[OFF TOPIC] Politics Thread

[Olympian1010 7,951]

1 hour ago, depleter said:

Thorough??? That's the last thing I can see from that video. I disagree with many things that Modi do, ranging from his politics to the current economy but that video is just full of gaping holes.

So, in looking at this from a communications standpoint, this argument would conserved through, or even highly through. Here’s how I, as a communications student and as a communicator, come to that conclusion.

 

Oliver cites multiple sources, embraces both the pro’s and con’s, uses primary and secondary sources, uses appropriate language for the subject matter, and formats/speaks about the material in a manner this his target audience understands. He has a clean argument, and line of logic. His argument is well explained and supported, and it’s clear that it’s connecting with his audience.

 

Now, obviously there are people who disagree with his argument, or otherwise have issues with it, but in terms of being a well explained, thoughtful, and communicated speech he would score highly. 
 

I will add that while his argument may not cover everything about Modi (and I’m certain it doesn’t), it gives a good base of knowledge about the “issue/subject” (in this case Modi). People who watch the speech now know where to direct their line of questioning, and they can begin to formulate their opinion on the matter. 

[Olympian1010 7,951]

Sanders in hot water from the Democrats for three reasons this week:

 

1. He tweeted out that the Republican, not Democratic establishment can stop his election (which actually played very well no matter how the media/parties tried to spin that one)

2. He said that their are part’s of Castro’s Cuba worth praising (of which I agree), and he denounced Castro in that same speech. Interestingly conservatives haven’t attacked him much on this one, but moderates have been pounding him on it. This is interesting because moderates have long maintained that Bernie isn’t a socialist, but now that their down badly in the polls...

 

3. Sanders came out in support of a progressive democratic candidate running against Pelosi in the primary (which also seems to be playing much better than the party wants it too)

 

As near we near the one week out mark from Super Tuesday, the gloves are coming off. A party divided against itself cannot stand...

[Agger 1,660]

6 hours ago, konig said:

 

Another good old discussion, and really one that's pretty stupid.

It's not like Sanders is planning to take money to give to the already rich (mainly himself) like in Robin Hood.

If Sanders was some kind of dictator who was only interested in his own, it would be fine.

Meanwhile it does to some point explain why he isn't Robin Hood either.

[heywoodu 14,953]

The Jews must be kicked out of the country, only pure-blooded people can be citizens and members of the nation.

 

Spoiler

Time for a little history lesson, today it's 100 years since one Adolf H. announced the DAP - from then on NSDAP - party program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program

 

[Dolby 733]

12 hours ago, Olympian1010 said:

I think you’d also be surprised with how through John Oliver can be...

Ohh I am sure John Oliver is thorough in his research. I am also sure he is a sensible person with good level of intelligence and deduction. I am not accusing John Oliver to be stupid or naive, I am accusing John Oliver of malice and prejudice. 

 

I am sure during his thorough research, JO found out that Indian Constituent Assembly debated on the inclusion of word Secular in Preamble of Constitution but omitted it and the original copy of Indian Constitution has pictures of various Hindu Gods. I am sure he also knows that India is an ancient civilization and Nehru/Gandhi are not founders of India but one of the founding fathers of the present Indian Republic. I am sure he is aware that Gandhiji himself considered Ram Rajya as the ideal state. 

 

He calls RSS a para-military group. Now, RSS members don't carry any weapons. They do have a stick as part of their uniform that they wear at times of their sessions and while performing civic services but that uniform is also based on Seva Dal created by Gandhiji and not on SS, as JO would have us believe. JO knows the truth because he is thorough and still he misguides people. 

 

JO points out one interview in which Modi walked out. I am sure JO was able to find out the thousands of interviews, Modi has given since 2002 where he has talked to even international reporters about 2002 riots. I am sure JO is even aware that Modi was questioned by Supreme Court appointed team multiple times for his alleged involvement in 2002 riots. And these investigations took place when UPA, Modi's opponents, were in power. The conviction rates for 2002 riots is among the best India signalling the exemplary work done by Gujarat police. But, bringing out these facts doesn't support JO's agenda, hence JO conveniently skips them. 

 

JO is an intelligent person. I am sure he has read the CAA and hence knows that it is one-time amnesty for religious refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. And that no rules for NRC has been framed till now. Still, he throws figures like millions of Muslims would be thrown in detention centers. He shows a clip of a detention center being built but doesn't disclose that the said detention center is being built in the state of Asom, where NRC has been implemented on orders of SC, on the basis of Assam Accord signed in 1985 by then Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi (grandson of Nehru). Modi/Shah have clarified multiple times, in parliament, in rallies, in interviews, through Social media, that whenever national NRC will be brought, the rules for inclusion will not be as strict as that in Asom. JO would have come across these statements but again how will he stoke fire if he reports truth? JO knows that any person would have to prove that he is a religious refugee from PAB who came to India before 31/12/2014 to get Indian citizenship under CAA and hence this method is harder than proving Indian citizenship outright. 

 

 

[Dolby 733]

13 hours ago, Olympian1010 said:

I could never be for someone who supports one religious group over another. Well, I guess there’s a difference/line in that case depending on the circumstances. Modi doesn’t meet the qualifications for me there I guess.

 

Hindu nationalists want Uniform Civil Code while Indian seculars want the present system where all religions have their separate Civil Code. 

 

Hindu nationalists want that Government should not run any places of worship while Indian seculars want the present system where Government can take-over any Hindu temple/trust/charity but cannot do so with minority places of worships/trusts/charity.

 

Hindu nationalists want Article 29-30 of Indian constitution gone while Indian seculars want the present system where minority education institutions have full autonomy and are no subject to Government regulations and reservations that Hindu run educational institutions have to face. 

 

Hindu nationalists think India is an ancient civilization while Indian seculars think that the land that is India at present was wasteland in the past which was enriched only by invading Central Asian raiders and western colonial powers. They think that India is an artificial construct of the British territories in South Asia. 

[Olympian1010 7,951]

@Dolby I don’t want to get in an argument because I do way to often. I just wanted to say that I respect your position even if a I disagree with parts of it. I would say that you should consider the consequences minorities would face if the Indian Constitution was amended the way you want it to be. I think they’re a ways to achieve what Hindu nationalists want without castigating Muslims and other minorities. 

[Olympian1010 7,951]

I see that Sanders just called Natanyahu a racist, not a great look for Israel. I do actually think Sanders might be in favor of the Boycott Israel movement, or at least not vocally opposed to it. It’s a view that many of his young, loyal supporters share. Plus, many of the progressive candidates running under his wing are generally favorable to the Boycott Israel movement. 
 

I don’t know if I’d actually consider Netanyahu a racist myself, an evil man, yes, but racist...I would call him Islamaphobic for sure, but probably not racist.

 

Other highlights from tonight’s debate are:

Bloomberg tried to make a joke, and no one found it funny (except the people he pays too (so like half the party at this point ))

Bloomberg then told everyone how he “bought” the 2018 election

Klobachar introduced us to “Uncle Dick in a his deer stand”, which quickly became a meme

Biden tried to prove he’s the “blackest” white guy ever 

Everyone argued, continuing to show how divided a party that preaches unity is...

The debate sucked, and it will probably do little to influence people’s voting if I had to guess.

 

[Dolby 733]

7 hours ago, Olympian1010 said:

@Dolby I don’t want to get in an argument because I do way to often. I just wanted to say that I respect your position even if a I disagree with parts of it. I would say that you should consider the consequences minorities would face if the Indian Constitution was amended the way you want it to be. I think they’re a ways to achieve what Hindu nationalists want without castigating Muslims and other minorities. 

I won't support any amendment to Indian Constitution which would make Muslims or other minorities second-class citizens in India. 20% of Indian population is minorities and they are equal citizens of India. 

 

And I don't blame you or others for believing that Modi is evil. Its not your fault when even respected people have indulged in horrible propaganda about it. To give an example, after 2002 riots, Arundhati Roy, celebrated author, Man Booker Prize winner, kept on recounting a story about how a Hindu mob ripped open a pregnant lady's belly, took out the fetus, burned it alive and then raped the lady. Any sane person would be disgusted on hearing this. And when a person of Arundhati Roy's stature is telling the story, no one will think that it is fake. A number of Indian journalists, authors, well-wishers across the political spectrum tried to find out the details of the case, so that swift and exemplary justice could be done in the case. Lal Krishna Advani, then Home Minister of India, and Narendra Modi's political mentor also tried to contact Arundhati Roy to find the details. Arundhati Roy could never give definite details of the case. No name of the victim, no name of witnesses who saw it, no name of place where it happened. All these details would either keep on changing or were kept vague. Till date, she has neither recanted the story nor given details. There are numerous such examples. 

[Olympian1010 7,951]

Man, I really should have put money on this on Sunday. Saw this coming from 100km away.