• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

aspiegamer

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,458
ZzzzzzZzzzZzz...
I don't like the idea of flagging anyone "the next Obama" before there are any candidates, but it's kinda hard to ignore in this case when ex-Obama people discuss it? Like, how are people supposed to not ever mention it after that?

No major party candidate in this country will actually try to put Israel in its place, lol. A total death sentence, especially because there's a gigantic difference between why the left might want to support Israel vs why the right does. Obama's obvious annoyance with them through his second term is as close to the international norm we're probably ever going to get. There's a reason they were desperate for Trump.
 

Y2Kev

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,837
Trump's median voter income was like 73k. I think the WWC stuff is just the country trying to reconcile the fact that it's racist as fuck.
 

sphagnum

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,058
Doubt it. I know terms are meaningless, but he's more a social democrat than democratic socialist.

Yeah, he even said a few years back that he want a "means of production" kind of socialist, which means he's...not one. But it would certainly set him apart.

Wonder who the first on the national stage to bring up that subject will be. I'd expect it to start wiggling its way in if Corbyn is successful in Britain considering what McDonnell wants to do.

Everyone sucks on Israel because there's no good options there.

Bring back the kibbutzes.
 

Ogodei

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,256
Coruscant
I don't like the idea of flagging anyone "the next Obama" before there are any candidates, but it's kinda hard to ignore in this case when ex-Obama people discuss it? Like, how are people supposed to not ever mention it after that?

No major party candidate in this country will actually try to put Israel in its place, lol. A total death sentence, especially because there's a gigantic difference between why the left might want to support Israel vs why the right does. Obama's obvious annoyance with them through his second term is as close to the international norm we're probably ever going to get. There's a reason they were desperate for Trump.

Thing is that Netanyahu, at least, has gone full-in for the GOP and so any Dem president with a spine is going to be distant with at least him and the other Likudniks simply because they'll be all over whoever the most prominent GOPer opposed to the president is.
 
Oct 28, 2017
4,970
Nate seems to want to live in a world where white men can't be held accountable for what they say, even if it is obviously abhorrent. He also seems to think we should force private companies to advertise on programs that they do not wish too. It is a completely gross stance from top to bottom.

The tweet before those two listed argues that the advertising boycotts could put increased pressure on networks to programs that cater to "both sides" while simultaneously having a pro-corporate angle. That doesn't seem like a person who wants a world where white men can't be held accountable, his concern is that advertising boycotts could sanitise controversial political programming, stuff like Spitting Image, as a lot of cable TV shows these days are dependent on advertising to exist.

The specific problem with Nate's take is that this isn't a once off situation for Tucker. The guy made a living off dog whistling, which aren't really dog whistles anymore, and telling verifiable lies. Tucker wouldn't be losing his advertisers if he presented his show like Maher, who is also a islamophobe, and could keep the "gaffes" to a relative minimum so that people could argue his racism was just a "gaffe".

Nate is still denser plutonium because that take only makes sense if he ignores all context behind this advertising boycott.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,276
The tweet before those two listed argues that the advertising boycotts could put increased pressure on networks to programs that cater to "both sides" while simultaneously having a pro-corporate angle. That doesn't seem like a person who wants a world where white men can't be held accountable, his concern is that advertising boycotts could sanitise controversial political programming in the vein of something like Spitting Image as they're all dependent on advertising to exist.

The specific problem with Nate's take is that this isn't a once off situation for Tucker. The guy made a living off dog whistling, which aren't really dog whistles anymore, and telling verifiable lies. Tucker wouldn't be losing his advertisers if he presented his show like Maher, who is also a islamophobe, and could keep the "gaffes" to a relative minimum so that people could argue his racism was just a "gaffe".

Nate is still denser plutonium because that take only makes sense if he ignores all context behind this advertising boycott.

He isn't being dense. He wants people to ignore all context. That is his goal.
 

Doc Holliday

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,809
I'm not sure where Nate is coming from on this one. Advertisers have the right to choose where they spend their ad dollars.

They can pull their ads for any reason, Tucker being an asshole is one of the better ones.
 

Ithil

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,372
I will never get over how damn ugly his signature is.
It's a fitting signature

polygraphtest12.jpg
 

OtherWorldly

Banned
Dec 3, 2018
2,857
Interesting talk on Don Lemon show . The federal government will not charge or indict a sitting president but a STATE like NY could. Is this true? If so what would happen if NY filed state charges against Trump while he was in office and he lands in NYC?
 

B-Dubs

That's some catch, that catch-22
General Manager
Oct 25, 2017
32,721
Interesting talk on Don Lemon show . The federal government will not charge or indict a sitting president but a STATE like NY could. Is this true? If so what would happen if NY filed state charges against Trump while he was in office and he lands in NYC?
A constitutional crisis I imagine
 

Barzul

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,965
Interesting talk on Don Lemon show . The federal government will not charge or indict a sitting president but a STATE like NY could. Is this true? If so what would happen if NY filed state charges against Trump while he was in office and he lands in NYC?
I wonder if it's ever been tested. Sounds like a constitutional landmine.
 

skullmuffins

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,418
Interesting talk on Don Lemon show . The federal government will not charge or indict a sitting president but a STATE like NY could. Is this true? If so what would happen if NY filed state charges against Trump while he was in office and he lands in NYC?
Sure, there's no binding precedent whether a sitting president can be indicted - the only real "ruling" we have on it is a justice department OLC opinion, which is only binding on federal prosecutors. A state could ignore that and bring charges if they're ballsy enough. As for what would happen - Trump would immediately contest the legality of indicting him and I'm sure it would have to make its way to SCOTUS for a final decision before the state is allowed to move forward with the charges.
 

Barzul

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,965
It's always funny when I hear shit from people that will never be affected by the kind of stuff Tucker is spouting argue for reason. It's the whole order vs justice reasoning that MLK wrote about. If Nate was an immigrant from a "shithole country", guarantee his outlook would be different.
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,729


The Democrat in VA HD-24's special election outperformed Hillary by nearly 15% in a Trump +34 district.

Special election margins about to come back next year.
 

FreezePeach

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,811
I mean, how do you prove that signature is on that document? Who has the original? Wouldnt that be Russia? Or is it typical to physically sign 2 copies? It's not hard to paste a signature onto a document if its a digital photo copy. You know that will be their defense after Rudy said nobody signed it.
 
Oct 26, 2017
7,960
South Carolina
Facebook should be done like the Trump Organiztion. YESTERDAY.

It's always funny when I hear shit from people that will never be affected by the kind of stuff Tucker is spouting argue for reason. It's the whole order vs justice reasoning that MLK wrote about. If Nate was an immigrant from a "shithole country", guarantee his outlook would be different.

We all come from "shithole countries", that's why our ancestors left there (well, the voluntary ones of course). So there's LAYERS to the dullness.

I dunno, he's just been WRONG recently. Like, trying to be like tonight.
 

Stinkles

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
20,459
I mean, how do you prove that signature is on that document? Who has the original? Wouldnt that be Russia? Or is it typical to physically sign 2 copies? It's not hard to paste a signature onto a document if its a digital photo copy. You know that will be their defense after Rudy said nobody signed it.

Occams, Hanlon's and basically all the razors.
 

Amibguous Cad

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,033
I can't pretend to completely understand where he's coming from, but I feel safe blaming his libertarian leanings for this stupidity.

I don't think it's that much of a mystery. Nate's a nerd, and like a prototypical nerd, he has an instinctive revulsion to collective punishment that isn't limited by procedural protections or the rule of law. Everything else are ad hoc intellectual justifications for a reaction to trauma. It's a definite blind-spot for him, certainly in this case - Tucker's words and actions are beyond the pale and taking away his platform will save lives. But I think we would be removing one of the more important checks on politically sanctioned cruelty if we had no one around with Nate's temperament.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.