|
On October 07 2018 09:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2018 09:20 IgnE wrote:
obama smoking weed made him more likable. what are you smoking? He said in his autobiography that he drank/partied heavily. I think he also may have done other stuff, but my recollection of such trivialities is a little fuzzy.
partying in itself is not the issue as im sure you know.
|
|
|
On October 07 2018 09:12 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2018 07:48 Danglars wrote:On October 07 2018 07:07 IgnE wrote:
You know it's not bigotry to dislike assholes right?
Presuming him to have been a "misogynistic jerk and asshole" absolutely is. You think he's white and entitled and probably a misogynistic jerk and asshole. It's not too different than seeing a black candidate for office, and presume he's a misogynistic rapper, gang-banger, and asshole. At least you aren't calling him entitled, but you think you know enough about him or his type to conclude he's an asshole on the balance. That's the very essence of prejudice and bigotry. I'd say the same to any KKK guy that says he dislikes blacks from inner cities based on them being assholes etc. Contrary to your point, your individual reliance on group stereotypes of jocks and heavy drinking absolutely gets down the principle of the matter. I totally expect people that call so and so an asshole to have something specific to that individual to make the conclusion. The whole thing has been a referendum on entitled white boys, born with a host of economic, educational, and social privileges, who acted like assholes for a significant portion of their lives and whether or not they should be the ones making decisions of such importance for so many. This is a hill I'm willing to die on. Group prejudice against whites, or some version of entitlement (He'll say he earned top of his class and captain of the various sports teams, so perhaps you're just lying to yourself about what entitlement means), is no reason to throw up your hands and say this is all just some referendum on "true" social prejudice. It's all about flatly rejecting bias against certain groups EVEN if it's culturally accepted that hatred towards DC preppies is totally cool. youre just off the range on this. you can 1) entitled 2) privileged 3)get good grades and 4) work hard this isnt bigotry. im not reasoning from group to individual, but the reverse. like GH says, this is like finding someone out someone is in the M16 gang and concluding that they are probably dangerous. you seem to think its because brett is white. as if i were concluding that he because he is fromt central america he was in M16. thats something trump does, but not me. i am concluding he was an asshole based on evidence of individual behavior that he did not (and could not) refute
You missed the 1) entitled 2) privileged 3) asshole post you put up. It was entirely devoid of any reason why you think he's an asshole besides some stereotype about white people with privileged upbringings. Nothing you said was directed at the individual, it was directed at supra-individual group attributes. In fact, you went three posts without a single thing directed at Kavanaugh rather than groups he belongs to.
Is M16 a reference to MS-13 or M18?
|
On October 07 2018 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2018 09:13 Danglars wrote:On October 07 2018 09:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2018 08:51 Danglars wrote:On October 07 2018 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2018 07:48 Danglars wrote:On October 07 2018 07:07 IgnE wrote:
You know it's not bigotry to dislike assholes right?
Presuming him to have been a "misogynistic jerk and asshole" absolutely is. You think he's white and entitled and probably a misogynistic jerk and asshole. It's not too different than seeing a black candidate for office, and presume he's a misogynistic rapper, gang-banger, and asshole. At least you aren't calling him entitled, but you think you know enough about him or his type to conclude he's an asshole on the balance. That's the very essence of prejudice and bigotry. I'd say the same to any KKK guy that says he dislikes blacks from inner cities based on them being assholes etc. Contrary to your point, your individual reliance on group stereotypes of jocks and heavy drinking absolutely gets down the principle of the matter. I totally expect people that call so and so an asshole to have something specific to that individual to make the conclusion. The whole thing has been a referendum on entitled white boys, born with a host of economic, educational, and social privileges, who acted like assholes for a significant portion of their lives and whether or not they should be the ones making decisions of such importance for so many. This is a hill I'm willing to die on. Group prejudice against whites, or some version of entitlement (He'll say he earned top of his class and captain of the various sports teams, so perhaps you're just lying to yourself about what entitlement means), is no reason to throw up your hands and say this is all just some referendum on "true" social prejudice. It's all about flatly rejecting bias against certain groups EVEN if it's culturally accepted that hatred towards DC preppies is totally cool. You know the guy was part of a frat notorious for the entitled, misogynistic jerks? So it's more like assuming a gang member has a past that resembles other members of the gang. He's gone faster than a bullet if he was ever connected to these your allegations of notorious frat behavior. The reason the best weapon they could find was a barfight where he threw ice was because they tried and failed to put some frat smear onto him. On October 07 2018 08:14 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On October 07 2018 07:48 Danglars wrote:On October 07 2018 07:07 IgnE wrote:
You know it's not bigotry to dislike assholes right?
