Considering that he gives very good reasons (consistent with his ideology) for supporting them, I do care.Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Considering that he gives very good reasons (consistent with his ideology) for supporting them, I do care.
Hope is the denial of reality
Apart from those who share his ideology, which apparently includes future members of the Trump administration.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
He represents the views of a tiny tiny fraction of Americans. You'd find more people who believe Elvis is alive than support all of his views.
Meanwhile we have a major party who advocates for race based discrimination as part of their platform and no one calls them on their dangerous racism.
This punch line of yours about support from deplorable people somehow marshalling itself into some manner of false moral equivalence is the height of intellectual laziness. It was tired and played out when conservatives tried to use it with Obama and Louis Farrakhan or how Obama was endorsed by Hamas, and it's tired now. If I can find a child molester that agrees with your foreign policy, does that inherently make your foreign policy bad? Look, it isn't hard to find real problems with Trump's platform, and the people he is using to put it into practice. It's not that difficult to attack these ideas on their own merits, not who does or does not support them.
Anyone with the slightest interest in their own country's well-being would quickly find out exactly why Duke is backing those people. They're all Islamophobes, half are white supremacists, most made a career out of going after brown people.
Hope is the denial of reality
If the support indicates shared beliefs, ideologies or policy positions that can reasonably be expected to influence their judgement and decisions in a harmful way (eg. wrt the treatment of Muslim Americans) it's a legitimate argument. Lazy but not without merit. David Duke's endorsements aren't coincidental.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The question is why do people like Farrakhan or Duke support them? If they support them due to nefarious reasons then call out the nefarious reasons. Guilt by association is lazy and applicable to all sides.
If you actually read what they're saying...
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm starting to think that denial may be more than just a river in Egypt.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/17/po...dia/index.html
I wonder where he got this from?
Hope is the denial of reality
And now back your regularly scheduled episode of Bending Over Backwards to Make Excuses for Racists (except in the Labour party) with your host, Randblade.
The problem with this is that, as far as the statistics go, it doesn't actually happen. As in, there's no mention of 'racially aggravated robbery' or 'racially aggravated mugging' in the statistics - it's all violence against people, property damage and public order.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...6/hosb0515.pdf
I await your next piece of wild speculation designed to deny the lived experiences of people who suffer from racist abuse with great eagerness.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
No I don't read what either Duke or Farrakhan have to say. Should I?
You do realise those would fall under those categories though?
No, they wouldn't? Why would they?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I heard Malia Obama smoked weed. I wonder where she got that from.
Seriously Loki, are you proposing we hold parents responsible for all the actions of their adult children, or are you just this obtuse in the cases where it fits the political narrative you favor?
Not really all that similar.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Are you conflating actions with a belief system? Why, yes you are.
Hope is the denial of reality
It's good to know that the teachings of parents are so immutable. Or maybe the sins of the sons should be borne by the father. Not even the Old Testament has your talent for extremes.
The individual harping about specific cabinet members/advisers is always predicable. It almost doesn't matter who the person is the other side will take aim at them. They won't like them for policy positions but instead of focusing on that they bring up as much dirt from any possible angle they can.
I frankly don't know much about Flynn but I do know he has strong views about the nature of the threat we face from Islamic Terrorism. Yes ISLAMIC terrorism. The fact that he's willing to even say the word without pissing himself with worry about offending people is great.
In Obama's America we have people who try to join ISIS and will likely get out of jail in less than a year... while I didn't vote for Trump I do like the idea of Law and Order being back on the table.
Yes, they would. A mugging is a violent crime against the person if force is used (which it is basically by definition, intimidation is violence and nobody willing hands over their possessions if not intimidated or otherwise attacked).
If there is a case of robbery without violence against the person then again by default it would be violence against property.
How you think muggings and robberies etc would not be violence against property or people is beyond me. Those are the major groupings that crimes fall under. What is being attacked if not people or property?
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...april-2016.pdf
My grandfather is a socialist lifelong member of the Labour Party until Tony Blair who was far too right wing for him. Since people don't vary beliefs from that of their parents, I suppose I must be that left wing too or does it not actually work that way?
This is the kind of retarded thinking that makes Americans do stupid shit like electing Trump for president. Don't you think it would be prudent to read a little about Flynn first?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Trump is filling in over a dozen slots. I'm not going to do an in depth analysis of each of them.
Besides which you're not voting for any of them.
Gimme a break, you won't even do the bare minimum, for any of them. Obviously has no bearing on your willingness to form opinions about them either.Trump is filling in over a dozen slots. I'm not going to do an in depth analysis of each of them.
Nah, people just voted for the moron who is now (predictably enough) hiring this clown posse, based on the kind of reasoning underlying Lewk's uninformed endorsement of Flynn. And I honestly don't buy that cop-out you're offering Lewk. It's not as if we can't have reason to discuss or have opinions about people--esp. extremely influential politicians--just because we don't elect them.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I'm not bothering for Flynn either, it's for the NSA spot. It's an important position, sure, but. . . not in a way that matters for the sorts of objections I've seen raised. Particularly since Trump is so hostile to advisors in the first place.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Usually, sure. But we're talking about a president who knows nothing about foreign policy and an NSA who's known for not passing on intelligence he personally disagrees with (which would be less of an issue if he wasn't a complete nutjob).
Hope is the denial of reality
I've something and it goes thumpin' like this:
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
No, I said walking in hallways, not middle of class. High School hallways are usually loud, with some type of shouting, since it's a throng of teenagers changing classes and socializing along the way. I don't believe for a minute that you'd expel cheerleaders for carrying signs and shouting 'team spirit' in the hallways.
You interpreted the two scenarios the same way, even though they're vastly different, because you have an authoritarian bias. Then you use that to wiggle out of any deeper discussion about free speech and its limits.
Seems to me you're mixing violence and speech, in the same way Lewk conflates rules and rule-breakers....which doesn't do a damn thing to address the underlying issue of bias. The UK and US might have different legal definitions of Hate Speech or Hate Crimes, but we shouldn't get so caught up in that rhetoric that we ignore/deny that racism exists!
A complete nutjob? Hyperbole rears its head again. Frankly if America still exists in two years it will have surpassed your crazy expectations for the incoming administration.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote