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 August 12 2016 03:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I actually had an argument with one of my professors when they were trying to motivate me to vote in 2012 against this line of reasoning I put forth to justify my not-voting.
One of the points they brought up was that if everyone applied my reasoning, no one would vote and the entire thing ceases to function
I think it just goes to support a critical flaw in democracy. If everyone has the power to vote, then no one really has the power to vote. Your vote is diluted and meaningless in a sea of the collective
On a singular level applied to only one person it may be true. But given that the groups of people who don't have this attitude and instead always vote get what they want a disproportionate amount of the time, voting does seem to make a difference.
On August 12 2016 03:04 KwarK wrote: I can understand not wanting Clinton to be president but not wanting Clinton to be president so badly that you'll take Trump? I don't get it.
Things would have to be a lot worse for me to consider Trump, or more generally the Republican Party, over even Hillary. But holy fuck is that a bad option. And I don't see any desire for change within the party or the politically active base so it's only likely to get worse.
Hillary won't crash the nation and lead it to hell but I am quite sure the country will be worse off after the end of her presidency than it is right now.
worse off under which metrics? I ask because there's a great number of possible ways to measure worse off.
More ill-thought-out military confrontations. More poorly implemented trade/globalization schemes. Less support for socially progressive movements with only a small bit of true progress through her tenure. More willingness to support even the shitty candidates that the Republican Party will put up by virtue of how weak of a candidate and leader she can be. Ineffective policy implementation in general if her history is any indication.
Basically I see Hillary as a "status quo minus" president, a president who will not really push the country forward but who people who are already well off will be happy with.
somewhat measurable; though I'd prefer something more clearly measurable. One of the problems with stuff the gov't does imho, is that they don't establish enough good clear metrics by which to measure whether some new program was a success/failure, so they end up always claiming afterwards that it was a success/failure based on partisanship, and due to the nature of politics/lawyering they can always find some arguments for that position; since they didn't establish clear metrics at the start.
also, objective measurements, while not capturing the whole story and somewhat malleable, are at least less subject to the bias/distortion of politicians.
Meh, it's a highly subjective / objective but unmeasurable matter. Sticking to what is measurable and objective just because it's what you can measure is probably even more foolish than ignoring data where it is available.
No one knows what the next 4-8 years will look like and we have even less of an idea what the long-term consequences of those years will be. What I predict is based on the results of her previous tenure in office which is not all that great. And I see more effort to spin her mistakes into successes rather than acknowledge them for what they are.
you seem to have missed the point about the objectivity. it's to try to prevent politicians from always arguing a program succeeded/failed based on their political position. the thing is, most of your points to look at are vague enough that you can easily argue you were right regardless of what happens. e.g.: "More poorly implemented trade/globalization schemes."
In this case that's more a factor of me not wanting to write a long essay in response to a pretty generic query. I could definitely give a more specific description if I really was interested in fleshing out my position. But I don't think that would do this thread much good right now.
long as you have some tha'ts fine. Part of my point was that I want our politicians, who do have the time and the job on such issues; that they should come up with more thorough assessments.
On August 12 2016 02:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I like Trump because the enemy of my enemy is my friend
The origin story of Osama Bin Laden.
"Trump voters are like Bin Laden"
I expect no less from you
You making the connection to "trump voters are bin laden" is a nice leap. He means the saying 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is a shit reasoning that can explain a thousand and one terrible things through history.
I was making a joke. I'm aware he wasn't literally saying I was like Osama Bin Laden. He took my logic to an extreme and I made fun of him for it.
The fact that it has been misapplied in history to terrible results doesn't take away from the fact that when correctly applied, it's a prudent policy.
The logic is sound. You're only arguing with it because I'm using it to justify my vote for Trump.
Intellectual dishonesty all fucking over the place as usual
Actually, I'm pretty sure Plansix was partly just trying to point out that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" was the logic the CIA used frequently during the Cold War, including in the case of the Afghan-Soviet war, where it's rumored people were asked up to the meetings about distributing arms to the mujahideen under Osama bin Laden by saying "Come on up, we're killing Ruskies."
Perhaps you might be able to say "the enemy of my enemy who is not also my enemy or likely to become my enemy in the future is my friend" but that's not the policy most use.
It's actually pretty funny this comes up right after Trump says Obama helped create ISIS because that is a case where the U.S. under Reagan/Carter really did create Al Qaeda (to be more accurate, the CIA did it, they probably didn't have much oversight really).
It's why "Trump is awful so vote for Clinton" only holds up as an argument for liberals who don't think Clinton will destroy their lives in one way or another.
On August 11 2016 23:16 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think it's definitely possible to make the argument that Obama did not have to withdraw and that the decision allowed IS to thrive, but that in no way makes Trump's statement 'Obama FOUNDED ISIS' any less retarded. I'm seriously getting pretty sick of this absolute nonsense and how people are bending over backwards to try to make Trump intellectually palatable, but this is just stupid bullshit. The ridiculous exaggeration from the Trump camp is making it impossible to have any type of civil, political discourse and this is a case where the blame for the negative shift in the political climate almost solely rests on his shoulders, because when it comes to peddling bullshit, he is far guiltier than any other politician with any serious amount of traction from either side of the political aisle.
Really looking forward to the end of this election..
Chalk another one up for bravado. This election shows how many people in left and center-left simply prefer a media bending over backwards to cover for politicians like Clinton, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the like. It comes from men and women put forward with experts having ivy league school degrees. The tone is muted and frequently has the NPR vibe. But it is none the less stupid bullshit politely called political spin. So I'm having great trouble sympathizing with Trump's detractors as he goes two steps beyond sane policy statements to the absurd. You just don't like the brash, cocksure flavor of tripe, and would rather have the other kind. Secondly, you're more at home with admitted lies that error close to the left's worldview than the selfsame exaggerations from the right. The histrionics from you and others make this all the more hilarious ... trust me when I've seen the opposite--the Obama administration and fellow-travelers have made it impossible to have a civil political discourse and much of the blame for a bad shift in political climate rests on his shoulders.
Yes, pretend Trump's rhetoric is not fundamentally more foul than that of others. Whatever makes you comfortable in your support of Trump, honesty be damned.
I just have to stand in disbelief when I mention the difference in tone and draw a distinction along other lines, then back comes a response pretending I'm making a separate claim.
There is a difference in tone, and one is fundamentally more foul and therefore worse. Your "stupid bullshit" equivocation ignores that one could still be fundamentally more foul and damaging.
Right, not harping on it is symptomatic of ignoring it. Maybe turn on the network news shows if hearing that over and over again is your thing. If we can't acknowledge other threats to civil discourse, I'm simply not interested.
On August 12 2016 03:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: Danglars was not disputing that Trump's tone is fundamentally more foul. He's rather putting the blame on the left for refusing to acknowledge the message Trump brings until someone with as foul of a tone as Trump brought it.
On August 11 2016 23:16 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think it's definitely possible to make the argument that Obama did not have to withdraw and that the decision allowed IS to thrive, but that in no way makes Trump's statement 'Obama FOUNDED ISIS' any less retarded. I'm seriously getting pretty sick of this absolute nonsense and how people are bending over backwards to try to make Trump intellectually palatable, but this is just stupid bullshit. The ridiculous exaggeration from the Trump camp is making it impossible to have any type of civil, political discourse and this is a case where the blame for the negative shift in the political climate almost solely rests on his shoulders, because when it comes to peddling bullshit, he is far guiltier than any other politician with any serious amount of traction from either side of the political aisle.
Really looking forward to the end of this election..
Chalk another one up for bravado. This election shows how many people in left and center-left simply prefer a media bending over backwards to cover for politicians like Clinton, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the like. It comes from men and women put forward with experts having ivy league school degrees. The tone is muted and frequently has the NPR vibe. But it is none the less stupid bullshit politely called political spin. So I'm having great trouble sympathizing with Trump's detractors as he goes two steps beyond sane policy statements to the absurd. You just don't like the brash, cocksure flavor of tripe, and would rather have the other kind. Secondly, you're more at home with admitted lies that error close to the left's worldview than the selfsame exaggerations from the right. The histrionics from you and others make this all the more hilarious ... trust me when I've seen the opposite--the Obama administration and fellow-travelers have made it impossible to have a civil political discourse and much of the blame for a bad shift in political climate rests on his shoulders.
Yes, pretend Trump's rhetoric is not fundamentally more foul than that of others. Whatever makes you comfortable in your support of Trump, honesty be damned.
I just have to stand in disbelief when I mention the difference in tone and draw a distinction along other lines, then back comes a response pretending I'm making a separate claim.
There is a difference in tone, and one is fundamentally more foul and therefore worse. Your "stupid bullshit" equivocation ignores that one could still be fundamentally more foul and damaging.
Right, not harping on it is symptomatic of ignoring it. Maybe turn on the network news shows if hearing that over and over again is your thing. If we can't acknowledge other threats to civil discourse, I'm simply not interested.
Causes of the gridlock between the two parties is difficult to discuss because it is a true chicken and egg issue. The Democrats did themselves no favors by adopting Bush era congressional tactics when they had the super majority. But at the same time we have the head of the senate vowing to make Obama a single term president.
I would say that 2008-2010 was very much the democrats being petty and spiteful. That did a lot more damage than democrats will admit. Post Tea party, it has been the house becoming more and more unreasonable.
And any discussion about the grid lock and strong, borderline irrational opposition to Obama from representatives from southern states gets dangerously close to that elephant that is so challenging to talk about. Just this slight allusion to it might set off a firestorm of defensiveness.
But you are right that we have lost the ability to have honest discussions. We spend far to much time demonizing the other side. But really we need to destroy the concept of the left and right as the source of all discussion. We need to stop saying the “left said this” or “the right stands for this” and talk about specific people and their specific problems. Rather than blame the all Republicans in the senate, we should blame the leadership for of the senate. And blame the Democrats who decided to lock out the minority party during obama’s first term.
MELBOURNE – I’m a Green. I’ve twice been the Australian Greens’ candidate for a seat in Australia’s federal parliament. But on November 8, all of the good that the Green political movement has done since it was founded could be outweighed by the Green Party in the United States if Jill Stein, its candidate for president, brings about the election of Donald Trump. We’ve been here before. In 2000, Al Gore would have become president if he had won Florida. George W. Bush won the state by 537 votes, while 97,241 Floridians voted for Ralph Nader, the Green candidate. Nader subsequently wrote on his website: “In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.” If we divide up Nader’s vote in that way, the result is that, without him in the race, Gore would have won Florida by more than 12,000 votes
Before the election, a group of former activists for Nader published an open letter calling on him to end his campaign. “It is now clear,” they wrote, “that you might well give the White House to Bush.” Nader refused, saying that there was no significant difference between the two major party candidates.[..].
On August 12 2016 02:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I like Trump because the enemy of my enemy is my friend
The origin story of Osama Bin Laden.
"Trump voters are like Bin Laden"
I expect no less from you
You making the connection to "trump voters are bin laden" is a nice leap. He means the saying 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is a shit reasoning that can explain a thousand and one terrible things through history.
I was making a joke. I'm aware he wasn't literally saying I was like Osama Bin Laden. He took my logic to an extreme and I made fun of him for it.
The fact that it has been misapplied in history to terrible results doesn't take away from the fact that when correctly applied, it's a prudent policy.
The logic is sound. You're only arguing with it because I'm using it to justify my vote for Trump.
Intellectual dishonesty all fucking over the place as usual
Actually, I'm pretty sure Plansix was partly just trying to point out that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" was the logic the CIA used frequently during the Cold War, including in the case of the Afghan-Soviet war, where it's rumored people were asked up to the meetings about distributing arms to the mujahideen under Osama bin Laden by saying "Come on up, we're killing Ruskies."
Perhaps you might be able to say "the enemy of my enemy who is not also my enemy or likely to become my enemy in the future is my friend" but that's not the policy most use.
It's actually pretty funny this comes up right after Trump says Obama helped create ISIS because that is a case where the U.S. under Reagan/Carter really did create Al Qaeda (to be more accurate, the CIA did it, they probably didn't have much oversight really).
It's why "Trump is awful so vote for Clinton" only holds up as an argument for liberals who don't think Clinton will destroy their lives in one way or another.
Pretty much everything you're assuming is wrong
The enemy of my enemy is my friend is just conventional wisdom. It's funny the people whining the most about me using this saying are the ones who give Sanders die-hard supporters the most hate for refusing to compromise when the key message behind the saying is one of prudent compromise
It's literally the logic behind why they're trying to get Sanders voters to support Clinton over Trump. You're just being fucking dishonest here.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, so while Clinton is terrible, she isn't as bad as Trump so you should just get in line and vote Clinton
This logic has been used multiple times by Plansix and others here defending Plansix's assertion here that it is shitty logic now that I'm using it to justify my vote for Trump.
Bullshit
Also I'm very moderate, not a liberal, and I don't think Clinton will destroy our lives if it does end up being her who wins, so you've pretty much got all of this wrong
ye, agreed with ggtemplar here. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is pretty sound political logic when you only have two choices. It's pretty much the same as the lesser of two evils argument. It's a bit clumsily phrased I guess - lesser of two evils is more accurate, but those two are essentially the same thing, and I personally want people who don't like hillary but can't stand trump to vote for hillary despite not liking her.
