Antifa?

Alt-Left making the hate speech groups look civilized...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/?utm_term=.897ae959e960

EDIT: This shot is a great example... these people really just look like attention whores.  IMO: They're making this problem worse.

nepa wrote

Alt-Left making the hate speech groups look civilized...

... these people really just look like attention whores.  IMO: They're making this problem worse.

A year ago,even 3 months ago, I would have agreed with that completely.

Now, "Unite the Right" means that "many fine people" (and presumably members of the President's own party) can march with Nazis, and the KKK has traded bedsheets and hoods for the President's golf uniform.  If the President's party is going to make Nazis and other violent racists respectable, your gonna have a left wing wing violent response.  I'm a pretty peaceful and non-political guy, but I'm beginning to believe "no enemies on the left."  Nothing about this make me happy.

mm

   

OK, my last post was a little too dark.  The one thing that makes me optimistic is that tRump appeal only to his dumbest supporters by alienating all decent people, now including even conservative Republicans.  He is digging his own political grave.  Nothing he has ever done has shown that he has the skills or inclination to win broad support.  His strategy is to develop a shrinking but constantly more fanatical group of supporters, but he has alienated the FBI, the CIA, the EPA, the State Department, the Speaker of the House, the Senators Majority leader, military leaders.   Luckily, he can't survive without those people.

mm  

Interesting hints as to people's beliefs are gained by looking at what they choose to talk about and post about internet forums.

Is Antifa something important that we must be concerned about right now?

Why is it more important than, say, a racist President and a racist Attorney General emboldening racists all over the country, resulting in the deaths of many people?

Some people seem to desperately want Antifa to cause their first death. I wonder why....

MC2 5678F589 wrote

Interesting hints as to people's beliefs are gained by looking at what they choose to talk about and post about internet forums.

Help me understand what I am hinting at here?  I am truly interested in your opinion and what conclusions you draw here.   Show me some honesty... like I said, I have thick skin.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

Is Antifa something important that we must be concerned about right now?  

In my opinion, yes.  This is extremism and it is a significant problem.  It does not matter which side it comes from... it is unproductive and achieves nothing.  It will get worse if we don't get out in front of it quickly.  Should I presume that you are pro-Antifa?  

MC2 5678F589 wrote

Why is it more important than, say, a racist President and a racist Attorney General emboldening racists all over the country, resulting in the deaths of many people?

I'm a centrist.  I don't believe, and never said it is more important.   This is a classic tactic.  Let's steer the argument by putting words our opponents mouth.  Clearly, I never stated that it was more important (quote me if you can).  I do believe it is just as important.  Extremism on both sides is a big issue.  Do you disagree?  Or is it OK for left leaning groups to incite violence but not the other?

MC2 5678F589 wrote

Some people seem to desperately want Antifa to cause their first death. I wonder why....

This is certainly not me.  I am pro-life-preservation on all sides.  I don't care who you hate, or who you love, your life is important to me.  

Milo Maltbie wrote

OK, my last post was a little too dark.  The one thing that makes me optimistic is that tRump appeal only to his dumbest supporters by alienating all decent people, now including even conservative Republicans.  He is digging his own political grave.  Nothing he has ever done has shown that he has the skills or inclination to win broad support.  His strategy is to develop a shrinking but constantly more fanatical group of supporters, but he has alienated the FBI, the CIA, the EPA, the State Department, the Speaker of the House, the Senators Majority leader, military leaders.   Luckily, he can't survive without those people.

mm

I couldn't have said it better myself.

That photo is just embarrassing

nepa wrote

MC2 5678F589 wrote

Interesting hints as to people's beliefs are gained by looking at what they choose to talk about and post about internet forums.

Help me understand what I am hinting at here?  I am truly interested in your opinion and what conclusions you draw here.   Show me some honesty... like I said, I have thick skin.

Just remarking on what you choose to post up here. For instance, I would think that a Libertarian minded person like yourself would post more on Sessions' BS drug war. Or Trump's call for police to be rougher with criminals. Or maybe you might talk about Trump's expansion of the police state, and the removal of these items from the list of things that police department are banned from acquiring:



Instead, you think Antifa is something worth posting about.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

Is Antifa something important that we must be concerned about right now?  

In my opinion, yes.  This is extremism and it is a significant problem.  It does not matter which side it comes from... it is unproductive and achieves nothing.  It will get worse if we don't get out in front of it quickly.  Should I presume that you are pro-Antifa?

Antifa means Anti-fascist. I, too, am Anti-fascist. But just because I agree with a group's message doesn't mean I agree with its tactics. I'm an environmentalist, but I don't support Earth First burning down a summit Lodge at Vail.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

Why is it more important than, say, a racist President and a racist Attorney General emboldening racists all over the country, resulting in the deaths of many people?

I'm a centrist.  I don't believe, and never said it is more important.   This is a classic tactic.  Let's steer the argument by putting words our opponents mouth.  Clearly, I never stated that it was more important (quote me if you can).  I do believe it is just as important.  Extremism on both sides is a big issue.  Do you disagree?  Or is it OK for left leaning groups to incite violence but not the other?

Ahhh... See, your problem is that you're having trouble drawing a distinction between "some knuckleheads" and the most powerful person in the free world.

When Trump or Sessions take racist actions (like say, pardoning a guy who blatantly violated citizen's 4th amendment rights in his zeal to arrest undocumented immigrants), that's vastly more important that some knuckleheads' dumb demonstrations and the fights that those knuckleheads get into. Yes, the Antifa idiots got into fights (and the ones that broke the law are being charged).

But Trump is emboldening other knuckleheads from a bully pulpit. He told people to beat the shit out of others at his Rallys. He encouraged cops to rough suspects up. He pardoned a lawbreaker. He preaches "Law and Order", but his policies (Stop and frisk, etc.) ensure that it's only law and order against the people he deems threats (coincidentally, mostly black and brown people), while the white nationalists that make up his base get a free pass.

So no, Antifa and Trump condoning the far right are not "just as important".

And no, I agree that neither side should "incite violence" and steps should be taken by police to keep warring groups apart. But the "problem" of left wing violence pales in comparison to the problem of white Supremecism, whose adherents are involved in all levels of law enforcement (http://www.newsweek.com/oklahoma-police-chief-quits-after-being-linked-neo-nazi-websites-655674) and government.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

So no, Antifa and Trump condoning the far right are not "just as important".

I respectfully disagree with the majority of what you said.  I'm not too paranoid about what trump or a bunch of white supremacist doosh bags can do... I'm not saying it's right.  Obviously it sucks.  We can agree on the fact that it sucks.

At this point, I'm trying to take a more subdued approach to things.  If the outrage level is managed properly, I believe we'll bounce back next cycle with a far better candidate than HRC.  

Witch Hoble used a great term the other day... Outrage Fatigue.  Thanks WH.  I took it out on my bike for a suffer fest.  It really made me think.

I suppose I'm suffering from an acute case outrage fatigue.  I just don't think the protests voicing the collective outrage are effective.  I think there could be unintended consequences of such outrage fueled activities. Now, I wont argue with the fact that currently, we are experiencing unprecedented levels of outrage.  IMO: We're at defcon4... it won't take much to destabilize things to a point where we will experience unprecedented levels of chaos and probably more outrage.  The trump machine won't hesitate to make things much worse for everyone in the event of mass chaos and general unrest.... further exacerbating the outrage problem   Think about the archetype that is currently holding the role of chief of staff.  From what I understand, military types have a strong-handed way of dealing with things... IMO: we don't want him to become outraged.  

Outrage will take us to the tipping point... consider the implications of a domestic attack by a bunch of outraged jihadists.



Antifa has the power to destabilize us further, giving trump an excuse to be an even bigger doosh bag.  Antifa is one of many parts to this problem that is further exacerbated by the collective outrage.  It's obvious to me that the opposition gets off and integrates the outrage into to their overall strategy.  IMO: The time for outrage has past.  It's time to focus more on strategy.

Why do you think Bush1 beat Mike Duke?  Willy Horton wouldn't have ever been remembered if it weren't for Lee Atwater.  Atwater was both a redneck and brilliant strategist.  He pioneered a political strategy that straddles the fine line between fair and effective propaganda.  While the liberals voiced their outrage over conservative tactics, the conservatives took the election.  Everybody was outraged for some time after that one.  As far as I can tell, nothing was gained from it.  Nothing was learned.  Why do you think republicans/conservatives are effective?  Guys like Carl Rove (an Atwater protégé) have propagated this strategy across the base for the past couple of decades.  They won the hearts and minds of the low income and under educated.  Their effective strategy convinced a large segment of the population to vote against what is in their own best interest.  From a purely politically strategic perspective... the results have been nothing short of remarkable.  It's no wonder the liberal elites have been outraged.

