|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 25 2016 15:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 15:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 15:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 15:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 15:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 15:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 14:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 14:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 14:26 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 14:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Sanders is no less taking part, and using, the same "corrupt" system.
The only difference is that you're drawing an arbitrary line about where the money is coming from. It's not an arbitrary line, it's a perfectly logical line. The people who give money to Sanders are trying to obtain something in return, just like the big donors: they're trying to get their voice to be heard. They heard Bernie's message, they think it represents their voice, and so they support him with their money. The difference is, it is actually a politician's job to be the voice of people who support him in a democracy, so they're trying to influence him into playing his role. People who donate to Clinton in the same way are doing the exact same thing. The big donors' attempt is one to steal this influence away from the people and to themselves. Depending on what you think of the system, they are either successful or unsuccessful at it. Except you're not making accusations on the side of the donors, you're making accusations at the candidates. And Sanders campaign is very much a giant advertising and fundraising machine, shaped to incite people to pull out their wallets. Again, there's a reason why many other Democratic nations have a election expense limit which is a tiny fraction of what the US primaries spend: because they believe too much money in the process hurts the integrity of the system. The only reason you're drawing the line at the money sources (aka it's fine if Bernie spends hundreds of millions of dollars on a giant marketing extravaganza because he gets his money from nicer places) is to excuse the candidate you like of using a broken system. Which, ironically, is what you built a strawman around. Is that true? I would figure it was because they have a fraction of what we do in population and we spend an inordinate amount (particularly in the general). ~$20 per voter would go a long way, but even $5 per 2 voters still adds up to a lot of money. I think the whole using the system that exists is a reasonable explanation for why Bernie is using the fundraising methods he is, but I don't think it justifies exploiting loopholes that even Republicans haven't used, especially how she is using them. I think it's a fair difference of opinion on our side, but everyone wants to argue semantics instead of what's being meant (unironically arguing that he's being straw manned). Yes, it's absolutely true. Can't speak directly for other nations and how well financed their parties are, but in Canada at least parties have plenty of banked funds that well exceed the amount they're allowed to spend for an election (and given how the minority party system works, sometimes that money is required ahead of schedule). It isn't a hard limit because it adjusts based on the length of the election campaigning period. But to give some perspective, the last Canadian election was increased to 3 months and that caused quite a big stink (and might have hurt the Conservatives who set this timeframe). I think each party had a limit of $58 million in this election, while the normal and expected amount is closer to $25-30 million.. That's kind of what I'm saying, that would still be about $500 million. Wait, what would be about $500 million? Do you mean proportionally? Because it's a normal amount of, say, $30 million per entire party (only about 4 parties can actually reach this cap, a few can still hit the ~$10 million mark). And for the big parties, that's $30 million for 338 representatives trying to get elected (granted, the bulk does go to the party leader, who pulls up the other vicariously). And again, we're talking $200-250 million spent for primary elections in the US, not even counting the actual Presidential race. Yeah I'm saying with the population difference in mind, that would be about $500 million. Ok, sure...but I'm not sure why being able to proportionally raise more money matters? For one thing, campaigning doesn't necessarily cost 10x more for the same level of proportional coverage. And again, Canadian parties could spend more money in elections. They're just not allowed to. I'm not arguing against the concept, just saying that when broken down per voter it wouldn't take much to raise a lot so it's probably always going to be more than others (until stuff costs more in India or something). How do you prevent outside money from doing random things up there? I'm thinking about the excuses against the idea lobbied here, like Citizens Unite?
There's a hard limit on what outside organizations can spend as well. Same rules, minimum limit for the minimum election duration, grows as the campaign extends. I think it starts at $150,000 or something? Plus limits on how much they're allowed to spend per district.
Also required to officially register as a Third Party. Probably a bunch of other rules and regulations I'm not aware of.
|
On April 25 2016 14:09 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 13:49 Nebuchad wrote:
I think "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in the system" and "the system is corrupt" are very similar positions. You just used quotation marks for a statement I did not make. I have repeatedly denounced the use of the term "corrupt" to describe the system. Stop misrepresenting my position, and start reading my posts instead.
Would you agree that we have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans. That our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee?
|
Those discussions here are often quite entertaining.
It usually sounds like US elections are not about votes, but only about collecting money. A bit like a charity donation race, except without the charity.
And even more interesting is how those things are discussed. Because obviously everyone entirely accepts, that this race for money is a must have, it is only discussed who is donating and how much etc.
So it all about, if it is better, if some multibillion dollar corp donates a million, or if you take a thousands students savings. (oh shit, US students have no savings, well... if you dump 1000 students into deeper debt) And then of course there are also Carson type candidates...
But looking at Germany, I haven't even once seen or heard a call for donations by any party here. Hell, I don't even know if it would be legal to call for donations in an election TV spot. So I quickly looked it up, overall only 5% of the party income comes from donations here.
And this has some nice benefits. It keeps the campaigns quite "on topic". Instead of using half of the campaign to collect money, it can be really focussed on the actual political campaigning and attempt to convince voters. Suddenly elections are about votes again, woohooo.
Of course, it comes with some other effects too. In return for this, it means that you can not just jump into an election, because you are a billionaire. You actually need a party to support you. And this requires a fair amount of work for the party to climb the politcal ladder here. I guess there are different opinions if this is an upside or a downside.
|
On April 25 2016 18:22 mahrgell wrote:
Those discussions here are often quite entertaining.
It usually sounds like US elections are not about votes, but only about collecting money. A bit like a charity donation race, except without the charity.
And even more interesting is how those things are discussed. Because obviously everyone entirely accepts, that this race for money is a must have, it is only discussed who is donating and how much etc.
So it all about, if it is better, if some multibillion dollar corp donates a million, or if you take a thousands students savings. (oh shit, US students have no savings, well... if you dump 1000 students into deeper debt) And then of course there are also Carson type candidates...
But looking at Germany, I haven't even once seen or heard a call for donations by any party here. Hell, I don't even know if it would be legal to call for donations in an election TV spot. So I quickly looked it up, overall only 5% of the party income comes from donations here.
And this has some nice benefits. It keeps the campaigns quite "on topic". Instead of using half of the campaign to collect money, it can be really focussed on the actual political campaigning and attempt to convince voters. Suddenly elections are about votes again, woohooo.
Of course, it comes with some other effects too. In return for this, it means that you can not just jump into an election, because you are a billionaire. You actually need a party to support you. And this requires a fair amount of work for the party to climb the politcal ladder here. I guess there are different opinions if this is an upside or a downside.
Its important to remember that even in the US just money is not enough.
Jeb was the perfect example of that this time around, all the money he could ever want and he failed utterly.
|
On April 25 2016 19:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 18:22 mahrgell wrote:
Those discussions here are often quite entertaining.
It usually sounds like US elections are not about votes, but only about collecting money. A bit like a charity donation race, except without the charity.
And even more interesting is how those things are discussed. Because obviously everyone entirely accepts, that this race for money is a must have, it is only discussed who is donating and how much etc.
So it all about, if it is better, if some multibillion dollar corp donates a million, or if you take a thousands students savings. (oh shit, US students have no savings, well... if you dump 1000 students into deeper debt) And then of course there are also Carson type candidates...
But looking at Germany, I haven't even once seen or heard a call for donations by any party here. Hell, I don't even know if it would be legal to call for donations in an election TV spot. So I quickly looked it up, overall only 5% of the party income comes from donations here.
And this has some nice benefits. It keeps the campaigns quite "on topic". Instead of using half of the campaign to collect money, it can be really focussed on the actual political campaigning and attempt to convince voters. Suddenly elections are about votes again, woohooo.
Of course, it comes with some other effects too. In return for this, it means that you can not just jump into an election, because you are a billionaire. You actually need a party to support you. And this requires a fair amount of work for the party to climb the politcal ladder here. I guess there are different opinions if this is an upside or a downside. Its important to remember that even in the US just money is not enough. Jeb was the perfect example of that this time around, all the money he could ever want and he failed utterly.
