.
I mean I'm pretty fucking sure DY is correct, but being just pretty sure is probably ok here too
I mean I'm pretty fucking sure DY is correct, but being just pretty sure is probably ok here too
Look, Trump can't start a war just because he says so. There are lots of hurdles to clear through before anyone gets to do anything. That's how this government is supposed to work
By HasphatsAnts Go To PostLook, Trump can't start a war just because he says so. There are lots of hurdles to clear through before anyone gets to do anything. That's how this government is supposed to workeh
you can bomb the fuck out of libya because sure whatever and people won't even ask you about it 3 months later
nk destabilizes a third of the world
I'm more worried about miscalculation and ignorance than I am about hubris or bluster.
The threat of an accidental war feels higher now than it has since the peak of the Cold War.
The threat of an accidental war feels higher now than it has since the peak of the Cold War.
i think the miscalculations are 'easier' when it comes to smaller situations. people (especially 10 years ago) didn't expect a lot of the domino effects, costs, power vacuums, etc nor did they expect to see it become such a bitch to deal with
By Dark PhaZe Go To Postlooking at that bernie thread on gaf
the fact that moderate dems are still this enraged by him is pretty troubling imo
They're not moderates though. That forum is a virtue-signalling funhouse mirror that on the whole rejects political moderation as racist appeasement.
The forum came out as virulently anti-Bernie - or anybody who wasn't Hillary - because "he couldn't win" and therefore any vote for him was a defacto vote for Trump. Anybody talking about a vote for anyone else was treated like they were hauling off nice minority grandmas to Trump prison camp in the middle of the night.
On the one hand, it's disingenuous of Bernie to deny that racism played a part in Trump's win given that dogwhistle was practically his platform. But it's also idiotic to think polarizing Twitter wars and coastal urbanite condescension is going to shame Trump voters into switching sides. You're either connecting with voters as someone who's on their side or you're not.
By FlutterPuffs Go To Post
he can fuck right off
If you're going to force people to continue their education maybe you should make it more affordable...
Dy translate 4 me plz. What is "operationalize"? Shouldn't something called the 'White House National Security Council' be operational?
By livefromkyoto Go To Post
Dy translate 4 me plz. What is "operationalize"? Shouldn't something called the 'White House National Security Council' be operational?
LMFAO .. they're trying to twist this into the Rice thing? That's a big nothing. Just like the wiretaps were a big nothing!
The Flynn angle, amazingly enough, might make even less sense! Why would you appoint Flynn if you had to appoint Bannon to watch him? LMFAO
By livefromkyoto Go To PostI'm no expert, but it seems to be a lot of word vomit
Dy translate 4 me plz. What is "operationalize"? Shouldn't something called the 'White House National Security Council' be operational?
By DY_nasty Go To PostI'm no expert, but it seems to be a lot of word vomit
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/trump-interview-susan-rice.html?ref=politics&_r=0
“I think it’s going to be the biggest story,” Mr. Trump said in an interview in the Oval Office. “It’s such an important story for our country and the world. It is one of the big stories of our time.”
Mr. Trump criticized media outlets, including The New York Times, for failing to adequately cover the Rice controversy — while singling out Fox News and the host Bill O’Reilly for praise, despite a Times report of several women who have accused Mr. O’Reilly of harassment. The president then went on to defend Mr. O’Reilly, who has hosted him frequently over the years.
He's distracting and muddying the waters and trying to drive a narrative. What's amazing is this all started with the tweets blaming Obama for illegally wiretapping him. Bannon being removed has nothing to do with either Rice or Flynn.
Remember guys ... it's the leakers here who are the real story. That and Obama wire taps. And Rice unmasking.
By Kibner Go To PostThis doesn't appear to be very well thought out:
This is the definition of a shitty liberal idea and I say that as a liberal/ So many obvious gaps in the policy even if the idea behind it is "liberal". Just give people their high school degree. If anything maybe require all students to take one college equivalent class their senior year (and the Chicago pays for ii) and even that seems a little too heavy handed for me. Is the city going to cover some application fees? provide the youth with an opportunity to learn how to write application letters? Take into any account how cruel this is for students who want to go to college but can't at the time for them to then have to gain acceptance to a school?
By Fenderputty Go To Posthttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/05/military-strike-on-north-korea-may-be-only-option-gen-keane-says.htmlThat's not a terrible summary imo
Are we all dead yet DY?
By DY_nasty Go To PostThat's not a terrible summary imo
How so? Elaborate por favor. It reads like tough talk to me. Which i don't mind, really. A firm stance is probably needed to help force China's hand. I don't agree with actually preemptively striking tho.
By Fenderputty Go To PostHow so? Elaborate por favor. It reads like tough talk to me. Which i don't mind, really. A firm stance is probably needed to help force China's hand. I don't agree with actually preemptively striking tho.The article kinda mentions that. Nothing else has ever worked - meanwhile their capabilities have steadily increased. Its not the same stalemate it was decades ago.
Everyone laughs at NK, it won't be funny forever. And you don't want to be the one who's on the clock when LA gets turned into a pit. The assertion that you can't leave shit up to the missile defense system is entirely appropriate and in accordance with how the US (and most other 1St world militaries). You don't wait to see if any enemy's threat capability is tangible and 100% accurate when they hit you, after the fact. That's why people get bombed into the dirt when they first get uppity.
NK always had SK by the throat though. Not only does NK not care if ppl starve, neither does China. Economically is jokes. Been that way for decades. Military though? Times changed quite a bit. The only way SK was ever getting out from under the gun was with a preemptive strike and a massive, lightning fast disarmament. And its not like you can just kill glorious leader either. Unlike most dictators, he's reached godhood and enough of his people are brainwashed.
You'd have to dismantle them completely. It'd have to be like the gulf war times 10 in less than a week.
If it was basketball, diplomatically you'd have to think hard about Taiwan and a protected 1st for NK. That's about where I think the diplomacy needs to be at for a discussion to be level tbh.
But yeah, its bad.
NK having a nuke with ICBM capability seems pretty likely at this point in time. Regardless of whatever China may do.
Just saying that a preemptive strike is the only proactive solution imo. Stuff like this is only restating the obvious really.
Its nice to hope that there's a people's revolt and NK saves itself but that's irresponsible - and its what people have been passively putting faith in for decades now.
Its nice to hope that there's a people's revolt and NK saves itself but that's irresponsible - and its what people have been passively putting faith in for decades now.