|
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 June 13 2017 21:57 Nebuchad wrote:
At the risk of stating the obvious in an epic fashion, the real issue in the conversation between someone like Danglars and someone like GH is that they have a fundamental disagreement on the current state of America. Danglars thinks that it's mostly doing ok without denying some small issues, GH thinks it's doing really bad with massive systemic problems. You can have conversations on the details of this forever, but you're never going to get anywhere until you figure out which of these two underlying positions is correct, cause every disagreement that you have is based on following your premise.
To create a simplistic analogy, that's the difference between "not seeing race" in a system that works for everyone and "not seeing race" in a discriminatory system. If your system is doing mostly fine, it's great that you don't see race, it means that you aren't biased: it's a good thing. If you are in a system where some races are systematically put at a disadvantage and you don't see race, you won't be able to see the systemic racism that is happening: it's a bad thing.
If you start from the premise that the system is fine, you can't argue that not seeing race is a bad thing. If you start from the premise that the system is terrible, you can't argue that not seeing race is a good thing.
So just figure out which system you really have, otherwise you won't get anywhere.
That's just it, we know which one we have. It has to be the one with a system that's terrible otherwise folks like Danglars wouldn't bother complaining about the problems of rich, powerful, white, men.
If rich, powerful, white, men, have any personal complaints (especially around unfair treatment) that should be taken seriously by anyone other than the people they pay to worry about that stuff, then obviously millions of people having their constitutional rights violated on a habitual level must be a 5 alarm fire.
That the "unfairness" toward someone like Trump riles up folks like Danglars in ways that the suffering of oppressed people never has and may never will, says more than I could with a thousand words.
It's clear Danglars knows it's a disaster, he just also knows (or at least believes) that he doesn't have to worry about their suffering because it's not his (or someone like him) problem and as such isn't significant.
I think he even knows that's what he's doing, he just isn't at the point where he can accept it and own it.
|
Marc Kasowitz, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer in the Russia investigation, has boasted to friends and colleagues that he played a central role in the firing of Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, according to four people familiar with the conversations.
Kasowitz told Trump, “This guy is going to get you,” according to a person familiar with Kasowitz’s account.
Those who know Kasowitz say he is sometimes prone to exaggerating when regaling them with his exploits. But if true, his assertion adds to the mystery surrounding the motive and timing of Bharara’s firing.
New presidents typically ask U.S. attorneys to resign and have the power to fire them. But Trump asked Bharara to stay in his job when they met in November at Trump Tower, as Bharara announced after the meeting.
In early March, Trump reversed himself. He asked all the remaining U.S. attorneys to resign, including Bharara. Bharara, a telegenic prosecutor with a history of taking on powerful politicians, refused and was fired March 11.
As ProPublica previously reported, at the time of Bharara’s firing the Southern District was conducting an investigation into Trump’s secretary of the health and human services, Tom Price.
Kasowitz and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.
Kasowitz became a nationally recognized figure last week, after he acted as Trump’s designated spokesman to respond to former FBI Director James Comey’s landmark Senate testimony.
Kasowitz’s claimed role in the Bharara firing appears to be a sign that the New York lawyer has been inserting himself into matters of governance and not just advising the president on personal legal matters.
Kasowitz has also said in private conversations that Trump asked him to be attorney general, according to four people familiar with the matter. Kasowitz said he turned down the role. Ultimately, Trump decided to give the position to then-Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions.
The Southern District of New York conducts some of the highest profile corporate investigations in the country. According to news reports, it is currently probing Fox News over payments made to settle sexual harassment charges against the network’s former chairman, the late Roger Ailes. The office is also looking into Russian money-laundering allegations at Deutsche Bank, Trump’s principal private lender.
Kasowitz has represented Trump over the years on matters including his failed libel lawsuit against a journalist, the Trump University case, and then-candidate Trump’s response to allegations of sexual assault by multiple women last year. Trump retained him to be his personal attorney in the Russia investigation last month.
The New York Times reported Sunday that Kasowitz has advised White House staffers about whether they need personal attorneys, raising conflict of interest questions.
Trump has also turned to Kasowitz’s firm to fill jobs in the administration. David Friedman, a former name partner of the firm, is now ambassador to Israel. Trump considered former senator and Kasowitz Senior Counsel Joseph Lieberman to replace Comey.
One of the names floated to replace Bharara is Edward McNally, a partner at Kasowitz’s law firm. More than three months after Bharara was fired, Trump has not nominated anyone to fill the Southern District job or most of the other U.S. attorney positions.
Bharara’s firing on March 11 came two months before the firing of Comey, head of the FBI. Critics charge that Trump obstructed justice in forcing Comey out.
Comey testified last week that Trump had tried to “create some sort of patronage relationship.” Bharara said in a television interview Sunday that Trump had attempted something similar with him: Comey’s testimony “felt a little bit like déjà vu.”
Source
|
My memory is slightly fuzzy and my access to Bing slightly limited: was Preet the guy who got fired for refusing to vacate his post by Trump's request?
|
On June 13 2017 22:53 LegalLord wrote:
My memory is slightly fuzzy and my access to Bing slightly limited: was Preet the guy who got fired for refusing to vacate his post by Trump's request?
yes he is. I just checked it on wikipedia.
|
Kasowitz is just another goon in Trump's long-time pack of goons. Loose morals all around, and it's good he's got a leaky circle of associates, apparently.
|
The whole legal theory that a president can do no wrong in firing people who are conducting investigations of his campaign or close associates really needs to get tested during the Trump admin.
Alan Dershowitz, in a series of recent op-eds, has taken to arguing in his characteristic take-no-prisoners style that the whole issue of whether President Trump might have obstructed justice is a red herring. Even if the President ordered James Comey to shut down the Flynn investigation and had a corrupt intent for doing so, this would still not amount to the crime of obstruction of justice. The reason, according to Dershowitz, is that the Constitution gives the exclusive power to the President to control all federal law-enforcement investigations—and thus to shut any of them down for any reason the President sees fit. In other words, the President can never commit obstruction of justice by shutting down a criminal investigation or prosecution.
But Dershowitz fails to take into account that the Supreme Court has decisively rejected this view. In Morrison v. Olson (1988), a 7-1 Supreme Court turned back constitutional challenges to Congress’ creation of the Act that gave us the office of the Independent Counsel—and in doing so, dismissed exactly the argument that Dershowitz now seeks to invoke.
...
In Morrison, the Act was challenged on the ground that it violated the separation of powers because it took unfettered investigative and prosecutorial control over these politically sensitive potential crimes out of the President’s hands. But in firmly rejecting that challenge, the Court held that the President’s constitutional powers were not violated by cabining his control over the investigation and prosecution of crimes involving himself and his top aides. The Act and the Court’s decision reflected the common sense understanding that the President has an inherent conflict of interest when he or his top aides are potential subjects of criminal investigation—and that nothing in the Constitution gives the President the power to completely control those investigations or shut them down.
lawfareblog.com
|
On June 13 2017 22:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 21:57 Nebuchad wrote:
At the risk of stating the obvious in an epic fashion, the real issue in the conversation between someone like Danglars and someone like GH is that they have a fundamental disagreement on the current state of America. Danglars thinks that it's mostly doing ok without denying some small issues, GH thinks it's doing really bad with massive systemic problems. You can have conversations on the details of this forever, but you're never going to get anywhere until you figure out which of these two underlying positions is correct, cause every disagreement that you have is based on following your premise.
To create a simplistic analogy, that's the difference between "not seeing race" in a system that works for everyone and "not seeing race" in a discriminatory system. If your system is doing mostly fine, it's great that you don't see race, it means that you aren't biased: it's a good thing. If you are in a system where some races are systematically put at a disadvantage and you don't see race, you won't be able to see the systemic racism that is happening: it's a bad thing.
If you start from the premise that the system is fine, you can't argue that not seeing race is a bad thing. If you start from the premise that the system is terrible, you can't argue that not seeing race is a good thing.
So just figure out which system you really have, otherwise you won't get anywhere. Basically correct. Why can you see this but think xDaunt is some kind of justifying apologist for Trump instead of another conflict in the fundamental way we view and identify the problems in the world? It's a lazy argument and I'm torn if it comes from how Trump has changed your side or forum-based mob mentality.
Don't really get the link that you're making here (genuinely). I think it's pretty clear that a lot of non-politician support for Republicans in general comes from sticking it to the liberals (that's how I view xDaunt, not as an apologist but as a hater), I don't think you reach some of the standard positions that republicans hold without that (climate change, guns and taxes jump to my mind).
I also don't think you should just identify that there's this fundamental difference and stop there, I think you should figure out who has it right, cause that's kind of an important issue. From where I sit it seems pretty obvious that it's not you, but it doesn't matter what I think.
|
Apparently he is in a Coma.
|
Sorry, but this name made me laugh. :D:D:D
|
On June 13 2017 23:11 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 22:17 Danglars wrote:On June 13 2017 21:57 Nebuchad wrote:
At the risk of stating the obvious in an epic fashion, the real issue in the conversation between someone like Danglars and someone like GH is that they have a fundamental disagreement on the current state of America. Danglars thinks that it's mostly doing ok without denying some small issues, GH thinks it's doing really bad with massive systemic problems. You can have conversations on the details of this forever, but you're never going to get anywhere until you figure out which of these two underlying positions is correct, cause every disagreement that you have is based on following your premise.
To create a simplistic analogy, that's the difference between "not seeing race" in a system that works for everyone and "not seeing race" in a discriminatory system. If your system is doing mostly fine, it's great that you don't see race, it means that you aren't biased: it's a good thing. If you are in a system where some races are systematically put at a disadvantage and you don't see race, you won't be able to see the systemic racism that is happening: it's a bad thing.
If you start from the premise that the system is fine, you can't argue that not seeing race is a bad thing. If you start from the premise that the system is terrible, you can't argue that not seeing race is a good thing.
So just figure out which system you really have, otherwise you won't get anywhere. Basically correct. Why can you see this but think xDaunt is some kind of justifying apologist for Trump instead of another conflict in the fundamental way we view and identify the problems in the world? It's a lazy argument and I'm torn if it comes from how Trump has changed your side or forum-based mob mentality. Don't really get the link that you're making here (genuinely). I think it's pretty clear that a lot of non-politician support for Republicans in general comes from sticking it to the liberals (that's how I view xDaunt, not as an apologist but as a hater), I don't think you reach some of the standard positions that republicans hold without that (climate change, guns and taxes jump to my mind).I also don't think you should just identify that there's this fundamental difference and stop there, I think you should figure out who has it right, cause that's kind of an important issue. From where I sit it seems pretty obvious that it's not you, but it doesn't matter what I think.
Deep admission, thank you for being honest. I never really made the connection in your thinking.
|
On June 13 2017 23:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 23:11 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2017 22:17 Danglars wrote:On June 13 2017 21:57 Nebuchad wrote:
At the risk of stating the obvious in an epic fashion, the real issue in the conversation between someone like Danglars and someone like GH is that they have a fundamental disagreement on the current state of America. Danglars thinks that it's mostly doing ok without denying some small issues, GH thinks it's doing really bad with massive systemic problems. You can have conversations on the details of this forever, but you're never going to get anywhere until you figure out which of these two underlying positions is correct, cause every disagreement that you have is based on following your premise.
To create a simplistic analogy, that's the difference between "not seeing race" in a system that works for everyone and "not seeing race" in a discriminatory system. If your system is doing mostly fine, it's great that you don't see race, it means that you aren't biased: it's a good thing. If you are in a system where some races are systematically put at a disadvantage and you don't see race, you won't be able to see the systemic racism that is happening: it's a bad thing.
If you start from the premise that the system is fine, you can't argue that not seeing race is a bad thing. If you start from the premise that the system is terrible, you can't argue that not seeing race is a good thing.
So just figure out which system you really have, otherwise you won't get anywhere. Basically correct. Why can you see this but think xDaunt is some kind of justifying apologist for Trump instead of another conflict in the fundamental way we view and identify the problems in the world? It's a lazy argument and I'm torn if it comes from how Trump has changed your side or forum-based mob mentality. Don't really get the link that you're making here (genuinely). I think it's pretty clear that a lot of non-politician support for Republicans in general comes from sticking it to the liberals (that's how I view xDaunt, not as an apologist but as a hater), I don't think you reach some of the standard positions that republicans hold without that (climate change, guns and taxes jump to my mind).I also don't think you should just identify that there's this fundamental difference and stop there, I think you should figure out who has it right, cause that's kind of an important issue. From where I sit it seems pretty obvious that it's not you, but it doesn't matter what I think. Deep admission, thank you for being honest. I never really made the connection in your thinking.
