• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ahh yes that's all it is, irrational hatred, not like it is rooted in things he says and does, certainly not.

During the primaries and election that was certainly not the case.

Tut tutting people fighting against bigoted speakers downright to basically implying they are intellectually weak for protesting (booing and what not) is of worthy note especially in the fact of who he presents himself as, how he's talked about similar incidents in the past. This is a man who speaks of revolution but insults those actively taking a stand...

There's a difference between protesting someone and inciting violence, and I think that's what Sanders is speaking out against. If these people keep resorting to violent outbursts whenever some right wing nutjob shows up, the Right will always have the ability to say "so much for the peaceful left". You lose a bit of moral authority to be honest. Those speakers aren't going anywhere, so giving the illusion that you're afraid of their ideas spreading kind of legitimizes them. The more you let these nutjobs talk the more frequently they bury themselves--Milo, Young Blonde Republican #12, Ann Coulter, etc.

I mean seriously what has he actually done?

Other than get a lot of people involved or at the very least interested in politics? Other than a career of sponsoring/advocating for popular legislative ideas? Other than being the most popular politician in the country? I suppose nothing.
 

pigeon

Banned
During the primaries and election that was certainly not the case.

If you want to argue about the primaries, go to PoliGAF 2016. Otherwise maybe let it the fuck go.

There's a difference between protesting someone and inciting violence, and I think that's what Sanders is speaking out against.

Yes, and just like the other people speaking out against it, he's a privileged idiot on this topic.

Those speakers aren't going anywhere, so giving the illusion that you're afraid of their ideas spreading kind of legitimizes them.

They're white supremacists, so I am actually afraid of their ideas spreading.

The more you let these nutjobs talk the more frequently they bury themselves--Milo, Young Blonde Republican #12, Ann Coulter, etc.

And then occasionally they become president.

This is Disney movie logic. We live in the real world. Reactionary, racist and sexist rhetoric has been privileged in intellectual discourse for hundreds of years and it's only recently that there's been any suggestion that it wasn't the natural order. White supremacists have been known to be resistant to reasoned argument and to require violent resistance.
 
Congratulations Macaroon.

I don't get why anyone would waste their political capital on defending Ann Coulter.

She doesn't have a right to speak wherever she wants. I don't get how people don't understand this.

Nor the weird conceit people have that they'll win in the "debate" against Coulter or Milo or Richard Spencer or David Duke.
 
During the primaries and election that was certainly not the case.

Whatever you say.


There's a difference between protesting someone and inciting violence, and I think that's what Sanders is speaking out against. If these people keep resorting to violent outbursts whenever some right wing nutjob shows up, the Right will always have the ability to say "so much for the peaceful left". You lose a bit of moral authority to be honest. Those speakers aren't going anywhere, so giving the illusion that you're afraid of their ideas spreading kind of legitimizes them. The more you let these nutjobs talk the more frequently they bury themselves--Milo, Young Blonde Republican #12, Ann Coulter, etc.

For the record I completely re-edited my post because I wasn't happy with how I was wording things.

Sanders literally said booing and talking over her was bad, he literally said anything except politely debating her (as if that's going to happen) is intellectual weakness... his words.

You know what else legitimizes hate speech? Giving it a platform that they control (ie good luck getting any semblance of an actual debate) uncontested.

I am afraid of their ideas spreading... because their ideas are horrific and encourage hatred... why wouldn't I be afraid.

Also:

1) Ann Coulter has been around for like decades... she hasn't been buried like at all

2) Milo literally only got buried because he said fucking young teens was good.... that was luck, he'd just been given a huge platform on Maher's show where thanks to Maher doing fuck nothing had actually come off well and was likely on an upwards trajectory. The only thing that killed him was saying 13 year olds should have sex with adults... That's it. The next Milo might not be that fucked up, the next Milo might just hate queer folk, POC, women, trans folk and that person will be just fine.

3) Blonde Republican #12 got buried for being pro-choice... so the next one might not say that out loud



Other than get a lot of people involved or at the very least interested in politics? Other than a career of sponsoring/advocating for popular legislative ideas? Other than being the most popular politician in the country? I suppose nothing.

