***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[rexanglorum]

this is one reason why i detest the idiotic argument that electing a rich man (trump) to the presidency is a good idea because he won't need to profit off it.

becoming president is an automatic insurance policy that you and your offspring will be financially well off for the rest of your lives. it doesn't matter if you're Bernie Sanders or don trump.

this is ignoring the other major problem with the argument, where trump apologists claim that he already has enough money so he won't be greedy anymore. that's some first grader naivete right there.

one other comment on Obama speaking: he's one of the great orators of our time. even if he wasn't president his speeches would be worth a lot of money. granted, they wouldn't be worth $400k a pop, but I've seen fraudulent megachurch pastors and motivational speakers who can't hold a candle to Obama make millions by speaking.

That's a good point. Barack Obama is a very good public speaker and we've seen it in his 2008 acceptance speech, his 2004 DNC speech, youtube videos of him promoting his books and we've heard accounts of his former law students at U of Chicago.

Take his merits as a public speaker and compound it with the aura of the Presidency and you have someone whose speech is worth six figures.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Who asserted that Obama's Wall Street ties are innocuous because he is black?

People are saying that criticism he is getting has a racial aspect. I mean if you want to criticize Obama from the left, at least give a good ******* reason. Not some "hold yourself to a higher standard", "you're rich already" , "This is a payoff for Dodd Frank" and whatever else I'm hearing.

Fox News is running with this all day, and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren both come out and give the network more cover and as politely as possible throw Obama under the bus as casually as possible.

For eight ******* years progressives have been giving those vile racist cover, and for 8 ******* years I had to hear "this is not about race". If Warren and Sanders want to play dumb for "da base", go ahead. But please don't turn around and tell me about how the white working class should not be looked at sideways because of economic anxiety.

 

[whywesteppin]

honest question--what was the issue with Hillary taking large speaking fees from Goodman Sachs?

is it seen as a soft bribe, where she will pay it back when in office? or are they expecting her to provide insider info in her speech? or is it just for the sake of networking?

(humor me for a minute and assume that she won not just the popular vote but also the electoral college in 2016)

 

[aepps20]

Who asserted that Obama's Wall Street ties are innocuous because he is black?

People are saying that criticism he is getting has a racial aspect. I mean if you want to criticize Obama from the left, at least give a good ******* reason. Not some "hold yourself to a higher standard", "you're rich already" , "This is a payoff for Dodd Frank" and whatever else I'm hearing.

Fox News is running with this all day, and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren both come out and give the network more cover and as politely as possible throw Obama under the bus as casually as possible.

For eight ******* years progressives have been giving those vile racist cover, and for 8 ******* years I had to year "don't use the race card". If Warren and Sanders want to play dumb for "da base", go ahead. But please don't turn around and tell me about how the white working class should not be looked at sideways because of economic anxiety.

Da Rust Belt was hurting soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Badly that they didn't have a choice B.

 

[whywesteppin]

but her emails B.

plus what do we have to lose?

 

[rexanglorum]

Who asserted that Obama's Wall Street ties are innocuous because he is black?

People are saying that criticism he is getting has a racial aspect. I mean if you want to criticize Obama from the left, at least give a good ******* reason. Not some "hold yourself to a higher standard", "you're rich already" , "This is a payoff for Dodd Frank" and whatever else I'm hearing.

Fox News is running with this all day, and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren both come out and give the network more cover and as politely as possible throw Obama under the bus as casually as possible.

For eight ******* years progressives have been giving those vile racist cover, and for 8 ******* years I had to hear "this is not about race". If Warren and Sanders want to play dumb for "da base", go ahead. But please don't turn around and tell me about how the white working class should not be looked at sideways because of economic anxiety.

Hillary strongly implied that during the primaries.


Look, what is about to happen is a black man is about to talk to Wall Street. Progressives not like wall Street. Conservatives do not like black people.

I don't disagree with you that progressives sometimes do give conservatives cover. It should be plain to see that Trump's voters never had real economic anxiety and that "political correctness" had nothing to do with trade policy.

 

[aepps20]

but her emails B.

plus what do we have to lose?

Absolutely nothing to lose B. I just couldn't decide B, both parties are Da same.

 

[RustyShackleford]

honest question--what was the issue with Hillary taking large speaking fees from Goodman Sachs?

is it seen as a soft bribe, where she will pay it back when in office? or are they expecting her to provide insider info in her speech? or is it just for the sake of networking?

