1
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: October 11, 2018, 11:16:53 AM »
Presumably the top model is the one to aspire to, or something something.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: October 10, 2018, 11:26:08 PM »The GOP think climate change is a Chinese hoaxLolz.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2018/oct/10/climate-change-what-will-happen-hellfire-california-forest-fires
I wonder what the lads in the Gaaboard 4 Chan think.
You sure it's not www.gaaboard/r/thedonald ?
3
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: October 10, 2018, 10:49:11 PM »I certainly wasn't hammering your club, in fact my view on the issue was highly nuanced and I extensively defended them on another forum over the treatment they received both from Joe Brolly and on social media.I doubt it.I'm not from Northern Ireland and intricately understand all these things, mainly by watching television and reading.All these debates are universal and in their US context endless reams of debates about them are easily accessible online.You can’t understand the US unless you live there is a version of what in philosophy is referred to as the “practical man” fallacy, the idea that nothing can exist with any meaning outside immediate physical experience. In football it is known as the “never kicked a ball in your life” theory.
Twitter is free. The NYT is $60 for an online sub.
It gives you context and an understanding that you don't have and cant experience by reading about it with preconceived notions. You cant choose who you meet in the same way as you can choose what you read so it exposes you to perspectives at a personal perspective that you just cant get working from concepts alone.
I'll give you an example. I know a couple of fellas one is Hispanic (whatever that is) the other is Asian (sort of). both young, educated, fairly nerdy, good jobs, good craic, decent lads. To you or me or any1 else they come across as down to earth, smart and normal.. But what do they do their free time? They drive out into their desert to drink beer and shoot guns at shitty targets they set up. I get a good ole laugh outta this cos to me its the most hillbilly thing I ever heard of. Now they hate Trump think he and most Republicans are morons but if you try and tell them they shouldn't be allowed to shoot their guns in the desert in the desert because some psychopath shot up a school they wouldn't think its ridiculous or be outraged or anything else... they would just laugh their heads off as to to them what you are saying would be completely illogical. A German fella got into it with them about guns once and starting citing all these countries with low gun crime rates, it soon shutup when they asked him about Switzerland (he didnt have a clue incidentally!) Now I don't know how they vote, I suspect blue but if the right GOP candidate came along they would vote for them in a flinch.
Now this is the thing you don't get about reading politics in America you don't get the one on one interaction with people, so you don't really get to understand where they are coming from and how genuine they are.
You dont get a feel of the vastness of opinions, eventually you find out that everyone has a different opinion, no one it turns out fits the mould of a typical righty or liberal. And these people come in all shapes, shades, ages and places.
You dont get how politics affects you personally, your income, healthcare, roads, rent, crime in your area. And how you feel about that. You can hypothessze all you want about how you'll feel but the truth is... you just dont know until your in that situation.
Also... never kicked a ball is very true you would know it if ye ever did. I could never tell how good a footballer some is until I played agin or with them , it just gives you a perspective that you cant get when your watching in the stands....and commenting on American politics from Ireland well I am afraid your only watching in the stands.
And most Americans would think its hilarious that you even are watching from the stands, the only people that take notice of you are eejits like me expats...a good portion of whom cant or don't vote.
Whether or not you think people can understand something without direct experience depends on how your brain works. Some people can only do what they know.
What is going on in the US now is fascinating. An economic system is dying. The richest 1% own around 50% of everything. The GOP has managed to convince people that this is fine.
And mainstream Democrats as well, it's all based on the American mentality; if you work hard enough you can make it too.
When you talk to republicans and democrats (in NJ, as the differences between the two have regional variances), the conversations will centre around the following arguments, big government 'v' small government, new immigrants needing to adapt to America, not the other way around ''v' America should be set up to ease entry into American society (immigrant support services). immigration policy, (economic immigrant policy 'v' family immigrant policy), and lastly taxes.
During discussions that I've had, I've always found them to being interesting, and the rep and demo leaning people have honest points.
