O-Trap

Latest Activity

On Jul 18, 2019:

  • O-Trap replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 03:26 pm
  • posted by geeblock

    I mean I think people feel the same way about Candace Owens as Tomi Lahren. She is a pretty blond and they trot her out there to serve her role. Neither one really has the qualifications to comment on anything really. Candace didn’t even graduate college. 

    As far as people of color and the Republican Party. Who have our options been so far? Haven’t had much to choose from. I think people don’t realize that most black people are conservative. Especially in the south. Church membership is very high especially in the south. In my opinion the gop hasn’t really wanted black people to be in the party or part of the party. Not that I’m saying dems are much better. Both parties push the super predator/war or crime every election which usually is bad for poor people and people of Color. So I guess the lack of candidates, lack of policies that provide support for schools and programs that support disadvantaged people I’m not sure why anyone would expect them to. I think certainly rich black people in certain tax brackets vote republican because of tax breaks. 

    But I mean, suppose for example that you had come to the conclusion that most assistance programs were not an overall net benefit for those they're meant to help (maybe you think they perpetuate the generational reliance on them), and so you opposed many of them.  How comfortable would you feel expressing that to other POC?  Suppose you looked at the schools who have gotten more funding over the years and really haven't demonstrated any palpable improvement as a result of it, so you began to oppose those.  Do you think that conviction would be at least able to be discussed with POC, or would you be concerned that you'd immediately be labeled and written off as being something less than a real POC (No True Scotsman)?

    Listen, I'm as WASP as they come.  I'm white.  My primary background is Welsh.  I'm Protestant.  I'm cis.  I'm straight.  I have no frame of reference for worrying about being treated in this manner.

    But I live in a school system much like the one I described, where the money given to the local school district has risen for decades (and has outpaced inflation, in case that's a concern), and yet, it really hasn't resulted in any improvements. The public school system is still academically failing with an absurdly high truancy rate and cases of violence that are notably higher than the average for public schools in my state.  I have a vested interest in the education of my kids and of the people around me, and yet I don't see any statistical, or even any anecdotal, evidence that the increase in funding has improved anything.  As such, beyond any philosophical objections, I oppose most increases to public school spending on practical grounds, as well.

    Were I a POC, would I be able to discuss that position publicly without being ostracized and written off?

  • O-Trap replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 02:56 pm
  • posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

    Unfortunately I think you are correct.  AOC has turned herself into a major celebrity.  I think that will be enough for her to defeat anyone who challenges her.  

    I think it'll still happen, though.  Political campaigns will still put out commercials and ads, and you've gotta fill the ad with SOMETHING.
     

    posted by gut

    I'm really curious to see how Democrats will attack a young black, female Republican who is also an immigrant.

    Two words:

    Uncle. Tom.

    Whether or not the liberal side is the most justified for minorities in the US (we can debate that elsewhere; it's not relevant to the point here), it seems to me that it's problematic when society, or even a significant subset of society, doesn't grant an individual the right to arrive at their own conclusions and form their own convictions.  If a POC arrives at the conclusion other than that which is in-step with what is acceptable within the scope of the Democratic Party, they're treated like a traitor.

    Obviously, there's a fundamental problem with linking an ACT of betrayal with a conviction concluded in good faith.

    It would be disingenuous to say that the Republican Party doesn't have their own problems with views on race, but it seems to me, as an admittedly non-minority in any real way, that denying someone the right to arrive at their own convictions because of their skin tone is just as problematic and needs addressed if you claim the moral high ground on race.

    geeblock, I know you catch heat on here for some of your views, but as a POC, I'd like to hear your take on this.  Am I way out in left field, and if so, where did I make the wrong turn?
     

     

  • O-Trap replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 10:19 am
  • posted by justincredible

    Can anyone make sense of this? I swear some people just blame capitalism for anything and everything. To be clear, capitalism allowed @jhooks to create a website that people want to pay money to use. Capitalism allowed him to create wealth out of an idea and hard work. Capitalism has nothing to do with 50 people sharing an account you dolt.

    So wait ... let me get this right ...

    It's cool to share with 2-3 people.  Just not 50.

    Okay, where's that line?

    And where is the line on motives, since obviously "friends help[ing] friends" is acceptable?

  • O-Trap replied to "Disgusted by the Trump administration part II" at 09:47 am
  • posted by ptown_trojans_1

    If that is the case, the Paul and Lee should vote against every single budget measure. 

    Not approving the federal funds for 9/11 responders is a fucking shame in my view. Even if you are a fiscal conservative, this is one of the things the federal government should step up to the plate and actually do. I equate this to basically funding troops healthcare in the VA. 

    They should vote against every single budget measure, yes.

  • O-Trap replied to "Random Travel Thread" at 09:44 am

  • Headed to New York City in less than a month.

    I feel like I should be more excited for it than I am.  It's been ten years since I've been there, and I'm sure it'll be a good time.

    One thing I do definitely want to find this time around, though, is a good cigar lounge.  It's NYC; it's got to have a decent array of them, particularly in Manhattan, where I'm staying.

  • O-Trap replied to "Random Travel Thread" at 09:40 am
  • posted by like_that

    I had A5 Waygu when I was in Japan and I am afraid no steak will ever be as good.  The Japanese love to take things that other countries love and make it better.  They currently have the #1 whisky in the world. 


     

On Jul 17, 2019:

  • O-Trap replied to "Disgusted by the Trump administration part II" at 11:45 pm
  • posted by iclfan2

    Or anti terrorist sympathizer/ anti-semite. You cling on some conspiracies

    Umm ... Anti-Semite?  As in anti-Jew?
     

    posted by geeblock

    Isn’t anti anti-Semite the same thing as pro Israel?

    No.  They're opposites.  The "Semitic" people are ethnically Jewish.  As such, if one is "anti-" Semitic, they are against Jews, which would ... if we reach a little bit, be anti-Israel, and not pro-Israel.

    But anti-Semitism generally doesn't have as much to do with the actual nation state of Israel as it does people who are ethnically Jewish, which means it's more personal than geopolitical.
     

     

  • O-Trap replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 11:40 pm
  • posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

    "The Squad" are huge winners.  This is yet another meaningless event that has garnered them huge amounts of attention.  Good or bad, attention is what they want.  Attention is exactly what they got.  I know Trump loves to hear his name like no one else, but did he have to created a crisis using these four?  It gives "The Squad" way more relevance than it deserves.  

    I'd even go so far as to say that the attention they got was a net positive.  They came out looking like people who had been inaccurately bullied without breaking down.  It was definitely a more positive moment than their actual performances have warranted.
     

    posted by like_that

    Political theater.  Just be happy they are bickering about stupid shit like this and not passing stupid ass laws that will affect us.

     

    This.  AND the fact that it's all really pretty entertaining.

    Politics is like the first reality television that I've been able to truly enjoy.  I think it's because there's actual gravitas to it all.
     

    posted by CenterBHSFan

    Blue Dogs already do that. They swing it to the left, they swing it to the right...

     

    Sounds like John Holmes running for office.
     

    posted by gut

    How far we've come from 2012 when they laughed at Romney for calling Russia our greatest threat (but IMO it's still China).

     

    I still think about this all the time.  Everyone mocked him.  Both sides.  Republicans thought it was a bad look.  Democrats knew it was.  Yet here we are, seven years later, and he looks insightful.
     

    posted by iclfan2

    Right on cue Omar and Tlaib put forth a pro-BDS bill today, and compared boycotting Israel today like boycotting Nazi Germany. Lol ok.

    Fuck's sake.  Can we stop treating EVERYTHING we don't like as though it's an adequate parallel to Nazis or Hitler already?  I'm not even "pro-Israel" in the geopolitical sense, but dear lord, this is ridiculous.

     

  • O-Trap repped a post in "Progressives, part 3..." at 11:09 pm

  • The only person who has behaved even a little honorably in this most recent nonsense was the gentleman who in effect said "Fuck this shit, here's the damn gavel".

  • O-Trap replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 04:46 pm

  • I don't know how prevalent this has been, but has anyone else noticed the seeming paranoia over the FaceApp today?  Suddenly, a portion of people are saying not to download it, because it's from a company in Russia.

    Apparently, it IS okay to immediately not trust someone based exclusively on where they're from ...

    Who knew?

     

  • O-Trap replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 04:29 pm
  • posted by like_that

    Why do they need to split off?  If they managed to change the Republican party's brand into libertarianism, I wouldn't bitch about the name of the party.  That's just me though. 

    That may be, but it does seem like a significant portion of voters are loyal to the name itself.  You could wrap up a moderate or semi-moderate Democrat in the Republican brand, and there would be a relevant subset of voters who would vote for them.

  • O-Trap replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 04:12 pm
  • posted by gut

    Right.  But they'd have to manage to reach a critical mass before splitting off, which means voting frequently non-Libertarian in order to hold on to their seat.

    Which effectively undermines any reason for seeking office.  If you label yourself a Republican (or Democrat) and vote like a Republican in order to maintain your seat, you're functionally a Republican.

    I mean, I suppose you could just be really choosy about what your platform would be, and you could pick whatever party affiliation is most popular in the given region.  In theory, a libertarian could run as a Democrat in the Bronx with a platform of civil rights regarding law enforcement, pro-choice (if that's the side a libertarian is on, since it's one of the more undecided in the party), and anti-corporate welfare.  I'm not saying you'd be immune from some "gotcha" topics, but in theory, it might be at least possible.