This is certainly true, but just looking how often campaign financing is a topic here, in the news and how much time the campaigns are using on it... It is still a huge part distracting from that a democratic elections should be about.
Even worse, it often suggests, that the individual "support of your candidate" is measured in "how much $ have you donated". This is especially a topic for those self called grassroots campaigns. And the big money campaigns have to really question themselves, if they can stay independent from their large industrial donors.
And in the end, your political agenda is suddenly not only driven by "this convinces x voters" but by "this convinces x voters and we get y millions in donations from it" causing an unequality in democratic power between the people. Everyone may have only one vote. But some guys have one vote and a big purse, and some guys only have a vote. If you can choose who to target, the choice is simple.
|
On April 25 2016 09:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 08:50 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2016 05:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 05:36 IgnE wrote:On April 25 2016 04:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Sandernistas have become the useful idiots of the Republican party.
Basically they have been doing their whole campaign on personal attacks about Hillary being corrupt, dishonest and sold to Wall Street.
In fact there is not the slightest evidence that HC has ever been corrupt or bought by anyone, or that she is dishonest. This is right wing propaganda, based on nothing. When Sanders was asked when she had done anything that could be linked to her being "bought by Wall Street", he was left speechless.
This is rather sad because Sanders has plenty to bring to american politics. But if all his troops can do is hate speech, insults and defamation against their own side, they are not worth much better than Republicans. I feel like her being dishonest is somewhat irrefutable. As an example, the transcripts, there is no explanation for how her excuse isn't dishonest. The rest just takes removing the idea that these folks are giving millions of dollars without any expectation to influence policy. Which the Democrats did in 2014, but have since abandoned due to Hillary's fundraising. How does the change in fundraising rules at the DNC not signal that lobbyists will be more influential under her potential administration, not less? It's not that they are giving her $1million cash so she votes X, I don't think many politicians are that stupid. There's no question she would be more heavily influenced to lean toward her donors when making policy considerations. Yes but no. The transcripts are absolutely not a proof of her being dishonest. She might not want to release things she said to a closed circle of people during her campaign for strategic reasons, or because she thinks it could be used in a way or an other against her. How is that dishonesty?? And that's all you have to call someone dishonest? That's quite slim. Now she is playing american politics by the book, and yes, it is contributors who pay for campaigns. It doesn't make her sold. There is a problem with the system, not with her. Blaming her for the system is sterile and unfair. A question: if Sanders wins the primaries, how do you think he will fund his election campaign? With 10$ donations? He'll probably turn down all the big donor's money, right? Just think about that. If accepting money from big donors means being bought, Bernie will be bought the second he is up against Trump or whichever monster the Republican chose for themselves. What does Sanders and his campaign have answered about that? Nothing. They just pretend the problem doesn't exist. So let's recap. Sanders is playing an ad hominem campaign based on right wing propaganda "Hillary is dishonest and corrupt!!" and the fact her opponent is playing american politics by the book the exact same way he will have to play them the moment he is chosen. And that's the guy who will make american politics better. Wow. (I am not voting for that election since I am not american, and I am much closer ideologically to Sanders - I do agree with most of what he says - than Clinton. But the disgraceful campaign he is leading makes me want to root for Clinton. When your troops are so toxic they turn people who are perfectly aligned politically with you away, you have to change something. And that would apply to you. Instead of discussing proposals and policies, you basically concentrate on defaming the most likely candidate to face Trump. Not smart.) What about WhiteWater guys??? Good idea : let's base that campaign on a twenty five years old minor "scandal" that didn't lead to any kind of conviction for the Clinton and in which nobody has ever had a clue who was involved and at what level. Jesus... You REALLY think that when we talk of the Clinton, that's the important stuff? Bill Clinton has been 8 years in office, had had a major, major influence on how the world is today, Hillary has been secretary of State, we are discussing policies that could potentially change America, and more importantly, chosing someone to make sure that the most important person in the world won't be Trump, and all you guys find to debate about is a shit scandal from the 80's and the fact that Clinton doesn't want to release transcripts. That's fucking sad if you ask me. That's exactly the point : the clinton familly was in power, much like the bush familly, and their actions were basically either detrimental to the average US citizen or useless. Bill deregulated finance (which helped get a surge of income for a few years, but effectively facilitated the bubble and 2008), he didn't do anything in regards to inequalities that had risen quite a lot after reagan and bush the first, he agreed himself that he made mass incarceration worse during his mandate... I also believe they have some kind of link to the student debt fiasco ? But firm margin greatly increase during his presidency, it's true. On every topic that are central to Bernie's success the Clinton franchise did a bad job. Why would you want people to vote for someone that basicallyis the archetype of the politicians that created the situation that so many people are rejecting ? I think it's the main reason people stress so much on anything that could support this idea that she is "the system" ; it's a virtual confirmation to the fears of many that she is just another mainstream politicians. The 2008 crisis was actually because of derivatives--which sanders was on the people who made it happen. Bernie does not point this out though, because why would he point out how he was one of the helpers of the crisis and not Bill.
Derivatives were just the form the crisis took ; but the crux of it was the excess of savings in the world (due to trading imbalance mostly) and the deregulated finance, effectively attracting this excess and creating the bubble.
On April 25 2016 19:42 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 19:13 Gorsameth wrote:On April 25 2016 18:22 mahrgell wrote:
Those discussions here are often quite entertaining.
It usually sounds like US elections are not about votes, but only about collecting money. A bit like a charity donation race, except without the charity.
And even more interesting is how those things are discussed. Because obviously everyone entirely accepts, that this race for money is a must have, it is only discussed who is donating and how much etc.
So it all about, if it is better, if some multibillion dollar corp donates a million, or if you take a thousands students savings. (oh shit, US students have no savings, well... if you dump 1000 students into deeper debt) And then of course there are also Carson type candidates...
But looking at Germany, I haven't even once seen or heard a call for donations by any party here. Hell, I don't even know if it would be legal to call for donations in an election TV spot. So I quickly looked it up, overall only 5% of the party income comes from donations here.
And this has some nice benefits. It keeps the campaigns quite "on topic". Instead of using half of the campaign to collect money, it can be really focussed on the actual political campaigning and attempt to convince voters. Suddenly elections are about votes again, woohooo.
Of course, it comes with some other effects too. In return for this, it means that you can not just jump into an election, because you are a billionaire. You actually need a party to support you. And this requires a fair amount of work for the party to climb the politcal ladder here. I guess there are different opinions if this is an upside or a downside. Its important to remember that even in the US just money is not enough. Jeb was the perfect example of that this time around, all the money he could ever want and he failed utterly. This is certainly true, but just looking how often campaign financing is a topic here, in the news and how much time the campaigns are using on it... It is still a huge part distracting from that a democratic elections should be about. Even worse, it often suggests, that the individual "support of your candidate" is measured in "how much $ have you donated". This is especially a topic for those self called grassroots campaigns. And the big money campaigns have to really question themselves, if they can stay independent from their large industrial donors. And in the end, your political agenda is suddenly not only driven by "this convinces x voters" but by "this convinces x voters and we get y millions in donations from it" causing an unequality in democratic power between the people. Everyone may have only one vote. But some guys have one vote and a big purse, and some guys only have a vote. If you can choose who to target, the choice is simple.
I'm pretty sure there's a ton of corruption in regards to campaign financing in the US. Even in France, where everything is regulated and controlled by the state, the previous president campaign made some shaddy business.
That kind of money can't really go without any kind of corruption and, personally, I have a really difficult time understanding the amount of money spent.
|
On April 25 2016 19:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 18:22 mahrgell wrote:
Those discussions here are often quite entertaining.
It usually sounds like US elections are not about votes, but only about collecting money. A bit like a charity donation race, except without the charity.
And even more interesting is how those things are discussed. Because obviously everyone entirely accepts, that this race for money is a must have, it is only discussed who is donating and how much etc.
So it all about, if it is better, if some multibillion dollar corp donates a million, or if you take a thousands students savings. (oh shit, US students have no savings, well... if you dump 1000 students into deeper debt) And then of course there are also Carson type candidates...
But looking at Germany, I haven't even once seen or heard a call for donations by any party here. Hell, I don't even know if it would be legal to call for donations in an election TV spot. So I quickly looked it up, overall only 5% of the party income comes from donations here.
And this has some nice benefits. It keeps the campaigns quite "on topic". Instead of using half of the campaign to collect money, it can be really focussed on the actual political campaigning and attempt to convince voters. Suddenly elections are about votes again, woohooo.
Of course, it comes with some other effects too. In return for this, it means that you can not just jump into an election, because you are a billionaire. You actually need a party to support you. And this requires a fair amount of work for the party to climb the politcal ladder here. I guess there are different opinions if this is an upside or a downside. Its important to remember that even in the US just money is not enough. Jeb was the perfect example of that this time around, all the money he could ever want and he failed utterly.
Trump as well. He doesn't spend a whole lot.
|
The 2016 map always looked good for Democrats. But if Donald Trump or Ted Cruz is at the top of the GOP ticket, it looks freaking great for them.
The 2014 midterm was nothing short of a disaster for Democrats, a combination of a dismal map, midterm-election Obama fatigue and shoddy recruitment, that ultimately cost Democrats the Senate and netted Republicans nine seats from North Carolina to Colorado. In 2016, the tables were expected to turn even before Trump emerged. Now things have gone from bad to awful for Republicans' Senate hopes.
"It creates lots of problems and headaches for Republicans, and Democrats firmly believe that it is going to be a train wreck unlike anything seen in a long time," Duffy says. "I have Democrats talking to me about 8 to 10 seats. I am not there yet."
In 2016, Democrats only have 10 seats to hold on to. Republicans, meanwhile, have 24–seven in states Obama won in both 2008 and 2012. And unlike a midterm election where turnout is anemic and older white voters call the shots, the presidential race is expected to bring more minority and young voters out to to polls.
Kyle Kondik, a congressional race analyst at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, breaks it down into three categories. There are the hardest seats for Republicans to hold onto; Wisconsin and Illinois, which have trended further to the left in recent years. Then there are races that are more truly toss-ups, places like Florida, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Ohio where a presidential race could swing the state one way or the other. And, finally there are a new slew of seats that could be up for grabs if Republicans select a presidential nominee like Trump or Cruz.
Since the cycle started, Democrats have bet they could net four or five seats with a specific eye on Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Illinois and Florida, but the prospect of Cruz or Trump on the top of the ticket is making them more bullish.
Now, Democrats are seriously looking at expanding their map to North Carolina, Missouri, Arizona, Indiana and even Iowa –states with strong incumbents once viewed as hard to knock off. In Iowa, Democrats successfully recruited former state agricultural secretary and lieutenant Gov. Patty Judge to challenge six-term incumbent Sen. Chuck Grassley.
Source
|
On April 25 2016 13:09 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 12:54 Mohdoo wrote:On April 25 2016 12:45 Introvert wrote:
If the majority really wanted Trump to have it, he'd have it. If this works, it's pretty clear evidence that the majority of the GOP don't think Trump should just have it handed to him. Don't forgot the Trump vote is like 40% or less. I get how it may not make sense to hand it to someone with 40%. But how do you justify handing it to 30%? Delegate decision making. Probably why whoever it is will choose an establishment running mate. Try to make the claim that you are the alternative. It wouldn't be "handing it to" in either scenario anyway. You have to earn the votes. Edit: I mean for all of Trump's whining, if it was "fair" he'd have no shot at winning either.
So do you think this well go over will? Does someone not lose a massive part of their identity when they are simply joining the anti-trump team? Will people still really feel like they are voting for Kasich or Cruz? I just don't see how you can go against the popular vote. How could that not be suicide? How do Trump supporters cope with someone very different from Trump being appointed the nominee?
|
On April 25 2016 22:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The 2016 map always looked good for Democrats. But if Donald Trump or Ted Cruz is at the top of the GOP ticket, it looks freaking great for them.
The 2014 midterm was nothing short of a disaster for Democrats, a combination of a dismal map, midterm-election Obama fatigue and shoddy recruitment, that ultimately cost Democrats the Senate and netted Republicans nine seats from North Carolina to Colorado. In 2016, the tables were expected to turn even before Trump emerged. Now things have gone from bad to awful for Republicans' Senate hopes.
"It creates lots of problems and headaches for Republicans, and Democrats firmly believe that it is going to be a train wreck unlike anything seen in a long time," Duffy says. "I have Democrats talking to me about 8 to 10 seats. I am not there yet."
In 2016, Democrats only have 10 seats to hold on to. Republicans, meanwhile, have 24–seven in states Obama won in both 2008 and 2012. And unlike a midterm election where turnout is anemic and older white voters call the shots, the presidential race is expected to bring more minority and young voters out to to polls.
Kyle Kondik, a congressional race analyst at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, breaks it down into three categories. There are the hardest seats for Republicans to hold onto; Wisconsin and Illinois, which have trended further to the left in recent years. Then there are races that are more truly toss-ups, places like Florida, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Ohio where a presidential race could swing the state one way or the other. And, finally there are a new slew of seats that could be up for grabs if Republicans select a presidential nominee like Trump or Cruz.
Since the cycle started, Democrats have bet they could net four or five seats with a specific eye on Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Illinois and Florida, but the prospect of Cruz or Trump on the top of the ticket is making them more bullish.
Now, Democrats are seriously looking at expanding their map to North Carolina, Missouri, Arizona, Indiana and even Iowa –states with strong incumbents once viewed as hard to knock off. In Iowa, Democrats successfully recruited former state agricultural secretary and lieutenant Gov. Patty Judge to challenge six-term incumbent Sen. Chuck Grassley. Source
TPM is pretty liberal so I'd take their extremely sunny projections with a grain of salt. That said, it would be hella satisfying to see Grassley knocked out. I'm bearish on McCain losing his seat though, he might be tied now but he's won every Senate election so far by a huge margin and I'm unsure if he could lose.
|
On April 25 2016 20:20 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 09:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 25 2016 08:50 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2016 05:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 05:36 IgnE wrote:On April 25 2016 04:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Sandernistas have become the useful idiots of the Republican party.
Basically they have been doing their whole campaign on personal attacks about Hillary being corrupt, dishonest and sold to Wall Street.
In fact there is not the slightest evidence that HC has ever been corrupt or bought by anyone, or that she is dishonest. This is right wing propaganda, based on nothing. When Sanders was asked when she had done anything that could be linked to her being "bought by Wall Street", he was left speechless.
This is rather sad because Sanders has plenty to bring to american politics. But if all his troops can do is hate speech, insults and defamation against their own side, they are not worth much better than Republicans. I feel like her being dishonest is somewhat irrefutable. As an example, the transcripts, there is no explanation for how her excuse isn't dishonest. The rest just takes removing the idea that these folks are giving millions of dollars without any expectation to influence policy. Which the Democrats did in 2014, but have since abandoned due to Hillary's fundraising. How does the change in fundraising rules at the DNC not signal that lobbyists will be more influential under her potential administration, not less? It's not that they are giving her $1million cash so she votes X, I don't think many politicians are that stupid. There's no question she would be more heavily influenced to lean toward her donors when making policy considerations. Yes but no. The transcripts are absolutely not a proof of her being dishonest. She might not want to release things she said to a closed circle of people during her campaign for strategic reasons, or because she thinks it could be used in a way or an other against her. How is that dishonesty?? And that's all you have to call someone dishonest? That's quite slim. Now she is playing american politics by the book, and yes, it is contributors who pay for campaigns. It doesn't make her sold. There is a problem with the system, not with her. Blaming her for the system is sterile and unfair. A question: if Sanders wins the primaries, how do you think he will fund his election campaign? With 10$ donations? He'll probably turn down all the big donor's money, right? Just think about that. If accepting money from big donors means being bought, Bernie will be bought the second he is up against Trump or whichever monster the Republican chose for themselves. What does Sanders and his campaign have answered about that? Nothing. They just pretend the problem doesn't exist. So let's recap. Sanders is playing an ad hominem campaign based on right wing propaganda "Hillary is dishonest and corrupt!!" and the fact her opponent is playing american politics by the book the exact same way he will have to play them the moment he is chosen. And that's the guy who will make american politics better. Wow. (I am not voting for that election since I am not american, and I am much closer ideologically to Sanders - I do agree with most of what he says - than Clinton. But the disgraceful campaign he is leading makes me want to root for Clinton. When your troops are so toxic they turn people who are perfectly aligned politically with you away, you have to change something. And that would apply to you. Instead of discussing proposals and policies, you basically concentrate on defaming the most likely candidate to face Trump. Not smart.) What about WhiteWater guys??? Good idea : let's base that campaign on a twenty five years old minor "scandal" that didn't lead to any kind of conviction for the Clinton and in which nobody has ever had a clue who was involved and at what level. Jesus... You REALLY think that when we talk of the Clinton, that's the important stuff? Bill Clinton has been 8 years in office, had had a major, major influence on how the world is today, Hillary has been secretary of State, we are discussing policies that could potentially change America, and more importantly, chosing someone to make sure that the most important person in the world won't be Trump, and all you guys find to debate about is a shit scandal from the 80's and the fact that Clinton doesn't want to release transcripts. That's fucking sad if you ask me. That's exactly the point : the clinton familly was in power, much like the bush familly, and their actions were basically either detrimental to the average US citizen or useless. Bill deregulated finance (which helped get a surge of income for a few years, but effectively facilitated the bubble and 2008), he didn't do anything in regards to inequalities that had risen quite a lot after reagan and bush the first, he agreed himself that he made mass incarceration worse during his mandate... I also believe they have some kind of link to the student debt fiasco ? But firm margin greatly increase during his presidency, it's true. On every topic that are central to Bernie's success the Clinton franchise did a bad job. Why would you want people to vote for someone that basicallyis the archetype of the politicians that created the situation that so many people are rejecting ? I think it's the main reason people stress so much on anything that could support this idea that she is "the system" ; it's a virtual confirmation to the fears of many that she is just another mainstream politicians. The 2008 crisis was actually because of derivatives--which sanders was on the people who made it happen. Bernie does not point this out though, because why would he point out how he was one of the helpers of the crisis and not Bill. Derivatives were just the form the crisis took ; but the crux of it was the excess of savings in the world (due to trading imbalance mostly) and the deregulated finance, effectively attracting this excess and creating the bubble. Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 19:42 mahrgell wrote:On April 25 2016 19:13 Gorsameth wrote:On April 25 2016 18:22 mahrgell wrote:
Those discussions here are often quite entertaining.
It usually sounds like US elections are not about votes, but only about collecting money. A bit like a charity donation race, except without the charity.
And even more interesting is how those things are discussed. Because obviously everyone entirely accepts, that this race for money is a must have, it is only discussed who is donating and how much etc.
So it all about, if it is better, if some multibillion dollar corp donates a million, or if you take a thousands students savings. (oh shit, US students have no savings, well... if you dump 1000 students into deeper debt) And then of course there are also Carson type candidates...
But looking at Germany, I haven't even once seen or heard a call for donations by any party here. Hell, I don't even know if it would be legal to call for donations in an election TV spot. So I quickly looked it up, overall only 5% of the party income comes from donations here.
And this has some nice benefits. It keeps the campaigns quite "on topic". Instead of using half of the campaign to collect money, it can be really focussed on the actual political campaigning and attempt to convince voters. Suddenly elections are about votes again, woohooo.
Of course, it comes with some other effects too. In return for this, it means that you can not just jump into an election, because you are a billionaire. You actually need a party to support you. And this requires a fair amount of work for the party to climb the politcal ladder here. I guess there are different opinions if this is an upside or a downside. Its important to remember that even in the US just money is not enough. Jeb was the perfect example of that this time around, all the money he could ever want and he failed utterly. This is certainly true, but just looking how often campaign financing is a topic here, in the news and how much time the campaigns are using on it... It is still a huge part distracting from that a democratic elections should be about. Even worse, it often suggests, that the individual "support of your candidate" is measured in "how much $ have you donated". This is especially a topic for those self called grassroots campaigns. And the big money campaigns have to really question themselves, if they can stay independent from their large industrial donors. And in the end, your political agenda is suddenly not only driven by "this convinces x voters" but by "this convinces x voters and we get y millions in donations from it" causing an unequality in democratic power between the people. Everyone may have only one vote. But some guys have one vote and a big purse, and some guys only have a vote. If you can choose who to target, the choice is simple. I'm pretty sure there's a ton of corruption in regards to campaign financing in the US. Even in France, where everything is regulated and controlled by the state, the previous president campaign made some shaddy business. That kind of money can't really go without any kind of corruption and, personally, I have a really difficult time understanding the amount of money spent.
Two things.
A.) Don't be selective if you are blaming the acts of Clinton's time in office for the 08 crisis--especially when the specific bad event was directly caused by something Bernie supported. The only argument against Bill was his additional deregulation on Glass Seagal, but being that the crisis was primarily caused by small banks and not the big ones that's kind of like blaming Germany's attack on Poland for the Pearl Harbor attack.
B.) Money in politics can only be dealt with in one way--opacity. Either you allow it and make it easy to track, or you stick your head in the ground and pretend money doesn't sway your politics. The US is opting for transparency, Bernie is hoping that the people he accuses of corruption will stop being corrupt just because he's in office.
|
Can you briefly explain, or link to, the "something Bernie supported" which ended up causing the 08 crisis?
I'm curious, since I have a brief understanding of what happened, but not really the understanding of the deregulation behind it.
|
On April 25 2016 23:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 20:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2016 09:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 25 2016 08:50 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2016 05:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 05:36 IgnE wrote:On April 25 2016 04:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Sandernistas have become the useful idiots of the Republican party.
Basically they have been doing their whole campaign on personal attacks about Hillary being corrupt, dishonest and sold to Wall Street.
In fact there is not the slightest evidence that HC has ever been corrupt or bought by anyone, or that she is dishonest. This is right wing propaganda, based on nothing. When Sanders was asked when she had done anything that could be linked to her being "bought by Wall Street", he was left speechless.
This is rather sad because Sanders has plenty to bring to american politics. But if all his troops can do is hate speech, insults and defamation against their own side, they are not worth much better than Republicans. I feel like her being dishonest is somewhat irrefutable. As an example, the transcripts, there is no explanation for how her excuse isn't dishonest. The rest just takes removing the idea that these folks are giving millions of dollars without any expectation to influence policy. Which the Democrats did in 2014, but have since abandoned due to Hillary's fundraising. How does the change in fundraising rules at the DNC not signal that lobbyists will be more influential under her potential administration, not less? It's not that they are giving her $1million cash so she votes X, I don't think many politicians are that stupid. There's no question she would be more heavily influenced to lean toward her donors when making policy considerations. Yes but no. The transcripts are absolutely not a proof of her being dishonest. She might not want to release things she said to a closed circle of people during her campaign for strategic reasons, or because she thinks it could be used in a way or an other against her. How is that dishonesty?? And that's all you have to call someone dishonest? That's quite slim. Now she is playing american politics by the book, and yes, it is contributors who pay for campaigns. It doesn't make her sold. There is a problem with the system, not with her. Blaming her for the system is sterile and unfair. A question: if Sanders wins the primaries, how do you think he will fund his election campaign? With 10$ donations? He'll probably turn down all the big donor's money, right? Just think about that. If accepting money from big donors means being bought, Bernie will be bought the second he is up against Trump or whichever monster the Republican chose for themselves. What does Sanders and his campaign have answered about that? Nothing. They just pretend the problem doesn't exist. So let's recap. Sanders is playing an ad hominem campaign based on right wing propaganda "Hillary is dishonest and corrupt!!" and the fact her opponent is playing american politics by the book the exact same way he will have to play them the moment he is chosen. And that's the guy who will make american politics better. Wow. (I am not voting for that election since I am not american, and I am much closer ideologically to Sanders - I do agree with most of what he says - than Clinton. But the disgraceful campaign he is leading makes me want to root for Clinton. When your troops are so toxic they turn people who are perfectly aligned politically with you away, you have to change something. And that would apply to you. Instead of discussing proposals and policies, you basically concentrate on defaming the most likely candidate to face Trump. Not smart.) What about WhiteWater guys??? Good idea : let's base that campaign on a twenty five years old minor "scandal" that didn't lead to any kind of conviction for the Clinton and in which nobody has ever had a clue who was involved and at what level. Jesus... You REALLY think that when we talk of the Clinton, that's the important stuff? Bill Clinton has been 8 years in office, had had a major, major influence on how the world is today, Hillary has been secretary of State, we are discussing policies that could potentially change America, and more importantly, chosing someone to make sure that the most important person in the world won't be Trump, and all you guys find to debate about is a shit scandal from the 80's and the fact that Clinton doesn't want to release transcripts. That's fucking sad if you ask me. That's exactly the point : the clinton familly was in power, much like the bush familly, and their actions were basically either detrimental to the average US citizen or useless. Bill deregulated finance (which helped get a surge of income for a few years, but effectively facilitated the bubble and 2008), he didn't do anything in regards to inequalities that had risen quite a lot after reagan and bush the first, he agreed himself that he made mass incarceration worse during his mandate... I also believe they have some kind of link to the student debt fiasco ? But firm margin greatly increase during his presidency, it's true. On every topic that are central to Bernie's success the Clinton franchise did a bad job. Why would you want people to vote for someone that basicallyis the archetype of the politicians that created the situation that so many people are rejecting ? I think it's the main reason people stress so much on anything that could support this idea that she is "the system" ; it's a virtual confirmation to the fears of many that she is just another mainstream politicians. The 2008 crisis was actually because of derivatives--which sanders was on the people who made it happen. Bernie does not point this out though, because why would he point out how he was one of the helpers of the crisis and not Bill. Derivatives were just the form the crisis took ; but the crux of it was the excess of savings in the world (due to trading imbalance mostly) and the deregulated finance, effectively attracting this excess and creating the bubble. On April 25 2016 19:42 mahrgell wrote:On April 25 2016 19:13 Gorsameth wrote:On April 25 2016 18:22 mahrgell wrote:
Those discussions here are often quite entertaining.
It usually sounds like US elections are not about votes, but only about collecting money. A bit like a charity donation race, except without the charity.
And even more interesting is how those things are discussed. Because obviously everyone entirely accepts, that this race for money is a must have, it is only discussed who is donating and how much etc.
So it all about, if it is better, if some multibillion dollar corp donates a million, or if you take a thousands students savings. (oh shit, US students have no savings, well... if you dump 1000 students into deeper debt) And then of course there are also Carson type candidates...
But looking at Germany, I haven't even once seen or heard a call for donations by any party here. Hell, I don't even know if it would be legal to call for donations in an election TV spot. So I quickly looked it up, overall only 5% of the party income comes from donations here.
And this has some nice benefits. It keeps the campaigns quite "on topic". Instead of using half of the campaign to collect money, it can be really focussed on the actual political campaigning and attempt to convince voters. Suddenly elections are about votes again, woohooo.
Of course, it comes with some other effects too. In return for this, it means that you can not just jump into an election, because you are a billionaire. You actually need a party to support you. And this requires a fair amount of work for the party to climb the politcal ladder here. I guess there are different opinions if this is an upside or a downside. Its important to remember that even in the US just money is not enough. Jeb was the perfect example of that this time around, all the money he could ever want and he failed utterly. This is certainly true, but just looking how often campaign financing is a topic here, in the news and how much time the campaigns are using on it... It is still a huge part distracting from that a democratic elections should be about. Even worse, it often suggests, that the individual "support of your candidate" is measured in "how much $ have you donated". This is especially a topic for those self called grassroots campaigns. And the big money campaigns have to really question themselves, if they can stay independent from their large industrial donors. And in the end, your political agenda is suddenly not only driven by "this convinces x voters" but by "this convinces x voters and we get y millions in donations from it" causing an unequality in democratic power between the people. Everyone may have only one vote. But some guys have one vote and a big purse, and some guys only have a vote. If you can choose who to target, the choice is simple. I'm pretty sure there's a ton of corruption in regards to campaign financing in the US. Even in France, where everything is regulated and controlled by the state, the previous president campaign made some shaddy business. That kind of money can't really go without any kind of corruption and, personally, I have a really difficult time understanding the amount of money spent. Two things. A.) Don't be selective if you are blaming the acts of Clinton's time in office for the 08 crisis--especially when the specific bad event was directly caused by something Bernie supported. The only argument against Bill was his additional deregulation on Glass Seagal, but being that the crisis was primarily caused by small banks and not the big ones that's kind of like blaming Germany's attack on Poland for the Pearl Harbor attack. B.) Money in politics can only be dealt with in one way--opacity. Either you allow it and make it easy to track, or you stick your head in the ground and pretend money doesn't sway your politics. The US is opting for transparency, Bernie is hoping that the people he accuses of corruption will stop being corrupt just because he's in office.
I'm not sure you even understand the crisis that much. I'm always dumbfounded at people that try to drown the crisis in abstract complexity (small banks and not big ones, derivative and not the finance overall) misunderstanding that what they see as the cause is an effect of a global macroeconomic situation (excess saving in the world and desequilibrium, inequalities, diversification of assets that leads to systemic risks, big banks that use their leverage too much, etc.).
Are you saying the end of the Glass Seagal legislation had no effect on the size of banks and that this had no role in how the crisis went / was handled ? Are you saying that by merging investment and commerce, it didn't pushed all banks to takes more risk and ask for higher return on investment on average, like say a nobel prize like Stiglitz argued ? Sure, the end of the glass steagal is only one small aspect of the 2008 crisis, it played a small role, but it's still a factor.
|
Then perhaps you should tell us what really caused it then.
I'd like to know more and am willing to listen to most explanations.
|
On April 25 2016 04:31 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 04:07 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 03:51 Kickstart wrote:On April 25 2016 02:36 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 00:09 Kickstart wrote:On April 24 2016 12:03 Nebuchad wrote:On April 24 2016 05:10 Kickstart wrote:On April 24 2016 04:53 JW_DTLA wrote:
Very few people actually defend "political correctness". The term is usually a straw man for conservatives who want to apply group prejudice without feeling bad. So when I hear it, I try to think of which definition of political correctness the conservative is attacking. I can think of three functional definitions of PC:
1) Don't use racial epithets - White people often complain they can't use the N-word.
2) Don't apply actions of some in a group to others based on group membership - White people like tarnishing blacks/Muslims with actions of some in those groups.
3) General resentment of liberal arguments against conservative positions - this is the original definition of politically correct from the 70s, where liberals would argue down conservative positions.
Definition number (2) is by the most important and most discussed. Lots of people want to use group attributes to tarnish individuals. This is a natural human instinct from back in the cave man days. Being politically correct involves resisting this temptation. People like Sam Harris, who have made valid criticisms of Islam as an ideology, the 'regressives' have went all out completely misrepresenting his views and what he has said. Sam Harris has claimed to be misrepresented at least three times more often than he has been... He's a professional troll, the fact that his first book got a following is a disgrace given what it contains, and his fanboys are the closest thing to a cult I've seen in the atheist community. I'm perfectly comfortable with my PC position of strongly disliking him. On the general topic of political correctness, I think the attack is misplaced. I don't think political correctness is a problem, I think being wrong while trying to be politically correct is. On a recent example, I don't think the problem with criticizing Halloween costumes because they're offensive is that we're trying to be nice, I think it's that we're wrong. Halloween costumes are not offensive. And I think using examples where people have been wrong while trying to be politically correct to criticize political correctness as a notion in its entirety is a politically motivated move. Well we can disagree about Sam Harris. I wouldn't consider myself a fanboy of his. I don't really read his books or follow him on any sort of media, but I watch some interviews he does and so on. That said I know what his views are on most things because I have listened to him express them, and the misrepresentation of his views by the far left are fairly blatant. My main point is that he has relevant criticisms of Islam that get drowned out by the far left misrepresenting what he says and then attacking his character based on that. That is the thing I was initially talking about is that the discourse in general (from left/right/everyone) has degraded so much, that everyone seems more content to engage in frivolity than have serious discussion about important issues. I agree with you about the costume thing, and the people in this thread who go on and on about how costumes can be offensive annoy me to no end. My point isn't that speech , costumes, or anything else can't be offensive, it is that offensive things are to be allowed (not banned on college campuses and what have you) and (in most cases) shouldn't lead to the kind of overreaction that they have recently. Some of the costumes they were bitching about were quite ridiculous, especially given that there could be actually offensive costumes like a nazi officer or klan uniform. I agree that there are consequences to wearing certain things or saying certain things, but the 'pc culture' and 'regressive left' that everyone keeps talking about just take it to the level of absurdity. If you want to present specific elements about Harris I can debunk them. If you don't, then I'll come with mine, and that will be a very long post. And you manifestantly don't agree with me about the costume thing cause you use terms like "PC culture" and "regressive left" that are at the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I use the terms because people know what I mean when I say them, notice how I put them in quotation marks. They describe the type of people whom I have a problem with, or attempt to anyways. A few pages back I went into specifics about it, but it truly is much easier to sum it all up in a phrase, however inadequate or disliked the phrase might be. What aspect of Sam Harris' ideas are you speaking about, because he does talk about a range of topics. I'll assume you mean his thoughts on Islam as that is what he is probably most known for and gotten the most flak over. He has said a lot, and it would be better to listen to his talks and read his stuff than it would be for me to summarize. But some of the general points he makes that I agree with that we can start with are: (1) All religions have issues, but in today's world we find our selves in a time where Islam is causing us the most problems. (Islamic fundamentalists, terrorism, ISIS, and so on). (2) While the large majority of muslims don't engage in violence, majorities of them , when polled, are consistently for things like stoning adulterers, removing the hands of thieves, death to apostates, and so on (implementation of sharia law). Likewise in countries with large muslim populations, large portions of the muslim population say they would like for sharia law to be implemented. (3) There is a direct line between things that the faith teaches and words in the Koran and Hadiths and in the Islamic tradition, that all explain the types of fundamentalist behaviors and problems we are facing today. Harris often describes it as a mother-load of bad ideas. Those are me rewording what I think of as his main points whenever he discusses Islam. We can start there I guess, unless you were thinking of other things entirely. I don't see how the charge of him being an islamophobe or a racist or all these other things are at all based in reality, or are representative of the things he says on the topic. EDIT: I honestly think it would be easier for you to briefly describe why you don't like him or what he has said that you take issue with. Because asking me to both state and defend all of his positions on any given topic seems a lot more effort than you stating what you take issue with ;] You're right, it'll be easier if I describe my problems with Harris, but I don't think I can be brief about that. I'm at my parents' right now so I don't have all of my sources with me, I'll get on it when I come back (tomorrow night CET) Sounds good. I usually follow this thread even though I don't post too much~
I thought I had internet links saved in my .doc, turns out I didn't. That is kind of dumb on my part. Most of the content I'm talking about is referenced using article names, which means you can google the name and find the article it's coming from. If there's some source material that you can't find and wish to, please signal it to me and I'll do my best to find it again.
My two main attacks on Sam Harris are based, one on the content of some of his arguments, and the second on the way he argues and defends himself. I think his general tactic is to combine very obvious statements about reality and very provocative statements, and when he’s attacked for the provocative ones, to roll back to the obvious ones and pretend this is what he’s being attacked on. What you have said illustrates kind of well what I’m talking about. You’ve mentioned what he thinks of islam, and you’ve mentioned that it’s causing the most terrorism today (an obvious statement) and that there are concerning polls about islam and what some muslims think (another obvious statement). What he’s doing is hijacking the conversation and having us believe that if you don’t agree with him about islam, well it must be that you disagree with those obvious statements. You must not think that it’s a problem that this amount of muslims believe apostasy deserves death. A lot of his arguments function in this fashion.
On top of that, he's been relentlessly attacking the character of people who disagree with him and have argued against him. These people are not simply wrong, they're also evil; they're dishonest, they're misrepresenting him with an evil intent, and sometimes they're also assholes if they're really lucky. This manichaean view is useful especially because it's so manichaean: it allows you to dismiss factual claims that are made against you, because the people making them aren't honest actors and don't deserve an answer. My favorite example of that is the Mondoweiss article by Theodore Sayeed called Sam Harris, uncovered: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/sam-harris-uncovered. Whether you agree with the article or not, you will notice that it's a fully sourced piece, which references Sam Harris' writing on a consistent basis, and that its criticism of Harris is always based on reasons that are explained.
Here's the one and only time, as far as I know, that Harris has adressed this article in any way: "I receive a stream of emails demanding to know why I continue to ignore Theodore Sayeed’s demolition of me on the website Mondoweiss. The answer: I’ve never heard of Theodore Sayeed or Mondoweiss. A subsequent glance at his article reveals misrepresentations of my views and tendentious maneuvers that seem to have been made in very bad faith. Engaging with this sort of thing only gives it greater currency—or so I like to believe, given that I have no time to engage with it."
If you're familiar with Harris, you're familiar with how much he's claimed to be misrepresented. He has put a lot of time into making sure people know that he's misrepresented a lot by everyone. I guess he didn't have any time left to explain how that was the case.
Here are some points in no particular order, focused mainly on content and dishonesty in Harris‘ speech:
1. Harris will tell you that he doesn't criticize all muslims, he criticizes islam. His concern is with the doctrine being wrong and dangerous (the mother lode of bad ideas, a thoroughgoing cult of death), not with the people who call themselves muslims. Basically, his depiction looks like this: there are fundamentalists and extremists, and there are the people who truly follow islam. Those are the people we don't like. Then there are other people, nominal muslims, many of whom "don't take their faith seriously". Those are the people who are fine. Which is why not all muslims are criticized.
It’s a logical conclusion: if you criticize an ideology, but not all the people following it, then obviously the people you don’t criticize are the people who don’t really follow the ideology to its end.
Many problems with that: first, there are people who are muslims, take their faith seriously, and don't believe that their faith commends them to do anything as terrible as the fundamentalists believe. According to the portrayal here, those people aren't muslims, they just think they are. That doesn’t portray the muslim world well at all. A more accurate representation should be: here are fundamentalists and extremists, here are radicals. Those are the people we don’t like. Then there are other people, moderate muslims, and then non-practising muslims and nominal muslims.
The reason why my depiction is more accurate is because the claim Harris makes about fundamentalism being directly tied to islam is inaccurate. Not because it’s wrong: it isn’t wrong, there is a clear connection between the texts of islam and the beliefs of the fundamentalists. What Harris ignores is that there is also a clear connection between the texts of islam and the beliefs of the moderate. A moderate will cherrypick the quran and ignore what he doesn’t like, but a fundamentalist will do the exact same thing. As such, an honest observer can’t declare that one group is „true islam“ while the other isn’t (in the same way that an honest observer cannot say that the fundamentalists aren’t muslims). Harris speaks of some of the contradictions regarding the link between the quran and fundamentalism in the End of Faith, but he says they are „loopholes“ that are „easily dismissable“. Oh, okay? Why does that line work for fundamentalists, but not for moderates? He, of course, doesn’t explain that.
