General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 465

no one on here, at least, has endorsed accelerationism in the name of upheaval of the existing order FTR

i mean obviously the chances of getting police killings to 0 without stripping them of firearms is impossible. but so far, the steps we've seen have been to stop giving them military weapons (which is potentially being walked back anyway) and put cameras on them (which doesn't work). and this is from a black president that clinton is campaigning to succeed, and she isn't exactly pristine on race relations herself.

who are these people that don't recognize trump would make it worse? are they in this thread? the point is that it feels kind of bizarre to point out the dangers of trump as though these murders and assaults arent already happening, daily.


i'm not saying they're expendable or inconsequential, but i am saying it's a little strange to have people ardently campaign for someone likely to keep the deaths around the same rate as they exist now while warning us about the dangers and death that another candidate would bring.

trump is especially dangerous because of the way he articulates black death and fascism, but seriously: the next one will be too. and the one after that. if we continue to drift to the right because it's the least offensive option then eventually we will reach trump's position anyway and all we did in 2016 was slow it down a little bit. we need a candidate or program or movement that will push back against these deaths and the institutional causes behind them or else we have simply acquiesced and essentially voted that the death of minorities is okay, so long as they are limited and not explicitly endorsed by our chief executive

 

anthony weiner reportedly sent sexts to 15 year old girl, while fully aware of her age

http://theslot.jezebel.com/daily-mail-claims-anthony-weiner-was-also-sexting-15-ye-1786896360

 

I don't think you're understanding me and my position on the matter. The US government, both on a federal and local level, are responsible for reproducing conditions in which terrorism against black people remains a structural component for the cohesion of our society. As such, when you suggest that I look at both candidates, what you're telling me is that the violence is contingent on representatives of a state apparatus that is foundationally anti-black. The threat to black life remains, it is simply a matter of opening the conversation to the possibility of addressing it, which, by your own admittance in earlier conversations, could not actually happen due to the vicissitudes of American politics. I'm not interested in that. That is not a politics of survival. It is a politics of accommodation to black death. Fuck that.

 

Starve the government and let communities police themselves.

 

"Well that's what American politics is right now. Sorry! Not political realism btw."

 

I don't disagree on principle, but based on the current political climate such a speech would more likely be written off as a sign of weakness, pandering, etc than it would shut down her critics.

 

They were key and important first steps, but obviously not silver bullets. That doesn't mean they can't be enhanced and more effective going forward. I haven't read the tweet Jason posted a page or so back with Clinton's apparent policy ideas for reform, but I think action has to be taken at local and state levels for reasons already outlined a bunch. But just because Clinton would only have minimal power to do something about the issue at the federal level doesn't mean it's not worth pointing out the vast difference in what would be her approach cs the GOP nominee, and how much more loss of life we may be looking at.

I think you underestimate how many people lurk this thread and don't post because they feel they're not 'informed' enough to join the discussion. And that means they're getting informed by what people post here. I say that because I remember when we tried to call out to lurkers in the old AP GenPol thread and a bunch of people responded. Those people come here and read what we're writing and Id like to think they're getting somewhat accurate, if completely biased, info.
And I don't think anyone is saying deadly assaults aren't already happening, rather that we may be seeing an increase in those things. Not good.

I think history has shown that Dems losing elections drives them more toward the right, not the left. I also think it's important to point out that it's not just about electing a Hillary Clinton to 'slow down' the right wing fascism movement, but it's more about not letting these people have their views legitimized by winning and having one of their own in power. If they lose, this may be their high water mark. Not definite, but possible. If they win...well, yeah.

Edit-sorry, at work and on phone, had to type this out as quickly as possible. My students are talking about being YouTube famous and wearing their boxers under football uniforms.

 

Here's Owen Smith being condescending towards a woman again

 

How do you think you would see it if she gave such a speech? I am not a Clinton supporter by any means, but that would be a sign of strength from my perspective. The strength to say "I once advised the president to send a missile into what we thought was an ISIS training camp, but was actually a school. Right after finding out my advice lead to the deaths of innocent children, I had to go to a State dinner and shmooze some foreign dignitaries in order to negotiate an arms treaty with the country we just bombed. I slept like a baby that night. That is the reality of this job, and there is no way Trump understands that."

But instead we are talking about Skittles, and animated frog memes.

EDIT: Maybe the "I slept like a baby that night" was a little overboard

 

now we're talking

 

He's talking that libertarian shit. Communities do need to police themselves, but communities don't need it accompanied with the free market spirit.

 

oh thats right hes a libertarian. still, the spirit of dismantling police warms my heart

 

Part of me thinks that poor minorities would be even more fucked than they currently are. It's the same issue with libertarian politics, the "right" thing will never be agreed upon and the wealthy white gun owners will terrorize those who can't afford to protect themselves.

As Americans we're conditioned to hate our neighbors, without some degree of unbiased oversight, a fall into anarchy will devolve into genocide.

 

What he said.

 

Police yourself how you like. There is nothing preventing you from organizing on a voluntary basis. That does not conflict with what I believe.

 

if 2nd amendment nuts weren't racist as hell and advocated for black communities' right to bear arms maybe it wouldnt be a problem in that case

 

Libertarians have been advocating this for years. I brought it up several times back at AP. It's one of the few areas that Dom and I see eye to eye, I think.

 

Wasn't George Zimmerman essentially volunteer police

 

Neighborhood watch I believe.

 

RT

Arm the oppressed

 

He may as well make the most of his final few days of not being totally irrelevant, I guess.

 

OH FUCK OFF WITH THIS. THIS IS ABJECTLY NOT TRUE AND WILLFULLY IGNORANT.

HAMILTON: The Musical and The Rockefeller Foundation Announce Partnership to Provide 20,000 NYC Public School Students with Tickets to Hamilton on Broadway With $1.46 Million Grant | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

Foundation Pledges $6Mil For 100,000 Inner City Kids to See ‘Hamilton’ - Good News Network

And I will find the rap critics as well

 

Oh boy yes let's fight about Hamilton

 

eyeroll emoji

oh yeah it exists