|
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. |
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 04 2017 17:37 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 17:31 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 04 2017 17:26 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:20 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 04 2017 16:57 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 16:46 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 04 2017 16:32 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 16:24 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
So why not just agree that those people are at best useless (in terms of advancing any kind of debate/cause), distance yourself from them and try to focus on the actual issues?
I don't agree with almost a single thing that xDaunt generally posts in these threads but acting like there isn't a loud group of just absolutely toxic people on the left right now seems completely crazy? It's like denying the existence of alt-righters.... They are very clearly there.
Hi Jinro, I'm one of the people that xDaunt and you are talking about. I don't think I'm useless, I can certainly see an argument made that I'm toxic cause I'm more than a little confrontational when I'm sure that I'm right, and I expect people to aspire not to be incorrect when they talk about important things. I am however not a fascist, and I don't have any of the attributes that xDaunt gives to the regressive left as a group that he targets when speaking about people like me. On March 04 2017 16:35 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 16:29 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 04 2017 16:28 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 16:24 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
I've been reading back through this discussion trying to figure out why it's even going on... There very clearly are a group (that is if nothing else loud) on the left to whom the label 'regressive left' is honestly surprisingly fitting.
Admitting this does not seem to take anything away from the real problems on the other side of the spectrum.
So why not just agree that those people are at best useless (in terms of advancing any kind of debate/cause), distance yourself from them and try to focus on the actual issues?
I don't agree with almost a single thing that xDaunt generally posts in these threads but acting like there isn't a loud group of just absolutely toxic people on the left right now seems completely crazy? It's like denying the existence of alt-righters.... They are very clearly there.
Am sort of hesitant to hit post on this because I feel like I've missed something, but I read the past several pages trying to make sure I wasn't.
EDIT:
[quote]
How is this not an apt description of certain elements of today's left? They are literally setting things back with their rhetoric/tactics. The part you've missed is that xDaunt claims these people are either solely or mostly responsible for the degradation of political discourse, and therefore that little or no responsiblity resides with people on the right wing of politics. I've asked xDaunt for a rational and evidence based justification of this position previously. I did not get one. I saw that post, and it's of course not true that they bear the sole responsibility. But several people in here are arguing that this group does not even exist. If we can't even admit they are a problem, they become such supremely useful idiots for people on the other extreme of the spectrum... I can't speak for anybody else, but I think most arguments in this thread have been that the "regressive left" does not exist in the sense that xDaunt says it does. Some of the wording has not been clear on that point. Repeating for emphasis, I do not speak for anybody else in this thread. I'll reply to both here at once. I guess it's possible that the word 'regressive left' is something I've assigned a different meaning to than xDaunt and so am confused about why people say it doesn't exist. Would not, from your posts, have categorized you (Nechubad) as 'regressive left'. Need to read some more of your posts and think about things a bit before replying further. The "correct" definition of the regressive left is people who are so tolerant of other people that they end up defending intolerance (for example, being in favor of wahabism) out of a will to be supertolerant. That's what the word was invented to describe (by Maajid Nawaz, a fraud and a propagandist), and it was a strawman of the position that islam isn't the mother lode of evil because #notallmuslimsareextremists. Since it's a great word to attack people who identify as progressive, it has spread like wildfire and now means "people who are to the left of me and are generally evil for whatever reason" (see Sermokala above saying that people who aren't nice enough to gay-hating bigots are part of the regressive left which is almost the literal opposite of what the term was created to describe). I don't really know how you use it personnally but I'm part of most of the groups that have been targeted by the term. EDIT: Wikipedia:ing some though, it appears to be used more in line with how I interpreted it by some people at least. What? Oo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left In November 2015, in an appearance on the talk radio show The Humanist Hour, author and philosopher Peter Boghossian defined the term as a pejorative used to describe those on the left that have made the "strangest bedfellows" with the Islamists. According to him, the word "regressive" is used to contrast with the word "progressive" – the latter being the group that is egalitarian and wants to create systems of justice and racial equality, while the former being a group that "[looks] for the worst in people... and [does] not extend hermeneutics of charity, or a charitable interpretation of anything anyone says, but uses it as a hammer to beat people down". In addition, he believes that "regressive leftists" have become "hyper-moralists" and champions of their perceived victims. He cites the historical wrongdoings, such as slavery in the United States and colonialism as a legitimate concern that has caused mistrust of anything Western and capitalistic. He also added that "there are people who have suffered and still suffer legitimate instances of racism, homophobia etc. The problem is that every time the word racist is just thrown around like that, that word loses its meaning. And it should have quite a sting. That should be a horrible word".[22] and Political commentator David Pakman supported the concept in his talk show, saying "there are liberals who do use cultural relativism and distaste for US foreign policy as an excuse to defend or at least minimize violence and injustice that they would certainly otherwise oppose". He has distanced himself from the term, saying that it's misused by conservatives to insult all liberals.[26][27] Pakman suggests that the actual regressive leftists are leftists who use authoritarianism to enforce progressivism.[28] Was how I had interpreted it without knowing the actual background behind the term. Okay, fair enough. I would have put those under the "people who are to the left of me and are generally evil for whatever reason"
I'll reply in PM if I have anything more to add (need to consider it and have some work I need to get done first anyway tt), I'm not sure this is about US politics anymore 
|
On March 04 2017 17:48 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 17:37 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:31 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 04 2017 17:26 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:20 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 04 2017 16:57 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 16:46 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 04 2017 16:32 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 16:24 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
So why not just agree that those people are at best useless (in terms of advancing any kind of debate/cause), distance yourself from them and try to focus on the actual issues?
I don't agree with almost a single thing that xDaunt generally posts in these threads but acting like there isn't a loud group of just absolutely toxic people on the left right now seems completely crazy? It's like denying the existence of alt-righters.... They are very clearly there.
Hi Jinro, I'm one of the people that xDaunt and you are talking about. I don't think I'm useless, I can certainly see an argument made that I'm toxic cause I'm more than a little confrontational when I'm sure that I'm right, and I expect people to aspire not to be incorrect when they talk about important things. I am however not a fascist, and I don't have any of the attributes that xDaunt gives to the regressive left as a group that he targets when speaking about people like me. On March 04 2017 16:35 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 16:29 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 04 2017 16:28 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
The part you've missed is that xDaunt claims these people are either solely or mostly responsible for the degradation of political discourse, and therefore that little or no responsiblity resides with people on the right wing of politics.
I've asked xDaunt for a rational and evidence based justification of this position previously. I did not get one. I saw that post, and it's of course not true that they bear the sole responsibility. But several people in here are arguing that this group does not even exist. If we can't even admit they are a problem, they become such supremely useful idiots for people on the other extreme of the spectrum... I can't speak for anybody else, but I think most arguments in this thread have been that the "regressive left" does not exist in the sense that xDaunt says it does. Some of the wording has not been clear on that point. Repeating for emphasis, I do not speak for anybody else in this thread. I'll reply to both here at once. I guess it's possible that the word 'regressive left' is something I've assigned a different meaning to than xDaunt and so am confused about why people say it doesn't exist. Would not, from your posts, have categorized you (Nechubad) as 'regressive left'. Need to read some more of your posts and think about things a bit before replying further. The "correct" definition of the regressive left is people who are so tolerant of other people that they end up defending intolerance (for example, being in favor of wahabism) out of a will to be supertolerant. That's what the word was invented to describe (by Maajid Nawaz, a fraud and a propagandist), and it was a strawman of the position that islam isn't the mother lode of evil because #notallmuslimsareextremists. Since it's a great word to attack people who identify as progressive, it has spread like wildfire and now means "people who are to the left of me and are generally evil for whatever reason" (see Sermokala above saying that people who aren't nice enough to gay-hating bigots are part of the regressive left which is almost the literal opposite of what the term was created to describe). I don't really know how you use it personnally but I'm part of most of the groups that have been targeted by the term. EDIT: Wikipedia:ing some though, it appears to be used more in line with how I interpreted it by some people at least. What? Oo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left In November 2015, in an appearance on the talk radio show The Humanist Hour, author and philosopher Peter Boghossian defined the term as a pejorative used to describe those on the left that have made the "strangest bedfellows" with the Islamists. According to him, the word "regressive" is used to contrast with the word "progressive" – the latter being the group that is egalitarian and wants to create systems of justice and racial equality, while the former being a group that "[looks] for the worst in people... and [does] not extend hermeneutics of charity, or a charitable interpretation of anything anyone says, but uses it as a hammer to beat people down". In addition, he believes that "regressive leftists" have become "hyper-moralists" and champions of their perceived victims. He cites the historical wrongdoings, such as slavery in the United States and colonialism as a legitimate concern that has caused mistrust of anything Western and capitalistic. He also added that "there are people who have suffered and still suffer legitimate instances of racism, homophobia etc. The problem is that every time the word racist is just thrown around like that, that word loses its meaning. And it should have quite a sting. That should be a horrible word".[22] and Political commentator David Pakman supported the concept in his talk show, saying "there are liberals who do use cultural relativism and distaste for US foreign policy as an excuse to defend or at least minimize violence and injustice that they would certainly otherwise oppose". He has distanced himself from the term, saying that it's misused by conservatives to insult all liberals.[26][27] Pakman suggests that the actual regressive leftists are leftists who use authoritarianism to enforce progressivism.[28] Was how I had interpreted it without knowing the actual background behind the term. Okay, fair enough. I would have put those under the "people who are to the left of me and are generally evil for whatever reason" You can take or leave the evil part, but 'whatever reasons'... that part matters quite a bit. Are they the 'ends justify the means sort'? No bad tactics, just bad targets? We will stop tyranny by using tyrannical and otherwise authoritarian methods? In that case, 'people who are to the left of me' is incidental to the real problem, falling under the vague category of 'whatever reasons'.
Whatever reasons is used here to mean "a vast array of different reasons", depending on what the person using the term "regressive left" thinks is important. No, we shouldn't become authoritarian to defeat authoritarianism, as that would defeat the purpose. As you can see, I have opposed the notion that the left is being authoritarian on a large scale from the start of this conversation. This is a common far right tactic ("pensée unique" in french) where you pretend that people oppose you because they don't like that you disagree with them as opposed to because they think you're wrong.
|
On March 04 2017 17:51 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 17:40 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:36 Ghostcom wrote:On March 04 2017 17:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:28 Ghostcom wrote:On March 04 2017 17:17 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:13 Ghostcom wrote:On March 04 2017 16:44 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 16:35 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 16:32 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Hi Jinro, I'm one of the people that xDaunt and you are talking about. I don't think I'm useless, I can certainly see an argument made that I'm toxic cause I'm more than a little confrontational when I'm sure that I'm right, and I expect people to aspire not to be incorrect when they talk about important things. I am however not a fascist, and I don't have any of the attributes that xDaunt gives to the regressive left as a group that he targets when speaking about people like me. You are self identifying with the authoritarian left that thinks hate and combative language is the way to make society better? Communists were useless and we all got rid of them and now we laugh at them. I don't think it's authoritarian to expect correct ideas to succeed over incorrect ideas. Do you? I do see however how it's very useful for people who are consistently wrong about a ton of stuff to argue that a will to be right is authoritarian. Don't you? As per "the way to make society better", it depends what you mean by that, and what other ways you oppose this way to. It depends on what you mean by "correct" and what you mean by "succeed". Until you have clarified those terms we wont really know, but either your statements is completely non-controversial or you are entering thought-police territory. That's not technically true. I obviously mean the non-controversial thing (as the terms are clear in themselves and I've clarified them in the past), but that's still a form of thought police. I'm not going to shift through 7k pages to find that one nugget. Please clearly define those concepts when you make such a blanket statement. The terms are very far from clear - i.e. what is a "correct idea"? Free from error; in accordance with fact or truth. As an example, the idea that there aren't several definitions of "correct idea" is a correct idea. Thank you for defining what you mean. How are you going to evaluate whether an idea is correct or not? And are you certain that such an evaluation is objective? - By thinking critically about it. - Depends what you mean by objective. I am aware that I am a human being and that as such I'm able to draw conclusions that are wrong, if that's what you're asking me. I'm sorry for not having been clearer: By which measure are you going to consider your idea correct? I.e. How are you sure that your value system is the same as that of everyone else? And how are you sure that your value system is correct in the first place?
I am not, and I don't claim to be. If you have the will and the logic to demonstrate that I'm wrong about something, by all means, do it. I aspire to be right. I will never tell you not to make an argument if you think I'm wrong about something, what I will require however is an argument, I'm not going to just accept that we have different views because "we can agree to disagree" and everything is relative.
|
Canada11279 Posts
On March 04 2017 18:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 17:48 Falling wrote:On March 04 2017 17:37 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:31 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 04 2017 17:26 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:20 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 04 2017 16:57 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 16:46 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 04 2017 16:32 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 16:24 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
So why not just agree that those people are at best useless (in terms of advancing any kind of debate/cause), distance yourself from them and try to focus on the actual issues?
I don't agree with almost a single thing that xDaunt generally posts in these threads but acting like there isn't a loud group of just absolutely toxic people on the left right now seems completely crazy? It's like denying the existence of alt-righters.... They are very clearly there.
Hi Jinro, I'm one of the people that xDaunt and you are talking about. I don't think I'm useless, I can certainly see an argument made that I'm toxic cause I'm more than a little confrontational when I'm sure that I'm right, and I expect people to aspire not to be incorrect when they talk about important things. I am however not a fascist, and I don't have any of the attributes that xDaunt gives to the regressive left as a group that he targets when speaking about people like me. On March 04 2017 16:35 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 16:29 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
[quote]
I saw that post, and it's of course not true that they bear the sole responsibility. But several people in here are arguing that this group does not even exist.
If we can't even admit they are a problem, they become such supremely useful idiots for people on the other extreme of the spectrum... I can't speak for anybody else, but I think most arguments in this thread have been that the "regressive left" does not exist in the sense that xDaunt says it does. Some of the wording has not been clear on that point. Repeating for emphasis, I do not speak for anybody else in this thread. I'll reply to both here at once. I guess it's possible that the word 'regressive left' is something I've assigned a different meaning to than xDaunt and so am confused about why people say it doesn't exist. Would not, from your posts, have categorized you (Nechubad) as 'regressive left'. Need to read some more of your posts and think about things a bit before replying further. The "correct" definition of the regressive left is people who are so tolerant of other people that they end up defending intolerance (for example, being in favor of wahabism) out of a will to be supertolerant. That's what the word was invented to describe (by Maajid Nawaz, a fraud and a propagandist), and it was a strawman of the position that islam isn't the mother lode of evil because #notallmuslimsareextremists. Since it's a great word to attack people who identify as progressive, it has spread like wildfire and now means "people who are to the left of me and are generally evil for whatever reason" (see Sermokala above saying that people who aren't nice enough to gay-hating bigots are part of the regressive left which is almost the literal opposite of what the term was created to describe). I don't really know how you use it personnally but I'm part of most of the groups that have been targeted by the term. EDIT: Wikipedia:ing some though, it appears to be used more in line with how I interpreted it by some people at least. What? Oo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left In November 2015, in an appearance on the talk radio show The Humanist Hour, author and philosopher Peter Boghossian defined the term as a pejorative used to describe those on the left that have made the "strangest bedfellows" with the Islamists. According to him, the word "regressive" is used to contrast with the word "progressive" – the latter being the group that is egalitarian and wants to create systems of justice and racial equality, while the former being a group that "[looks] for the worst in people... and [does] not extend hermeneutics of charity, or a charitable interpretation of anything anyone says, but uses it as a hammer to beat people down". In addition, he believes that "regressive leftists" have become "hyper-moralists" and champions of their perceived victims. He cites the historical wrongdoings, such as slavery in the United States and colonialism as a legitimate concern that has caused mistrust of anything Western and capitalistic. He also added that "there are people who have suffered and still suffer legitimate instances of racism, homophobia etc. The problem is that every time the word racist is just thrown around like that, that word loses its meaning. And it should have quite a sting. That should be a horrible word".[22] and Political commentator David Pakman supported the concept in his talk show, saying "there are liberals who do use cultural relativism and distaste for US foreign policy as an excuse to defend or at least minimize violence and injustice that they would certainly otherwise oppose". He has distanced himself from the term, saying that it's misused by conservatives to insult all liberals.[26][27] Pakman suggests that the actual regressive leftists are leftists who use authoritarianism to enforce progressivism.[28] Was how I had interpreted it without knowing the actual background behind the term. Okay, fair enough. I would have put those under the "people who are to the left of me and are generally evil for whatever reason" You can take or leave the evil part, but 'whatever reasons'... that part matters quite a bit. Are they the 'ends justify the means sort'? No bad tactics, just bad targets? We will stop tyranny by using tyrannical and otherwise authoritarian methods? In that case, 'people who are to the left of me' is incidental to the real problem, falling under the vague category of 'whatever reasons'. Whatever reasons is used here to mean "a vast array of different reasons", depending on what the person using the term "regressive left" thinks is important. No, we shouldn't become authoritarian to defeat authoritarianism, as that would defeat the purpose. As you can see, I have opposed the notion that the left is being authoritarian on a large scale from the start of this conversation. This is a common far right tactic ("pensée unique" in french) where you pretend that people oppose you because they don't like that you disagree with them as opposed to because they think you're wrong.
I guess it depends on what you mean on a large scale. I don't know that anyone here is arguing that it exists on the left in the majority. In fact, it most certainly is the minority, but there is a plurality behaving in authoritarian manner, using violent methods. Look, there are all sorts of people lurking the alt-right that I very concerned about, and I was just as ready as anyone to see a wave of right-wing violence after those early Trump's rally's where reporters were getting pushed around and Trump was talking in a very bellicose manner. But to this day, that wave has not really materialized, but instead there has been a spree of people on the left sucker punching people, rioting and the rest. Not THE Left, but a part of it- leftist authoritarian rather than leftist egalitarian. It's still white supremacists getting punched in the face and not the other way around. I don't see any harm in acknowledging that element exists and that it's bad. In fact, I think there is great harm in denying its existence because those sorts of people aren't going to do the true Left any favours, quite the opposite. I actually think Ctrl Left is a rather clever name for the left counterpart to the Alt Right. Computer puns for the win.
|
On March 04 2017 18:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 17:51 Ghostcom wrote:On March 04 2017 17:40 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:36 Ghostcom wrote:On March 04 2017 17:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:28 Ghostcom wrote:On March 04 2017 17:17 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:13 Ghostcom wrote:On March 04 2017 16:44 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 16:35 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
You are self identifying with the authoritarian left that thinks hate and combative language is the way to make society better?
Communists were useless and we all got rid of them and now we laugh at them. I don't think it's authoritarian to expect correct ideas to succeed over incorrect ideas. Do you? I do see however how it's very useful for people who are consistently wrong about a ton of stuff to argue that a will to be right is authoritarian. Don't you? As per "the way to make society better", it depends what you mean by that, and what other ways you oppose this way to. It depends on what you mean by "correct" and what you mean by "succeed". Until you have clarified those terms we wont really know, but either your statements is completely non-controversial or you are entering thought-police territory. That's not technically true. I obviously mean the non-controversial thing (as the terms are clear in themselves and I've clarified them in the past), but that's still a form of thought police. I'm not going to shift through 7k pages to find that one nugget. Please clearly define those concepts when you make such a blanket statement. The terms are very far from clear - i.e. what is a "correct idea"? Free from error; in accordance with fact or truth. As an example, the idea that there aren't several definitions of "correct idea" is a correct idea. Thank you for defining what you mean. How are you going to evaluate whether an idea is correct or not? And are you certain that such an evaluation is objective? - By thinking critically about it. - Depends what you mean by objective. I am aware that I am a human being and that as such I'm able to draw conclusions that are wrong, if that's what you're asking me. I'm sorry for not having been clearer: By which measure are you going to consider your idea correct? I.e. How are you sure that your value system is the same as that of everyone else? And how are you sure that your value system is correct in the first place? I am not, and I don't claim to be. If you have the will and the logic to demonstrate that I'm wrong about something, by all means, do it. I aspire to be right. I will never tell you not to make an argument if you think I'm wrong about something, what I will require however is an argument, I'm not going to just accept that we have different views because "we can agree to disagree" and everything is relative.
But things are relative? What is important to you might not be important to me - that is literally why we hold elections and have different parties in a democracy. Right now we are posting in the US politics thread in which there is 7k pages of people discussing ideas and vehemently disagreeing (a lot of it is petty shit, but I think you will find that overriding ideology is the same issue). When you argue for a nanny state (you are self-declared leftist as far as I can tell) it stems from a point of view which is fundamentally at conflict with someone arguing for a minimalist state. How are you ever going to define which idea is the correct in that case?
|
On March 04 2017 17:48 Falling wrote:
Now while you may be right that true wall of contrary opinion completely silencing an individual is theoretical, I suspect one could get a silencing for all intent and practical purposes. So while not technically 100% silencing, it is sufficiently silencing. Certainly where tyranny of the majority rules you can get ostracization, banning, shunning, and in it's lesser form shaming. But I don't know that this: "Even should someone be ostracized for their opinions, it's ultimately because their voice was heard, and is being heard" is necessarily the case. Because it may be that their voices were thought to be heard. But the trouble is that if people rush to judgement in using silencing tactics, their voices were not actually heard because they were never able to fully explain. Pre-judging, if you will. So this because increasingly more likely with heated emotions- people just aren't thinking or listening when they are screaming in the faces of those they believe are this, that or the other.
And this is compounded because people are stupid and are trying muddle their way saying things and it comes out stupidly. What do I know? I'm pretty stupid about certain things and say all sorts of stupid things as I'm wrestling with ideas- you can't necessarily get your ideas out right the first time, and I need to be told certain parts of my ideas are dumb and I should reconsider, but not be screamed at and chanted down. But silencing tactics don't really allow for this muddling around if it comes down too quickly. And I can't say if people actually are being heard, only that people pounced on what they thought was being said.
Well, I guess that gets into the other reason why it's a hypothetical, which I thought I'd included but had apparently removed after a couple rewrites...
The intent of freedom of expression is (IMO) to preserve overt individuality. If we take that premise, then you're basically saying the societal foundation already has diversity and variance, and to reach the extreme where one voice is entirely ostracized by a massive group is basically impossible.
Or, I guess to try and reword that, a society that holds freedom of expression as a core value is one where a voice and opinion will always intersect with other large subsets of people.
This is on a a large scale, though. You could definitely bring up things like bullied children not having a voice, small like-minded communities, etc. Or, you know, if I were to personally kill you to censor you or something.
|
On March 04 2017 18:22 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 18:00 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:48 Falling wrote:On March 04 2017 17:37 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:31 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 04 2017 17:26 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:20 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 04 2017 16:57 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 16:46 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 04 2017 16:32 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Hi Jinro, I'm one of the people that xDaunt and you are talking about. I don't think I'm useless, I can certainly see an argument made that I'm toxic cause I'm more than a little confrontational when I'm sure that I'm right, and I expect people to aspire not to be incorrect when they talk about important things. I am however not a fascist, and I don't have any of the attributes that xDaunt gives to the regressive left as a group that he targets when speaking about people like me. On March 04 2017 16:35 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
I can't speak for anybody else, but I think most arguments in this thread have been that the "regressive left" does not exist in the sense that xDaunt says it does. Some of the wording has not been clear on that point.
Repeating for emphasis, I do not speak for anybody else in this thread.
I'll reply to both here at once. I guess it's possible that the word 'regressive left' is something I've assigned a different meaning to than xDaunt and so am confused about why people say it doesn't exist. Would not, from your posts, have categorized you (Nechubad) as 'regressive left'. Need to read some more of your posts and think about things a bit before replying further. The "correct" definition of the regressive left is people who are so tolerant of other people that they end up defending intolerance (for example, being in favor of wahabism) out of a will to be supertolerant. That's what the word was invented to describe (by Maajid Nawaz, a fraud and a propagandist), and it was a strawman of the position that islam isn't the mother lode of evil because #notallmuslimsareextremists. Since it's a great word to attack people who identify as progressive, it has spread like wildfire and now means "people who are to the left of me and are generally evil for whatever reason" (see Sermokala above saying that people who aren't nice enough to gay-hating bigots are part of the regressive left which is almost the literal opposite of what the term was created to describe). I don't really know how you use it personnally but I'm part of most of the groups that have been targeted by the term. EDIT: Wikipedia:ing some though, it appears to be used more in line with how I interpreted it by some people at least. What? Oo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left In November 2015, in an appearance on the talk radio show The Humanist Hour, author and philosopher Peter Boghossian defined the term as a pejorative used to describe those on the left that have made the "strangest bedfellows" with the Islamists. According to him, the word "regressive" is used to contrast with the word "progressive" – the latter being the group that is egalitarian and wants to create systems of justice and racial equality, while the former being a group that "[looks] for the worst in people... and [does] not extend hermeneutics of charity, or a charitable interpretation of anything anyone says, but uses it as a hammer to beat people down". In addition, he believes that "regressive leftists" have become "hyper-moralists" and champions of their perceived victims. He cites the historical wrongdoings, such as slavery in the United States and colonialism as a legitimate concern that has caused mistrust of anything Western and capitalistic. He also added that "there are people who have suffered and still suffer legitimate instances of racism, homophobia etc. The problem is that every time the word racist is just thrown around like that, that word loses its meaning. And it should have quite a sting. That should be a horrible word".[22] and Political commentator David Pakman supported the concept in his talk show, saying "there are liberals who do use cultural relativism and distaste for US foreign policy as an excuse to defend or at least minimize violence and injustice that they would certainly otherwise oppose". He has distanced himself from the term, saying that it's misused by conservatives to insult all liberals.[26][27] Pakman suggests that the actual regressive leftists are leftists who use authoritarianism to enforce progressivism.[28] Was how I had interpreted it without knowing the actual background behind the term. Okay, fair enough. I would have put those under the "people who are to the left of me and are generally evil for whatever reason" You can take or leave the evil part, but 'whatever reasons'... that part matters quite a bit. Are they the 'ends justify the means sort'? No bad tactics, just bad targets? We will stop tyranny by using tyrannical and otherwise authoritarian methods? In that case, 'people who are to the left of me' is incidental to the real problem, falling under the vague category of 'whatever reasons'. Whatever reasons is used here to mean "a vast array of different reasons", depending on what the person using the term "regressive left" thinks is important. No, we shouldn't become authoritarian to defeat authoritarianism, as that would defeat the purpose. As you can see, I have opposed the notion that the left is being authoritarian on a large scale from the start of this conversation. This is a common far right tactic ("pensée unique" in french) where you pretend that people oppose you because they don't like that you disagree with them as opposed to because they think you're wrong. I guess it depends on what you mean on a large scale. I don't know that anyone here is arguing that it exists on the left in the majority. In fact, it most certainly is the minority, but there is a plurality behaving in authoritarian manner, using violent methods. Look, there are all sorts of people lurking the alt-right that I very concerned about, and I was just as ready as anyone to see a wave of right-wing violence after those early Trump's rally's where reporters were getting pushed around and Trump was talking in a very bellicose manner. But to this day, that wave has not really materialized, but instead there has been a spree of people on the left sucker punching people, rioting and the rest. Not THE Left, but a part of it- leftist authoritarian rather than leftist egalitarian. It's still white supremacists getting punched in the face and not the other way around. I don't see any harm in acknowledging that element exists and that it's bad. In fact, I think there is great harm in denying its existence because those sorts of people aren't going to do the true Left any favours, quite the opposite. I actually think Ctrl Left is a rather clever name for the left counterpart to the Alt Right. Computer puns for the win.
I see that you're trying to allow me to distantiate myself from the authoritarian left by saying several times that it's this other group of people that we disagree with but I have to assure you once again that I am in agreement with almost every movement that has been associated with the term. So yeah, you are talking about me. I would have protested Milo coming to my university. I wouldn't have been violent about it (to be precise: I agree that being violent about it is the wrong response, I can't say for a fact that I wouldn't have been taken in by the moment), but the presence of violence isn't indicative of authoritarian ideals per se.
|
On March 04 2017 18:22 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 18:00 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:48 Falling wrote:On March 04 2017 17:37 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:31 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 04 2017 17:26 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:20 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 04 2017 16:57 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 16:46 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 04 2017 16:32 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Hi Jinro, I'm one of the people that xDaunt and you are talking about. I don't think I'm useless, I can certainly see an argument made that I'm toxic cause I'm more than a little confrontational when I'm sure that I'm right, and I expect people to aspire not to be incorrect when they talk about important things. I am however not a fascist, and I don't have any of the attributes that xDaunt gives to the regressive left as a group that he targets when speaking about people like me. On March 04 2017 16:35 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
I can't speak for anybody else, but I think most arguments in this thread have been that the "regressive left" does not exist in the sense that xDaunt says it does. Some of the wording has not been clear on that point.
Repeating for emphasis, I do not speak for anybody else in this thread.
I'll reply to both here at once. I guess it's possible that the word 'regressive left' is something I've assigned a different meaning to than xDaunt and so am confused about why people say it doesn't exist. Would not, from your posts, have categorized you (Nechubad) as 'regressive left'. Need to read some more of your posts and think about things a bit before replying further. The "correct" definition of the regressive left is people who are so tolerant of other people that they end up defending intolerance (for example, being in favor of wahabism) out of a will to be supertolerant. That's what the word was invented to describe (by Maajid Nawaz, a fraud and a propagandist), and it was a strawman of the position that islam isn't the mother lode of evil because #notallmuslimsareextremists. Since it's a great word to attack people who identify as progressive, it has spread like wildfire and now means "people who are to the left of me and are generally evil for whatever reason" (see Sermokala above saying that people who aren't nice enough to gay-hating bigots are part of the regressive left which is almost the literal opposite of what the term was created to describe). I don't really know how you use it personnally but I'm part of most of the groups that have been targeted by the term. EDIT: Wikipedia:ing some though, it appears to be used more in line with how I interpreted it by some people at least. What? Oo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left In November 2015, in an appearance on the talk radio show The Humanist Hour, author and philosopher Peter Boghossian defined the term as a pejorative used to describe those on the left that have made the "strangest bedfellows" with the Islamists. According to him, the word "regressive" is used to contrast with the word "progressive" – the latter being the group that is egalitarian and wants to create systems of justice and racial equality, while the former being a group that "[looks] for the worst in people... and [does] not extend hermeneutics of charity, or a charitable interpretation of anything anyone says, but uses it as a hammer to beat people down". In addition, he believes that "regressive leftists" have become "hyper-moralists" and champions of their perceived victims. He cites the historical wrongdoings, such as slavery in the United States and colonialism as a legitimate concern that has caused mistrust of anything Western and capitalistic. He also added that "there are people who have suffered and still suffer legitimate instances of racism, homophobia etc. The problem is that every time the word racist is just thrown around like that, that word loses its meaning. And it should have quite a sting. That should be a horrible word".[22] and Political commentator David Pakman supported the concept in his talk show, saying "there are liberals who do use cultural relativism and distaste for US foreign policy as an excuse to defend or at least minimize violence and injustice that they would certainly otherwise oppose". He has distanced himself from the term, saying that it's misused by conservatives to insult all liberals.[26][27] Pakman suggests that the actual regressive leftists are leftists who use authoritarianism to enforce progressivism.[28] Was how I had interpreted it without knowing the actual background behind the term. Okay, fair enough. I would have put those under the "people who are to the left of me and are generally evil for whatever reason" You can take or leave the evil part, but 'whatever reasons'... that part matters quite a bit. Are they the 'ends justify the means sort'? No bad tactics, just bad targets? We will stop tyranny by using tyrannical and otherwise authoritarian methods? In that case, 'people who are to the left of me' is incidental to the real problem, falling under the vague category of 'whatever reasons'. Whatever reasons is used here to mean "a vast array of different reasons", depending on what the person using the term "regressive left" thinks is important. No, we shouldn't become authoritarian to defeat authoritarianism, as that would defeat the purpose. As you can see, I have opposed the notion that the left is being authoritarian on a large scale from the start of this conversation. This is a common far right tactic ("pensée unique" in french) where you pretend that people oppose you because they don't like that you disagree with them as opposed to because they think you're wrong. It's still white supremacists getting punched in the face and not the other way around.
You're joking, right? You can't be serious with that statement? Or have you really not been following the news at all?
|
On March 04 2017 18:25 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 18:06 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:51 Ghostcom wrote:On March 04 2017 17:40 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:36 Ghostcom wrote:On March 04 2017 17:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:28 Ghostcom wrote:On March 04 2017 17:17 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:13 Ghostcom wrote:On March 04 2017 16:44 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I don't think it's authoritarian to expect correct ideas to succeed over incorrect ideas. Do you? I do see however how it's very useful for people who are consistently wrong about a ton of stuff to argue that a will to be right is authoritarian. Don't you?
As per "the way to make society better", it depends what you mean by that, and what other ways you oppose this way to. It depends on what you mean by "correct" and what you mean by "succeed". Until you have clarified those terms we wont really know, but either your statements is completely non-controversial or you are entering thought-police territory. That's not technically true. I obviously mean the non-controversial thing (as the terms are clear in themselves and I've clarified them in the past), but that's still a form of thought police. I'm not going to shift through 7k pages to find that one nugget. Please clearly define those concepts when you make such a blanket statement. The terms are very far from clear - i.e. what is a "correct idea"? Free from error; in accordance with fact or truth. As an example, the idea that there aren't several definitions of "correct idea" is a correct idea. Thank you for defining what you mean. How are you going to evaluate whether an idea is correct or not? And are you certain that such an evaluation is objective? - By thinking critically about it. - Depends what you mean by objective. I am aware that I am a human being and that as such I'm able to draw conclusions that are wrong, if that's what you're asking me. I'm sorry for not having been clearer: By which measure are you going to consider your idea correct? I.e. How are you sure that your value system is the same as that of everyone else? And how are you sure that your value system is correct in the first place? I am not, and I don't claim to be. If you have the will and the logic to demonstrate that I'm wrong about something, by all means, do it. I aspire to be right. I will never tell you not to make an argument if you think I'm wrong about something, what I will require however is an argument, I'm not going to just accept that we have different views because "we can agree to disagree" and everything is relative. But things are relative? What is important to you might not be important to me - that is literally why we hold elections and have different parties in a democracy. Right now we are posting in the US politics thread in which there is 7k pages of people discussing ideas and vehemently disagreeing (a lot of it is petty shit, but I think you will find that overriding ideology is the same issue). When you argue for a nanny state (you are self-declared leftist as far as I can tell) it stems from a point of view which is fundamentally at conflict with someone arguing for a minimalist state. How are you ever going to define which idea is the correct in that case?
I don't care what is important to you or not, I care what is correct or incorrect. It's a bit of a shortcut to say I'm a leftist if you want the full picture, I actually think democratic socialism and liberalism both make sense as political positions (not because everything is relative but because they have different goals), and that you should probably alternate between the two in some fashion if you want your society to work properly. Since we don't alternate a whole lot, I end up being mostly a leftist because the balance is broken (and I would be superleftist in the US cause their balance is unbelievably broken). If I lived in Denmark there's a possibility I would be a liberal, I don't know enough about you to say where you are exactly.
As per minimalist state, I think you can make a decent argument that this position is logically wrong, but do you mind setting the argument for me please? The image of it that I have, I can argue against it, but it might be a strawman cause we don't really have libertarians here so I'm not really confronted with the argument a whole lot. Your opposition of the two is also not entirely correct, there are libertarian leftists.
|
There should just be a general political philosophy thread since that is what this thread is half the time when it is quite clearly "US Politics". Frankly, I could give a rats ass what Europeans think about the US, how it should be ran, etc. I'm just ready for CalExit so we can start breaking this bad boy up. Half the country is incompatible with the other half, and 15% of us are sitting here looking at both sides and smacking ourselves in disbelief (libertarians). NH (the most libertarian state in the country) is all ready way better than the rest of the NE shit-holes. I can only imagine how much better it would be without the Potomac handing down mandates. So, I say micro-secession for all!
|
On March 04 2017 18:22 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 18:00 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:48 Falling wrote:On March 04 2017 17:37 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:31 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 04 2017 17:26 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 17:20 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 04 2017 16:57 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 16:46 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 04 2017 16:32 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Hi Jinro, I'm one of the people that xDaunt and you are talking about. I don't think I'm useless, I can certainly see an argument made that I'm toxic cause I'm more than a little confrontational when I'm sure that I'm right, and I expect people to aspire not to be incorrect when they talk about important things. I am however not a fascist, and I don't have any of the attributes that xDaunt gives to the regressive left as a group that he targets when speaking about people like me. On March 04 2017 16:35 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
I can't speak for anybody else, but I think most arguments in this thread have been that the "regressive left" does not exist in the sense that xDaunt says it does. Some of the wording has not been clear on that point.
Repeating for emphasis, I do not speak for anybody else in this thread.
I'll reply to both here at once. I guess it's possible that the word 'regressive left' is something I've assigned a different meaning to than xDaunt and so am confused about why people say it doesn't exist. Would not, from your posts, have categorized you (Nechubad) as 'regressive left'. Need to read some more of your posts and think about things a bit before replying further. The "correct" definition of the regressive left is people who are so tolerant of other people that they end up defending intolerance (for example, being in favor of wahabism) out of a will to be supertolerant. That's what the word was invented to describe (by Maajid Nawaz, a fraud and a propagandist), and it was a strawman of the position that islam isn't the mother lode of evil because #notallmuslimsareextremists. Since it's a great word to attack people who identify as progressive, it has spread like wildfire and now means "people who are to the left of me and are generally evil for whatever reason" (see Sermokala above saying that people who aren't nice enough to gay-hating bigots are part of the regressive left which is almost the literal opposite of what the term was created to describe). I don't really know how you use it personnally but I'm part of most of the groups that have been targeted by the term. EDIT: Wikipedia:ing some though, it appears to be used more in line with how I interpreted it by some people at least. What? Oo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left In November 2015, in an appearance on the talk radio show The Humanist Hour, author and philosopher Peter Boghossian defined the term as a pejorative used to describe those on the left that have made the "strangest bedfellows" with the Islamists. According to him, the word "regressive" is used to contrast with the word "progressive" – the latter being the group that is egalitarian and wants to create systems of justice and racial equality, while the former being a group that "[looks] for the worst in people... and [does] not extend hermeneutics of charity, or a charitable interpretation of anything anyone says, but uses it as a hammer to beat people down". In addition, he believes that "regressive leftists" have become "hyper-moralists" and champions of their perceived victims. He cites the historical wrongdoings, such as slavery in the United States and colonialism as a legitimate concern that has caused mistrust of anything Western and capitalistic. He also added that "there are people who have suffered and still suffer legitimate instances of racism, homophobia etc. The problem is that every time the word racist is just thrown around like that, that word loses its meaning. And it should have quite a sting. That should be a horrible word".[22] and Political commentator David Pakman supported the concept in his talk show, saying "there are liberals who do use cultural relativism and distaste for US foreign policy as an excuse to defend or at least minimize violence and injustice that they would certainly otherwise oppose". He has distanced himself from the term, saying that it's misused by conservatives to insult all liberals.[26][27] Pakman suggests that the actual regressive leftists are leftists who use authoritarianism to enforce progressivism.[28] Was how I had interpreted it without knowing the actual background behind the term. Okay, fair enough. I would have put those under the "people who are to the left of me and are generally evil for whatever reason" You can take or leave the evil part, but 'whatever reasons'... that part matters quite a bit. Are they the 'ends justify the means sort'? No bad tactics, just bad targets? We will stop tyranny by using tyrannical and otherwise authoritarian methods? In that case, 'people who are to the left of me' is incidental to the real problem, falling under the vague category of 'whatever reasons'. Whatever reasons is used here to mean "a vast array of different reasons", depending on what the person using the term "regressive left" thinks is important. No, we shouldn't become authoritarian to defeat authoritarianism, as that would defeat the purpose. As you can see, I have opposed the notion that the left is being authoritarian on a large scale from the start of this conversation. This is a common far right tactic ("pensée unique" in french) where you pretend that people oppose you because they don't like that you disagree with them as opposed to because they think you're wrong. I guess it depends on what you mean on a large scale. I don't know that anyone here is arguing that it exists on the left in the majority. In fact, it most certainly is the minority, but there is a plurality behaving in authoritarian manner, using violent methods. Look, there are all sorts of people lurking the alt-right that I very concerned about, and I was just as ready as anyone to see a wave of right-wing violence after those early Trump's rally's where reporters were getting pushed around and Trump was talking in a very bellicose manner. But to this day, that wave has not really materialized, but instead there has been a spree of people on the left sucker punching people, rioting and the rest. Not THE Left, but a part of it- leftist authoritarian rather than leftist egalitarian. It's still white supremacists getting punched in the face and not the other way around. I don't see any harm in acknowledging that element exists and that it's bad. In fact, I think there is great harm in denying its existence because those sorts of people aren't going to do the true Left any favours, quite the opposite. I actually think Ctrl Left is a rather clever name for the left counterpart to the Alt Right. Computer puns for the win.
The majority won't go out and protest with the intent of preventing the speech or the speech from being heard. They might be willing to march around with signs to express how cancerous they think his views are, etc etc. But Falling, I think you can see here there's a second group that approaches a majority that will defend the protester's rights to disrupt the speech of anyone they disagree with, while not affording the same speech rights to groups like college republicans.
Otherwise, why would you meet with such resistance when you bring up the comparison to a gender fluidity speaker?
Why would people accuse someone who has argued the same point in different ways for several pages of arguing in bad faith?
Why isn't a news story of an old libertarian that mostly writes long scholarly articles for a think tank getting shut down on campus met with anything other than it's sad, protests are getting out of hand now, let's roll it back until both sides can have invited guests that hear it out.
Since you've seen the same thing in Toronto, saw "egalitarians" defending the work of authoritarian, and apparently read this thread, I'm very interested if you can conclude there's a second group that is willing to accept fascism/authoritarianism provided they themselves think the speaker is just 'that bad.' I'm interested in your perspective since you correctly identify the first group as both harmful and in the minority, just to see if you're willing to take it farther to the second group.
|
On March 04 2017 19:15 Wegandi wrote:
There should just be a general political philosophy thread since that is what this thread is half the time when it is quite clearly "US Politics". Frankly, I could give a rats ass what Europeans think about the US, how it should be ran, etc. I'm just ready for CalExit so we can start breaking this bad boy up. Half the country is incompatible with the other half, and 15% of us are sitting here looking at both sides and smacking ourselves in disbelief (libertarians). NH (the most libertarian state in the country) is all ready way better than the rest of the NE shit-holes. I can only imagine how much better it would be without the Potomac handing down mandates. So, I say micro-secession for all! i wish you gl there because from what i've been reading, California will be America's first failed state (soon™).
things like http://californiapolicycenter.org/californias-total-state-local-debt-totals-1-3-trillion/ or http://www.dailywire.com/news/12453/surprise-ca-announces-massive-debt-problem-ben-shapiro and others.
|
Nothing used to rile devoted Barack Obama critics like the president’s winter Hawaiian vacation. A watchdog group once calculated that the Aloha state trips cost taxpayers $3.5m a pop – in airfare, security arrangements, communications and medical staff.
Among the harshest critics of Obama’s travel was Donald Trump, then a private citizen. “President Obama’s vacation is costing taxpayers millions of dollars----Unbelievable!” Trump tweeted in 2012. Two years later, Trump tweeted that “Obama’s motto” was: “If I don’t go on taxpayer funded vacations & constantly fundraise then the terrorists win.”
The joke, it turns out, is on Trump. Now he is the president – and it appears that he is on track to spend many more millions of taxpayer dollars on trips that might be construed as vacations for him and his family than Obama ever dreamed of. The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward... Mar-a-Lago?
By one sketchy estimate, Trump and his family, in their security and travel demands, have already rung up as much in accounts payable by taxpayers as the Obama and Biden families did in eight years, a figure elsewhere calculated, by the Washington DC-based Judicial Watch, as topping $97m.
How is it possible? The complicated receipt involves weekend trips by Trump to Mar-a-Lago, his resort in Palm Beach, Florida; travel by his children and their government security details on Trump family business; and costs associated with protecting Trump’s Manhattan home, the high-rise Trump Tower building, where Trump’s wife and youngest child live but where the real estate mogul himself has not set foot since becoming president.
Jack Pitney, a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna college in California, said it appeared that Trump Tower was turning out to be a particularly burdensome expense, compared with costs tied to George W Bush’s Texas ranch or Obama family vacations to Martha’s Vineyard, off the coast of Massachusetts.
“When President Bush went to the ranch, it was not surrounded by an enormous city – that didn’t involve the same kind of security challenges,” Pitney said. “When President Obama went to Martha’s Vineyard, again fairly isolated, not the same kind of challenges as a highly visible location in the middle of a very crowded city.”
“This also relates to his failure to disclose his taxes,” Pitney said. “He’s the first president in 40 years who hasn’t publicly disclosed his taxes, and many people suspect that he’s employed various legal maneuvers to avoid paying taxes. If that is true, he’s imposing costs on other taxpayers that he’s not bearing himself.”
According to a $37.4m reimbursement claim filed with Congress at the time of the inauguration, New York City spends $500,000 a day protecting Trump tower, mostly in police overtime costs. A trip by Eric Trump in January to visit a condominium development in Uruguay produced a hotel bill of $97,830 for secret service and staff, the Washington Post revealed. Other expensive overseas trips the scion has taken on family business so far this year include visits to the Dominican Republic (polo grounds, hotel, golf course); Dubai (golf course); and Vancouver (hotel).
The costs associated with travel by presidents and family members are sketchy because the key agencies involved – the defense department, which manages the president’s air fleet, and the Department of Homeland Security, which provides for secret service protection – don’t readily release line-item budgets for presidential travel. Certain presumably expensive arrangements are classified. Each trip is different, as each president travels differently, making comparison difficult.
Judging the cost of Trump’s trips to Mar-a-Lago as president so far – he is there for a fourth time this weekend – relies, however, on a comparison to a trip Obama made to the Sunshine state in 2013. The four-day trip, during which Obama found time to golf with Tiger Woods, drew controversy after a Republican senator demanded that the government accountability office calculate how much it had cost taxpayers. The result: more than $3.6m.
If each of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago trips costs that much, taxpayers are on the hook so far for more than $14m to send the president to Florida.
Asked whether Trump was outstripping Obama in terms of sticking taxpayers, Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, questioned the accounting of Trump’s Florida trips, which he said were likely less expensive than Obama’s 2013 trip because Trump does not rely for in-state travel on Marine One, the presidential helicopter, as Obama had.
Fitton also said that according to the best available information, Air Force One, the president’s jet, currently costs $142,000 an hour to operate – as much as 25% less than it cost to operate during the Obama years.
“The per-trip cost is a little bit less since the cost-per-hour of Air Force One are less,” Fitton said, comparing Trump and Obama. “Now, if [Trump] travels more – it will depend in the long run on the number of trips he takes, and for what purposes. And to his credit, it’s readily apparent – and he’s criticized for it – when he’s in Mar-a-Lago, he’s doing business.
Source
|
And this is where Paranoia becomes potentially dangerous:
|
He better backs that up or expose himself to one more healthy dose of ridicule. Let see.
|
United States42009 Posts
I assume, when I pick up my telephone, people are listening to my conversations anyway, if you want to know the truth.
Assume everybody’s listening to you. I always do. Every time I pick up a phone, I assume people are listening, you know.
|
On March 04 2017 15:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I'm a bit amused some people still think xDaunt argues in good faith. Half the fun of these discussions involving him are the contortions he twists himself into.
I alway enjoy the debates on how many of us are facist and poison the discourse. Or if black protesters are vermin. Real enlightened stuff.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I'm impressed at how much stupid he packed in under 281 characters.
Most impressive is "this isNixon/Watergate". I want a 45 minute interview just drilling down on the thought process that led to that.
I bet you could get through the whole interview and at the end of it Trump would think he fooled everyone into thinking he had a clue what happened during Nixon/Watergate, which unlike anyone here, he was a grown ass man during it's unfolding.
Like holy f'ing shit, I mean the paranoia is bad, but my god, how every conservative isn't embarrassed at how rankly ignorant the guy undeniably is (regardless of how you feel about his policy), has me impressed.
I mean the guy makes GWB look like a Rhodes Scholar.
|
So some are saying that Trump has discovered there is a FISA warrant aimed at him and they have something or something is about to drop.
Or maybe he is simply becoming more paranoid by the day.
|
It's likely a FISA for people on his campaign and he assumes there is one for him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
