Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 183: For HARDCORE POLITICAL PUNDITS

(+) Yeah! (+)

Xeybozn posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

My problem with the right's portrayal of the "regressive left" or "alt left" or "PEOPLE THAT AREN'T LIKE YOU OoOoOoOoOo SPOOKY" is that they paint them as, at the same time:

1) Effete, weak, pansy little soy boys that can do nothing but REEEEEEE and cry into their gluten-free free-rang non-GMO kale salads while bemoaning the fact that we still have free speech and legal penises

and

2) Violent, destructive, Herculean anarchists that have taken over most of our major cities and are roaming the streets with bike locks, swat gear, and spiked bats in order to kill you, blue colored America, and anyone that has ever heard a country song.

They simultaneously portray the left as comically weak and terrifyingly strong, pulling out some random out of context articles of one or two insignificant morons so they can both laugh at us and attempt to scare anyone right of center.

First group is white, second group is black/brown, and they only work towards similar goals because they've been brainwashed by the mainstream media and their globalist masters (unlike REAL Americans). Obviously it's a crazy worldview (and wrong), but it's not completely nonsensical.

They aren't though! Both of those groups are white people they don't like, by and large.

They have their own coded language for non-white people, don't get me wrong, but the two I described up there are largely young, college aged white kids. You see both of those ideas get posted all the time on places like r/the_donald, and it is largely the same group they are describing.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

blue colored America

This is a great typo

There is the one episode of the old Super Mario cartoon where Bowser paints half the toads red and half of the blue and tries to start a race war.

CLEARLY this is what I was referencing, duh guys.
---

My coworker is listening to this over and over at work on his Bluetooth speakers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmnYnYX4soI" data-time="
---

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/395176-ron-paul-tweets-racist-cartoon-faces-backlash

Fun cartoon from the guy who essentially got the ball rolling for the Tea Party and eventually Donald Trump.

Also does a great job illustrating exactly what they're talking about when using codewords like "cultural marxism".
---

The hilarious thing is that it isnt even a real Ben Garrison cartoon.

Someone at some point photoshopped Bens signature on it, to smear Garrison (who really doesnt need the help to look like an idiot!) because its so blatantly offensive, but someone on RPs social media crew was like Yeah this accurately represents us.
---

Like Jakyl said it is unlikely that was Ron Paul himself because I don't think he runs any of his own social media stuff, but there is at least one person on his crew that somehow didn't see anything wrong with that image and just ran with it.

(And you can tell it isn't Ben Garrison because every single thing isn't labeled)
---

Just in case it wasn't clear in my original post, the "guy who got the ball rolling on the tea party/Donald Trump" was supposed to be Ron Paul, not Ben Garrison. I didn't even realize that someone put his name on the cartoon, and he isn't influential in the slightest to people who aren't already 100% on board with that ideology anyway.
---

the guys who got the ball rolling for the tea party were the Koch brothers
---

Fair enough.

Ron Pauls online following did feed into this movement though, and a lot of them eventually made their way over to the_donald.
---

Ehh, I dunno, I definitely liked Ron Paul in 2008, and have occasionally used "it's happening" image memes. I recognized that economically his policies were more right wing than mine, certainly, but I genuinely did want him to win the primary cause hey, candidate that doesn't oppose gay marriage (unlike Hillary and Obama).

And I certainly didn't get sucked into the alt right. Nor do I really see Paul as the progenitor of the tea party. As far as I know he never pushed Obama's Birth Certificate as an issue, which was literally the rallying cry of the tea party.

I'm not saying there's zero overlap between people who liked Ron Paul and people who eventually jumped on Trump. But there's also some overlap between people who liked Ron Paul and then were big Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016. Some candidates are trendy and popular on the internet, and some people on the internet just like all the trendy candidates. (And I guess I kind-of fall in the "I often like popular internet meme candidates" camp, even if I never liked Trump at all).
---

There is definitely a large chunk of Ron Paul supporters on the_donald. They talk about it all the time. They still use unfunny Ron Paul memes from time to time.

