Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
3DHS / Re: what is trump status to you?
« Last post by Religious Dick on May 19, 2017, 12:57:20 AM »
In some parts of the world, I understand Hitler is regarded as a great leader who stuck up for his people. I think you'll have to wait about 200 years to get an objective view of Hitler and WWII. As Orwell said, he who controls the past controls the present, and he who controls the present controls the future. At this point in time, so many various factions have so much invested in how WWII is interpreted I doubt you'll get an honest accounting in your lifetime.

As for Trump, so far he's not what I'd hoped for, but on the other hand, he still beats the alternative.
3DHS / Re: what is trump status to you?
« Last post by BT on May 18, 2017, 10:20:38 PM »
Trump is the President of the US until we are notified otherwise. My only wish is that he would get off twitter.
3DHS / Re: what is trump status to you?
« Last post by kimba1 on May 18, 2017, 07:21:02 PM »
One is african american and simply see this as separate from her life. I remember informing one coworker from pakistan hilter is view negatively and the surprised look on his face. When I think of all the people I personally know who don't think of hitler negatively I can't really be surprised at the amount of pro-nazi reports on the news.

I even had a talk about eugenics being introduced in the near future to remove inferiors stock.
3DHS / Re: what is trump status to you?
« Last post by sirs on May 18, 2017, 05:46:31 PM »
I'd love to talk to some of these people who think Hitler simply made some "bad choices"
3DHS / what is trump status to you?
« Last post by kimba1 on May 18, 2017, 02:33:17 PM »
I`m getting an incredibly bias against trump view. So I`m asking how do you feel about about trump now. from my more religious friends he seems to be a hero and for some reason hitler is simply a guy who made some bad choices.

3DHS / Re: ??
« Last post by kimba1 on May 15, 2017, 09:32:25 AM »
It's abit more simple than that . Communist in all it's variations never cared for liberals. . So of course the white left is a negative. That article forgot about the term bourgeois liberalism is a negative in china from the very start.
3DHS / Re: Why is no one correcting the lies??
« Last post by sirs on May 14, 2017, 01:45:07 PM »
Who is communist? ? I just reread this thread and somehow jept missing something

The communists are those who support hard core socialist doctrine....that support the image of the hammer & sickle.  My point being how there's all this appropriate outrage at anything even remotely imaging fascism, such as the swastica, with the ongoing efforts at the left trying to paint anyone that disagrees with them as a card carrying nazi, , but nary a bleep of outrage aimed at a political philosphy just as, if not more evil, than fascism
3DHS / Re: "You're Fired"
« Last post by sirs on May 14, 2017, 01:22:34 PM »
He was investigating if trump actually has ties with Russia.  Which is strange he also the reason Hillary lost votes.  So he's not exactly biased in his investigation

I have to disagree, to this point, Kimba.....Comey was in charge of an agency that was investigating if Trump actually has ties with Russia.  The agency is still there....its not going away.  The investigation will continue, with or without Comey

Bottom line for me, based on everything I've read, and listened to, to this point.....Comey has impeccable levels of integrity, but thanks to Lynch, Clinton, & Co, got dragged into politicizing the one branch, that MUST stay apolitical.  Thanks to that infamous meet between the sitting AG, and the former President, not to mention, husband of the then current Presidential candidate, under FBI investigation, he was put between a rock and hard place.  His biggest error was applying parameters to Federal law, that were never there...that of intent.  Simply acknowledge that there was plenty there for an indictment of Mrs Clinton, and punt it to the Justice dept, and let them claim that no prosecuting attorney would think there wasn't a case to be won.  Alas, he chose to pull the FBI into the political arena, and set the ball in motion as to his eventual & appropriate termination

That said, Trump & co handled his firing extremely poorly.  Trump needs to grasp that he's President now, not CEO of the Country.  There's protocols in place, not to mention respectful means to terminate someone's position in Government.  Its as if Trump has no concept about optics or timing.  That doesn't mean he has to play the PC game, far from it.  He simply needs to think/consider actions, before demanding they be implemented immediately.  Be it EO's or any further firings.

I don't have a problem with Comey being fired.  I do have a problem with how it was done
3DHS / 白左
« Last post by Religious Dick on May 13, 2017, 11:55:09 PM »
The curious rise of the 'white left' as a Chinese internet insult

Meet the Chinese netizens who combine a hatred for the 'white left with a love of US president Donald Trump.

If you look at any thread about Trump, Islam or immigration on a Chinese social media platform these days, it's impossible to avoid encountering the term baizuo, or literally, the 'white left'. It first emerged about two years ago, and yet has quickly become one of the most popular derogatory descriptions for Chinese netizens to discredit their opponents in online debates.

So what does 'white left' mean in the Chinese context, and what's behind the rise of its (negative) popularity' It might not be an easy task to define the term, for as a social media buzzword and very often an instrument for ad hominem attack, it could mean different things for different people. A thread on 'why well-educated elites in the west are seen as na've 'white left' in China' on Zhihu, a question-and-answer website said to have a high percentage of active users who are professionals and intellectuals, might serve as a starting point.

The question has received more than 400 answers from Zhihu users, which include some of the most representative perceptions of the 'white left'. Although the emphasis varies, baizuo is used generally to describe those who 'only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment' and 'have no sense of real problems in the real world'; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to 'satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority'; they are 'obsessed with political correctness' to the extent that they 'tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism'; they believe in the welfare state that 'benefits only the idle and the free riders'; they are the 'ignorant and arrogant westerners' who 'pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours'.     

Apart from some anti-hegemonic sentiments, the connotations of 'white left' in the Chinese context clearly resemble terms such as 'regressive liberals' or 'libtards' in the United States. In a way the demonization of the 'white left' in Chinese social media may also reflect the resurgence of right-wing populism globally.   

However, Chinese netizens' fierce attacks against the 'white left' seem curiously devoid of experiential motivation, since all these problems that conservatives in the west are concerned about ' immigration, multiculturalism, minority rights, and affirmative actions ' are largely unknown to Chinese society. This is not to say that discrimination against women and ethnic, religious and sexual minorities do not exist in China. They are no less serious or structural here than in any other societies. But cultural and identity politics has never gained much salience as political issues under an authoritarian regime, although feminist activists have received increased attention recently. Overall, there has been 'too little', rather than 'too much' political correctness as perceived by conservatives in the west.   

Chinese netizens' fierce attacks against the 'white left' seem curiously devoid of experiential motivation.

In fact, heated discussions about baizuo on Chinese social media websites rarely make reference to domestic issues, except for occasionally and unsurprisingly insulting Chinese Muslims for being 'unintegrated' or 'complicit in the spread of Islam extremism'. The stigmatization of the 'white left' is driven first and foremost by Chinese netizens' understanding of 'western' problems. It is a symptom and weakness of the Other.

The term first became influential amidst the European refugee crisis, and Angela Merkel was the first western politician to be labelled as a baizuo for her open-door refugee policy. Hungary, on the other hand, was praised by Chinese netizens for its hard line on refugees, if not for its authoritarian leader. Around the same time another derogatory name that was often used alongside baizuo was shengmu ' literally the 'holy mother' ' which according to its users refers to those who are 'overemotional', 'hypocritical' and 'have too much empathy'. The criticisms of baizuo and shengmu soon became an online smear campaign targeted at not only public figures such as J. K. Rowling and Emma Watson, but also volunteers, social workers and all other ordinary citizens, whether in Europe or China, who express any sympathy with international refugees.