On August 11 2016 23:16 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think it's definitely possible to make the argument that Obama did not have to withdraw and that the decision allowed IS to thrive, but that in no way makes Trump's statement 'Obama FOUNDED ISIS' any less retarded. I'm seriously getting pretty sick of this absolute nonsense and how people are bending over backwards to try to make Trump intellectually palatable, but this is just stupid bullshit. The ridiculous exaggeration from the Trump camp is making it impossible to have any type of civil, political discourse and this is a case where the blame for the negative shift in the political climate almost solely rests on his shoulders, because when it comes to peddling bullshit, he is far guiltier than any other politician with any serious amount of traction from either side of the political aisle.
Really looking forward to the end of this election..
Chalk another one up for bravado. This election shows how many people in left and center-left simply prefer a media bending over backwards to cover for politicians like Clinton, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the like. It comes from men and women put forward with experts having ivy league school degrees. The tone is muted and frequently has the NPR vibe. But it is none the less stupid bullshit politely called political spin. So I'm having great trouble sympathizing with Trump's detractors as he goes two steps beyond sane policy statements to the absurd. You just don't like the brash, cocksure flavor of tripe, and would rather have the other kind. Secondly, you're more at home with admitted lies that error close to the left's worldview than the selfsame exaggerations from the right. The histrionics from you and others make this all the more hilarious ... trust me when I've seen the opposite--the Obama administration and fellow-travelers have made it impossible to have a civil political discourse and much of the blame for a bad shift in political climate rests on his shoulders.
Yes, pretend Trump's rhetoric is not fundamentally more foul than that of others. Whatever makes you comfortable in your support of Trump, honesty be damned.
I just have to stand in disbelief when I mention the difference in tone and draw a distinction along other lines, then back comes a response pretending I'm making a separate claim.
There is a difference in tone, and one is fundamentally more foul and therefore worse. Your "stupid bullshit" equivocation ignores that one could still be fundamentally more foul and damaging.
Right, not harping on it is symptomatic of ignoring it. Maybe turn on the network news shows if hearing that over and over again is your thing. If we can't acknowledge other threats to civil discourse, I'm simply not interested.
On August 12 2016 03:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: Danglars was not disputing that Trump's tone is fundamentally more foul. He's rather putting the blame on the left for refusing to acknowledge the message Trump brings until someone with as foul of a tone as Trump brought it.
Basically.
I was saying Trump's rhetoric is fundamentally more damaging, and as far as I can tell you don't think that's the case, because it's all just "stupid bullshit".
The world is a powder keg currently, I mean.. imagine the situation that would put Turkey and Russia as apparent close allies and what was it that brings them together after so much conflict the last year, resentment against the US and the Obama administration.
Hilary has a proven track record of bad judgment in the middle east and I really would feel less safe with a Clinton white house as I strongly believe she will only add to the current powder keg around the world.
We're a lot closer to world war 3 than the media makes it out to be, Putin himself says we are "Being pulled in a irreversible direction." and whether you like or hate Putin he is the leader of Russia so what he says should atleast be heard with an open ear.
On August 12 2016 02:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I like Trump because the enemy of my enemy is my friend
The origin story of Osama Bin Laden.
"Trump voters are like Bin Laden"
I expect no less from you
You making the connection to "trump voters are bin laden" is a nice leap. He means the saying 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is a shit reasoning that can explain a thousand and one terrible things through history.
I was making a joke. I'm aware he wasn't literally saying I was like Osama Bin Laden. He took my logic to an extreme and I made fun of him for it.
The fact that it has been misapplied in history to terrible results doesn't take away from the fact that when correctly applied, it's a prudent policy.
The logic is sound. You're only arguing with it because I'm using it to justify my vote for Trump.
Intellectual dishonesty all fucking over the place as usual
Actually, I'm pretty sure Plansix was partly just trying to point out that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" was the logic the CIA used frequently during the Cold War, including in the case of the Afghan-Soviet war, where it's rumored people were asked up to the meetings about distributing arms to the mujahideen under Osama bin Laden by saying "Come on up, we're killing Ruskies."
Perhaps you might be able to say "the enemy of my enemy who is not also my enemy or likely to become my enemy in the future is my friend" but that's not the policy most use.
It's actually pretty funny this comes up right after Trump says Obama helped create ISIS because that is a case where the U.S. under Reagan/Carter really did create Al Qaeda (to be more accurate, the CIA did it, they probably didn't have much oversight really).
It's why "Trump is awful so vote for Clinton" only holds up as an argument for liberals who don't think Clinton will destroy their lives in one way or another.
Pretty much everything you're assuming is wrong
The enemy of my enemy is my friend is just conventional wisdom. It's funny the people whining the most about me using this saying are the ones who give Sanders die-hard supporters the most hate for refusing to compromise when the key message behind the saying is one of prudent compromise
It's literally the logic behind why they're trying to get Sanders voters to support Clinton over Trump. You're just being fucking dishonest here.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, so while Clinton is terrible, she isn't as bad as Trump so you should just get in line and vote Clinton
This logic has been used multiple times by Plansix and others here defending Plansix's assertion here that it is shitty logic now that I'm using it to justify my vote for Trump.
Bullshit
Also I'm very moderate, not a liberal, and I don't think Clinton will destroy our lives if it does end up being her who wins, so you've pretty much got all of this wrong
Slightly different formula for me.
In a worst case scenario, I'd rather have Evil (corrupt) than Evil and Incompetent.
On August 12 2016 03:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote: One of the points they brought up was that if everyone applied my reasoning, no one would vote and the entire thing ceases to function
You need better professors. Firstly the "if everyone did that then" is no response to an individual's rational decision unless he has the power to influence everyone through his. That shit is like game theory 101. The rational choice for the individual is very often not the optimal choice for the group. Going "but that's suboptimal for the group" isn't an argument against it being rational for the individual, it's just a demonstration of how little the person stating it understands game theory. Secondly, it's self correcting. The more people realize their vote has insufficient value to justify the effort involved in casting it the less diluted the vote of any individual gets. It will reach a natural equilibrium in which the value of the vote matches the interest in voting of the least motivated person who still votes. That's just how it works.
On August 12 2016 02:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I like Trump because the enemy of my enemy is my friend
The origin story of Osama Bin Laden.
"Trump voters are like Bin Laden"
I expect no less from you
You making the connection to "trump voters are bin laden" is a nice leap. He means the saying 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is a shit reasoning that can explain a thousand and one terrible things through history.
I was making a joke. I'm aware he wasn't literally saying I was like Osama Bin Laden. He took my logic to an extreme and I made fun of him for it.
The fact that it has been misapplied in history to terrible results doesn't take away from the fact that when correctly applied, it's a prudent policy.
The logic is sound. You're only arguing with it because I'm using it to justify my vote for Trump.
Intellectual dishonesty all fucking over the place as usual
Actually, I'm pretty sure Plansix was partly just trying to point out that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" was the logic the CIA used frequently during the Cold War, including in the case of the Afghan-Soviet war, where it's rumored people were asked up to the meetings about distributing arms to the mujahideen under Osama bin Laden by saying "Come on up, we're killing Ruskies."
Perhaps you might be able to say "the enemy of my enemy who is not also my enemy or likely to become my enemy in the future is my friend" but that's not the policy most use.
It's actually pretty funny this comes up right after Trump says Obama helped create ISIS because that is a case where the U.S. under Reagan/Carter really did create Al Qaeda (to be more accurate, the CIA did it, they probably didn't have much oversight really).
It's why "Trump is awful so vote for Clinton" only holds up as an argument for liberals who don't think Clinton will destroy their lives in one way or another.
Pretty much everything you're assuming is wrong
The enemy of my enemy is my friend is just conventional wisdom. It's funny the people whining the most about me using this saying are the ones who give Sanders die-hard supporters the most hate for refusing to compromise when the key message behind the saying is one of prudent compromise
It's literally the logic behind why they're trying to get Sanders voters to support Clinton over Trump. You're just being fucking dishonest here.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, so while Clinton is terrible, she isn't as bad as Trump so you should just get in line and vote Clinton
This logic has been used multiple times by Plansix and others here defending Plansix's assertion here that it is shitty logic now that I'm using it to justify my vote for Trump.
Bullshit
Also I'm very moderate, not a liberal, and I don't think Clinton will destroy our lives if it does end up being her who wins, so you've pretty much got all of this wrong
Slightly different formula for me.
In a worst case scenario, I'd rather have Evil (corrupt) than Evil and Incompetent.
If more Clinton supporters admitted their candidates obvious and glaring flaws I would understand them choosing stability over instability. However from what I've seen shes portrayed as a saint and trump as a troll
On August 11 2016 23:16 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think it's definitely possible to make the argument that Obama did not have to withdraw and that the decision allowed IS to thrive, but that in no way makes Trump's statement 'Obama FOUNDED ISIS' any less retarded. I'm seriously getting pretty sick of this absolute nonsense and how people are bending over backwards to try to make Trump intellectually palatable, but this is just stupid bullshit. The ridiculous exaggeration from the Trump camp is making it impossible to have any type of civil, political discourse and this is a case where the blame for the negative shift in the political climate almost solely rests on his shoulders, because when it comes to peddling bullshit, he is far guiltier than any other politician with any serious amount of traction from either side of the political aisle.
Really looking forward to the end of this election..
Chalk another one up for bravado. This election shows how many people in left and center-left simply prefer a media bending over backwards to cover for politicians like Clinton, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the like. It comes from men and women put forward with experts having ivy league school degrees. The tone is muted and frequently has the NPR vibe. But it is none the less stupid bullshit politely called political spin. So I'm having great trouble sympathizing with Trump's detractors as he goes two steps beyond sane policy statements to the absurd. You just don't like the brash, cocksure flavor of tripe, and would rather have the other kind. Secondly, you're more at home with admitted lies that error close to the left's worldview than the selfsame exaggerations from the right. The histrionics from you and others make this all the more hilarious ... trust me when I've seen the opposite--the Obama administration and fellow-travelers have made it impossible to have a civil political discourse and much of the blame for a bad shift in political climate rests on his shoulders.
Yes, pretend Trump's rhetoric is not fundamentally more foul than that of others. Whatever makes you comfortable in your support of Trump, honesty be damned.
I just have to stand in disbelief when I mention the difference in tone and draw a distinction along other lines, then back comes a response pretending I'm making a separate claim.
There is a difference in tone, and one is fundamentally more foul and therefore worse. Your "stupid bullshit" equivocation ignores that one could still be fundamentally more foul and damaging.
Right, not harping on it is symptomatic of ignoring it. Maybe turn on the network news shows if hearing that over and over again is your thing. If we can't acknowledge other threats to civil discourse, I'm simply not interested.
Causes of the gridlock between the two parties is difficult to discuss because it is a true chicken and egg issue. The Democrats did themselves no favors by adopting Bush era congressional tactics when they had the super majority. But at the same time we have the head of the senate vowing to make Obama a single term president.
I would say that 2008-2010 was very much the democrats being petty and spiteful. That did a lot more damage than democrats will admit. Post Tea party, it has been the house becoming more and more unreasonable.
And any discussion about the grid lock and strong, borderline irrational opposition to Obama from representatives from southern states gets dangerously close to that elephant that is so challenging to talk about. Just this slight allusion to it might set off a firestorm of defensiveness.
But you are right that we have lost the ability to have honest discussions. We spend far to much time demonizing the other side. But really we need to destroy the concept of the left and right as the source of all discussion. We need to stop saying the “left said this” or “the right stands for this” and talk about specific people and their specific problems. Rather than blame the all Republicans in the senate, we should blame the leadership for of the senate. And blame the Democrats who decided to lock out the minority party during obama’s first term.
Gridlocks a feature of the system in a split government like today, not a problem. It might take many more years to soften positions to where compromise is desirable. If irreconcilable differences, and I believe the two broad worldviews to hold many, persist, I couldn't applaud more the separation of powers doctrine that leads to the happy state of affairs. I'm speaking broadly here since the Ryan budget shows how much bad cooperation and not gridlock can come out of Washington when it comes to things like pork.
On August 11 2016 23:16 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think it's definitely possible to make the argument that Obama did not have to withdraw and that the decision allowed IS to thrive, but that in no way makes Trump's statement 'Obama FOUNDED ISIS' any less retarded. I'm seriously getting pretty sick of this absolute nonsense and how people are bending over backwards to try to make Trump intellectually palatable, but this is just stupid bullshit. The ridiculous exaggeration from the Trump camp is making it impossible to have any type of civil, political discourse and this is a case where the blame for the negative shift in the political climate almost solely rests on his shoulders, because when it comes to peddling bullshit, he is far guiltier than any other politician with any serious amount of traction from either side of the political aisle.
Really looking forward to the end of this election..
Chalk another one up for bravado. This election shows how many people in left and center-left simply prefer a media bending over backwards to cover for politicians like Clinton, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the like. It comes from men and women put forward with experts having ivy league school degrees. The tone is muted and frequently has the NPR vibe. But it is none the less stupid bullshit politely called political spin. So I'm having great trouble sympathizing with Trump's detractors as he goes two steps beyond sane policy statements to the absurd. You just don't like the brash, cocksure flavor of tripe, and would rather have the other kind. Secondly, you're more at home with admitted lies that error close to the left's worldview than the selfsame exaggerations from the right. The histrionics from you and others make this all the more hilarious ... trust me when I've seen the opposite--the Obama administration and fellow-travelers have made it impossible to have a civil political discourse and much of the blame for a bad shift in political climate rests on his shoulders.
Yes, pretend Trump's rhetoric is not fundamentally more foul than that of others. Whatever makes you comfortable in your support of Trump, honesty be damned.
I just have to stand in disbelief when I mention the difference in tone and draw a distinction along other lines, then back comes a response pretending I'm making a separate claim.
There is a difference in tone, and one is fundamentally more foul and therefore worse. Your "stupid bullshit" equivocation ignores that one could still be fundamentally more foul and damaging.
Right, not harping on it is symptomatic of ignoring it. Maybe turn on the network news shows if hearing that over and over again is your thing. If we can't acknowledge other threats to civil discourse, I'm simply not interested.
On August 12 2016 03:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: Danglars was not disputing that Trump's tone is fundamentally more foul. He's rather putting the blame on the left for refusing to acknowledge the message Trump brings until someone with as foul of a tone as Trump brought it.
Basically.
I was saying Trump's rhetoric is fundamentally more damaging, and as far as I can tell you don't think that's the case, because it's all just "stupid bullshit".
Again, if that's your only takeaway from my response to Liquid'Drone, you'll have to take it up with someone else because I was making an orthogonal point and won't waste time staking a position sufficiently condemning for your tastes.
On August 12 2016 05:06 Chris1 wrote: The world is a powder keg currently, I mean.. imagine the situation that would put Turkey and Russia as apparent close allies and what was it that brings them together after so much conflict the last year, resentment against the US and the Obama administration.
Hilary has a proven track record of bad judgment in the middle east and I really would feel less safe with a Clinton white house as I strongly believe she will only add to the current powder keg around the world.
We're a lot closer to world war 3 than the media makes it out to be, Putin himself says we are "Being pulled in a irreversible direction." and whether you like or hate Putin he is the leader of Russia so what he says should atleast be heard with an open ear. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PgSX-WD96Q
There is no chance of a World War 3 because there is no power in the world that could remotely challenge the United States and her allies. Russia is extremely weak. The Soviet Union was a paper tiger for decades that was only able to put up a pretense of parity with the west through the deliberate bankruptcy of her people. Now even that is gone. The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike. We live under the aegis of American hegemony and I like it that way. No power has any interest in challenging the United States, it is an age of peace and prosperity.
The fact that no matter how terrible the nominees of the two main parties are, there is at most a 0.1% chance that either of them would finish 3rd in the election should be worrying you.
On August 12 2016 02:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I like Trump because the enemy of my enemy is my friend
The origin story of Osama Bin Laden.
"Trump voters are like Bin Laden"
I expect no less from you
You making the connection to "trump voters are bin laden" is a nice leap. He means the saying 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is a shit reasoning that can explain a thousand and one terrible things through history.
I was making a joke. I'm aware he wasn't literally saying I was like Osama Bin Laden. He took my logic to an extreme and I made fun of him for it.
The fact that it has been misapplied in history to terrible results doesn't take away from the fact that when correctly applied, it's a prudent policy.
The logic is sound. You're only arguing with it because I'm using it to justify my vote for Trump.
Intellectual dishonesty all fucking over the place as usual
Actually, I'm pretty sure Plansix was partly just trying to point out that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" was the logic the CIA used frequently during the Cold War, including in the case of the Afghan-Soviet war, where it's rumored people were asked up to the meetings about distributing arms to the mujahideen under Osama bin Laden by saying "Come on up, we're killing Ruskies."
Perhaps you might be able to say "the enemy of my enemy who is not also my enemy or likely to become my enemy in the future is my friend" but that's not the policy most use.
It's actually pretty funny this comes up right after Trump says Obama helped create ISIS because that is a case where the U.S. under Reagan/Carter really did create Al Qaeda (to be more accurate, the CIA did it, they probably didn't have much oversight really).
It's why "Trump is awful so vote for Clinton" only holds up as an argument for liberals who don't think Clinton will destroy their lives in one way or another.
Pretty much everything you're assuming is wrong
The enemy of my enemy is my friend is just conventional wisdom. It's funny the people whining the most about me using this saying are the ones who give Sanders die-hard supporters the most hate for refusing to compromise when the key message behind the saying is one of prudent compromise
It's literally the logic behind why they're trying to get Sanders voters to support Clinton over Trump. You're just being fucking dishonest here.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, so while Clinton is terrible, she isn't as bad as Trump so you should just get in line and vote Clinton
This logic has been used multiple times by Plansix and others here defending Plansix's assertion here that it is shitty logic now that I'm using it to justify my vote for Trump.
Bullshit
Also I'm very moderate, not a liberal, and I don't think Clinton will destroy our lives if it does end up being her who wins, so you've pretty much got all of this wrong
I wasn't saying that last bit applies to you at all. It was an example of when the wisdom of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" completely falls apart as it has completely fallen apart for many liberals who, for one reason or another, believe that electing Clinton would not be less damaging to the future of the country than electing Trump and hence choose to vote for another.
And it's exactly why "Trump said X terrible thing" is an infinitely worse way to persuade those liberals than "Trump's policies will cause X bad thing to happen and Clinton's will not."
If you can't distinguish "the policies of one of your enemies are worse than another" from "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" you're the one being dishonest. Or the world of politics has become completely tethered to cults of personality, which is an utter shame.
Either way, the media's relentless hounding of Trump on stupid non-issues instead of his overall incompetence and pathetic policies is probably his biggest asset when it comes to preventing those people from supporting Clinton.
On August 12 2016 02:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I like Trump because the enemy of my enemy is my friend
The origin story of Osama Bin Laden.
"Trump voters are like Bin Laden"
I expect no less from you
You making the connection to "trump voters are bin laden" is a nice leap. He means the saying 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is a shit reasoning that can explain a thousand and one terrible things through history.
I was making a joke. I'm aware he wasn't literally saying I was like Osama Bin Laden. He took my logic to an extreme and I made fun of him for it.
The fact that it has been misapplied in history to terrible results doesn't take away from the fact that when correctly applied, it's a prudent policy.
The logic is sound. You're only arguing with it because I'm using it to justify my vote for Trump.
Intellectual dishonesty all fucking over the place as usual
Actually, I'm pretty sure Plansix was partly just trying to point out that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" was the logic the CIA used frequently during the Cold War, including in the case of the Afghan-Soviet war, where it's rumored people were asked up to the meetings about distributing arms to the mujahideen under Osama bin Laden by saying "Come on up, we're killing Ruskies."
Perhaps you might be able to say "the enemy of my enemy who is not also my enemy or likely to become my enemy in the future is my friend" but that's not the policy most use.
It's actually pretty funny this comes up right after Trump says Obama helped create ISIS because that is a case where the U.S. under Reagan/Carter really did create Al Qaeda (to be more accurate, the CIA did it, they probably didn't have much oversight really).
It's why "Trump is awful so vote for Clinton" only holds up as an argument for liberals who don't think Clinton will destroy their lives in one way or another.
Pretty much everything you're assuming is wrong
The enemy of my enemy is my friend is just conventional wisdom. It's funny the people whining the most about me using this saying are the ones who give Sanders die-hard supporters the most hate for refusing to compromise when the key message behind the saying is one of prudent compromise
It's literally the logic behind why they're trying to get Sanders voters to support Clinton over Trump. You're just being fucking dishonest here.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, so while Clinton is terrible, she isn't as bad as Trump so you should just get in line and vote Clinton
This logic has been used multiple times by Plansix and others here defending Plansix's assertion here that it is shitty logic now that I'm using it to justify my vote for Trump.
Bullshit
Also I'm very moderate, not a liberal, and I don't think Clinton will destroy our lives if it does end up being her who wins, so you've pretty much got all of this wrong
Slightly different formula for me.
In a worst case scenario, I'd rather have Evil (corrupt) than Evil and Incompetent.
If more Clinton supporters admitted their candidates obvious and glaring flaws I would understand them choosing stability over instability. However from what I've seen shes portrayed as aint and trump as a troll
well, trump is a troll I see lots of people who are clinton supporters but complain about her numerous flaws; including people in this thread. I see few/none who would call her anything near a saint; not sure where you're getting that portrayed as a saint stuff, I haven't really seen anything anywhere that's remotely like that (i.e. even allowing for a fair bit of hyperbole)
On August 12 2016 05:17 Dan HH wrote: The fact that no matter how terrible the nominees of the two main parties are, there is at most a 0.1% chance that either of them would finish 3rd in the election should be worrying your country's founding fathers who wrote the system in such a way that it would inevitably end up like this and make the population powerless to fix it because all the power to change it is concentrated in the two parties who benefit from the monopoly on it.
On August 12 2016 05:17 Dan HH wrote: The fact that no matter how terrible the nominees of the two main parties are, there is at most a 0.1% chance that either of them would finish 3rd in the election should be worrying your country's founding fathers who wrote the system in such a way that it would inevitably end up like this and make the population powerless to fix it because all the power to change it is concentrated in the two parties who benefit from the monopoly on it.
Fixed.
I would love to see a breakdown of voting on parties lines from the 60s through 2010. My understanding of the political climate back in those eras is that party line votes were rare and increased over time. But I have never seen a breakdown of how party members voted compared to today.
On August 12 2016 05:16 Danglars wrote: Again, if that's your only takeaway from my response to Liquid'Drone, you'll have to take it up with someone else because I was making an orthogonal point and won't waste time staking a position sufficiently condemning for your tastes.
*hand-waving in an attempt to rewrite a post to be more complex when it was clearly just equivocating with Trump and the left's rhetoric*
EPT
