US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4729

On August 13 2016 06:13 zlefin wrote:

of your links, only a cursory glance. mostly still just trying to figure out which culture war you were referring to.

He's had a questionable transition on the social issues (gay marriage and abortion), though Trump is not an ounce better.

On August 13 2016 05:52 IgnE wrote:


the problem is not as simple as you present it. yes people should defer to experts when they are out of their depth. the tricky part is knowing when to defer, to whom, about what.

what i mean by "fetishizing expertise" is using an expert opinion written towards a specific purpose, by one expert among many, at a specific time and place as a totem against counter-argument in a discussion that is not identical with the original context in which the opinion was written. it's not as if we had the expert here to craft a particular response to a particular person/argument in this thread.

so in a very real sense it is impossible to rely on expertise in this thread except insofar as it is possessed first-hand by thread participants: the context here will always be different. we have to rely on things like analogy, deduction, induction, etc., to apply any "expert" opinion to the discussion at hand. and that's where people who aren't rigorous thinkers have problems. they root around on google for an expert opinion that has the vague contours they want, turn it into a fetish/totem, and then they brandish it against opponents without sufficient thought about whether they and their opponent should be deferring to the expert, in this particular instance, about this particular thing. to appreciate that you have to find out what the expert is saying but also what he/she is not saying.

its obviously important to be able to defer to expert opinion, especially when you are not familiar with the subject matter, but i would argue it's more important to know when not to defer, wholesale, to "expert opinion" that may be inapposite. that requires some rigorous thinking on multiple levels. kwark, for example, was very rigorous in his application of logic at the arguably idiotic level, in hindsight, of what an individual sub sighting means for one aspect of his argument, while missing the bigger picture about his dubious premises. so its more than just rigorous logical analysis, its also a healthy skepticism, strong sense of curiosity, and a developed intuition for which aspects of the argument matter and which are less relevant.

On August 13 2016 06:34 IgnE wrote:
you think that the article kwark cited was the only one written since the fall of the ussr on russian nuclear capabilities or?

i dont really think you not knowing how to "not fetishize expert opinion" after reading my post is an issue on my end

On August 13 2016 06:30 Danglars wrote:

Well, we can take this to PMs when you do. As said,

On August 13 2016 07:11 TheYango wrote:
I don't buy into the idea that "Tim Kaine being 'personally against abortion while supporting pro-choice' is intellectually/morally inconsistent". Quite frankly I think its a crock of shit.

You can live strongly by your own personal morals without feeling they need to be imposed on everyone else. That's not being wishy-washy, thats called not being an asshole and being respectful of other people's own morals.

The idea that Christian values need to be forcefully imposed on a secular society is the kind of lunacy that drives me away from the Christian right in the first place. Kaine being a personally devout Christian while also not feeling like his morals have to be shoved down other people's throats is honestly a breath of fresh air.

The truth is, I cut taxes as mayor of Richmond. I’ll enforce the death penalty as governor, and I’m against same-sex marriage. I’m conservative on personal responsibility, character, family and the sanctity of life. These are my values, and that’s what I believe

On August 13 2016 07:54 Danglars wrote:
He's gone through quite a transition in quite a short time. He was quite ready to shove his morals down your throat when it made sense in a governor race, and now he's lurched to the political calculus of the national stage. I grant you that Hillary could not hope to attract a principled Democrat, if they exist, to her ticket besides maybe Warren. He's just far from this good guy boring running mate as put forward.

On August 13 2016 07:54 KwarK wrote:
Given he is still refusing to release his own I don't know how much he can really say.

Top Senate Democrats are pushing Hillary Clinton to renominate Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, a move party strategists argue would give her an early advantage against Republicans if she wins the presidency.

They're not waiting until Election Day — or a lame-duck session of Congress — to define the first major decision of a Clinton presidency.

“In her first 100 days, does she want a Supreme Court fight?” asked a senior Democratic aide.

The calls follow months of chatter among Democrats on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue that Clinton’s smartest political play if she takes the White House would be, essentially, calling the Republicans bluff: they’ve praised Garland, but insisted on a principle that President Barack Obama shouldn’t get to put anyone on the high court in his final year in office.

By sticking with Garland, the thinking goes, Clinton would save herself some of the political capital inherent in making a court nomination, as well as the stress on what would be a brand new White House staff to vet nominee and promote them on the Hill and in the media.

“He’s somebody who the voters clearly think should be confirmed and has the kind of resonating background that would be broadly appealing to voters,” said Geoff Garin, a prominent Democratic pollster. “There are obvious advantages but presidents also like to have the opportunity to make their own choices as well.”

Some Democrats have even mulled the possibility that, if Democrats retake control of the Senate in November, they might move on Garland in the two weeks after the new Senate is in session but before Inauguration Day. That might take on more steam if, despite recent polls showing him far behind, Donald Trump is elected president.