This user made no submissions.
This user has so far shared a total of 0 links, started a total of 0 discussions and submitted a total of 164 comments.
Submissions: This user has upvoted 35 and downvoted 9 submissions.
Comments: This user has upvoted 211 and downvoted 33 comments.
5 highest rated submissions:
This user made no submissions.
5 lowest rated submissions:
This user made no submissions.
3 highest rated comments:
PontarTourist 0 points 21 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago
"I don’t know how you would characterize the gang leaders who got 13-year-old kids hopped up on crack and sent them out into the street to murder other African American children—maybe you thought they were good citizens,” Clinton said.
Bill launched a thought bomb. I wouldn't be surprised if this is something of a turning point for this BLM drama.
- Credibility among listeners: Only Bill could say all of this without the rest of the leftist jackals turning on him.
- Reframes the conversation: Bill shifted the narrative into "Good people" and "Bad people", good people being the children and kids and victims of gang violence, bad people being those who perpetrate violence and those who excuse it.
- Forced the opposition into a position of weakness where the only options are humiliation, or concession and compliance: Bill boxed BLM into a position where they either have to acknowledge and assume some responsibility for the gang violence endemic to black areas, or they continue to pretend it doesn't exist and lose credibility.
- Think of the children: By cognitively linking gang violence and BLM with dead black children, Bill made his argument bullet-proof, and planted the seeds of a conversation in listeners.
Crazy shit, people forget that Bill was a deviously charismatic persuasive speaker. We'll see whether this begins convincing blacks and liberals to turn on BLM, or if it hurts Hillary.
PontarTourist 0 points 15 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago
The problem existed back in 2006, it was just suppressed and kept hidden. This kind of cuckoldry takes generations to blossom.
Watergate Journalist On Why Hillary's Emails Are Like Nixon's Tapes. "But this is worse in some ways. Clinton tried to hide every one of her emails. She destroyed 30,000 of them... submitted by TerriChris to news
PontarTourist 0 points 14 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago
Hillary already shot her campaign in the foot at the debate when she stated she deserved to be president because of her gender. Not even Obama played the race card that hard.
Trump's going to hound on that non-stop, and thanks to his own hiring practices (which have been startlingly egalitarian), Dems have little fuel to fire back at him.
"Look at the women I've hired and promoted. I believe in egalitarianism. In people earning what they work for. Hillary thinks she deserves a pass just because of her gender."
3 lowest rated comments:
PontarTourist 6 points -6 points 0 points (+0|-6) ago
Considering this is coming from RT, I think it's a load of propaganda.
This is just an effort by the Russians to depict American combat ops in the region in a negative light, and thus maintain the "Only Russia is fighting ISIS" narrative.
PontarTourist 9 points -6 points 3 points (+3|-9) ago
And why do you believe this to be true? Because RT said so?
PontarTourist 3 points -3 points 0 points (+0|-3) ago
Taking the broad view shows that many of the underlying problems that made Syria a hotbed for conflict were intrinsic to the regime. The network of minority Alawites in positions of power, the vast and deeply entrenched state security apparatus that threatened any dissent with imprisonment or worse, and the interlocked nature of the military with the regime rather than the government, were all stifling and disenfranchising influences. After such a devastating war has ripped the country apart it's wise to look at just what destination we expect to arrive at when we try to talk about the problems in Syria. If/ when Assad reasserts control over much of the region, should people expect a reassertion of the demographically imbalanced oppressive government that helped incite people to revolt in the first place? The Syria that emerges after the war will not and cannot return to the way it was, and expecting a return to business as usual lacks foresight.
Now lets talk about the water crisis which has gripped the region for years now, and compounded these problems. At the heart of the Syrian Civil War's foundation is the drought brought on by climate change which drove many farmers and rural workers into poverty and pushed them into the cities, overwhelming infrastructure, public services, and the capacity for the state security services to control them. At the end of the day desperate people will eventually overturn whatever effort is made to sit on the boiling kettle's lid. To stop the violence in Syria from happening again, these climate and poverty issues will be critical.
So to recap: major domestic issues coupled with a regional climate issue lead to unrest.... only to be capitalized on by regional powers and international governments in attempts to push their own agendas. I'll remind you that the enmity that has existed between Syria, its neighbors, and the West, span decades. One civil war doesn't change history, and this enmity won't go away with the defeat of ISIL. Sunnis hate Assad. Israel hates Assad. Turkey hates Assad. The Gulf States hate Assad. Whether out of sectarian zealotry, matters of national security, a desire for regional influence, or through a tremendous hunger for money, all of these nations Syria in their sights and won't stop until he's gone. They can peddle arms and train foreign fighters for years, and there doesn't seem to be a ceiling on people willing to go fight and die in Jihad. The United States and Europe likewise are interested in settling their own scores in the region, keeping various plates spinning, and ensuring that energy can flow into Europe. Assad toppling looked like it would suit those purposes, and anything that put pressure on Iran, or Russia, are also positives.
Assuming Russia and Iran are up to the challenge, they have a hefty amount of momentum to work against, still without any light at the end of the tunnel for how some kind of end to the violence can be reached. Russia's solution so far looks to be a foreign intervention and just killing people until they "Win" - anyone who remembers how Afghanistan and Vietnam went shouldn't need to take notes. Supposing that Russia and Iran manage to "crush" ISIL quickly, just what is going to stabilize the region and offer security? Patrolling convoys of Shiite militias? Russian soldiers? This just returns us to the problems that started the war. Unless some broader political agreement is reached that satiates enough parties, the violence will continue for years after official "operations" have ended.
No amount of flowery language describing Assad as a bastion of secularism can cover up the deeply unstable foundations within the country, many which reach all the way back to generations old religious wars and persecution, and the failure of European crafted and European styled "nation states" in the region after WW1.