US Politics XVIII: the illegitimate partisan sham thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I mean that could really happen to any of Bernie or Joe or Liz. They’re all vulnerable.

I wonder if the Dems have even thought about dealing Joe + Hunter.
 
Can you imagine the bleating we'd hear from the Cracker Barrel crowd about what a disrespect for taxpaying citizens a Space Force would be if it was Obama's idea?



It would be outrage I’m sure, but fair notice to all - the notion of a space force isn’t Trump’s idea. Numerous administrations have looked into this throughout the 60s/70s/80s.

The notion of a space force is literally just what already exists in the Air Force. Tax-paying wise, it’s the same thing with a different name. Of course, more organizations of independent funding does like point towards more funding, though in turn that could be less funding for other organizations. That’s on Congress with their defense spending bills.
 
Unbelievable. Yes we must protect the children from those dirty words like vagina! They have a President who has talked about grabbing women by the PUSSY and has allegedly assaulted and or raped many women. Disrespects women non stop. Sssh, the children don't have to know that.

There's something so very infuriating about images of that women's march being altered in an exhibit about women's suffrage.

Washington Post

By Joe Heim
January 17, 2020 at 6:54 PM EST

The large color photograph that greets visitors to a National Archives exhibit celebrating the centennial of women’s suffrage shows a massive crowd filling Pennsylvania Avenue NW for the Women’s March on Jan. 21, 2017, the day after President Trump’s inauguration.

The 49-by-69-inch photograph is a powerful display. Viewed from one perspective, it shows the 2017 march. Viewed from another angle, it shifts to show a 1913 black-and-white image of a women’s suffrage march also on Pennsylvania Avenue. The display links momentous demonstrations for women’s rights more than a century apart on the same stretch of pavement.

But a closer look reveals a different story.

The Archives acknowledged in a statement this week that it made multiple alterations to the photo of the 2017 Women’s March showcased at the museum, blurring signs held by marchers that were critical of Trump. Words on signs that referenced women’s anatomy were also blurred.

In the original version of the 2017 photograph, taken by Getty Images photographer Mario Tama, the street is packed with marchers carrying a variety of signs, with the Capitol in the background. In the Archives version, at least four of those signs are altered.

A placard that proclaims “God Hates Trump” has “Trump” blotted out so that it reads “God Hates.” A sign that reads “Trump & GOP — Hands Off Women” has the word Trump blurred out.
Signs with messages that referenced women’s anatomy — which were prevalent at the march — are also digitally altered. One that reads “If my vagina could shoot bullets, it’d be less REGULATED” has “vagina” blurred out. And another that says “This Pussy Grabs Back” has the word “Pussy” erased.

The Archives said the decision to obscure the words was made as the exhibit was being developed by agency managers and museum staff members. It said David S. Ferriero, the archivist of the United States who was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009, participated in talks regarding the exhibit and supports the decision to edit the photo.

“As a non-partisan, non-political federal agency, we blurred references to the President’s name on some posters, so as not to engage in current political controversy,” Archives spokeswoman Miriam Kleiman said in an emailed statement. “Our mission is to safeguard and provide access to the nation’s most important federal records, and our exhibits are one way in which we connect the American people to those records. Modifying the image was an attempt on our part to keep the focus on the records.”

Archive officials did not respond to a request to provide examples of previous instances in which the Archives altered a document or photograph so as not to engage in political controversy.

Kleiman said the images from the 2017 and 1913 marches were presented together “to illustrate the ongoing struggles of women fighting for their interests.”

The decision to blur references to women’s genitals was made because the museum hosts many groups of students and young people and the words could be perceived as inappropriate, Kleiman said in the statement.

Kleiman said the National Archives “only alters images in exhibits when they are used as graphic design components.”

“We do not alter images or documents that are displayed as artifacts in exhibitions,” she said. “In this case, the image is part of a promotional display, not an artifact.”

When told about the action taken by the Archives, prominent historians expressed dismay.

"There's no reason for the National Archives to ever digitally alter a historic photograph," Rice University historian Douglas Brinkley said. "If they don't want to use a specific image, then don't use it. But to confuse the public is reprehensible. The head of the Archives has to very quickly fix this damage. A lot of history is messy, and there's zero reason why the Archives can't be upfront about a photo from a women's march."

Wendy Kline, a history professor at Purdue University, said it was disturbing that the Archives chose to edit out the words "vagina" and "pussy" from an image of the Women's March, especially when it was part of an exhibit about the suffragist movement. Hundreds of thousands of people took part in the 2017 march in the District, which was widely seen as a protest of Trump's victory.

"Doctoring a commemorative photograph buys right into the notion that it's okay to silence women's voice and actions," Kline said in an email. "It is literally erasing something that was accurately captured on camera. That's an attempt to erase a powerful message."

The altered photograph greets visitors to "Rightfully Hers: American Women and the Vote," an exhibit that opened in May celebrating the centennial of women's suffrage. The 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1920, prohibits the federal government and states from denying the right to vote on the basis of sex.

"This landmark voting rights victory was made possible by decades of suffragists' persistent political engagement, and yet it is just one critical milestone in women's battle for the vote," reads a news release announcing the exhibit on the Archives website.

Archives spokesman John Valceanu said the proposed edits were sent to Getty for approval, and Getty "then licensed our use of the image."

A Getty spokeswoman, Anne Flanagan, confirmed that the image was licensed by the National Archives Foundation but said in an email Friday evening that Getty was still determining whether it approved alterations to the image.

Karin Wulf, a history professor at the College of William & Mary and executive director of the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, said that to ensure transparency, the Archives at the very least should have noted prominently that the photo had been altered.

"The Archives has always been self-conscious about its responsibility to educate about source material, and in this case they could have said, or should have said, 'We edited this image in the following way for the following reasons,' " she said. "If you don't have transparency and integrity in government documents, democracy doesn't function.
 
I was sitting here n the bleachers watching my kid's soccer class and talking with some parent friends, and Klobuchar's name came up - and some rando in front of us turned and said something like "she'd fracture the party" to which one of my dad friends said "yea but against Trump they'll turn out" to which rando said "not me, I'm staying home if that happens."

It was at this moment that I realized that we are, still, fucked.
 
Anyone who is willing to “stay home if _____” is on the ticket with this current field of candidates is fucking strange. None of them are that off-putting.
 
He’s been rebranding cheap ties, steaks, and vodka most of his career, why would we expect him to treat an entire new branch of the military any differently?
it's not really a new branch of the military, it's basically just a different name for the air force space command. dipshit donnie is just doing this so that he and the dumb asses who still support him can pretend in an election year like he created some cool futuristic new military thing.
 
Last edited:
The National Archives censorship. I assume this is just like everything else, a testing the waters.

Apologize after the outrage. Do it again and it’ll Have less impact
 
One quick thing before i catch up.

Anyone who is interested in the broad and nuanced differences in how women and men are perceived and treated regarding lying, lies - highlighting Warren and Sanders from this past debate should listen to this weeks On The Media radio broadcast/podcast.
Very insightful. :up:

https://www.wnyc.org/otm-podcast
 
Last edited:
I think the point that is coming up here, and one which many of us males are maybe not sensitive enough to, is that this is indeed a he said/she said issue. But instead of trying to diffuse this by saying something like 'I did not say that, but if Warren got that impression then I'm sorry it was perceived that way' Sanders doubled down on it. And thus basically called Warren a liar. And this comes back to what someone mentioned earlier about 'believe women' that is coming up more and more. They have been put down as being wrong and liars often before. So if an old white man again says to a woman, "You're a liar" then this resonates with a large part of the people.
And if hardcore male supporters of Sanders are then using this to trashtalk Warren even more, thus confirming to women that men still want to put them down as liars, then it does not paint him and his followers in a pretty view.

Thank you. :up:
This was covered in the above mentioned broadcast, podcast.
 
I did hear that Warren told people soon after what ever happened, happened. So that counts for something.
I also believe she could have misheard. She could have heard the beginning of something depending on how Bernie phrased that may have sounded like it was heading in a full negative direction vs something like a caveat and she then couldn't "hear" the rest properly. anitram pointed this out early on. :up:

I don't know if it's so much that people don't care as it is that it seems like nothing we do to try and call out and fight any of the horrific shit spewing from this administration seems to actually achieve anything. That, and the amount of crap that happens is NEVERENDING-like, every single fucking day there's something new and outrageous happening or being revealed, to the point where it gets so exhausting and hard for a lot of people to keep up.

As a result, people are feeling beaten down and overwhelmed and thinking, "What's the point?" I agree that that's not the attitude that we should be having right now, mind, just that that seems to be the mindset taking hold. Trump and the GOP are playing so dirty and so underhanded, to where it seems like there's nothing that can be done to take them down. Even when people do try and fight fire with fire, it seems to backfire on them. And we can't even be guaranteed that voting in November will make a difference, because the GOP is going to try and fuck with our elections yet again.

But yeah, I look at the protests happening in places like Hong Kong, and India, and so on, and I think our country desperately needs to take a page from those protests and do something significant already. We need to mobilize in a huge way that gets everyone's attention and makes Trump and the GOP have to finally answer and pay at long last for everything they're putting this country through.

Hooo boy, yeah, moonlit.
A great line from the lad SW movie #9 -paraphrasing- "They want you to feel alone. That there is no hope. But we are not alone".

I think you feel it more intensely because you are blue in a big red area. Yes, it is daunting, but not impossible!

As Saint Yogi B said, "It ain't over till it's over!". :powerfist:

Well did jst have the 4th Women's March!
The first one :( I missed. I avoid icy snowing conditions as much as possible after an ice accident threw me out of work for 6 months decades back and snowing started around the marching part. I have to look them up.

I think once the weather get better in the North East in the Spring things will get going. Pretty sure Move On will organize something as well.
 
Last edited:
I’m curious on Headaches tease which Dem candidate could have the bad week (realize it could be all)
 
:shifty:

I would love it if a whole bunch of reporters who are cordoned off from talking to the Senators coming in/going out of the trial in the corridors of the building tossed down whatever barriers are there and go after them.
Fuck this semi-authoritarian information diminishment! : powerfist: :)D)
 
Last edited:
Two Dems who probably who’s week is off to a good start: Warren and Klobuchar.

The NYT endorsed both of them in the primary.

Kind of having it both ways, but i take their points.

On paper, the one who can win is Klobuchar. But, I get it, intangibles.
 
So the core of Trump's impeachment defense is said to be that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. And Dershowitz is going to have an argument somehow based on the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.
 
Could you imagine if a bunch of minorities showed up to a state capital protest with guns over their shoulders???
 
Could you imagine if a bunch of minorities showed up to a state capital protest with guns over their shoulders???



Exactly.

You don’t see the deplorables arguing in favour of open carry in Harlem...because they’d shit their pants at the mere thought of it.
 
Could you imagine if a bunch of minorities showed up to a state capital protest with guns over their shoulders???

Oh please , virtue signal much? ?

The point is, there are over 300 million lawful gun owners in America. If they were committing crimes with their guns, you would know it.

Take the guns away from the criminals, not the law abiding citizens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom