What changes should Democrats make?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Seattle, Feb 9, 2017.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, it doesn't. It's well established fact, you can verify for yourself. "Crosscheck", for example, is open and public and acknowledged Republican policy employed by the Republican administrations of more than 25 States, including the swing States in this election.
    And what we see there is some (easily fooled and distracted) video maker taking childish behavior by some college students, and other stuff that looks for all the world exactly like the behavior of agents provocateur familiar from the Seattle and Saint Paul "riots" mentioned above, and declaring it representative of "the left" (or sometimes the "liberal", "Democrat", etc - he gets confused),

    while the people who buy into his schtick deny that the elected Congressmen and elected President of 63 million Republican voters represent the Republicans even, let alone the "right" or the "conservative".
    The US major media are overwhelmingly corporate friendly and rightwing framed in their presentation of the news, and have been increasingly so for more than twenty five years. This is an obvious and very well documented fact, with highlights such as the selling of the Iraq War, and the full year of CNN's and MSNBC's (as far "left" as you get on major TV) pimping of Donald Trump's candidacy - both for ratings and complicit policy reasons.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    18,523
    I must thank iceaura for reminding me of what you said here about the left. There is a big difference between a liberal, someone for liberty, and the left, andthis line begins and ends with the famous maxim (misattributed to Voltaire) "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" those that disagree and want to shut down the speech of anyone they labels as a fascist or a Nazi, like antifa and BAMN, are not LIBERALS by the definition of the term, they are on the left just as much as "white nationalist" are on the right. Yvette Felarca and Richard Spencer may disgust me (Milo actually just makes me laugh) but I support their right to speak, and I also support them being punished if they break the law.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    No one is actually taking away their freedom of speech. Protest against reprehensible people to the extent that they don't get to speak at a particular venue is also a form of freedom of speech.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Unless of course they are agents provocateur, and the like - kangaroo boy doesn't pay much attention to police behavior of that kind.

    But assuming those are actually lefties behaving like that, the obvious existence of an immature authoritarian left as a fringe crowd of college kids (it has unfortunately a much larger constituency than that, but kangaroo boy is not recognizing its actual boundaries so we needn't) does not justify speaking of them as representing the left. We didn't start talking about fascists as representing the American right until they had control of a major Party and a shot at all three branches of the US government, after all. Before that actual libertarian righties, liberal righties, traditional conservative righties, and the like, had influence and standing on the right - although not as predominant within their faction as libertarian and liberal lefties are today in theirs.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2017
  8. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Imagine someone on the right saying that Richard Spencer is an agent provocateur

    Threats of violence, riots and destruction of property is not valid free speech, it is a crime. Milo is a real life troll and any attention given him is precisely what he wants, he literally makes money off it, after that everything he has said so far is worth no consideration other than as an actual comedy retinue. Richard Spencer on the other hand is a sad pathetic creature best debated and snicker at:



    Protesting and attacking these people works against us, we should be debating them openly and laughing at them openly. Ask Milo what he thinks of gay marriage or how his life style is against the god he claims to fervently believe in and watch him come up with laughably contrived answers, ask him about universal healthcare and watch him squirm. Ask Richard Spencer to go create his white nationalist "ethno-state" and "homeland for white people" in Europe, also known as the the homeland of white people. We need to show the world that we have superior polices and the will to implement them, unlike corporate neoliberals like Clinton.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    And that's what we're doing, when there are no fatter targets handy. Your point?
    It would be silly - which illustrates as side of what's wrong with kangaroo man's approach: he doesn't actually know who he's talking about half the time.

    And so forth.
     
  10. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    So who is doing the protest and riots then?

    So that went over your head.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Lots of people. Why do you ask?
    Which part: The part where we know who Richard Spencer is and how he acts, or the part where when people act like agents provocateur have in the past and nobody knows who they are it's an established possibility, or the part where kangaroo boy never seems to notice that kind of stuff?
     
  12. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Because they are associated with liberals.

    None of those parts, it went over your head.
     
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    The entire civil rights movement was based on minor crimes. Jaywalking, for instance. The Orangeburg Massacre in 1968 was instigated by an illegal bonfire.

    We are. On the internet. Fuck Spencer, and fuck Milo. They don't deserve any legitimacy as policy holders. They are trolls. We ban trolls.
     
  14. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    And? Are you telling me riots and violence won civil rights?

    You can't ban trolls IRL, get off the fucking internet and try debating these people in person.
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    They certainly did, in part. If all the protesters during the 50's and 60's had restricted themselves to writing editorials to newspapers that would not accept them, and submissively accepting the rejection of their parade permits, and sitting in the back of their bus like the law said to do, then a lot of civil rights victories would have been at the very least delayed.
     
  16. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Who said restrictions to newspaper editorials? Stop strawmaning: was breaking windows, burning down buildings, attacking people, murdering people, burning crosses on people's lawns, was that effective?
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Breaking windows and arson were effective in getting their message out there and (eventually) changing the laws. Murder was not, nor was cross-burning.

    Even more effective were violations in the laws against blacks sitting in the fronts of buses, jaywalking, illegal open fires, illegal open assemblies (i.e. parades without permits) and refusing orders of police officers to disperse.
     
  18. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Correlation is not causation. If it was so effective why did it not work for the Klan? You know what was the MOST effective thing for civil rights in the 1950's and 60's: elected the right politicians, heck shooting Kennedy might has be necessary, for it is questionable how many years if not decades civil rights would have been held back without Lydon Johnson as president.

    And what kind of equivalent present day laws block blacks from sitting in the front of the bus?

    Lets get down to the meat of the issue: do you think anyone labeled a Nazi, must be shut up "by any means necessary"? Do you want a law that says "anyone labeled a facist or a nazi has no right to speak"? Do you think in the future people will look back and say "glad there were those righteous riots in the 2010's that got that nasty racist free speech law modified so that anyone we called a nazi or facists must be shut up"?

    COMPLETE WASTE OF FUCKING TIME AND ENERGY!

    If someone hacked Walmart and liquidated all its owners assets and dumped the stoke on the people, I would cheer, that would be a worthy crime. If protestors ran into congress and killed every republican in there, as horrific as that would be, it would be at least worthwhile. Attacking white nationalist on the other hand does nothing but make liberals look like bullies and is a distraction.
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    It did - at first.
    OK. So for you, murder was effective.
    None; that is now illegal.
    Nope.
    And laws would be passed preventing left-leaning protesters into Washington, DC. Not sure you want that.
     
  20. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Oh and you think that was righteous?

    Are you seeing the moral problem yet?

    Then why bring up civil rights, today's problems are very VERY different from civil rights, that was then, this is now.

    Passed by whom? Zombies?
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Nope. It was not a righteous cause.
    I've always seen it.
    You asked the question: "Are you telling me riots and violence won civil rights?" I answered it. If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question.
     
  22. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Yes yes I get what your doing, being as obtuse as possible to back out of this. Do you agree with antifa/BAMN committing acts of violence and crimes in order to shut down what ever they label as fascist?

    Well it didn't, Lyndon Johnson did.
     
  23. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I'm saying that civil disobedience often requires breaking minor laws and getting arrested for it.
    You can effectively ban people from speaking at your university. I wouldn't be interested in debating these fools. There's nothing to debate, they are assholes.
     

Share This Page