(humor me for a minute and assume that she won not just the popular vote but also the electoral college in 2016)

1st reason: Further financial reforms are still needed and people saw her paid private speeches as a way to reassure the sector that she would look out for their interest, and serve as a firewall against people like Elizabeth Warren

2nd reason: Bernie Sanders and the anit-Clinton camp needed an effective attack against her in the primary so they used this because it played into a previous held belief about the Clinton. Bernie Sanders as a person and his campaign in general likes to play fast and lose with details, it didn't matter if she was truly corrupt, he just wanted to make people think she was so he could get votes.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Who asserted that Obama's Wall Street ties are innocuous because he is black?

People are saying that criticism he is getting has a racial aspect. I mean if you want to criticize Obama from the left, at least give a good ******* reason. Not some "hold yourself to a higher standard", "you're rich already" , "This is a payoff for Dodd Frank" and whatever else I'm hearing.

Fox News is running with this all day, and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren both come out and give the network more cover and as politely as possible throw Obama under the bus as casually as possible.

For eight ******* years progressives have been giving those vile racist cover, and for 8 ******* years I had to hear "this is not about race". If Warren and Sanders want to play dumb for "da base", go ahead. But please don't turn around and tell me about how the white working class should not be looked at sideways because of economic anxiety.

Hillary strongly implied that during the primaries.


Look, what is about to happen is a black man is about to talk to Wall Street. Progressives not like wall Street. Conservatives do not like black people.

I don't disagree with you that progressives sometimes do give conservatives cover. It should be plain to see that Trump's voters never had real economic anxiety and that "political correctness" had nothing to do with trade policy.

Seriously? We're back to Hillary

Correct me if I'm mistaken because I don't remember, but are you talking about Hillary countering Bernie's argument of saying you can't regulate Wall Street if you take their money by saying Obama got tons of money from Wall Street, but went on to push for Dodd-Frank.

If that's the case, where is was implication?

 

[whywesteppin]

stop me if you've heard this one: angry white terrorist in Kentucky goes on a knife attack at school, specifically targeting liberals.

http://www.lex18.com/story/35275736/transylvania-university-on-lockdown-after-attack


here's his rant from a couple years ago:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/madkins19/...l-arts-1ynfg?utm_term=.toRq29nynq#.tgnEyJeBeE

 

[rexanglorum]

Seriously? We're back to Hillary

Correct me if I'm mistaken because I don't remember, but are you talking about Hillary countering Bernie's argument of saying you can't regulate Wall Street if you take their money by saying Obama got tons of money from Wall Street, but went on to push for Dodd-Frank.

If that's the case, where is was implication?

We were watching the same primaries unfold. After New Hampshire, Hillary got a a little nervous (I don't know why, she was going to win big in South Carolina in any case) and came up with the argument of Hillary=Obama=Black People. She set it up so that criticizing her on any issue, was a criticism of black people.

She and Tom Peres devised a politically smart strategy. You criticize Obama, Clinton or any Democrat for taking money from Wall Street and by the transitive property, you are criticizing black folks who try to make money. That is the whole grand strategy of the center left, you link the well being of your soft plutocracy with the dignity and honor of marginalized groups and it is a tough nut to crack.

It's nt even some sort of nefarious ploy either, we have a right wing that hates "non traditional members of society" and a socialist left that has a few too many oversights for marginalized people. So here we are, it's a Schrodinger's cat of politics. Black folks (and other marginalized groups, particularly immigrants) both are and are not in league with center left plutocracy.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Seriously? We're back to Hillary

Correct me if I'm mistaken because I don't remember, but are you talking about Hillary countering Bernie's argument of saying you can't regulate Wall Street if you take their money by saying Obama got tons of money from Wall Street, but went on to push for Dodd-Frank.

If that's the case, where is was implication?

We were watching the same primaries unfold. After New Hampshire, Hillary got a a little nervous (I don't know why, she was going to win big in South Carolina in any case) and came up with the argument of Hillary=Obama=Black People. She set it up so that criticizing her on any issue, was a criticism of black people.

She and Tom Peres devised a politically smart strategy. You criticize Obama, Clinton or any Democrat for taking money from Wall Street and by the transitive property, you are criticizing black folks who try to make money. That is the whole grand strategy of the center left, you link the well being of your soft plutocracy with the dignity and honor of marginalized groups and it is a tough nut to crack.

It's nt even some sort of nefarious ploy either, we have a right wing that hates "non traditional members of society" and a socialist left that has a few too many oversights for marginalized people. So here we are, it's a Schrodinger's cat of politics. Black folks (and other marginalized groups, particularly immigrants) both are and are not in league with center left plutocracy.

Yes we were watching the same primary unfold. And I knew exactly the point in the primary you are talking about, I was just wondering what interpretation you would have on the events. If you want to go back to the primary, then fine.....

Bernie Sanders from 2009-2014 was never shy about criticizing Barrack Obama. The thing is that his audience was receptive of that message. In other words, he never spit his game in front of black people. The one groups that is rightfully overly protective of Obama against attacks. Bernie was attacking her on a specific issues and and she gave Bernie the option: you wanna go that route, cool, then shade Obama too.

Bernie could have thrown Obama right under the bus right with Hillary. But he chose not to, then decided the black south wasn't worth is time. And lets be honest here, Sander's own incompetence costed him making inroads into the black vote. He had tons of unforced errors that had nothing to do with Hillary, and has doubled down on his tone death **** since the election.

And strange you bring this up. Because Bernie and his supporters were invoking Obama's name when they needed it. I distinctly remember when Coates came a questioning, Bernie was on some "Obama is not for reparations" steez too.

When this woman is roaming around the woods, and no one on the center left or in this thread is making the argument you claimed (regarding Obama's speeches), yet you somehow felt it important to bring up a political tactic of Hillary.

So who is playing the race card famb, you or Hillary?

 

[IATT]

This dude got a coke button.. really

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-presidents/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.851899da9b8e

 

[IATT]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...citizenship_argument_might_cover_melania.html

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Obama shouldn't give speeches to wall street got 400k.


At some point if wanna tslk anout it you gotta be about it, and you seed the moral authority when you do things like this.

 

[Based Jesus]

 

 

Sam Harris is officially a suspected white supremacist in my book.


I used to think it was ignorance, or poor understanding of statistics, but dude Charles Murray onto his podcast and left him spew his ignorance and even cosigned it at times.


He acts like something at has been debunked as race baiting nonsense and is a favorite of true to the game vile white supremacist is just the left attacking free speech.


**** that dude.

Took you this long? 

 Dude been suspect in my eyes 

I edit my post, he is a white supremacist. I suspected him before. I changed the structure of the sentence and didn't edit it properly before I posted it.

Before I just blamed how poorly he read statistics. I can tell he has no idea what a regression is, dude reads summary statistics and thinks he is doing it. And he sounds like an *** on many topics not just race

But the dude got a Blco level resume of racial ignorance at this point.

Oh then yeah I always attributed his views and arguments with simple ignorance rather than malicious intent but ignorance isnt a valid excuse.

You know who really surprised me? Joe Rogan. Loved Fear Factor but dude is a white supremacist through and through.

His podcast is just a place for people to espouse the most ignorant views while he nods his head and jokes around with them.

He invites people like Milo and Gavin Mciness on and then pretends like they dont say things to incite but merely to educate.

Everyone who's not right-leaning is an ideologue who can't think for themselves, muslims are genetically inferior to whites, blacks need to stop whining.

It's 4chan level nonsense dressed up in a prettier package where they use bigger words and "facts" to help back up their bigoted arguments.

He and Sam are one of the most dangerous kinds of supremacists. The kind that paints their views as moderate and reasonable while it's everyone else who's a supremacist. BLM? Black supremacists. Feminists? Female supremacists. LGBT? Liberal? Muslim? All whiny, intolerant, supremacist ideologues. 

 

[flipnlu]

Based Jesus I have to disagree not fully but definitely. Joe rogan white supremacist definitely not. There is countless of useful as well as useless information. Of course as a white man he is blinded from actual racism but he has acknowledged wrong doing on several accounts. As an interviewer he has to play devils advocate. He hated fear factor and has stated he thinks milo is portraying a character definitely not the right character. I'm a minority from the jets and low level income if that matters. One love

 

[RustyShackleford]

Obama shouldn't give speeches to wall street got 400k.


At some point if wanna tslk anout it you gotta be about it, and you seed the moral authority when you do things like this.

Seed the moral authority to whom though?

 

[zapatohead408]

honest question--what was the issue with Hillary taking large speaking fees from Goodman Sachs?

is it seen as a soft bribe, where she will pay it back when in office? or are they expecting her to provide insider info in her speech? or is it just for the sake of networking?

(humor me for a minute and assume that she won not just the popular vote but also the electoral college in 2016)

1st reason: Further financial reforms are still needed and people saw her paid private speeches as a way to reassure the sector that she would look out for their interest and serve as a firewall against people like Elizabeth Warren

That's how I felt, would still much rather have Hillary over Trump, obviously.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I watch Elizabeth Warren's interview last night and Real Time with Bill Maher and I have never been so unimpressed by her.

The pitch for her new book is "the middle class American did great economically from the end of the depression until 1980", with no qualification. And then says Trump voters are justified to well angry and Trump tapped into a genuine feeling in America.

Always nice to see progressives let white supremacy off the hook. (And before any Warren fans tells me anything, she is not campaigning, she is trying to sell her book)

 

[Nike Jordan]

Warren was a Republican until 1994.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Based Jesus I have to disagree not fully but definitely. Joe rogan white supremacist definitely not. There is countless of useful as well as useless information. Of course as a white man he is blinded from actual racism but he has acknowledged wrong doing on several accounts. As an interviewer he has to play devils advocate. He hated fear factor and has stated he thinks milo is portraying a character definitely not the right character. I'm a minority from the jets and low level income if that matters. One love

I don't know if Rogan should be classified as a white supremacist, I suspect him though. He does a TON of suspect **** but he does admit that he doesn't agree with the nonsense many of his guess say, and does acknowledge racism is a problem. But then again he doesn't expose his audience to strong social justice people at the same rate he lets on the buffoons, equivocates being labeled a racist as being a victim of racism and his views on "culture" are straight up bigoted. He is another Sam Harris, or Andres Sullivan, or Mark Cuban. A left leaning libertarian that values order over justice.

Joe Rogan is a misogynist though, no doubt in my mind. He spews nonsense regarding women's issues any chance he gets.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Warren was a Republican until 1994.

Which is why I chuckle when she says helping working families has been her life's work.

And she left the GOP because of their friendliness to Wall Street.

Like really Lizzy, that's what broke the camel's back for you

 

[whywesteppin]

Elizabeth Warren should not be the face of the party.

This segment was good though. Not a new idea but we need to do away with the notion that trump voters / obama haters were about the economy and fair trade, etc.... The truth is that MAGA captured nostalgia for an imaginary all-white America that diet racists fell for.

 

[Based Jesus]

 

Based Jesus I have to disagree not fully but definitely. Joe rogan white supremacist definitely not. There is countless of useful as well as useless information. Of course as a white man he is blinded from actual racism but he has acknowledged wrong doing on several accounts. As an interviewer he has to play devils advocate. He hated fear factor and has stated he thinks milo is portraying a character definitely not the right character. I'm a minority from the jets and low level income if that matters. One love

I don't know if Rogan should be classified as a white supremacist, I suspect him though. He does a TON of suspect **** but he does admit that he doesn't agree with the nonsense many of his guess say, and does acknowledge racism is a problem. But then again he doesn't expose his audience to strong social justice people at the same rate he lets on the buffoons, equivocates being labeled a racist as being a victim of racism and his views on "culture" are straight up bigoted. He is another Sam Harris, or Andres Sullivan, or Mark Cuban. A left leaning libertarian that values order over justice.

Joe Rogan is a misogynist though, no doubt in my mind. He spews nonsense regarding women's issues any chance he gets.

I don't believe him to be an active agent of white supremacy but I do believe him to be the kind who doesn't SEE how they help to uphold it.

The 

"I don't like Trump, but Hillary...."

"Police shootings are bad, but BLM......"

"I believe in equality, but feminists......"

kind.

The kind where they toe the line and maintain a safe enough distance that if some **** happens they wont get caught up. 

They'll claim they're not for the white male status quo but when anyone who's not a white male has an issue they'll talk about what a non-issue it is.

Dude says more than enough code words and phrases to be under heavy suspicion but makes sure to let people know before he says them that he dislikes what they dislike too. He'll say his views dont align with that of certain guests, but then continue to invite them and their ilk to propagate those views to his listeners. He's a half-stepper.