General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 124

Yo this Professor got super mad about the NC travel ban, which he had a right too because of the funds he was traveling on but he went on this brilliant hilarious tangent including everything you'd expect. Something about the Civil War ending in 1865, the Middle East, and then a hollow threat to go to the New York Times. Like calm down buddy.

 

I brought up the NRA just because it's the largest known gun supporting group out there. I know that they probably wouldn't do anything to oppose the government as a whole, but there would most certainly be a percentage that would fight for their right.

 

Agreed. The constitution is pretty meaningless, particularly when one considers the 3/5 compromise, which was the consecration of the social death imposed upon African slaves.

 

people HATE when it gets pointed out to them that the 3/5 clause is still in the constitution when they appeal to it as the arbiter of contemporary morals and standards. they can't stand it.

 

Gillibrand's speech here is killing it

 

What do you guys think about the outrage towards Pesident Obama not using the term "radical Islam"? There are two things I take away from it.

One, why do people think it's necessary to say? Like President Obama said in his speech, how does using that term change anything?

Two, if we were to label extremely homophobic or racist people who claim Christianity as "radical Christians", I'd be willing to bet most other Christians would defend their religion and explain how those individuals aren't actually Christians, or aren't practicing Christian values. A lot of hate crimes stem from religious beliefs yet we don't hear the term "radical Christians". Why does such a large population not listen to the people of Islamic faith who try explain to you that Islam isn't a violent religion and that the individuals carrying out these hideous attacks are not a proper representation of their religion?

 

The necessity of some of the later amendments ought to be evidence enough that the Constitution - especially the original bill of rights as they were written - is one awful moral compass in 2016. And yet...

 

my initial thought would be that if Obama doesn't say it, then people will think "conspiracy theory" or that he doesn't care or know what the "real" problem is, as if using that terms magically solves the problem.

 

there is good discussion on the last couple of pages of this thread that I'd encourage you to read. @Richter915 has a bunch of good posts

 

You sort of touched on why that hypocrisy exists in your question. Most of the people who want to blame this on "radical Islam" want to do so because it allows them to absolve themselves of any guilt or responsibility for what has happened, or for the part they'll need to play for actual change to occur. It allows them to distance themselves, and to label this kind of tragedy as an "other", as opposed to what it is - a tragic but rapidly normal occurrence in a country that prioritizes principles from the 1780's over human lives.

It also allows them to not confront their own innate prejudices, because THEY didn't do this. Radical Islam did this. I don't even think this impulse is necessarily conscious, but it's something we see a lot. Pick an external cause and don't address internal issues.

 

To build on that point, I think that if politicians start throwing the term radical Islam around, it validates the idea (to those who want it to) that the violence and extremism is a part of Islam. It gets in the national psyche and now when person A meets a Muslim person B, A sees B's faith as checking off that first box to extremism. So not only are whites/Christians/etc absolving themselves of guilt, but people are now primed for paranoia.

 

What would you call the "God hates ***s" people? They're as radical Christian as you can get without stoning adulterers.

 

They're con artists. All the higher ups are lawyers. They make their living suing people who committed physical harm against them and against municipalities who refused to grant police protection at their protests.

 

These fucking guys

 

Clinton backs requiring women to register for draft

and nobody was remotely surprised. interestingly, this is the first time i've heard a feminist respond to this question with anything other than "I do not support the draft for anyone"

 

I don't have friends who support Trump. So there's that.

 

I disagree with this, but some people might appreciate it:

"While GOP officeholders in Congress certainly want to be elected—and thus have an interest in the party remaining electorally competitive, at both the congressional and presidential level, and avoiding train wrecks like Trump—they have good reason to believe that they can rely upon state-level gerrymandering and dirty tricks to keep them in power. So if getting reelected is their main concern, they have little incentive to challenge the Trump-ist base. (This may change after November; we’ll see.)

And as long as the Democratic Party remains beholden to these elite donors that Thomas is talking about, those elements of big business that might otherwise want to make sure that the Republican Party remains electorally viable—if for no other reason than to have a reliable ally that will take care of their business interests in Congress—will have even less incentive to challenge the base.

Which leads to two conclusions:

First, for the foreseeable future, there will be no element within the Republican Party that will have either sufficient interest or power to challenge the base.

Second, not until the big business elements of the Democratic Party are purged or curbed—and thus forced to fall back on the GOP as their base of power—will there be any basis for a real challenge to Trump-ism within the GOP."

If you want Trump-ism to go, you have to reform the Democratic Party

 

Dem 'filibuster' still going

 

CT Senator Chris Murphy goin' strong

 

This is fun.

 

but you see, unlike Chainsaws, hammers, cars, gasoline, and other POSSIBLE weaponry, all of those other things were constructed and created to do OTHER THINGS. Whereas a gun was created to do one thing...kill. What are the other practical applications outside of self-defense? Are people chopping down trees with Ar-15's!?

 

get ready for the hunting pigs argument...