(01-14-2020 05:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: What I find funny is that you extend, in the case of Kamala bunny bumping her way, *every* question of doubt in your defense of her bedride up.
As for 'all marchers' bad, you extend zero questions of doubt.
Interesting stances.
I don't really find them that interesting.
When someone is at a protest marching between a guy carrying a nazi flag, a guy chanting "Jews will not replace us" and a guy chanting "blood and soil", then the vast, vast majority of people will make assumptions about the nameless marcher who isn't carrying the sign or chanting those slogans. I find it kind of shocking that none of the conservatives here are making any assumptions about that person. If I found myself in that situation, I'd immediately get the heck out of dodge (and not just because I'm 1/4 alaska native and would fear physical harm). If you march with those people, then I assume they march with those people because they generally agree with the tone of the march. Otherwise, why be there?
When someone has consensual sex with someone else, I assume they did so because they wanted to have sex. Otherwise, again, why be there? Why do you assume Harris was having sex with Brown just to improve her professional career? If she had not gotten appointed to those commissions and Brown had never helped any of Harris's campaigns, would that have exonerated her in your mind?
When I was in college, I joked to friends (including my future wife) that I wanted to marry someone with money some day. My wife earns more than twice as much as me. When I decided to propose to my wife, she was in med school and I knew she was highly, highly likely to make more money than me for most of our careers. Am I a prostitute, skank, slut, or whore? Would it change your mind if my wife had said that I was the bigger money earner? I feel like I made a good point, maybe Fountains can give me a mic drop gif? I don't know where to find all the cool gifs ... I'm too old for that.
As I noted before, you extend *every* benefit of the doubt to Kamala.
You extend zero benefit of the doubt to marchers.
By the way, you do know the term 'Blood and Soil' is *not* specifically a racist statement? It actually refers to those who served in the Confederate forces.
Or does anything that even *hints* at the Confederacy mean racism to you? I can tell you undoubtedly the term you so proudly highlight actually means something very different to those who can actually trace roots to the south, and can trace roots to the Confederate forces.
But if you want to knee-jerk the statement into a purely racist slogan because of any tie to the Confederacy whatsoever (which you seemingly do), then, to be bluntly honest, I now understand your 'all marchers == bad' stance. Since *anything* that hints or has ties to any vestige of the Confederacy is racist, then I would assume that a statute of any person who fought in that conflict is by definition racist in that mindset. And, how *dare* anyone even contemplate being a marcher to preserve that.
If that is the mindset (I hope to hell it isnt), then you are correct; we dont have much common ground on the subject. If it isnt your mindset, then I hope you now understand why your 'shout out' on 'Blood and Soil' isn't all its cracked up to be --- and perhaps why your view might be tilted to a decent degree. Honestly, the term is not racist to the core --- when your gd understand the term 'Blood and Soil' refers to the blood spilt on the soil ---- by the soldiers themselves.
As noted, I hope that you arent a kneejerk 'if it refers to the Confederacy it means racist' types -- that type is just as ignorant as the viewpoint as the real racists, to be honest.
Can you provide a reference that says “blood and soil” actually connects to the confederacy or the civil war? Googled it and only found references to nazism.
(01-14-2020 07:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: By the way, you do know the term 'Blood and Soil' is *not* specifically a racist statement? It actually refers to those who served in the Confederate forces.
Can you provide a reference that says “blood and soil” actually connects to the confederacy or the civil war? Googled it and only found references to nazism.
I had never heard that it was a confederate non-racist slogan. I turned to the BBC, trusted source of Parliamentarians everywhere, and multiple articles referred to it as a Nazi slogan.
I'll be honest though. I don't really want or need a history lesson and long sidebar discussion on whether "blood and soil" was actually a confederate slogan being chanted by confederate historians instead of a Nazi slogan being chanted by Nazis and white supremacists. Then I would need to hear how one is a group of very fine people and the other is maybe very fine or maybe bad, but most likely somewhere in between once we consider all the facts. If you believe the guys chanting "blood and soil" at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottsville in August 2017 were peaceful confederate monument supporters, then nothing I can possible write, say, or point you toward will change your mind.
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2020 10:42 PM by mrbig.)
I disagree. I think it will be disheartening, disappointing, and a little frightening.
Here's what I don't understand. An ambassador's job is to represent the country and its leadership in a foreign land. My understanding is that Yovanovitch had on many occasions made negative comments about Trump and the direction the country was taking, at least privately and perhaps publicly. That would seem to me to demand her removal.
(01-15-2020 10:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Here's what I don't understand. An ambassador's job is to represent the country and its leadership in a foreign land. My understanding is that Yovanovitch had on many occasions made negative comments about Trump and the direction the country was taking, at least privately and perhaps publicly. That would seem to me to demand her removal.
