On American Appeasement

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Apr 29, 2017.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,982
    #wellduh

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Click for socialized hate.

    Why bother, when you keep refusing to read it?

    No, seriously: If you were capable of being sincere, that would be ... y'know, at least something.

    It's also a slogan that taps the conservative condemnation of what it describes. It's as vapid coming from you as it would be coming from someone who wasn't afraid to admit to being a Republican.

    Liberals would be a little less explicit about it. Phucking ¡duh!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523

    So let me get this straight, pointing out after the fact of her loss it is my fault she lost... causality?

    So it is a stalemate then? Well don't worry you have another 4 years at least to try to convince me, and I you.

    Hey I got a life.

    Is that why Bernie is so loved? Anyways very hypocritical from you to care about not enragging the conservatives as you believe that is appeasement. So let me get this straight: you have no problem pissing them off with abortion, with gay marriage, with bitching about the wage gap and presenting no legislative solution, but "tax the rich" is too much and will piss them off?

    This is all you have left for an argument: an attack of my character.

    You mean like "medicare for all"? Seriously at the march for science I passed a socialist group and they were shouting slogans, no one listen until the started shouting "tax the rich!" then the whole section of the march responds with "tax the rich!"
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,652
    Just read pretty much any post within this thread that isn't your own. Seriously.

    Also, off-topic, but I'm retracting my remarks about Cornelius Cardew's PLM (though he was still authoritarian). It's way better on revisitation. Not AMM, but... I'm also posting Youtube despite my previous complaints. And try to sing the third verse at this tempo:

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,353
    Nope. The opposite is true. The large contingent of democrats who loudly lamented Sander's failure to get the nomination - BEFORE the election - drove many democratic voters to stay home.

    So if you want Trump to win in 2020, continue your lament. That way, rather than change the results, you can continue the blame game - which you seem to enjoy. (If that's the case no worries; I have learned from your experience and can continue it with you if you so desire.)
     
  8. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Not my fault, I voted for Hillary in the general. Those that lamenting Sander's failure were sanders voters, had Bernie won then they would not have stay home or voted for Stein or worse voted for Trump in the general election. What would the Hillary voters do? Stay home? We will never know will we.

    How is saying we need an economy first agenda of tax the rich to provide social services for all "blame game". I ask for a specific change to how we rank our priorities and Tiassa calls that "appeasement".

    What the things I disproved, that sexism and racism have any standing against economic injustice?
     
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,035
    How much would you tax them? You know, to fund for all of these services?

    And what would be the lowest income within that tax bracket that would see an uptick in taxes, to fund such a huge scheme?

    Because I can tell you now, middle income earners would not support it, nor would higher income earners. The reason being that people within these brackets have every intention of moving up economically. So they will not vote for a system that would impede on their ability to move up economically, and could affect future income. As I linked earlier, people of all economic brackets in the US tend to vote against any form of reform that would benefit the poor, especially when said reform will be hitting them right in their hip pockets.

    There is also the ridiculous notion that you keep pushing forward, that Democrats should run whatever kind of candidate that would garner votes in different areas, be it anti-choice candidates, or any other kind of candidate, so long as that candidate offers a reflection of those you are trying to appease. In this instance, you seem to think that the Democrats should be throwing any form of reform towards equality and human rights, out of the window, and instead, abasing itself to the right wing, just to "win". Astonishingly enough, you seem to believe that a) voters would fall for it and b) that somehow or other, these candidates would then turn around and do the absolute opposite to what they portrayed themselves as being. So the anti-choice candidate will suddenly ensure women's right to reproductive health care... Because voters would vote for your party again after doing all of this, not to mention then taxing the living crap out of anyone you think is "rich" to fund services and literally give money to the poor.

    White Americans voted for the candidate that was promising to repeal health care reform, despite the fact that a large portion of those voters benefit directly from Obamacare because it allowed them to access health insurance for the first time and they voted for the party that promised to take it all away from them and you actually think they will vote for Democrats when you say the party should be promising to take money from the rich to give to the poor?

    And I am not even touching on the fact that those who traditionally vote Democrats for being the pro-choice and equality party, would turn away in droves. You would lose more than you would ever gain. The reason Sanders did so so badly with minorities is because he left them out of the economic reform equation he pushed.

    You claim you are somehow connected to the Democrat Party and that you are an elected official of some sort. If what you spouted here ever became public and connected to you, you would severely damage the party and embarrass them as a whole. As in literally. You are the equivalent of "I am not a witch" of your party.

    Your "economy first" agenda that you are badly trying to promote here will fail and it will destroy your party. Your voting base will not support it and all those people you think you should bend over backwards for to win over, will not support it. Consider just how many, even poor people, voted for the party that they knew was going to take away their health care.. As I linked earlier, white voters in particular, tend to vote against policies, even if these policies directly benefit them, if there is even a hint that these policies will benefit minorities and women. And you think a platform of 'take from the rich and give to the poor', like some twisted Robin Hood story, and couch it in the way that will appeal to white Americans, is going to get you a win? Too bad those women voters and minorities, who combined make up a majority, would not vote for you.

    Nor would you ever win Government again for possibly a couple of decades, if you run candidates that preach one thing to their constituents to just "win", and then do the complete opposite to what they portrayed themselves as.

    Your agenda is simplistic and idiotic, without any nuance or understanding of the society it is meant to be for. You completely eradicated minorities and women from the platform, demand that they do not matter and should not matter and then somehow or other believe that they will vote for you, when you can't even recognise what causes their restrictions economically.. what causes them to not thrive as much as they should.. How can you fix something when you don't even understand how or why it is broken? You are like the simpleton, whose house is burning down, and instead of turning the hose on the house to put the fire out, you think you should use that water to water your houseplants. You completely miss the entire problem.

    Racism and sexism cause economic injustice, you dolt!

    You haven't "disproved" anything. All you have done is spend pages and pages denying reality, and refusing to read what people say. That is not you disproving anything. That is just you willingly digging a hole and sticking your head down into that hole, filling it back in and then whining about how dark it is.
     
  10. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,652
    If EF wants a "one sentence" summation of "the point" which he is missing, that is pretty much it.

    And if one professes to be an egalitarian--as he does--this is pretty much an irrefutable no-brainer.
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,982
    He doesn't actually want anything except that people should waste their time on his trolling. Infamy is better than being ignored, for some.
     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,982
    Can of Corn

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Two questions:

    A group that included a well-known white nationalist carried torches and chanted “you will not replace us” at a weekend protest in Virginia over plans to remove a monument of a Confederate general ....

    .... Among those at the protest were Richard Spencer, a while nationalist who popularized the phrase “alt-right” and is a leading figure in a fringe movement that has been described as a mix of racism, white nationalism and populism.

    “We will not be replaced from this park,” Spencer told the crowd at a different rally held hours earlier in Charlottesville on Saturday. “We will not be replaced from this world. Whites have a future. We have a future of power, of beauty, of expression,” he said.


    (Associated Press↱)

    (1) Appeasers: What should the Democratic Party do to explicitly assuage fears of genocide against white people?

    (2) Racists: What should the Democratic Party do to explicitly assuage fears of genocide against white people?

    Yeah, you know, I guess the redundancy is kind of silly. Okay, let's try a different question:

    (2) Racists: So, how does this go—are we supposed to hold this against all white people, or something?
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Associated Press. "Torch-wielding group protests Confederate statue removal". 15 May 2017. APNews.com. 15 May 2017. http://apne.ws/2pArF0c
     
  13. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The Democrats were the original party of slavery. They tend to follow a pattern, where they create a problem and then try to set up a smoke screen by blaming someone else.

    The fact remains, only about 1% of the whites owned slaves, yet the Democrats try to blame all whites. This is not rational but part of a larger con. The reason is, all the 1% of whites who owned slaves were Democrats, and if they attempted to target the blame and guilt, it would come back to the elite Democrats. The Democrat party leadership prefer to falsely accuse 99%, than man up and accept the blame.

    Picture this scenario, you are a poor white male, trying to support a family. You never owned slaves. You are asked to fight the Yankees; Union and north, who is invading your land. You are not into politics, since you work all day and are not an idle plantation owner with too much time on your hands. However, you can see the consequences of an invading army.

    You fight hard and many of your comrades fall. You have a reason to be proud even in defeat. Like any veteran, you honor the past, in memory of all those who gave their lives. You also honor the heroes of the war. The Democrats, hypocrites, come down there and tell you this is wrong. Somehow you are supposed to accept their blame for slavery, so they can continue to con the modern blacks, into a different form of segregation.

    Trump is draining the swamp of all these con artists. If there is no proof you had slaves or did anything to the blacks, you can honor whomever you want. It is the con artists that need to be addressed and whipped.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,982
    (guffaw!) Do yo ever get tired of humiliating yourself?
     
  15. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,055
    only way trump draining the swamp is by overfilling it with gators
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,353
    Do you really want to start whipping Trump's family? They are currently out trying to sell political favors to the Chinese.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,400
    Ok so far. What planet am I picturing this on?
     
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,982
    #resist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Rebecca Traister↱ of New York magazine brings a glimpse of, "The surreal post-election life of the woman who would have been president":

    The press, she believes, didn't make it any easier. "Look, we have an advocacy press on the right that has done a really good job for the last 25 years," she says. "They have a mission. They use the rights given to them under the First Amendment to advocate a set of policies that are in their interests, their commercial, corporate, religious interests. Because the advocacy media occupies the right, and the center needs to be focused on providing as accurate information as possible. Not both-sides-ism and not false equivalency."

    The impulse toward false equivalency is only getting worse, in her opinion. "The cable networks seem to me to be folding into a posture of, 'Oh, we want to try to get some of those people on the right, so maybe we better be more, quote, evenhanded.' "When I mention MSNBC's hiring of conservatives including George Will, and the New York Times' new climate-change-skeptic opinion columnist, Bret Stephens, her brow furrows. "Why … would … you … do … that?" she says. "Sixty-six million people voted for me, plus, you know, the crazy third-party people. So there's a lot of people who would actually appreciate stronger arguments on behalf of the most existential challenges facing our country and the world, climate change being one of them! It's clearly a commercial decision. But I don't think it will work. I mean, they're laughing on the right at these puny efforts to try to appease people on the right."

    There is a lot to the article, but, y'know, yeah, that part stood out in its context.

    It's worth noting, though, such as it is, that these must necessarily be commercial decisions, because they're not supposed to be political; furthermore, the political considerations are even weaker than the commercial. In either case it is a technocratic decision erroneously presuming particular prioritized aspects of history far more constant or stable than they are—the presuppositions are amiss if either aspect fails to consider the possibility of conservatives rejecting the insufficiently faithful traitor RINO cucks.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Traister, Rebecca. "Hillary Clinton Is Furious. And Resigned. And Funny. And Worried." New York. 26 May 2017. NYMag.com. 26 May 2017. http://nym.ag/2s548Bk
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,982
    This Is Why

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    At the heart of this tragic story is, of course, mass murder in Orlando Florida:

    The news had to hit hard. For those families who waited all day after news of the Pulse shooting first broke, the confirmation process moved at a painfully slow pace. Many parents had to wait more than 24 hours to find out for certain why their child would not pick up the phone and verify they were OK. The loved ones of the 49 killed that night learned heartbreaking news that suddenly shifted their emotion from worry to sorrow and redirected their energy toward funeral plans.

    But one father greeted news a different way, not by weeping for his son but in anger toward a child he refused to accept. Why? Because the child was gay. The father wouldn’t even take the body from the morgue.


    (Ogles↱)

    This is what Appeasers support. Such outcomes are the human tragedy they would have us encourage. Yeah, we find it fucking tragic as sin itself that owning your kids' sex lives is just this important to someone, but I dare any Appeaser to tell me where the middle ground is.

    Oh, right. Appeasement. No, we don't want people to feel badly about abandoning their children, do we? That might be enough to make them vote Republican, is it?

    This is why Appeasement is surrender.

    I dare any Appeaser to have the courage to answer: Why should we coddle and reinforce this manner of prejudice?

    We would have a world when senseless prejudice does strip away basic human decency; there are those who find such notions objectionable—what middle ground would the Appeasers have us attend?

    Why would anyone support a world that raises a father to so hate his own son?

    What benefit do Appeasers expect to win anyone by servicing hatred? What benefit do they hope from bargaining with such evil as to deny family?

    Yes, we understand that some people feel left behind when a society decides that their cruelty is no longer acceptable. What bargain would the Appeasers have us forge with cruelty? You know, you know, because it would be cruel to not compromise with cruelty?
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Ogles, Jacob. "The Story Behind Pulse's Unclaimed Victim". The Advocate. 8 June 2017. TheAdvocate.com. 12 June 2017. http://bit.ly/2sjm27n
     
  20. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    There is no right or reason to compromise with such cold, unfeeling, embittered, bigoted assholes... they need to be shunted to the side and if they refuse to move willingly out of the way of progress, be shoved out of the way.
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,982

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The second half of that is difficult; it's not simply a matter of shoving them out of the way if there is sixty-two million nine hundred eighty-four thousand eight hundred twenty-five of them. Beyond that, though, we find something about the word "values".

    Each year, around the country, small corners of the law enforcement community, often with the help of compassionate local churches, undertake the grim ritual of laying the forgotten to rest. They are homeless, and nobody knows who they are. Or we know who they are but there is no known next of kin.

    Orlando City Commissioner Patty Sheehan can get overwhelmed discussing the family issues surrounding Pulse, particularly since the issue of sexual orientation so dominated the narrative of the tragedy. Sheehan isn't squeamish discussing sexuality; in 2000 she became the first openly gay elected official in central Florida. But while details of her identity have been plastered in headlines for decades, the sexual orientation of numerous victims had been a private matter until their deaths. After the crime occurred in her district, she found herself on the phone with several confused parents who had the same question: "What was our son doing in that club with that man?"

    It's to be expected with a tragedy at a gay club where most victims were in their 20s. That the shooting took place on Latin night meant the majority of the dead hailed from Orlando's substantial Puerto Rican community. The fact that millennials come out at a younger age than previous generations means less in Hispanic cultures. "In Latin America it's not as accepted," Sheehan says. Speaking with local Latino business leaders, Sheehan has learned many remain fearful about a child growing up to be gay. "There's still a lot of machismo," she says. "A different level of pressure comes with that."

    Even so, it surprised her to learn a father had refused remains. She researched and found that before the shooting this father had indeed been unaware that his son was gay. That news tore at the family when they already had to reckon with the son's unexpected death.

    After being contacted by the medical examiner's office, Sheehan started researching what the city could do to claim the victim as a ward of the state. Orlando had already promised that any Pulse victim would be provided a burial plot, if necessary, at city-owned Greenwood Cemetery. If no family member would accept the remains, the person would be buried there, alongside four other victims.

    I can't win these people's votes, but Commissioner Sheehan is even working to have one body returned to the United States because the family took the remains home to Puerto Rico specifically to disown and and abandon their son to a pauper's field.

    When it comes to the idea of getting rid of "identity politics", what is it the appeasers want us to do? Christians refusing to bury the dead for the sake of exercising God's judgment in their own hands?

    I want an Appeaser to explain how this works. What is the middle ground? What is the compromise point?

    Because at some point this is about basic human dignity, and yes, discussing stories like this will, over the long run, make the sort of people who abandon their kids over proprietary sexuality uncomfortable. And if we're to work so hard to diminish that discomfort and make them feel invited and loved and the center of all our efforts, what in the world are we actually pitching to them? Shall we invite the father up onstage and give him an award, in Jesus' name, for hating his family?

    Now great multitudes accompanied him; and he turned and said to them, "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, 'This man began to build, and was not able to finish.' Or what king, going to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an embassy and asks terms of peace. So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple."

    (Luke 14.25-33 [RSV]↱)
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Ogles, Jacob. "The Story Behind Pulse's Unclaimed Victim". The Advocate. 8 June 2017. TheAdvocate.com. 12 June 2017. http://bit.ly/2sjm27n

    Weigle, Luther, et al. The Bible: Revised Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1971. University of Michigan. 12 June 2017. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/
     
  22. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523


    Can't we all agree Hillary fucked up? Can't we all just unify under that?
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,400
    I'm pretty sure she did not nominate, endorse, support, give hours of free air time to, accept and discuss as legitimate, believe in, or vote for, Donald Trump for President.
    Nor did she alter her personality, run a false identity, or work to deceive, those who did.
    So in the list of Those Who Have Fucked Up, she's pretty far down - not in the top hundred.
     

Share This Page