What about the GOP attracts nazis and white supremacists?
- Thread starter anon_xl72qcu5isp39
- Start date
Then why did you vote for him if you don't share his political/policy commitments?
Grand Openin' Grand Closin'
Any other brain busters, Sys?
The Racists Support Trump Scene
Movie 1: Racist groups support Trump because they hear his secret racist dog whistle, thus proving he is a racist.
Movie 2: Racists approve of Trump’s tough immigration policies in part, one assumes, because they think it will allow fewer non-whites into the country. Non-racist Trump supporters support Trump’s immigration policies because they place a high priority on law and order. Different groups can like the same thing for different reasons. For example, target shooters like guns, and murderers like guns, but that doesn’t make target shooters murderers.
Any other brain busters, Sys?
The Racists Support Trump Scene
Movie 1: Racist groups support Trump because they hear his secret racist dog whistle, thus proving he is a racist.
Movie 2: Racists approve of Trump’s tough immigration policies in part, one assumes, because they think it will allow fewer non-whites into the country. Non-racist Trump supporters support Trump’s immigration policies because they place a high priority on law and order. Different groups can like the same thing for different reasons. For example, target shooters like guns, and murderers like guns, but that doesn’t make target shooters murderers.
That's what I said. More than once. I also posted that I respected him voting in line with his constituents regarding gun laws rather than voting a party line.
So essentially, what you did is no different than a Democrat voting for Obama and Clinton simply because they were the Democratic nominee and the alternative to McCain/Romney and Trump, correct?
Uh, no. You asked if I researched Sanders. I replied that I had. You asked if I mostly agreed with him and I replied no. You asked if I voted for him as a vote against Clinton and I replied yes.
That is wholly different than syskatine claiming ignorance on Saul Alinksky and me asking him if he had researched Obama and Clinton prior to voting for them or had just voted what the party wanted. Both Obama and Clinton have notable histories with Saul Alinksky.
If I had voted what the Democratic party wanted, I would have voted for Hillary in the primary. If I had voted what the Republican party wanted, I would have changed my registration to Republican and voted in their primary.
He wasn't claiming ignorance on Alinsky. He was simply claiming that Alinsky doesn't have the hold over all Democrats and/or liberals like Ponca seems to think he does.
You voted for someone you didn't agree with simply because you were voting against another candidate you didn't like. I just don't see how that is much different than voting for someone you may know little about to vote against another candidate one dislikes.
btw, you plan on voting for Sanders again in 2020 if he runs?
Well, aborting humans is killing humans. Anyone who supports abortion supports killing humans. I'd say pro-choice Democrats have established a fairly solid pattern, no?
If you're pro-choice, you're pro killing of humans because that's what abortion is. Dogs and cats aren't being aborted from human uteruses.
Yes, I read his post and what you just bolded. Again, he was simply claiming that Alinsky doesn't have the hold over all Democrats and/or liberals (notice how he mentioned his Democratic friends?) like Ponca seems to think he does. If they don't mention Alinsky or are not really aware of him, he doesn't have a hold over them.
Last edited:
No. If you one is pro-choice, one believes the decision about abortion should be a decision made by a woman in consultation with her doctor and others, not the government. It doesn't necessarily mean one is pro-abortion, hence the term "pro-choice."
One can be pro-choice and personally opposed to abortion.
Uh, no again.
Posting "none of us have ever mentioned or even demonstrated awareness of Saul Alinsky.Who has conditioned you to believe that Saul Alinsky is relevant to all these people that have never heard about him?" isn't "simply claiming that Alinsky doesn't have the hold over all Democrats and/or liberals." He's literally saying he and his educated friends aren't aware of and have never heard of Alinsky.
Not being aware of Alinsky is perfectly fine. You can't have done much research on Obama or Clinton and have never heard of Alinsky though. And that's why I asked syskatine the question I did. It's fine if he knew nothing about Obama or Clinton when he voted for them.
That said, do you really believe that syskatine has never heard of Saul Alinsky? Have you heard of Alinsky?
Here’s my objection to your Alinsky-like technique: there’s a certain way of addressing an opponent in which one person accuses another of a particular misdeed while deflecting any possible blowback on himself by crediting the accusation to an anonymous source.
I first noticed this technique in the MSM years ago. Katie Couric was a master at it. She would taunt someone with the most vile accusations by beginning with “Some of your opponents...,”or Some people say....” And would cover up her guilt by smiling her perky little smile, staring sweetly into the eyes of the person she just accused of some vile activity or belief.
In some ways it is a brilliant tactic because it allows the accuser to declare total innocence, they’re just repeating things claimed by someone else (the someone else is conveniently not identified). The person accusing you to your face believes that makes him clean of the mud slinging, there can be no personal retort made to them in response.
It is a cowardly, Alinsky-like technique designed to constantly keep the opponent on the defensive, always very subtle, and always leaving the accuser the appearance of innocence by pointing the finger at “someone else.” The accuser maintains he is being objective, just wants to get to the facts, just wants to clear the air, just wants the accused to have the opportunity to explain his vile behavior or belief. As I said it is a brilliant technique, but it is cowardly and completely backhanded.
2cents I really like that you so rarely seem to raise your voice and that you always try to appear calm and reasoned in your approach. This Alinsky-like technique you use is beneath what are your obvious debating skills. You may not appreciate that I call you out on it, but I will continue to do so.
Somebody that isn't Hillary or a silly "progressive." There aren't any names officially in the hat yet. Much like college sports, I'm not into the recruiting phase. I'll get interested once they sign.
I'm still dug in on your gaslighting in the other thread. Again, I don't want to enable fact-free debate. Debate is healthy, but lying to push an agenda is not.
Movie 1 is getting warm. I might substitute "suggesting" instead of "proving."
Movie 2 makes sense too. So where do we go with this?
I'm still dug in on your gaslighting in the other thread. Again, I don't want to enable this fact-free debate. Debate is healthy, but lying to push an agenda is not.
In response to Ponca's post. sy's post doesn't stand alone outside of the context of this thread.
I disagree. Alinsky is a talking point of the far-right. He is one of their created bogeymen. Unless one is familiar with this or exposed to far-right political messaging, one could easily not be aware of Alinsky.
Did sy claim he personally had never heard of Alinsky?
And yes, I have heard of Alinsky but my introduction to him came from reading a right-wing source.
Did some of that person's opponents actually say what she was asking about?
If I asked Trump about "some of his opponents accusations" that he colluded with Russia, or if I asked Clinton about "some of her opponents accusations" that she broke the law, how is that inappropriate?
I would think most politicians would jump at the chance to address the claims of their political opponents, especially if they are false. Unless they just always expect easy questions from reporters.
You would not do well in a courtroom. I wonder if you would yell out, "Objection, Alinsky-like technique" lol.
And again, drop the Alinsky non-sense. It doesn't help your arguments at all.
Well, since Hillary wrote her college senior thesis on Alinsky, and since you are a Democrat who supported Hillary, who believes her college experience is proof of her intelligence, I find it hard to believe you first heard of him from a right-wing source. Not to mention that Obama practiced the techniques taught in his Radicals book when he was a community organizer in Chicago. Alinsky’s book is a veritable bible among left wing activists. Do you want to alter your testimony?
Out of the names that have been mentioned, who do you think is the best option for Democrats?
1). If you believe Republicans have a racist tinge to them then man up and say so. Don’t hide behind “some people say.”
2). I am unaware of any person on this board being a politician. How a politician might respond is immaterial to this discussion. The technique is used (mostly by leftists) as a tool regardless of the target of the insult.
3). I would be HORRIBLE in a courtroom!
4). I will drop the Akinsky nonsense as soon as you do.
And you've done nothing to convince us you would do well either. What does that have to do with anything in this thread?
lol
lol
Weird. Do you think Obama learned community organizing from a far-right political source?
All of the "far right" crap is just distraction.
I don't care what you believe, that is how I first heard about him.
lol, no it isn't. sy is right, there are plenty of left-wing activists who know very little about Alinsky. They don't spend their time sitting around and talking about Alinsky. They aren't running to the book store to read his book or placing his book in an honored place in their home.
Sorry Ponca, he just isn't the bogeyman or the man behind the curtain you've been led to believe he is.
Who has been mentioned? Elizabeth Warren? Hillary? Sorry, out on both. Biden? Maybe, if he doesn't come out campaigning as a silly progressive. The Democrats are having a hard time figuring what they are right now.
Just to be clear, you and we are smart enough to know that you're purposefully lying.
That is exactly the status of like 99.975% of rank and file democrats. He was a counter-culture, Chicago 7 type of guy that had a following in the 60's from what I can tell. If I ever heard of him it was in context of something like that. 99.9% of what I've heard is from wingnuts. I've marveled at their obsession with him multiple times.
But for wingnut obsession with him, he is at most an obscure historical footnote that doesn't even make the initial grade as a prominent counter culture hippies from the 1960's. It's one of 1000 narratives they run with and it has zero basis in reality. One narrative is that HRC wrote about him in college, so she follows whatever he was for. I wrote about Guiseppe Garibaldi in a paper, but I never really gave a shit about Italian revolution or what he thought. One reason I think they believe it is because they think if you sit down and do lurnin' and expend the energy to write about something then you must really believe it and follow it like it's the bible, because they wrote down some bible verses one time real nice and they was real important, it's still in a drawer.
I think I clearly told you what I believe about Republicans. But yes, some people say something else. Sorry this bothers you so much.
No, it is very material when you bring up an interview that Katie Couric gave, which is what I was responding to.
Politicians who are interviewed are often asked about what their political opponents say. This is nothing new nor should anyone be outraged about it.
lol, yeah, especially if think Alisky is hiding everywhere and behind everything.
lol. That's some funny shit right there. Why do you lefties act like Alinsky is such a bad word? It's like you have Alinskyphobia or something.
Obama isn't all Democrats or all liberals, now is he?
And the real distraction is all this Alinksy junk.
Clever deflections. Katie interviews many people that were not politicians. She interviewed talking heads of every persuasion. The only outrage I feel toward it is it is cowardly.
I don’t recall playing the “Alinsky” card on anyone but you. That hardly is evidence that I see it everywhere, hiding behind everything.
