|
On November 30 2018 11:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2018 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I hope you plan on coming back to the "critical and fundamental US policy goals" we shared with communists and not fascists. Whatever you think they are is actually pretty important imo. Frankly, I’m annoyed that you are even asking the question, because it asks me to lay out all of the ways that fascism and liberalism are fundamentally opposed. It should be obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of history. I simply don’t have time for it.
Actually I'm asking for a sample of some of the key ways that fascism but not communism fundamentally oppose liberalism's "critical and fundamental US policy goals" from your perspective.
|
On November 30 2018 11:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2018 11:27 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2018 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I hope you plan on coming back to the "critical and fundamental US policy goals" we shared with communists and not fascists. Whatever you think they are is actually pretty important imo. Frankly, I’m annoyed that you are even asking the question, because it asks me to lay out all of the ways that fascism and liberalism are fundamentally opposed. It should be obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of history. I simply don’t have time for it. Actually I'm asking for a sample of some of the key ways that fascism but not communism fundamentally oppose liberalism from your perspective.
Fascism and communism fundamentally oppose liberalism for mostly the same reasons. Both are totalitarian systems that shit on individual liberties and property rights.
|
On November 30 2018 11:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2018 11:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 30 2018 11:27 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2018 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I hope you plan on coming back to the "critical and fundamental US policy goals" we shared with communists and not fascists. Whatever you think they are is actually pretty important imo. Frankly, I’m annoyed that you are even asking the question, because it asks me to lay out all of the ways that fascism and liberalism are fundamentally opposed. It should be obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of history. I simply don’t have time for it. Actually I'm asking for a sample of some of the key ways that fascism but not communism fundamentally oppose liberalism from your perspective. Fascism and communism fundamentally oppose liberalism for mostly the same reasons. Both are totalitarian systems that shit on individual liberties and property rights.
You said:
Aligning with the Nazis was simply never going to be an option for the US because the Nazis opposed so many critical and fundamental US policy goals.
But that didn't stop us from aligning with communists did it? That's the core of my question.
|
I already explained why the US ended up being aligned with the USSR. They had a common enemy to defeat. And notice how once that was done, the alliance immediately fell apart.
|
On November 30 2018 11:48 xDaunt wrote:
I already explained why the US ended up being aligned with the USSR. They had a common enemy to defeat. And notice how once that was done, the alliance immediately fell apart.
So did the fascists and the US though?
|
On November 30 2018 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2018 11:48 xDaunt wrote:
I already explained why the US ended up being aligned with the USSR. They had a common enemy to defeat. And notice how once that was done, the alliance immediately fell apart. So did the fascists and the US though?
The USSR did not declare war on the US. Germany did. And the problem for Germany was that it was also at war with the UK, whereas the USSR was not. For that reason, the US was always going to end up fighting Germany before fighting the USSR.
|
On November 30 2018 11:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2018 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 30 2018 11:48 xDaunt wrote:
I already explained why the US ended up being aligned with the USSR. They had a common enemy to defeat. And notice how once that was done, the alliance immediately fell apart. So did the fascists and the US though? The USSR did not declare war on the US. Germany did. And the problem for Germany was that it was also at war with the UK, whereas the USSR was not. For that reason, the US was always going to end up fighting Germany before fighting the USSR.
Which makes more sense than when you said:
Aligning with the Nazis was simply never going to be an option for the US because the Nazis opposed so many critical and fundamental US policy goals.
The explanation you give hinging way more on geography and strategy/logistics than any policy makes far more sense than the idea that we couldn't have come to terms with fascists. Particularly since fascism isn't a disqualifier for being a US ally even today.
|
On November 30 2018 11:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2018 11:02 ChristianS wrote:On November 30 2018 10:55 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2018 10:22 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2018 09:57 xDaunt wrote:
We will see what is in the testimony that Cohen has given, but so far, the stuff that’s leaked is a big nothingburger. While it's a disingenuous stretch to say that pursuit of a business deal with a foreign enemy as he secures the nomination is NBD, its definitely beyond a stretch to say that offering Putin a $50 mil penthouse is NBD. No, it is not a big deal to build in Russia or even to give the leader of the country a gift to grease the wheels for the project. I wasn't around the politics thread at the time. Were you somebody who thought the Obama hot mic thing with Putin was a huge deal? Because this seems way bigger than that to me. The hot mic is absolutely a bigger deal because it suggests that Obama, as President of the United Statses, was doing something behind the scenes with Russia that the American people would not appreciate. Frankly, I wouldn’t have picked you as a poster who would miss that point.
