Alt right people are deliberately organizing events in Berkeley to spur violent conflict.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
Alt right people are deliberately organizing events in Berkeley to spur violent conflict.
Not to pick on you, but Bernie wasn't even talking about white nationalism, if you watch the clip, he was talking about tax cuts for rich and a weaker healthcare system. Polls show republican voters are misaligned with republican reps in those areas -- it's not an imaginary silent majority. You guys are so nutty with the Bernie hate, it's impossible to have any real discussions here. Talk about being incapable of learning, wow -- same sort of irrational bullshit you guys were peddling during the primary about how Bernie was all in it for himself and was gonna bern it all down to spite Clinton. Now you've all cooked up this pretend reality where you can draw simple equivalences to McGovern and Corbyn to dumb everything down to the simplest terms that allow you to continue your obsessive hate without having to actually do any thinking (*insert joke about Bernie being king/god/anointed, be petty and claim it's payback for people critiquing the yas queen stuff, throw in a Gabbard reference for good measure*)
No introspection, no exploration of thought, just simple rationalizing.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I don't agree with this, however. Sorry but I think this is an overly simplified view of various motions happening within different flavors of progressivism and social change
WaPo: Trump says he cant be sued for violence at his rallies because he won the election
I love this. The Trump supporter co-defendant is throwing Trump under the bus and blaming him for inciting his own violent acts.
The Democratic party never needed the support of self avowed socialists or green party members. Those groups have their own deranged politics and mixing it with one that ultimately stands for social equality as a priority over gradual economic progress will only lead to more republican consolidation of power.
I'm no better than the racists and presumably the alt-right because I supported Bernie over Hillary in the primary, even though I voted for Hillary in the general.
Thank you for being so understanding, you're not a terrible person at all!
smokeandmirrors
Banned
The Democratic Party: Paragon of Social Equality
I definitely agree with you that some, maybe a lot, will willingly fuck themselves over if they think republicans will fuck over brown people more.
But not all -- some can be reached without pandering to racism. Sanders seems to think it's a lot. You guys seem to think it's zero. I think it's probably somewhere in the middle. It's hard to know, because Sanders is right -- we don't even try. I haven't seen a compelling reason to suggest we can't add this outreach without hurting our civil rights efforts -- I don't see anything to suggest it's a zero sum game. Contradicting conventional wisdom of this board, more recent polling doesn't suggest minorities have distaste for Sanders. He now has wide appeal across all ages, sexes, ethnicities. He's onto something.
I did say it was a fringe group, the people that Sanders claimed to have brought into the fray that never voted for Democrats because of their own sense of self-righteousness. I don't want to see this group have control over a party whose values have already been cemented with a path laid out.
Bernie supporters are mostly fine.
Bernie is usually fine nowadays.
This particular statement by Bernie I don't care about but I also think it's correct to note that he's probably wrong to assume that the reason progressives don't win in the South is because our messaging is wrong rather than because racism is a big deal.
There are a number of people who occasionally latch onto Bernie to advocate for their vision of a social justice-free Democratic Party and those people are in fact dangerously wrong and should be stopped.
Bernie is usually fine nowadays.
This particular statement by Bernie I don't care about but I also think it's correct to note that he's probably wrong to assume that the reason progressives don't win in the South is because our messaging is wrong rather than because racism is a big deal.
There are a number of people who occasionally latch onto Bernie to advocate for their vision of a social justice-free Democratic Party and those people are in fact dangerously wrong and should be stopped.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
If we can run a guy who sues cops for free in rural Kansas and get 46% of the vote without any outside help except some grassroots fundraising isn't that an argument for running a bunch of lefties in every district?
Handel is the less threatening opponent. She's seen as an opportunist that would do or say anything to get into power. Plus she's a woman which I believe unfortunately has a negative effect in elctoral politics.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Okay so here's where I'm sort of at right now: the Democratic party is further left then its ever been. Mostly socially, it is moving to the left economically, and the work and energy of young activists is only pulling it further left. Its not as left as I would personally like it, or most of them, but there's no comparison to where we were even 10 years ago. I think as a result of that yes, it is certainly possible that there are people that we are going to pick up because our message is now appealing in a way that it wasn't before. There will be those people, we can run candidates that appeal to them at various levels, and we will make some gains with them
But we have got to stop acting like Republicans only win because of a fluke, or because the system is gamed, or for any other reason other then that a large enough part of the country supports what they stand for that they are consistently granted power. I don't think is healthy for us to think the only reason we lose is because we've been cheated out of rightful and popular victory, which is the implication if even deep red states would actually reject the GOP if given the chance.
cooljeanius
Member
Has a new thread gone up for the Berkeley stuff yet? I haven't seen one...
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
This may have happened at a really bad time. The nationalization of politics is a significant contributor (or at the very least is deeply tied up in) the unprecedended polarization of politics, and structurally it couldn't have happened at a worse time, with the senate still disproportionately benefiting rural states and gerrymandering out the wazoo. Thank god Trump is so horrifically unpopular and the GOP has atrophied into a bunch of inept clowns that there's a real chance of a backlash wave
Even now, even with how awful Trump and everyone around him is, its still a dicey affair, and that just shows how thoroughly the deck is stacked against us
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
I mostly agree with this but two things
1) the Democratic party's electorate is to the left of its donor class. You can see this with issues like foreign policy and military spending especially where the donor classes of both parties are more likely than their bases to be hawkish and pro military spending, while among voters the most popular way of balancing the budget is a reduction in military spending. That's one clear area where the populace (and especially Democratic voters) could respond to changed rhetoric.
2) Thompson came close even though he prosecutes cops for free. If that's just a matter of turnout, it's important to give our voters something to latch on to and turn out for outside of high turnout elections.
Otherwise I agree, as someone from a nowhereville small town in a red state I don't think there's a mass of people who only vote Republican because they're waiting for a socialist, but elections are won on margins and turnout.
It's definitely heartening to see somebody who stands up to police and didn't have the main attacks as him being labeled a cop-killer or something.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Box of Kittens
Banned
I really don't see anything remarkable, good or bad, about that Bernie statement. Why are we arguing about it?
Bernie fans want to feel victimized Bernie haters want to blame Bernie for stuff.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
plus the ossoff mattress can't get any more drenched
Trolls
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
That's where I am at. It's red meat, Bernie is playing his part rabble rousing and giving motivation. He's the best person currently to do this.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
Hey PoliGAF,
so I have a question about net neutrality.
Up until just now I wasn't very into the topic and just basically had a "pro net neutrality" position and heard on the side line that Trump and his FCC appointees want to end net neutrality and thats evil and bad.
But I came across this article that makes things look a lot different.
A few important excerpts:
In 2015 it was ordered by the Obama administration that broadband internet is a public utility and the FTC doesn't oversee public utilities so oversight was transferred to the FCC.
https://hbr.org/2017/03/the-tangled-web-of-net-neutrality-and-regulation
So basically, all the articles in The Verge, CNET, ArsTechnica etc. about Trumps FCC abolishing net neutrality are bullshit.
Or am I missing something here?
so I have a question about net neutrality.
Up until just now I wasn't very into the topic and just basically had a "pro net neutrality" position and heard on the side line that Trump and his FCC appointees want to end net neutrality and thats evil and bad.
But I came across this article that makes things look a lot different.
A few important excerpts:
Basically, until 2015 the FTC enforced net neutrality by overseeing the broadband infrastructure, which was thereby subject to the fair-competitions rules of the FTC, which, even though net neutrality isn't explicitly stated in them, basically ensure the same things.
In 2015 it was ordered by the Obama administration that broadband internet is a public utility and the FTC doesn't oversee public utilities so oversight was transferred to the FCC.
https://hbr.org/2017/03/the-tangled-web-of-net-neutrality-and-regulation
So basically, all the articles in The Verge, CNET, ArsTechnica etc. about Trumps FCC abolishing net neutrality are bullshit.
Or am I missing something here?
Yeah, the article is missing some important facts.
"For most of the history of the commercial internet, there have never been formal net neutrality rules. Still, during a decade of largely inside-the-Beltway squabbling, the FCC has only once identified a violation of the principles that might have been barred by any version of its rules."
This is misleading. The consumer internet was born on telephone lines, which were already classified as Title II, so the internet was effectively grandfathered into psuedo net neutrality rules since the beginning (the term net neutrality didn't exist back then, but a lot of the principles are the same). We got lucky. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the internet would be totally different today if it was instead born into the TV cable companies that dominate it today. Fun fact, but net neutrality has its roots all the way back to the 1800s when they passed laws regulating a neutral telegraph in response to telegraph operators censoring speech.
When ISPs started moving away from phone lines and onto cable/fiber, these same rules didn't apply by default -- the FCC had a chance to keep internet classified under Title II under Bush by extending it to cable/fiber lines, but hey, elections have consequences. There was a gap where the FCC had no formal net neutrality rules -- but it was a relatively short gap.
The second statement in that quote is also somewhat misleading. The FCC has been pretty reluctant to aggressively enforce net neutrality even before Trump -- it was a big deal to get Title II at all. Wheeler is almost seen as a hero today, but it was just a few years ago that he was enemy #1 for a lot of the internet. So yeah, the FCC hasn't found much.. because they never really looked too hard. They were beginning to investigate more seriously, then Trump happened. Pai's FCC has already closed multiple investigations. There's been plenty of examples of ISPs censoring websites, throttling speeds to certain services, etc -- just because a lazy FCC hadn't found anything doesn't mean it wasn't happening. But again, for most of the internet's history, net neutrality has effectively been in place, so you're not going to see the "without net neutrality" nightmare scenarios because telecoms aren't going to invest millions in blatantly illegal practices. The violations of net neutrality are going to be slow an iterative -- they'll ease us into it (this is one of the investigations Trump's FCC has already closed).
As a side note, another side-effect of the consumer internet being born on phone lines covered under Title II was that incumbent phone companies were forced to lease out their infrastructure to competitors at fair prices. People don't seem to give much thought to how dial-up startups like AOL, Earthlinks, NetZero, etc were able to provide internet access to people throughout the country without building out their own phone lines. It's no coincidence that today, we do not see anything like that -- today, it's the cable companies that dominate -- they had the cable tv infrastructure already built out and, unlike with phone lines, there were no regulations forcing them to share with competitors. Wheeler's FCC didn't go that far with their broadband reclassification as Title II -- they excluded that provision... I was hoping that might change with more progress under Clinton.
JesseEwiak
Member
You mean the 1988 Democratic Party that included John Breaux, Sam Nunn, Lloyd Bentsen, David Boren, and James Exon in the Senate caucus? Or had future Republican Senator Phil Gramm in it's caucus only four years earlier? Lefties really need to get over this nostalgia of the 1970's or 1980's Democratic Party has some uberliberal party, even on economics.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
So, by reversing the 2015 order what exactly would happen? I still don't know if all these articles I read are more fearmongering or real threats.
The article I quoted made it seem like ISPs aren't really interested in things that would go against net neutrality, and even if they were there would still be FTC regulations preventing them from doing it.
And Republicans also don't seem to have any problem with concept of net neutrality as the bill they proposed suggests:
This quote is from the article I linked in my last post.
This is a link to an article about the proposed bill: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-net-neutrality-bill/?utm_term=.6b9cf079ffc4
The republican bill was them seeing Obama's FCC and thinking the FCC was going too far, so they wanted to codify a more limited approach to limit how much the FCC could do. His words: https://www.thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=13ef1389-fc47-4f5b-bdce-d0d78ea8222b
More: https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...rality-but-put-stricter-limits-on-fcc/456594/
It is true, though, that ideally we'd have strong net neutrality regulations codified in law rather than FCC rules. Just don't expect that to happen under republicans. Their bill was weaker than FCC rules then, and now dems have even less leverage. McConnel recommended Pai's nomination -- Pai is more representative of Republican views than Thune.
As for what would happen, nobody has a crystal ball. But I expect ISPs to continue slowly chipping away at net neutrality as long as they can get away with it -- which has been happening and is continuing to happen now. If these FCC rules were reversed, it might happen a little faster, but the telecoms aren't dumb -- either way, they're going to do it slowly so it's harder for us to notice (like with the recent example of zero rating).
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
It really gets tiring living in this country as a non-white person sometimes, sigh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Downes
More of the latter creates a situation where less of the former is needed. Unfortunately the regulatory capture (and in this case an industry that is a natural monopoly with high barriers to entrance) in the US is such that the latter is basically a pipe dream without the former.
Erdogan is going to get the result he is looking for in the next 24 hours or so.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Just read another conservative rant about paid protestors, and what gets me is that it's so easy to prove if it's true! Like the "Romney got zero votes in some precincts, FRAUD!" claims, isn't it obvious that if that were the case a wealthy GOP donor could just put out a bounty for anyone who's willing to bring proof of such deception?
Soros isn't paying people millions so clearly if you offer a reward of a few million for the confirmation email or pay stub (or even just to wear a wire for the cash payoff), you'd catch someone paying protestors, right?
Conspiracies are so fucking dumb.
Marvel legit could not have done better on their casting. Evans is retaking patriotism from the shitheads.
Soros isn't paying people millions so clearly if you offer a reward of a few million for the confirmation email or pay stub (or even just to wear a wire for the cash payoff), you'd catch someone paying protestors, right?
Conspiracies are so fucking dumb.
Marvel legit could not have done better on their casting. Evans is retaking patriotism from the shitheads.
I have a bunch of Cap shield T-shirts. It's the one "patriotic" AND "geek" thing I actually don't mind wearing.
(The left does this with their "oh they're misunderstood, not evil/racist" shit too.)
It's projection. Their protests in '09/'10 were astroturfed by millionaires and billionaires.
(The left does this with their "oh they're misunderstood, not evil/racist" shit too.)
aspiegamer
Member
This. FOX News was on board from day 1, broadcasting live from the first tea party event as a big special thing. For some reason I explicitly remember watching this. There was always a plan throughout the party and affiliated media, and it worked incredibly well going into the 2010 midterms.
Wag
Member
https://whitehouse.gov1.info/easter-egg-roll/
Well, it appears the Easter Egg Roll is still on with Melania hosting. They're already warning on the website to keep the expectations low. I'm hoping everything will go well for the kid's sake but we all know how it goes with the current administration.
They've clearly been hiding Melania from the press, now that she's going to be hosting an event, I don't see how they're going to be able to do that.
Well, it appears the Easter Egg Roll is still on with Melania hosting. They're already warning on the website to keep the expectations low. I'm hoping everything will go well for the kid's sake but we all know how it goes with the current administration.
They've clearly been hiding Melania from the press, now that she's going to be hosting an event, I don't see how they're going to be able to do that.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked