Making sense of the current political climate

Discuss everything else: politics, society, culture, science, philosophy, ideas, etc.
Post Reply
nameless
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 632
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 374
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: None at this time.

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by nameless » 1 week ago

Admin wrote:
2 weeks ago
Democrats have never accepted the results of the 2016 election, they hate Trump's guts, they hate the fact that he's winning on nearly every front, and they know that they've already lost the 2020 election.

Despite all that, Trump won't be impeached, and the Democrats will continue their temper tantrums, moving on to the next nothingburger, instead of concentrating on what matters: values, good policies and the well-being of the American people.
Give me a break Admin!!!!!!! You suggest that Trump is for the American people and democrats are not.

The partial transcripts of the Ukraine Call that Donald Trump's own White House released indicates that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine unless Ukraine would agree to investigate Biden. That is not helping the American people; that is helping Trump personally because such an investigation could take out the President's chief rival, Joe Biden. And this is how all of Trump's deals work - they all help Trump, not so much the American people. For example, he blabs on and on about how he is going to create new "perfect" healthcare that will help everybody but it won't really help everybody. It won't help the people who can't afford health insurance. It will take health insurance from the people who can't afford health insurance, which will help Trump (and other rich people) because they're the ones who mostly pay for health insurance for people who can't afford it and they won't have to pay for it anymore if Trump gets his way. In other words, as is usually the case, Trump is trying to help himself at the expense of a lot of Americans. This means you're totally FOS when you indicate Trump is for the American people. Trump is for himself and others like himself, but mostly he's for himself.

And of course, it's the democrats, who you say won't help people, who are trying to protect health insurance for people who can't afford it.

And Trump will DEFINITELY be impeached. Impeachment happens in the House, which is controlled by the democrats. The Senate is controlled by Republicans but the Senate does not get to decide whether or not to impeach. The GOP senate gets to decide whether or not to convict the person who has been impeached by the House.
Last edited by nameless 1 week ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 465
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1233
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by yettee » 1 week ago

pjhair wrote:
1 week ago
But I pointed out why is that so. It's because we are NOT getting fair representation in media and academia. Why should the focus of my outrage be the fringes and not the mainstream??
Because both are huge problems. Why do you think the fringe is growing? I know the narrative here is that it's the left's fault, and also, they are like the left. There's another narrative.... the fringe is nothing new. Nor is the left being dominant in media something new. What's new is the way internet allows people with fringe ideas to brazenly and creatively spread them.

User avatar
rclark
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1271
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1496
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: Finasteride 1 mg daily, Progesterone 2% (22mg daily), Minoxidil 15% hair growth only).
Using 1.5 mm needle on all bald/balding areas weekly.

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by rclark » 1 week ago

pjhair wrote:
1 week ago
I am sorry Yette but far left has gone mainstream. They dominate academia and media now. Extreme right is truly just limited to fringes. So yeah, right and left are not on even grounds and that's why a lot of us on the right exclusively criticize the left. This asymmetry is just limited to academia/media though. Thankfully, people in general are still more balanced. But leftist elites are clueless of that and that's why they are shocked when someone like president Trump wins the presidential election. They will continue to be shocked because they live in a bubble.

The most infuriating thing about far left is that they see themselves as "good" and "open minded". So naturally that precludes any possibility of introspection. That's precisely why they don't notice their own racist, bigoted, arrogant, sanctimonious and disgusting behavior and ideas.
The problem is that Trump has been pointing the finger at everyone his whole career. In my own opinion, I think he got rid
of Paul Ryan, the former head Republican. Probably because the entire country wanted a Universal Health Care, including Republicans
as well. There was no way Paul Ryan could get rid of the Affordable Care Act without suffering at the polls.

Trump thought he could get away with bribing a country with military aid, and that's what he wanted. He acted angry about it, saying
everyone was a traitor and should be hanged by their thumbs. The military aid was money from Independents and Democrats that went
towards him financing his campaign, by him using their money.

It is very possible that he was spied on, and it is very possible that Rudy set him up.

On some level, even if he didn't understand it was against the law, he must of known that it was wrong. Someone had to tell him it
was illegal, and if they didn't, it was either because they were afraid of him, probably because they were investigated.

The gains that the Democrats make will only be temporary, if all they do is point fingers at the other party. Eventually, in four years
people will ask themselves what has this person done for me. They really can't run an entire platform on finger pointing, which
several United States politicians are all doing.
Think happy thoughts.

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 734
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1483
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by JLBB » 1 week ago

Hairblues wrote:
1 week ago
When facts are on your side you don’t need to do all that in your post.

Allowing a president to remain in office who went against the Constitution crushes the spirit of democracy. Left right up down blah blah blah.
Note that this is a progressive left, Bernie supporting source and I'd strongly recommend you read:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... no-not-yet

"Diplomatic quid pro quo — requiring certain actions, behavior or “conditions” in return for U.S. aid — is common, according to current and former diplomats I spoke with, and foreign policy guidance. “Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the President may determine the terms and conditions under which most forms of assistance are provided.”

"A former Obama administration State Department official told me that, by controversializing this common practice, “the Democrats are basically hamstringing any future president.” He adds: “That’s why this is a constitutional moment ...... Foreign aid is widely considered a tool to allow the U.S. “access and influence in the domestic and foreign affairs of other states,” particularly “national security policy.” It also “helps governments achieve mutual cooperation on a wide range of issues.”"

I've posted the following before, not that you give a shit about evidence that runs contrary to or recontextualizes your little narrative and impeachment fantasies:

"Multiple reports allege that Ukrainian officials, under a previous Ukrainian president, partnered with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2016 to “sabotage Trump.” According to Politico, “Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump.” A paid consultant with the DNC, Alexandra Chalupa, met with Ukrainian officials in 2016 to “expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia,” Politico reported,"

And one of the most noteworthy:

"On Tuesday, headlines were made from widely leaked closed-door testimony by William Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who assumed that position in July. Taylor reportedly testified he was “alarmed” that the Trump administration supposedly was withholding military assistance unless Ukraine committed to investigating 2016 election corruption, including alleged wrongdoing by the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

Yet Ambassador Taylor is very familiar with the process of “conditioning” U.S. foreign aid. He spoke of it extensively in November 2011 after he had just been handpicked by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for a new position as the State Department’s Special Coordinator for Middle East Transitions, specifically Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.

“You’ll condition your aid based on the direction in which these countries are going?” a reporter asked Taylor at a news conference.

“Our assistance is part of our foreign policy. This is clear,” Taylor replied. He went on to give examples of how U.S. aid would be used as leverage. Quid pro quo.

“We will say to the Egyptians, don’t send us that check [you owe the U.S.] for a billion dollars, which is actually 300 million over three years, keep that there, but we will agree with you — we, the United States Government, will agree with you, the Egyptian Government, on how to spend that billion dollars in Egypt,” Taylor told reporters. A more recent example is the admission by former Vice President Joe Biden that he was able to get Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor as a condition to receive U.S. foreign aid. Quid pro quo."


"A quid pro quo has two essential parts. First, a deal must be understood between the parties. In this case, it would be President Trump delivering U.S. aid if, and only if, the president of Ukraine delivers dirt on Trump’s “political rival” and potential 2020 opponent — Joe Biden.

Second, the goods must actually be delivered. In this case, President Trump would have had to receive the requested packet of “dirt” on Biden, in order to trigger release the U.S. aid to Ukraine. So far, there is not an allegation that Part Two ever occurred. Without delivery of the dirt, there’s no quid pro quo. Just a quid."

And lets be clear about exactly what you think he should be impeached over, investigating Hunter Biden, who FIFTY SEVEN PERCENT OF AMERICANS AGREE SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED.

https://www.investors.com/politics/amer ... den-probe/

Not to mention mainstream media, specifically the well regarded NYT brought up this issue and potential corruption well before Trump was elected, making it very difficult to argue that there can be corrupt intent in trying to force an investigation:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/worl ... -ties.html

The other problem is you don't seem to be able to grasp that constitutional law is much broader than the literal words on the page, a court and judge will consider the implications and intentions of the how a situation may apply to the laws. On top of that, for a crime to be committed here, there has to be corrupt intent. The Foreign Assistance Act 1961 allows conditions (quid pro quo) on aid, and in this situation there was bipartisan concern about corruption well before Trump brought up the issue, the majority of the country currently believe Hunter should be investigated, and as the head of the Justice Department, Trump has every right to lead an investigation into a political opponent or his family, just as the Obama administration did to Trump's campaign with wiretaps on campaign members that were ultimately proved 100% innocent. Hypothetically, if illegal this would also imply that a president has no means of investigating a political rival who has undeniably, objectively committed corrupt and illegal acts in a foreign country. If you took this to the supreme court there is no way in hell you'd be able to set this precedent because it goes against the intent of the laws to begin with, which is to stop intentionally corruption and not to stop someone from investigating corruption which you are (insanely) arguing for.

Ultimately, you're arguing that there is corrupt intent by conditioning aid for an investigation with bipartisan and majority support that had already been the subject of cancelled investigation in Ukraine because of an obvious conflict of interest that Hunter had admitted was the wrong decision, and says he will not engage in going forward (because of course its the most obvious conflict of interest humanly imaginable and he's effectively admitting that)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... aine-swamp

What you have here is a delusional fantasy for impeachment which has existed virtually from day one, based on nothing but disappointment in a failed election.

I will give you one thing though, that Babylon Bee article is indeed horribly written.

User avatar
Hairblues
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1264
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2384
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by Hairblues » 1 week ago

JLBB wrote:
1 week ago
Note that this is a progressive left, Bernie supporting source and I'd strongly recommend you read:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... no-not-yet

"Diplomatic quid pro quo — requiring certain actions, behavior or “conditions” in return for U.S. aid — is common, according to current and former diplomats I spoke with, and foreign policy guidance. “Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the President may determine the terms and conditions under which most forms of assistance are provided.”

"A former Obama administration State Department official told me that, by controversializing this common practice, “the Democrats are basically hamstringing any future president.” He adds: “That’s why this is a constitutional moment ...... Foreign aid is widely considered a tool to allow the U.S. “access and influence in the domestic and foreign affairs of other states,” particularly “national security policy.” It also “helps governments achieve mutual cooperation on a wide range of issues.”"

I've posted the following before, not that you give a shit about evidence that runs contrary to or recontextualizes your little narrative and impeachment fantasies:

"Multiple reports allege that Ukrainian officials, under a previous Ukrainian president, partnered with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2016 to “sabotage Trump.” According to Politico, “Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump.” A paid consultant with the DNC, Alexandra Chalupa, met with Ukrainian officials in 2016 to “expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia,” Politico reported,"

And one of the most noteworthy:

"On Tuesday, headlines were made from widely leaked closed-door testimony by William Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who assumed that position in July. Taylor reportedly testified he was “alarmed” that the Trump administration supposedly was withholding military assistance unless Ukraine committed to investigating 2016 election corruption, including alleged wrongdoing by the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

Yet Ambassador Taylor is very familiar with the process of “conditioning” U.S. foreign aid. He spoke of it extensively in November 2011 after he had just been handpicked by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for a new position as the State Department’s Special Coordinator for Middle East Transitions, specifically Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.

“You’ll condition your aid based on the direction in which these countries are going?” a reporter asked Taylor at a news conference.

“Our assistance is part of our foreign policy. This is clear,” Taylor replied. He went on to give examples of how U.S. aid would be used as leverage. Quid pro quo.

“We will say to the Egyptians, don’t send us that check [you owe the U.S.] for a billion dollars, which is actually 300 million over three years, keep that there, but we will agree with you — we, the United States Government, will agree with you, the Egyptian Government, on how to spend that billion dollars in Egypt,” Taylor told reporters. A more recent example is the admission by former Vice President Joe Biden that he was able to get Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor as a condition to receive U.S. foreign aid. Quid pro quo."


"A quid pro quo has two essential parts. First, a deal must be understood between the parties. In this case, it would be President Trump delivering U.S. aid if, and only if, the president of Ukraine delivers dirt on Trump’s “political rival” and potential 2020 opponent — Joe Biden.

Second, the goods must actually be delivered. In this case, President Trump would have had to receive the requested packet of “dirt” on Biden, in order to trigger release the U.S. aid to Ukraine. So far, there is not an allegation that Part Two ever occurred. Without delivery of the dirt, there’s no quid pro quo. Just a quid."

And lets be clear about exactly what you think he should be impeached over, investigating Hunter Biden, who FIFTY SEVEN PERCENT OF AMERICANS AGREE SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED.

https://www.investors.com/politics/amer ... den-probe/

Not to mention mainstream media, specifically the well regarded NYT brought up this issue and potential corruption well before Trump was elected, making it very difficult to argue that there can be corrupt intent in trying to force an investigation:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/worl ... -ties.html

The other problem is you don't seem to be able to grasp that constitutional law is much broader than the literal words on the page, a court and judge will consider the implications and intentions of the how a situation may apply to the laws. On top of that, for a crime to be committed here, there has to be corrupt intent. The Foreign Assistance Act 1961 allows conditions (quid pro quo) on aid, and in this situation there was bipartisan concern about corruption well before Trump brought up the issue, the majority of the country currently believe Hunter should be investigated, and as the head of the Justice Department, Trump has every right to lead an investigation into a political opponent or his family, just as the Obama administration did to Trump's campaign with wiretaps on campaign members that were ultimately proved 100% innocent. Hypothetically, if illegal this would also imply that a president has no means of investigating a political rival who has undeniably, objectively committed corrupt and illegal acts in a foreign country. If you took this to the supreme court there is no way in hell you'd be able to set this precedent because it goes against the intent of the laws to begin with, which is to stop intentionally corruption and not to stop someone from investigating corruption which you are (insanely) arguing for.

Ultimately, you're arguing that there is corrupt intent by conditioning aid for an investigation with bipartisan and majority support that had already been the subject of cancelled investigation in Ukraine because of an obvious conflict of interest that Hunter had admitted was the wrong decision, and says he will not engage in going forward (because of course its the most obvious conflict of interest humanly imaginable and he's effectively admitting that)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... aine-swamp

What you have here is a delusional fantasy for impeachment which has existed virtually from day one, based on nothing but disappointment in a failed election.

I will give you one thing though, that Babylon Bee article is indeed horribly written.
1.Yes I know quid pro quo is common in foreign policy. That's not in question as far as I know. It's done for the benefit of the United States, Not for personal gain. It's used as leverage. But not for personal and petty reasons.
That is where the abuse of power lies.

What is your position on this?
Do you even agree he did quid pro quo?
because the republican senators and congressman and even Trump himself leave me really confused on their official position on this..
He didn't do it one week--nothing was 'wrong' with the call look at the transcript blah blah blah,
Then he did do it the next week, but it's not impeachable, look at the procedure not what he actually did or what he intended to do etc.
The messaging is so all over the place and it keeps adapting. And that is what people do when they try and cover shit up.

2. The other problem is you don't seem to be able to grasp that constitutional law is much broader than the literal words on the page, a court and judge will consider the implications and intentions of the how a situation may apply to the laws. On top of that, for a crime to be committed here, there has to be corrupt intent. The Foreign Assistance Act 1961 allows conditions (quid pro quo) on aid, and in this situation there was bipartisan concern about corruption well before Trump brought up the issue, the majority of the country currently believe Hunter should be investigated, and as the head of the Justice Department, Trump has every right to lead an investigation into a political opponent or his family, just as the Obama administration did to Trump's campaign with wiretaps on campaign members that were ultimately proved 100% innocent. Hypothetically, if illegal this would also imply that a president has no means of investigating a political rival who has undeniably, objectively committed corrupt and illegal acts in a foreign country. If you took this to the supreme court there is no way in hell you'd be able to set this precedent because it goes against the intent of the laws to begin with, which is to stop intentionally corruption and not to stop someone from investigating corruption which you are (insanely) arguing for.

You don't think his singling out Joe and Hunter Biden in an election year has corrupt intent?
What other American citizen has he been asking overseas governments to investigate?

As far as your statistics on Hunter Biden was that before Trump did this?
Because I'm a left leaning liberal and I never even knew Hunter Bidens name before this summer...so I really doubt that 'most' of the country wanted him investigated at the time of Trump's actions.

Trump does NOT have every right to ask a foreign Govt to investigate a political opponent or his family especially Not using approved aid as leverage and especially not during an election year--it's an abuse of power.

The FBI investigated Trump for wire tapping..Is the FBI investigating Hunger Biden? Is the justice department investigating Hunter Biden?

If we don't have an open investigation into Hunter or Joe Biden, then why would we ask a foreign country to do this?
Wouldn't abuse of executive power in this country be an American crime?

The Obama Administration used procedures within this country to launch an investigation.
You may not agree with the FISA warrants but that is how they went about what you are mentioning.

Mannafort, Stone, Flynn and Cohen were not found to be 100% innocent. :shock:


They were indicted on crimes by the USA Justice Department under the Trump Administration--NOT a foreign govt.

3. What delusion do I have about impeachment or fantasy?
He's being impeached. He won't be taken down. He will run in 2020. Where have I said otherwise?

To be really honest? I actually think if he wins another 4 years he will be less powerful and damaging to the USA in long run.
I think if he loses and has his own media presence that he can establish at the height of his popularity with his base, he's actually more powerful and dangerous for years to come. He controls that base, so he will have a lot of control in their primaries.

I do think impeachment is important because he's pushing the boundary of the office and all these things he's doing would be flipping out the republicans if it was someone on the left or even in the center. You just can't see that because you like/agree with him on most issues.

Pretend it was Hillary Clinton who won and ALL of this was coming out...you'd seriously not have an issue?

pjhair
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 650
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1952

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by pjhair » 1 week ago

yettee wrote:
1 week ago
Because both are huge problems. Why do you think the fringe is growing? I know the narrative here is that it's the left's fault, and also, they are like the left. There's another narrative.... the fringe is nothing new. Nor is the left being dominant in media something new. What's new is the way internet allows people with fringe ideas to brazenly and creatively spread them.
I didn't say that fringe is growing. If anything, right wing fringe has shrunk significantly compared to past. As far as left is concerned, in recent decades they have become increasingly dominant in the academic departments. They have done so by playing nepotism and hiring faculties that are amenable to their point of view. Academia has clear left wing bias on a lot of issues. If you get a chance, please check out Niall Fergusons account of this.

When it comes to social issues, the last thing I am interested in is what an "academic" from Harvard or Yale has to say about it.
Trump 2020

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 465
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1233
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by yettee » 1 week ago

pjhair wrote:
1 week ago
I didn't say that fringe is growing. If anything, right wing fringe has shrunk significantly compared to past.
On this we would disagree. I suppose this would be the core of the disagreement then. I could post a linkorama with stats showing increased attacks, activity, country after country where police chiefs are saying that right wing extremism is a major and growing threat

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit ... SKCN1GA2KB

but I suppose you'd say they're all biased and incorrect. So I don't know. We all know about the attacks of the past couple of years and the accompanying manifestos and what they say and how they are spread and read, we can all see far right, fringe images more and more frequently appear on our screens until they almost seem normalized after so many repeated viewings. So I don't see the point in multiparagraph essays trying to prove this, we all read the news and know the score and you either see it and agree or you don't.

But you know, on your point,
pjhair wrote:
1 week ago
As far as left is concerned, in recent decades they have become increasingly dominant in the academic departments.
I don't have any problem accepting that that's probably true. I also don't have a problem admitting that most mainstream media is biased to the left. So from my point of view there are legit complaints from both the right and left.

Added in 11 minutes 13 seconds:
Hairblues wrote:
1 week ago
You don't think his singling out Joe and Hunter Biden in an election year has corrupt intent?
Or, perhaps it is a coincidence that out of 330,000,000 Americans, the one he wanted investigated for corruption just happened to be the same one polls show has the best chance of beating him in the next election. You never know.

pjhair
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 650
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1952

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by pjhair » 1 week ago

yettee wrote:
1 week ago
On this we would disagree. I suppose this would be the core of the disagreement then. I could post a linkorama with stats showing increased attacks, activity, country after country where police chiefs are saying that right wing extremism is a major and growing threat

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit ... SKCN1GA2KB
There may be occasional blip in right wing extremism but in the grand scheme it has certainly gone down since the second world war. The blip can sometimes be explained by some events. For example, when president Obama got elected in 2008, the number of right wing hate groups went to 10,000 in the US, according to SPLC. But that blip was temporary and didn't result in anything serious. However, the dominance of left in academia has only increased and it's getting worse.
Trump 2020

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 465
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1233
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by yettee » 1 week ago

pjhair wrote:
1 week ago
There may be occasional blip in right wing extremism but in the grand scheme it has certainly gone down since the second world war.
I would hope it's gone down since the end of WWII! But, you know, I don't think 'blip' is the word for what's happening.
https://apnews.com/0457e96b9eb74d30b66c2d190c6ed7e5

pjhair
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 650
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1952

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by pjhair » 1 week ago

yettee wrote:
1 week ago
I would hope it's gone down since the end of WWII! But, you know, I don't think 'blip' is the word for what's happening.
https://apnews.com/0457e96b9eb74d30b66c2d190c6ed7e5
The article clearly doesn't attribute growing anti antisemitism solely to right wing. From the article:

"It is now clear that anti-Semitism is no longer limited to the far-left, far-right and radical Islamist’s triangle — it has become mainstream and often accepted by civil society,” he said."

Also from the article:

"n addition to the shooting attacks, assaults and vandalism, Kantor also noted the increased anti-Semitic vitriol online and in newspapers, including a recent anti-Semitic cartoon that appeared in The New York Times’ international edition. "

New York Times is NOT a right wing extremist newspaper.

Also from the article:

" In Germany, for instance, there was a 70% increase in anti-Semitic violence."

It's interesting that alleged increase in anti semitic violence occurred when over a million Muslim migrants arrived in Germany.
Trump 2020

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 465
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1233
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by yettee » 1 week ago

pjhair wrote:
1 week ago
The article clearly doesn't attribute growing anti antisemitism solely to right wing.
You're right about that. I'm trying to avoid a linkathon, but this is more to the point.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-far- ... ted-states

I hope you're right about it being an aberration, I suppose time will tell.
Last edited by yettee 1 week ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 465
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1233
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by yettee » 1 week ago

Complete silence in response to the extensive, well footnoted article and charts. Just left wing nonsense I guess? But it is an analysis by a nonpartisan think tank, not a left wing (or right wing for that matter) media story. (thanks Admin for fixing the link)

---
The threat from right-wing terrorism in the United States—and Europe—appears to be rising. Of particular concern are white supremacists and anti-government extremists, such as militia groups and so-called sovereign citizens interested in plotting attacks against government, racial, religious, and political targets in the United States....Although violent left-wing groups and individuals also present a threat, far-right-networks appear to be better armed and larger.

The Rise in Far-Right Extremism
Terrorist attacks by right-wing extremists in the United States have increased. Between 2007 and 2011, the number of such attacks was five or less per year. They then rose to 14 in 2012; continued at a similar level between 2012 and 2016, with a mean of 11 attacks and a median of 13 attacks; and then jumped to 31 in 2017.7 FBI arrests of right-wing extremists also increased in 2018.

Factors Driving Far-Right Extremism
Why is there a rise in far-right attacks? Several factors may have contributed to this growth.
First, right-wing extremists are increasingly using the internet and social media to issue propaganda statements, coordinate training (including combat training), organize travel to attend protests and other events, raise funds, recruit members, and communicate with others.

Like the United States, Europe faces a growing threat from extreme right-wing groups. As Figure 3 highlights, extreme right-wing attacks have significantly increased—from 0 in 2012 to 9 in 2013; 21 in 2016; and 30 in 2017.

Much like in the United States, right-wing networks and individuals have broadened their contacts in other countries, especially in Europe and North America. In addition, right-wing extremists also have increasingly leveraged the internet and social media.

User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1607
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2481

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by blackg » 1 week ago

**Crickets**
Save me from destiny.

pjhair
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 650
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1952

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by pjhair » 1 week ago

yettee wrote:
1 week ago
Complete silence in response to the extensive, well footnoted article and charts. Just left wing nonsense I guess?
To be honest, I haven't even opened your link yet. Nevertheless, I thought the conversation ended when you said the following in your previous post:
yettee wrote:
1 week ago
I hope you're right about it being an aberration, I suppose time will tell.
In my opinion the alleged increase in right wing extremism is a temporary blip in grand scheme of thing. Your response was that time will tell. I thought there was nothing more to be discussed? Anyway, if you want my opinion on the link you posted, I will give it, but not today as my mind is occupied with another issue right now.
Trump 2020

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 465
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1233
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by yettee » 1 week ago

pjhair wrote:
1 week ago
To be honest, I haven't even opened your link yet. Nevertheless, I thought the conversation ended when you said the following in your previous post:

In my opinion the alleged increase in right wing extremism is a temporary blip in grand scheme of thing. Your response was that time will tell. I thought there was nothing more to be discussed? Anyway, if you want my opinion on the link you posted, I will give it, but not today as my mind is occupied with another issue right now.
I'd be interested in any opinion from anyone, or none at all, no pressure. I just thought it was curious that it got crickets. When you say it's a blip, it sounds like you think the situation is just going to resolve or go away, I'm not sure why. And it's not "alleged", just read the article and look at the data.

Good luck with your other issue. :)

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Admin, Google Adsense [Bot] and 4 guests