Quote from: SoporificSlash on November 04, 2015, 01:13:34 PM

Quote from: Endur on November 04, 2015, 01:11:42 PM

Man, I wish I paid more attention to what was going on with the candidates.

Fuck man, the Brits on here know more than me.

Just start watching or reading the news everyday

I thought about that but whenever I go about doing it I don't know what channel to watch >.>

1. Because we just got new cable so different numbers

2. Because I always hear people say "x is bad because it's opinionated etc"

Generally the mainstream channels are the best to watch; NBC, CBS, ABC. The bias is impossible to escape that's why I prefer to read my news via a mobile app however you'll still encounter bias; you just get more sources to choose from. It's your job as the viewer to differentiate between subjective commentary and actual news.

>Implying there are right-wing parties in Europe

We've established the labeling ambiguity.

Still that being said parties like Golden Dawn are undeniably right wing.

Ah good, I was hoping she'd make a complete arse of herself.

It'll be doubly funny if Sanders just completely ignores it and refers back to what he said a couple of months ago, that he's not going to start slinging shit at the other candidates to win an election.

Say what you will about the guy's policies but that is definitely something that will get my respect for him.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/hillary_clinton_keeps_smearing_bernie_sanders_as_a_sexist_now_she_is_reaching.2.html

On Oct. 23, Hillary Clinton opened a new front against Sen. Bernie Sanders: She framed him as a sexist. Clinton took a phrase Sanders had routinely used in talking about gun violence—that “shouting” wouldn’t solve the problem—and suggested that he had aimed it at her because “when women talk, some people think we’re shouting.”

Several journalists called out Clinton for this smear. But she refuses to withdraw it. Instead, her campaign officials and supporters have escalated the attack. And now, Clinton is adding a new dimension to the controversy: race.

Some feminists applauded Clinton’s initial zinger. “Hillary Baits Bernie Beautifully,” said a headline in Salon. Another article accused Sanders of “old-fashioned tone policing and dogwhistling about women’s shrillness.” On Oct. 27, Stephanie Schriock, the president of Emily’s List, conceded that Sanders hadn’t singled out Clinton. But Schriock insisted that Sanders “was referring to a lot of folks who have been very adamant about [guns] and a lot of women who have been leading the fight on gun violence across the country. And I do think that is disrespectful.”

The next day, Clinton sat down for an interview in New Hampshire. Josh McElveen of WMUR asked her about Sanders: “Do you believe that he’s attacking you based solely on your gender?” Clinton replied: “When I heard him say that people should stop shouting about guns, I didn’t think I was shouting. I thought I was making a very strong case. … And I’m not going to be silenced.” McElveen followed up: “But as far as the implication that Bernie Sanders is sexist—you wouldn’t go that far?” Clinton shrugged, smiled, and sidestepped the question. “I said what I had to say about it,” she concluded.

That day, Bloomberg Politics published an article in which Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, joked that Clinton would “make a great vice president” for Sanders. Weaver offered to interview her for the job. As Jonathan Chait has pointed out, that’s a standard put-down among candidates: Clinton said the same thing about Barack Obama in 2008. But when Weaver tried it on Clinton, her supporters erupted. Christine Quinn, a Clinton backer, accused the Sanders campaign of sexism. Quinn pointed at Sanders himself: “I’m stunned that a man like Bernie Sanders, who has clearly committed his life to making the country a better place, would get sucked into this very dangerous rhetoric, which perpetuates sexist and misogynistic stereotypes.”

Clinton used her initial sound bite—“when women talk, some people think we’re shouting”—in at least six places. She posted it on Twitter, Facebook, and her campaign website. She also delivered it in three speeches: in Washington, D.C., and Alexandria, Virginia, on Oct. 23, and in Des Moines, Iowa, on Oct. 24. After that, I didn’t hear it, except in her interview in New Hampshire. I thought she might be done with it. But then, on Friday, she raised a new issue.

Clinton was in Charleston, South Carolina, addressing the local NAACP. She spoke against a tragic background: the massacre of nine black people in a Charleston church by a white racist. Naturally, she talked about guns. But she added a new line: “There are some who say that this [gun violence] is an urban problem. Sometimes what they mean by that is: It’s a black problem. But it’s not. It’s not black, it’s not urban. It’s a deep, profound challenge to who we are.”

The idea that urban is code for black has been around a long time. It’s often true. And it’s not necessarily derogatory: In 1920, the National League on Urban Conditions Among Negroes shortened its name to the National Urban League. But why would Clinton suddenly bring up, in a damning tone, people who call guns an urban problem? Who was she talking about? It can’t be the Republican presidential candidates: They haven’t disagreed enough to debate the issue at that level of granularity. The only recent forum in which guns have been discussed as an urban concern is the forum that inspired Clinton’s initial accusation of sexism: the Oct. 13 Democratic debate in Las Vegas. Pull up the transcript of that debate, search for “urban,” and you’ll see whom Clinton is talking about: Sanders.