Well, I guess I should clarify: a large and vocal contingent of Trump's rabid online followers cites Ron Paul as their impetus for joining the "conservative" movement. Trump is pretty far away from Paul in actual policy mind you, so it is unclear how well these people are actually telling the truth. But I see it all the time, to the point where it seems reasonable to believe that it is at least partially true. Obviously not all Paul supporters became Trump supporters, or even a majority of them. But he was sort of the hot online Republican candidate before Trump, and a lot of his more fervent online supporters eventually made their way over to Trump bastions. It isn't so much that "all Trump supporters are former Ron Paul supporters" but rather the online presence that grew around him eventually morphed into what became the_donald and /pol/.

And the tea party supporters that came from him weren't the "SHOW US YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE" group, but rather the "government needs to be so small it can't effectively do anything" group. There were some people that joined the tea party for the casual racism, sure, but there were also those that were from the Ron Paul school of politics and just wanted little to no government, at all.
---

metroid composite posted...

I recognized that economically his policies were more right wing than mine, certainly, but I genuinely did want him to win the primary cause hey, candidate that doesn't oppose gay marriage (unlike Hillary and Obama).

uh... i don't think you have your priorities straight when you support a candidate with disastrous economic policies just because "hey candidate that doesn't oppose gay marriage." and several of my close friends are part of the LGBT community, including my best friend, so i certainly recognize how important the issue of gay marriage is.

(everyone should use "it's happening" image memes, though. those are awesome.)
---

and yeah, i do think there's a pretty big overlap between trump supporters/the alt-right and ron paul supporters. not that the alt-right gives a crap about paul's actual policies, they just like the idea of supporting him. vlado is usually a pretty good indicator of what the alt-right is like and he definitely praises paul every now and then. and if you point out that trump couldn't possibly be further away from paul policy-wise he goes "WELL I'M NOT SAYING I AGREE WITH PAUL ON EVERYTHING GEEZ."

hell, you could even argue muffin is part of the "supports both trump and paul" movement.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

metroid composite posted...

I recognized that economically his policies were more right wing than mine, certainly, but I genuinely did want him to win the primary cause hey, candidate that doesn't oppose gay marriage (unlike Hillary and Obama).

uh... i don't think you have your priorities straight when you support a candidate with disastrous economic policies just because "hey candidate that doesn't oppose gay marriage." and several of my close friends are part of the LGBT community, including my best friend, so i certainly recognize how important the issue of gay marriage is.

(everyone should use "it's happening" image memes, though. those are awesome.)

Ehhhhh, with issues of identity, people go against their economic well-being in exchange for feeling heard.

It's literally the exact reason Hillary didn't win North Carolina and Georgia. Her economic message was well-received but the pro-lifers felt that she was hostile to them (and she kinda was) and so they voted for mr. pussy grabber cheats on his wife instead.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

uh... i don't think you have your priorities straight when you support a candidate with disastrous economic policies just because "hey candidate that doesn't oppose gay marriage." and several of my close friends are part of the LGBT community, including my best friend, so i certainly recognize how important the issue of gay marriage is.

(everyone should use "it's happening" image memes, though. those are awesome.)

Eh.

Like...yeah, ok, given a choice between someone with Canadian economic policies and libertarian economic policies, I would tend to lean towards the candidate with the Canadian policies.

But Ron Paul mostly operates within the bounds that a politician should operate. In my mind, politics is loosely a bunch of sliding bars to min max, like...

* Tax Breaks
* Education
* Paying off (or adding to) the debt
* Health Care
* Military
* Environment

Ron Paul advocates for lowering all the other bars, and increasing tax breaks. Which...admittedly I don't think this is optimally min-maxed, I think trickle down economics is less efficient than, say, spending on education. On the other hand, I think trickle down economics is MORE efficient than spending on the military. If tax breaks are slightly less than optimal, say, 60% efficiency for helping people (some money does indeed trickle down, just not as much as Republicans like to hype it), military spending is like...fucking 20%. It is a very inefficient way to help Americans.

So...Ron Paul who wants to lower taxes, but also lower military spending and disengage from foreign conflicts honestly looked from an overall min-max perspective pretty competitive compared to the 2008 field policy wise.

I'm not going to say he was better than Bernie Sanders on economic issues. Bernie who proposed both pulling out of foreign conflicts AND providing free college education is way more min-maxed. But I think Ron Paul was possibly competitive with 2008 Hillary, who certainly seemed to have more military plans than him, even if she did have better positions on education.

(The real problems with Ron Paul are not so much economic as social, where the KKK seems to really like him, and "get rid of regulation" to libertarians often seems to include stuff like 60s civil rights legislation and desegregation laws, which um...yeah, fuck that part of the libertarian platform).
---

Why does this fucker still have a job
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/02/politics/scott-pruitt-whistleblower-secret-calendar/index.htm
---

you left an 'l' off that '.html'

... or as with most index pages, just leave off the 'index.[whatever]' altogether

but relevant: https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1013954537214828545
---

Today in "our president is doing lines of coke before 7 am":

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1014098721460686849

When we have an infestation of MS-13 GANGS in certain parts of our country, who do we send to get them out? ICE! They are tougher and smarter than these rough criminal elelments that bad immigration laws allow into our country. Dems do not appreciate the great job they do! Nov.

---

To be clear, ICE doesn't have a law enforcement nexus BEYOND merely enforcing immigration and customs laws (hence the name).

P.S. MS-13 is an American Prison gang that only exists because we deported a bunch of prisoners who then kept their gang structure (most notably in El Salvador). MS-13 is a problem of our own making and their rampant violence is responsible for a large number of the refugees we get on our borders.
---

I'm just laughing at "smarter than these rough criminal elelments"
---

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1014218861296660480

Trump wants to meet with Putin alone, with no other aides present on either side, in Helsinki this month. That means no note-takers, witnesses, or official record. https://t.co/nUepSFAUNP

Not exactly doing much to make it look like he isn't in putin's pocket.
---

No collusion!

YOU'RE the collusion!
---

Great thread on the history of the Democrats becoming the part of civil rights (old thread, but brought up today by Dinesh DSouza in a self-own):
https://twitter.com/kevinmkruse/status/991131180593541121
---

Makes sense if you really dont think about it...!
https://twitter.com/steventdennis/status/1014237188727476224
---

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1014257237945176071

looks like i wasn't the only who had a problem with the capitalizing thing. glad he finally addressed it, though the "emphasis" explanation still doesn't make much sense to me.
---

Pour
---

I mean, I routinely get emails from my district commander with some words in all caps. Usually they are things like Corps values, you know like COMMITMENT, INTEGRITY. Shit like that.
---

he doesn't capitalize the entire words, though. just the first letter.
---

I'm just saying emphasis isn't that unbelievable
---

Did the tweet get deleted? I can't see it.
---

SgtSphynx posted...

I'm just saying emphasis isn't that unbelievable

oh ok. but i'm saying the words he emphasizes don't always make sense to me. not saying he's lying, just that i read some of his tweets and go "why would you specifically emphasize that word?"
---

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/justice-kennedy-wasnt-a-moderate/

More data showing the hero Kennedy was essentially almost identical to Roberts based on his actual voting record.
---

the tweet didn't get deleted but that link doesn't seem to work anymore. weird. it was the tweet that said this:

After having written many best selling books, and somewhat priding myself on my ability to write, it should be noted that the Fake News constantly likes to pore over my tweets looking for a mistake. I capitalize certain words only for emphasis, not b/c they should be capitalized!

---

The wonders of living through the days where social media becomes a part of political life
---

Well pour was changed to pore
---

ahh.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/justice-kennedy-wasnt-a-moderate/

More data showing the hero Kennedy was essentially almost identical to Roberts based on his actual voting record.

Yeah, people saying the court is somehow fucked with the change are just doomsaying and world is falling people. Even if it is 7-2 / 8-1 there is very little chance gay marriage is falling and at worse abortion would go to states rights but even that is highly unlikely.

Conservatives mostly rule based on past precedent. The precedents are set.
---

Even Scalia respected precedent. Thomas is the only one who frequently argues they should overturn decisions going back 100 years (and he's only really done it when in dissent).
---

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/justice-kennedy-wasnt-a-moderate/

More data showing the hero Kennedy was essentially almost identical to Roberts based on his actual voting record.

