WAR ROOM LOUNGE V23: November Sixth LOOMS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ah, the ole' "Both sides suck, so vote Republican" argument.

It's in the interests of the most corrupt politicians to sow the belief that all politicians are equally corrupt. Look at how Trump gets a pass for massive tax fraud from people who naively believe that all rich people cheat on their taxes.
 
@Jack V Savage

You say Republicans play identity politics much more than Democrats do. How would you go about quantifying that? Obviously a majority of this board disagrees with you.
Are Evangelical, anti-LGBTQ, resentful aging rural populations, anti-feminism, xenophobic, and other groups under the conservative umbrella not considered political identities?
 
A response to the en banc petition was filed in that Hawaii handgun carry case some of you are following. @Cubo de Sangre @Greoric @JamesRussler @Quipling



I read the summary and the first few pages. The Appellants make a compelling case for denying the petition. The Hawaii AG’s opinion, to the extent it recedes from Defendants’ prior position, is at best an admission that the statute as applied was too restrictive. In any event, the AG is not a court, and his opinion is entitled to little weight, if any. I can see the Court denying en banc rehearing, fearing their reversal will be reversed in the SCOTUS. Perhaps they will even affirm.
 
It's in the interests of the most corrupt politicians to sow the belief that all politicians are equally corrupt. Look at how Trump gets a pass for massive tax fraud from people who naively believe that all rich people cheat on their taxes.
Hundreds of millions of dollars in tax fraud = putting your name on a Native American cookbook, imo.

It feels like a rigged game sometimes. Democrat and Republican politicians are graded on different curves by their bases.
 
It's not much of a reach. Whipping up hysteria about Mexican immigrants was the top focus of the campaign, was it not? That or anti-Muslim sentiment. And an imaginary crime wave in cities was another big part of his campaign.
That wasn’t about race or identity. That was about securing our borders. However, if by identity, you mean American, well yeah.
 
No, illegal immigration from all sources was the top focus. That's not "identity politics" unless you define the "identity" to be "illegal immigrants". That's a big stretch though.

The attacks were on immigrants, period. Remember Bannon talking about Asian immigrant tech CEOs being a problem. And the identity he was focusing on was "white." The idea is to get people to identify as "white" rather than American.

I don't think Trump ever asserted that crime was on the rise, so I'll call BS here.

Hmm. He promised that he'd “liberate our citizens from the crime and terrorism and lawlessness that threatens their communities." And there's this: “Our president … has made America a more dangerous environment than frankly I have ever seen, and anybody in this room, has ever watched or seen." He tried to tie an imaginary crime wave to "this administration’s rollback of criminal enforcement" (also imaginary).
 
That wasn’t about race or identity. That was about securing our borders. However, if by identity, you mean American, well yeah.

Not American at all. "American" is not a racial category. The campaign was built around demonization of non-whites, including other Americans.
 
It's in the interests of the most corrupt politicians to sow the belief that all politicians are equally corrupt. Look at how Trump gets a pass for massive tax fraud from people who naively believe that all rich people cheat on their taxes.
I never said equally corrupt. I’m saying that they are all playing the same game. They may even get into politics with good intentions, but once they get in they realize, it’s a game that they either play along party lines or get benched.
 
Not American at all. "American" is not a racial category. The campaign was built around demonization of non-whites, including other Americans.
I never got that impression. All I got from it was America first.
 
The attacks were on immigrants, period.
Post an example of Trump attacking all immigrants.

Remember Bannon talking about Asian immigrant tech CEOs being a problem.

We were talking about Donald Trump's statements, not Steven Bannon's statements.

And the identity he was focusing on was "white." The idea is to get people to identify as "white" rather than American.

That's your idea of what Trump thinks. Post an example of Donald Trump saying anything about that.

Hmm. He promised that he'd “liberate our citizens from the crime and terrorism and lawlessness that threatens their communities." And there's this: “Our president … has made America a more dangerous environment than frankly I have ever seen, and anybody in this room, has ever watched or seen." He tried to tie an imaginary crime wave to "this administration’s rollback of criminal enforcement" (also imaginary).

The first statement does not imply a "crime wave".

The second statement is ripped out of context. That part of the inauguration speech referred to Obama's rhetoric on BLM and police brutality toward African Americans:

An attack on law enforcement is an attack on all Americans.


I have a message to every last person threatening the peace on our streets and the safety of our police: When I take the oath of office next year, I will restore law and order to our country. Believe me. Believe me.


I will work with, and appoint, the best prosecutors and law enforcement officials in the country to get the job properly done. In this race for the White House, I am the law And order candidate.