For example, Rep attitude to taxes, lower corp taxes to encourage company's to employ more people in USA with better paid jobs which in turn helps pull people out of poverty 'v' high taxes to support the poor with benefits
These are the debates that you will exposed to while living in America, debates that you wont hear in the news channels.
In that case, would you agreed that people from outside Northern Ireland would understand the NI people, politics and local issues by watching our political leaders debate on TV?
Or would you agree with the statement that people would understand the complexities of the border to the same level as the local border communities by watching the DUP / Tories / Sinn Fein debate on line.
Or would the people living in the country have a deeper understanding of the issues via living in the community 'v' someone who watched online debates
My club was hammered last year in the public domain regarding PH , and zero nuance surrounding the community history in regards to police harassment / threats, how a significant section of the club supported PH, was communicated in any debate / newspapers. Yet everybody on this website and in NI society had "expert" opinions on what had happened, yet nobody outside of the community did
Most of that "hammering" came from within the entity known as Northern Ireland.
4
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: October 10, 2018, 10:39:07 PM »The majority of rich people did nothing to earn their wealth other than owning property, owning stocks, owning bonds, and owning all manner of stuff that they inherited from rich parents, a bit like the current US president.
There's a great quote from a book called "The View from Flyover Country" by Sarah Kendzior.
"When wealth is passed off as merit, bad luck is seen as bad character.
This is how ideologues justify punishing the sick and the poor but poverty is neither a crime nor a character flaw. Stigmatise those who let people die, not those who have struggled to live."
5
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: October 10, 2018, 12:50:52 PM »I'm not from Northern Ireland and intricately understand all these things, mainly by watching television and reading.All these debates are universal and in their US context endless reams of debates about them are easily accessible online.You can’t understand the US unless you live there is a version of what in philosophy is referred to as the “practical man” fallacy, the idea that nothing can exist with any meaning outside immediate physical experience. In football it is known as the “never kicked a ball in your life” theory.
Twitter is free. The NYT is $60 for an online sub.
It gives you context and an understanding that you don't have and cant experience by reading about it with preconceived notions. You cant choose who you meet in the same way as you can choose what you read so it exposes you to perspectives at a personal perspective that you just cant get working from concepts alone.
I'll give you an example. I know a couple of fellas one is Hispanic (whatever that is) the other is Asian (sort of). both young, educated, fairly nerdy, good jobs, good craic, decent lads. To you or me or any1 else they come across as down to earth, smart and normal.. But what do they do their free time? They drive out into their desert to drink beer and shoot guns at shitty targets they set up. I get a good ole laugh outta this cos to me its the most hillbilly thing I ever heard of. Now they hate Trump think he and most Republicans are morons but if you try and tell them they shouldn't be allowed to shoot their guns in the desert in the desert because some psychopath shot up a school they wouldn't think its ridiculous or be outraged or anything else... they would just laugh their heads off as to to them what you are saying would be completely illogical. A German fella got into it with them about guns once and starting citing all these countries with low gun crime rates, it soon shutup when they asked him about Switzerland (he didnt have a clue incidentally!) Now I don't know how they vote, I suspect blue but if the right GOP candidate came along they would vote for them in a flinch.
Now this is the thing you don't get about reading politics in America you don't get the one on one interaction with people, so you don't really get to understand where they are coming from and how genuine they are.
You dont get a feel of the vastness of opinions, eventually you find out that everyone has a different opinion, no one it turns out fits the mould of a typical righty or liberal. And these people come in all shapes, shades, ages and places.
You dont get how politics affects you personally, your income, healthcare, roads, rent, crime in your area. And how you feel about that. You can hypothessze all you want about how you'll feel but the truth is... you just dont know until your in that situation.
Also... never kicked a ball is very true you would know it if ye ever did. I could never tell how good a footballer some is until I played agin or with them , it just gives you a perspective that you cant get when your watching in the stands....and commenting on American politics from Ireland well I am afraid your only watching in the stands.
And most Americans would think its hilarious that you even are watching from the stands, the only people that take notice of you are eejits like me expats...a good portion of whom cant or don't vote.