Presuming him to have been a "misogynistic jerk and asshole" absolutely is. You think he's white and entitled and probably a misogynistic jerk and asshole. It's not too different than seeing a black candidate for office, and presume he's a misogynistic rapper, gang-banger, and asshole. At least you aren't calling him entitled, but you think you know enough about him or his type to conclude he's an asshole on the balance. That's the very essence of prejudice and bigotry. I'd say the same to any KKK guy that says he dislikes blacks from inner cities based on them being assholes etc. Contrary to your point, your individual reliance on group stereotypes of jocks and heavy drinking absolutely gets down the principle of the matter. I totally expect people that call so and so an asshole to have something specific to that individual to make the conclusion. The whole thing has been a referendum on entitled white boys, born with a host of economic, educational, and social privileges, who acted like assholes for a significant portion of their lives and whether or not they should be the ones making decisions of such importance for so many. This is a hill I'm willing to die on. Group prejudice against whites, or some version of entitlement (He'll say he earned top of his class and captain of the various sports teams, so perhaps you're just lying to yourself about what entitlement means), is no reason to throw up your hands and say this is all just some referendum on "true" social prejudice. It's all about flatly rejecting bias against certain groups EVEN if it's culturally accepted that hatred towards DC preppies is totally cool. We got to look into his early life and see that, while he was not a rapist or sexually assaulting anyone, he was not a great person. He constantly had to make up shit excuses for what was obviously just plain old assholery in his yearbook. This isn't just bias; the hearing and investigations gave us an okay idea of what Brett Kavanaugh was like when he wasn't out of college, and it wasn't pretty. Yes, it wasn't illegal, but it's also not the kind of thing me and Igne want to see out of someone holding a life seat on the highest court in the country. There are plenty of kids in preppy high school environments that manage to come out looking like some kind of golden child, and that's not really a good reason to hate someone, as you've made clear multiple times; those golden kids, even if you have a bias against them, are the kind of people you would reluctantly do a group project with. Young Brett Kavanaugh sounds like the kind of person who would flake out, get blackout drunk, and tell you that he was busy working on something with his family after you'd already heard all the stories about how wild that party was. The kind of person you'd try to get out of a group with, because at least the other kids will do their work. I don't want someone who I wouldn't trust to do a group project to decide controversial rulings for many people across the country. Just a common guy regretful and embarassed that he drank so much at 18 and in his college years. I'm going to try and be more conciliatory here because he won and in the craziness I might've missed a news story or section of testimony (that happened during work for me). The best of the yearbooks was drinking games. Yearbooks and calendars were a typical teenage mess of in-jokes and fun. Again, maybe I missed something. I still saw the stereotype dragged out as a kind of banner under which nobody would look closer to see if he was a bad person in addition to being a partier. I think you get my perspective pretty right. I haven't seen enough of a reason to hate the person because some other people hate the person's social class and upbringing. If I was in high school, or a Freshman or Sophomore in College, I might stay away, based solely on the stereotype of jocks that like to drink. In that case, I would be a peer of him, also young, and stereotypes are useful at the basic level to protect yourself from wasted time and headaches. For a 53-year-old, I'd look to his career. All two or so decades of his career. I'd totally still look to see if he was arrested for drugs, property damage, assault and battery, and indecent exposure in his youth. What I wouldn't do is have a friend of a friend tell me that one story about what happened with a keg and a balcony, and be wondering if he's secretly a middle aged frat boy. It just really stinks of partisanship and factionalism, but I'm really trying to presume this is a genuine nonpartisan worry. My moral reckoning is you're responsible for your own actions, not the reputation other people think your Frat has achieved, not what people think about white jocks at elite private schools, just your actions. The race and class and social circle taint is not so overpowering of a smell to make individuals too problematic to trust. Suit yourself if you're the boss and are thinking about hiring him onto your company. I'm not preaching that you have to abandon your stereotypes. I just need more evidence to be persuaded it's a good plan to fail to give him the benefit of the doubt. I've seen the flip side, how unfounded gossip has destroyed the character of good man, and behind it all was a person looking for advancement or a rejected date. I really seek to weigh the sides to not privilege the gossiper and rumor-spreader out of overcaution or playing it ridiculously safe. I'm also not willing to conclude he was "not a great person" based on what I've read and heard. I'm prepared to change that if