The irresponsible rhetoric of our President, who has used the pulpit of the presidency to divide us by race and color, has made America a more dangerous environment for everyone than frankly I have ever seen and anybody in this room has ever watched or seen. This Administration has failed America’s inner cities. Remember: it has failed America's inner cities.


From that same speech, he noted:

These are the facts:


Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this Administration’s rollback of criminal enforcement. Homicides last year increased by 17% in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent. They are up nearly 60% in nearby Baltimore.


In the President’s hometown of Chicago, more than 2,000 have been the victims of shootings this year alone. And more than 3,600 almost 4,000 have been killed in the Chicago area since he took office.


The number of police officers killed in the line of duty has risen by almost 50% compared to this point last year. Nearly 180,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records, ordered deported from our country, are tonight roaming free to threaten peaceful citizens.


The number of new illegal immigrant families who have crossed the border so far this year already exceeds the entire total from 2015. They are being released by the tens of thousands into our communities with no regard for the impact on public safety or resources. One such border-crosser was released and made his way to Nebraska. There, he ended the life of an innocent young girl named Sarah Root. She was 21-years-old, and was killed the day after graduating from college with a 4.0 Grade Point Average. Number one in her class. Her killer was then released a second time, and he is now a fugitive from the law.


I’ve met Sarah’s beautiful family. But to this administration, their amazing daughter was just one more American life that wasn’t worth protecting. No more. One more child to sacrifice on the altar of open borders.


=======

In summary, I think you were wrong to say that Trump claimed were experiencing a "crime wave".



 
It's in the interests of the most corrupt politicians to sow the belief that all politicians are equally corrupt. Look at how Trump gets a pass for massive tax fraud from people who naively believe that all rich people cheat on their taxes.
I do agree with this
 
I never said equally corrupt. I’m saying that they are all playing the same game. They may even get into politics with good intentions, but once they get in they realize, it’s a game that they either play along party lines or get benched.

Actually affecting policy definitely requires coordinated effort and compromise. I don't consider that corruption, though. There's a story that people were circulating in the primary (I've mentioned this before) that I really liked. Elizabeth Warren was talking about a bankruptcy bill that was on the verge of being signed by Bill Clinton that she (as an academic who focused on that area) strongly opposed. Hillary called a meeting with her to discuss it. Warren said Clinton showed remarkable aptitude in grasping the issue (asking good questions, etc.), and then went back to the WH and immediately killed it. Later, when Hillary was a senator, she voted for a similar bill, and Warren (then unfamiliar with politics) attributed it to the fact that she was representing a place that relied on banks and got donations from them. But the real story was that the bill had the votes to pass (though it would be somewhat unpopular), and Clinton bargained with Republicans, offering some bipartisan support in exchange for changes that would make it a little less bad though still not something she would really support. That's still operating with good intentions; it's just using limited power in an intelligent way to make the country a little better than it would be otherwise.
 
Actually affecting policy definitely requires coordinated effort and compromise. I don't consider that corruption, though. There's a story that people were circulating in the primary (I've mentioned this before) that I really liked. Elizabeth Warren was talking about a bankruptcy bill that was on the verge of being signed by Bill Clinton that she (as an academic who focused on that area) strongly opposed. Hillary called a meeting with her to discuss it. Warren said Clinton showed remarkable aptitude in grasping the issue (asking good questions, etc.), and then went back to the WH and immediately killed it. Later, when Hillary was a senator, she voted for a similar bill, and Warren (then unfamiliar with politics) attributed it to the fact that she was representing a place that relied on banks and got donations from them. But the real story was that the bill had the votes to pass (though it would be somewhat unpopular), and Clinton bargained with Republicans, offering some bipartisan support in exchange for changes that would make it a little less bad though still not something she would really support. That's still operating with good intentions; it's just using limited power in an intelligent way to make the country a little better than it would be otherwise.
*effecting

RIP Homer
 
It's almost like certain groups hate American nationalism but every other country's nationalism is ok.

American nationalism is fundamentally different from that of other countries. We're not a blood and soil country as Trumpers would have it. We're a nation built on an idea that has functioned as the world's all-star team.

Superman_American_599fc05023f332.03698933.jpg


If that's the kind of thing "nationalists" who actually hate America were saying, we'd all be cheering it on.

Post an example of Trump attacking all immigrants.

We were talking about Donald Trump's statements, not Steven Bannon's statements.

Steve (or Stephen--not Steven) Bannon was Trump's campaign CEO.

In summary, I think you were wrong to say that Trump claimed were experiencing a "crime wave".

I think I was right to say that running against an imaginary crime wave was a big part of his campaign.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top