Yeah, people saying the court is somehow fucked with the change are just doomsaying and world is falling people. Even if it is 7-2 / 8-1 there is very little chance gay marriage is falling and at worse abortion would go to states rights but even that is highly unlikely.

Conservatives mostly rule based on past precedent. The precedents are set.

Abortion going to the states would be a huge change. Some large fraction of the states (over 30 I think?) have trigger laws to immediately outlaw abortion if the Supreme Court were to rule that it wasnt protected.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/justice-kennedy-wasnt-a-moderate/

More data showing the hero Kennedy was essentially almost identical to Roberts based on his actual voting record.

Yeah, people saying the court is somehow fucked with the change are just doomsaying and world is falling people. Even if it is 7-2 / 8-1 there is very little chance gay marriage is falling and at worse abortion would go to states rights but even that is highly unlikely even with 7-2 / 8-1.

Conservatives mostly rule based on past precedent. The precedents are set.

Abortion going to the states would be a huge change. Some large fraction of the states (over 30 I think?) have trigger laws to immediately outlaw abortion if the Supreme Court were to rule that it wasnt protected.

Well, like I stated above, it is highly unlikely to happen.
---

I think a recent poll said 61% don't think Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
---

I think a recent poll said 61% said a new supreme Court Justice should be confirmed before mid terms. That's a weird coincidence.
---

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/nbc-news-poll-most-want-vote-trump-supreme-court-nominee-n888451

I guess nitpick voted on not confirmed tho obviously would be if voted on.
---

If it is overturned, there will be states that will keep it legal. People can just travel to those states to do it. I'm sure liberals will raise large amounts of money to pay for travel costs for those who can't afford it.
---

red sox 777 posted...

If it is overturned, there will be states that will keep it legal. People can just travel to those states to do it. I'm sure liberals will raise large amounts of money to pay for travel costs for those who can't afford it.

yes this is a totally reasonable solution and it will be just as easy to get one then as it is now
https://imgur.com/a/i4wx7iz
---

i'm kind of ambivalent on the "leave abortion to the states" thing. on the one hand i do think it wouldn't necessarily be easy for people to travel to the states that do allow it. on the other hand, imagine if trump got bored of the job, stepped down, and religious nutcase pence became president and immediately banned abortion. then there would be ZERO states with legal abortion. this is the fundamental problem with the "winner takes all" aspect of the US political system. when trump won the election, there were a lot of LGBT people who were super afraid that trump was going to ban gay marriage. this would never have been a problem - or not as big of a problem, at least - if gay marriage were a states' rights thing. there's no fucking way california would ban gay marriage, so there would always be gay marriage in the country regardless of whether or not trump is president.

that being said, i do like how libertarians advocate for states' rights and the "just travel to the state of your choice" solution. but then when i suggest to them that if they hate government so much they should move to a deserted island, they go "AS IF IT'S SO EASY TO GO THERE LASA GEEZ." i mean yeah, i get that travelling to a different state is easier than travelling to a deserted island, but i think it's an oversimplification to act like one is 100% doable and the other is 100% impossible by default.
---

Lasa I think you don't totally appreciate just how huge the U.S. is, and how big certain states are. You live in the Netherlands, right? That's approximately 16,000 square miles, or 2/3 the size of West Virginia... which happens to be our 41st largest state.

As in there are 40 states larger than it, and it's already 150% the size of your entire country.

So to say to people that want an abortion or gay marriage that they can go to the next state over and get it is rather sophomoric, considering the distances they may have to travel to cross the state line, the costs associated with that travel, taking time off from work, etc. etc.

(I'm not criticizing your for this - many Europeans just don't comprehend how huge the U.S. is because they're used to thinking in terms of their own countries. Everyone has their own cultural blindspots.)
---

Isn't the USA bigger than Pluto. Yeah
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

on the other hand, imagine if trump got bored of the job, stepped down, and religious nutcase pence became president and immediately banned abortion.

He literally couldn't. That isn't how the US government works.

The president doesn't make laws, and even if he got Congress to pass a law banning abortions the precedent would be that that law was unconstitutional. The judicial branch is the only one that can overturn Roe.
---