In May 2016, Amnesty International published their survey results indicating that the most welcoming country for refugees was China. Leaving the reliability of its sample and methodology aside, this finding was not at all taken as a compliment in the Chinese media. Global Times conducted their own online survey in response to Amnesty's claim, and the results were quite the opposite: 90.3% said 'no' to the question 'would you accept refugees in your own household'' and 79.6% said 'no' to the question 'would you accept refugees in your city, or would you like to be neighbours with refugees''. Ironically, Amnesty's portrayal of China as a welcoming country for displaced people was even read by some netizens as part of a foreign conspiracy, intended to pressure the Chinese government to accept more refugees. A senior researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences commented that this survey was 'weird' and seemed to 'incite citizens against the government'.   

The anti-baizuo discourse in Chinese social media gained stronger momentum during the US presidential election campaign. If criticisms of the 'white left' in the context of the refugee crisis were mainly about disapproval of 'moralist humanitarianism' mixed with Islamophobia, they became politically more elaborate as Chinese critics of the 'white left' discovered Donald J. Trump, whom they both identify with and take inspirations from. Following the debates in the US, a number of other issues such as welfare reforms, affirmative action and minority rights were introduced into online discussions on the 'white left'. Baizuo critics now began to identify Obama and Clinton as the new epitome of the 'white left', despite the fact that they were neither particularly humanitarian nor particularly kind to migrants. Trump was taken as the champion of everything the 'white left' were against, and baizuo critics naturally became his enthusiastic supporters. 

To be sure, and fortunately, not all in Chinese cyberspace talk about the 'white left' in a derogatory way, just as not all appreciate the views and style of Trump. Rao Yi, a renowned neurobiologist and public intellectual, was one of the few to publically criticize the demonization of baizuo and Chinese netizens' support for Trump on television. His statement stirred up a great deal of controversy online. An overwhelming majority of Zhihu users thought that Rao had only proved that he was typical of the 'white left': biased, elitist, ignorant of social reality and constantly applying double standards. 

What are the possible explanations of the prevailing hostility to the 'white left' in Chinese social media' Only a fraction of the arguments can be considered interests-based, and they are made by established and newly arrived overseas Chinese in Europe and North America. Many students and job-seekers in Europe, for example, argue that it is simply unfair that they 'have to work so hard to stay, whereas these refugees can simply come and claim asylum'. More or less established Chinese immigrants in the United States often make the case that affirmative action policies put Chinese-Americans in a disadvantageous position, and 'Chinese should not pay the price for the wrongs white Americans have done'. It isn't the place to analyse the pitfalls of these claims here; my focus is rather on why mainland Chinese people adopt such a strong and emotionally charged view on issues they do not have direct experience with. The following ideological, instead of interest-based factors might be at play in both domestic and international contexts.       

From a domestic perspective, the proliferation of anti-baizuo sentiment is clearly in line with the dominance of a kind of brutal, demoralized pragmatism in post-socialist China. Many of the attacks on the welfare state and the idea that states have obligations towards international refugees appeal to the same social Darwinist logic of 'survival of the fittest'. It is assumed that individuals should take responsibility for their own misery, whether it is war or poverty, and should not be helped by others. The rationale goes hand in hand with the view that inequality is inevitable in a market-economy-cum-Hobbesian-society. Although economic disparity in China has been worsening in recent years, sociologist Yu Xie found that most Chinese people regard it as an inevitable consequence of economic growth, and that inequality is unlikely to give rise to political or social unrest.

Pragmatism with an emphasis on self-responsibility seems to be the ideology of our post-ideological times. It is, in UK prime minister Theresa May's words, 'living within our means'. This is combined with a general indifference towards race issues, or even worth, with certain social Darwinist beliefs that some races are superior to others, leading many mainland Chinese netizens to dismiss struggles against structural discriminations as na've, pretentious or demanding undeserved privileges.

Seen from the perspective of international relations, the anti-baizuo discourse can be understood as part of what William A. Callahan calls 'negative soft power', that is, constructing the Chinese self through 'the deliberate creation and then exclusion' of Others as 'barbarians' or otherwise inferior. Criticisms of the 'white left' against the background of the European refugee crisis fit especially well with the 'rising China' versus 'Europe in decline' narrative. According to Baidu Trends, one of the most related keywords to baizuo was huimie: 'to destroy'. Articles with titles such as 'the white left are destroying Europe' were widely circulated.

In an academic-style essay that was retweeted more than 7000 times on Weibo, a user named 'fantasy lover Mr. Liu' 'reviewed' European philosophy from Voltaire and Marx to Adorno and Foucault, concluding that the 'white left' as a 'spiritual epidemic' is on its way to self-destruction. He then stated that Trump's win was only 'a small victory over this spiritual epidemic of humankind', but 'western civilization is still far from its self-redemption'. However ridiculous it may appear, the post is illustrative of how a demonized Other is projected onto seemingly objective or academic criticisms of the 'white left'. Ultimately, the more the 'white left' ' whatever it means ' represent the fatal weakness of democracy, the more institutional and normative security the Chinese regime enjoys. The grassroots campaign against the 'white left' thus echoes the officially-sanctioned campaign against 'universal values', providing a negative evidence for the superiority of the Chinese self.

Finally, it should to be noted that the internet in China is subject to strict censorship. The Chinese government has been known to hire a large number of 'internet commentators' to fabricate social media posts. According to recent research conducted by scholars at Harvard University, 29% of such posts they investigated fell into the category of 'taunting of foreign countries'. It is nonetheless impossible to know whether these accused posts are indeed written by government employees. Similarly, it is hard to tell whether some of the criticisms of baizuo are coming from fabricated commentators-for-hire. However, given the strict censorship regime, criticizing democratic values such as pluralism, tolerance, and solidarity is certainly one of the safest 'critical' opinions ordinary citizens can express online.
3DHS / Re: "You're Fired"
« Last post by Christians4LessGvt on May 10, 2017, 05:31:09 PM »
The Unconventional President:
Donald Trump Shakes Washington to Its Core by Firing Comey


10 May 2017

Washington, D.C.

President Donald Trump's shocking decision to fire FBI director James Comey on Tuesday evening represents the latest in a political outsider's crusade against entrenched Washington.

The unusual move,a surprise to say the least, has drawn the usual critics against Trump from the media, Democratic Party and even those inside his own GOP. Regardless of the bickering back and forth between Trump and his usual District of Columbia critics over the reasoning, timing and thinking behind it, the move to fire Comey is the latest development in a true outsider's war on Washington.

Trump campaigned on an ambitious agenda, both in the Republican primaries where he stunned 16 other highly qualified politicians by storming past them to the nomination and in the general election where he destroyed the embodiment of the permanent political class in Hillary Rodham Clinton in an electoral college landslide. He promised to throw Clinton, his general election opponent, the Democratic nominee who was previously first lady to former President Bill Clinton before serving as a U.S. Senator from New York and then as Secretary of State to now former President Barack Obama, in jail.

He pledged major reforms to the way government does business, and pushed a policy vision steeped in populist nationalism that would represent a sea change from the direction America has gone under the past several presidents of both parties, from George H.W. Bush through Bill Clinton, then George W. Bush and Obama.

But the main promise Trump made to the voters during last year's tumultuous election cycle was that he was going to shake things up in Washington. Business as usual would be over under a President Trump, and the bureaucracy would be reined in once and for all. Trump shocked the world by winning the election with such promises, proving that his worldview, one that calls for sweeping changes in Washington, was more popular with a majority of the electoral college than Clinton's status quo view, a status quo view that was also personified by most of Trump?s GOP primary opponents as well.

Comey, presumably, was perhaps one of the only officials whose job was deemed safe when Trump took the oath of office back on Jan. 20 on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. That prevailing view among many in Washington in both political parties and throughout the media was due in part to Comey's decision to announce to Congress just days before the Nov. 8 general election that the FBI was reopening its probe into Clinton's email scandal, a damning political development for the Democratic nominee that came right at a time Trump was surging in many battleground states moving into the homestretch of the campaign.

It was also a prevailing view because of the fact that FBI directors generally serve for 10-year terms after appointment and confirmation, with the exception of those who are fired or otherwise leave office early due to resignation, retirement, or death. Only one FBI director other than Comey has been fired, William Sessions, who was fired by Bill Clinton.

That prevailing view that Comey of all people was safe due to his personal circumstances and situation, as Tuesday evening's move by President Trump evidenced, was wrong: Trump, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, moved to push Comey out.

Democrats who criticized Comey for his handling of the Clinton email matter were all too joyous to rush to his defense in the wake of Trump's move, as Trump aptly pointed out specifically regarding Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on his Twitter account in the wake of the move. Leftists are desperate to keep Trump on defense as they continue harping on the Russia-influenced-the-election conspiracy, aiming to push forward an investigation that has to date found exactly zero pieces of evidence to back up their main theory: that Trump, or his associates or campaign staff, somehow colluded with Russia to ?hack the election.?

There are a number of logical inconsistencies and deep factual gaps with the left's arguments on this whole Russia scandal.

First and foremost is the lack of public proof that the Russians even did successfully hack anything. No intelligence agency, congressional committee or law enforcement entity has provided the public with any proof whatsoever that the two main hacks, the Democratic National Committee emails published by WikiLeaks right before the Democratic National Convention in the summer or the Clinton campaign chair John Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks in the run-up to the general election in November, were committed by anyone connected with Russia. It remains a possibility, based on the public slate of evidence, that either or both of those "hacks" were not actually hacks but leaks of large tranches of highly politically damaging emails from human intelligence sources with access to them.

Secondly, even if the Russians did hack either or both of those, there is, and not for the lack of Trump's political opponents and various congressional committees and law enforcement and intelligence agencies trying to find any, absolutely no evidence of any "collusion?"between Trump, or his campaign or associates, and any Russians who may have done this.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the actual content of the emails demonstrated serious impropriety on the part of the Clinton campaign, the DNC and the media, among other bad actors in the political class, when it came to their own collusion to push out grassroots leftist candidate Bernie Sanders. The leaked emails demonstrated that they did in fact collude to undermine Sanders' chances at the nomination, among many more revelations of impropriety throughout the Democratic Party. As a result of that, the talking point that Russia "hacked the election" does not hold up under scrutiny.

Even if the Russians did hack Podesta's emails, the DNC emails, or both, the content of them exposed significant corruption at the highest levels of the Democratic Party, thereby meaning that these emails' content were highly relevant to the American election and debate that was happening nationwide. On that note, it's worth pointing out that not one person has alleged that the Russians ever targeted election infrastructure like voting machines.

But all of that is beside the point of the key takeaway of the news of the day.

President Trump just sent his biggest message yet to the swamp in Washington by firing Comey: Nobody is safe, everybody is on notice, and the entire political class is in danger with him at the helm of the highest office in the land. Trump has certainly had some issues delivering on key specific campaign promises, healthcare, building a border wall, labeling China a currency manipulator and others come to mind, but on the broadest possible level, he is delivering exactly what he promised America when he barnstormed his way to the presidency: No more Mr. Nice Guy in the Oval Office.

There have been many smaller manifestations of Trump's battle with Washington's bureaucracy. From his chief strategist, former Breitbart News executive chairman Stephen K. Bannon's pledge to deconstruct the administrative state, to Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly taking overt and explicit measures to secure America from threats, to EPA administrator Scott Pruitt rolling back regulations and removing entrenched bureaucrats, to many, many more actions his nascent administration has taken, Trump is rattling Washington. But the biggest move so far, the firing of Comey, is surely a sign of bigger things to come.

So, with the permanent political class in danger, it's no surprise to see the typical swamp things on both sides of the aisle, from establishment Republicans to bitter Democrats, ripping Trump?s move. Think of the denunciations of the move as the last dying breaths of an antiquated political class, the last refuge of the scoundrel that is Washington, D.C., as we know it.

They feel very afraid, and they should: Trump is on the march, he's winning, and nobody in the swamp is safe.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]