It's becoming glaringly obvious to me that you much prefer to win arguments by attempting to undermine the person you are arguing with, and not what that person is saying. I'm glad I found out.
|
|
|
On June 13 2017 23:11 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 22:17 Danglars wrote:On June 13 2017 21:57 Nebuchad wrote:
At the risk of stating the obvious in an epic fashion, the real issue in the conversation between someone like Danglars and someone like GH is that they have a fundamental disagreement on the current state of America. Danglars thinks that it's mostly doing ok without denying some small issues, GH thinks it's doing really bad with massive systemic problems. You can have conversations on the details of this forever, but you're never going to get anywhere until you figure out which of these two underlying positions is correct, cause every disagreement that you have is based on following your premise.
To create a simplistic analogy, that's the difference between "not seeing race" in a system that works for everyone and "not seeing race" in a discriminatory system. If your system is doing mostly fine, it's great that you don't see race, it means that you aren't biased: it's a good thing. If you are in a system where some races are systematically put at a disadvantage and you don't see race, you won't be able to see the systemic racism that is happening: it's a bad thing.
If you start from the premise that the system is fine, you can't argue that not seeing race is a bad thing. If you start from the premise that the system is terrible, you can't argue that not seeing race is a good thing.
So just figure out which system you really have, otherwise you won't get anywhere. Basically correct. Why can you see this but think xDaunt is some kind of justifying apologist for Trump instead of another conflict in the fundamental way we view and identify the problems in the world? It's a lazy argument and I'm torn if it comes from how Trump has changed your side or forum-based mob mentality. Don't really get the link that you're making here (genuinely). I think it's pretty clear that a lot of non-politician support for Republicans in general comes from sticking it to the liberals (that's how I view xDaunt, not as an apologist but as a hater), I don't think you reach some of the standard positions that republicans hold without that (climate change, guns and taxes jump to my mind). I also don't think you should just identify that there's this fundamental difference and stop there, I think you should figure out who has it right, cause that's kind of an important issue. From where I sit it seems pretty obvious that it's not you, but it doesn't matter what I think.
I don't really think this is the case for those topics, outside of maybe climate change. It is more of a bonus that it annoys liberals. Not wanting to pay higher taxes should be uh, easily understandable. It seems to be a bit of the case for what I'd call boutique social issues (namely the transgender stuff... It is such a small portion of the population that I doubt either party actually cares about it outside of lip service to their base). Or being anti-PC.
|
Looks like Rosenstein has read his department's regulations on when special prosecutors can be dismissed.
|
On June 13 2017 23:46 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 23:40 Danglars wrote:On June 13 2017 23:11 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2017 22:17 Danglars wrote:On June 13 2017 21:57 Nebuchad wrote:
At the risk of stating the obvious in an epic fashion, the real issue in the conversation between someone like Danglars and someone like GH is that they have a fundamental disagreement on the current state of America. Danglars thinks that it's mostly doing ok without denying some small issues, GH thinks it's doing really bad with massive systemic problems. You can have conversations on the details of this forever, but you're never going to get anywhere until you figure out which of these two underlying positions is correct, cause every disagreement that you have is based on following your premise.
To create a simplistic analogy, that's the difference between "not seeing race" in a system that works for everyone and "not seeing race" in a discriminatory system. If your system is doing mostly fine, it's great that you don't see race, it means that you aren't biased: it's a good thing. If you are in a system where some races are systematically put at a disadvantage and you don't see race, you won't be able to see the systemic racism that is happening: it's a bad thing.
If you start from the premise that the system is fine, you can't argue that not seeing race is a bad thing. If you start from the premise that the system is terrible, you can't argue that not seeing race is a good thing.
So just figure out which system you really have, otherwise you won't get anywhere. Basically correct. Why can you see this but think xDaunt is some kind of justifying apologist for Trump instead of another conflict in the fundamental way we view and identify the problems in the world? It's a lazy argument and I'm torn if it comes from how Trump has changed your side or forum-based mob mentality. Don't really get the link that you're making here (genuinely). I think it's pretty clear that a lot of non-politician support for Republicans in general comes from sticking it to the liberals (that's how I view xDaunt, not as an apologist but as a hater), I don't think you reach some of the standard positions that republicans hold without that (climate change, guns and taxes jump to my mind).I also don't think you should just identify that there's this fundamental difference and stop there, I think you should figure out who has it right, cause that's kind of an important issue. From where I sit it seems pretty obvious that it's not you, but it doesn't matter what I think. Deep admission, thank you for being honest. I never really made the connection in your thinking. It's becoming glaringly obvious to me that you much prefer to win arguments by attempting to undermine the person you are arguing with, and not what that person is saying. I'm glad I found out.
I also use the thread to find out what liberals actually believe and why. I had no idea until just now that Nebuchad considered those three policy positions as stemming from "sticking it to the liberals" and not sincerely held. I literally agree with the broad thought in his second paragraph.
+ Show Spoiler [context] +On June 03 2017 03:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:28 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 03:27 Artisreal wrote:On June 03 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 01:56 LegalLord wrote:
The way I see it, the most important link in the Paris Accords and why I put so much stock into it is not as much the US as it is China. Sure, first worlders will get greedy and attempt to skirt the regulations to the extent that it is possible. But China is notorious for dragging their feet something fierce, almost unwilling to even acknowledge that climate change is a problem worth addressing. Yet China finally started to "get it" and have made efforts to (albeit slowly) reduce their carbon footprint.
The US will, as it always has, move slowly. The writing on the wall suggests that it's not economically feasible to skimp on climate forever. It still looks stupid though. Please. The Paris Accords were a boon to China. Built-in comparative advantages and subsidies afforded to the Chinese with no enforcement mechanism to ensure that the Chinese meet their own obligations? Yeah, that's a tough one for the Chinese to accept.... The US's unfair andvantage is that the fuck over the rest of the world but have the military and economic power to not give a fuck. Red, white, and blue baby! Why shouldn't the US unapologetically pursue its national interest? We don't exist to be a charitable organization. Don't you have some Heritage Foundation numbers on the cost of openly fucking over the rest of the world for a family of four by 2035? On June 03 2017 03:24 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 03:20 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2017 03:17 NewSunshine wrote:On June 03 2017 03:13 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:
What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. When you say Americans paying thousands of dollars it's implied that they're each paying thousands of dollars. The only alternative way that could be read would be Americans collectively paying thousands of dollars between them which wouldn't make sense because that'd be $0.00001 each. Fortunately there can actually be no confusion here because that confusion was cleared up when I asked the specific question and he gave me a very clear answer. On June 02 2017 09:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 09:04 KwarK wrote:
Thousands of dollars of costs per American per year? Really? Because those are the numbers you've been saying over and over. Yep, that's what the Heritage Foundation computed it at. These measures aren't free. I gave him too much credit then. These alt-righters literally cannot manage the words "I misspoke, my bad". When they're corrected on the facts they just pretend it never happened and when they can't pretend any longer they deny. It's comical. No, it looks like I just misread your post when responding to it. The only time "per American" got injected into the conversation is when you put it in there. I very clearly have been citing the Heritage Foundation numbers all along. Their numbers are what they are. Second and third stage in the same post. Kind of meta, I like it. These raised a question in my mind. Why go from troll-y accusations of bad faith to spot-on identifications of irreconcilable worldviews (aka one must be wrong)? He answered it and I'm happy. It's amazing what we can learn about each other sometimes, NewSunshine.
|
On June 13 2017 23:46 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 23:40 Danglars wrote:On June 13 2017 23:11 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2017 22:17 Danglars wrote:On June 13 2017 21:57 Nebuchad wrote:
At the risk of stating the obvious in an epic fashion, the real issue in the conversation between someone like Danglars and someone like GH is that they have a fundamental disagreement on the current state of America. Danglars thinks that it's mostly doing ok without denying some small issues, GH thinks it's doing really bad with massive systemic problems. You can have conversations on the details of this forever, but you're never going to get anywhere until you figure out which of these two underlying positions is correct, cause every disagreement that you have is based on following your premise.
To create a simplistic analogy, that's the difference between "not seeing race" in a system that works for everyone and "not seeing race" in a discriminatory system. If your system is doing mostly fine, it's great that you don't see race, it means that you aren't biased: it's a good thing. If you are in a system where some races are systematically put at a disadvantage and you don't see race, you won't be able to see the systemic racism that is happening: it's a bad thing.
If you start from the premise that the system is fine, you can't argue that not seeing race is a bad thing. If you start from the premise that the system is terrible, you can't argue that not seeing race is a good thing.
So just figure out which system you really have, otherwise you won't get anywhere. Basically correct. Why can you see this but think xDaunt is some kind of justifying apologist for Trump instead of another conflict in the fundamental way we view and identify the problems in the world? It's a lazy argument and I'm torn if it comes from how Trump has changed your side or forum-based mob mentality. Don't really get the link that you're making here (genuinely). I think it's pretty clear that a lot of non-politician support for Republicans in general comes from sticking it to the liberals (that's how I view xDaunt, not as an apologist but as a hater), I don't think you reach some of the standard positions that republicans hold without that (climate change, guns and taxes jump to my mind).I also don't think you should just identify that there's this fundamental difference and stop there, I think you should figure out who has it right, cause that's kind of an important issue. From where I sit it seems pretty obvious that it's not you, but it doesn't matter what I think. Deep admission, thank you for being honest. I never really made the connection in your thinking. It's becoming glaringly obvious to me that you much prefer to win arguments by attempting to undermine the person you are arguing with, and not what that person is saying. I'm glad I found out.
In this instance it appears to me that (at least on some level) both people involved are listening to what the other is saying. As such, it doesn't seem appropriate to me to go sniping at one of them in this instance. Desirable behaviour should be positively reinforced.
+ Show Spoiler +I don't discount the possibility that some of the above is intended more as a subtler personal attack, but at some point https://xkcd.com/810/ applies.
|
On June 13 2017 23:57 farvacola wrote:
Looks like Rosenstein has read his department's regulations on when special prosecutors can be dismissed.
"Ah shit, now I gotta compliment Trump all day again. Sigh."
|
On June 14 2017 00:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 23:46 NewSunshine wrote:On June 13 2017 23:40 Danglars wrote:On June 13 2017 23:11 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2017 22:17 Danglars wrote:On June 13 2017 21:57 Nebuchad wrote:
At the risk of stating the obvious in an epic fashion, the real issue in the conversation between someone like Danglars and someone like GH is that they have a fundamental disagreement on the current state of America. Danglars thinks that it's mostly doing ok without denying some small issues, GH thinks it's doing really bad with massive systemic problems. You can have conversations on the details of this forever, but you're never going to get anywhere until you figure out which of these two underlying positions is correct, cause every disagreement that you have is based on following your premise.
To create a simplistic analogy, that's the difference between "not seeing race" in a system that works for everyone and "not seeing race" in a discriminatory system. If your system is doing mostly fine, it's great that you don't see race, it means that you aren't biased: it's a good thing. If you are in a system where some races are systematically put at a disadvantage and you don't see race, you won't be able to see the systemic racism that is happening: it's a bad thing.
If you start from the premise that the system is fine, you can't argue that not seeing race is a bad thing. If you start from the premise that the system is terrible, you can't argue that not seeing race is a good thing.
So just figure out which system you really have, otherwise you won't get anywhere. Basically correct. Why can you see this but think xDaunt is some kind of justifying apologist for Trump instead of another conflict in the fundamental way we view and identify the problems in the world? It's a lazy argument and I'm torn if it comes from how Trump has changed your side or forum-based mob mentality. Don't really get the link that you're making here (genuinely). I think it's pretty clear that a lot of non-politician support for Republicans in general comes from sticking it to the liberals (that's how I view xDaunt, not as an apologist but as a hater), I don't think you reach some of the standard positions that republicans hold without that (climate change, guns and taxes jump to my mind).I also don't think you should just identify that there's this fundamental difference and stop there, I think you should figure out who has it right, cause that's kind of an important issue. From where I sit it seems pretty obvious that it's not you, but it doesn't matter what I think. Deep admission, thank you for being honest. I never really made the connection in your thinking. It's becoming glaringly obvious to me that you much prefer to win arguments by attempting to undermine the person you are arguing with, and not what that person is saying. I'm glad I found out. I also use the thread to find out what liberals actually believe and why. I had no idea until just now that Nebuchad considered those three policy positions as stemming from "sticking it to the liberals" and not sincerely held. I literally agree with the broad thought in his second paragraph. + Show Spoiler [context] +On June 03 2017 03:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:28 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 03:27 Artisreal wrote:On June 03 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 01:56 LegalLord wrote:
The way I see it, the most important link in the Paris Accords and why I put so much stock into it is not as much the US as it is China. Sure, first worlders will get greedy and attempt to skirt the regulations to the extent that it is possible. But China is notorious for dragging their feet something fierce, almost unwilling to even acknowledge that climate change is a problem worth addressing. Yet China finally started to "get it" and have made efforts to (albeit slowly) reduce their carbon footprint.
The US will, as it always has, move slowly. The writing on the wall suggests that it's not economically feasible to skimp on climate forever. It still looks stupid though. Please. The Paris Accords were a boon to China. Built-in comparative advantages and subsidies afforded to the Chinese with no enforcement mechanism to ensure that the Chinese meet their own obligations? Yeah, that's a tough one for the Chinese to accept.... The US's unfair andvantage is that the fuck over the rest of the world but have the military and economic power to not give a fuck. Red, white, and blue baby! Why shouldn't the US unapologetically pursue its national interest? We don't exist to be a charitable organization. Don't you have some Heritage Foundation numbers on the cost of openly fucking over the rest of the world for a family of four by 2035? On June 03 2017 03:24 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 03:20 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2017 03:17 NewSunshine wrote:On June 03 2017 03:13 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:
What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. When you say Americans paying thousands of dollars it's implied that they're each paying thousands of dollars. The only alternative way that could be read would be Americans collectively paying thousands of dollars between them which wouldn't make sense because that'd be $0.00001 each. Fortunately there can actually be no confusion here because that confusion was cleared up when I asked the specific question and he gave me a very clear answer. On June 02 2017 09:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 09:04 KwarK wrote:
Thousands of dollars of costs per American per year? Really? Because those are the numbers you've been saying over and over. Yep, that's what the Heritage Foundation computed it at. These measures aren't free. I gave him too much credit then. These alt-righters literally cannot manage the words "I misspoke, my bad". When they're corrected on the facts they just pretend it never happened and when they can't pretend any longer they deny. It's comical. No, it looks like I just misread your post when responding to it. The only time "per American" got injected into the conversation is when you put it in there. I very clearly have been citing the Heritage Foundation numbers all along. Their numbers are what they are. Second and third stage in the same post. Kind of meta, I like it. These raised a question in my mind. Why go from troll-y accusations of bad faith to spot-on identifications of irreconcilable worldviews (aka one must be wrong)? He answered it and I'm happy. It's amazing what we can learn about each other sometimes, NewSunshine.
I'm sorry if you said it genuinely and I responded the way I did, leaving the response you did without any follow-up read much more like snark to me, and given your history of genuinely attacking people rather than arguments, you can see why I might think what I did. I apologize.
On June 14 2017 00:01 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 23:46 NewSunshine wrote:On June 13 2017 23:40 Danglars wrote:On June 13 2017 23:11 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2017 22:17 Danglars wrote:On June 13 2017 21:57 Nebuchad wrote:
At the risk of stating the obvious in an epic fashion, the real issue in the conversation between someone like Danglars and someone like GH is that they have a fundamental disagreement on the current state of America. Danglars thinks that it's mostly doing ok without denying some small issues, GH thinks it's doing really bad with massive systemic problems. You can have conversations on the details of this forever, but you're never going to get anywhere until you figure out which of these two underlying positions is correct, cause every disagreement that you have is based on following your premise.
To create a simplistic analogy, that's the difference between "not seeing race" in a system that works for everyone and "not seeing race" in a discriminatory system. If your system is doing mostly fine, it's great that you don't see race, it means that you aren't biased: it's a good thing. If you are in a system where some races are systematically put at a disadvantage and you don't see race, you won't be able to see the systemic racism that is happening: it's a bad thing.
If you start from the premise that the system is fine, you can't argue that not seeing race is a bad thing. If you start from the premise that the system is terrible, you can't argue that not seeing race is a good thing.
So just figure out which system you really have, otherwise you won't get anywhere. Basically correct. Why can you see this but think xDaunt is some kind of justifying apologist for Trump instead of another conflict in the fundamental way we view and identify the problems in the world? It's a lazy argument and I'm torn if it comes from how Trump has changed your side or forum-based mob mentality. Don't really get the link that you're making here (genuinely). I think it's pretty clear that a lot of non-politician support for Republicans in general comes from sticking it to the liberals (that's how I view xDaunt, not as an apologist but as a hater), I don't think you reach some of the standard positions that republicans hold without that (climate change, guns and taxes jump to my mind).I also don't think you should just identify that there's this fundamental difference and stop there, I think you should figure out who has it right, cause that's kind of an important issue. From where I sit it seems pretty obvious that it's not you, but it doesn't matter what I think. Deep admission, thank you for being honest. I never really made the connection in your thinking. It's becoming glaringly obvious to me that you much prefer to win arguments by attempting to undermine the person you are arguing with, and not what that person is saying. I'm glad I found out. In this instance it appears to me that (at least on some level) both people involved are listening to what the other is saying. As such, it doesn't seem appropriate to me to go sniping at one of them in this instance. Desirable behaviour should be positively reinforced. + Show Spoiler +I don't discount the possibility that some of the above is intended more as a subtler personal attack, but at some point https://xkcd.com/810/ applies.
I agree.
|
On June 13 2017 23:57 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 23:11 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2017 22:17 Danglars wrote:On June 13 2017 21:57 Nebuchad wrote:
At the risk of stating the obvious in an epic fashion, the real issue in the conversation between someone like Danglars and someone like GH is that they have a fundamental disagreement on the current state of America. Danglars thinks that it's mostly doing ok without denying some small issues, GH thinks it's doing really bad with massive systemic problems. You can have conversations on the details of this forever, but you're never going to get anywhere until you figure out which of these two underlying positions is correct, cause every disagreement that you have is based on following your premise.
To create a simplistic analogy, that's the difference between "not seeing race" in a system that works for everyone and "not seeing race" in a discriminatory system. If your system is doing mostly fine, it's great that you don't see race, it means that you aren't biased: it's a good thing. If you are in a system where some races are systematically put at a disadvantage and you don't see race, you won't be able to see the systemic racism that is happening: it's a bad thing.
If you start from the premise that the system is fine, you can't argue that not seeing race is a bad thing. If you start from the premise that the system is terrible, you can't argue that not seeing race is a good thing.
So just figure out which system you really have, otherwise you won't get anywhere. Basically correct. Why can you see this but think xDaunt is some kind of justifying apologist for Trump instead of another conflict in the fundamental way we view and identify the problems in the world? It's a lazy argument and I'm torn if it comes from how Trump has changed your side or forum-based mob mentality. Don't really get the link that you're making here (genuinely). I think it's pretty clear that a lot of non-politician support for Republicans in general comes from sticking it to the liberals (that's how I view xDaunt, not as an apologist but as a hater), I don't think you reach some of the standard positions that republicans hold without that (climate change, guns and taxes jump to my mind). I also don't think you should just identify that there's this fundamental difference and stop there, I think you should figure out who has it right, cause that's kind of an important issue. From where I sit it seems pretty obvious that it's not you, but it doesn't matter what I think. I don't really think this is the case for those topics, outside of maybe climate change. It is more of a bonus that it annoys liberals. Not wanting to pay higher taxes should be uh, easily understandable. It seems to be a bit of the case for what I'd call boutique social issues (namely the transgender stuff... It is such a small portion of the population that I doubt either party actually cares about it outside of lip service to their base). Or being anti-PC.
I was refering to the whole trickle down idea rather than just "not wanting to pay higher taxes", which I agree is not that hard to understand. Opposition to public option because you're going to pay more taxes (ignoring that you're paying less money in total because of the other things you don't have to pay anymore) also came to my mind but I don't know how much non-politician opposition there was to this specific one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