He's good at amendments i'll give you that, he's got not much of a legislative record though. Didn't realize being popular counts as an accomplishment. Also turnout for the primary (the only reasonable measure to the claim he's gotten a lot of people involved in politics) was lower than 2008 so I question that claim that he's gotten so many more people involved in politics, if you have stats though i am willing to be wrong. Also I'd then say quality of engagement is also a question as Sanders peddled in a lot of the system is rigged against me stuff (which has had effects to this day, see the Tom Perez shit) and I'm not convinced making more people distrust the only party capable of fighting the GOP is a good thing.
 
They're white supremacists, so I am actually afraid of their ideas spreading.

Not exactly a new idea, I think it's been around for a while and Ann Coulter be damned will probably stick around for a while too (unfortunately).

And then occasionally they become president.

This is Disney movie logic. We live in the real world. Reactionary, racist and sexist rhetoric has been privileged in intellectual discourse for hundreds of years and it's only recently that there's been any suggestion that it wasn't the natural order. White supremacists have been known to be resistant to reasoned argument and to require violent resistance.

The idea is to educate those listening, not those speaking, and to do it with consistency. Violent Resistance is absolutely necessary at times. Honestly, if we want to squash white supremacy the best way to do it is to force some of these idiots to live with minorities. I propose Mega Cities, that'l show em.

For the record I completely re-edited my post because I wasn't happy with how I was wording things.

Sanders literally said booing and talking over her was bad, he literally said anything except politely debating her (as if that's going to happen) is intellectual weakness... his words.

It's not a great thing to say, I'll give you that. But these protests turning violent just gives the opposition ammo and in the end things go right back to where they were. On top of that, Ann Coulter isn't exactly a powerful figure these days, and I imagine white supremacists aren't thrilled with the fact that she has a longstanding relationship with a black man.

You know what else legitimizes hate speech? Giving it a platform that they control (ie good luck getting any semblance of an actual debate) uncontested.

They don't control Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, or any of these avenues in which White Supremacy continues to be prevalent. I don't imagine speaking at a liberal college in a liberal state is exactly reaching a receptive audience. It seems like these people book speeches are Berkley just to get them cancelled so they can get publicity.

I am afraid of their ideas spreading... because their ideas are horrific and encourage hatred... why wouldn't I be afraid.

As I said above, it's not exactly some new age thinking. These people have been around for centuries, and suddenly yelling over them in a heavily Liberal setting isn't going to conquer racism.

Also:

1) Ann Coulter has been around for like decades... she hasn't been buried like at all

2) Milo literally only got burred because he said fucking young teens was good.... that was luck, he'd just been given a huge platform on Maher's show where thanks to Maher doing fuck nothing had actually come off well and was likely on an upwards trajectory. The only thing that killed him was saying 13 year olds should have sex with adults... That's it. The next Milo might not be that fucked up, the next Milo might just hate queer folk, POC, women, trans folk and that person will be just fine.

3) Blonde Republican #12 got buried for being pro-choice... so the next one might not say that out loud

1. And she's still a joke, but now she has more buzz about her.

2. Milo was always doomed.

3. It was the one thing she said that was reasonable, and that was her undoing.

He's good at amendments i'll give you that, he's got not much of a legislative record though. Didn't realize being popular counts as an accomplishment. Also turnout for the primary (the only reasonable measure to the claim he's gotten a lot of people involved in politics) was lower than 2008 so I question that claim, if you have stats though i am willing to be wrong.

2008 was an exception not a rule. Obama got insane turnout, and the Democratic Party didn't have quite as much negative press as it did in 2016. You would think the Democrats would have kept that momentum going through 2010, 2012, 2014, and into 2016, but they failed to do so.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Hey now, the exact number of nations is under debate. Some put the number at over 200. The UN currently says there is 195 nations (And notably doesn't consider Taiwan a separate nation from China)

What I'm saying here, we can easily make up more nations for our bombing needs, 191 is not the limit.
I like the way you think. We'll bomb them into separate pieces like Korea or Yemen and then bomb the pieces.

