The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

Read the article, then apply context.

You mean in the context of the Democrats advocating discrimination?

Discrimination is wrong, regardless of who benefits from it. If you want equality, that's the only stance you can have; anything else, by definition, is discrimination. But that's ok if you're discriminating against the right groups, right?

What would your response be if they had said "We're not interested in minorities or alternative gender people?"

They are two sides of the same coin.

[thekillman]

The Democrats. The official party of discrimination.

I thought the RNC was the official party of discrimination, since they discriminate against trangenders in the military? Also against mexican judges, non-white veterans, captured veterans, the list goes on.

[jelgate]

I think we are confusing RNC with Trump

[Annoyed]

These guys ain't all that bright, are they?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/03...-saturday.html

First, I wonder if they even see the irony. They are demanding the removal of a democratically, legally elected administration because they disagree with its policies. Who is is the facist here?

Second, wouldn't the time to do something had been last November?

Sorry, guys, but barring impeachable offenses, you're stuck with Trump until 2021.

[SoulReaver]

a democratically

no

legally elected

no²

Who is is the facist here?

those in power

[Annoyed]

no
no²
those in power

That's funny, I seem to recall Trump being declared the legal winner of the electoral vote last year, despite much maneuvering by the opposition to prevent it.

[thekillman]

These guys ain't all that bright, are they?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/03...-saturday.html

This is fake news, based on alt-right speculation and mangling of facts. A small non-antifa associated group planned protests on the 4th and somehow it's become a story about a coup.

There's a whole article here debunking the BS:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...y-us-civil-war

Since late September, ‘alt-right’ members have advanced the idea that anti-fascist groups will begin a violent insurrection on 4 November. But no antifa groups are planning to protest – so what gives?

That's funny, I seem to recall Trump being declared the legal winner of the electoral vote last year, despite much maneuvering by the opposition to prevent it.

It's not all that democratic because the people didn't vote for him - they vote for the people voting for him.

Also, the idea of an election is that there is indeed an opposition trying to prevent the other from being elected.

[Annoyed]

It's not all that democratic because the people didn't vote for him - they vote for the people voting for him.

Also, the idea of an election is that there is indeed an opposition trying to prevent the other from being elected.

I've had this discussion w/ GF. The time for that opposition was before the general election. The Democrats should have run a different candidate. Sanders, for example. But Clinton had the DNC by the short and curlies, and they wouldn't stand up to her. As a side note, I've seen a few articles as of late that indicate that the DNC was in financial doo-doo, and Clinton held their bankbook.
But I digress.
Once the people went to the polls, Trump was the victor, under the rules of the system, which both knew going in. That should have been the end of it, but despite attempts to encourage faithless electors and such, Trump still won the official electoral vote.

At this point, the opponents can peacefully protest, voice their opposition, try to ramp up opposition at the polls for 2020, or whatever other legal means they can use to express their dislike, but short of proven criminal activity and impeachment, demanding his removal is over the line.

[SGalisa]

This is fake news, based on alt-right speculation and mangling of facts. A small non-antifa associated group planned protests on the 4th and somehow it's become a story about a coup.

There's a whole article here debunking the BS:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...y-us-civil-war



It's not all that democratic because the people didn't vote for him - they vote for the people voting for him.

Also, the idea of an election is that there is indeed an opposition trying to prevent the other from being elected.

Fake news? Really now... So, who paid the NY Times to take out an entire FULL page article to push this Antifa "#Nov4ItBegins"..? Soros? (That's the speculation, since he paid his Open Society Foundations $$$18 million or billion to do whatever they wanted with it.)

(subscription may be required to access... Also has video that auto-starts...!)
"'Antifa Civil War' on November 4 Was Really Just a Few Protests Against Trump"
By Michael Edison Hayden, On 11/4/17 at 6:21 PM

. . .
The so-called November 4 protests, which took place in cities across the country today, hosted by a nascent protest group called Refuse Fascism, will likely be remembered more for what they did not look like, than what they did. Far-right conspiracies had morphed the event into a fantasy world of unrealistic expectations. Antifa was going to start a civil war...
. . .

New York Times Ad (from November 1, 2017), picture of ad is shown and noted in below link.

(this link took a while to download / show up... has comments)

"Journalists run interference for leftist thugs--
N.Y. Times publishes ad for movement seeking to overthrow government"
Published: 2 days ago (i.e., November 3, 2017)
(World Net Daily)

It's safe to say the New York Times likely would not publish a full-page ad from the American Nazi Party or even from someone as far from the center as Richard Spencer.

But on Nov. 1, the Times had no problem publishing an ad from the communist front group Refuse Fascism promoting mass protests designed to drive President Trump from power.
. . .
The group Refuse Fascism bragged about its Times ad on its website Thursday, proclaiming "Welcome New York Times readers!" and inviting donations. Actors and pop culture figures such as Michael Shannon and D.L. Hughley have also pledged support for the effort.
. . .

Ad in WND is a jpg image (looks like a screen capture image), so it's huge enough so that all of the details can be clearly seen.

Loved reading the comments at the bottom of the WND article... . . .

Cannot access actual NYT ad, since I don't have a subscription to it... and don't have software to make a physical scan of article even if I had bought the paper that day. However, where I did see the original ad, it was a screen capture on another web site, of the actual article and is the same one that is shown in the WND article.

BTW, read elsewhere (on that other website) that the "war" against Trump/Pence is very real... and is going to get really interesting (hot) soon. Maybe not in the way you liberal folks here are seeing it, tho. Morph Middle East news from yesterday about Saudi's crowned Prince arresting other princes within Saudi house, and connect all of the dots (personas, organizations, whoever/whatever) who are connected to them (those who were arrested)... eventually the full picture will reveal itself... so goes the rumor... Ooooooo! ...it was like reading a suspense thriller novel .. TBC..!

[Gatefan1976]

Another day, another:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/sutherla...05-gzfe6c.html

[Gatefan1976]

I've had this discussion w/ GF. The time for that opposition was before the general election. The Democrats should have run a different candidate. Sanders, for example. But Clinton had the DNC by the short and curlies, and they wouldn't stand up to her. As a side note, I've seen a few articles as of late that indicate that the DNC was in financial doo-doo, and Clinton held their bankbook.
But I digress.
Once the people went to the polls, Trump was the victor, under the rules of the system, which both knew going in. That should have been the end of it, but despite attempts to encourage faithless electors and such, Trump still won the official electoral vote.

At this point, the opponents can peacefully protest, voice their opposition, try to ramp up opposition at the polls for 2020, or whatever other legal means they can use to express their dislike, but short of proven criminal activity and impeachment, demanding his removal is over the line.

I think the point they were making was that trump has already done enough to get himself impeached. When the left says removal, they do actually mean via political means. Public assembly and right to protest are still allowed in the USA and such tactics are entirely legal, no matter what they "demand"
Trump "demanded" to see Obama's birth certificate as well, remember.

[thekillman]

The Democrats should have run a different candidate. Sanders, for example. But Clinton had the DNC by the short and curlies, and they wouldn't stand up to her. As a side note, I've seen a few articles as of late that indicate that the DNC was in financial doo-doo, and Clinton held their bankbook.

By now i've seen basically anyone being claimed as beating Trump. I don't believe that the US would've voted for a socialist. Half the time when an american says socialism, they mean communism, and when they say communism they mean the Soviet Union (more like state capitalism under dictatorial rule, whereas communism is supposed to be stateless. but i digress). I don't think Sanders had the popularity to pull it off, nor do i think people would be willing to go that far. After all, they didn't for clinton, and apparently the disdain for trump wasn't strong enough to overcome that. Why would the natural disdain for communism be overcome for Sanders?

At this point, the opponents can peacefully protest, voice their opposition, try to ramp up opposition at the polls for 2020, or whatever other legal means they can use to express their dislike, but short of proven criminal activity and impeachment, demanding his removal is over the line.

They are, they are, they are, they are, and they're trying and making some progress.

BTW, read elsewhere (on that other website) that the "war" against Trump/Pence is very real... and is going to get really interesting (hot) soon.

The 4th was last saturday. Nothing happened.

Fake news? Really now... So, who paid the NY Times to take out an entire FULL page article to push this Antifa "#Nov4ItBegins"..? Soros? (That's the speculation, since he paid his Open Society Foundations $$$18 million or billion to do whatever they wanted with it.)

Your first link even goes to an article that shows it was nothing but a small peaceful protest, not the civil war that the Altright claimed. Why continue pushing a discredited narrative?

Your second link shows a poster that's just for a protest. It's not Antifa or antifa related at all. It's a separate and unaffiliated group. It doesn't call for violence or a civil war at all.

[Annoyed]

By now i've seen basically anyone being claimed as beating Trump. I don't believe that the US would've voted for a socialist. Half the time when an american says socialism, they mean communism, and when they say communism they mean the Soviet Union (more like state capitalism under dictatorial rule, whereas communism is supposed to be stateless. but i digress). I don't think Sanders had the popularity to pull it off, nor do i think people would be willing to go that far. After all, they didn't for clinton, and apparently the disdain for trump wasn't strong enough to overcome that. Why would the natural disdain for communism be overcome for Sanders?

Clinton was a highly polarizing candidate, much as Trump was/is. She had a lot of people who hated her guts well before the campaigns got going. I think running her cost the Democrats the election.

[Starsaber]

Clinton was a highly polarizing candidate, much as Trump was/is. She had a lot of people who hated her guts well before the campaigns got going. I think running her cost the Democrats the election.

That is something I agree with you on. If the Reps had run anyone but Trump, I probably would have voted 3rd party instead of for Hillary. I hate that I had to vote against someone rather than for someone, but that's how it turned out.

[mad_gater]

By now i've seen basically anyone being claimed as beating Trump. I don't believe that the US would've voted for a socialist. Half the time when an american says socialism, they mean communism, and when they say communism they mean the Soviet Union (more like state capitalism under dictatorial rule, whereas communism is supposed to be stateless. but i digress). I don't think Sanders had the popularity to pull it off, nor do i think people would be willing to go that far. After all, they didn't for clinton, and apparently the disdain for trump wasn't strong enough to overcome that. Why would the natural disdain for communism be overcome for Sanders?



They are, they are, they are, they are, and they're trying and making some progress.


The 4th was last saturday. Nothing happened.



Your first link even goes to an article that shows it was nothing but a small peaceful protest, not the civil war that the Altright claimed. Why continue pushing a discredited narrative?

Your second link shows a poster that's just for a protest. It's not Antifa or antifa related at all. It's a separate and unaffiliated group. It doesn't call for violence or a civil war at all.

not sure where you get the hogwash that communism is supposed to be stateless....since Communism and all other forms of collectivism require the centralization and nationalization of any and all means of production....with the most logical vehicle for such centralization being the State