he did routinely get blackout drunk instead of overdrink, or harassed women in his drunkenness, who have remained silent afterwards. If you hold to your standard of rumor and "kind of people" for the Supreme Court, I simply don't agree, and don't really fault you for holding to your beliefs at what kind of person you won't to serve as judge on that court. You know him and David cop-a-feel were part of the same frat, then he went on to work for cop-a-feel's son. Judging by the reference Bush sr. used when he sexually assaults women it's not a new activity. Turning a blind eye to sexually abusing women isn't some aberration, it's definitively something they did for decades. The George H. W. Bush connection is a conspiracy theory I hadn't really heard yet, but thanks for bringing it to my attention. No conspiracy theory, just that he's part of a group of assholes that abuse women and turn a blind eye when they see it done. He also lobbied to put him on the court. Show nested quote +Incidentally, that reminds me of a similar discussion about Obama and Romney in their high school/college years. Obama smoked weed (and possibly more than that?) and Romney dressed up as a police officer to fake arrest people. Want to hold that against them too, or should we have looked at the people they were in their working years instead? To the general concept I agree, but then we should all be trying to restore voting rights for people convicted of stealing ~$300 worth of stuff in high school/college. Are we all in agreement on that? Regardless, I take those things into consideration, just smoking cannabis and fake arresting people tell me very different things and I'd pick the weed smoker 100/100 times. Also Brett Kavanaugh should pay for every minor's MIP tickets and serve any jail time they get for following their Supreme Court Justice role model's example.
The Kavanaugh sexual assault ring extending to former presidents and president sons of presidents is birtherism. I don't indulge such lunacy. It's just a ploy to waste time and get people angry.
We can agree that petty theft is not sufficient reason to deprive voting rights. Smoking weed or small time drug offenses: same deal.
|
On October 07 2018 09:28 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2018 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On October 07 2018 09:20 IgnE wrote:
obama smoking weed made him more likable. what are you smoking? He said in his autobiography that he drank/partied heavily. I think he also may have done other stuff, but my recollection of such trivialities is a little fuzzy. partying in itself is not the issue as im sure you know.
Why not? He was a testosterone-driven kid who got a little surly when drunk. This was 30+ years ago. I have a really hard time seeing why we should give a shit given that his record as a professional has been so exemplary.
|
MS-13. My bad.
The "asshole" (part 3) is plain to anyone who looked at his yearbook, his testimony, the writings of people like Mark Judge, and the allegations of others who knew them.
Part of the drama surrounding the confirmation is about believability's connection to both textual hermeneutics and to sociological mimetic factors. How can two people watching the same testimony come to such different conclusions? — "Partisanship!" mmmm I don't think that's good enough.
|
On October 07 2018 09:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2018 09:28 IgnE wrote:On October 07 2018 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On October 07 2018 09:20 IgnE wrote:
obama smoking weed made him more likable. what are you smoking? He said in his autobiography that he drank/partied heavily. I think he also may have done other stuff, but my recollection of such trivialities is a little fuzzy. partying in itself is not the issue as im sure you know. Why not? He was a testosterone-driven kid who got a little surly when drunk. This was 30+ years ago. I have a really hard time seeing why we should give a shit given that his record as a professional has been so exemplary.
Because many people in this country don't think such people should make such important decisions. Especially without any indication that the man has reflected on the boy that he was. That's really what it comes down to. The mores have changed.
I went to an all boys high school myself. I know what many of them were like, and I know (to a lesser extent) what they are like now.
|
On October 07 2018 09:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2018 09:36 xDaunt wrote:On October 07 2018 09:28 IgnE wrote:On October 07 2018 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On October 07 2018 09:20 IgnE wrote:
obama smoking weed made him more likable. what are you smoking? He said in his autobiography that he drank/partied heavily. I think he also may have done other stuff, but my recollection of such trivialities is a little fuzzy. partying in itself is not the issue as im sure you know. Why not? He was a testosterone-driven kid who got a little surly when drunk. This was 30+ years ago. I have a really hard time seeing why we should give a shit given that his record as a professional has been so exemplary. Because many people in this country don't think such people should make such important decisions. Especially without any indication that the man has reflected on the boy that he was. That's really what it comes down to. The mores have changed. I went to an all boys high school myself. I know what many of them were like, and I know (to a lesser extent) what they are like now.
You don’t think that his exemplary behavior as a professional (charitable work among other things) is indication that he properly reflected on his actions as a youth?
|
On October 07 2018 09:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2018 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2018 09:13 Danglars wrote:On October 07 2018 09:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2018 08:51 Danglars wrote:On October 07 2018 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2018 07:48 Danglars wrote:On October 07 2018 07:07 IgnE wrote:
You know it's not bigotry to dislike assholes right?
Presuming him to have been a "misogynistic jerk and asshole" absolutely is. You think he's white and entitled and probably a misogynistic jerk and asshole. It's not too different than seeing a black candidate for office, and presume he's a misogynistic rapper, gang-banger, and asshole. At least you aren't calling him entitled, but you think you know enough about him or his type to conclude he's an asshole on the balance. That's the very essence of prejudice and bigotry. I'd say the same to any KKK guy that says he dislikes blacks from inner cities based on them being assholes etc. Contrary to your point, your individual reliance on group stereotypes of jocks and heavy drinking absolutely gets down the principle of the matter. I totally expect people that call so and so an asshole to have something specific to that individual to make the conclusion. The whole thing has been a referendum on entitled white boys, born with a host of economic, educational, and social privileges, who acted like assholes for a significant portion of their lives and whether or not they should be the ones making decisions of such importance for so many. This is a hill I'm willing to die on. Group prejudice against whites, or some version of entitlement (He'll say he earned top of his class and captain of the various sports teams, so perhaps you're just lying to yourself about what entitlement means), is no reason to throw up your hands and say this is all just some referendum on "true" social prejudice. It's all about flatly rejecting bias against certain groups EVEN if it's culturally accepted that hatred towards DC preppies is totally cool. You know the guy was part of a frat notorious for the entitled, misogynistic jerks? So it's more like assuming a gang member has a past that resembles other members of the gang. He's gone faster than a bullet if he was ever connected to these your allegations of notorious frat behavior. The reason the best weapon they could find was a barfight where he threw ice was because they tried and failed to put some frat smear onto him. On October 07 2018 08:14 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On October 07 2018 07:48 Danglars wrote:On October 07 2018 07:07 IgnE wrote:
You know it's not bigotry to dislike assholes right?
Presuming him to have been a "misogynistic jerk and asshole" absolutely is. You think he's white and entitled and probably a misogynistic jerk and asshole. It's not too different than seeing a black candidate for office, and presume he's a misogynistic rapper, gang-banger, and asshole. At least you aren't calling him entitled, but you think you know enough about him or his type to conclude he's an asshole on the balance. That's the very essence of prejudice and bigotry. I'd say the same to any KKK guy that says he dislikes blacks from inner cities based on them being assholes etc. Contrary to your point, your individual reliance on group stereotypes of jocks and heavy drinking absolutely gets down the principle of the matter. I totally expect people that call so and so an asshole to have something specific to that individual to make the conclusion. The whole thing has been a referendum on entitled white boys, born with a host of economic, educational, and social privileges, who acted like assholes for a significant portion of their lives and whether or not they should be the ones making decisions of such importance for so many. This is a hill I'm willing to die on. Group prejudice against whites, or some version of entitlement (He'll say he earned top of his class and captain of the various sports teams, so perhaps you're just lying to yourself about what entitlement means), is no reason to throw up your hands and say this is all just some referendum on "true" social prejudice. It's all about flatly rejecting bias against certain groups EVEN if it's culturally accepted that hatred towards DC preppies is totally cool. We got to look into his early life and see that, while he was not a rapist or sexually assaulting anyone, he was not a great person. He constantly had to make up shit excuses for what was obviously just plain old assholery in his yearbook. This isn't just bias; the hearing and investigations gave us an okay idea of what Brett Kavanaugh was like when he wasn't out of college, and it wasn't pretty. Yes, it wasn't illegal, but it's also not the kind of thing me and Igne want to see out of someone holding a life seat on the highest court in the country. There are plenty of kids in preppy high school environments that manage to come out looking like some kind of golden child, and that's not really a good reason to hate someone, as you've made clear multiple times; those golden kids, even if you have a bias against them, are the kind of people you would reluctantly do a group project with. Young Brett Kavanaugh sounds like the kind of person who would flake out, get blackout drunk, and tell you that he was busy working on something with his family after you'd already heard all the stories about how wild that party was. The kind of person you'd try to get out of a group with, because at least the other kids will do their work. I don't want someone who I wouldn't trust to do a group project to decide controversial rulings for many people across the country. Just a common guy regretful and embarassed that he drank so much at 18 and in his college years. I'm going to try and be more conciliatory here because he won and in the craziness I might've missed a news story or section of testimony (that happened during work for me). The best of the yearbooks was drinking games. Yearbooks and calendars were a typical teenage mess of in-jokes and fun. Again, maybe I missed something. I still saw the stereotype dragged out as a kind of banner under which nobody would look closer to see if he was a bad person in addition to being a partier. I think you get my perspective pretty right. I haven't seen enough of a reason to hate the person because some other people hate the person's social class and upbringing. If I was in high school, or a Freshman or Sophomore in College, I might stay away, based solely on the stereotype of jocks that like to drink. In that case, I would be a peer of him, also young, and stereotypes are useful at the basic level to protect yourself from wasted time and headaches. For a 53-year-old, I'd look to his career. All two or so decades of his career. I'd totally still look to see if he was arrested for drugs, property damage, assault and battery, and indecent exposure in his youth. What I wouldn't do is have a friend of a friend tell me that one story about what happened with a keg and a balcony, and be wondering if he's secretly a middle aged frat boy. It just really stinks of partisanship and factionalism, but I'm really trying to presume this is a genuine nonpartisan worry. My moral reckoning is you're responsible for your own actions, not the reputation other people think your Frat has achieved, not what people think about white jocks at elite private schools, just your actions. The race and class and social circle taint is not so overpowering of a smell to make individuals too problematic to trust. Suit yourself if you're the boss and are thinking about hiring him onto your company. I'm not preaching that you have to abandon your stereotypes. I just need more evidence to be persuaded it's a good plan to fail to give him the benefit of the doubt. I've seen the flip side, how unfounded gossip has destroyed the character of good man, and behind it all was a person looking for advancement or a rejected date. I really seek to weigh the sides to not privilege the gossiper and rumor-spreader out of overcaution or playing it ridiculously safe. I'm also not willing to conclude he was "not a great person" based on what I've read and heard. I'm prepared to change that if he did routinely get blackout drunk instead of overdrink, or harassed women in his drunkenness, who have remained silent afterwards. If you hold to your standard of rumor and "kind of people" for the Supreme Court, I simply don't agree, and don't really fault you for holding to your beliefs at what kind of person you won't to serve as judge on that court. You know him and David cop-a-feel were part of the same frat, then he went on to work for cop-a-feel's son. Judging by the reference Bush sr. used when he sexually assaults women it's not a new activity. Turning a blind eye to sexually abusing women isn't some aberration, it's definitively something they did for decades. The George H. W. Bush connection is a conspiracy theory I hadn't really heard yet, but thanks for bringing it to my attention. No conspiracy theory, just that he's part of a group of assholes that abuse women and turn a blind eye when they see it done. He also lobbied to put him on the court. Incidentally, that reminds me of a similar discussion about Obama and Romney in their high school/college years. Obama smoked weed (and possibly more than that?) and Romney dressed up as a police officer to fake arrest people. Want to hold that against them too, or should we have looked at the people they were in their working years instead? To the general concept I agree, but then we should all be trying to restore voting rights for people convicted of stealing ~$300 worth of stuff in high school/college. Are we all in agreement on that? Regardless, I take those things into consideration, just smoking cannabis and fake arresting people tell me very different things and I'd pick the weed smoker 100/100 times. Also Brett Kavanaugh should pay for every minor's MIP tickets and serve any jail time they get for following their Supreme Court Justice role model's example. The Kavanaugh sexual assault ring extending to former presidents and president sons of presidents is birtherism. I don't indulge such lunacy. It's just a ploy to waste time and get people angry. We can agree that petty theft is not sufficient reason to deprive voting rights. Smoking weed or small time drug offenses: same deal.
No "sexual assault ring" just, that he's part of a group of assholes that abuse women and turn a blind eye when they see it done.
Well besides the loose connections to the Catholic church (a well documented sexual assault ring), but I'm not putting any of that on him.
______________________________________________________________________________________
As to the voting rights thing, that was Florida where theft of ~$300 worth of stuff can result in felony conviction and lifetime disenfranchisement. That could be changed tomorrow if Republicans got on board.
Obviously people shouldn't lose voting rights for drug possession, I was saying BK should have to pay and serve all fines and sentences for other 17-20 y.o. that are prosecuted for following the example set by BK. It's absurd to have a SCJ who freely admits he was never held accountable for crimes he committed, particularly while other kids are still being locked up for doing exactly what he freely admits he did in high school. Even bragged about it in his yearbook.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
To those that think the US is a meritocracy, Do you look at Trump and Kavanaugh and think that the differences in Trump's wealth, or Kavanaugh's prestigious position relative to your own is more reflective of the discrepancy in your own capabilities and hard work and theirs or more reflective in a difference of circumstances beyond any of you as individuals control?
Like I can get a lot of this stuff, but I have a hard time understanding how you guys look at a couple of guys like that and think
"Yeah they are clearly much more successful or highly regarded because they are so much harder working and intellectually capable than I am"
Or do you guys reconcile it in some other way?
|
On October 07 2018 09:38 IgnE wrote:
MS-13. My bad.
The "asshole" (part 3) is plain to anyone who looked at his yearbook, his testimony, the writings of people like Mark Judge, and the allegations of others who knew them.
Part of the drama surrounding the confirmation is about believability's connection to both textual hermeneutics and to sociological mimetic factors. How can two people watching the same testimony come to such different conclusions? — "Partisanship!" mmmm I don't think that's good enough.
Agree to disagree. I did not see enough to conclude he was an asshole. Perhaps you can see the deep irony connecting "is plain to anyone who looked at his yearbook" with "How can two people watching the same testimony come to different conclusions." What's plain to you is not plain to me, what's plain to me is not plain to you.
Mark Judge certainly struggled throughout college and later and wrote about it. I'm wondering if this is really just smearing him because of the friends he kept, but I'm taking you on face value that you actually think his asshole quality is plain to others.
|
On October 07 2018 10:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2018 09:38 IgnE wrote:
MS-13. My bad.
The "asshole" (part 3) is plain to anyone who looked at his yearbook, his testimony, the writings of people like Mark Judge, and the allegations of others who knew them.
Part of the drama surrounding the confirmation is about believability's connection to both textual hermeneutics and to sociological mimetic factors. How can two people watching the same testimony come to such different conclusions? — "Partisanship!" mmmm I don't think that's good enough. Agree to disagree. I did not see enough to conclude he was an asshole. Perhaps you can see the deep irony connecting "is plain to anyone who looked at his yearbook" with "How can two people watching the same testimony come to different conclusions." What's plain to you is not plain to me, what's plain to me is not plain to you. Mark Judge certainly struggled throughout college and later and wrote about it. I'm wondering if this is really just smearing him because of the friends he kept, but I'm taking you on face value that you actually think his asshole quality is plain to others.
If you polled it the demographic breakdowns would be pretty predictable. It would be least apparent to affluent white men, mostly because it would just look like every day life to many of them.
Like the concept of going to a high school with a golf-course sounds bougie af to billions of people, but not out of the ordinary to affluent white men in the US. In a similar way, they are comparably oblivious to asshole stuff they do. Like thinking getting to go to the high school he did had no impact on his potential admission to Yale or that he got to go to that high school because anyone who worked as hard as he did had that opportunity.
|
It’s worth noting that Trump is now branding the Democrats as the party of the “mob.” This label is really going to sting. For years, Trump has been aggressively playing up his policies as the policies of “law and order” (immigration, crime, etc), so the contrast between Democrats and Republicans on this point is going to be stark. The Kavanaugh circus only serves as a massive exclamation point.
|
I wish I could disagree with that characterization but it really does seem that capitalizing on outrage is the MO right now. Along with crying “unprecedented” at everything that moves, although that doesn’t seem to have much of an effect on anyone but those already sold on the “not my president” line of argument.
Surprisingly, the lead that Democrats have in the House race is even starting to weaken. Demographics-wise they have a pretty large advantage, so it’s a wee bit amusing that this is starting to look not unlike the 2016 “maybe we can win in a landslide” turning into pretty R-favored results.
|
On October 08 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:
It’s worth noting that Trump is now branding the Democrats as the party of the “mob.” This label is really going to sting. For years, Trump has been aggressively playing up his policies as the policies of “law and order” (immigration, crime, etc), so the contrast between Democrats and Republicans on this point is going to be stark. The Kavanaugh circus only serves as a massive exclamation point.
I mean, that's the way it should be. Rightwing should stand for order and leftwing should stand for the people, especially when they are angry. Things just get blurred because you guys tried to reclaim "freedom" as a rightwing principle and then went on a rampage against the FBI for a while.
It's funny how much of the republican rhetoric describes the left as it should be and then counts on the Dems to go "No, no we're not like that!!"
|
On October 08 2018 01:22 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:
It’s worth noting that Trump is now branding the Democrats as the party of the “mob.” This label is really going to sting. For years, Trump has been aggressively playing up his policies as the policies of “law and order” (immigration, crime, etc), so the contrast between Democrats and Republicans on this point is going to be stark. The Kavanaugh circus only serves as a massive exclamation point. I mean, that's the way it should be. Rightwing should stand for order and leftwing should stand for the people, especially when they are angry. Things just get blurred because you guys tried to reclaim "freedom" as a rightwing principle and then went on a rampage against the FBI for a while. It's funny how much of the republican rhetoric describes the left as it should be and then counts on the Dems to go "No, no we're not like that!!"
There is a big difference between being the party of freedom and the people and being the party of the mob.
|
On October 08 2018 01:09 LegalLord wrote:
I wish I could disagree with that characterization but it really does seem that capitalizing on outrage is the MO right now. Along with crying “unprecedented” at everything that moves, although that doesn’t seem to have much of an effect on anyone but those already sold on the “not my president” line of argument.
Surprisingly, the lead that Democrats have in the House race is even starting to weaken. Demographics-wise they have a pretty large advantage, so it’s a wee bit amusing that this is starting to look not unlike the 2016 “maybe we can win in a landslide” turning into pretty R-favored results.
I'm not surprised by this "tightening of the polls" at all. Just like in the run-up to the 2016 election, the polls that we've been seeing for the midterms aren't worth the paper that they're written on this far out. It will only be in the next few weeks that we start seeing what the lay of the land is really going to look like. And I have no doubt that we're going to see many of the same elements in play for the midterms in 2016 -- particularly the pro-Trump/GOP vote being artificially depressed in the polling. The political atmosphere for announcing that you're a Trump-supporter or GOP supporter is just as toxic now (if not more so in some respects) as it was in 2016. And if you take a step back and look at the past two years objectively, it's been a pretty damned good run for the country. Trump waved his "magic wand" and launched the country into economic boom that no one thought was possible or saw coming.
More importantly, we still haven't had our October surprise yet. As good as this Kavanaugh thing has been for the GOP, I consider it to be just an unexpected bonus. Now that Kavanaugh has been confirmed, Trump is going to return to releasing the FISA/Russia stuff. That's when the real reckoning is going to occur.
|
On October 08 2018 01:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2018 01:22 Nebuchad wrote:On October 08 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:
It’s worth noting that Trump is now branding the Democrats as the party of the “mob.” This label is really going to sting. For years, Trump has been aggressively playing up his policies as the policies of “law and order” (immigration, crime, etc), so the contrast between Democrats and Republicans on this point is going to be stark. The Kavanaugh circus only serves as a massive exclamation point. I mean, that's the way it should be. Rightwing should stand for order and leftwing should stand for the people, especially when they are angry. Things just get blurred because you guys tried to reclaim "freedom" as a rightwing principle and then went on a rampage against the FBI for a while. It's funny how much of the republican rhetoric describes the left as it should be and then counts on the Dems to go "No, no we're not like that!!" There is a big difference between being the party of freedom and the people and being the party of the mob.
Not that big of a difference actually. The negative connotation that comes with the mob is mostly an elitist viewpoint transposed into common language. On the populist side, we just see a bunch of people who are angry, and hopefully we get to channel that.
|
On October 08 2018 02:16 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2018 01:34 xDaunt wrote:On October 08 2018 01:22 Nebuchad wrote:On October 08 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:
It’s worth noting that Trump is now branding the Democrats as the party of the “mob.” This label is really going to sting. For years, Trump has been aggressively playing up his policies as the policies of “law and order” (immigration, crime, etc), so the contrast between Democrats and Republicans on this point is going to be stark. The Kavanaugh circus only serves as a massive exclamation point. I mean, that's the way it should be. Rightwing should stand for order and leftwing should stand for the people, especially when they are angry. Things just get blurred because you guys tried to reclaim "freedom" as a rightwing principle and then went on a rampage against the FBI for a while. It's funny how much of the republican rhetoric describes the left as it should be and then counts on the Dems to go "No, no we're not like that!!" There is a big difference between being the party of freedom and the people and being the party of the mob. Not that big of a difference actually. The negative connotation that comes with the mob is mostly an elitist viewpoint transposed into common language. On the populist side, we just see a bunch of people who are angry, and hopefully we get to channel that.
Not in this country. The US has a rich tradition of valuing law and order over the antics and disorder of the mob. Even during the height of the Vietnam War, the lawlessness of many of the anti-war protestors was a huge drag on the popularity of the anti-war movement.
|
On October 08 2018 03:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2018 02:16 Nebuchad wrote:On October 08 2018 01:34 xDaunt wrote:On October 08 2018 01:22 Nebuchad wrote:On October 08 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:
It’s worth noting that Trump is now branding the Democrats as the party of the “mob.” This label is really going to sting. For years, Trump has been aggressively playing up his policies as the policies of “law and order” (immigration, crime, etc), so the contrast between Democrats and Republicans on this point is going to be stark. The Kavanaugh circus only serves as a massive exclamation point. I mean, that's the way it should be. Rightwing should stand for order and leftwing should stand for the people, especially when they are angry. Things just get blurred because you guys tried to reclaim "freedom" as a rightwing principle and then went on a rampage against the FBI for a while. It's funny how much of the republican rhetoric describes the left as it should be and then counts on the Dems to go "No, no we're not like that!!" There is a big difference between being the party of freedom and the people and being the party of the mob. Not that big of a difference actually. The negative connotation that comes with the mob is mostly an elitist viewpoint transposed into common language. On the populist side, we just see a bunch of people who are angry, and hopefully we get to channel that. Not in this country. The US has a rich tradition of valuing law and order over the antics and disorder of the mob. Even during the height of the Vietnam War, the lawlessness of many of the anti-war protestors was a huge drag on the popularity of the anti-war movement.
That's probably one of the reasons why the elitist viewpoint was transposed into common language. It doesn't show that there's a huge difference between being the party of the people and being the party of the mob.
|
On October 08 2018 03:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2018 02:16 Nebuchad wrote:On October 08 2018 01:34 xDaunt wrote:On October 08 2018 01:22 Nebuchad wrote:On October 08 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:
It’s worth noting that Trump is now branding the Democrats as the party of the “mob.” This label is really going to sting. For years, Trump has been aggressively playing up his policies as the policies of “law and order” (immigration, crime, etc), so the contrast between Democrats and Republicans on this point is going to be stark. The Kavanaugh circus only serves as a massive exclamation point. I mean, that's the way it should be. Rightwing should stand for order and leftwing should stand for the people, especially when they are angry. Things just get blurred because you guys tried to reclaim "freedom" as a rightwing principle and then went on a rampage against the FBI for a while. It's funny how much of the republican rhetoric describes the left as it should be and then counts on the Dems to go "No, no we're not like that!!" There is a big difference between being the party of freedom and the people and being the party of the mob. Not that big of a difference actually. The negative connotation that comes with the mob is mostly an elitist viewpoint transposed into common language. On the populist side, we just see a bunch of people who are angry, and hopefully we get to channel that. Not in this country. The US has a rich tradition of valuing law and order over the antics and disorder of the mob. Even during the height of the Vietnam War, the lawlessness of many of the anti-war protestors was a huge drag on the popularity of the anti-war movement.
I'm pretty sure law and order did nothing to prevent any lynching, beating, hanging of blacks last century and that before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