As opposed to protesting, I think there should be more strategizing.  It should be low-key, and initially focus on fund-raising.  In addition, some thought should go into protecting the next presidential candidate.  In my opinion, the next candidate needs to be a regular person similar to Bernie Sanders. (aka:my political messiah & chief)  Based on the fact that they could have a controversial approach, a strategic focus on countering the inevitable onslaught of attacks should be drafted as early as possible.  Then more fund raising.  Money is the most important resource.  In my opinion it's worth a thousand times it's weight in outrage.    

Rest assured, right wing strategists are already 2 steps ahead of the outraged protesters.  Antifa is going to be one of their key resources.

 

I'm not worried at all about outrage fatigue. The Dems needed to convince a large segment of the voting block that Trump is a piece of shit. Having already accomplished that (I hope), their next task is to tie Republican congresspeople in close districts to Trump. So, locally, that means Stefanik and Faso have to be beat over the heads for their Trumpcare votes and their votes to support Trump's nominees. Yes that will cost money, but I don't think they will have a tough time getting that.

nepa wrote

In addition, some thought should go into protecting the next presidential candidate.

The problem is that Dems have to "protect" candidates from the right and the left flanks. For someone who calls yourself a centrist, your attacks on Clinton and Obama have come from the far left ("Obama should have nationalized the banks", "Clinton is too pro business"). Already, potential 2020 Dem candidates like Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Deval Patrick are taking hits from the far left (http://theweek.com/articles/715955/why-leftists-dont-trust-kamala-harris-cory-booker-deval-patrick). I don't think that will be a huge problem (anything looks better than what we have now), but ya never know. For some reason, people (like tjf, Camp, Coach, etc.) hate Democrats and will never vote for one (as I said, I'm skeptical that camp, the same person who "wants his $25k back" if a universal college policy is passed, would sign on for a $6,000 tax increase, even though Bernie is a good guy).

In my opinion, the next candidate needs to be a regular person similar to Bernie Sanders.

Oh, you mean like the interracial son of a single mom and a Kenyan goat farmer? Or someone from a poor family in Hope, Arkansas who beat the odds and studied at Oxford?

The Democrats have been nominating "Regular people for years. Republicans have been nominating well connected failsons like Mitt Romney and George W. Bush, along with a Billionaire Reality star. Yet Republicans keep winning.

The other thing you fail to take into account is that voters turn on the ones in power. If Dems are in power, they vote GOP. If the GOP is in power, they vote Dem. So Dems will have that going for them.

I'm not really worried about outrage fatigue or money or anything in the upcoming elections. Hillary Clinton was a shit candidate and lost. The Dems will nominate a better candidate and win next time. The end.

nepa wrote

In my opinion, the next candidate needs to be a regular person similar to Bernie Sanders.

MC wrote

Oh, you mean like the interracial son of a single mom and a Kenyan goat farmer? Or someone from a poor family in Hope, Arkansas who beat the odds and studied at Oxford?

The Democrats have been nominating "Regular people for years.

Exactly, It's failed strategy.  These days, politics is about people more than issues.  It's a failure to understand people.  To you, and your socio-economic group, HRC and The O-man appear to be regular people.  To enough others, they appear to be arrogant elitists.  I spent 6 years working remotely in almost total isolation.  I completely lost my understanding of people.  The past year has been an eye opener.  I hang out with people I would have looked down upon in my younger years (sounds arrogant, but it's honest).  I have focused on listening more than speaking.  The experience has changed me.  I am beginning to regain a new, distinctly different understanding of people than I think I had in the past.  The Dems should take the same approach.  They should clean house, in an effort to change strategy.  The Dems surround themselves with like minds.  IMO: They don't have a clear understanding of the people that represent a significant segment of the electorate.  If the Dems had the correct strategists they would have seen the change in the electorate, a chose to elevate the appropriate candidate for 2016.  Instead, they relied on the same old status quo loving elitist intellectuals.

EDIT: I don't know the players that well, who are the liberal personalities that would go toe-to-toe with the Atwater/Rove types on the conservative side?

You have a very specific definition of "regular people" (and I was talking about Bill, not Hillary). Western Oregon and Washington is a not the most diverse area. Is a Hispanic warehouse worker a "regular person"? Is a black cashier at a Yonkers WalMart a "regular person"? What about this guy running against Paul Ryan?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/how-randy-bryce-the-iron-stache-plans-to-take-down-paul-ryan

nepa wrote

.
EDIT: I don't know the players that well, who are the liberal personalities that would go toe-to-toe with the Atwater/Rove types on the conservative side?

Axelrod did well for Obama. I always liked Carville.

nepa wrote

They don't have a clear understanding of the people that represent a significant segment of the electorate.

95% of Black women voted for Hillary. Perhaps you don't have a clear understanding of certain parts of the electorate that you don't interact with regularly as well.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

nepa wrote

They don't have a clear understanding of the people that represent a significant segment of the electorate.

95% of Black women voted for Hillary. Perhaps you don't have a clear understanding of certain parts of the electorate that you don't interact with regularly as well.

No shit?  

Is that what they were blabbering about when they repeatedly spouted the term Southern Black (or was it blue) Wall prior to blowing what could or even should have been a slam dunk of an election.

Why place focus on groups you already have overwhelming support from?  Obviously, the people who swung the outcome were not part of those groups.  Team HRC should have been blowing sunshine up the ass of the PeeTex demographic... instead, they chose to alienate them, a handed them directly to the opposition.  Poor strategy in my opinion.  

MC2 5678F589 wrote

You have a very specific definition of "regular people" (and I was talking about Bill, not Hillary). Western Oregon and Washington is a not the most diverse area. Is a Hispanic warehouse worker a "regular person"? Is a black cashier at a Yonkers WalMart a "regular person"? What about this guy running against Paul Ryan?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/how-randy-bryce-the-iron-stache-plans-to-take-down-paul-ryan

From that perspective you are partially  correct, West of the Crest are the most of the urban areas which have very diverse populations, but that's not exactly what I'm getting at.  Of course, there is a very broad definition of "regular people."  Depending on how you model it, Regular People could be at the top of the abstraction hierarchy.  Below them are more specific groups of people. Within the  subgroups of these people is where the nuanced understanding lies.  It was a game of inches... you had to take a more granular approach to understanding people.  Again, why focus on the groups who already provide overwhelming support?

I believe there are regular people out there that, given the chance are capable of leading this country in the right direction.

Bryce seems ok, but based on his previous record, I don't think he stands a chance.

Imagine a system where the presidential election was publicly funded.  Where are politically passionate guy like you could run a successful campaign due to the fact that you would be given access to public resources, and you would battle it out on a level playing field.

nepa wrote

 
Imagine a system where the presidential election was publicly funded.  Where are politically passionate guy like you could run a successful campaign due to the fact that you would be given access to public resources, and you would battle it out on a level playing field.

No shit.

I'd love it.

But McCain-Feingold was struck down by the Supreme Court which ruled that money=speech. Then McConnell refused to hold a vote on Garland, so we got Gorsuch, who will be on the Court, upholding that opinion for decades.

nepa wrote

.  Team HRC should have been blowing sunshine up the ass of the PeeTex demographic...

No amount of sunshine blown in the way of people like PeeTex would have made them vote for Hillary. What do you think could've possibly  convinced him to vote for her? I'm legitimately curious.

secret sex change

MC2 5678F589 wrote

nepa wrote

.  Team HRC should have been blowing sunshine up the ass of the PeeTex demographic...

No amount of sunshine blown in the way of people like PeeTex would have made them vote for Hillary. What do you think could've possibly  convinced him to vote for her? I'm legitimately curious.

I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm certain there is an effective one.  It's not the amount of sunshine that's important...It's more precise than the amount... in a game of inches, the problem needs to be analyzed at a more granular level.  As opposed to amount of sunshine blown, I would have focused on a particular segment of the light spectrum... think Kelvin as opposed to wattage.  If we can blow a few rays of sunshine just left of 6500k... up just the right assholes, then we'll swing the needed voters from them to us.   With the "Big Data" technology available today, this type of analysis is pretty straightforward.  If I were developing the model, I would've approached it from an AARP marketing perspective.  How do you get a dude that drives a F350 Superduty interested in a Prius?  You'd be surprised by the amount of success that has been found by creating visualizations of seemingly disjoint data sets.  A left leaning big data guru like Nate Silver could have modeled the past voting behavior of the PT demographic, and potentially found insights into what made them hate the HRC type... these insights could have been used to formulate a more nuanced message... as opposed focusing on attack style tactics and showboating with malignant terms such as.... deplorable.  Unfortunately, a smart guy like Nate decided to waste his talents by harvesting inaccurate analytics from his fields.