At 8:30 in the Affleck interview, Harris says „there are hundreds of millions of muslims who are nominal muslims, who don’t take the faith seriously, who don’t want to kill apostates, who are horrified by ISIS, and we need to defend these people […]“ A description that coincides with what I‘ve described, in which he says the moderates of islam are people who don’t take their faith seriously, which coincides with everything he’s ever said about the doctrine of islam. Commenting about this specific interview, he said on his blog: „Unfortunately, I misspoke slightly at this point, saying that hundreds of millions of Muslims don’t take their “faith” seriously.“
Interesting mistake to make. Especially interesting considering that a month before that, he had this to write on this very same blog (or miswrite, I guess?):
„In drawing a connection between the doctrine of Islam and jihadist violence, I am talking about ideas and their consequences, not about 1.5 billion nominal Muslims, many of whom do not take their religion very seriously.“
Now this isn’t the first time I’ve copypasted this point, and it’s been objected to me that in his more recent book with Majid Nawaz, Harris is presented with a similar vision by Nawaz and seems to agree with it (or me). Well, I have not read this specific book. It’s possible that Harris has become more sensible about this topic, and I certainly would commend him for that. The thing is, I have not seen this recent enlightenment come with an acknowledgement that what he used to think on the topic was bullshit, and so I can’t factually say that he’s departed from those ideas.
I think it’s especially telling that Harris is adressing this specific message to liberals, as opposed to muslims. When he talks about islam, he doesn’t want to influence the muslim world, he doesn’t want to influence islam. He wants to influence the left-wing of our own countries. It is my belief that this point is especially important because we’re talking about islam, precisely because the polls show that the amount of radicals in islam is so important. I think if you portray islam to its face in the way Harris has portrayed it, you’re helping the cause of extremism. You’re lending credit to the notion that we have a culture war on our hands, and you’re telling all of the people who feel muslim but don’t associate with radicalism that they aren’t really muslim unless they do, that they belong to an enemy culture. I don’t want moderate religious people to have to choose to either deny their own culture or be an extremist. I want them on my side against extremism. This is the message I want out there.
2. Harris develops a concept in the End of Faith: there is a link between belief and behavior. When someone believes in something, it influences how likely he is to act in some ways. We will ignore, for the purpose of this criticism, that this is one of the top 5 Captain Obvious comments of all time. We will instead focus on how he uses this link to demonstrate that his criticism of the texts of islam is necessary. He will say, this thing is written in the quran, therefore, based on the link between belief and behavior, it’s logical that fundamentalists behave this way today.
That’s not really how beliefs function. Beliefs are dangerous insofar as they are held, not insofar as they are written. The best example of this I could come up with is a reverse example. The quran says, and reinforces several times, that there should be no compulsion in religion. As a muslim, you are only the messenger, nothing else is demanded from you. You should let he who believes it, believe, and he who rejects it, reject. According to the logic of Harris, there can’t be a problem with killing apostates in islam, because the quran speaks very clearly against that, and there is a link between belief and behavior... Yeah well. Beliefs are beliefs. Texts are texts.
You may think I’m being too simplistic in how I describe the thought process of Harris. I am not: he is. In his interview with Cenk, he compared secularism in christian countries and secularism in muslim countries. This is how he illustrated the difference: in the Bible, there is the line „Render to Cesar the things that are Cesar’s“, and there is no equivalent to that in the quran.
Consider this: the reason why we have secular democracies today is because we had a line in the Bible that allowed us to, while muslims did not… Where in this train of thought is the Holy Roman Empire, or the concept of Christendom? No clue. Where are the thinkers of the Enlightenment that actually did lead us to secularism? Did they do so because they wanted to follow the Bible? Can’t say, can’t tell.
3. The introduction to The End of Faith, the first writing that you’re introduced to if you read Sam Harris’ books, is intensely misleading for several reasons. It depicts a suicide bombing. Somebody detonated a bomb in a bus and killed plenty of people. You don’t know anything else. The book then asks you: „Why is it so easy, then, so trivially easy—you-could-almost-bet-your-life-on-it easy—to guess the young man’s religion?“
Simply said, that isn’t a criticism of islam. The response to the question isn’t: because the doctrine of islam is so terrible that it leads to terrorism. The response to the question is: because in today’s context, there are more islamic terrorist acts than any other. When someone tells you: „Everytime I read the paper and see gang violence, it’s a Black or Hispanic kid who did it“, you don’t think he has a good point about black culture. And yet somehow saying the same thing about islam isn’t shocking.
4. There is a footnote to the introduction to the End of Faith (about the suicide bomber who you can trivially guess is a muslim):
„Some readers may object that the bomber in question is most likely to be a member of the Liberations Tigers of Tamil Eelam—the Sri Lankan separatist organization that has perpetuated more acts of suicidal terrororism than any other group. Indeed, the “Tamil Tigers” are often offered as a counter¬example to any claim that suicidal terrorism is a product of religion. But to describe the Tamil Tigers as “secular”—as R. A. Pape, “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism,” American Political Science Review 97, no. 3 (2003): 20-32, and others have – is misleading. While the motivations of the Tigers are not explicitly religious, they are Hindus who undoubtedly believe many improbably things about the nature of life and death.“
Same claim in the article Bombing our illusions:
„Several readers followed Pape’s and put forward the Tamil Tigers as a rebuttal to my claim that suicidal terrorism is a product of religion. But it is misleading to describe the Tamil Tigers as “secular,” as Pape often does. While the motivations of the Tigers are not explicitly religious, they are Hindus who undoubtedly believe many improbable things about the nature of life and death.“
It won’t surprise you that I have a few things to say here:
. Oh, okay, when you wrote this, you knew that the group that had done the more „terrororism“ was the Tamil Tigers, a secular organization? Then maybe you shouldn’t have encouraged people to bet their lives on the fact that the bomber is muslim?
. When you discussed Cenk, you told him that when a muslim commits an act of terror and says it’s for Allah, we should take him at his word. Here, someone commits an act of terror and says it’s for secular and nationalist reasons. Now you’re looking for other reasons. Interesting double standard. No true secular would ever do that, am I right?
. Maybe notice the casual racism there? Sure, you claim that you’re secular, but well, you’re Hindu, so you culturally have crazy beliefs, we should take your claim that you’re secular with a grain of salt. It’s as if our good old Sam has suddenly forgotten the kind of crazy beliefs that we culturally have in Europe… Or perhaps we should take any European’s claim of secularism with a grain of salt too, but weirdly enough, this topic hasn’t come up.
5. In 2006, Israel caught criticism for carpet bombing Gaza and Lebanon. This is how Harris responded to the criticism (in an article called The End of Liberalism?): „In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. [Muslims are worse than Israelis (note: the shift from religious appartenance to national appartenance is from the original)] Given these distinctions, there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. And yet liberals in the United States and Europe often speak as though the truth were otherwise.“
Actually, the fact that Israel has the moral high ground is EXACTLY why we were able to criticize it. When a terrorist causes a suicide bombing, nobody thinks: „Damn, those terrorists, another suicide attack, I didn’t think they could stoop this low.“ They are terrorist groups, it’s what they do, it’s what’s expected of them. Israel, as a democracy, has ascribed values to itself because of being a democracy. When it doesn’t follow these values, it acts in a less moral way than we expected it to act. Which is why we criticize it. Your defense of Israel relies on the very notion that justifies the attacks it got.
6. Harris proposes a thought experiment about justifying nuclear first strikes if an extremist muslim country were to come in possession of nukes. Yeah, I know, it’s not a justification (except it is, unless you think „ensuring our survival“ isn’t something we should aspire to), yeah, I know, it’s self-defense (then why isn’t it self-defense for the islamists to first strike us, when they know that we would first strike them in self-defense?). The argument that he developed on the subject of nuclear first strike is very reminiscent of what was said by many about Khruschchev before he came into power: he was very dangerous, there was a good chance that he would use nukes, we should nuke him first. I think we’re glad today that we didn’t listen to those voices.
The biggest reason why his thought experiment is not thought provoking at all is that we already have an extremist muslim country who has access to nukes. It’s called Pakistan…
7. Since we were just talking about self-defense, here’s why you can’t attack Harris for saying „Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them“: because there is context to the sentence. In this context, it is made explicit that Harris doesn’t want to kill harmless people for thought crimes. (blog post: on the mechanism of defamation)
Yeah, Sam, except the quote that we criticized contains the term „dangerous“. As such, we clearly don’t think that you’re targeting harmless people. Your claim of misrepresentation misrepresents our claim.
There are two levels for this claim: either you’re describing self-defense, in which case you’re describing something obvious that is already accepted by everyone, so why would you need softeners like „it may be ethical“ as opposed to „it is ethical“, or you’re describing something more than self-defense, in which case it’s not a misrepresentation to say that you are. There is no middle ground there. The blog post „on the mechanism of defamation“ is one of the clearest examples of the dishonesty of Harris which I’ve mentioned in my introduction. It’s a blog post in which he’s complaining about being misrepresented, and then in the sole example he gives, he proceeds not to show how he’s misrepresented, but how he’s right to believe what he believes. This is called backing your argument, not displaying a misrepresentation. But his line of defense hasn’t been „I need to back my arguments“, it has been „my opponents are dishonest assholes“. And so this is what we get.
8. Here’s how Harris defended the notion that we should profile muslims, or anyone that could conceivably be a muslim: it’s not racial profiling, it’s anti-profiling, we should profile people who can conceivably be a threat, not 5-year-old girls and 90-year-old japanese women. Unfortunately for him we haven’t forgotten that 5-year-old girls and 90-year-old japanese women can be muslim, that it’s conceivable. Unfortunately for him we haven’t forgotten that 90-year-old muslim women don’t represent a threat superior to 25-year-old japanese men. Unfortunately for him, saying „muslim“ is not the same thing as saying „a threat“, those are two different ideas, so pretending that you meant the latter when you wrote the former is misusing the english language. To claim misrepresentation when you used words of different meaning just so you could elicit a controversy is transparent and laughable. This might be the only case in which the defense of what Harris says paints a picture as despicable as what he said in the first place.
9. Islamophobia: the Maher interview with Affleck: „I’m not denying that some people are bigoted against muslims as people“. An e-mail to Greenwald: „There is no such thing as “Islamophobia.” This is a term of propaganda designed to protect Islam from the forces of secularism by conflating all criticism of it with racism and xenophobia.“
10. During the interview with Cenk, there is a 15+ minutes segment in which Cenk tells Harris that islam is one factor amonst others in terrorist acts, not the only factor and not the predominant factor. For 15 minutes, Harris develops his criticism of islam. Cenk, several times, reiterates that he acknowledges it is a factor, and offers that it isn’t the only one. Each time, Harris continues with his criticism of islam. At the end of the segment, Cenk says it once again, and Harris counters: „I agree with that.“
Oh, you agree? Maybe you should have said so the first time then. This is a common mechanism for Harris. You answer questions in ways that elicit certain reactions, but you don’t fully confirm the basis for the reaction. You say Cruz is reasonable for wanting only christian refugees, but you don’t say you want it yourself. That way, if you’re attacked, you can whine that you’re misrepresented. Here, if you’re criticized for blaming only islam for the terrorism, you can say: but look, at the end, I said I agree that there are other factors…
This also enhances confusion. Now plenty of people don’t know where others stand. People say that Cenk is a muslim apologist, because they are under the impression that he thinks islam has no blame at all. We are called regressive because we don’t want to blame islam for anything. But we do want to. We want to blame islam accurately. Then why are we disagreeing with Harris? That’s what he said to Cenk the apologist… And round it goes.
11. There is perhaps no better example of a dishonest Harris than the discussion on religions not being equally wrong. He said to Cenk that it was a mathematically true fact, that you’d have to be a moron to think otherwise (this argument is often used by followers of Harris to discredit Cenk). There is a discussion on Youtube called Four Horsemen, in which Harris discusses other new atheists. At the very end of this discussion, Sam brings up the notion that all religions aren’t equally wrong. Hitchens and Dawkins both disagree with him, saying that they are. Hitchens even says they are latently equally dangerous. Sam Harris, at this point, doesn’t tell them they are mathematically ignorant and stupid. He’s like okay, let’s have a debate about that. And they proceed.
In this discussion with new atheists, Harris is interested in talking about whether religions are equally wrong. Which is why they do that. In the discussion with Cenk, Harris is interested in wanting other people to think of Cenk as a moron. Which is why he dismisses Cenk’s opinion as being ridiculous. Notice the epic, epic double standard.
12. The US has good intent. „Ethically speaking, intention is (nearly) the whole story. The difference between intending to harm someone and accidentally harming them is enormous—if for no other reason than that the presence of harmful intent tells us a lot about what a person or group is likely to do in the future.“
That’s from Chomsky vs Harris. There are two things I want to say about this.
First, here the opposition is between accidentally killing someone and willingly killing someone. It is fallacious to represent collateral damage as „accidental“ because your intent wasn’t to kill the people you ended up killing. We know how bombs work. We know that we kill people with them, it’s not an accident. Let me present you with a thought experiment: you have three people in front of you, one of them is a terrorist. You have no way to determine which one is. Because you want to prevent further acts of terror, you decide to kill all three of them to ensure the terrorist doesn’t escape. Your intent wasn’t to kill the other two, you had nothing against them. But their death can’t be described as accidental. You knew what you were doing. You are stating that killing the enemy is worth more than keeping these people alive. You are saying their lives don’t matter enough. And maybe you’re right, bear in mind: that’s another discussion. But either way it is very different from accidentally killing someone, and you’re smart enough to know it, so you can’t be arguing in good faith.
Second, we don’t know from this discussion what it is exactly about the US that causes it to have good intentions. Cause we know from reading the End of Faith that it’s not simply saying that it does:
„Are intentions really the bottom line? What are we to say, for instance, about those Christian missionaries in the New World who baptized Indian infants only to promptly kill them, thereby sending them to heaven? Their intentions were (apparently) good. Were their actions ethical? Yes, within the confines of a deplorably limited worldview. The medieval apothecary who gave his patients quicksilver really was trying to help. He was just mistaken about the role this element played in the human body. Intentions matter, but they are not all that matters.“
Those people are acting ethically within the confines of a deplorably limited worldview. The US, on the other end, are just acting ethically, period. We don’t really know why. Because Sam Harris says they are? Can’t we say that Harris has a deplorably limited worldview himself, in which islam is evil and it’s more important for a president of the US to be really against islam than to be a rational individual?
The mechanism, in a nutshell: good intent makes you a good person, unless I’ve decided that you have a limited world view, in which case good intent isn’t that important. In other words, we’re good because we’re good.
On April 25 2016 04:02 oBlade wrote:
actual content of Sam Harris because all you did was call him a professional troll and then say you had a miraculous way of debunking him that your post was too small to contain.
Challenge accepted.
|
|
|
Deregulation created a "new" class of derivatives, credit default swaps, which were basically a type of insurance where if a financial instrument failed to pay out another complany would pay in its stead. It also allowed for crappy stuff like mortgage backed securities.
So, lets say JPM made a bunch of MBS's. Credit agencies give the MBS's a AAA. Lehman Brothers insures these supposedly relatively safe, high yield loans. MBS's collapse en masse. JPM goes to Lehman saying we want our money. Lehman Brothers has to pay out. Their liquidity pool quickly runs out. They have insufficient stop loss insurance. JPM is hemorrhaging cash as well. No one has enough working cap, credit starts to freeze. Government steps in by providing credit lines to prevent this.
This is essentially shadow banking because its taking place through non FDIC insured/ non regulated channels. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act excluded all these derivatives from being regulated.
|
Damn Nebuchad, quite the post :O
|
|
|
On April 26 2016 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
Damn Nebuchad, quite the post :O
It's been a while since I don't like Harris, I come prepared now. Honestly the Sayeed article that I've linked is much better than anything I could write.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
