Only if Willie had been released by the Republican governor and legislature too, but was still used as a racist whistle (far too loud and clear to be a dog whistle) against Democrats as if that weren't true.

Such Bull crap. Trump has nothing to do with the shooting.


Dog whistle for the left.
*lies

Defeated people seldom remain "in their place". I think this is true on a macro-scale as well as individually. "Occupation" is usually the remedy, as either the victor moves in & sets up shop, or you get Johnny to "get a job". The later invites screams of "police state" which has always been a dog whistle to most Americans.

I think the solution initially would have been very ugly and still be dealt with. You just cannot make people change the way they think...at least not yet.

i think you guys are missing the point of this video.this video was not produced for YOU.

this is a dog whistle video for those who identify as "right" leaning politically,and may be on the fence in regards to the alt-right.they may adhere to more conservative and traditional values but find the alt-right a tad to extreme,a tad too racist and neo-fascist.

and they most likely already find "leftists" and "liberals" offensive to their political sensibilities.

and here we have a video showing "lefties" perpetrating violence on innocent,rightwing by-standers..you know..their peeps.

so you watch with indignation and disbelief,while the rightwingers watches in horror and fear.this video is meant to do just that:instill fear and prompt a person to action and to view this action as righteous self-defense.

this is identity politics,pure and simple.

and now we have TWO extremists groups growing,and BOTH are convinced of their righteous convictions that THEY have a RIGHT..no..a DUTY..to perpetrate violence in the name of their ideology.

well,it is not EVERYBODY..

yeah..no shit sherlock.we get that.
not everyone is a neo-fascist,racist,super white nationalist.

nor are they all communists and black bloc anarchists.

but it IS those two groups who have adopted extremist ideologies that in their little pea brains have given them the moral authority to fuck some people up.

and THIS fucking video is a goddamn recruitment video for the neo-fascists!

communists and black bloc anarchists on my left..
racist neo fascists on my right..
here i am...
stuck in the middle...

*related=https://videosift.com/video/ANTIFA-is-a-major-gift-to-the-right

It depends on who the potential winning candidates are. If neither poses an apparent threat to democracy, the US, or the rest of the world, I have no problem with it.

When one candidate is a Trump or worse, I think it is completely irresponsible not to do everything you can to stop that candidate from winning, even if it's an epic nose holding if you really hate the other candidate.

And Trump is that bad. I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton. I trashed her on the email thing. And she doesn't take strong stands on things she absolutely should, like against big banks and what not. But she absolutely would not have emboldened racists and neo-nazis. She would not encourage hatred of the press and opponents to the point of dog whistling potential violence. I know that's a really low bar, but you can't have a functioning democracy without opposition that can feel free to oppose, a media that can resport basic facts without threats and being disbelieved simply because they report info contrary to what the President wants to be true, etc.

This was one of those elections that voting third party was simply not an ethical choice. Trump never hid what he was before he got elected. He was all these things in a very apparent way.

I am a moderate with no allegiance to any party. And I can say voting wise I did everything I could to stop Trump. I voted for the best chance against Trump in the primaries for my state, and I voted for Clinton in the general. I just wish more people did the same, because I think a year from now we are going to realize in a very big way how we really should have done everything we could to have stopped him from becoming president.

@Fairbs
while i agree that russia is the aggressor in regards to crimea,can you provide evidence that our election was hacked by russia?

was there actually cyberspying going on?
probably,all major nation states play that game,and all deny participating.(looking at you china).

because i see a LOT of accusations,and declarations of russian hacking,but i don't see any actual..you know..evidence.so i remain skeptical of the russian hacking meme,and am even MORE skeptical that the hacking was intentionally to give trump an edge.

and you are right,maddow simply reported the troop deployment in poland.she reported that this deployment was rushed,and before schedule,,,

and then she did something very curious.
she posits the question,and implies that it will answer a previous question..that she does not actually STATE..but "after all the worry.we are actually about to find out..if...maybe..russia has something on the new president"?

this is the old "i am not saying your sister is a whore..i am just saying your sister is a whore".

she never directly speaks of russian hacks.
she never directly accuses putin of influencing our election.
she just puts it out there,that if trump withdraws troops,then maybe..possibly..he is sucking putins cock.

i'm juuuust saying.
with all due respect...
your sisters a whore.

look man,i adore maddow and i love her analysis,but can we have a moment of honesty here?
she is fairly biased,and is particular on the stories she will cover,and during the run up to the election and even during..she has engaged in some serious apologetics in regards to hillary clinton.

as for the host from secular talk.
this is just his opinion.maybe he did take some liberties,and made some assumptions but i agree with him on calling maddow out for her dog whistle tactics.

lately the democrats have been beating this drum like indians on meth,and when i see so many tv pundits all beating the same tune,without providing tangible evidence....my bullshit alarm starts to go off.

@newtboy
you were not the only one who put me on the defensive for supporting chis hedges.
so if you feel singled out,i apologize.

the point of this post is put into light an adored spokesperson for the left,and a commentator who is also left leaning (and many of his upvoted videos can be found on the sift) to make a point.

and by your comment,you are struggling to reconcile the two.
but you DID reconcile,and you did so by giving maddow a tacit pass and condemning kyle for being a "complete bombastic liar".

when the truth is:
they both are...kinda..sorta..

they both are approaching,and making their points by using biased and slanted data to influence you,and i for that matter,into adopting their viewpoint.

these are not outright and pernicious lies.they are lies that serve a purpose and i find maddows far more egregious,because it is far more subtle..and you appear to have bought it.

she did so by using the innocuous word "might",yet her inferrence cannot be mistaken.they call it the "dog whistle".this is a wink and a nod that those dirty ruskies own our new president.

wink wink...nudge nudge..know what i mean?

now kyle is not exactly lying either.
he is using russias reaction to the new deployment from putin himself.who has stated that there was an agreement that there would be no new encroachment after the GDR,but that simply reveals the cleverness and political saavy of putin.

the real truth is this:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

or is it?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html
from 2009?

maybe this is the truth?
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
from 2016.

well,personally i am going with the LAtimes and der spiegel.
brookings is a right wing think tank with deep tentacles in the pentagon and DoD.

but CNN reports that poland LOVES the new troops:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/14/europe/poland-us-troops-nato-welcome/

look,
while i will agree that putin is a vicious thug,who murders political opponents and tortures dissidents.that he is ruthless and relentless political player.

i do not see any evidence of russian hacking influencing our elections,nor do i see a new russian empire pushing for those cold war expansionism days.

the only entity/country i see pushing for expansion and a renewal of the cold war..is us..the pentagon and the department of defense,and those juicy juicy defense contracts!

i feel my time on the sift is coming to a close.
having to defend my admiration for a pulitzer prize winning,war correspondent and author is just...weird.

at least i know i am biased,but i do my best to self-correct.

Ma'am, I'm here to tell you about these wonderful dog whistles.

Every home needs a ultra sonic dog whistle - keeps those pesky canines away.

I knew Dr. Kaku's use of the word "parasites" would be like a dog whistle to conservatives. But it also doesn't make any sense. In a world with replicators you would be fully self-sufficient just by owning a replicator. If no one else is conceivably taken advantage of (no host), the parasite analogy falls apart.

>> ^T-man:

I remember when I was watching this the first time I had a strong urge to punch this guy in the nuts.



I fail to see how making his voice even more highly pitched is going to be an improvement. Unless you're talking dog whistle high, in which case, carry on.

There's so much 'dog-whistle' racism coming from the Conservative Right that you have to wonder if the entire Civil Rights movement wasn't some concession awaiting repeal.

Meanwhile, "c'mon and bring on the reparations."

The real trigger is a dog whistle off camera, not necessarily blown by a mouth. Nice little trick to get 250k youtube views.

>> ^quantumushroom:

With apologies because Netrunner isn't here to comment on his comment:
----------

It does seem like the right-wing consensus will be to just double-down on the original racist dog whistle, rather than shift to one of the others they've tried out since 2007.

----------
Stop hiding behind your extremist rhetoric and engage in an ACTUAL dialogue with left leaners and you'd realize that we all want the same thing.
>>> It's sad that demanding a reasonably-sized government answerable to the Constitution is now considered "extremist".

I'm easilly summoned, just put an @ sign in front of my name, and I'll appear.

I don't think living up to the Constitutional requirements are "extremist", what I think is that Obama met the legal standards all the way back when he got on the ballot. I think the witch hunt we've seen the right go on has pretty obviously not been about the Constitution, but about the refusal to accept the legitimacy of a black Democrat being President.

I'm sure for some people it's more about the "Democrat" half than the "black" half, but it's never really been about the documents or the Constitution.

>> ^quantumushroom:
The left views free market capitalism as exploitive and evil (to an extent true) while "my" side sees it as the fastest and most efficient way to lift people out of poverty. It's impossible to argue anything without common ground, and the reality is, not everyone in life ends up a winner, due to poor choices, heredity or plain bad luck. It's not government's job to right every wrong.

I think a lot of the problem I have with the right is that they see distributive justice and market prosperity as being mutually exclusive, and that there's some a priori reason government shouldn't be about righting every wrong.

Personally, I think markets are a good thing on the whole, and I wouldn't get rid of them. I think the difference is that when they lead to human suffering, I think that's a black mark on markets as a societal mechanism, while on the right it seems like if the market causes a human to suffer, that human should have a black mark on them. It comes across to me (and probably most liberals) like some weird superstitious cult: "he got laid off when the recession hit, therefore we should not give him medicine when he gets sick for fear that it would anger the gods of moral hazard."

I think the only reason to shy away from trying to have government "right every wrong" would be over practical concerns -- I don't think we can always properly recognize every wrong, I know that we can't substantively help with them all, and I do recognize that government is still comprised of fallible human beings who might do stupid or immoral things. But, if there's a clear way to recognize them, a straightforward way to help, and we set up reasonable checks and balances against stupidity or evilness, then I see no reason not to try it out.

GenjiKilpatrick:

Would you please stop babbling and step into reality.

>>> You're the one on the unicorn.

Talk to Dag or Blankfist or Dystopian or Me or even.. Westy for fuck's sake.


>>> I have, and will again.

We're all ACTUAL people who have identified Obama's corruption, incompetence, & hypocrisy for what it is to varying extents.

>>> You have collectively been disappointed that His Earness hasn't closed Gitmo, ended the wars, brought about universal health care, etc. That's not the same as noting corruption and incompetence. Hypocrisy, incompetence and corruption are endemic to politics, but there are degrees of severity. This guy has made us a laughingstock amongst our enemies and his trillion dollars of spending haven't done JACK SQUAT to "fix" the economy. America is living on borrowed time, money and Vaseline and the dunce is out golfing while the world burns. The only way to stay sane is to assume that was his plan all along, taking America down a notch in the name of social justice. To imagine any other outcome means he's a total n00b (which he is).


None of us would ever call a person racism for agreeing with this understanding of events.

With apologies because Netrunner isn't here to comment on his comment:
----------

It does seem like the right-wing consensus will be to just double-down on the original racist dog whistle, rather than shift to one of the others they've tried out since 2007.

----------

Stop hiding behind your extremist rhetoric and engage in an ACTUAL dialogue with left leaners and you'd realize that we all want the same thing.

>>> It's sad that demanding a reasonably-sized government answerable to the Constitution is now considered "extremist". The left views free market capitalism as exploitive and evil (to an extent true) while "my" side sees it as the fastest and most efficient way to lift people out of poverty. It's impossible to argue anything without common ground, and the reality is, not everyone in life ends up a winner, due to poor choices, heredity or plain bad luck. It's not government's job to right every wrong.

It's only you and the douche bag neo-liberals who are your polar opposite, too caught up in dogmatic cheerleading, which are holding the rest of us back.

>>> If that belief comforts you...

>>> The Constitution is a "holding back" document, meant to limit the power of government. If you're waiting for government to make your life extraordinary and make everyone happy and equal, you could be immortal and still not have enough time.

>>> If the American people aren't smart enough to elect someone else besides BHO, they get what they deserve. Hell, they already have.