In fact, it’s from the same moments of the debate that Clinton had already seized on. In the debate, Sanders began by saying, “As a senator from a rural state, what I can tell Secretary Clinton [is] that all the shouting in the world is not going to do what I would hope all of us want.” A couple of minutes later, Sanders told former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley: “We can raise our voices, but I come from a rural state, and the views on gun control in rural states are different than in urban states, whether we like it or not.” O’Malley insisted that the issue was “not about rural and urban.” Sanders replied: “It’s exactly about rural.” Only one other candidate used the word “urban” during the debate: former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb. A week later, on Oct. 20, Webb quit the campaign. So when Clinton, on Friday, spoke scathingly of people who call guns an “urban problem” but mean it’s a “black problem,” it’s obvious to whom she was referring.



This line of attack is rich in irony. When Clinton ran for president in 2008, she explicitly used race against Obama. She told USA Today that she should be the Democratic nominee because “I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on.” Clinton cited an article that, in her words, showed “how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in [Indiana and Pennsylvania] who had not completed college were supporting me.” A reporter asked Clinton whether this argument was racially divisive. “These are the people you have to win if you’re a Democrat,” Clinton replied dismissively. “Everybody knows that.”

Now Clinton accuses others of playing the race card. In Charleston, she told the NAACP, “Some candidates talk in coded racial language about ‘free stuff,’ about ‘takers’ and ‘losers.’ And boy, are they quick to demonize President Obama. This kind of talk has no place in our politics.”

Clinton, too, speaks in code. But in this election, her coded phrases—“some people think we’re shouting,” “some who say that this is an urban problem”—aren’t designed to veil racism. They’re designed to veil her meritless insinuations that her Democratic opponent is sexist and racist. You can argue, based on power or privilege, that playing the race card or sex card from the left isn’t as bad as playing it from the right. But even if you believe that, Clinton’s smears bring discredit on the whole idea of bigotry. If accusations of misogyny and racism are casually thrown at Sanders, voters will conclude that these terms are just rhetoric.

Seven years ago, when Clinton’s own campaign was accused of prejudice, her husband was outraged. “She did not play the race card, but they did,” Bill Clinton said of the Obama campaign. The former president went on: “This is almost like, once you accuse somebody of racism or bigotry or something, the facts become irrelevant.” Three months later, Mr. Clinton was still fuming. “They played the race card on me, and we now know from memos from the campaign and everything that they planned to do it all along,” he protested. “This was used out of context and twisted for political purposes by the Obama campaign to try to breed resentment elsewhere. … You really got to go some to try to portray me as a racist.”

Now Hillary Clinton is doing to Sanders what her husband said was done to her. She’s taking Sanders’ remarks out of context and twisting them to breed resentment. You’ve got to twist the facts pretty hard to portray Sanders as a racist or sexist. But politically, it’s easy, because once you start throwing around charges of bigotry, the facts become irrelevant. You’re just another beautiful baiter. And you won’t be silenced.

So the Democrat smearing begins

Yeah, the only (far) right party that we have is indeed the Vlaams Belang ("Flemish Interest") and they're pretty much dead at this point. They were a very relevant party about a decade ago, but their increasingly racist and at times even antisemitic undertones (even followed by a court conviction) drove away most of their voters to the center right parties.

But the right in Belgium is still very much alive, though, with the New Flemish Alliance (center-right) even being the largest federal (and Flemish) party after last year's elections. However, they lack a lot of what other right wing parties do have. They're not anti-EU, not particularly anti-immigration, not racist or antisemitic and so on. They advocate Flemish independence and are really just economically and fiscally conservative right. I would not even be that opposed to voting for them, really. They're a sound party.

Ah okay, interesting. So you support the idea of Flemish independence? What exactly would that mean for Belgium? It seems like it would be a drastic turn of events, mainly for Wallonia. From what I've read Wallonia would most definitely be forced to cede to France because they simply can't stand on their own as a country. (They only make up like 20% of the Belgian economy or something like that.) However that being said I suppose there aren't many negatives for the Flemish in that decision; they're essentially just cutting off dead weight.

Voting no for marijuana in Ohio wasn't bad, considering how they were gonna handle and monopolize it.

Monopolized marijuana is better than no marijuana tbh fam

Quote from: SoporificSlash on November 04, 2015, 01:17:49 AM

Say what you will about Golden Dawn but they've got a pretty bad ass look



What is it with fascists and knowing how to dress?

Why the fuck would you want to look like a police officer?

Fucking wannabe pigs.

You have to when you plan on marching on Istanbul and reclaiming it as Constantinople.

Quote from: SoporificSlash on November 04, 2015, 12:42:03 AM

Quote from: Διομήδης on November 04, 2015, 12:38:04 AM

Quote from: SoporificSlash on November 04, 2015, 12:28:09 AM

Quote from: Διομήδης on November 04, 2015, 12:21:46 AM

I mean holy shit, if you think Sweden Democrats are far-right, you're fucking fooling yourself.

Far right for European standards, friend.

Also they have Neo-Nazi roots so yeah they'd arguably far right for any standards.

And Europeans are far-left by American standards. What the fuck does this shit even mean anymore?

The American Democrats started out as a conservative party that defended slavery up through the civil war, and now their biggest candidate is Bernie fucking Sanders. How a party started out is ultimately irrelevant to where it is now.

How are American political standards at all relevant to European political standards and the discussion at hand?

Everything you're saying is completely irrelevant to the OP.

I question the criteria used to determine whether a party is "far-right", here. Because it sounds a lot like this just refers to any socially conservative party with any semblance of nationalist thought.

Fair enough. I still think you're trying to apply American standards to your thinking on this. Nationalism is all you need, as a party, to be labeled far right in Europe. Call it bias of the left or whatever you wish but it is the simple truth of Europe. I think that just comes back to everyone associating Nationalism with Fascism and the "Nazi scare" that is still ever present. Nationalism just carries a lot of weight to it in a post-Nazi Europe. I think one thing that should be noted is that the majority of these groups have at some point in their existence been antisemitic but have retracted such views to be more appealing to the main-stream and are riding on the Islamic hate instead. So who's to say one of these parties won't attack Jews once they deal with the Muslims? I don't want to entertain that notion too much because it's a slippery slope argument so I'll just leave it there. Just something to think about. That's the thing about Nationalism though, they're always looking for a racial scapegoat to attack. As I said the label carries a lot more weight than just simply anti-Islam or anti-immigrant in today's world.

Perhaps the Hungarians or Poles, I don't know much about them.

As I stated in the OP the Polish PiS definitely supports some questionable policies that could be seen as authoritarian in nature. Most clearly seen in their 2010 draft of a new constitution

its 2010 draft of a new constitution envisions changes that would strengthen the presidency, erode checks and balances (including ability of the Constitutional Tribunal to declare laws unconstitutional), weaken independence of the judiciary and the central bank, and introduce various populist, plebiscitarian elements (e.g., president-initiated referendums that could be used to strike down legislation passed by parliament).

Quite a lot of scary centralization there.


I saw your edit. Yeah I completely understand where you're coming from in the mislabeling of far right when a lot of these parties are categorized with someone like Golden Dawn. It is a bit questionable.

"Far right" makes it sound like we're talking about fundies or fascists.

A few of the parties in question are very authoritarian still though these parties ARE far right on the European spectrum.

These guys are fairly centrist or even lefty by American standards.

We're talking about Europe here so American standard aren't very relevant to the discussion unless you somehow think American standards are the global standard and if that's the case well you're just spitting moot points and might as well exit the thread.

Even placing centrist statists like this on the "Right" side of the political spectrum, where Libertarians also go, calls the whole Left-Right dichotomy into question.

Refer above.

The fact that you goofball euros call people like UKIP "far-right" says a lot about how deeply you are buried in the sand-pit of democratic socialism.

Refer above.

"In English the meaning of the name Carson is: Son who lives in the swamp; son of Carr"

k

LOL

swamp nigger

Austin is the medieval Anglo-Norman form of Augustine which means majestic so that's kind of cool

My last name has a few different possibilities including the Old Norse by name Orri meaning "blackcock" (lol) or a male black grouse, the Gaelic Odhar meaning "pale", or the Old English ora meaning or shore or hill-top; used to describe someone that lives atop such a formation. I'm not sure which one of these is my actual origin though it's the Gaelic one most likely.

love my name. Meaning is cool and it fits very well with my last name.

colon cancer is bad tho

Quote from: Fagcicle on November 03, 2015, 06:49:10 PM

• Marijuana - Ballot Initiative in Ohio would make it the 5th state to legalize recreational marijuana legal for adults over the age of 21, while authorizing ten locations to grow marijuana for sale. An alternate ballot initiative seeks to nullify this by adopting a ban on amendments creating monopolies.

Voted no just to piss my friends off.

That's kind of shitty tbh

Quote from: SoporificSlash on November 03, 2015, 06:54:44 PM

Quote from: Nexus on November 03, 2015, 06:51:09 PM

How is it that you and Slash seemingly switched places from a nice career filled future to poor and living off his grandparents, and you actually joining the good STEM field.

Next thing you know, you're gonna be libertarian and Slash is gonna go vegan.

Made by Pol Sci Majors with too much time on their hands cause they have no jobs.

I came into this thread thinking it was a joke thread but um

Wat