The Nationalist's Delusion

by Cass Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:39 pm

First topic message reminder :

Take the time and read this. It's one of the best pieces I've read yet to explain the rise of 45.

"One hundred thirty-nine years since Reconstruction, and half a century since the tail end of the civil-rights movement, a majority of white voters backed a candidate who explicitly pledged to use the power of the state against people of color and religious minorities, and stood by him as that pledge has been among the few to survive the first year of his presidency. Their support was enough to win the White House, and has solidified a return to a politics of white identity that has been one of the most destructive forces in American history. "

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-nationalists-delusion/546356/?utm_source=fbb

by Guest Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:44 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Many Southerners are people who are not white.

Just as many Texans are not racists. This is a sorting matter, no more. Those who belong in the PSA, can chose to move here should they want. I openly urge it.

However, eliminating choices--as didge argues--does not make it better, but worse. There is something stiltifying about living in a closed society, particularly a closed society that openly champions Neo-Nazi and white supremacist programs.

We are in the business of expanding choice. California, Washington and Oregon have already proved their bona fides as far as anti-racism goes. We expect that not only blacks, but non-racist whites will flock to the PSA, if only because it offers them a fair chance and an environment that is educated, non-coercive and highly inspirational.

So lets use your arguments here.

How will you decide who is welcome or not?

Will all Republicans be excluded?

I mean lets say as you did and smelly posts up pictures of extremists Muslims beheading people, stonning women to death, raping children etc. Then argues that the ideology of islam teaches sexism, homophobia and a religious form of racism.

Would you except his view to exclude Muslims and generalize against all of them, as you did with Southerners?
Just as you did with a picture?

You see, there would be no difference in both your reasonings

They would be formed of a prejudice that you have formed. What you are effectively doing is criminalizing beliefs. You do not change beliefs that way and it would not eliminate the Nazis and white Supremaicst groups from California. You are also in effect condemning people criminally for life, a life sentence for beliefs

The reality is people do change and have changed to the tune of the fact that slavery did end in the US. Civil rights did come about because of people who reasoned and argued against why something was wrong.

All you have done is show the same prejudice as trump and as smelly does.

Now I find many problems with poor religious and political ideologies. That though does not give me the right to exclude people. I will certainly challenge those poor beliefs.

by Guest Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:17 am

Wow, listen to Jordan Peterson.

He is not a Trump supporter, and I certainly do not back some of his views, espcially on religion, but how well does he just expose exactly the same views Quill has promoted..

Night everyone

by Original Quill Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:42 am

Wow. Maps of meaning. Identity politics. Victimize politics. Ideological avatars. Rise of political fracas. Post-modernizing. I once took an art appreciation class that sounds a lot like this guy. Is that what he's talking about?

Question: What happened to spawn this?
Answer: Well, it's cropped up repeatedly. So, just repeatedly, no content.
That was informative. The guy is a clinical psychologist, University of Toronto, with a full RW bent. He talks pretty, and that is why you like him Didge. But does he define any of those pretty words. Does he even say anything, except he doesn't like the Left?

No evidence, no theory. Just moralizing babble. I can see why you like him Didge. It sounds a lot like you. But in the end, just a RW ideologue touting his bullshit. Fox News pundits can do that. So can MSNBC. It bears no relevance to the real world. Just talk, talk, talk.

But pretty...

by Guest Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:32 am

Original Quill wrote:Wow. Maps of meaning. Identity politics. Victimize politics. Ideological avatars. Rise of political fracas. Post-modernizing. I once took an art appreciation class that sounds a lot like this guy. Is that what he's talking about?

A typical far Left response

Attempt to poorly deligitimise someone, as he just described you to a tea.

He says plenty, which its clear you were not listening

I am wondering if you ever made it too class

As Clearly I have hit a raw nerve

by Original Quill Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:57 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Wow. Maps of meaning. Identity politics. Victimize politics. Ideological avatars. Rise of political fracas. Post-modernizing. I once took an art appreciation class that sounds a lot like this guy. Is that what he's talking about?

A typical far Left response

Attempt to poorly deligitimise someone, as he just described you to a tea.

He says plenty, which its clear you were not listening

He has no substantiation. He offers no empirical studies. He doesn't even provide any conclusion.

He reminds me of one of those Sunday morning TV evangelical preachers, spouting off from the Bible. Now the Bible is a good collection of folk tales, and there is probably a lot of folk wisdom in it, but it's still just spouting off. There's nothing scientific or authoritative about it.

Another thing to take note is, he is a clinical psychologist spouting off about politics, pretending to speak social psychology. There is a lot of this going around: PhD's in physical therapy, pretending to be medical doctors or folk medicine specialists. PhD's in the wrong field are as ill-equipped to speak as the casual man on the street. They misrepresent themselves, usually, to sell books...but, but, I am a doctor!

A clinical psychologist treats the individual, and is not schooled in social behavior. He's giving you a lot of concepts for the aberrant individual, that are inapplicable to the social subject. He's a phony.

by Guest Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:01 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

A typical far Left response

Attempt to poorly deligitimise someone, as he just described you to a tea.

He says plenty, which its clear you were not listening

He has no substantiation. He offers no empirical studies. He doesn't even provide any conclusion.

The hilarious part in your poor attempts to deligitimize, is that you think you are qualified to do so.

You are not

In fact you offer no evidence

You are just a typical marxist with extreme views. Where throughout this, you have proven you are no better than racists, as you want to to actively discriminate.

Nobody really cares what you think, they simple understand what you think is PC bullshit and that its people like you, that divide and make racism tens times worse

by Original Quill Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:07 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

He has no substantiation. He offers no empirical studies. He doesn't even provide any conclusion.

The hilarious part in your poor attempts to deligitimize, is that you think you are qualified to do so.

You are not

In fact you offer no evidence

You are just a typical marxist with extreme views. Where throughout this has proven you are no better than racists, as you want to to actively discriminate.

Nobody really cares what you think, they simple understand what you think is PC bullshit and that its people like you, that divide and make racism tens times worse

Evidence for what? Peterson says nothing. He's just spouting off.

Were I to spout off in return, I would be just as phony as he is. My point is that he lacks substantiation. I offer as proof, the vacuousness of his words.

by Guest Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:10 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

The hilarious part in your poor attempts to deligitimize, is that you think you are qualified to do so.

You are not

In fact you offer no evidence

You are just a typical marxist with extreme views. Where throughout this has proven you are no better than racists, as you want to to actively discriminate.

Nobody really cares what you think, they simple understand what you think is PC bullshit and that its people like you, that divide and make racism tens times worse

Evidence for what? Peterson says nothing. He's just spouting off.

Were I to spout off in return, I would be just as phony as he is. My point is that he lacks substantiation. I offer as proof, the vacuousness of his words.

Well again its of no surpise you are so defensive, when he got you down to a tea

Nobody cares that you continually try to deligitimize him, as all it shows is you are afraid of the truth in how people like you actively discriminate.

by Guest Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:13 pm

by Original Quill Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:16 pm

I won't waste any more time on him. He revealed himself in the first clip. He's a phony, trying to make a name for himself in the Fox News circuit.

Give it up, Didge. Peterson has already revealed he has no content. More high-sounding words heaped on that message is worthless.

by Victorismyhero Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:17 pm

BUT.......QUILL You are a nationalist...every post you have made on this thread and your desire for the PSA Shows that to be the case. You ALSO claim to be a socialist. What does that make you. A National Socialist by any chance?

by Guest Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:18 pm

Lord Foul wrote:BUT.......QUILL You are a nationalist...every post you have made on this thread and your desire for the PSA Shows that to be the case. You ALSO claim to be a socialist. What does that make you. A National Socialist by any chance?

Talk about checkmate

Laughing

by Guest Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:20 pm

Original Quill wrote:I won't waste any more time on him. He revealed himself in the first clip. He's a phony, trying to make a name for himself in the Fox News circuit.

Give it up, Didge. Peterson has already revealed he has no content. More high-sounding words heaped on that message is worthless.

This is your problem, you wont even listen or read other views, you poorly dismiss them before even beginning to even listen to them in the first place

You just proved this

Here is a long video to allow you to see and understand different views

by Original Quill Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:27 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:I won't waste any more time on him. He revealed himself in the first clip. He's a phony, trying to make a name for himself in the Fox News circuit.

Give it up, Didge. Peterson has already revealed he has no content. More high-sounding words heaped on that message is worthless.

This is your problem, you wont even listen or read other views, you poorly dismiss them before even beginning to even listen to them in the first place

You just proved this

Here is a long video to allow you to see and understand different views

Efficiency, didge. Efficiency. No more fake news. So many threads to get to, so little time.

Peterson had his chance. He's a toom tabard, as the Scots say...an empty coat.

by Guest Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:28 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

This is your problem, you wont even listen or read other views, you poorly dismiss them before even beginning to even listen to them in the first place

You just proved this

Here is a long video to allow you to see and understand different views

Efficiency, didge. Efficiency. So many threads to get to, so little time.

Peterson had his chance. He's a toom tabard, as the Scots say...an empty coat.

Thank you for proving my point.

Cool

by Original Quill Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:32 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Efficiency, didge. Efficiency. So many threads to get to, so little time.

Peterson had his chance. He's a toom tabard, as the Scots say...an empty coat.

Thank you for proving my point.

Thank you for proving mine. A little less C&P, and a little more study and thought...you might someday contribute an original thought. But right now you are wasting your time on fake news...and you don't even understand your own C&P posts.

by Guest Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:34 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

Thank you for proving my point.

Thank you for proving mine. A little less C&P, and a little more study and thought...you might someday contribute an original thought. But right now you are wasting your time on fake news...and you don't even understand your own C&P posts.

What C&P

You mean a couple of youtube videos? Proving again you are too scared to see other views. Ignoring the fact many of my posts that I wrote easily took you to task

I contributed loads and even on this page is a reply from me and one from Lord Foul, you ran away from

Yeah ho, all you did here was prove you are emphatically prejudice and even worse advocate discrimination

I easily exposed that over many posts to you.

by Original Quill Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:12 pm

Lord Foul wrote:BUT.......QUILL You are a nationalist...every post you have made on this thread and your desire for the PSA Shows that to be the case. You ALSO claim to be a socialist. What does that make you. A National Socialist by any chance?

Nationalist? That presumes a lot. It seems to me that in order to be labeled a nationalist, there must be a little bit of history. The independent California movement began only when Republicans incorporated 'lying' into their political arsenal. Remember, Iraq and starting wars on, they have WMD's? That was about 2003.

But even that only gives Californians cause, not a national history. What has history is the southern US, from the institution of slavery forward. It was settled by the civil war. But the nemesis has arisen with a venom. That's why I take great pains to emphasize that we are not going anywhere; they have moved away from us.

Better to say we choose separatism. The only nationalism of a Pacific States of America is the usta-be nationalism of the US. But the US has gone the way of Charlottesville and the south. We now have a president who legitimizes this. The US has moved, and left no forwarding address.

That's why I restate, we are not going anywhere...and we are leaving no one behind. But, America, you've gotta hop off that southbound freight train if you want to stay with us. Leave the south--leave Texas, my friend--if you want the political atmosphere to stay the same.

Alternatively, if you want to go with Neo-Nazis and white supremacists, stay on the southbound train.

by Victorismyhero Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:22 pm

you are splitting hairs and self defining your own definitions to suit...

whether your nation is only a pipe dream or 10,000 years old, matters not the least if you intend therby actions upon others...

by Original Quill Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:45 pm

Lord Foul wrote:you are splitting hairs and self defining your own definitions to suit...

Whatever do you mean by that? Explain.

Vic wrote:whether your nation is only a pipe dream or 10,000 years old, matters not the least if you intend therby actions upon others...

That's expressly why I take such a hands-off approach. There is no violence intended. There is no coercion on our part. Everything is aimed at extending an offer, not at demanding anything. The only "action upon others" intended is a kindness and an offering.

As I said before, the America we knew left us and went to Charlottesville. We were left standing out in the cold. Merely because we have the initiative to pick up and start over does not make us the villians.

Now, if you think we are being unfair in refusing to allow the southerners to coerce us, well you've got to unwind your convoluted thinking. They can do whatever they want, and they can have their own territory to do it in. Our's is the ultimate passive stand.

I wonder why you and didge would want any sort of unity. The southerners are just as disdainful of liberal philosophy, as liberals are of theirs. Neither one is going to have a change of mind. I simply don't understand what those who want unity think they are achieving...except to maintain an atmosphere of hostility and cat-calling.

Rectify the situation...go with separation. As Thomas Wolfe said, you can't go back.

by Victorismyhero Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:08 pm

but Quill you are a socialist remember...everyone is EQUAL, and hence identical and yet identity less...

And you simply cannot, as history shows, be "separationist" and NOT be nationalist the one is predicated on the other.

by Original Quill Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:57 pm

Lord Foul wrote:but Quill you are a socialist remember...everyone is EQUAL, and hence identical and yet identity less...

And you simply cannot, as history shows, be "separationist" and NOT be nationalist the one is predicated on the other.

Socialist are equal? Those are egalitarians.

Here's the definition: socialists want only to return the ownership of the tools to the artisans. Since, under industrialism, the tools have become too expensive for one person, therefore the social collectivity combines to acquire the tooling. Hence, 'socialism'.

The collectivity can be a political unit, a guild or a trade union. But it's strictly an economic idea. Don't be like Russ, and import a whole lot of excess baggage with the idea. Egalitarianism is a collateral matter, relevant but not definitional.

by Guest Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:06 pm

Original Quill wrote:It’s not difficult. America is a racist nation. All this talk about alienation, economic anxiety, disaffection, etc., etc., are just excuses to avoid the obvious conclusion.

Obama got elected; Trump and a ‘white heritage’ were the reaction.

Wasn't Obama black??

Seems to me that America wasn't racist since they elected a black president..... Twice, but the Obama the race baiter reignited the embers of racism and the threw some gas on the flames.

If America is racist its Obamas fault, not trump.

Your theory of how America is racist always stumbles at Obama the BLACK president, probably the last one, because he was the worst president in American history, perhaps if America had voted for the person with the best credentials instead of engaging in a political correctness social experiment things might be different.

Poor Hillary thought she could jump on the tail end of that experiment and become the first female president, too bad she underestimated how shit Obama was and failed to see she was much worse.

Lesson for the liberals, your social engineering is failing all over the world, your values are being rejected.

Trump is making America great again, and what America does the world follows

It's good to be alive

by Original Quill Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:50 pm

sb wrote:Wasn't Obama black??

Seems to me that America wasn't racist since they elected a black president..... Twice, but the Obama the race baiter reignited the embers of racism and the threw some gas on the flames.

Obama was elected because, hands down, he is the best president the United States has ever had. The most intelligent and educated, the most charismatic, the greatest communicator, and the most filled with Christian charity, despite the overwhelmingly childish and traitorous conduct by the Republicans in Congress.

Indeed, it was because Obama was such an exemplary human being, that the Republicans went to the dark side with their racism. They were left with no alternative. And lo, it was in that adverse reaction--and because America is fundamentally racist--that the south was reignited .

Welcome to Charlottesville.

by Guest Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:55 pm

Original Quill wrote:
sb wrote:Wasn't Obama black??

Seems to me that America wasn't racist since they elected a black president..... Twice, but the Obama the race baiter reignited the embers of racism and the threw some gas on the flames.

Obama was elected because, hands down, he is the best president the United States has ever had. The most intelligent and educated, the most charismatic, the greatest communicator, and the most filled with Christian charity. This, despite overwhelming, childish and traitorous conduct by the Republicans in Congress.

Indeed, it was because Obama was such an exemplary human being, that the Republicans went to the dark side with their racism. They were left with no alternative. And lo, because America is fundamentally racist...it reignited the south. Welcome to Charlottesville.

I would beg to differ on him being the best overall

He was one of the best domestically but foreign policy wise. He was a nightmare and the modern form of Chamberlain. He has allowed the proxy war between Saudi and Iran to escalate to the reality that within a decade. By pandering to both sides. We will see unprecedented violence in the middle east. Not seen since Genghis Khan invaded. When this religious civil war kicks into fifth gear.

The reality is, not one but twice Americans voted for an African American President. That would simple be impossible, if American was inherantly racist.

Granted some of the hate that targeted Obama, was pathetic are generally born from racists, but the reality is he could not have gained office without the backing of the American people

The reality is, you are proving you are no different to smelly

He bitched and moaned when Obama was in power. Now you do the same when Trump is in power.

Both of you inferred claims onto each in order to sow the seeds of hate.

Is there really anything different between each of you?

No

You have the same goals

The only difference is who you discriminate against

by Original Quill Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:24 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Obama was elected because, hands down, he is the best president the United States has ever had. The most intelligent and educated, the most charismatic, the greatest communicator, and the most filled with Christian charity. This, despite overwhelming, childish and traitorous conduct by the Republicans in Congress.

Indeed, it was because Obama was such an exemplary human being, that the Republicans went to the dark side with their racism. They were left with no alternative. And lo, because America is fundamentally racist...it reignited the south. Welcome to Charlottesville.

I would beg to differ on him being the best overall

He was one of the best domestically but foreign policy wise. He was a nightmare and the modern form of Chamberlain. He has allowed the proxy war between Saudi and Iran to escalate to the reality that within a decade. By pandering to both sides. We will see unprecedented violence in the middle east. Not seen since Genghis Khan invaded. When this religious civil war kicks into fifth gear.

A British Prime Minister is no comparison to a US President. The US is a Constitutional Republic. The US must abide by the written word of the United States Constitution.

I acknowledge and agree with your recognition of Obama's prowess on domestic matters. But you miss the most important detail on foreign policy. The chief executive has his hands tied when it comes to foreign policy. Under the Constitution, Article I, only Congress has the power to commence a war. Despite Obama placing a war powers bill on the desk of Congress in 2013, Congress in its shut-down to express it's upset over a black president, refused to sign it. As a consequence, Congress tied the president's hands.

However, unlike Trump, who is adept at wack-a-mole, Obama is adept at the game of 3-dimensional chess. Obama fundamentally rejected war as a means to effect foreign policy. In fact, it is the Republicans who are the warmongers. So, in order to get his way, Obama had only to sit on his hands while the Republican Congress took a couple of years to discover the game he had played on them. Initially, they were angry, but they soon realized he had flummoxed them and they had only themselves to blame.

It was then, that Republicans came up with the only story they could...that somehow Obama was poor at foreign policy. But unfortunately, it is a story that doesn't work on anyone who listened during their 3rd-grade civics class. Only the dumb flunk-outs see a correlation between who is president, and the international situation, without taking into consideration the Constitution and where responsibility lies. And that is why not only women (who are naturally more intelligent--lol), but college-educated white males, are turning away from Republicanism. John Stuart Mill once said, I didn't say all conservatives are stupid, I said all stupid people are conservatives. This is a classic example of that.

Obama was excellent at domestic policies, but a really discerning person realizes that he was beyond genius at foreign policy and constitutional chess.

by Guest Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

I would beg to differ on him being the best overall

He was one of the best domestically but foreign policy wise. He was a nightmare and the modern form of Chamberlain. He has allowed the proxy war between Saudi and Iran to escalate to the reality that within a decade. By pandering to both sides. We will see unprecedented violence in the middle east. Not seen since Genghis Khan invaded. When this religious civil war kicks into fifth gear.

A British Prime Minister is no comparison to a US President. The US is a Constitutional Republic. The US must abide by the written word of the United States Constitution.
Didge wrote: They are when they appease a massive threat to world peace.
Both have done the same.
Even Bill Clinton wrongly did with North Korea.
He though he had got them to stop wanting a Nuke program.
How wrong was he on that?

I acknowledge your recognition of Obama's prowess on domestic matters. But you miss the most important detail on foreign policy. The chief executive has his hands tied when it comes to foreign policy. Under the Constitution, Article I, only Congress has the power to commence a war. Despite Obama placing a war powers bill on the desk of Congress in 2013, Congress in its shut-down to express it's upset over a black president, refused to sign it. As a consequence, Congress tied the president's hands.

Didge wrote: So you are making exuses.
He looked to thwart the Nuke ambitions off Iran and has been suckered in and he has tried to appease both sides by playing one off against the other. When all this has done has esclated the situation.
I mean now you have the likes of Saudi looking to Israel for support against Iran.
My enemies, enemy is my friend eh?

However, unlike Trump, who is adept at wack-a-mole, Obama is adept at 3-dimensional chess. In fact, it is the Republicans who are the warmongers. So, in order to get his way, Obama had only to sit on his hands while the Republican Congress took a couple of years to discover the game he had played on them. Initially, they were angry, but they soon realized he had flummoxed them and they had only themselves to blame

Obama got involved to late in the game against Syria and then only with airstrikes, because he again tried to pander to Putin. Which ironically, led Putin to believe he could walk all over the US, of which he has. To the tune of influencing the social media outlets, because Obama was weak. So weak to stand up to him. This was evident with the Crimea and Syria

Obama has made fatal flaws and has now ensured nations are picking sides in the middle east which is leading to a catastrophic war, all of which he engineered by his poor policies.

by Guest Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:41 pm

On October 18, 1994, at 5:09 PM in the White House Briefing Room, President Bill Clinton announced an agreement with North Korea which he said “agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.” He declared the deal would help put “an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.”

Experts believe North Korea now has at least ten nuclear weapons.
Most of the mainstream media has ignored the striking similarity to the Iran situation or only briefly referenced it.

Below are President Clinton’s remarks at the time. As you read, mentally swap out “North Korea” for “Iran” and “South Korea” for Israel.

Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework document on North Korea's nuclear program. This agreement will help to achieve a longstanding and vital American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.

This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region. It's a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.

I want to begin by thanking Secretary Christopher and our chief negotiator, Ambassador at Large Bob Gallucci, for seeing these negotiations through. I asked Bob if he'd had any sleep, since he's going to answer all your technical questions about this agreement, and he said that he had had some sleep. So be somewhat gentle with him. After meeting with my chief national security advisers, and at their unanimous recommendation, I am instructing Ambassador Gallucci to return to Geneva on Friday for the purpose of signing an agreement.

The United States has been concerned about the possibility that North Korea was developing nuclear weapons since the 1980's. Three administrations have tried to bring this nuclear program under international control. There is nothing more important to our security and to the world's stability than preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. And the United States has an unshakeable commitment to protect our ally and our fellow democracy South Korea. Thirty-eight thousand American troops stationed on the Peninsula are the guarantors of that commitment.

Today, after 16 months of intense and difficult negotiations with North Korea, we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Under the agreement, North Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.

This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States and North Korea have also agreed to ease trade restrictions and to move toward establishing liaison offices in each other's capitals. These offices will ease North Korea's isolation.

From the start of the negotiations, we have consulted closely with South Korea, with Japan, and with other interested parties. We will continue to work closely with our allies and with the Congress as our relationship with North Korea develops.

Throughout this administration, the fight against the spread of nuclear weapons has been among our most important international priorities, and we've made great progress toward removing nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and from Belarus. Nuclear weapons in Russia are no longer targeted on our citizens. Today all Americans should know that as a result of this achievement on Korea, our Nation will be safer and the future of our people more secure.

The current Iran accord will have permanent repercussions and could end exactly as the North Korean deal did – with an American enemy in possession of the most dangerous weapons on earth.

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2015/07/

Obama has made the same mistakes all over again with Iran

by Guest Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:00 pm

Original Quill wrote:
sb wrote:Wasn't Obama black??

Seems to me that America wasn't racist since they elected a black president..... Twice, but the Obama the race baiter reignited the embers of racism and the threw some gas on the flames.

Obama was elected because, hands down, he is the best president the United States has ever had. The most intelligent and educated, the most charismatic, the greatest communicator, and the most filled with Christian charity, despite the overwhelmingly childish and traitorous conduct by the Republicans in Congress.

Indeed, it was because Obama was such an exemplary human being, that the Republicans went to the dark side with their racism. They were left with no alternative. And lo, it was in that adverse reaction--and because America is fundamentally racist--that the south was reignited .

Welcome to Charlottesville.

Hero worship much??

You're so twisted by your own propaganda you can't even recognise the hypocrisy and contradictory nature of your views.

If America was racist it wouldn't matter how good Obama was, he would not have been elected because he was black.

You have just confirmed that Obama was elected on merit in spite of his skin colour

which means America is a meritocracy, and meritocracys are by their nature not racially prejudice.

You've just disproved your theory that America is racist. lol!

by Original Quill Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:04 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

A British Prime Minister is no comparison to a US President. The US is a Constitutional Republic. The US must abide by the written word of the United States Constitution.

I acknowledge your recognition of Obama's prowess on domestic matters. But you miss the most important detail on foreign policy. The chief executive has his hands tied when it comes to foreign policy. Under the Constitution, Article I, only Congress has the power to commence a war. Despite Obama placing a war powers bill on the desk of Congress in 2013, Congress in its shut-down to express it's upset over a black president, refused to sign it. As a consequence, Congress tied the president's hands.

However, unlike Trump, who is adept at wack-a-mole, Obama is adept at 3-dimensional chess. In fact, it is the Republicans who are the warmongers. So, in order to get his way, Obama had only to sit on his hands while the Republican Congress took a couple of years to discover the game he had played on them. Initially, they were angry, but they soon realized he had flummoxed them and they had only themselves to blame

Obama got involved to late in the game against Syria and then only with airstrikes, because he again tried to pander to Putin. Which ironically, led Putin to believe he could walk all over the US, of which he has. To the tune of influencing the social media outlets, because Obama was weak. So weak to stand up to him. This was evident with the Crimea and Syria

Obama has made fatal flaws and has now ensured nations are picking sides in the middle east which is leading to a catastrophic war, all of which he engineered by his poor policies.

You are distracted by the same methods that Dr. Obama used on the Republican Congress. Obama never really got into the game with Syria. The few F/A-18 raids were to quiet the noise in Congress and the press. And, for sure, Obama never placated Putin. Putin and Obama literally hated each other. The tension was palpable whenever they were in the same room together.

(Footnote: Russians are worse than American southerners when it comes to racism and anti-Semitism. That, and the fact that Russians have kompromat on Trump, is the very reason why Trump grovels before Putin.)

No, the real rationale for the Obama foreign policy was that he saw the futility of endless war, and use of military means to try to change what are really mind-set issues. And he was quite right: prey, how long has the Afghanistan conflict been going on? A war without an endgame is just cultural hatred, unleashed...and usually ends in bankrupting the perpetrators (as it nearly did GW Bush).

What you raise--that Obama was wrong-headed on foreign policy--is really a poor excuse/argument for Republicans being flummoxed on the war-policy bill back in 2013. It was a brilliant move by Dr. Obama, because the Republicans were hardly even looking. They were so intent on showing Obama and the Democrats that a black man does not belong in the White House, that they barely noticed that he was handing them a bill that was their wet dream. True to form, their single-minded racism distracted them. Brilliant...just brilliant.

by Guest Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:10 pm

Original Quill wrote:

You are distracted by the same methods that Dr. Obama used on the Republican Congress. Obama never really got into the game with Syria. The few F/A-18 raids were to quiet the noise in Congress and the press. And, for sure, Obama never placated Putin. Putin and Obama literally hated each other. The tension was palpable whenever they were in the same room together.

You are not even challenging the points I raised to you

You are simple disagreeing without ever offering up anything rational

I am not distracted by anything

You see, you now go off thinking that Obama did not cause uncessary civillian deaths with air strikes. Somthing I did not even bring up and you side track on this.
Well actually he did cause more under his time in office and not just in Syria, than Israel ever has.
Now this is what you always do. I never made a point on this, but I will now, to show how wrong you are.

In a 2013 speech about the US air wars in the Middle East, President Obama said, "Before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured -- the highest standard we can set."

Jeffrey Goldberg once interviewed CIA director John Brennan about President Obama's philosophy on airstrikes and drone strikes in various warsa and he echoed Obama's words. "The president requires near-certainty of no collateral damage. But if he believes it is necessary to act, he doesn’t hesitate.”

Indeed, when the US released reports of people killed by airstrikes in July 2016 it claimed an amazing ratio of 2581 combatants and only 116 non-combatants killed in Pakistan, Yemen and Africa, although it did not release figures from Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan.

These numbers, if true, would be an astonishing ratio of combatants to non-combatants.

Too bad that the US military is lying and Obama was responsible for thousands of civilian deaths that were never admitted.

The New York Times had a major story last week about civilian casualties in the war against ISIS, and it found over a lengthy investigation that showed:
We found that one in five of the coalition strikes we identified resulted in civilian death, a rate more than 31 times that acknowledged by the coalition. It is at such a distance from official claims that, in terms of civilian deaths, this may be the least transparent war in recent American history.
And in Afghanistan? Another report from 2015 found:
Drone strikes conducted by the United States during a 5-month-long campaign in Afghanistan caused the deaths of unintended targets nearly nine out of ten times, leaked intelligence documents suggest.
A Guardian report once found 1,147 people killed as the US was targeting only 41 men.

The New York Times in 2015 reported "Every independent investigation of the strikes has found far more civilian casualties than administration officials admit. Gradually, it has become clear that when operators in Nevada fire missiles into remote tribal territories on the other side of the world, they often do not know who they are killing, but are making an imperfect best guess."

The Military Times once found that there were thousands of US airstrikes that were never even reported to begin with, let alone their casualty counts!

The Intercept, examining a major document leak last year, said (as quoted in The Atlantic):
The documents show that the military designated people it killed in targeted strikes as EKIA—“enemy killed in action”—even if they were not the intended targets of the strike. Unless evidence posthumously emerged to prove the males killed were not terrorists or “unlawful enemy combatants,” EKIA remained their designation, according to the source. That process, he said, “is insane. But we’ve made ourselves comfortable with that. The intelligence community, JSOC, the CIA, and everybody that helps support and prop up these programs, they’re comfortable with that idea.”
The source described official U.S. government statements minimizing the number of civilian casualties inflicted by drone strikes as “exaggerating at best, if not outright lies.”
There are major takeaways from this.