Welcome to the National Security Council.
 

kirblar

Member
Because support for individual candidates doesn't extend to the party. Bernie couldn't fundraise for shit outside of his campaign and Obama's had the same issues w/ OFA.
 
Ann Coulter has plenty of platforms.
Ann Coulter has made million selling her trash.
Ann Coulter isn't being oppressed.
Jeez.

Ann Coulter exists. You will not make Ann Coulter go away or lose her following by "debate" with her. Ann Coulter also won't go away if you ignore her.

There is nothing to be done about Ann Coulter because even if you think she's a joke you're not her audience.
 

East Lake

Member
Why should anyone be afraid of Ann Coulter having " a platform" at Berkeley as if the other platforms she has aren't already adequate? Worrying about the spread of white supremacy seems weird when the general position in here seems to be that white supremacists cannot be reasoned with. Are they going to come crawling out of the rural fields and the organic gardens of Berkeley once they are energized by Coulter's soaring lectures? If they're already white supremacists what's the big deal?
 

pigeon

Banned
The idea is to educate those listening, not those speaking, and to do it with consistency.

I don't understand who these hypothetical college students are who are white supremacy-curious. If you're going to hear Ann Coulter talk, you're probably already convinced.

Honestly, if we want to squash white supremacy the best way to do it is to force some of these idiots to live with minorities. I propose Mega Cities, that'l show em.

I support this idea, but it might be dangerous for the minorities.
 
Ann Coulter can go wherever she wants and say whatever she wants within the realms of the law.

No one is stopping her.

I'm typically not invited into public universities or hospitals or police stations or social houses while people are making dinner to speak either.

My freedom of speech remains unimpinged.
 
I don't understand who these hypothetical college students are who are white supremacy-curious. If you're going to hear Ann Coulter talk, you're probably already convinced.

That was kind of my point, but the wording was lost because I was typing in a hurry. What I'm saying is you're going to have better luck making them look weak in a debate with a non-fanatical audience present. As you say, the people there are already there to see Ann fucking Coulter, so odds are their a combination of stupid and racist going into the damn thing. I also don't think anyone at Berkley is super susceptible to White Supremacist speakers, so this is likely people from surrounding towns/cities coming there to hear her dumpster fire of a lecture.

I support this idea, but it might be dangerous for the minorities.

I mean, are violent protests somehow not dangerous?
 

benjipwns

Banned
That short dude has the same weird idea as Grand Wizard Bernie:
Robert Reich
April 19 at 4:22pm ·

Today, officials at the University of California, Berkeley, where I'm a professor, canceled a planned speech by Ann Coulter. They cited safety concerns. In a letter to a campus Republican group that invited Coulter to speak, university officials said that they made the decision to cancel Coulter's appearance after assessing the violence that flared on campus in February, when the same college Republican group invited right-wing provocateur and Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos to speak.

This is a grave mistake. Coulter should be allowed to speak. How can students understand the vapidity of Coulter's arguments without being allowed to hear her make them, and question her about them?

It's one thing to cancel an address at the last moment because university and local police are not prepared to contain violence – as occurred, sadly, with Yiannopoulos. It's another thing entirely to cancel an address before it is given, when police have adequate time to prepare for such eventualities.

Free speech is what universities are all about. If universities don't do everything possible to foster and protect it, they aren't universities. They're playpens.

What do you think?
Where's my fainting couch? In the playpen?
 
Er this isn't the 1920s, I can hear Coulter anytime I want with a trip to YouTube or if I want to cause self harm I can buy one of her books

I don't get the argument that people you disagree with are being suppressed. As for q&a, have one of those question sessions ever really provided extra insight when they have no doubt been asked whatever question you have somewhere else.
 
Robert Reich has been carrying water for Bernie since the start and railing against Clinton since the start.

He's the "intellectual arm" of the TYT wing and Justice Democrats.
 
Robert Reich has been carrying water for Bernie since the start and railing against Clinton since the start.