Whether or not you think people can understand something without direct experience depends on how your brain works. Some people can only do what they know.
What is going on in the US now is fascinating. An economic system is dying. The richest 1% own around 50% of everything. The GOP has managed to convince people that this is fine.
And mainstream Democrats as well, it's all based on the American mentality; if you work hard enough you can make it too.
When you talk to republicans and democrats (in NJ, as the differences between the two have regional variances), the conversations will centre around the following arguments, big government 'v' small government, new immigrants needing to adapt to America, not the other way around ''v' America should be set up to ease entry into American society (immigrant support services). immigration policy, (economic immigrant policy 'v' family immigrant policy), and lastly taxes.
During discussions that I've had, I've always found them to being interesting, and the rep and demo leaning people have honest points.
For example, Rep attitude to taxes, lower corp taxes to encourage company's to employ more people in USA with better paid jobs which in turn helps pull people out of poverty 'v' high taxes to support the poor with benefits
These are the debates that you will exposed to while living in America, debates that you wont hear in the news channels.
In that case, would you agreed that people from outside Northern Ireland would understand the NI people, politics and local issues by watching our political leaders debate on TV?
Or would you agree with the statement that people would understand the complexities of the border to the same level as the local border communities by watching the DUP / Tories / Sinn Fein debate on line.
Or would the people living in the country have a deeper understanding of the issues via living in the community 'v' someone who watched online debates
6
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: October 09, 2018, 08:19:46 PM »All these debates are universal and in their US context endless reams of debates about them are easily accessible online.You can’t understand the US unless you live there is a version of what in philosophy is referred to as the “practical man” fallacy, the idea that nothing can exist with any meaning outside immediate physical experience. In football it is known as the “never kicked a ball in your life” theory.
Twitter is free. The NYT is $60 for an online sub.
It gives you context and an understanding that you don't have and cant experience by reading about it with preconceived notions. You cant choose who you meet in the same way as you can choose what you read so it exposes you to perspectives at a personal perspective that you just cant get working from concepts alone.
I'll give you an example. I know a couple of fellas one is Hispanic (whatever that is) the other is Asian (sort of). both young, educated, fairly nerdy, good jobs, good craic, decent lads. To you or me or any1 else they come across as down to earth, smart and normal.. But what do they do their free time? They drive out into their desert to drink beer and shoot guns at shitty targets they set up. I get a good ole laugh outta this cos to me its the most hillbilly thing I ever heard of. Now they hate Trump think he and most Republicans are morons but if you try and tell them they shouldn't be allowed to shoot their guns in the desert in the desert because some psychopath shot up a school they wouldn't think its ridiculous or be outraged or anything else... they would just laugh their heads off as to to them what you are saying would be completely illogical. A German fella got into it with them about guns once and starting citing all these countries with low gun crime rates, it soon shutup when they asked him about Switzerland (he didnt have a clue incidentally!) Now I don't know how they vote, I suspect blue but if the right GOP candidate came along they would vote for them in a flinch.
Now this is the thing you don't get about reading politics in America you don't get the one on one interaction with people, so you don't really get to understand where they are coming from and how genuine they are.
You dont get a feel of the vastness of opinions, eventually you find out that everyone has a different opinion, no one it turns out fits the mould of a typical righty or liberal. And these people come in all shapes, shades, ages and places.
You dont get how politics affects you personally, your income, healthcare, roads, rent, crime in your area. And how you feel about that. You can hypothessze all you want about how you'll feel but the truth is... you just dont know until your in that situation.
Also... never kicked a ball is very true you would know it if ye ever did. I could never tell how good a footballer some is until I played agin or with them , it just gives you a perspective that you cant get when your watching in the stands....and commenting on American politics from Ireland well I am afraid your only watching in the stands.
And most Americans would think its hilarious that you even are watching from the stands, the only people that take notice of you are eejits like me expats...a good portion of whom cant or don't vote.
Whether or not you think people can understand something without direct experience depends on how your brain works. Some people can only do what they know.
What is going on in the US now is fascinating. An economic system is dying. The richest 1% own around 50% of everything. The GOP has managed to convince people that this is fine.
And mainstream Democrats as well, it's all based on the American mentality; if you work hard enough you can make it too.
When you talk to republicans and democrats (in NJ, as the differences between the two have regional variances), the conversations will centre around the following arguments, big government 'v' small government, new immigrants needing to adapt to America, not the other way around ''v' America should be set up to ease entry into American society (immigrant support services). immigration policy, (economic immigrant policy 'v' family immigrant policy), and lastly taxes.
During discussions that I've had, I've always found them to being interesting, and the rep and demo leaning people have honest points.
For example, Rep attitude to taxes, lower corp taxes to encourage company's to employ more people in USA with better paid jobs which in turn helps pull people out of poverty 'v' high taxes to support the poor with benefits
These are the debates that you will exposed to while living in America, debates that you wont hear in the news channels.
7
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: October 09, 2018, 12:43:12 AM »As a hardcore Republican and an outright misogynist, well, duh you're delighted.
Bullsh1t.....it was a democratic hit job and delay tactic that backfired and I’m delighted he got confirmed.
You forgot the "salty liberal tears" bit there.
Must do better.
8
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: October 08, 2018, 11:14:19 PM »
Required reading by Peter Beinart which blows the transparently bogus "false equivalence" "both sides" narrative out of the water.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/has-american-politics-hit-rock-bottom/572452/?utm_source=twb
Civility Has Its Limits
The conflict over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination centered not on tribalism, but on a lack of justice.
Peter Beinart
Professor of journalism at the City University of New York
When it comes to Brett Kavanaugh, there are three camps. The first believes it’s a travesty that he was confirmed. The second believes it’s a travesty that he was smeared. The third believes it’s a travesty that the process was so divisive.
David Brooks is in the third camp. The Kavanaugh hearings, he wrote on Friday, constituted an “American nadir.” You often hear such phrases from people who think the biggest problem with the Kavanaugh battle is that the participants weren’t more courteous and open-minded. Jeff Flake said that in debating Kavanaugh, the Senate “hit bottom.” Susan Collins called it “rock bottom.” Think about that for a second. For most of American history, Supreme Court nominees—like virtually all powerful men—could sexually assault women with complete impunity. Now, because allegations of such behavior sparked a raucous, intemperate political fight, America has hit “rock bottom,” a “nadir.” How much better things were in the good old days, when sexual-assault allegations didn’t polarize the confirmation process, because sexual-assault victims were politically invisible.
Implying, as Brooks, Flake, and Collins do, that America’s real problem is a lack of civility rather than a lack of justice requires assuming a moral equivalence between Brett Kavanaugh’s supporters and Christine Blasey Ford’s. “What we saw in these hearings,” writes Brooks, “was the unvarnished tribalization of national life.” The term tribe implies atavistic, amoral group loyalty: Huns versus Franks, Yankees versus Red Sox, Hatfields versus McCoys. There are no larger principles at stake. “There was nothing particularly ideological about the narratives,” laid out by Kavanaugh and Ford, Brooks declares, “nothing that touched on capitalism, immigration or any of the other great disputes of national life.”
But gender is indeed one of the “great disputes of national life.” The Kavanaugh fight pitted people who worry that #MeToo hasn’t changed America enough, that it’s still too easy for men to get away with sexual assault, against people who fear that #MeToo has changed America too much, that it’s become too easy for women to ruin men’s lives by charging them with sexual assault. That’s not a tribal struggle; it’s an ideological one. It involves competing visions of the relationship between women and men.
Describing Democrats and Republicans as warring tribes has become a political cliché, but it’s wrong. If tribal implies unthinking or inherited group loyalty, then Democrats and Republicans were actually more tribal in the mid-20th century. Back then, when being a Democrat or a Republican signified less about your view of the world, party identity was more a function of regional or ancestral ties. Whether or not they supported civil rights or higher taxes or the Korean War, Irish Catholics from Boston were mostly Democrats; Presbyterians from Kansas were mostly Republicans. Today, party identity is more a function of what you believe. The parties are so bitterly polarized not because they’ve become more tribal but because they’ve become more ideological.
But for Brooks, depicting the supporters of Kavanaugh and Ford as tribes is useful because it doesn’t only suggest moral equivalence, it also implies an equivalence of power. The “tribalization” of American politics, Brooks argues, “leads to an epidemic of bigotry. Bigotry involves creating a stereotype about a disfavored group and then applying that stereotype to an individual you’ve never met. It was bigotry against Jews that got Alfred Dreyfus convicted in 1894. It was bigotry against young black males that got the Central Park Five convicted in 1990. It was bigotry against preppy lacrosse players that led to the bogus Duke lacrosse scandal.”
This is misleading. There is no equivalence between the “bigotry” faced by preppy lacrosse players and that faced by black males. There’s no equivalence, because preppy lacrosse players, in general, enjoy far more privilege and power and thus, the stereotypes people hold of them don’t generally land them in jail or dead. Similarly, there is no equivalence between the “bigotry” faced by men accused of sexual assault and the “bigotry” faced by women who suffer it. There’s no equivalence, because men wield far more power. If you don’t think that matters, try imagining Kavanaugh getting confirmed by a Senate composed of 79 women.
The struggle over Kavanaugh was, at its core, a struggle between people who want gender relations to change and people who want them to remain the same. And throughout American history, whenever oppressed groups and their supporters have agitated for change, respectable moderates have warned that they were fomenting incivility and division. In April 1963, seven white Alabama ministers and one rabbi wrote a letter to Martin Luther King Jr.. The letter articulated no position on segregation and the right to vote. It assumed, instead, a moral equivalence between blacks who wanted race relations to change and whites who wanted them to remain the same. Both sides held “honest convictions in racial matters.” Both “our white and Negro citizenry” should “observe the principles of law and order and common sense.”
The real danger, the authors claimed, was “friction and unrest.” Averting it required “forbearance” and “restraint” on both sides. King, whose Birmingham campaign was titled “Project C”—for confrontation—was purposefully fomenting such friction and unrest through marches, sit-ins, and boycotts. While “technically peaceful,” the ministers and rabbi warned, the “extreme measures” adopted by King and his supporters “incite to hatred and violence.”
In his response, written from jail, King argued that the white clergymen were mistaking symptom for disease. The problem wasn’t “friction and unrest” between Birmingham’s two tribes. It was centuries of oppression, which there was no frictionless way to overcome. “I am not afraid of the word ‘tension,’” King explained. “We must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”
Even as Bull Connor’s men savagely beat black protesters in the streets, King recognized that Birmingham was not hitting “rock bottom.” It was rising from an almost century-long nadir in which white supremacy—no matter how murderous—was barely even a subject of political controversy, in which black powerlessness was the foundation on which comity between two of America’s white-dominated political parties rested.
The problem that the Kavanaugh struggle laid bare is not “unvarnished tribalism.” The problem is that women who allege abuse by men still often face male-dominated institutions that do not thoroughly and honestly investigate their claims. That problem is not new; it is very old. What is new is that this injustice now sparks bitter partisan conflict and upends long-standing courtesies. Rape survivors yell at politicians in the Senate halls. The varnish—the attractive, glossy coating that protected male oppression of women—is coming off. Brooks, Collins, and Flake may decry the “tension” this exposes. But, as King understood, the “dark depths of prejudice” can’t be overcome any other way.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/has-american-politics-hit-rock-bottom/572452/?utm_source=twb
Civility Has Its Limits
The conflict over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination centered not on tribalism, but on a lack of justice.
Peter Beinart
Professor of journalism at the City University of New York
When it comes to Brett Kavanaugh, there are three camps. The first believes it’s a travesty that he was confirmed. The second believes it’s a travesty that he was smeared. The third believes it’s a travesty that the process was so divisive.
David Brooks is in the third camp. The Kavanaugh hearings, he wrote on Friday, constituted an “American nadir.” You often hear such phrases from people who think the biggest problem with the Kavanaugh battle is that the participants weren’t more courteous and open-minded. Jeff Flake said that in debating Kavanaugh, the Senate “hit bottom.” Susan Collins called it “rock bottom.” Think about that for a second. For most of American history, Supreme Court nominees—like virtually all powerful men—could sexually assault women with complete impunity. Now, because allegations of such behavior sparked a raucous, intemperate political fight, America has hit “rock bottom,” a “nadir.” How much better things were in the good old days, when sexual-assault allegations didn’t polarize the confirmation process, because sexual-assault victims were politically invisible.
Implying, as Brooks, Flake, and Collins do, that America’s real problem is a lack of civility rather than a lack of justice requires assuming a moral equivalence between Brett Kavanaugh’s supporters and Christine Blasey Ford’s. “What we saw in these hearings,” writes Brooks, “was the unvarnished tribalization of national life.” The term tribe implies atavistic, amoral group loyalty: Huns versus Franks, Yankees versus Red Sox, Hatfields versus McCoys. There are no larger principles at stake. “There was nothing particularly ideological about the narratives,” laid out by Kavanaugh and Ford, Brooks declares, “nothing that touched on capitalism, immigration or any of the other great disputes of national life.”
But gender is indeed one of the “great disputes of national life.” The Kavanaugh fight pitted people who worry that #MeToo hasn’t changed America enough, that it’s still too easy for men to get away with sexual assault, against people who fear that #MeToo has changed America too much, that it’s become too easy for women to ruin men’s lives by charging them with sexual assault. That’s not a tribal struggle; it’s an ideological one. It involves competing visions of the relationship between women and men.
Describing Democrats and Republicans as warring tribes has become a political cliché, but it’s wrong. If tribal implies unthinking or inherited group loyalty, then Democrats and Republicans were actually more tribal in the mid-20th century. Back then, when being a Democrat or a Republican signified less about your view of the world, party identity was more a function of regional or ancestral ties. Whether or not they supported civil rights or higher taxes or the Korean War, Irish Catholics from Boston were mostly Democrats; Presbyterians from Kansas were mostly Republicans. Today, party identity is more a function of what you believe. The parties are so bitterly polarized not because they’ve become more tribal but because they’ve become more ideological.
But for Brooks, depicting the supporters of Kavanaugh and Ford as tribes is useful because it doesn’t only suggest moral equivalence, it also implies an equivalence of power. The “tribalization” of American politics, Brooks argues, “leads to an epidemic of bigotry. Bigotry involves creating a stereotype about a disfavored group and then applying that stereotype to an individual you’ve never met. It was bigotry against Jews that got Alfred Dreyfus convicted in 1894. It was bigotry against young black males that got the Central Park Five convicted in 1990. It was bigotry against preppy lacrosse players that led to the bogus Duke lacrosse scandal.”
This is misleading. There is no equivalence between the “bigotry” faced by preppy lacrosse players and that faced by black males. There’s no equivalence, because preppy lacrosse players, in general, enjoy far more privilege and power and thus, the stereotypes people hold of them don’t generally land them in jail or dead. Similarly, there is no equivalence between the “bigotry” faced by men accused of sexual assault and the “bigotry” faced by women who suffer it. There’s no equivalence, because men wield far more power. If you don’t think that matters, try imagining Kavanaugh getting confirmed by a Senate composed of 79 women.
The struggle over Kavanaugh was, at its core, a struggle between people who want gender relations to change and people who want them to remain the same. And throughout American history, whenever oppressed groups and their supporters have agitated for change, respectable moderates have warned that they were fomenting incivility and division. In April 1963, seven white Alabama ministers and one rabbi wrote a letter to Martin Luther King Jr.. The letter articulated no position on segregation and the right to vote. It assumed, instead, a moral equivalence between blacks who wanted race relations to change and whites who wanted them to remain the same. Both sides held “honest convictions in racial matters.” Both “our white and Negro citizenry” should “observe the principles of law and order and common sense.”
The real danger, the authors claimed, was “friction and unrest.” Averting it required “forbearance” and “restraint” on both sides. King, whose Birmingham campaign was titled “Project C”—for confrontation—was purposefully fomenting such friction and unrest through marches, sit-ins, and boycotts. While “technically peaceful,” the ministers and rabbi warned, the “extreme measures” adopted by King and his supporters “incite to hatred and violence.”
In his response, written from jail, King argued that the white clergymen were mistaking symptom for disease. The problem wasn’t “friction and unrest” between Birmingham’s two tribes. It was centuries of oppression, which there was no frictionless way to overcome. “I am not afraid of the word ‘tension,’” King explained. “We must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”
Even as Bull Connor’s men savagely beat black protesters in the streets, King recognized that Birmingham was not hitting “rock bottom.” It was rising from an almost century-long nadir in which white supremacy—no matter how murderous—was barely even a subject of political controversy, in which black powerlessness was the foundation on which comity between two of America’s white-dominated political parties rested.
The problem that the Kavanaugh struggle laid bare is not “unvarnished tribalism.” The problem is that women who allege abuse by men still often face male-dominated institutions that do not thoroughly and honestly investigate their claims. That problem is not new; it is very old. What is new is that this injustice now sparks bitter partisan conflict and upends long-standing courtesies. Rape survivors yell at politicians in the Senate halls. The varnish—the attractive, glossy coating that protected male oppression of women—is coming off. Brooks, Collins, and Flake may decry the “tension” this exposes. But, as King understood, the “dark depths of prejudice” can’t be overcome any other way.
9
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: October 08, 2018, 08:12:26 PM »To be fair, it's pretty much undeniable that there is a strong causative effect between lack of intellect and getting your "news" and "facts" from non-factual sources.
I love how somebody who lives in Ireland is so infatuated, and so much more knowledgeable on US politics than somebody living here. But then again likes most Dems you are probably intellectually superior to the rest of us.
I love it too, maybe you could love it enough to get as knowledgeable yourself? I don't think the issue is intellectual superiority, but probably more around level of effort to get facts from factual sources.
10
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: October 08, 2018, 03:03:08 PM »It seems to me there are many, many people living in Ireland and elsewhere a hell of a lot more knowledgable about US politics than most people who live in the US.Both parties are a disgrace
Garland should have gotten a hearing and should (probably) have been confirmed
The Republicans rolled the dice and it paid off for them, but it could have backfired spectacularly
Neither party has room for moderates.....the very well liked and respected Democratic SOS in MA was viciously attacked from the left by a bloody upstart in this years primary with all kinds of crazy allegations (Google Josh Zakin/Bill Galvin if you want to learn more). I was so mad I pulled a Democratic ballot so I could vote for Galvin in the primary and will vote for him in November
The Democrats tried to pull of the dirtiest of dirty tricks with Kavanaugh and it backfired spectacularly on them. They could end up losing 4-5 senate seats over this and have completely re energized the Republican base. The might now not even take the house, but they probably will
They now believe their own bvllshit as is evidenced by the amount of nonsense spouted on here......they lose elections and now all of a sudden the system isn’t fair-lol.
The republicans also sicken my $hite with their faux patriotism and catering to the lowest common denominator among their base
The Republicans probably rim your hole, Whitey, based on your posting.
And there are plenty of moderates in the Dems.
The GOP is the problem.
I love how somebody who lives in Ireland is so infatuated, and so much more knowledgeable on US politics than somebody living here.
but then again likes most Dems you are probably intellectually superior to the rest of us.
Why is it that pro-Republican posters have such a weird paranoia complex about other people having their say?
11
General discussion / Re: Clerical abuse!
« on: October 07, 2018, 10:08:39 PM »Fr Gerard McAleer I believe...Time for Mickey Harte to dust off the old character reference...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45779109
A parish priest in the Archdiocese of Armagh has stood aside from his position due to concerns brought to the Diocese and reported to the Gardaí.
A statement from the Catholic Church was issued on Sunday afternoon.
It said the information received is historical and relates to a time prior to the man's ordination as a priest.
The statement added that the relevant statutory authorities in Northern Ireland have been informed.
12
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: October 06, 2018, 04:10:11 PM »Exactly the same as Bart O'Kavanaugh so - except for the key detail that Franken wasn't actually trying to rape her.the girl in question has been interviewed lots of times and states he did grope her at this time which al can’t remember of courseGmac being fast and loose with the truth again re: Franken.what is he doing?
He wasn't filmed groping a sleeping woman
Was he touching her GMAC or just faking it. I thought Democrats were “fakers”
Did you think Franken was right to resign?
13
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: October 06, 2018, 11:22:06 AM »One could come to a very logical conclusion about whether whitey believes Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Jimmy Savile or Brendan Smyth were innocent or guilty.
Because according to him a victim reporting a rape or an attempted rape after the fact does not count as evidence.
And therefore, according to whitey's logic, these men are totally innocent.
Her story just doesn’t add up.
Her best friend who was supposedly there at the party said she didn’t even know Brett Kavanaugh and has no recollection of such a gathering even taking place. (and now it looks like she was pressurized by Fords team to alter her original sworn testimony)
The 2 or 3 other people who were supposedly present haven’t a fvckin clue what she’s talking about either
The 2 pillars of her story, the therapists report fand the polygraph haven’t been handed over to either the FBI or the Senate judiciary committee-WHY?
It’s a free country, believe what you want
Blah blah blah with the disinformation from your usual far right sources.
Of course you think her story doesn't add up.
She's i) a woman, ii) a highly intelligent scholar and iii) has accused a Republican lackey of attempting to rape her. All things people like you hate.
Far more reliable, apparently, are the "memories" somebody we know was an out and out drunkard.
Your confirmation bias, quite literally, is very strong with this one. As ever.
14
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: October 06, 2018, 01:15:27 AM »
One could come to a very logical conclusion about whether whitey believes Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Jimmy Savile or Brendan Smyth were innocent or guilty.
Because according to him a victim reporting a rape or an attempted rape after the fact does not count as evidence.
And therefore, according to whitey's logic, these men are totally innocent.
Because according to him a victim reporting a rape or an attempted rape after the fact does not count as evidence.
And therefore, according to whitey's logic, these men are totally innocent.
15
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: October 06, 2018, 12:35:13 AM »Three accusers, two of them not even interviewed, at least a score of corroborating witnesses not interviewed and others with information stonewalled on the instruction of Trump.Amazing stuff. Susan Collins called for Al Franken to resign.
I guess it's totally different because Bart O'Kavanagh is a Republican nominee.
The transparent hypocrisy is astounding.
https://bangordailynews.com/2017/12/06/politics/collins-and-king-join-chorus-calling-for-al-frankens-resignation/QuoteSen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told CNN that “it would be best for the Senate” if Franken “followed the advice of his Democratic colleagues
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politics/senators-al-franken-resignation/index.htmlQuoteSome comments were elaborate, lengthy and loaded with a moral message. Others, like that of Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, were straight to the point.
"Al Franken should resign," she simply tweeted.
Within the next 90 minutes, 16 Democrats -- 10 of them women -- and one Republican senator -- Susan Collins of Maine -- had publicly urged their colleague to vacate his seat.
Maybe it’s because there wasn’t a single solitary shred of evidence in the Kavanaugh situation, but feel free to believe whatever you want. Interesting that the therapists notes have never been released......supposedly she said she was a LATE teen and was attacked by 4 people instead of 2
But none of that is "evidence", apparently.
A sham investigation designed to get a sham result that the sham president who designed it wanted.
Which is clear evidence of a brazen cover up.
Which, predictably, you approve of. It's by Republicans, after all.