One is that the US claims under the Obama administration of exceedingly few civilian casualties from airstrikes are simply lies.

Two is that the administration, which promised transparency, is anything but transparent on this topic.

When John Kerry derided Israel's performance in the last Gaza war by sarcastically calling Israeli airstrikes that killed civilians "a helluva pinpoint operation," he probably knew quite well that Israel's ratio of terrorist to civilian dead was at least as good as the US ratio. Which tells you about the intellectual honesty of John Kerry.

It is abundantly clear that the quality of Israel's transparency and investigations after each airstrike far exceeds that of the US even under Obama's restrictive rules on airstrikes. And it looks like the actual ratios of combatants to non-combatants is far better for Israel, since Israel never counts the families of terrorists killed in each airstrike as being combatants - and the US does!

Keep in mind that there is no evidence that the US is breaking international law guidelines in these cases. One is allowed to use the best intelligence one has in determining a target and likely collateral damage.

But isn't it funny that there is so much less attention paid on US airstrikes over years of fighting in multiple theatres than there has been on relatively short wars in Gaza? How there aren't any major noisy campaigns about US "war crimes" from NGOs?

The hypocrisy and double standards are, as usual, stunning. And they can only be explained if one considers the Jewish state to be uniquely evil before the first investigation is even started.

You see, you actually avoided my main points on his appeasement, which Bill Clinton did the same with North Korea

by Original Quill Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:41 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Obama was elected because, hands down, he is the best president the United States has ever had. The most intelligent and educated, the most charismatic, the greatest communicator, and the most filled with Christian charity, despite the overwhelmingly childish and traitorous conduct by the Republicans in Congress.

Indeed, it was because Obama was such an exemplary human being, that the Republicans went to the dark side with their racism. They were left with no alternative. And lo, it was in that adverse reaction--and because America is fundamentally racist--that the south was reignited .

Welcome to Charlottesville.

Hero worship much??

Oh, of course. I do give credit to Dr. Obama. When you see a beautiful ploy, worked to perfection, you've gotta give credit.

...unless, of course, it was worked on you. And that's why the Republicans concocted their fabrication about Obama's foreign policy. It's like yelling at someone for an automobile accident, when he wasn't even driving the vehicle.

sb wrote:You're so twisted by your own propaganda you can't even recognise the hypocrisy and contradictory nature of your views.

Which are??? You see, you can't even specify them. What I have done is told you, and others, the perfection with which a ploy was worked on the adversary, despite the overwhelming odds in the adversary's favor. What a chess move!

sb wrote:If America was racist it wouldn't matter how good Obama was, he would not have been elected because he was black.

It's more complicated than that. You have to factor in the turn-out. If a candidate is brilliant, educated and quick-minded, as Obama is, he gets positive-minded voters to turn out. In the resultant equation, Obama got the young, beautiful, and hopeful to turn out, while the racists were sent into a depressive spin...and failed to show.

sb wrote:You have just confirmed that Obama was elected on merit in spite of his skin colour

Yes, good triumphs over evil. But only when an extraordinary man pulls the good to the surface, and drowns the evil. The fact that the evil can return so quicky, as it did with Trump and Charlottesville, shows that the evil is strong, and quite willing to dominate. America is, in all but the most extraordinary circumstances, a racist nation.

SB wrote:which means America is a meritocracy, and meritocracys are by their nature not racially prejudice.

You are loading your theories up with extra baggage again, Russ. Meritocracy is a separate subject. All of the universe is a meritocracy, if you believe Darwin.

To say that Dr. Obama had extraordinary qualities is not to say that racism is not the default condition under normal circumstances. Normally in America, racism prevails. As the feminists point out...look how much harder the woman has to work, just to make it into the room. Similarly, look at how much greater a man Dr. Obama had to be just to make it into the room.

by Original Quill Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:59 pm

Didge wrote:You are not even challenging the points I raised to you

Sure I did. I just threw out the trash (of your post), and dealt with the credible points.

Didge, you undermine your own credibility when you throw in trash and insults, and thereafter cry that someone didn't answer your questions. Don't you see what a whiner that makes you appear? You leave your interlocutor in charge of the conversation.

When you come back, state what you feel is important and was left out. It doesn't work to say, you left out the part where I called you a raving fuckface. When you include such trash, it's embarrassing to you to bring it up again.

by Original Quill Fri Nov 24, 2017 7:14 pm

Didge wrote:You see, you now go off thinking that Obama did not cause uncessary civillian deaths with air strikes. Somthing I did not even bring up and you side track on this.
Well actually he did cause more under his time in office and not just in Syria, than Israel ever has.
Now this is what you always do. I never made a point on this, but I will now, to show how wrong you are.

You see? You are admitting you never brought it up.

Note how you change the subject from how Dr. Obama avoided the whole war, to a pissy little discussion of how many were involved in which engagements. Numbers are notoriously unreliable when they can't be verified.

But you avoid the real question: how much worse would it have been had Obama allowed the Republican to have their way with war?

You are left nit-picking about casualties in propaganda skirmishes, when the real point is how Dr. Obama brilliantly avoided a policy disaster for the America people.

by Guest Fri Nov 24, 2017 7:15 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:You are not even challenging the points I raised to you

Sure I did. I just threw out the trash (of your post), and dealt with the credible points.

Didge, you undermine your own credibility when you throw in trash and insults, and thereafter cry that someone didn't answer your questions. Don't you see what a whiner that makes you appear? You leave your interlocutor in charge of the conversation.

When you come back, state what you feel is important and was left out. It doesn't work to say, you left out the part where I called you a raving fuckface. When you include such trash, it's embarrassing to you to bring it up again.

What did you throw out? Where did i call you a fuckface?

You see how you invent bullshit, to get out of replying with reason?

So you now lie further to misdirect to attempt to get out of answring many points on this thread I have made to you

You keep turning this back to me

That is fine, but the points still stand

Obama appeased Iran, Assad, Putin, among others, which has led many nations to see the US as soft.
So much so, it allowed the Russians to manipulate an election

So if you want to use such views against me, be my guest, but the reality is here, you never answered my points on his appeasement and how he has created a far worse volatile world when he left office. Than when he became President.

That is a simple fact. You dot not like it and even more when I show how Obama did cause mass casualties.

Its not about me being a winner, yet another of your poor misdirections, when you cannot counter my points

Now lets go over each point one by one.

Is now the Middle East more volatile when Obama left office, than when he became President?

by Guest Fri Nov 24, 2017 7:26 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:You see, you now go off thinking that Obama did not cause uncessary civillian deaths with air strikes. Somthing I did not even bring up and you side track on this.
Well actually he did cause more under his time in office and not just in Syria, than Israel ever has.
Now this is what you always do. I never made a point on this, but I will now, to show how wrong you are.

You see? You are admitting you never brought it up.

Note how you change the subject from how Dr. Obama avoided the whole war, to a pissy little discussion of how many were involved in which engagements. Numbers are notoriously unreliable when they can't be verified.

But you avoid the real question: how much worse would it have been had Obama allowed the Republican to have their way with war?

You are left nit-picking about casualties in propaganda skirmishes, when the real point is how Dr. Obama brilliantly avoided a policy disaster for the America people.

Still talking about me and not my points

How better would it have been if we would have stood up to Putin and Assad?

Hundred of thousands more people allive?

Hilary clinton winning the last Presidential election, as the Russians would have bowed down to American might?

You see, you have never learnt why the allies won WW2.

Putin has learnt loads off Stalin

All Obama learnt was how to be Chamberlain

by Original Quill Fri Nov 24, 2017 7:58 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You see? You are admitting you never brought it up.

Note how you change the subject from how Dr. Obama avoided the whole war, to a pissy little discussion of how many were involved in which engagements. Numbers are notoriously unreliable when they can't be verified.

But you avoid the real question: how much worse would it have been had Obama allowed the Republican to have their way with war?

You are left nit-picking about casualties in propaganda skirmishes, when the real point is how Dr. Obama brilliantly avoided a policy disaster for the America people.

Still talking about me and not my points

Well didge, I like you and I want to see you succeed. As a scholar I know all the content; as a lawyer, I know all the tricks. Sometimes you are so close, but you destroy it all by leaving your assigned post (ie, point) for some cheap tactic.

So yeah, I will willingly point out where you are making the wrong maneuver. I know you think you are being embarrassed in the moment, but I hope in your more reflective moods you take some of those lessons home.

Didge wrote:How better would it have been if we would have stood up to Putin and Assad?

Hundred of thousands more people allive?

And if pigs could fly, we could put a saddle and bridle on them and ride. How exactly do you save people in an endless war? The death-toll is infinite.

Didge wrote:Hilary clinton winning the last Presidential election, as the Russians would have bowed down to American might?

You see, you have never learnt why the allies won WW2.

WWII was ended because, fortunately, the enemy was a single nation, and it was also ended by the concept of unconditional surrender. How are you going to get 1.6-billion Muslim people, in many nations, to commit to unconditional surrender?

Didge wrote:Putin has learnt loads off Stalin

All Obama learnt was how to be Chamberlain

Silly childhood associations. Putin has learnt the designs of Stalin in an organized crime world. Hardly a laudable accomplishment.

Obama has the wisdom of Solomon, not only to intuit the intentions of people, but to resist childish temptations at flattery and coercion.

by Guest Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:11 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

Still talking about me and not my points

Well didge, I like you and I want to see you succeed. As a scholar I know all the content; as a lawyer, I know all the tricks. Sometimes you are so close, but you destroy it all by leaving your assigned post (ie, point) for some cheap tactic.

So yeah, I will willingly point out where you are making the wrong maneuver. I know you think you are being embarrassed in the moment, but I hope in your more reflective moods you take some of those lessons home.

Didge wrote:A scholar?
Great you think highly of yourself, what about my points?

And if pigs could fly, we could put a saddle and bridle on them and ride. How exactly do you save people in an endless war? The death-toll is infinite.

Didge wrote:So nothing on my points, more misdirection

WWII was ended because, fortunately, the enemy was a single nation, and it was also ended by the concept of unconditional surrender. How are you going to get 1.6-billion Muslim people, in many nations, to commit to unconditional surrender?

Didge wrote:WW2 was not a single nation. What history have you been reading?
It was nazi Germany, Italy, Romania, Bulagaria, Hungary, Japan to name but a few.
Where did I ask or 1.6 billion Muslims to commit unconditional surrender, when we are not at war with Muslims?

Its very ironic, that you invoke the same view that Muslim extremists believe.

I mean why is it that the west went into Bosnia and Kosova to save Muslims?
Why is it, that we threw out Saddam out of Kuwait? Was that a war on Muslims?

You see there is the problem with Iraq.We should have continued into Iraq, in the first Gulf War, when the people rose up against Saddam.

Sadly, they took your disposition, of sitting back and doing nothing and 200,000 people lost their lives.

How many more would be alive today, if we had backed the rising after the first Gulf war?
At least a million?

Silly childhood associations. Putin has learnt the designs of Stalin in an organized crime world. Hardly a laudable accomplishment.

Obama has the wisdom of Solomon, not only to intuit the intentions of people, but to resist childish temptations at flattery and coercion.

He has learnt to use propaganda and play off how people are weak and Obama, was certainly weak.
He allowed Putin, to prop up Assad, who has committed countless chemical attacks on Syrian civillians.
When he should have applied pressure and a show of force within the region, to expose Putins bluff. As the reality is, the Russians, have not the military hardware to match the US.

He calls the US bluff everytime and now he has a President in his pocket. All because Obama, showed how weak he was.

The wisdom of Solomon?
Is that why the Eygptians overun his kingdom, and he had to buy them off?

by Guest Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:12 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Hero worship much??

Oh, of course. I do give credit to Dr. Obama. When you see a beautiful ploy, worked to perfection, you've gotta give credit.

...unless, of course, it was worked on you. And that's why the Republicans concocted their fabrication about Obama's foreign policy. It's like yelling at someone for an automobile accident, when he wasn't even driving the vehicle.

sb wrote:You're so twisted by your own propaganda you can't even recognise the hypocrisy and contradictory nature of your views.

Which are??? You see, you can't even specify them. What I have done is told you, and others, the perfection with which a ploy was worked on the adversary, despite the overwhelming odds in the adversary's favor. What a chess move!

sb wrote:If America was racist it wouldn't matter how good Obama was, he would not have been elected because he was black.

It's more complicated than that. You have to factor in the turn-out. If a candidate is brilliant, educated and quick-minded, as Obama is, he gets positive-minded voters to turn out. In the resultant equation, Obama got the young, beautiful, and hopeful to turn out, while the racists were sent into a depressive spin...and failed to show.

sb wrote:You have just confirmed that Obama was elected on merit in spite of his skin colour

Yes, good triumphs over evil. But only when an extraordinary man pulls the good to the surface, and drowns the evil. The fact that the evil can return so quicky, as it did with Trump and Charlottesville, shows that the evil is strong, and quite willing to dominate. America is, in all but the most extraordinary circumstances, a racist nation.

SB wrote:which means America is a meritocracy, and meritocracys are by their nature not racially prejudice.

You are loading your theories up with extra baggage again, Russ. Meritocracy is a separate subject. All of the universe is a meritocracy, if you believe Darwin.

To say that Dr. Obama had extraordinary qualities is not to say that racism is not the default condition under normal circumstances. Normally in America, racism prevails. As the feminists point out...look how much harder the woman has to work, just to make it into the room. Similarly, look at how much greater a man Dr. Obama had to be just to make it into the room.

Again all your doing is proving my point and disproving your own.

If America was as racist as you insist it is then Obama would never have been elected regardless of how good he was, because he is black.

There will never be a black KKK member, regardless of his views or abilities

The fact the he was elected defies your charge of racism, the fact that you acknowledge that he was elected on merit in spite of his eace defies your charge of racism, the fact that racism in America was able to be overcome by the young and hopeful defies your charge of racism.

This conversation is at its end, you will never look at this objectively but will instead continue to insist that Americans are are irredeemably racist despite the facts showing the opposite.

You're an extremist Quill, there is no compromise, no objectivity, no reason or rationality, just the never ending narrative and agenda.

You crack on though, live in misery, whinging about things that don't exist, things you cannot change.

by Original Quill Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:24 am

sb wrote:Again all your doing is proving my point and disproving your own.

If America was as racist as you insist it is then Obama would never have been elected regardless of how good he was, because he is black.

There will never be a black KKK member, regardless of his views or abilities

You don't understand pluralist politics. Pluralism means you have many different touchstones by which you politically orient yourself. You might be a Mormon, in which case you are conservative; but you might be a union organizer, in which case you are a liberal. With the plurality of touchstones, you find some stand, candidate, legislation, by which you fix your politics.

Right now you are playing solely with the touchstone of color, but you forget other touchstones. Obama was anti-war; so was America. Obama was pro-healthcare; so, we are finding, is America. Obama is anti-gun; so is America. Obama is pro-fidelity in marriage and family; so is America.

Obama just won more touchstones than his spposites. Do the math, Russ.

by Guest Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:20 am

Original Quill wrote:
sb wrote:Again all your doing is proving my point and disproving your own.

If America was as racist as you insist it is then Obama would never have been elected regardless of how good he was, because he is black.

There will never be a black KKK member, regardless of his views or abilities

You don't understand pluralist politics. Pluralism means you have many different touchstones by which you politically orient yourself. You might be a Mormon, in which case you are conservative; but you might be a union organizer, in which case you are a liberal. With the plurality of touchstones, you find some stand, candidate, legislation, by which you fix your politics.

Right now you are playing solely with the touchstone of color, but you forget other touchstones. Obama was anti-war; so was America. Obama was pro-healthcare; so, we are finding, is America. Obama is anti-gun; so is America. Obama is pro-fidelity in marriage and family; so is America.

Obama just won more touchstones than his spposites. Do the math, Russ.

Thats not pluralism that's binary identity politics

Thats applying certain mandatory qualifying criteria in order to able to say you legitimately hold certain political and social views.

Ie if you're gay you have to be anti trump or you're not gay.

If you're black you have to be anti trump or you're an uncle Tom.

If you're liberal you have to be anti gun or your not liberal.

Being a Mormon doesn't automatically make you a Conservative.

You're generalising and pre-judging based on your stereotypical prejudices.

You've also once proved my point about America not being racist.

You extol Obamas virtues and then superimpose them On America, in some weird pretense that Obama is the personification of all things America.

Obama is America and America is Obama.

But In the next breath you declared that America is irredeemably racist.

Your entire POV is based on ideas that contradict each other on every front and therefore make no sense.

I'll say it again, If America is so racist they would have ignore Obamas other "touchstones" and focused solely on the touchstone of colour, colour and race being the sole consideration of racists.

By Saying that Obama won more touchstones than his opponents which is why he won, you are acknowledging that America was able to look beyond colour and race to Obama other values.

If America is a racist country its not a very good racist country

by Original Quill Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:59 pm

sb wrote:Thats not pluralism that's binary identity politics

Thats applying certain mandatory qualifying criteria in order to able to say you legitimately hold certain political and social views.

No, it's pluralism.

sb wrote:Ie if you're gay you have to be anti trump or you're not gay.

If you're black you have to be anti trump or you're an uncle Tom.

If you're liberal you have to be anti gun or your not liberal.

Those are your identities. Apparently, they are true for you.

sb wrote:Being a Mormon doesn't automatically make you a Conservative.

I know, that was the point of that example. Multiple identities operate to pull people in different directions.

You are beginning to argue example, rather than understanding the principles. When an example is offered, look for the theme behind it, and don't nit-pick the details. If the example doesn't work for you, explain it on the basis of the theme you are arguing. Otherwise, you go astray and lose sight of your point and the point of the discussion.

sb wrote:You're generalising and pre-judging based on your stereotypical prejudices.

Generalizing is the basis of all social theory. But the content of the generalizing belongs to the holders of the beliefs. They describe the content, I describe the process. I suggest you read an article by Jennifer L. Hochschild, "Pluralism, Identity Politics, and Coalitions: Toward Madisonian Constitutionalism". It can be found in A Dialogue on American Democratic Politics, by Gerald M. Pomper and Marc D. Weiner.

sb wrote:You've also once proved my point about America not being racist.

You extol Obamas virtues and then superimpose them On America, in some weird pretense that Obama is the personification of all things America.

Obama is America and America is Obama.

But In the next breath you declared that America is irredeemably racist.

You have misunderstood. Obama was the selection by the people, not the people themselves. He does not necessarily duplicate the mindset of the the people, anymore than god his human. There are many reasons why people choose a leader. He doesn't have to be one of them.

You choose a football team, even though you cannot yourself play football. You choose what you like, not what you are like.

sb wrote:Your entire POV is based on ideas that contradict each other on every front and therefore make no sense.

Yes, the world of ideas is a complicated place. But with concentration, and a desire to understand, you'll get it. Keep trying.

by Guest Sat Nov 25, 2017 6:10 pm

You talk a lot but say very little Quill.

You can throw up a smoke screen with wildly off topic ideas and rambling lines of reason, twist and turn all you want but it always comes back to the same fundamental principle.

White racists do not vote for black presidents.

Everytime you are faced with this fundamental truth, you fly into a flurry of words and random ideas.

You're stuck in an Orwellian nightmare of double think, you declare America to be irredeemably racist whilst providing arguments that prove the exact opposite.

Sometimes I think you are joking and taking the piss, but then I realise with horror that you are deadly serious.

It is a curious thing watching you argue one point of view only to then swing to an idea that is diametrically opposed to your original standpoint and then back again.

by Original Quill Sat Nov 25, 2017 6:56 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:You talk a lot but say very little Quill.

So often it's the little things that count.

sb wrote:You can throw up a smoke screen with wildly off topic ideas and rambling lines of reason, twist and turn all you want but it always comes back to the same fundamental principle.

White racists do not vote for black presidents.

Indeed, maybe they didn't vote at all. That leaves only the pure at heart to support the black man, and he succeeds. Factor in the non-voter. Try to appreciate the whole picture.

sb wrote:Everytime you are faced with this fundamental truth, you fly into a flurry of words and random ideas.

The problem is that you don't connect very well with words. I think that's a problem generally with conservatives. Because they think in cliches, catch-phrases and jingos--static expressions of unoriginal ideas--they find it hard to use words as carrier of dynamic ideas, particularly original thinking.

sb wrote:You're stuck in an Orwellian nightmare of double think, you declare America to be irredeemably racist whilst providing arguments that prove the exact opposite.

Sometimes I think you are joking and taking the piss, but then I realise with horror that you are deadly serious.

It is a curious thing watching you argue one point of view only to then swing to an idea that is diametrically opposed to your original standpoint and then back again.

There is always resistance to original thought. There should be, in order that the new idea is properly tested. But there is a difference between testing and obstinance ... "resolute adherence to your own ideas." You should always keep and open mind. Think of the flat-earthers. Where would they be today, if someone hadn't opened their minds?

I honestly think what you are feeling is your own laziness, at having to embrace new ideas and rearranging of paradigms. Take pluralism. It's a concept that allows for many different manifestations, with a single, overarching theory. But you can't reach the overarching theory, because you are down in the quagmire of examples, struggling with how, in a fundamentally racist nation, a black candidate could be successful. When it's explained to you, you rebuff the thought...because you are too lazy to put in the cerebral work to understand. As your excuse you say its gobbledegook, but that's an escape word. It's really your laziness.

You first have to embrace the fact that the world is not as simplistic as you want it to be. Then, when you accept the complexities, you must learn them.

by Guest Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:26 pm

At what point in all that waffle have you explained why a black president was elected by a supposedly racist nation??

You haven't, if fact you've done the opposite and ignored the facts and embraced fantasy.

The closet you've come is "the racists didn't vote", an idea that is so mind numbingly illogical and clearly so desperate an attempt to explain and justify your point of view that it defies all reason and rational thought.

It runs contrary to the very nature of racism.

If America is irredeemably racist as you claim, then why would the racists who you claim to be in the majority abstain from voting in an election where the price of not voting would be a black president being elected??

By not voting they have brought about the very thing they would have sought to prevent, and then apparently they went and did it again four years later.

It appears that for you, racism is an abstract concept rather than a reality, it's something you've heard about rather than experienced.

The reality is that the white racist is consumed by a hatred all things black, just as the black racist is consumed by a hatred of all things white.

the idea of a black president would have compelled them to turn out en masse and cast their vote for the white guy,they are slaves to their base prejudices and would have been unable to sit idly by while a "nigga" took the white house.

The only logical conclusion is that America is not a racist nation, it certainly lacked the numbers to prevent Obama from being elected TWICE.

Trumps election doesn't validate your argument since many backs and Latinos voted for him, just as a large number of supposedly racist whites voted for Obama.

Sorry Quill by your arguments don't hold up to the application of ruthless logic.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:24 am

sb wrote:The closet you've come is "the racists didn't vote", an idea that is so mind numbingly illogical and clearly so desperate an attempt to explain and justify your point of view that it defies all reason and rational thought.

You forgot the other thing. The racists didn't turn out, yes, but also the good guys turned out in droves. Look how many districts Obama carried, that in the next cycle Trump carried. That can only be explained by a bilateral swing.

You are a one-dimensional thinker, Russ. You can't maintain two thoughts in the same pattern.

by Guest Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:06 am

Original Quill wrote:
sb wrote:The closet you've come is "the racists didn't vote", an idea that is so mind numbingly illogical and clearly so desperate an attempt to explain and justify your point of view that it defies all reason and rational thought.

You forgot the other thing. The racists didn't turn out, yes, but also the good guys turned out in droves. Look how many districts Obama carried, that in the next cycle Trump carried. That can only be explained by a bilateral swing.

You are a one-dimensional thinker, Russ. You can't maintain two thoughts in the same pattern.

That's called double think

2+2=5

Its the only way you can maintain two opposing views on this issue.

America is white racist, white racist America elected a black president.

2+2=5

There isn't any deeper meaning to it, you have to create elaborate scenarios using nonsensical overly flowery language that defy logic and reason just to maintain (barely) your narrative.

You narrow your focus and ignore all distractions and obstacles,repeat the lie loud enough and often enough and you become incapable on not believing it.

2+2=5

Anyway I think this has run its course, you have indoctrinated yourself using your own propaganda and under such circumstances there can be no movement on this, and I've been here before with didge, staring down into the abyss of one of his rabbit holes, you won't budge and I can't force you

All I can do is lead you to water, but for you 2+2 will always equal 5.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:15 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You forgot the other thing. The racists didn't turn out, yes, but also the good guys turned out in droves. Look how many districts Obama carried, that in the next cycle Trump carried. That can only be explained by a bilateral swing.

You are a one-dimensional thinker, Russ. You can't maintain two thoughts in the same pattern.

That's called double think

2+2=5

Its the only way you can maintain two opposing views on this issue.

America is white racist, white racist America elected a black president.

2+2=5

There isn't any deeper meaning to it, you have to create elaborate scenarios using nonsensical overly flowery language that defy logic and reason just to maintain (barely) your narrative.

You narrow your focus and ignore all distractions and obstacles,repeat the lie loud enough and often enough and you become incapable on not believing it.

You mean doublespeak…from George Orwell's book Nineteen Eighty-Four. What you are offering is similar to the 'flat-earth' argument...which at one time many people, like you, thought was as self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4. Other examples abound: how do you account for the fact that the speed of light is constant, regardless of the relative speed of other objects? But you are also resisting necessary original thinking.

Unfortunately you are a one-dimensional thinker: either a nation is racist, or it is not. But, first, a nation is not one person, but many people. And, second, when speaking of a plurality, many different factors must be considered.

Your hypothesis is, either a population is racist or it is not; and if it elects a black president, it per force cannot be racist. But there’s an additional consideration: who turns out for elections(?). People don't vote as a block, so they shouldn't be treated as a block. The parties are so evenly divided that turn-out often is determinative.

What affects turn-out? I’ve already taught you about pluralism, and the pull of issues and identities. Occasionally, one issue is so popular that it creates a huge attraction among elements of voters; or another issue is so unpopular that it creates huge turn-off among elements of voters. Sometimes they are the same issue. We saw this in the most recent election (2016), when Hillary was a huge turn-off, while Trump beat the old racism drum (“they are rapists, criminals and drug dealers…”). That combination was successful for Trump…Trump supporters turned out, while Hillary supporters went home.

So there are political attractors and detractors...on both sides. Think of it as a 2 x 2 table, one for each side. Dr. Obama was an enormous attractor for and on the left. He offered a sharp intellect, super-educated, handsome, confident, and a brilliant public speaker, and he was a tremendous attraction. Similarly, to the racists, he was a turn-off. Obama supporters turned out, while Republicans went home. It doesn't mean the racists were not there...it just means they were turned-off.

It’s not doublespeak to say that a situation is more complex than you realize. The world is playing 3-dimensional chess, while you are playing wack-a-mole. As soon as you learn the more complex games, you can join the more intelligent conversations. Perhaps a course or two at night school could help you.

sb wrote:Anyway I think this has run its course, you have indoctrinated yourself using your own propaganda and under such circumstances there can be no movement on this, and I've been here before with didge, staring down into the abyss of one of his rabbit holes, you won't budge and I can't force you

All I can do is lead you to water, but for you 2+2 will always equal 5.

You wish this discussion had run it's course...meaning you are afraid of the next response. Well, there it is. You need to enlarge your mind...go from Newtonian thinking to Einsteinian thinking. Stop, as I said above, being a one-dimensional mind.

Incidentally, about didge: he gets distracted, but you don't even get it. You're not even there yet.

by Guest Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:03 pm

You speak of pluralism yet deal in absolutes.

You are the one declaring America is a racist nation, your words not mine, that is open and shut.

You provided no caveats, your whole view is that America is irredeemably racist case closed.

Ive laid out the various flaws in YOUR theory, you avoid addressing them head on but instead use them to evolve your theory, closing the gaps and rendering my points null and void.

Yet the flaws remain since they were there in the original template.

Your theory has evolved from, "America is irredeemably racist" into America is irredeemably racist but on the day when a black president was up for election and racism could prevail - "the racists stayed home"

Yeah ok

Did you stay home and let trump win??

You don't sound like a Hillary supporter, you sound more like a bernie sanders man, either way in this election you are in the never trump camp.

You seem to have trouble understanding people in the real world so let's role play

In this election, you're "the racist" and trump represents "Obama"

I cannot believe for one second that you stayed home and chose not to cast your vote in a desperate attempt to stop trump

Never trump right??

You may not like Clinton but you despise trump and that's the state of western politics which you fail to take into account.

Politics and ploticians have become so self serving and unaccounted that they have alienated and disgusted so many people.

The voting electorate is devided into gangs, you have the gangs who love the candidate / party and vote FOR Them.

Then you have the apathetic who don't care and don't vote.

The rest are those who love neither side but having seen their preferred candidates drop out are now forced to hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.

These are the never trump / Clinton voters. This is where is believe you come in.

Your new theory falls down since the racists would most certainly be in the never Obama camp even if they hated the person they were voting for.

The never.......... Camp don't vote for someone they vote to keep the other guy out.

Considering how many temper tantrums we saw form those who voted for Hillary when Trump won, it is highly unlikely that the never trump gang simply broke camp and went home before they even voted.

Considering how racist America is supposed to be it is equally unlikely that the hordes of racist rednecks infesting all America decided to abstain and "let the nigga win"

Not once but twice.

Nope

by Original Quill Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:21 am

sb wrote:You speak of pluralism yet deal in absolutes.

You are the one declaring America is a racist nation, your words not mine, that is open and shut.

You provided no caveats, your whole view is that America is irredeemably racist case closed.

Take a look at America today. Fascist, white-supremacist in the White House. A bunch of paedo-Republicans in the Senate. And knee-jerkers in the House.

The proof is in the pudding.

by Sponsored content