He's the "intellectual arm" of the TYT wing and Justice Democrats.
That seems unfair. Granted, I don't quite agree him on his assertion that Democrats abandoned the working class this past election, but he knew that Hillary was a good candidate. He even dedicated an entire video to explaining why it was so important that we don't let ourselves get complacent, and to make sure that she not only won, but also dealt Trump and his regressive ideology a crushing defeat.
 
That seems unfair. Granted, I don't quite agree him on his assertion that Democrats abandoned the working class this past election, but he knew that Hillary was a good candidate. He even dedicated an entire video to explaining why it was so important that we don't let ourselves get complacent, and to make sure that she not only won, but also dealt Trump and his regressive ideology a crushing defeat.

It's not unfair at all. One could say Bernie acted similarly to Reich in the run up to the election. Heck, even Cenk Uyger released a video saying to vote Clinton.

Yet, immediately after the election, Reich was on this "new Democratic party" kick about defeating all the moneyed interests within the Democratic Party. By and large, the moneyed interests who support the Democratic Party aren't that powerful of a force within the party. No one Democratic candidate really feels the need to, let's say, kiss the ring of Thomas Steyer in order to win an election. We don't have a real equivalent to Shelden Adelson, the Koch brothers, Robert Mercer, or the DeVos clan.
 

royalan

Member
My problem with Bernie's statements regarding Ann Coulter isn't his hypocrisy. That much is always obvious with that petty old man.

It's that he's advocating the students do EXACTLY what Ann Coulter and people like her feed off of.

Ann Coulter doesn't give a fuck about anybody's hard-hitting questions. She's does the college circuit to push her ignorance, make people mad, and drum up enough hate to sell her books. As someone who's been to Ann Coulter's events, there's no "discourse" to be had at them. You might as well attempt an "exchange of ideas" with Jeffrey Lord or Kayleigh McEneneneny. She's a troll.

So why not troll her back?
 
Yet, immediately after the election, Reich was on this "new Democratic party" kick about defeating all the moneyed interests within the Democratic Party. By and large, the moneyed interests who support the Democratic Party aren't that powerful of a force within the party. No one Democratic candidate really feels the need to, let's say, kiss the ring of Thomas Steyer in order to win an election. We don't have a real equivalent to Shelden Adelson, the Koch brothers, Robert Mercer, or the DeVos clan.

You can't say get money out of politics while taking the big money. Duh. You'd look like an idiot like Clinton.

Feel free to continue to whine though. Doesn't make you right.
 
Not sure if this is controversial or not, I think the biggest reason Clinton lost in PA, MI, WI, FL and the close elections in MN, NH, etc. is Black Lives Matter movement.

I feel like the effect of BLM movement on 2016 election has never been analyzed. But it turned white voters off Clinton (who supported BLM) but at the same time BLM never embraced Clinton and in some cases actively campaigned against her.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Before long, Fox is going to start advertising itself as the only cable news channel trusted by the President given how Trumo can shut the fuck up about FAIRY FAKE NEWS PARENTS
 

EYEL1NER

Member
Has anyone seen any good predictions for the South Carolina special election that is coming up, for the 5th Congressional District (primary on May 2)? I could be wrong but I don't think this is as high of a profile ones as KS or GA; I haven't really seen anything about it anywhere. I checked 538 and didn't see anything, and tried Google but couldn't find much. I don't really know where to look though. I've looked at who the three Democrats running are and don't particularly see one that jumps out to me more than the others. It looks like one of them has brought in a substantially larger amount of money than the other two, and more than a lot of the Republican runners, so I was wondering what his chances were. I suppose I can keep digging into these three and see if I can narrow it down to who I like best, but I don't necessarily want to vote for one of them who is going to be siphoning votes from a person who could actually win it.

I keep forgetting the primary is coming up, despite signs sprouting around town within the last couple weeks, but I saw a commercial for one of the Republicans last night, Chad Connelly, and got pissed off and said "I need to be sure I vote." He had some shitty commercial with two old men at like a Cracker Barrel or some dark diner talking to each other, one with a MAGA hat. They made sure to bring up his military service, his extreme devotion to his religion, his support and love for Donald Trump, and how he wants to repeal Obamacare and build the wall. It then went on to say something in text along the lines of "Conservative. Christian. Outsider. Vote Connelly." I just sat there like "You're another white Republican Christian man who wants to keep poor people from getting medical assistance and keep foreigners out... What kind of 'outsider' are you?! Fuck off."
 

chadskin

Member
More troubling news from the Senate Intel Committee's Russia probe:
The committee has yet to issue a single subpoena for documents or interview any key witnesses who are central to the probe, the sources said. It also hasn't requested potentially crucial evidence — such as the emails, memos and phone records of the Trump campaign — in part because the panel's chairman, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., has so far failed to respond to requests from the panel's Democrats to sign letters doing so, the sources said.
As Congress returns from its spring recess this week and Trump approaches his 100th day in office, the panel has no further public hearings scheduled, even as the House Intelligence Committee — torn by its own partisan wrangling and internal turmoil — shows some flickering new signs of life. The result has caused growing frustration among the Senate committee's Democrats, who are privately complaining the probe is underfunded, understaffed and too timid in pushing to get to the bottom of one of the most explosive political stories in years.

”I would like to see this moving more quickly," Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., a member of the panel, said in an interview with Yahoo News.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the ranking minority member on the panel, has repeatedly said the Russia investigation ”may very well be the most important thing I do in my public life." And until now, Warner has sought to project an appearance of bipartisan unity with Burr, portraying the probe as a methodical inquiry that will follow the facts wherever they lead.

But Warner's handling of the probe has led to grumbling among some of his Democratic colleagues that he has been too reluctant to challenge Burr and press for more aggressive action — for fear of undercutting the perception that he and the Republican chairman are working cooperatively together. ”He's been afraid to even bring up the S-word," said one source familiar with the details of the investigation, referring to the panel's authority to issue subpoenas for documents.

But there are signs Warner's patience is starting to wear thin. Warner ”is not satisfied, with the pace of the investigation and he doesn't think it's moving fast enough," a committee source tells Yahoo News. ”He would like to have seen more hearings and more interviews with witnesses."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-russia-probe-flounders-amid-partisan-bickering-130323166.html
 
Has anyone seen any good predictions for the South Carolina special election that is coming up, for the 5th Congressional District (primary on May 2)? I could be wrong but I don't think this is as high of a profile ones as KS or GA; I haven't really seen anything about it anywhere. I checked 538 and didn't see anything, and tried Google but couldn't find much. I don't really know where to look though. I've looked at who the three Democrats running are and don't particularly see one that jumps out to me more than the others. It looks like one of them has brought in a substantially larger amount of money than the other two, and more than a lot of the Republican runners, so I was wondering what his chances were. I suppose I can keep digging into these three and see if I can narrow it down to who I like best, but I don't necessarily want to vote for one of them who is going to be siphoning votes from a person who could actually win it.

I keep forgetting the primary is coming up, despite signs sprouting around town within the last couple weeks, but I saw a commercial for one of the Republicans last night, Chad Connelly, and got pissed off and said "I need to be sure I vote." He had some shitty commercial with two old men at like a Cracker Barrel or some dark diner talking to each other, one with a MAGA hat. They made sure to bring up his military service, his extreme devotion to his religion, his support and love for Donald Trump, and how he wants to repeal Obamacare and build the wall. It then went on to say something in text along the lines of "Conservative. Christian. Outsider. Vote Connelly." I just sat there like "You're another white Republican Christian man who wants to keep poor people from getting medical assistance and keep foreigners out... What kind of 'outsider' are you?! Fuck off."

I assume there won't be much talk about it until after the primary is over. But it's an R+9 district, so it's sort of in an awkward range where it could or could not be competitive. Probably depends entirely on candidates.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Has anyone seen any good predictions for the South Carolina special election that is coming up, for the 5th Congressional District (primary on May 2)? I could be wrong but I don't think this is as high of a profile ones as KS or GA; I haven't really seen anything about it anywhere. I checked 538 and didn't see anything, and tried Google but couldn't find much. I don't really know where to look though. I've looked at who the three Democrats running are and don't particularly see one that jumps out to me more than the others. It looks like one of them has brought in a substantially larger amount of money than the other two, and more than a lot of the Republican runners, so I was wondering what his chances were. I suppose I can keep digging into these three and see if I can narrow it down to who I like best, but I don't necessarily want to vote for one of them who is going to be siphoning votes from a person who could actually win it.

I keep forgetting the primary is coming up, despite signs sprouting around town within the last couple weeks, but I saw a commercial for one of the Republicans last night, Chad Connelly, and got pissed off and said "I need to be sure I vote." He had some shitty commercial with two old men at like a Cracker Barrel or some dark diner talking to each other, one with a MAGA hat. They made sure to bring up his military service, his extreme devotion to his religion, his support and love for Donald Trump, and how he wants to repeal Obamacare and build the wall. It then went on to say something in text along the lines of "Conservative. Christian. Outsider. Vote Connelly." I just sat there like "You're another white Republican Christian man who wants to keep poor people from getting medical assistance and keep foreigners out... What kind of 'outsider' are you?! Fuck off."

It's going to Connolly, most likely. That area was drawn to be really deep red. Plus, he has the red meat of repealing the ACAand building a wall in all of his ads.
 

dramatis

Member
Has anyone seen any good predictions for the South Carolina special election that is coming up, for the 5th Congressional District (primary on May 2)? I could be wrong but I don't think this is as high of a profile ones as KS or GA; I haven't really seen anything about it anywhere. I checked 538 and didn't see anything, and tried Google but couldn't find much. I don't really know where to look though. I've looked at who the three Democrats running are and don't particularly see one that jumps out to me more than the others. It looks like one of them has brought in a substantially larger amount of money than the other two, and more than a lot of the Republican runners, so I was wondering what his chances were. I suppose I can keep digging into these three and see if I can narrow it down to who I like best, but I don't necessarily want to vote for one of them who is going to be siphoning votes from a person who could actually win it.
Primary election on May 2nd (determines the candidates on final ballot). Special general election June 20th.

Mulvaney won 59.2% to the Dem's 38.7% in 2016. It was Dem before Mulvaney, but the way the percentages look it seems as though it's trending red. Plus when Mulvaney won in 2010, SC got another House seat so the district was redrawn.

An assessment from DailyKos just this morning:
SC-05: The May 2 primary for this reliably red seat is coming up soon, and we have campaign finance reports from the candidates covering the period of Jan. 1 through April 12. In contests where no one takes a majority, there will be a runoff May 16; the general election is June 20. We'll start with a look at the Republicans candidates:

Ex-state party chair Chad Connelly: $190,000 raised, $177,000 spent, $12,000 cash-on-hand

Perennial candidate Ray Craig: Did not file

Anti-Common Core activist Sheri Few: $52,000 raised, $8,600 self-funded, $39,000 spent, $38,000 cash-on-hand

SC Guard Commander and attorney Tom Mullikin: $92,000 raised, $144,000 self-funded, $176,000 spent, $60,000 cash-on-hand

Ex-state Rep. and 2006 nominee Ralph Norman: $285,000 raised, $305,000 self-funded, $183,000 spent, $407,000 cash-on-hand

State House Speaker Pro Tempore Tommy Pope: $196,000 raised, $83,000 spent, $143,000 cash-on-hand

Attorney Kris Wampler: $3,000 raised, $5,000 spent, negative $2,000 cash-on-hand

So far, major outside groups have stayed out of the contest.

Trump won this Rock Hill-area seat 57-39 and it's likely to stay red, though after the GOP's unexpectedly tight showing in Kansas' 4th District earlier this month, the general election might be more interesting than it once looked. Three Democrats are running, but former Goldman Sachs senior advisor Archie Parnell is the only one who reports spending more than $10,000. Parnell raised $143,000 and self-funded another $100,000, spent $65,000, and has $178,000 on-hand.
I think people will look into pouring resources after the primary dust has settled.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

The two fake news polls released yesterday, ABC & NBC, while containing some very positive info, were totally wrong in General E. Watch!
8:15 AM · Apr 24, 2017

*perches*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom