General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 233

Fair enough, David. You got me. Bill Clinton and his partners in government killed less people than thought. Also, history doesn't matter.

 

"Is the answer the election of 1956? We can make a sick man President and set him to a job which would strain a man in robust health. So he dies, and what do we get to lead us? With Stevenson and Nixon, with Eisenhower and Eastland, we remain in the same mess. I will be no party to it and that will make little difference. You will take large part and bravely march to the polls, and that also will make no difference. Stop running Russia and giving Chinese advice when we cannot rule ourselves decently. Stop yelling about a democracy we do not have. Democracy is dead in the United States. Yet there is still nothing to replace real democracy. Drop the chains, then, that bind our brains. Drive the money-changers from the seats of the Cabinet and the halls of Congress. Call back some faint spirit of Jefferson and Lincoln,and when again we can hold a fair election on real issues, let's vote, and not till then. Is this impossible? Then democracy in America is impossible."


W.E.B. Dubois, I Won't Vote

 

Meanwhile, Donald Trump Did a Q&A Wednesday Night on a Hate Speech Forum

 

IT's a little worse than that, I'm afraid. The WHO's research shows the child mortality rate falling during the Clinton years, not rising. For the infant mortality rate, it goes from 46 per 1000 live births in 1993 to 36 in 1998 to 34 in 2001. Child mortality (under 5 years old) also dropped, from 65 per 1000 live births in 1993 to 52 in 1998 to 49 in 2001.

It's not that just that they "killed less people than thought", it's that there's little proof at all that sanctions raised infant and child mortality rates.

But there were three seperate instances of bombings throughout the Clinton administration in which a few dozen Iraqi civilians were killed. Clinton is responsible for those.

The following (republican) president is responsible for your half million figure. But, ya know...petty details and all.

 

I hope you both have kids and those kids fall in love.

"Daddy, I don't care if he's a Socialist, I love him!"

 

I like socialists. I just don't like lying and black and white/simplistic views of things when it suits someone.

The kid's grandfather on it's mother's side might take issue with it though...

 

This link not working for anyone else? When I open it it just goes to a blank new tab.

 

I've had job interviews like that. Asking me where I'm from (I was raised in the UK but my parents are Middle Eastern), commenting on my accent, etc. It's all weird haha.

Also I didn't realize this: You Might Be Surprised How Much Commute Issues Hurt Hiring and Retention

My last job interview, the woman asked me about this, as well as commenting on my British accent, just general being all hmmm hmm etc. It was weird. Anyway, regarding the commute, I said it would take 20 minutes. She was like "whoa that's far away!"

Needless to say, I wasn't hired.

Yeah there's no link.

 

Woops, take 2

 

Dafuck? 20 minute commute is far where?

 

Fair enough. I concede the point. There's no shortage of war crimes attributable to Clinton. If you recall, Bush was arguing against this notion of interventionism in direct reference to Clinton's policies. Once 9-11 happened, the ready-made framework was available. In other words, I see the continuity between Bush and Clinton. So, to amend my other post, you don't care when Democrats perpetrated various war crimes in the '90's. You just see that as a blip on the radar of a bad time for liberalism and, really, something to be forgotten, whilst we make our way to the ballot box to vote for a war hawk who will be stopped by you talking to people. Got it. Case closed.

Hopefully, my child would not be with a white liberal, who mistakes being an apologist for nuance,uses their liberation as means to convey moralism and is a sheepdog for liberalism. Either way, I plan to instill a deep hatred for the white liberal who sees his vote as the savior for us black folk.

 

I don't see it as something to be forgotten, I see it as a part of history that needs to be taken into context with today's rhetoric, as well as not extracted from the timeline of history so one can ignore everything that happened before it. The Dems of the late 60s/early 70s were much better on passing policy that didn't suck--that didn't stop the Dems of the 90s from basically being a completely different party that was terrible on a lot of things. The current iteration of the Democraty Party on a national level is pretty different than the party of the 90s on pretty much every policy topic. On a local level, refusing to hijack the party apparatus to use as a means to an end because "democrats suck" and you don't want the affiliation is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. Local parties are so much more vulnerable to infiltration.

I wouldn't want my kid with someone who mistakes facts and context with being an apologist either. But the kid will make its own mistakes and decisions, I can't help if it loves a dummy.

 

Liberal media bias!

 

If there's anything we need, it is context to the crimes of the democrats. Tell me again how black people wanted to be locked up by the mass incarceration stare, Dave. Wait, that's right. That doesn't matter. Vote, vote vote. Lol. No thanks. My preference isn't to be part and parcel of the machine that killed and kills my people. As I said, I think electoral politics is a terrain on which we can fight, but not within the Democratic Party. It does not want leftists and we should not be hamstrung by the politics of aspiring careerists who never bother to show up or speak about their issues until a mass of us are already dead. I've no use for liberalism as a result and no faith that it, nor its operations within the strict confines of its party apparatus and ideology. It isn't cutting off my nose to spite my face. It isn't an endorsement of Trump. It is a rejection of their entire premise and the misery and pain on which it is built. Vote for Hillary. Alleviate whatever white guilt you feel and feel vindicated for fighting fascism. But, don't pretend that it is moral or righteous or even "left". It is simply middling liberalism. And that's fine, if you're into that sort of thing. I, myself, am not. I prefer change from the ground up, independent of an operation that, as I said, recent undermined serious police reform in New York. But, what's a few black and brown loves to defeat fascism? What is it to exonerate the DNC's history and the continuity between today and then? Why bring up the criminals they made up of black youth? That was the 90's, I know. We need context. Republicans were at the gates and we were defenseless. We had to be racist, don't you see. Now we utilize the pain of black mothers, whilst the current administration begins to authorize the sale of military weaponry to police. How much has changed.

 

And that is the end of that conversation. Now on to thing that matter more than the liberal defense of murder:

https://publish.dvlabs.com/democracynow/360/dn2016-0728.mp4?start=1397&end=3024

 

Scott Adams' Blog

When did the Dilbert guy become awful?

 

Your mistake is in believing that on a local level one has to be "hamstrung by the politics of aspiring careerists" and that you must "operate within the strict confines of its party apparatus and ideology". On a national level that is definitely true, which is why it's more important to change the politics of the party. But on a local level? Shit. My county reps barely adhere to political partisan norms, and all it takes is a little name recognition in the form of "that guy was my rep before this election" to keep winning elections. And the nature of one party rule in cities, coupled with extremely low turnout in primaries, means city council members who are party loyalists can lose their seats to outsiders with only a decent amount of organization and education.

 

But, seriously, this is a really excellent debate between two black men on the left about Hillary.

 

I'm not clicking on this but he's like pretty much an MRA

 

I had no idea that Dilbert is still a thing, wow.

 

Scott Adams’ defense of rape mentality

 

I think always, at least 5 years
‘Dilbert’ Creator Scott Adams Compares Women Asking for Equal Pay to Children Demanding Candy [UPDATED]