Here's what I don't understand. If the President believes this to be true, then why doesn't he just remove her or move her to a different post? Why is his personal "attorney" mucking around with any of it?
(01-15-2020 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: If she was being shadowed, I would be interest in hearing why, and not just from the conspiracy theorists here.
Who are the conspiracy theorists here and what conspiracies have they advocated? I've only been hanging around for a month or so and I'm hoping that isn't the impression I have given.
(01-15-2020 10:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Here's what I don't understand. An ambassador's job is to represent the country and its leadership in a foreign land. My understanding is that Yovanovitch had on many occasions made negative comments about Trump and the direction the country was taking, at least privately and perhaps publicly. That would seem to me to demand her removal.
Here's what I don't understand. If the President believes this to be true, then why doesn't he just remove her or move her to a different post? Why is his personal "attorney" mucking around with any of it?
Perhaps because he wanted to be certain before acting, and did not trust the deep state bureaucracy to provide truthful information. And IIRC he did remove her.
(01-15-2020 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: If she was being shadowed, I would be interest in hearing why, and not just from the conspiracy theorists here.
(01-15-2020 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Perhaps because he wanted to be certain before acting, and did not trust the deep state bureaucracy to provide truthful information. And IIRC he did remove her.
(01-15-2020 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: If she was being shadowed, I would be interest in hearing why, and not just from the conspiracy theorists here.
(01-15-2020 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Perhaps because he wanted to be certain before acting, and did not trust the deep state bureaucracy to provide truthful information. And IIRC he did remove her.
I think it is pretty clear that the "deep state" bureaucracy has been less than honest and objective in dealing with Trump.
(This post was last modified: 01-15-2020 11:10 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
(01-15-2020 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: If she was being shadowed, I would be interest in hearing why, and not just from the conspiracy theorists here.
(01-15-2020 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Perhaps because he wanted to be certain before acting, and did not trust the deep state bureaucracy to provide truthful information. And IIRC he did remove her.
I think it is pretty clear that the "deep state" bureaucracy has been less that honest and objective in dealing with Trump.
Agree.
And the conspiracy theorists are still wanting yet another investigation int Trump and Russia, Trump and Ukraine, Trump and whoever/whatever, turning over every rock to see what they can find and placidly convinced that there is something to find.
(01-15-2020 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: China deal
Just phase one, but which one will help Americans more, the China deal or the impeachment?
Which one will CNN cover more?
Well according to the trusted BBC, Trump and Xi Jingping are winners. The losers? American companies, American consumers, American manufacturers, and American farmers.
I think we should hold off judging the effects of impeachment until the process is at least completed. Hard to speculate with so many unknowns.
(01-15-2020 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: China deal
Just phase one, but which one will help Americans more, the China deal or the impeachment?
Which one will CNN cover more?
Well according to the trusted BBC, Trump and Xi Jingping are winners. The losers? American companies, American consumers, American manufacturers, and American farmers.
I think we should hold off judging the effects of impeachment until the process is at least completed. Hard to speculate with so many unknowns.
What unknowns? If you want to bet on removal, I will take that bet. Or are you referring to the future impeachments for things to be named later?
(01-15-2020 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: China deal
Just phase one, but which one will help Americans more, the China deal or the impeachment?
Which one will CNN cover more?
Well according to the trusted BBC, Trump and Xi Jingping are winners. The losers? American companies, American consumers, American manufacturers, and American farmers.
I think we should hold off judging the effects of impeachment until the process is at least completed. Hard to speculate with so many unknowns.
What unknowns? If you want to bet on removal, I will take that bet. Or are you referring to the future impeachments for things to be named later?
I am not referring to future impeachments. I am not referring to removal because I can't imagine the situation that would result in that many Republicans voting to remove.
I am referring to whether any new live witnesses are called, whether any Republicans vote to remove, whether there are any clashes between the senate Republicans and Chief Justice Roberts, and whether additional information comes out specifically on the Ukraine issue after the Senate does not remove Trump from office that is damning. And probably other stuff I'm too unimaginative to imagine. If Bolton and Mulvaney end up testifying and additional documents are produced, who knows what would happen or how impeachment would effect the 2020 election.
![[Image: tTkxw0X.png]](https://i.imgur.com/tTkxw0X.png)
![[Image: VGN2B6F2VVCA5JEQBLSFQ3YEI4.png&w=1440]](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/VGN2B6F2VVCA5JEQBLSFQ3YEI4.png&w=1440)
![[Image: cIeKvDF.png]](https://i.imgur.com/cIeKvDF.png)