• 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 |OT1| From Russia with Love

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
A couple of people posted about getting maced at the Berkeley thing. One girl was giving an interview wearing a maga hat and they got her right when the interview finished (think they stole her hat too but she had a backup trump beanie lol). Dug into some of these people's feeds. This particular girl is a lesbian hardcore libertarian. Her friend is also a libertarian who did humanitarian work in Afghanistan. But both of them could set aside all the junk that came along with Trump because...what? People are weird.

I would guess because Trump is an underdog and an outsider.

To be completely honest as a white guy raised to be racist, I feel a lot of the same instinctual pull toward his underdog and outsiderness that I feel toward minorities.

Logically i know that's 100% wrong and I am completely against trump. Just trying to be honest about why I sort of understand how someone might feel that way.
 

PKrockin

Member
Milo is a self-admitted troll looking to stir shit up. Nobody should be obligated to take him seriously and give him a platform as if he has something constructive to say.
 
This "Religious Freedom Order" is so disgusting. At this rate by the end of Trump's term the environment is going to be ravaged beyond repair, the education system is going to be set back decades, the economy is going to be in the toilet and a significant amount of the population are going to have little to no rights. I just don't know how the Democrats would even begin to fix things.
 

Teggy

Member
I would guess because Trump is an underdog and an outsider.

To be completely honest as a white guy raised to be racist, I feel a lot of the same instinctual pull toward his underdog and outsiderness that I feel toward minorities.

Logically i know that's 100% wrong and I am completely against trump. Just trying to be honest about why I sort of understand how someone might feel that way.

I dug a little further and one of them is very anti-Sharia from her time in Afghanistan and posts a lot about the US protesting for women's rights while ignoring it in the Middle East. Both are really into info security. I guess Trump kind of touched on those things, but to think he was the right solution for those issues - I think they're just misguided kids.
 

CygnusXS

will gain confidence one day
This "Religious Freedom Order" is so disgusting. At this rate by the end of Trump's term the environment is going to be ravaged beyond repair, the education system is going to be set back decades, the economy is going to be in the toilet and a significant amount of the population are going to have little to no rights. I just don't know how the Democrats would even begin to fix things.

Military coup is looking like a decent option at this point.
 

Sibylus

Banned
This "Religious Freedom Order" is so disgusting. At this rate by the end of Trump's term the environment is going to be ravaged beyond repair, the education system is going to be set back decades, the economy is going to be in the toilet and a significant amount of the population are going to have little to no rights. I just don't know how the Democrats would even begin to fix things.

Much more of this, and it'd have to be in the aftermath of a coup and significant structural reforms.
 

Pixieking

Banned
I'm pretty sure anti-fascism is bipartisan, but fox news is pretty fucking dumb so... maybe they didn't get the memo.

Well, Republicans are just rubbing their hands with glee at being able to do everything they want, and Fox News (and their viewers) are doing the same. Right-wing partisan politics beats being anti-fascist.
 

Teggy

Member
I said this in another thread, but it's gonna be funny if they ever see an actual "extreme left". The kind of movement that drops the Bourgeoisie to their knees and puts a gun in their mouths. Will really make them nostalgic for the days of complaining about safe spaces.

You have to read the article about this. It's 4 girls from the Young Democrats group and they got some quote from another Young Democrat member who said they wanted to break off and do more extreme things (like graffiti against fascim!)

It's like Fox parodying itself.
 

Sibylus

Banned
x5TLi34R.jpg

Aaaand then there's shit like this

tH8Lh8i5.jpg


(lol)
 

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
I said this in another thread, but it's gonna be funny if they ever see an actual "extreme left". The kind of movement that drops the Bourgeoisie to their knees and puts a gun in their mouths. Will really make them nostalgic for the days of complaining about safe spaces.

Nicholas II would love the modern "extreme left"
 
I said this in another thread, but it's gonna be funny if they ever see an actual "extreme left". The kind of movement that drops the Bourgeoisie to their knees and puts a gun in their mouths. Will really make them nostalgic for the days of complaining about safe spaces.

Honestly, I hope that doesn't occur!
 

sphagnum

Banned
The best thing about The Resistance is that it ties into Star Wars and now my two obsessions have finally intersected.

I mean, they did when The Phantom Menace was all about taxation of trade routes but this time it's more clear cut.

Honestly, I hope that doesn't occur!

Nobody "hopes" it occurs. But when they keep pushing and pushing, things reach a breaking point eventually.
 

Pixieking

Banned
I really like the We The People, piece - it says a lot with very little, and is (purposefully?) reminiscent of Obama's Hope picture.
 

yeb

Member

Honestly, this is one time a Republican label might work in the left's favor.

Alt-left: Anarchists, arsonists, vandals, violent protesters...
Alt-right: Just as bad, but they're running the country.

It could be a label to cast out the worst people. Condemn the alt-left, and ask why Republicans won't condemn the alt-right. It's better than having them vilify socialism.
 

Nelo Ice

Banned
This "Religious Freedom Order" is so disgusting. At this rate by the end of Trump's term the environment is going to be ravaged beyond repair, the education system is going to be set back decades, the economy is going to be in the toilet and a significant amount of the population are going to have little to no rights. I just don't know how the Democrats would even begin to fix things.
Yep this is what I'm thinking right now. We'll be in smoldering ruins if we try to take the power back within the system by 2018. I don't see how we can last much longer under this pure chaos.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
So this religious freedom order would allow ISIS to set up tax-exempt recruiting centres in the US, right?
 
Honestly, this is one time a Republican label might work in the left's favor.

Alt-left: Anarchists, arsonists, vandals, violent protesters...
Alt-right: Just as bad, but they're running the country.

It could be a label to cast out the worst people. Condemn the alt-left, and ask why Republicans won't condemn the alt-right. It's better than having them vilify socialism.

And unlike Republicans the Democrats should have no issue disavowing the Alt side. But odds are they'll pussyfoot around the claim like a bunch of spineless idiots.

So this religious freedom order would allow ISIS to set up tax-exempt recruiting centres in the US, right?

It would get challenged in court and our newly appointed SCOTUS justice who loves "Fascism Forever" would claim the first amendment only applies to Christians.
 
So this religious freedom order would allow ISIS to set up tax-exempt recruiting centres in the US, right?
Yeah, that's the type of thing I'm thinking about in regards to it and is the type of play I think Democrats might need to make against it. It's a shady, dirty play, involving using fear of Muslims for own own gain, but since tricks are pretty much all the Democratic Party has at this point and hatred of Muslims isn't going anywhere regardless, it's an interesting tactic. To copy a post I just made in the OT thread about this exact thing where I went into more detail:

Yeah, I'm thinking this should be the play. Basically, use the bigotry of the Republican party against them and hoist them by their own petards. After all, it's worded carefully to avoid running afoul of the Equal Protections clause of the 14th Amendment by not technically putting any religion above any other. However, that being the case, it's quite possible to use that shrewdness against them as well.

The minute Trump lifts his pen from the page, Democrats should openly and loudly condemn the Executive Order as having made Muslim-based discrimination of Christians the law of the land. After all, because of their desire to avoid 14th Amendment issues, there's technically no language mentioning any specific individual religion at all and what individual faiths can and can't do with it. Thus, when challenged on this, Republicans won't be able to point to any article that prevents Christians from being refused service from Muslims simply for their being Christian, etc. It will be just as fair game as Christians denying someone service because their gay under the order. Thus, it could just as easily be said that this executive order made "Sharia Law" the law of the land by letting Muslims refuse service to Christians because of their own religious beliefs, and because of how general and sweeping the law is, they won't be able to point to any provision against it.

Republicans and Trump supporters won't give a fuck about a law that allows discrimination against the LGBT community or makes it harder for women to get a hold of contraceptives or whatever. At least, I don't want to depend on them having a soul in that area. As we've learned, that's a risky gambit that too often ends up backfiring in our faces. What they WILL care about however, and will get them fired up as much as anyone else, is if this executive order allows "Sharia Law" to become the law of the land as much as it allows discrimination against gays. That's what needs to be the play to get everyone calling on Trump to get rid of the thing.

The only way around this for them is if they admit that the true intent of the order is that it only allows Christians to do whatever they want, and it doesn't, in fact, apply equally to Muslims and those of other faiths. But the minute they're on record as saying that's the intent of the order, BAM! It can easily be struck down under the Equal Protections clause of the 14th in an open-and-shut case.

Definitely worth a try, at least. The Democrats are a minority party and their ain't many options they've got in that situation, and unfortunately the bigotry and hatred behind orders like this ain't gonna disappear any time soon. Thus, in the mean time, we can at least use their own bigotry against them to tie a rope around their necks.

EVERYONE!!! Call your Senators/Representatives and tell them not only to oppose this bill, but in opposing in use the strategy of the order being terribly worded and as such legalizing "Sharia Law" and discrimination of Christians by Muslims as much as it does discrimination of the LGBT community by Christians, and thus needs to go in order to protect Christians from Sharia Law!

It's a dirty trick, but as the minority party Democrats will have to get a bit dirty and rely on tricks like that until they're able to get power back. Until then, it's all we've got, and as I understand it, the only way around a trick like that is if they admit the law favors Christians over Muslims and treats the two groups differently, at which point it runs afoul of the 14th.

So the point would be to leave Republicans with a dilemma: Either force them to hitch their horse to an Executive Order that makes Sharia Law the law of the land as much as it does discrimination of the LGBT community, or admit the thing is completely, 100% unconstitutional. Their choice. Either way though, they lose. That's why it needs to be the play. Leave 'em with no options, and nowhere to run.

It would get challenged in court and our newly appointed SCOTUS justice who loves "Fascism Forever" would claim the first amendment only applies to Christians.
Heh. Technically no need for that though. A strict reading of the 1st Amendment is that it only applies to laws passed by Congress. Therefore, it wouldn't apply to it at all since it wasn't an act of Congress at all, but rather an Executive Order. I'm not that familiar with Constitutional Law to actually know if the 1st has been applied more broadly to that, and does in fact include Executive Orders based on past precedent of the Court, but that ain't a strategy I'd rely on regardless. It would have to be the 14th.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Actual White House response to the military leak about Trump sensing in military and getting that SEAL killed:

Obama's fault.
 
Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 45m45 minutes ago
If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 41m41 minutes ago
Congratulations to Rex Tillerson on being sworn in as our new Secretary of State. He will be a star!

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 24m24 minutes ago
Iran has been formally PUT ON NOTICE for firing a ballistic missile.Should have been thankful for the terrible deal the U.S. made with them!

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 19m19 minutes ago
Iran was on its last legs and ready to collapse until the U.S. came along and gave it a life-line in the form of the Iran Deal: $150 billion

Iran on its last legs? LOL
 

Rebel Leader

THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Republican on the Australian call

"Atleast we have strong leadership unlike we had for the past 8 years"


The gop need to be gone from all forms of government
 

gaugebozo

Member
What's the joke about him? Alcohol and fruit loops? I can't remember.
Bailey's:

Asked on CNN about being blamed for propping up what the frontrunner has repeatedly condemned as a “rigged” system, Priebus said his job is “fun.”

“People assume oh, are you – you must be miserable. You've got a horrible job. But I don't see it that way,” Priebus said in the interview. “I'm not pouring Baileys in my cereal, I’m not sitting here trying to find a Johnnie Walker.”

“This is fun,” he stammered.
The ironing is delicious. They won and it means he gets four more years of this!
 
JFC

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/malcolm-turnbull-donald-trump-pena-nieto/index.html

One person familiar with the circumstances on Saturday notes that President Trump's phone call with Turnbull came after a long day of conversations with other foreign leaders -- Turnbull was the fifth call after conversations with Japanese Prime Minister Abe, French President Hollande, German Chancellor Merkel, and Russian President Putin, each of which lasted close to an hour.

Trump, this source said, was feeling some fatigue after his first major bout of diplomacy. And while his earlier conversations weren't necessarily contentious, they did involve some tense moments. Merkel and Hollande pushed back on the travel ban over the phone. Merkel felt she had to explain the Geneva Convention to Trump -- a lecture a source has said Trump chafed at.

'Tough hombres' talk with Mexican President

CNN has also learned details about the Friday phone call between Trump and Peña Nieto, who canceled an in-person visit with Trump after the US President insisted Mexico pay for a border wall between the two countries.

According to an excerpt of the transcript of the call with Peña Nieto provided to CNN, Trump said, "You have some pretty tough hombres in Mexico that you may need help with. We are willing to help with that big-league, but they have be knocked out and you have not done a good job knocking them out."

Trump made an offer to help Peña Nieto with the drug cartels.
The excerpt of the transcript obtained by CNN differs with an official internal readout of the call that wrongly suggested Trump was contemplating sending troops to the border in a hostile way.

The Associated Press report said Trump threatened to send US troops to stop criminals in Mexico unless the government did more to control them, but both the US and Mexican governments denied details from the story.
Sources described the AP's reporting as being based upon a readout -- written by aides -- not a transcript.

Spicer described the call with Peña Nieto as "productive."
A government official familiar with Trump's interactions with foreign leaders said, "(Trump's) interactions are naive in that he keeps suggesting we will have the best relationship ever with a broad departure of countries, but there is no substance to back it up. When he encounters a policy challenge, like with Turnbull, he responds with a tantrum."

LOW STAMINA! SAD!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom