-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Trump tweets spliced together video of Ilhan Omar and 9/11
- Thread starter Deleted member 17092
- Start date
I do think Omar could help herself a bit more by being more specific when it comes to Israel. I am, by no means, a supporter of their government, but what really hurt her the first time was her flippance towards the whole "Benjamins" thing. While I understood it was a double entendre, it happened to be one that has cachet in anti Semitic circles. I know she isn't one at all, but when discussing a really complicated issue with a lot of moral arguments, a quip might not be the best.
So now that the centrist left had their fun, the progressives are getting next in line.
Is there anyone who at least feels sad whenever PoC are treated like garbage?
It sucks that Bernie distanced himself from her by saying "I've only talked to her twice", and his comment about how she needs to talk to people is a bit off base I think. He's Jewish so he's going to have a more informed take than I am, and I respect that, but for me it's like Omar is speaking uncomfortable truths, and there will always be people who don't want to hear it. Also, people are being manipulated into taking her words out of context, so they are maybe getting pissed at her off the back of something she didn't even really mean.
The rest of the world is going the same way.
Not to say you shouldn't go to whatever pocket of the world you feel safe in. Just remember the capitalist system is nearly world encompassing and the capitalists are getting scared and bloodthirsty.
I think friends can positively criticize each other to make them better. Although I believe Ilhan didn't say anything antisemetic from the beginning, I hope she still makes her same points about AIPAC and Israel - but also realizing how stacked the opposition is. Which means seeing the fake landmines planted by Republicans, some Democrats and the establishment media, and avoiding them.
I mean you could just watch the clip of him talking about the issue instead of bathing in irony by looking at an out of context quote.....
Time-stamped for your convenience(at 24:06 if it doesn't work for)
Unfortunately, i can't help you on that score. Sorry.
But as someone else already said. There's nowhere else really to go to. We're all fucked for the foreseeable future. *sigh*
I cant roll my eyes hard enough for remarks like this. Do you really see the world this way in stead of being comprised of fallible human beings where the majority of us are just trying to live our lives somewhat comfortably?
I'll say this, being back now after Pelosi's underwhelming first statement but somewhat better second statement. Ya'll absolutely have every right to demand better of the dems. They need to be better. PoC and other minorities do get taken advantage at times (or at least ignored) by the dems.
That being said, if you guys really want to fix the situation, don't say things like the Dems are no better the the GOP or conversly don't vote. The thing that will fix the dems is voting in more candidates like AOC and Omar. Sitting out and pouting about the dems won't fix anything.
You want change, be the change. 2018 saw a massive increase in women and minority reps. Keep going!
Because this is the reality
Take a long, hard look at that; that's the difference between the parties.
Are the dems perfect? Hell no; that's why we need to demand more and vote in better people at ALL LEVELS (local too guys). 20 or hell 10 years ago you wouldn't have anyone like AOC or Omar or even Tlaib spitting fire like this.
So keep going, don't throw your hands up or stop voting!
That being said, if you guys really want to fix the situation, don't say things like the Dems are no better the the GOP or conversly don't vote. The thing that will fix the dems is voting in more candidates like AOC and Omar. Sitting out and pouting about the dems won't fix anything.
You want change, be the change. 2018 saw a massive increase in women and minority reps. Keep going!
Because this is the reality
Take a long, hard look at that; that's the difference between the parties.
Are the dems perfect? Hell no; that's why we need to demand more and vote in better people at ALL LEVELS (local too guys). 20 or hell 10 years ago you wouldn't have anyone like AOC or Omar or even Tlaib spitting fire like this.
So keep going, don't throw your hands up or stop voting!
Context:
"I support a Muslim member of congress to not be attacked every single day in outrageous racist remarks."
"If your question to me is whether I think she's anti-semitic, no I don't."
"It is not anti-semitic to be critical of a right wing government in Israel."
I have a lot of shit to say about Obama but it's better left unsaid.
fair enough, it's not so bad in context. Still think the qualification was unnecessary and not particularly helpful, though
It can be both.
I believe in the basic decency of people. I also believe we are facing a climate catastrophe that will result in millions of displaced people. Considering what we have now with Trump, Brexit, and the rise of far right politicians the world over - and looking at what is causing this rise in reactionary politics, as well as the capitalist elite's role in spreading it's propaganda - do you honestly feel good about the future under the capitalist paradigm?
In my mind, it's just simple math.
That depends on what you mean by capitalism. If you mean market Economics then yes, I feel good about that. However (and this is a big caveat) goverments need to have a heavy hand in regulation and taxation. Dividing resources through Markets is optimal, but governments need to supervise and adjust societal outcomes. There needs to be a lot more regulation, especially in the US.
I don't believe that will be enough.
I know I sound incredibly pessimistic here, but I don't believe ecological sustainability is possible with markets governing energy production and consumption. We need to stop burning fossil fuels to prevent global warming. But trying to remove fossil fuels' indispensable role as the lifeblood of the world economy would be like pulling the entire bottom layer of bricks from a Jenga tower and expecting it not to fall; simply put, it would be just as apocalyptic as global warming is promising to be.
Capitalism doesn't mean markets under any definition. Markets existed for a long time before capitalism ever became a thing. What's unique about capitalism is the property relations between producers and appropriators.
Anyway, I don't know of any serious economist who thinks that letting pure market forces divide resources is optimal, though what you mean by optimal needs to be clearly defined (how can any notion of what is optimal not take into account societal outcomes?).
Putting an actual cost on resource usage and pollution would go a long way. Carbon credits were a start, but that has to be expanded and a price should be asked of companies for usage of the commons.
Removing market mechanisms in general only results in less efficient usage of the other resources. It doesn't solve your correct assumption that fossil fuels are important in todays economy. There are other solutions of course, nationalising all means of energy production for instance. At least over here that was the status quo untill about 10/20 years ago.
Thanks for actually engaging btw :)
If you argue with anarchists long enough you will see capitalism defined in any number of ways, thats why I asked.
I was referring purely to production efficiency. Desired societal outcomes can change, which is why I let the government come in and define what those are.
Well as someone whose philosophy leans anarchist (not the crazy AnCap kind), I'm happy to clarify. Too many people walk around thinking capitalism is the natural state of things.
I think another question you could ask is why should efficiency be taken to be a good thing? Do we need maximum efficiency to serve our basic needs and lead comfortable lives? At what cost does a focus on efficiency come? I'm not saying I have perfect answers to these questions, but its the sort of stuff I think is useful to think about in dealing with stuff like this.
Don't get pissy when folks decide to leave you and your pity party by the wayside. Lazy, anonymous internet randos really do make for unreliable partners. Adios!
Thanks :p
Production efficiency leads to production tailored to demand and reduces waste. So yeah I think thats a good thing. And I definitely don't think someone else should decide what I can or cannot consume. People have a lot of needs besides the bare necessities as in food, clothing, etc. I think letting someone else decide what an acceptable level of needs is that someone can fullfill is dangerous. Education, art, these are not strictly necessary for physical survival, but I don't think I'd want to live without these things in my life.
The government and the world is changing so whatever you speak of might not mean shit in 10 years
You already are letting someone else decide what is acceptable in the system we currently live in, though. A choice between one brand of potato chips or another isn't really a choice at all. And I was including things like education, art, etc. in with the "comfortable life" bit. Those things wouldn't flounder if we reduced our focus on efficiency above all else; in fact, I think they'd flourish in non-capitalist societies, as evidenced by looking to the past and seeing how the Italian Renaissance developed in non-capitalist city-states. That's not to say we should return to that type of structure, as if such a thing were even possible, but to say that capitalism and market efficiency doesn't necessarily have a stranglehold on the comforts of life.
... I'm not sure the italian city states are a prime example of non-capitalist structures. I'd rather live in current day italy than under the Borgia's. I don't think many people had a lot of comfort in those days.
I can decide to make my own foodstuffs, not sure what you're getting at with the potato stuff. I was thinking about communist 5 year plans when making that comment, sorry if that wasn't clear.
The point regarding art etc was exactly that: YOU might include it in "basic needs" but whoever or whatever is in charge of dividing resources in other systems might not.
I feel like we have a different idea of efficiency though, what I'm trying to convey is good for the environment: no wasted resources on unwanted products. Production efficiency ( again with the caveat that this is all very basic economics, I know there is no perfect market in the world ).
Trump
""She is somebody that doesn't really understand, I think, life, real life, what it's all about. It's unfortunate — she's got a way about her that's very, very bad, I think, for our country," "
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/16/trump-ilhan-omar-1277533
""She is somebody that doesn't really understand, I think, life, real life, what it's all about. It's unfortunate — she's got a way about her that's very, very bad, I think, for our country," "
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/16/trump-ilhan-omar-1277533
Obama's been an utter disappointment. What else can we say at this point?
Well, white people are very likely going to vote for him in droves again, so of course he stands a good chance at winning.