Jump to content

horncyclist

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1968
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by horncyclist

  1. I think you're missing my point. What I'm trying to say here and in the demagoguery thread is that Trump is normalizing intentional lies and misrepresentations, including racist ones for political purposes. I think this is happening at a differnt scale than we've ever seen in the past. But I say that taking into account Willie Horton, Birth of a Nation, and on back through history. There's a difference between debating whether someone is a racist-- he is-- and debating if he's able to use racism in a new way, or one not seen at this level since Hitler. I'm trying to do the latter, you seem to think it's enough to stop at the former. Is that it? I just don't understand what you're trying to do on here. Do you think you're going to bring people to your views by being a dickish contrarian?
  2. You don't think this is how he got elected? His first speech was calling Mexicans rapists. The lies and demagoguery is intentional designed to achieve political goals. Do you disagree with me? Is the argument whether Trump is intentionally using racism to gain political support and happens to be a racists, or if he's just a racist and so he can't also consciously act in bad faith? I don't understand the disagreement. God, you can be a beating.
  3. I didn't say there's not a difference between the two of you. I said you're both proving my point, which is it's become acceptable to unapologeticly engage in bad-faith, intellectual dishonest tactics in political discussion. You immediately distorted my post to undermine the discussion I was trying to start. Then accused me of not being left enough.
  4. He can be racist and engaging in these tactics to drive us apart. I think he's primary motive with this is to gin up the base. It's going to continue for the next 19 months. It's who he is.
  5. Dude I'm a public servant making one quarter what I could in the private sector who supports major tax overhauls to tax the rich and corporations more, vigorous defense of civil liberties, and universal healthcare. I am the left. And the deep state to boot. I was just trying to prompt a discussion. And yes, I think political correctness can disrupt political discourse. Do you not? You, along with OB, are proving my point, which is frightening. edit to add: I didn't quote the parts of the article about Trump's distortions because they should be so fucking obvious.
  6. When he said that we all knew the people were terrible, evil people, not "folks." Tough I'm not sure if we knew they were muslim yet, though, so maybe you're right, "folks" is correct there, innocent until proven guilty and all. You never answered my question: Do you honestly believe what you're saying or are you doing it to score political points?
  7. The goal is absolutely to drive us apart. Or, more accurately, to use fear to drive people to the polls to vote against candidates they otherwise would support. That's the whole point of these politics. Both responses are correct and Beto in person focused on Omar:
  8. I posted the wrong Vulvarine tweet in my original post. Meant to post this one, with another out of context clip of Congresswoman Omar. Honestly, just looking at the clip, I can't understand the point she's trying to make or why Ted Cruz wants me to be outraged about it. I think she's talking about how names like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah-- and how they're said--are used for fearmongering but there's no way to figure it out from the clip. I think James Woods and Ted Cruz might be trying to suggest those names are revered in a way "America" is not? No clue.
  9. I think you should ask yourself why you give GWB the benefit of the doubt and not Ilhan Omar.
  10. Not all speeches and people don't always stick to the script. Who knows. Even if she did choose those words, they are not bad. How is it any different than GWB calling the terrorists "folks"?
  11. Your response is exactly what I'm talking about Her words weren't chosen carefully. It was a passing reference in a long speech that was about something else. It's being used by Trump and others, knowing that it's out of context along with her in her head covering with the contrasting images of 9/11. They are using an innocent statement to condemn a whole people who are Americans equal to you and me. And against a sitting US Congresswoman. And inciting violence. People will die because of it. So are you being misleading intentionally or do you really believe what youre saying.Trump is so deluded who knows what he's thinking. But Ted Cruz knows exactly what he's doing and is a worthless piece of shit.
  12. Because the point of her speech was persecution of a whole diverse class of people because of the actions of an unprepresentative few whose actions went against the tenants of Islam--thry killed other Muslims even. And didn't GWB describe the hijackers as the "folks who knocked these buildings down?" Nothing she said deserved the attacks she is receiving. It is dishonest and dangerous.
  13. Geez man, we're on the same side. I threw that in there cause the article does it. They are nowhere close. Trumpism and its lies are the biggest threat to our country. My top two issues are (1) structural political reform and (2) taking a stand for morality and our values. You really are bad teammate.
  14. Case in point: One of many articles discussing this latest example: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/ilhan-omar/586993/ To try to pinpoint what I'm talking about, it's knowingly taking someone's statements out of context to engage in a bad-faith political attack fueled by demagoguery and fear. My question is to what extent is this new or heightened in the error of Trump? Is it just more effective today in the era of social media and fake news to manipulate people? How do we respond to it? Is there room for a return to honesty or is this the new normal? Should the left just start engaging in the same fake news and political manipulation like it experimented with in support of Doug Jones in Alabama? At risk of both-sidesism, the article above opens by noting the left's own version, with attacks fueled by political correctness and virtue signaling: "When the ideological left engages in what is variously denigrated as “political correctness,” virtue-signaling, performative wokeness, or “social-justice warrior” cry-bullying, many on the right find it easy to spot the flaws in those modes of discourse. " I do not think these are in anyway morally equivalent but each are disruptive to the political discourse.
  15. Here he is adding to the demagoguery and dishonesty around the attacks against Ilhan Omar. I watched that video 3 times and have no idea what she's talking about or what outrage Ted Cruz wants me to take away from it. Can someone here interpret it for me? We are going to have some awful attack against muslims, if not Congresswoman Omar directly, and Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and friends are directly responsible. These are dark times.
  16. Guess he was asked for comment on a story?
  17. Awesome! This is why I continue to maintain Beto may catch fire and run away with thing.
  18. In the deep state we trust?
  19. I'm confused. Why did this guy post a picture of himself?
  20. I wasn't aware of this from the WaPo article on Assange's arrest: When Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III indicted 12 Russian military intelligence officers, he charged that they “discussed the release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases” with WikiLeaks — referred to in the indictment as “Organization 1” — “to heighten their impact on the 2016 presidential election.” Considering that we also know Roger Stone communicated with Wikileaks, and the Trump Campaign, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/roger-stone-was-in-close-contact-with-trump-campaign-about-wikileaks-indictment-shows/2019/01/25/65d9ad1a-20a2-11e9-8e21-59a09ff1e2a1_story.html, why isn't that enough to prove a broader conspiracy? At a minimum it's collusion, if not criminal for some reason. We need to see the Mueller report and Barr's a traitor.
  21. Yeah, I mean it couldn't be that they both appeal more to the youth vote than the other younger candidates, and in Buttigieg's case, is barely old enough to run for president all.
  22. The guy sold his interest in the company in 2007. The timeline just doesn't make sense. It's a completely made up story.
  23. I was curious about this. I had never read the uranium one conspiracy.Do you realize that most of the supposed money from Russia that you say was paid to Hillary to approve this uranium one deal (10 months before she was secretary of state btw and in any position to do anything, though only one of 9 officials who had to approve the deal once she became secretary of state) was given by a Canadian who among his other ventures, founded Lionsgate entertainment. Frank Giustra is a Canadian businessman, mining financier and philanthropist, who also founded Lionsgate Entertainment. From 2001 to 2007, he was the chairman of the merchant banking firm, Endeavour Financial, which financed mining companies. He is the CEO of Fiore Group of Companies. Wikipedia
  24. The answer used to be that the service industry would fill in the gaps but even if that happens there will be nasty transition period. The truck drivers son might find other work. The truck driver whose done it for 20 years won't.
  25. Liberal not-evil Dick Cheney. I'm sold. I want a Beto-Warren ticket.
×
×
  • Create New...