All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[Spike-X]

Is anyone else finding in everyday discussions lately people getting so touchy now when you bring up domestic terrorism and white supremacy? I mean guys are getting super touchy having to talk about it as a threat. I'm constantly having to preface statements like no one is "attacking white people". We are talking about white supremacists! There is a huge difference. And until we aren't afraid to call it out and address the very real issue of domestic terrorism and how we are ignoring and not calling out white supremacy when we see it these attacks will continue to happen.

Add to that the fact that the top levels of government right now find common ground in rhetoric and policy with white supremacists and you get a quagmire of inaction and heads buried in the sand. On social media and in everyday discussions since the shooting I see people "blaming media" for stoking divisions? Why because they are reporting on the El paso shooters manifesto that is mired in white supremacist and trumpian hate and fear? Rather than talk about the obvious and deal with it its easy to blame "media" and ignore they have been supporting, chanting with, and following an administration who constantly feeds into the hate and fears of brown "invaders" coming to take what is "theirs". Pointing out facts is the media's literal job. But, people who I know arent "white supremacists" are just so averse to admitting and combating it lest they think they are being attacked just because they are republican and voted for trump.

When you throw a stone into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit.

[Overhazard]

Is anyone else finding in everyday discussions lately people getting so touchy now when you bring up domestic terrorism and white supremacy? I mean guys are getting super touchy having to talk about it as a threat. I'm constantly having to preface statements like no one is "attacking white people". We are talking about white supremacists! There is a huge difference. And until we aren't afraid to call it out and address the very real issue of domestic terrorism and how we are ignoring and not calling out white supremacy when we see it these attacks will continue to happen.

Add to that the fact that the top levels of government right now find common ground in rhetoric and policy with white supremacists and you get a quagmire of inaction and heads buried in the sand. On social media and in everyday discussions since the shooting I see people "blaming media" for stoking divisions? Why because they are reporting on the El paso shooters manifesto that is mired in white supremacist and trumpian hate and fear? Rather than talk about the obvious and deal with it its easy to blame "media" and ignore they have been supporting, chanting with, and following an administration who constantly feeds into the hate and fears of brown "invaders" coming to take what is "theirs". Pointing out facts is the media's literal job. But, people who I know arent "white supremacists" are just so averse to admitting and combating it lest they think they are being attacked just because they are republican and voted for trump.

When I was in school, before the 2016 election I remember getting into a brief argument with this trump supporter when I called Trump a racist. He said "No one ever called him racist before he ran against the democrats." I pointed out that he was sued by the justice department for housing discrimination in the 70's, and he started his campaign by calling mexicans thieves, drug runners, and rapists. All he said was "We can agree to disagree."

Trump never hid who he was, the cognitive dissonance is very high. His followers know how awful he is, but as long as he and his ilk "trigger those librul snowflakes" they don't care. Do I believe all trump supporters are racist? No. They're just apathetic about it.

[aja_christopher]

[aja_christopher]

"A Reformed White Nationalist Says the Worst Is Yet to Come"

Christian Picciolini discusses the mainstreaming of white nationalism, what it takes to de-radicalize far-right extremists, and why the problem is metastasizing.

Yara Bayoumy: What are your thoughts in the aftermath of El Paso?

Christian Picciolini: I’m as horrified as everyone else is. And frustrated, because this is something I’ve been banging the drum about for 20 years—that the escalation of violence would get worse. The [white-supremacist] ideology is spreading more into the mainstream than it ever has before. There aren’t checks and balances to counter it. There aren’t programs being funded to help people disengage from extremism. Some of the rhetoric coming from the very top is emboldening extremists.

Bayoumy: Talk to us about the evolution you’ve seen since you were in the movement 30 years ago—these views used to be on the fringe, and now are much more mainstream.

Picciolini: Unfortunately, I think that the underpinnings of the ideology have always been there. The extremists were on the fringe, and very visible, but other people weren’t willing to voice those beliefs. Thirty years ago, when I was in the movement, we were turning off the average American white racists who didn’t want to be so open and visible about those beliefs. So there was this effort to make it more mainstream, to grow the hair out, turn in the “boots for suits.” I never thought we would have a social and political climate that really kind of brought it to the foreground. Because it’s starting to seem less like a fringe ideology and more like a mainstream ideology.

Kathy Gilsinan: What role does the internet play? There’s a lot of discussion about internet radicalization for members of ISIS—is this a parallel process for white-supremacist movements, or are there differences?

Picciolini: It’s a very parallel process. The propaganda is very similar. The internet itself is a platform. Thirty years ago, marginalized, broken, angry young people had to be met face-to-face to get recruited into a movement. Nowadays, those millions and millions of young people are living most of their lives online if they don’t have real-world connections. And they’re finding a community online instead of in the real world, and having conversations about promoting violence.

Bayoumy: What about the shooter’s apparent anti-immigrant manifesto? Does anything in it strike you as surprising?

Picciolini: Unfortunately I’ve read every one of these things, since the first, in 2009, when James von Brunn walked into the D.C. Holocaust Museum and killed a guard [Stephen Johns]. He left a manifesto that had the same conspiracy theories, and much of the same language, that [we’ve seen] in other shootings up until this week—this whole idea of the “Great Replacement,” of “white genocide,” the belief that immigrants are going to overwhelm the white race. That, frankly, is a crock of ****. But we see things in the news that seem to kind of stand behind these notions—that border facilities are overwhelmed. Even though it’s not really a threat to anyone’s race. Migration has been happening for centuries, and we’re still here. Nations change over centuries, borders have been different. But that’s all the language white supremacists have been using for decades...

Bayoumy: What are some of the things that prompt these people to question their beliefs?

Picciolini: Certainly not facts. It’s very emotional. I try to take them through an emotional journey where they come to the conclusion that they’ve changed, and it’s not me telling them that they’ve changed. What I’ve found least effective is me telling them that they’re wrong, or me telling them that they need to think a certain way. Typically these people are pretty idealistic, although they’re lost, typically pretty bruised emotionally, and they have very low self-esteem.

Gilsinan: So it’s not effective to say, “Actually, immigration is often good for the economy.” Then what’s your answer instead?

Picciolini: I’ve always found it very difficult to sway opinion when it’s a group of people. When people are in a group, they tend to not be as vulnerable or as forthcoming. So I think it has to be a personal journey. But there has to be a way to sway a whole group of people, so facts are important—for most people, facts are still important. For folks in these movements, they have their own set of facts. Two plus two equals five, so you can’t argue that two plus two equals four, even though we know that that’s the case.

You have to take them through situations where they challenge themselves."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...iolini/595543/

[InformationGeek]

He spent his own goddamn name wrong. HOW?!

[Mister Mets]

Your "open borders" question is "loaded" Mets -- you ask the question with an answer already in mind and you refuse to accept any other answer but the one you've already pre-determined, based on your assumptions about Democrats rather than their actual record.

With that in mind, don't ask from others what you don't give in return.

This is no longer about "asking you questions" because I think most people here are pretty clear where you stand on most issues -- this is about pointing out the hypocrisy of your being more concerned with potential hypothetical "open borders" than the very real racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, white supremacy, and right-wing domestic terrorism coming directly from your party and as advocated by your Republican president and Congress.



I've already posted numerous articles directly addressing the substantial Russian interference that Mueller says is the most serious threat to democracy he's ever seen in his career -- and Mueller is a lifetime Republican so you can't try to argue that this is partisan politics.

He directly states that we should be paying more attention to these threats, not less.

Again -- you ruin your credibility when you make false arguments, and then try to double down on them in the face of factual evidence against them, which is one of the main reasons I don't bother asking you questions.

My "open borders" question was "Have Democrats expressed any opinion on a limiting principle on legal immigration (an upper limit on the number of immigrants who should be allowed in)? If so, what is it? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that?" I disagree with the assertion that it's loaded because there's no controversial or unjustified assumption. I do have an opinion on the matter, but that's hardly unusual in political discussions. Opinions are also subject to change as the facts do. If Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke or whoever gave a clear limit in an interview, I would also certainly accept that as an answer.

If you have a non-loaded question about racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, white supremacy, and right-wing domestic terrorism, I'll do my best to answer.

With the Russian comments, Mueller's argument that Americans in general should be paying more attention doesn't disprove my assertion about some people being too paranoid.

[aja_christopher]

My "open borders" question was "Have Democrats expressed any opinion on a limiting principle on legal immigration (an upper limit on the number of immigrants who should be allowed in)? If so, what is it? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that?" I disagree with the assertion that it's loaded because there's no controversial or unjustified assumption.

With the Russian comments, Mueller's argument that Americans in general should be paying more attention doesn't disprove my assertion about some people being too paranoid.

It is "controversial" -- and inherently false -- to claim that Democrats are for open borders just because none of them them seemingly have answered your loaded question to your satisfaction: not answering a question about something does not mean that you support it, regardless of your "inferences".

Conversely, we don't have to "infer" anything with regards to Republicans: your Republican party has been proven to engage in racist rhetoric, gerrymandering, homophobia, election fraud, Russian "collusion" (etc) so it's not even a matter of "debate" at this point -- the fact is one side you assume is guilty based on your "loaded question" regarding "limiting principles" while the side that you defend has engaged in or been convicted of every offense I just named.

In reality Democrats (like Obama) have been far more effective in dealing with immigration issues than Republicans, whose most recent leader has torpedoed every "bipartisan" piece of legislation put in front of him so he can promote a racist agenda by calling immigrants "invaders" and declaring a national emergency at the border, only to then ridicule the idea that they are guilty of inciting racial violence when some right-wing terrorist with a manifesto against immigrants drives hundreds of miles to shoot at them in order to stop said "invasion".

Likewise with regards to Russia -- who are we supposed to believe regarding Russian interference: someone who was the head of the FBI and spent years investigating Russian interference in our elections and says we need to take it more seriously, or some openly biased partisan on a message board who denies facts even when they are right in front of him in order to try to claim "people are exaggerating" that same Russian interference?

People aren't being "too paranoid" Mets: you're just defending racism, xenophobia, homophobia and Russian interference in our elections, and people are calling you out for it -- bringing up the fact that "some people" exaggerate is deflection from the reality of the situation, plain and simple.

The fact that you're even here criticizing others for "paranoia" and "exaggeration" while constantly citing "open borders" as the reasoning behind your support for a party that goes to court to defend not providing children with soap and medical care is even more hypocritical -- again, it just shows you care more about promoting and defending Republican/white nationalist talking points than engaging in real political dialogue.

[Tendrin]

The Nebraska Republican Party wants to kick out John McCollister, a state legislator who recently condemned white supremacy in the wake of mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.

"John McCollister has been telegraphing for years that he has little if nothing in common with the Republican voters," Ryan Hamilton, executive director of the Nebraska GOP, said in a Monday press statement. The statement also called on McCollister to leave the Republican Party and "re-register as a Democrat."

So, the Nebraska GOP is kind of telling on itself.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

By the way, I've read the Trump White House is said to owe the city nearly $500,000 which they've yet to pay for a previous visit, par for the course when it comes to an unconsciable grifter who NEVER pays his bills. Who knows how much El Paso will be on the hook for when Caramel Caligula comes calling again.

[Mister Mets]

It is "controversial" -- and inherently false -- to claim that Democrats are for open borders just because none of them them seemingly have answered your loaded question to your satisfaction: not answering a question about something does not mean that you support it, regardless of your "inferences".

Conversely, we don't have to "infer" anything with regards to Republicans: your Republican party has been proven to engage in racist rhetoric, gerrymandering, homophobia, election fraud, Russian "collusion" (etc) so it's not even a matter of "debate" at this point -- the fact is one side you assume is guilty based on your "loaded question" regarding "limiting principles" while the side that you defend has engaged in or been convicted of every offense I just named.

In reality Democrats (like Obama) have been far more effective in dealing with immigration issues than Republicans, whose most recent leader has torpedoed every "bipartisan" piece of legislation put in front of him so he can promote a racist agenda by calling immigrants "invaders" and declaring a national emergency at the border, only to then ridicule the idea that they are guilty of inciting racial violence when some right-wing terrorist with a manifesto against immigrants drives hundreds of miles to shoot at them in order to stop said "invasion".

Likewise with regards to Russia -- who are we supposed to believe regarding Russian interference: someone who was the head of the FBI and spent years investigating Russian interference in our elections and says we need to take it more seriously, or some openly biased partisan on a message board who denies facts even when they are right in front of him in order to try to claim "people are exaggerating" that same Russian interference?

People aren't being "too paranoid" Mets: you're just defending racism, xenophobia, homophobia and Russian interference in our elections, and people are calling you out for it.

I'll admit that I have come to the conclusion that many on the left (but not all Democrats) are in favor of de facto open borders (a system in which practically unlimited numbers of immigrants would be allowed to come to the US and given a pathway to citizenship.) I have explained how I've come to that conclusion. But I don't think the related questions I ask are unfair, or require anyone to agree with me.

If you have specific questions on racist rhetoric, gerrymandering, homophobia, election fraud, Russian "collusion" (etc) that aren't loaded/ requiring me to accept a controversial premise, I'll do my best to address it.

I haven't disagreed with Mueller on Russian interference. On this, we may be two people arguing past one another on different premises (He's saying Americans in general and presumably authorities should be more concerned; I'm saying that some Trump critics are going too far; these are not mutually exclusive.)

Much of the recent posts about Russian interference are about how we should be worried, but not what they've done to merit that. That might be worth addressing to make sure we're not arguing past one another. An incomplete list...

• At the height of the election, Russia (likely with Putin's direct knowledge spent $1.2 million a month on troll farms in the context of an election where the major parties spent a total of $1.8 billion (I get that troll farms have the advantage of being able to go with more extreme material than the campaigns but it's still a very small part of election spending)
• Russia also hacked the DNC emails and funneled these through wikileaks.
• They may have been involved in disinformation against Trump with the Steele dossier.
• Russian intelligence also spread the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.
• While there is no indication that Russian hackers manufactured votes/ altered votes cast from one candidate to favor another, there have been numerous efforts to hack voter databases.

Is there anything glaringly obvious that I'm missing and/ or a good article on the specific things Russia did to meddle in the election?

[aja_christopher]

Is there anything glaringly obvious that I'm missing and/ or a good article on the specific things Russia did to meddle in the election?

What does it matter -- as has already been pointed out, you've already made your position clear on the issues at hand. We've already done this before and I doubt we'll tread any new ground since these are the same issues every one else points out regarding the Republican party. Nothing said here will change the nature of said party, rendering any such discussion relatively useless.

With regards to "some Trump critics going to far" I'd say recent events and the Mueller investigation prove that most Americans haven't gone far enough in condemning both your party and your Republican president, who still refuses to acknowledge Russian interference in the election while McConnell blocks all new legislation that attempts to address the issue directly.

Debating about what "some people" are doing is a deflection from the real problem at hand, plain and simple.

You talk about "policy" like Republicans are going to put their racism, homophobia, and fraud down in print -- and while many of them do, most (like you) just talk around the issues for reasons of "plausible deniability", so we have to "infer" from their incessant dodging of "controversial premises" that they therefore support these aspects of the party, even if only for so long as it helps them win elections.

That said, I don't want to ask you any questions -- what I want is for your racist, homophobic, fraudulent party and their criminal president to be held accountable for their actions.

[BeastieRunner]

Market is rumbling towards a no gain. Overnight was a loss. This is looking like 2007 now.

[Tami]

Market is rumbling towards a no gain. Overnight was a loss. This is looking like 2007 now.

When the Market collapses, everything else is placed at risk.

[Celgress]

Market is rumbling towards a no gain. Overnight was a loss. This is looking like 2007 now.

I honestly don't think the Market will collapse like it did in 2008 (Housing Bubble) or 2000 (Tech Bubble). The environment is different there is no speculation craze that has been driving growth, but we'll see.

[Tami]

I honestly don't think the Market will collapse like it did in 2008 (Housing Bubble) or 2000 (Tech Bubble). The environment is different there is no speculation craze that has been driving growth, but we'll see.

If it does collapse, can we call it the Trump Bubble?