|
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 October 15 2016 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 02:18 zlefin wrote: Dang, the thread went back to normal, oh well, at least I tried, sort of.
I should add something more substantive too, hmmm. I think we're gonna have to raise retirement age for social security sooner or later, and we may as well setup the system with a better auto-adjusting mechanism. I have no idea how to address the issues with racial and other disparities in social security; there's no good apparent answer there. Ditch it and minimum wage for universal basic income? the country is not yet rich enough for ubi. But it is rich enough for a social security system. Also, part of the point of social security is to give it to people too old/unfit to work. ubi doesn't do that. I also rather doubt the political feasibilty of ubi at this time in the US. (as in it'd be even harder to do than reforming social security) "Says wealthiest nation on earth" @gore. Well, we disagree that rhetoric can't manipulate, so I think we're done. I don't think any country is wealthy enough for ubi. do you think otherwise? and if so, what estimates are you using for the dollar costs involved?
|
Bisutopia19234 Posts
On October 15 2016 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:I am starting to imagine one of these women will turn out to be a phony and it will undermine the entire attack. Yup, this happened to McCain, Herman Cain, Romney, gingrich, and many others. All allegations dropped after they dropped out of the race or lost. Don't get me wrong, I don't care one bit for Trump, but all this last minute allegation BS without the burden of proof is something that comes up every time the race nears an end. I'm not even going to point at a party here, just saying its pretty off putting that the media is running with this crap.
|
On October 15 2016 02:40 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 02:29 Plansix wrote:On October 15 2016 02:26 WolfintheSheep wrote: Nice to have this reminder why people stopped trying to have discussions with GH...
Claims made, conspiracies parroted, youtube/twitter embedded, insult everyone disagreeing with him, ignore all requests for evidence and details.
Good to have this all reiterated. Conspiracy theories are strong this election. It is to bad because they overshadow substantive issues that could be talked about. Some of the things the DNC did were not great and eroded peoples trust in the party. But its impossible to talk about them without slipping into conspiracy nonsense. It's not, but those "not so great" things took far too much work just to be recognized as that (and still aren't by some). I imagine most independents and Republicans can see clearly that Democrats would be eating Republicans alive if they had done the same stuff, but Democrats (particularly longtime Hillary supporters) can't seem to see it at all. What? You mean like all those 'Cruz must not win' and 'How do we stop Trump' GOP meetings we learned about? I don't think I saw a single person say that the GOP was being unfair or trying to rig the system.
^someone wasn't paying attention. It just petered out because he won anyway. Like I've said repeatedly now, "rigged" doesn't mean "fixed".
|
On October 15 2016 01:34 kwizach wrote: Thanks to Biff, Stratos_speAr and Thieving Magpie for their sensible comments on the topic of rape culture.
do you really find magpie's explanation for why so many women like dominant men (eg see enthusiasm for 50 shades of grey) to be satisfying? that women only like aggressive play because theyve assimilated rape culture into their subconscious?
|
The #NeverTrump bandwagon has added quite a few passengers in the past week or so.
But days before Trump’s “grab ’em by the pussy” moment, a prominent conservative talk show host stunned listeners by announcing he was quitting radio at the end of the year.
Charlie Sykes has been a leading conservative in Wisconsin for nearly three decades. The host of a mid-day show on WTMJ in Milwaukee, Sykes has amassed a large audience with his aggressive but thoughtful style. This year, however, he has found himself standing athwart a wave of conservative hysteria. A vocal critic of Trump, Sykes has strained his relationship with his listeners, many of whom are irked by his refusal to hop aboard the Trump train.
I spoke with Sykes last week about his decision to leave radio. I wanted to know if he believes right-wing media is responsible for Trump’s ascendance and, perhaps more importantly, if he thinks there will be a reckoning in the Republican Party after this election.
Our conversation, edited for length and clarity, follows.
Sean Illing How long have you been doing your conservative radio show in Wisconsin?
Charlie Sykes About 25 years.
Sean Illing And how would you characterize your brand of conservatism?
Charlie Sykes I would describe myself as a conservative in the mold of William Buckley, someone who during the 1980s followed people Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett, or who today falls in line with people like Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan.
I’m the kind of person that actually bought the Weekly Standard and thought the National Review defined what the conservative movement was, at least until earlier this year.
Sean Illing In that case, I assume this election has been utterly disorienting for you.
Charlie Sykes It’s extremely disorienting and disillusioning and I haven’t made any secret of that. To realize, first of all, that you’re part of a movement that was not the movement you thought it was, that you’re aligned with people that you didn’t really understand you’re aligned with, and to realize that everything that you thought about the conservative intellectual infrastructure was really piecrust thin.
You thought you had this big principled movement and then suddenly along comes Donald Trump and you realize that it was just was just the pastry on top. So I think disorienting is a great term. Disillusioning is not too strong either.
Sean Illing You’ve said your decision to step away from radio wasn’t driven by this year’s political season, but that’s not really true is it?
Charlie Sykes Well, it made it a lot easier. You basically feel the world kind of shifting under your feet and you look around and say, okay, I’m a conservative talk radio host in a world in which the conservative media is basically setting itself on fire. Do I really want to still be part of this?
This has been in the back of my mind all year long and I needed to be able to step back and ask what the hell just happened. How could we have misunderstood this so much?
When you find out so many of the people that you had relied upon and trusted were in fact phonies, then you have to step back and ask: What is my standard of credibility?What do I believe? What information sources are reliable?
Sean Illing Do you feel like the Republican Party has basically spontaneously combusted this year?
Charlie Sykes I think that the Republican Party and the conservative movement are still intact, but what’s happening is unthinkable by any objective standard. If the Republican Party took the ideas or principles or any of the things that it claimed it stood for seriously, this would not be possible.
I mean, I’m old enough to remember when conservatives told people we think character matters…
Sean Illing And then they gave us Donald Trump…
Charlie Sykes Well seriously, this is the party that just nominated Donald Trump, and we’re supposed to believe that. Watching a party that had eight years ago mocked Democrats for having low information voters and a cult of personality, and now it’s like we have the lowest information voters ever and the worst cult of personality that I’ve seen since the 1930s.
Sean Illing It really is quite bizarre to witness how zealous some of the Trump supporters are. Has your opposition to Trump strained your relationship with your listeners?
Charlie Sykes After I announced I was stepping down, I got all kinds of email, people saying we’re going to miss you and we really enjoy you. And my response was, where the hell have you been?
Because every time I’ve brought up the presidential race, my email box filled up with people saying I’ve betrayed them and that I’m a turncoat. My response is that I am exactly what I’ve always been. You have just turned the party into something completely different.
But, yes, there’s a lot of people who believe that the role of conservative media is to support the Republican candidate no matter what, and so that has created a great deal of strain.
Sean Illing Do you feel complicit in any way in the creation of this Frankensteinian monster that is Trump? That’s not to say that you’ve been whipping voters into a frenzy all these years, but perhaps you’ve been blind to the role of conservative media in all of this.
Charlie Sykes Oh, yes, absolutely. I’m different than Rush Limbaugh, but there’s no question that we got caught up in certain word salad, certain narratives that perhaps we did not fully understand how they were playing among our base.
I’m not trying to pose for holy pictures here, but I’ve been doing this for 20 years and critiques of the mainstream media were always a part of everything we did. Some of that critique is valuable, but it did lead to this nihilism that we have now.
I don’t think I’d use the phrase Frankenstein monster, but if that’s your analogy…
Sean Illing I’ve had this conversation with a lot of my conservative friends who are equally troubled by Trump. My point is always that Trump didn’t spring suddenly out of a whirlwind. Conservative media has been flirting with these darker forces for decades. Trump is the culmination of something, not the beginning.
Charlie Sykes If you and I had this conversation a year ago, I would’ve disagreed with you vigorously. I would’ve said, “There you go again with the darker forces garbage.” Conservatives have been accused of this for years. But obviously there’s some truth to what you’ve just said.
I haven’t totally worked this out, but the question is simple: Is Donald Trump a logical continuity? Or does he mark a radical break, a discontinuity? And I think that Hillary Clinton has argued that he represents a break.
But I can tell you some of the things he is saying — about Muslims and immigrants in particular — is just way out there. It’s hard to say where it comes from exactly, but we clearly have to ask the question.Sean Illing There are serious conservatives with serious ideas out there, but you don’t hear any of that on the radio. It’s just all rage all the time.
Charlie Sykes Right, and that’s easy radio. One of the things that has disillusioned me is watching hosts just go with the flow. They don’t want to push back. They’re worried about ratings. They don’t want to have their email box filled up. They don’t want to put up with, you know, the massive blowback on social media. So they just don’t do it.
And as a result, what happens is the worst voices go unchallenged. It’s the easy, lazy approach and I think that up until last year the thought was: Well you know, these are friends, do not take it seriously, it’s no big deal. Then suddenly Frankenstein’s monster walked through the door.
Sean Illing It’s astonishing how little these political entrepreneurs thought about the consequences of their words. You whip people into a frenzy for long enough, and eventually…
Charlie Sykes Well this year the walls have completely broken down throughout the media. It’s like watching the dam get blown away. I just can’t push back on all the crazy stuff out there. How many times can you say that Obama isn’t gay or a Muslim or that he wasn’t born in Kenya?
I read polls earlier this year showing what percentage of Republicans believe those things and you kind of brush it off. But then you have to step back and go, okay crap, how did this happen? And are we complicit by not having pushed back more aggressively?
Sean Illing If you live inside that radio cocoon, you’re hermetically sealed from reality. Everything outside the bubble is dismissed as subterfuge.
Charlie Sykes Absolutely. And you have these websites out there, like Breitbart.com, which is like reading third-world propaganda. These guys like Breitbart are smart enough to know that they’re full of shit. But if you inhabit that world, you can’t push back without being seen as a sellout.
Now I will say this one thing on the flip side. Some of these people have flocked to sites like Breitbart and they’ve retreated into these dark corners because the left has too easily tossed words like “racist” and “xenophobe” and “sexist” around.
So what’s happened is that when a guy like me or anyone or you says, hey, you know, Donald Trump is a racist and a xenophobe and a sexist. The conservative media world, the consumers, they tell me we’ve been called that for 20 or 30 years. They’ve become conditioned to blow it off as crying wolf.
Sean Illing I think that’s a fair point.
Charlie Sykes I’m old enough to remember that being called a racist was the worst thing, the most devastating thing you could call someone — and now it’s lost all currency. I mean, people don’t even blink at it anymore. John McCain’s a racist, Mitt Romney’s a racist, Paul Ryan’s a racist.
But when Donald Trump comes, who is the real thing, we call him that and say we didn’t really mean it about those other guys. This is who we were warning you about. It’s blown off by a lot of the conservative base.
Sean Illing Would you have believed a year ago that something like this was possible?
Charlie Sykes I don’t know. I’ve never seen anything remotely like this and I think that part of our inability to grasp it is because we’ve never seen anything like it — not here, at least. The only analogy I can think of is, you know, the man on the white horse during a time of distrust who ascends to power on a cult of personality.
Sean Illing That’s fascism, no?
Charlie Sykes It is. This is not about ideas. It’s not about policies of any kind whatsoever. … It’s about the strong man, the authoritarian man.
Sean Illing Although the story is just now breaking, I take it you’ve heard the leaked recording between Trump and Billy Bush?
Charlie Sykes
Trump's comments were horrific, but utterly predictable because they were totally consistent with everything we knew about his character. The GOP was deluded to imagine that this wouldn't blow up on them.
I felt vindicated for about 5 minutes, but then angry about the dishonesty, cowardice, and lack of principle that led to this.
Unfortunately this has also given much of the conservative media another chance to beclown themselves again on behalf of the Orange Duce.
They broke it. They own it.
Sean Illing So how do you justify the decision by conservative leaders to endorse Trump’s candidacy? Do you think someone like Paul Ryan will live to regret how he handled this?
Charlie Sykes Yes, I think the regret will be indirect. But there are distinctions here. The inner circle — the Huckabees, the Giulianis, the Newt Gingriches — they ought to be totally and utterly discredited by their support. And for the people like Paul Ryan who up until now have made it clear that we’re going to vote for him but we’re going to distance ourselves from the racism and the filth — they are somewhat more insulated but still have that problem.
Sean Illing Yes, but I don’t think that’s a move one can intellectually make. You can’t say, as Ryan has, that Trump is a “textbook” racist but that you’ll vote for him anyway.
Charlie Sykes Well that’s exactly my point. It’s intellectually incoherent to say, and I’ve had this conversation with him — that this is a textbook example of racism but let’s make him president.
I make a distinction between Ryan and the Kool-Aid drinkers, but I think it’s going to be very difficult to wipe the stink off.
Sean Illing So you do think there will be a reckoning of some kind on the right after this? I suppose my worry is that there’s always a tendency to double down rather than course correct, and I wonder if that’s going to happen again this time.
Charlie Sykes Yes, there’s absolutely going to be a reckoning. There has to be a reckoning. We have to come to grips with things like the alt-right, and there has to be the understanding that they cannot be a legitimate part of our party. We have to do to the alt-right what Buckley Jr. did to the John Birch Society, otherwise there is literally no electoral future for conservatives.
Will that happen? I don’t know. I suspect Republicans will try to brush past this. They’ll try to unite by being against Hillary and I think they’ll get that illusion of unity by being in opposition to Hillary. She’ll be the perfect foil. And so that will paper over all of these deeper divisions, which I think is a huge mistake because they’re still there.
And it won’t just go away after Trump.
http://www.vox.com/conversations/2016/10/12/13227642/charlie-sykes-donald-trump-republican-party-wisconsin-election-2016-hillary-clinton
|
On October 15 2016 02:43 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:I am starting to imagine one of these women will turn out to be a phony and it will undermine the entire attack. Yup, this happened to McCain, Herman Cain, Romney, gingrich, and many others. All allegations dropped after they dropped out of the race or lost. Don't get me wrong, I don't care one bit for Trump, but all this last minute allegation BS without the burden of proof is something that comes up every time the race nears an end. I'm not even going to point at a party here, just saying its pretty off putting that the media is running with this crap. Counter point: Trump freely admitted to doing the things he is accused of on tape and bragged about it. He then claimed he was just kidding and expected us to believe him, without proof or evidence. So you are correct that they are just claims without evidence, but Trump expecting the same thing from the public.
So it comes down to who we believe. And Trump does have a pretty bad track record with telling the truth.
|
I'm sorry if my post started shit.
Academia is not always correct, and when it's being politically driven, even less so. Eugenics and mariuana come to mind. I feel like current gender studies are bollocks and I'd love if we as a society could discuss this because I honestly think there has to be a theoretical alternative.
But if this results in trolling and flaming I'm glad to let it go.
|
On October 15 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 02:18 zlefin wrote: Dang, the thread went back to normal, oh well, at least I tried, sort of.
I should add something more substantive too, hmmm. I think we're gonna have to raise retirement age for social security sooner or later, and we may as well setup the system with a better auto-adjusting mechanism. I have no idea how to address the issues with racial and other disparities in social security; there's no good apparent answer there. Ditch it and minimum wage for universal basic income? the country is not yet rich enough for ubi. But it is rich enough for a social security system. Also, part of the point of social security is to give it to people too old/unfit to work. ubi doesn't do that. I also rather doubt the political feasibilty of ubi at this time in the US. (as in it'd be even harder to do than reforming social security)
what do you base this on? how rich would we need to be for UBI to work?
|
On October 15 2016 02:44 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 01:34 kwizach wrote: Thanks to Biff, Stratos_speAr and Thieving Magpie for their sensible comments on the topic of rape culture. do you really find magpie's explanation for why so many women like dominant men (eg see enthusiasm for 50 shades of grey) to be satisfying? that women only like aggressive play because theyve assimilated rape culture into their subconscious? I was referring to TM bringing up how cultural norms influence preferences, representations and behavior. In any case, Falling asked people to drop the subject, so let's not discuss this further.
|
On October 15 2016 02:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 02:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:53 Plansix wrote:On October 15 2016 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:34 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:11 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] In what way did the DNC play favorites?
I'm not saying this believe I don't believe they did (I fully expect them to play favorite with the established party candidate vs the outside usurper) but because I would love to know what factual action the DNC undertook to prevent Bernie from winning.
"Prevent Bernie from winning" and "playing favorites" aren't always the same thing. As the DNC’s chief executive, Dacey was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the party.
After Clinton became the presumptive Democratic nominee in June, she installed new aides at the DNC to manage the coordinated general election campaign, but Dacey was kept on and was given expanded responsibilities.
With the release of the WikiLeaks emails, however, Dacey was implicated in one of the most damaging exchanges, in which Marshall appeared to speculate about how Sanders’s Jewish heritage could be used against him.
Marshall posited that he believes Sanders “is an atheist” and that it could make a difference in the Kentucky and West Virginia primaries. The messages were sent to a group that included Dacey, Miranda and another communications aide, Mark Paustenbach.
“My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,” Marshall wrote in an email.
Dacey responded: “AMEN” Source Yes we had that one before and it was a yawn back then aswell. Is that your evidence of favoritism? Some DNC members talking about Bernie among themselves about how his faith might be attacked. (A line that was never used by Hillary if I remember correctly) Again, Bernie is an outsider trying to take over the Democratic Party platform (as is allowed by the open primary structure, nothing wrong there). And then we should be astonished and shocked that the DNC wasn't very happy with it? Look no further then Trump to see why the DNC thought what it did. I'm sure the GOP is loving the direction Trump took the party. So yes. I think the DNC was favorites towards Hillary. And No I don't think the DNC did something it should not have during the primaries. It did not work to prevent people from being able to vote for Bernie. It did not alter voting rules to prevent Bernie from being elected candidate. The primary happened with a minimum of irregularities (none is almost impossible). And as far as I know none that actually effected the outcome of any delegates. Nothing was rigged. Yes, when "Chief executive in charge of day to day operations" transforms into "some DNC members" it is impossible to have a constructive dialogue. Does she stop being a person with her own idea's and values when she assuming a position? Was this a public message in her position as Chief executive? or was this an internal email among colleagues? and see my edit. What is your custom definition of rigged? She has responsibilities and rules that govern her behavior in that role. Chatting about how they can hit another candidate with an attack on their religion is absurd to dismiss as just "her own idea's and values" when she's the Chief exec in charge of operations. Definition of rig rigged rigging transitive verb 1 : to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means <rig an election> Source People are under the false belief that an outcome must be fixed for it to be rigged, no, people can lose something rigged for them to win. You all are imposing the implication of "fixed" to rigged. A simple misunderstanding but for sake of not losing any argument to me people have stubbornly refused to let go. On October 15 2016 01:48 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:42 Plansix wrote:On October 15 2016 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:34 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] "Prevent Bernie from winning" and "playing favorites" aren't always the same thing. [quote] Source Yes we had that one before and it was a yawn back then aswell. Is that your evidence of favoritism? Some DNC members talking about Bernie among themselves about how his faith might be attacked. (A line that was never used by Hillary if I remember correctly) Again, Bernie is an outsider trying to take over the Democratic Party platform (as is allowed by the open primary structure, nothing wrong there). And then we should be astonished and shocked that the DNC wasn't very happy with it? Look no further then Trump to see why the DNC thought what it did. I'm sure the GOP is loving the direction Trump took the party. So yes. I think the DNC was favorites towards Hillary. And No I don't think the DNC did something it should not have during the primaries. It did not work to prevent people from being able to vote for Bernie. It did not alter voting rules to prevent Bernie from being elected candidate. The primary happened with a minimum of irregularities (none is almost impossible). And as far as I know none that actually effected the outcome of any delegates. Nothing was rigged. Yes, when "Chief executive in charge of day to day operations" transforms into "some DNC members" it is impossible to have a constructive dialogue. That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008. GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency. When GH loses an argument he starts changing the definition of words. He did it with racism before (in the 'blacks cannot be racist') discussion and he is doing it now by wanting to redefining Rigged. On October 15 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:21 Nebuchad wrote: GH says the DNC plays favorites, the thread mocks him for his conspiratorial outlook.
Event: emails released
GH says the DNC played favorites, the thread mocks him cause it's obvious they did based on the situation and the system I miss be miss remembering but I believe he was mocked for complaining it was rigged. not that there was a measure of favoritism. I think there is a significant difference between the 2. Hence my question to him in what way the DNC actually favored Clinton. Which comes from a misunderstanding of the definition of the word "rigged" And much of this comes at me as a hangover from reddit posts that are superimposed on top of my arguments. Given he's a foreigner, you see where this is heading Plansix? What are you talking about? The foreigner part meaning I don't expect him to understand the implications of the rhetoric regarding race in America. When GH loses an argument he starts changing the definition of words. He did it with racism before (in the 'blacks cannot be racist') discussion and he is doing it now by wanting to redefining Rigged But I know you know what's both wrong with that statement and how it gives credibility to the argument that I was making regarding plenty of the same crap we get from the right coming out of Hillary supporters regarding racism in America. On October 15 2016 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 01:42 Plansix wrote:On October 15 2016 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:34 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Well starting from the point of whether one admits the DNC at minimum played favorites and that it is against their rules (reality) is an important step.
But that reasoning could be used to end about 90% of the discussions here between anyone. In what way did the DNC play favorites? I'm not saying this believe I don't believe they did (I fully expect them to play favorite with the established party candidate vs the outside usurper) but because I would love to know what factual action the DNC undertook to prevent Bernie from winning. "Prevent Bernie from winning" and "playing favorites" aren't always the same thing. As the DNC’s chief executive, Dacey was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the party.
After Clinton became the presumptive Democratic nominee in June, she installed new aides at the DNC to manage the coordinated general election campaign, but Dacey was kept on and was given expanded responsibilities.
With the release of the WikiLeaks emails, however, Dacey was implicated in one of the most damaging exchanges, in which Marshall appeared to speculate about how Sanders’s Jewish heritage could be used against him.
Marshall posited that he believes Sanders “is an atheist” and that it could make a difference in the Kentucky and West Virginia primaries. The messages were sent to a group that included Dacey, Miranda and another communications aide, Mark Paustenbach.
“My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,” Marshall wrote in an email.
Dacey responded: “AMEN” Source Yes we had that one before and it was a yawn back then aswell. Is that your evidence of favoritism? Some DNC members talking about Bernie among themselves about how his faith might be attacked. (A line that was never used by Hillary if I remember correctly) Again, Bernie is an outsider trying to take over the Democratic Party platform (as is allowed by the open primary structure, nothing wrong there). And then we should be astonished and shocked that the DNC wasn't very happy with it? Look no further then Trump to see why the DNC thought what it did. I'm sure the GOP is loving the direction Trump took the party. So yes. I think the DNC was favorites towards Hillary. And No I don't think the DNC did something it should not have during the primaries. It did not work to prevent people from being able to vote for Bernie. It did not alter voting rules to prevent Bernie from being elected candidate. The primary happened with a minimum of irregularities (none is almost impossible). And as far as I know none that actually effected the outcome of any delegates. Nothing was rigged. Yes, when "Chief executive in charge of day to day operations" transforms into "some DNC members" it is impossible to have a constructive dialogue. That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008. GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency. You forget to mention that GH takes it a step further by blaming Clinton for the fraud that didn't happen from the DNC. It's a bit like when I lost to Monopoly, blamed the rules for having had bad luck with the dice and hated my opponent and thought she was the worst person in the world because she outplayed me. The only difference being that I was 6 and I only resented my sister for about 15 minutes. She went and stumped for the person in charge overseeing all of the stuff that resulted in both the person she stumped for and other having to resign due to their inappropriate behavior. This is why I typically don't bother with your posts. Every single one of your posts to/about me has created a disingenuous strawman to argue with and it's grown quite tiresome. No my friend, I don't strawman you, just repeat what you are saying. I asked you earlier what's the problem with Clinton and you answered "DNC". Even if she supports and kept supporting the person who appeared favouring her, it doesn't make her responsible for the action of said person. And it looks like that said person didn't break the law in any way. You can be pissed at the Democratic party or the DNC, but you basically carefully explained to me how much of a horrible person Clinton is because of something someone else apparently did. Other than that, every party in every primary in the history of the world has had a favourite. A party is made of people who think, and have a judgment over stuff. They usually go with the person they think has the best chance to win the elections. But then again, if the democratic party rigged its elections, Obama wouldn't have won in 2008. The core problem, dear GH, is that Bernie lost by a couple million votes. Anyway. I'm talking to a nice, solid, brick wall. I think there was some miscommunication because if the request was for what's wrong with Hillary I would have given you that instead. I didn't even have any real interest in this conversation, I really wanted to know what, if anything, would stop someone who is going to vote for her from doing so, then what they would do instead. That rehashing the DNC was the preferred topic of her supporters comes as no surprise though.
If she starts acting as stupid, racist, and elitist as Bernie Sanders then I would be more willing to vote for someone else; but being that someone else is Trump I would still vote for her even then.
So *IF* she turned into bernie 2.0 and was facing off against someone like Romney, McCain, then I would vote for Romney and McCain. But right now, the past 8 years has been the best that's happened to this country in a long time and I would vote for 16-32 more years of Obama if I could, so someone aiming to maintain, expand, and defend his policies would be fantastic.
Pretty much I would only vote against her if she turned into Bernie.
When asked about how to save Muslims in Syria, Bernie responded that we should throw more muslims into the grinder. When told Dodd Frank was already doing what he was promising, he said that was crazy, when asked what he would do instead he said Dodd Frank. When asked how he would convince the majority republican congress to cede where Obama could not, he emphasized that it will magically happen anyway. He's an isolationist old white guy who pretends globalization does not happen and goes against the scientific consensus on food science research.
So the only way I would not vote for Hilary would be if she turned out to be sanders in disguise.
But the Hilary we have now? The one who will say anything to get what she wants, the one willing to mingle with deplorables to find middle ground, the one whose aims are to find what works and not what looks good on a tweet. The Hilary who, when asked about minimum wage, references research studies and PhDs over youtube videos. The Hilary who when asked what her plan is, goes to it in depth, tells us to go to her website where more details are at, and whose emphasis is on providing scientific backing to her statements. I am willing to vote for that Hillary.
|
Biggest problem with UBI is that handing cash out isn't very effective, better to put the money into some compulsory fund that people can spend, like foodstamps but for more stuff.
|
On October 15 2016 02:47 Kickboxer wrote: I'm sorry if my post started shit.
Academia is not always correct, and when it's being politically driven, even less so. Eugenics and mariuana come to mind. I feel like current gender studies are bollocks and I'd love if we as a society could discuss this because I honestly think there has to be a theoretical alternative.
But if this results in trolling and flaming I'm glad to let it go. I need you to clarify that. What are you saying about eugenics?
|
On October 15 2016 02:49 Nyxisto wrote: Biggest problem with UBI is that handing cash out isn't very effective, better to put the money into some compulsory fund that people can spend, like foodstamps but for more stuff.
and this is based on what? studies of cash transfers in war torn african countries?
|
On October 15 2016 02:52 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 02:49 Nyxisto wrote: Biggest problem with UBI is that handing cash out isn't very effective, better to put the money into some compulsory fund that people can spend, like foodstamps but for more stuff. and this is based on what? studies of cash transfers in war torn african countries?
The idea is that if we transfer cash from one guy to another we ought to have at least some say in how it's spend, like with most other shared social resources.
I don't mind paying for someone's healthcare or food, I do mind paying for homeopathy and booze. If we socialise something we have a collective interest that it's being used responsibly.
|
On October 15 2016 02:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 02:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 02:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:53 Plansix wrote:On October 15 2016 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:34 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] "Prevent Bernie from winning" and "playing favorites" aren't always the same thing. [quote] Source Yes we had that one before and it was a yawn back then aswell. Is that your evidence of favoritism? Some DNC members talking about Bernie among themselves about how his faith might be attacked. (A line that was never used by Hillary if I remember correctly) Again, Bernie is an outsider trying to take over the Democratic Party platform (as is allowed by the open primary structure, nothing wrong there). And then we should be astonished and shocked that the DNC wasn't very happy with it? Look no further then Trump to see why the DNC thought what it did. I'm sure the GOP is loving the direction Trump took the party. So yes. I think the DNC was favorites towards Hillary. And No I don't think the DNC did something it should not have during the primaries. It did not work to prevent people from being able to vote for Bernie. It did not alter voting rules to prevent Bernie from being elected candidate. The primary happened with a minimum of irregularities (none is almost impossible). And as far as I know none that actually effected the outcome of any delegates. Nothing was rigged. Yes, when "Chief executive in charge of day to day operations" transforms into "some DNC members" it is impossible to have a constructive dialogue. Does she stop being a person with her own idea's and values when she assuming a position? Was this a public message in her position as Chief executive? or was this an internal email among colleagues? and see my edit. What is your custom definition of rigged? She has responsibilities and rules that govern her behavior in that role. Chatting about how they can hit another candidate with an attack on their religion is absurd to dismiss as just "her own idea's and values" when she's the Chief exec in charge of operations. Definition of rig rigged rigging transitive verb 1 : to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means <rig an election> Source People are under the false belief that an outcome must be fixed for it to be rigged, no, people can lose something rigged for them to win. You all are imposing the implication of "fixed" to rigged. A simple misunderstanding but for sake of not losing any argument to me people have stubbornly refused to let go. On October 15 2016 01:48 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:42 Plansix wrote:On October 15 2016 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:34 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] Yes we had that one before and it was a yawn back then aswell. Is that your evidence of favoritism? Some DNC members talking about Bernie among themselves about how his faith might be attacked. (A line that was never used by Hillary if I remember correctly) Again, Bernie is an outsider trying to take over the Democratic Party platform (as is allowed by the open primary structure, nothing wrong there). And then we should be astonished and shocked that the DNC wasn't very happy with it? Look no further then Trump to see why the DNC thought what it did. I'm sure the GOP is loving the direction Trump took the party.
So yes. I think the DNC was favorites towards Hillary. And No I don't think the DNC did something it should not have during the primaries. It did not work to prevent people from being able to vote for Bernie. It did not alter voting rules to prevent Bernie from being elected candidate. The primary happened with a minimum of irregularities (none is almost impossible). And as far as I know none that actually effected the outcome of any delegates.
Nothing was rigged. Yes, when "Chief executive in charge of day to day operations" transforms into "some DNC members" it is impossible to have a constructive dialogue. That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008. GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency. When GH loses an argument he starts changing the definition of words. He did it with racism before (in the 'blacks cannot be racist') discussion and he is doing it now by wanting to redefining Rigged. On October 15 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:21 Nebuchad wrote: GH says the DNC plays favorites, the thread mocks him for his conspiratorial outlook.
Event: emails released
GH says the DNC played favorites, the thread mocks him cause it's obvious they did based on the situation and the system I miss be miss remembering but I believe he was mocked for complaining it was rigged. not that there was a measure of favoritism. I think there is a significant difference between the 2. Hence my question to him in what way the DNC actually favored Clinton. Which comes from a misunderstanding of the definition of the word "rigged" And much of this comes at me as a hangover from reddit posts that are superimposed on top of my arguments. Given he's a foreigner, you see where this is heading Plansix? What are you talking about? The foreigner part meaning I don't expect him to understand the implications of the rhetoric regarding race in America. When GH loses an argument he starts changing the definition of words. He did it with racism before (in the 'blacks cannot be racist') discussion and he is doing it now by wanting to redefining Rigged But I know you know what's both wrong with that statement and how it gives credibility to the argument that I was making regarding plenty of the same crap we get from the right coming out of Hillary supporters regarding racism in America. On October 15 2016 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 01:42 Plansix wrote:On October 15 2016 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:34 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:11 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] In what way did the DNC play favorites?
I'm not saying this believe I don't believe they did (I fully expect them to play favorite with the established party candidate vs the outside usurper) but because I would love to know what factual action the DNC undertook to prevent Bernie from winning.
"Prevent Bernie from winning" and "playing favorites" aren't always the same thing. As the DNC’s chief executive, Dacey was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the party.
After Clinton became the presumptive Democratic nominee in June, she installed new aides at the DNC to manage the coordinated general election campaign, but Dacey was kept on and was given expanded responsibilities.
With the release of the WikiLeaks emails, however, Dacey was implicated in one of the most damaging exchanges, in which Marshall appeared to speculate about how Sanders’s Jewish heritage could be used against him.
Marshall posited that he believes Sanders “is an atheist” and that it could make a difference in the Kentucky and West Virginia primaries. The messages were sent to a group that included Dacey, Miranda and another communications aide, Mark Paustenbach.
“My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,” Marshall wrote in an email.
Dacey responded: “AMEN” Source Yes we had that one before and it was a yawn back then aswell. Is that your evidence of favoritism? Some DNC members talking about Bernie among themselves about how his faith might be attacked. (A line that was never used by Hillary if I remember correctly) Again, Bernie is an outsider trying to take over the Democratic Party platform (as is allowed by the open primary structure, nothing wrong there). And then we should be astonished and shocked that the DNC wasn't very happy with it? Look no further then Trump to see why the DNC thought what it did. I'm sure the GOP is loving the direction Trump took the party. So yes. I think the DNC was favorites towards Hillary. And No I don't think the DNC did something it should not have during the primaries. It did not work to prevent people from being able to vote for Bernie. It did not alter voting rules to prevent Bernie from being elected candidate. The primary happened with a minimum of irregularities (none is almost impossible). And as far as I know none that actually effected the outcome of any delegates. Nothing was rigged. Yes, when "Chief executive in charge of day to day operations" transforms into "some DNC members" it is impossible to have a constructive dialogue. That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008. GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency. You forget to mention that GH takes it a step further by blaming Clinton for the fraud that didn't happen from the DNC. It's a bit like when I lost to Monopoly, blamed the rules for having had bad luck with the dice and hated my opponent and thought she was the worst person in the world because she outplayed me. The only difference being that I was 6 and I only resented my sister for about 15 minutes. She went and stumped for the person in charge overseeing all of the stuff that resulted in both the person she stumped for and other having to resign due to their inappropriate behavior. This is why I typically don't bother with your posts. Every single one of your posts to/about me has created a disingenuous strawman to argue with and it's grown quite tiresome. No my friend, I don't strawman you, just repeat what you are saying. I asked you earlier what's the problem with Clinton and you answered "DNC". Even if she supports and kept supporting the person who appeared favouring her, it doesn't make her responsible for the action of said person. And it looks like that said person didn't break the law in any way. You can be pissed at the Democratic party or the DNC, but you basically carefully explained to me how much of a horrible person Clinton is because of something someone else apparently did. Other than that, every party in every primary in the history of the world has had a favourite. A party is made of people who think, and have a judgment over stuff. They usually go with the person they think has the best chance to win the elections. But then again, if the democratic party rigged its elections, Obama wouldn't have won in 2008. The core problem, dear GH, is that Bernie lost by a couple million votes. Anyway. I'm talking to a nice, solid, brick wall. I think there was some miscommunication because if the request was for what's wrong with Hillary I would have given you that instead. I didn't even have any real interest in this conversation, I really wanted to know what, if anything, would stop someone who is going to vote for her from doing so, then what they would do instead. That rehashing the DNC was the preferred topic of her supporters comes as no surprise though. + Show Spoiler +If she starts acting as stupid, racist, and elitist as Bernie Sanders then I would be more willing to vote for someone else; but being that someone else is Trump I would still vote for her even then.
So *IF* she turned into bernie 2.0 and was facing off against someone like Romney, McCain, then I would vote for Romney and McCain. But right now, the past 8 years has been the best that's happened to this country in a long time and I would vote for 16-32 more years of Obama if I could, so someone aiming to maintain, expand, and defend his policies would be fantastic.
Pretty much I would only vote against her if she turned into Bernie.
When asked about how to save Muslims in Syria, Bernie responded that we should throw more muslims into the grinder. When told Dodd Frank was already doing what he was promising, he said that was crazy, when asked what he would do instead he said Dodd Frank. When asked how he would convince the majority republican congress to cede where Obama could not, he emphasized that it will magically happen anyway. He's an isolationist old white guy who pretends globalization does not happen and goes against the scientific consensus on food science research.
So the only way I would not vote for Hilary would be if she turned out to be sanders in disguise.
But the Hilary we have now? The one who will say anything to get what she wants, the one willing to mingle with deplorables to find middle ground, the one whose aims are to find what works and not what looks good on a tweet. The Hilary who, when asked about minimum wage, references research studies and PhDs over youtube videos. The Hilary who when asked what her plan is, goes to it in depth, tells us to go to her website where more details are at, and whose emphasis is on providing scientific backing to her statements. I am willing to vote for that Hillary.
I have a running thesis that all the reasons you just listed for voting for her (of which I wholeheartedly agree), are why she gets called a "liar" so much. HRC is committed to progress but is quite willing to move arguments around and shift to the most rational policy that she can get a coalition behind. DJT spouts insane contradictory nonsense but you know he believes it at the moment. HRC might saying something because she needs to convince someone of something or build support for the best policy she can get with the votes she has. I am skeptical rationalist kind of guy so HRC sounds great to me. But feelsy people who insist only feelings are real think that is lying and want someone like DJT who doesn't think before he speaks.
|
On October 15 2016 02:45 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +The #NeverTrump bandwagon has added quite a few passengers in the past week or so.
But days before Trump’s “grab ’em by the pussy” moment, a prominent conservative talk show host stunned listeners by announcing he was quitting radio at the end of the year.
Charlie Sykes has been a leading conservative in Wisconsin for nearly three decades. The host of a mid-day show on WTMJ in Milwaukee, Sykes has amassed a large audience with his aggressive but thoughtful style. This year, however, he has found himself standing athwart a wave of conservative hysteria. A vocal critic of Trump, Sykes has strained his relationship with his listeners, many of whom are irked by his refusal to hop aboard the Trump train.
I spoke with Sykes last week about his decision to leave radio. I wanted to know if he believes right-wing media is responsible for Trump’s ascendance and, perhaps more importantly, if he thinks there will be a reckoning in the Republican Party after this election.
Our conversation, edited for length and clarity, follows.
Sean Illing How long have you been doing your conservative radio show in Wisconsin?
Charlie Sykes About 25 years.
Sean Illing And how would you characterize your brand of conservatism?
Charlie Sykes I would describe myself as a conservative in the mold of William Buckley, someone who during the 1980s followed people Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett, or who today falls in line with people like Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan.
I’m the kind of person that actually bought the Weekly Standard and thought the National Review defined what the conservative movement was, at least until earlier this year.
Sean Illing In that case, I assume this election has been utterly disorienting for you.
Charlie Sykes It’s extremely disorienting and disillusioning and I haven’t made any secret of that. To realize, first of all, that you’re part of a movement that was not the movement you thought it was, that you’re aligned with people that you didn’t really understand you’re aligned with, and to realize that everything that you thought about the conservative intellectual infrastructure was really piecrust thin.
You thought you had this big principled movement and then suddenly along comes Donald Trump and you realize that it was just was just the pastry on top. So I think disorienting is a great term. Disillusioning is not too strong either.
Sean Illing You’ve said your decision to step away from radio wasn’t driven by this year’s political season, but that’s not really true is it?
Charlie Sykes Well, it made it a lot easier. You basically feel the world kind of shifting under your feet and you look around and say, okay, I’m a conservative talk radio host in a world in which the conservative media is basically setting itself on fire. Do I really want to still be part of this?
This has been in the back of my mind all year long and I needed to be able to step back and ask what the hell just happened. How could we have misunderstood this so much?
When you find out so many of the people that you had relied upon and trusted were in fact phonies, then you have to step back and ask: What is my standard of credibility?What do I believe? What information sources are reliable?
Sean Illing Do you feel like the Republican Party has basically spontaneously combusted this year?
Charlie Sykes I think that the Republican Party and the conservative movement are still intact, but what’s happening is unthinkable by any objective standard. If the Republican Party took the ideas or principles or any of the things that it claimed it stood for seriously, this would not be possible.
I mean, I’m old enough to remember when conservatives told people we think character matters…
Sean Illing And then they gave us Donald Trump…
Charlie Sykes Well seriously, this is the party that just nominated Donald Trump, and we’re supposed to believe that. Watching a party that had eight years ago mocked Democrats for having low information voters and a cult of personality, and now it’s like we have the lowest information voters ever and the worst cult of personality that I’ve seen since the 1930s.
Sean Illing It really is quite bizarre to witness how zealous some of the Trump supporters are. Has your opposition to Trump strained your relationship with your listeners?
Charlie Sykes After I announced I was stepping down, I got all kinds of email, people saying we’re going to miss you and we really enjoy you. And my response was, where the hell have you been?
Because every time I’ve brought up the presidential race, my email box filled up with people saying I’ve betrayed them and that I’m a turncoat. My response is that I am exactly what I’ve always been. You have just turned the party into something completely different.
But, yes, there’s a lot of people who believe that the role of conservative media is to support the Republican candidate no matter what, and so that has created a great deal of strain.
Sean Illing Do you feel complicit in any way in the creation of this Frankensteinian monster that is Trump? That’s not to say that you’ve been whipping voters into a frenzy all these years, but perhaps you’ve been blind to the role of conservative media in all of this.
Charlie Sykes Oh, yes, absolutely. I’m different than Rush Limbaugh, but there’s no question that we got caught up in certain word salad, certain narratives that perhaps we did not fully understand how they were playing among our base.
I’m not trying to pose for holy pictures here, but I’ve been doing this for 20 years and critiques of the mainstream media were always a part of everything we did. Some of that critique is valuable, but it did lead to this nihilism that we have now.
I don’t think I’d use the phrase Frankenstein monster, but if that’s your analogy…
Sean Illing I’ve had this conversation with a lot of my conservative friends who are equally troubled by Trump. My point is always that Trump didn’t spring suddenly out of a whirlwind. Conservative media has been flirting with these darker forces for decades. Trump is the culmination of something, not the beginning.
Charlie Sykes If you and I had this conversation a year ago, I would’ve disagreed with you vigorously. I would’ve said, “There you go again with the darker forces garbage.” Conservatives have been accused of this for years. But obviously there’s some truth to what you’ve just said.
I haven’t totally worked this out, but the question is simple: Is Donald Trump a logical continuity? Or does he mark a radical break, a discontinuity? And I think that Hillary Clinton has argued that he represents a break.
But I can tell you some of the things he is saying — about Muslims and immigrants in particular — is just way out there. It’s hard to say where it comes from exactly, but we clearly have to ask the question.Sean Illing There are serious conservatives with serious ideas out there, but you don’t hear any of that on the radio. It’s just all rage all the time.
Charlie Sykes Right, and that’s easy radio. One of the things that has disillusioned me is watching hosts just go with the flow. They don’t want to push back. They’re worried about ratings. They don’t want to have their email box filled up. They don’t want to put up with, you know, the massive blowback on social media. So they just don’t do it.
And as a result, what happens is the worst voices go unchallenged. It’s the easy, lazy approach and I think that up until last year the thought was: Well you know, these are friends, do not take it seriously, it’s no big deal. Then suddenly Frankenstein’s monster walked through the door.
Sean Illing It’s astonishing how little these political entrepreneurs thought about the consequences of their words. You whip people into a frenzy for long enough, and eventually…
Charlie Sykes Well this year the walls have completely broken down throughout the media. It’s like watching the dam get blown away. I just can’t push back on all the crazy stuff out there. How many times can you say that Obama isn’t gay or a Muslim or that he wasn’t born in Kenya?
I read polls earlier this year showing what percentage of Republicans believe those things and you kind of brush it off. But then you have to step back and go, okay crap, how did this happen? And are we complicit by not having pushed back more aggressively?
Sean Illing If you live inside that radio cocoon, you’re hermetically sealed from reality. Everything outside the bubble is dismissed as subterfuge.
Charlie Sykes Absolutely. And you have these websites out there, like Breitbart.com, which is like reading third-world propaganda. These guys like Breitbart are smart enough to know that they’re full of shit. But if you inhabit that world, you can’t push back without being seen as a sellout.
Now I will say this one thing on the flip side. Some of these people have flocked to sites like Breitbart and they’ve retreated into these dark corners because the left has too easily tossed words like “racist” and “xenophobe” and “sexist” around.
So what’s happened is that when a guy like me or anyone or you says, hey, you know, Donald Trump is a racist and a xenophobe and a sexist. The conservative media world, the consumers, they tell me we’ve been called that for 20 or 30 years. They’ve become conditioned to blow it off as crying wolf.
Sean Illing I think that’s a fair point.
Charlie Sykes I’m old enough to remember that being called a racist was the worst thing, the most devastating thing you could call someone — and now it’s lost all currency. I mean, people don’t even blink at it anymore. John McCain’s a racist, Mitt Romney’s a racist, Paul Ryan’s a racist.
But when Donald Trump comes, who is the real thing, we call him that and say we didn’t really mean it about those other guys. This is who we were warning you about. It’s blown off by a lot of the conservative base.
Sean Illing Would you have believed a year ago that something like this was possible?
Charlie Sykes I don’t know. I’ve never seen anything remotely like this and I think that part of our inability to grasp it is because we’ve never seen anything like it — not here, at least. The only analogy I can think of is, you know, the man on the white horse during a time of distrust who ascends to power on a cult of personality.
Sean Illing That’s fascism, no?
Charlie Sykes It is. This is not about ideas. It’s not about policies of any kind whatsoever. … It’s about the strong man, the authoritarian man.
Sean Illing Although the story is just now breaking, I take it you’ve heard the leaked recording between Trump and Billy Bush?
Charlie Sykes
Trump's comments were horrific, but utterly predictable because they were totally consistent with everything we knew about his character. The GOP was deluded to imagine that this wouldn't blow up on them.
I felt vindicated for about 5 minutes, but then angry about the dishonesty, cowardice, and lack of principle that led to this.
Unfortunately this has also given much of the conservative media another chance to beclown themselves again on behalf of the Orange Duce.
They broke it. They own it.
Sean Illing So how do you justify the decision by conservative leaders to endorse Trump’s candidacy? Do you think someone like Paul Ryan will live to regret how he handled this?
Charlie Sykes Yes, I think the regret will be indirect. But there are distinctions here. The inner circle — the Huckabees, the Giulianis, the Newt Gingriches — they ought to be totally and utterly discredited by their support. And for the people like Paul Ryan who up until now have made it clear that we’re going to vote for him but we’re going to distance ourselves from the racism and the filth — they are somewhat more insulated but still have that problem.
Sean Illing Yes, but I don’t think that’s a move one can intellectually make. You can’t say, as Ryan has, that Trump is a “textbook” racist but that you’ll vote for him anyway.
Charlie Sykes Well that’s exactly my point. It’s intellectually incoherent to say, and I’ve had this conversation with him — that this is a textbook example of racism but let’s make him president.
I make a distinction between Ryan and the Kool-Aid drinkers, but I think it’s going to be very difficult to wipe the stink off.
Sean Illing So you do think there will be a reckoning of some kind on the right after this? I suppose my worry is that there’s always a tendency to double down rather than course correct, and I wonder if that’s going to happen again this time.
Charlie Sykes Yes, there’s absolutely going to be a reckoning. There has to be a reckoning. We have to come to grips with things like the alt-right, and there has to be the understanding that they cannot be a legitimate part of our party. We have to do to the alt-right what Buckley Jr. did to the John Birch Society, otherwise there is literally no electoral future for conservatives.
Will that happen? I don’t know. I suspect Republicans will try to brush past this. They’ll try to unite by being against Hillary and I think they’ll get that illusion of unity by being in opposition to Hillary. She’ll be the perfect foil. And so that will paper over all of these deeper divisions, which I think is a huge mistake because they’re still there.
And it won’t just go away after Trump.
http://www.vox.com/conversations/2016/10/12/13227642/charlie-sykes-donald-trump-republican-party-wisconsin-election-2016-hillary-clinton This is a really interesting discussion, thanks for posting it
|
On October 15 2016 02:41 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 02:18 zlefin wrote: Dang, the thread went back to normal, oh well, at least I tried, sort of.
I should add something more substantive too, hmmm. I think we're gonna have to raise retirement age for social security sooner or later, and we may as well setup the system with a better auto-adjusting mechanism. I have no idea how to address the issues with racial and other disparities in social security; there's no good apparent answer there. Ditch it and minimum wage for universal basic income? the country is not yet rich enough for ubi. But it is rich enough for a social security system. Also, part of the point of social security is to give it to people too old/unfit to work. ubi doesn't do that. I also rather doubt the political feasibilty of ubi at this time in the US. (as in it'd be even harder to do than reforming social security) "Says wealthiest nation on earth" @gore. Well, we disagree that rhetoric can't manipulate, so I think we're done. I don't think any country is wealthy enough for ubi. do you think otherwise? and if so, what estimates are you using for the dollar costs involved?
UAE comes to mind, but that's not really fair I suppose. Our problem isn't that it's expensive though (it all gets spent) problem is it doesn't stay in our economy (or sent to ones that will import from us with it). I'm fine with the ~2 trillion dollar pricetag (for the US) as far as estimating goes though.
Ideally we would just want the tax to be placed where the money is going (as to make it sustainable). But if you give impoverished people $10k they are going to spend $10k (probably more). If the people who would pay the tax were the people who get the $10k that gets spent, we end up with a mutually beneficial bargain.
As it is now it's a one-sided short term gain for those hoarding and they refuse to see how it's short-sighted.
On October 15 2016 02:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 02:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 02:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:53 Plansix wrote:On October 15 2016 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:34 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] "Prevent Bernie from winning" and "playing favorites" aren't always the same thing. [quote] Source Yes we had that one before and it was a yawn back then aswell. Is that your evidence of favoritism? Some DNC members talking about Bernie among themselves about how his faith might be attacked. (A line that was never used by Hillary if I remember correctly) Again, Bernie is an outsider trying to take over the Democratic Party platform (as is allowed by the open primary structure, nothing wrong there). And then we should be astonished and shocked that the DNC wasn't very happy with it? Look no further then Trump to see why the DNC thought what it did. I'm sure the GOP is loving the direction Trump took the party. So yes. I think the DNC was favorites towards Hillary. And No I don't think the DNC did something it should not have during the primaries. It did not work to prevent people from being able to vote for Bernie. It did not alter voting rules to prevent Bernie from being elected candidate. The primary happened with a minimum of irregularities (none is almost impossible). And as far as I know none that actually effected the outcome of any delegates. Nothing was rigged. Yes, when "Chief executive in charge of day to day operations" transforms into "some DNC members" it is impossible to have a constructive dialogue. Does she stop being a person with her own idea's and values when she assuming a position? Was this a public message in her position as Chief executive? or was this an internal email among colleagues? and see my edit. What is your custom definition of rigged? She has responsibilities and rules that govern her behavior in that role. Chatting about how they can hit another candidate with an attack on their religion is absurd to dismiss as just "her own idea's and values" when she's the Chief exec in charge of operations. Definition of rig rigged rigging transitive verb 1 : to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means <rig an election> Source People are under the false belief that an outcome must be fixed for it to be rigged, no, people can lose something rigged for them to win. You all are imposing the implication of "fixed" to rigged. A simple misunderstanding but for sake of not losing any argument to me people have stubbornly refused to let go. On October 15 2016 01:48 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:42 Plansix wrote:On October 15 2016 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:34 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] Yes we had that one before and it was a yawn back then aswell. Is that your evidence of favoritism? Some DNC members talking about Bernie among themselves about how his faith might be attacked. (A line that was never used by Hillary if I remember correctly) Again, Bernie is an outsider trying to take over the Democratic Party platform (as is allowed by the open primary structure, nothing wrong there). And then we should be astonished and shocked that the DNC wasn't very happy with it? Look no further then Trump to see why the DNC thought what it did. I'm sure the GOP is loving the direction Trump took the party.
So yes. I think the DNC was favorites towards Hillary. And No I don't think the DNC did something it should not have during the primaries. It did not work to prevent people from being able to vote for Bernie. It did not alter voting rules to prevent Bernie from being elected candidate. The primary happened with a minimum of irregularities (none is almost impossible). And as far as I know none that actually effected the outcome of any delegates.
Nothing was rigged. Yes, when "Chief executive in charge of day to day operations" transforms into "some DNC members" it is impossible to have a constructive dialogue. That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008. GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency. When GH loses an argument he starts changing the definition of words. He did it with racism before (in the 'blacks cannot be racist') discussion and he is doing it now by wanting to redefining Rigged. On October 15 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:21 Nebuchad wrote: GH says the DNC plays favorites, the thread mocks him for his conspiratorial outlook.
Event: emails released
GH says the DNC played favorites, the thread mocks him cause it's obvious they did based on the situation and the system I miss be miss remembering but I believe he was mocked for complaining it was rigged. not that there was a measure of favoritism. I think there is a significant difference between the 2. Hence my question to him in what way the DNC actually favored Clinton. Which comes from a misunderstanding of the definition of the word "rigged" And much of this comes at me as a hangover from reddit posts that are superimposed on top of my arguments. Given he's a foreigner, you see where this is heading Plansix? What are you talking about? The foreigner part meaning I don't expect him to understand the implications of the rhetoric regarding race in America. When GH loses an argument he starts changing the definition of words. He did it with racism before (in the 'blacks cannot be racist') discussion and he is doing it now by wanting to redefining Rigged But I know you know what's both wrong with that statement and how it gives credibility to the argument that I was making regarding plenty of the same crap we get from the right coming out of Hillary supporters regarding racism in America. On October 15 2016 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 01:42 Plansix wrote:On October 15 2016 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:34 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:11 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] In what way did the DNC play favorites?
I'm not saying this believe I don't believe they did (I fully expect them to play favorite with the established party candidate vs the outside usurper) but because I would love to know what factual action the DNC undertook to prevent Bernie from winning.
"Prevent Bernie from winning" and "playing favorites" aren't always the same thing. As the DNC’s chief executive, Dacey was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the party.
After Clinton became the presumptive Democratic nominee in June, she installed new aides at the DNC to manage the coordinated general election campaign, but Dacey was kept on and was given expanded responsibilities.
With the release of the WikiLeaks emails, however, Dacey was implicated in one of the most damaging exchanges, in which Marshall appeared to speculate about how Sanders’s Jewish heritage could be used against him.
Marshall posited that he believes Sanders “is an atheist” and that it could make a difference in the Kentucky and West Virginia primaries. The messages were sent to a group that included Dacey, Miranda and another communications aide, Mark Paustenbach.
“My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,” Marshall wrote in an email.
Dacey responded: “AMEN” Source Yes we had that one before and it was a yawn back then aswell. Is that your evidence of favoritism? Some DNC members talking about Bernie among themselves about how his faith might be attacked. (A line that was never used by Hillary if I remember correctly) Again, Bernie is an outsider trying to take over the Democratic Party platform (as is allowed by the open primary structure, nothing wrong there). And then we should be astonished and shocked that the DNC wasn't very happy with it? Look no further then Trump to see why the DNC thought what it did. I'm sure the GOP is loving the direction Trump took the party. So yes. I think the DNC was favorites towards Hillary. And No I don't think the DNC did something it should not have during the primaries. It did not work to prevent people from being able to vote for Bernie. It did not alter voting rules to prevent Bernie from being elected candidate. The primary happened with a minimum of irregularities (none is almost impossible). And as far as I know none that actually effected the outcome of any delegates. Nothing was rigged. Yes, when "Chief executive in charge of day to day operations" transforms into "some DNC members" it is impossible to have a constructive dialogue. That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008. GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency. You forget to mention that GH takes it a step further by blaming Clinton for the fraud that didn't happen from the DNC. It's a bit like when I lost to Monopoly, blamed the rules for having had bad luck with the dice and hated my opponent and thought she was the worst person in the world because she outplayed me. The only difference being that I was 6 and I only resented my sister for about 15 minutes. She went and stumped for the person in charge overseeing all of the stuff that resulted in both the person she stumped for and other having to resign due to their inappropriate behavior. This is why I typically don't bother with your posts. Every single one of your posts to/about me has created a disingenuous strawman to argue with and it's grown quite tiresome. No my friend, I don't strawman you, just repeat what you are saying. I asked you earlier what's the problem with Clinton and you answered "DNC". Even if she supports and kept supporting the person who appeared favouring her, it doesn't make her responsible for the action of said person. And it looks like that said person didn't break the law in any way. You can be pissed at the Democratic party or the DNC, but you basically carefully explained to me how much of a horrible person Clinton is because of something someone else apparently did. Other than that, every party in every primary in the history of the world has had a favourite. A party is made of people who think, and have a judgment over stuff. They usually go with the person they think has the best chance to win the elections. But then again, if the democratic party rigged its elections, Obama wouldn't have won in 2008. The core problem, dear GH, is that Bernie lost by a couple million votes. Anyway. I'm talking to a nice, solid, brick wall. I think there was some miscommunication because if the request was for what's wrong with Hillary I would have given you that instead. I didn't even have any real interest in this conversation, I really wanted to know what, if anything, would stop someone who is going to vote for her from doing so, then what they would do instead. That rehashing the DNC was the preferred topic of her supporters comes as no surprise though. If she starts acting as stupid, racist, and elitist as Bernie Sanders then I would be more willing to vote for someone else; but being that someone else is Trump I would still vote for her even then. So *IF* she turned into bernie 2.0 and was facing off against someone like Romney, McCain, then I would vote for Romney and McCain. But right now, the past 8 years has been the best that's happened to this country in a long time and I would vote for 16-32 more years of Obama if I could, so someone aiming to maintain, expand, and defend his policies would be fantastic. Pretty much I would only vote against her if she turned into Bernie. When asked about how to save Muslims in Syria, Bernie responded that we should throw more muslims into the grinder. When told Dodd Frank was already doing what he was promising, he said that was crazy, when asked what he would do instead he said Dodd Frank. When asked how he would convince the majority republican congress to cede where Obama could not, he emphasized that it will magically happen anyway. He's an isolationist old white guy who pretends globalization does not happen and goes against the scientific consensus on food science research. So the only way I would not vote for Hilary would be if she turned out to be sanders in disguise. But the Hilary we have now? The one who will say anything to get what she wants, the one willing to mingle with deplorables to find middle ground, the one whose aims are to find what works and not what looks good on a tweet. The Hilary who, when asked about minimum wage, references research studies and PhDs over youtube videos. The Hilary who when asked what her plan is, goes to it in depth, tells us to go to her website where more details are at, and whose emphasis is on providing scientific backing to her statements. I am willing to vote for that Hillary.
Is this a long-winded way of saying you'd vote Trump over Bernie?
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Uh I don't think Wealthiest nation in the world is what you want to look at when you want UBI, it also depends on your population and I highly doubt that America is more wealthy when it comes to that than Norway(although Norway is cheating as we all know).
|
|
Bisutopia19234 Posts
On October 15 2016 02:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 02:43 BisuDagger wrote:On October 15 2016 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:I am starting to imagine one of these women will turn out to be a phony and it will undermine the entire attack. Yup, this happened to McCain, Herman Cain, Romney, gingrich, and many others. All allegations dropped after they dropped out of the race or lost. Don't get me wrong, I don't care one bit for Trump, but all this last minute allegation BS without the burden of proof is something that comes up every time the race nears an end. I'm not even going to point at a party here, just saying its pretty off putting that the media is running with this crap. Counter point: Trump freely admitted to doing the things he is accused of on tape and bragged about it. He then claimed he was just kidding and expected us to believe him, without proof or evidence. So you are correct that they are just claims without evidence, but Trump expecting the same thing from the public. So it comes down to who we believe. And Trump does have a pretty bad track record with telling the truth. I agree with your counterpoint. It's like in the post above yours. Media cries wolf accusing republicans of things they aren't and then we finally get the wolf and everyone shrugs it off.
|
|
|
|