Ugh. You never were one to miss a chance to insult someone's intelligence. And yet for all your condescension your point doesn't even work. In both cases the implication was highly scandalous, but it was only implied. All Obama actually said was that he'd have more flexibility after the election, which of course is obviously true. Similarly, Trump forming business plans to buy Putin's favor while running for US president only implies especially scandalous behavior - otherwise buying off foreign leaders is only a somewhat-above-average level of shady.
I don't have a lot of time to argue on the internet right now, so I guess forget I asked the question.
|
On November 30 2018 12:27 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2018 11:21 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2018 11:02 ChristianS wrote:On November 30 2018 10:55 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2018 10:22 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2018 09:57 xDaunt wrote:
We will see what is in the testimony that Cohen has given, but so far, the stuff that’s leaked is a big nothingburger. While it's a disingenuous stretch to say that pursuit of a business deal with a foreign enemy as he secures the nomination is NBD, its definitely beyond a stretch to say that offering Putin a $50 mil penthouse is NBD. No, it is not a big deal to build in Russia or even to give the leader of the country a gift to grease the wheels for the project. I wasn't around the politics thread at the time. Were you somebody who thought the Obama hot mic thing with Putin was a huge deal? Because this seems way bigger than that to me. The hot mic is absolutely a bigger deal because it suggests that Obama, as President of the United Statses, was doing something behind the scenes with Russia that the American people would not appreciate. Frankly, I wouldn’t have picked you as a poster who would miss that point. Ugh. You never were one to miss a chance to insult someone's intelligence. And yet for all your condescension your point doesn't even work. In both cases the implication was highly scandalous, but it was only implied. All Obama actually said was that he'd have more flexibility after the election, which of course is obviously true. Similarly, Trump forming business plans to buy Putin's favor while running for US president only implies especially scandalous behavior - otherwise buying off foreign leaders is only a somewhat-above-average level of shady. I don't have a lot of time to argue on the internet right now, so I guess forget I asked the question.
You still don't get it. Trump, as a private citizen (albeit a candidate for president), was probably offering Putin a kickback to cut the red tape on his proposed real estate project -- a purely private deal having nothing to do with American interests. What Trump did is common place for American developers and business people trying to invest in shithole countries. In contrast, Obama was president, clearly dealing with Putin on a matter deeply concerning US policy. Compared to that, what Trump did is a zero.
How about this. Why don't you start expressing some concern and alarm over Uranium One and all of the shit that the Clinton Foundation was up to prior to Hillary losing the election, so that we all know that you're at least sincere in your concern over Trump's potential Moscow deal, and then we can talk.
|
On November 30 2018 11:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2018 10:59 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2018 10:55 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2018 10:22 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2018 09:57 xDaunt wrote:
We will see what is in the testimony that Cohen has given, but so far, the stuff that’s leaked is a big nothingburger. While it's a disingenuous stretch to say that pursuit of a business deal with a foreign enemy as he secures the nomination is NBD, its definitely beyond a stretch to say that offering Putin a $50 mil penthouse is NBD. No, it is not a big deal to build in Russia or even to give the leader of the country a gift to grease the wheels for the project. Were you ever critical of Obama for not being willing to be tougher on Russia? For not preventing Putin's Crimea move? You can't actually believe it's not a big deal for a presidential candidate to do that during the campaign. Are you patriotic? Russia is our enemy. First of all, read this just so that you understand how retarded the narrative is that Trump has been soft on Russia. Second, there is nothing inherently unpatriotic about doing a business deal with Russia or the Russian government. There are tons of Americans and American companies that do just that. And it is fine unless the Americans are selling out America when doing the deal. I have a very hard time seeing how a construction project in Russia would sell America out.
So you dont see a problem with a presidential candidate seeking a lucrative business deal with a foreign enemy and offering that enemy's leader a lucrative perk as an incentive. All while lying to the American about this, which the foreign enemy knew were lies.
This is purely your partisan bias speaking.
|
On November 30 2018 14:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2018 12:27 ChristianS wrote:On November 30 2018 11:21 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2018 11:02 ChristianS wrote:On November 30 2018 10:55 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2018 10:22 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2018 09:57 xDaunt wrote:
We will see what is in the testimony that Cohen has given, but so far, the stuff that’s leaked is a big nothingburger. While it's a disingenuous stretch to say that pursuit of a business deal with a foreign enemy as he secures the nomination is NBD, its definitely beyond a stretch to say that offering Putin a $50 mil penthouse is NBD. No, it is not a big deal to build in Russia or even to give the leader of the country a gift to grease the wheels for the project. I wasn't around the politics thread at the time. Were you somebody who thought the Obama hot mic thing with Putin was a huge deal? Because this seems way bigger than that to me. The hot mic is absolutely a bigger deal because it suggests that Obama, as President of the United Statses, was doing something behind the scenes with Russia that the American people would not appreciate. Frankly, I wouldn’t have picked you as a poster who would miss that point. Ugh. You never were one to miss a chance to insult someone's intelligence. And yet for all your condescension your point doesn't even work. In both cases the implication was highly scandalous, but it was only implied. All Obama actually said was that he'd have more flexibility after the election, which of course is obviously true. Similarly, Trump forming business plans to buy Putin's favor while running for US president only implies especially scandalous behavior - otherwise buying off foreign leaders is only a somewhat-above-average level of shady. I don't have a lot of time to argue on the internet right now, so I guess forget I asked the question. You still don't get it. Trump, as a private citizen (albeit a candidate for president), was probably offering Putin a kickback to cut the red tape on his proposed real estate project -- a purely private deal having nothing to do with American interests. What Trump did is common place for American developers and business people trying to invest in shithole countries. In contrast, Obama was president, clearly dealing with Putin on a matter deeply concerning US policy. Compared to that, what Trump did is a zero. How about this. Why don't you start expressing some concern and alarm over Uranium One and all of the shit that the Clinton Foundation was up to prior to Hillary losing the election, so that we all know that you're at least sincere in your concern over Trump's potential Moscow deal, and then we can talk.
Jesus Christ man. I wasn't even trying to pick a fight with the Obama hot mic question, I just honestly didn't know what you had thought about it at the time. Not to mention you can't just gloss over the candidate for president thing with an "albeit" - the man was cutting business deals and giving "kickbacks" to one of the biggest adversaries of the US while running for US president! That's not just an off-hand remark with little context, that's real business deals with real, specific bribes! It'd be one thing if you were just respectfully disagreeing that the Moscow deal is bigger than the "flexibility after the election" remark, but you have to go the extra condescending mile and not-so-subtly imply that I've revealed my intellectual deficiencies by thinking otherwise.
Then you try to prosecute me for hypocrisy because I'm not expressing concern or alarm over Uranium One or the Clinton Foundation. Maybe you're hoping I'll call those conspiracy theories and we can get lost in the weeds on the details of those. Thing is, I don't have to because I never even expressed concern and alarm about Trump's Moscow deals! I literally just asked whether you thought the hot mic thing was a big deal at the time, and said this seemed way bigger than that in my book (which, for the record, is not saying a lot). I'm sure there are plenty of liberals out there using words like "norm-breaking" and "unprecedented" and clutching their pearls, but you have to wait for me to actually say it before you can call me a hypocrite for it.
Personally I think I'm probably in a somewhat similar place to GH on the Russia investigation. I'd like to see it continue to completion mostly because as a historical matter I'd like this to be a fully settled question, and not a weird open-ended conspiracy-bait like MK Ultra or the JFK assassination. But I don't have any illusions that Mueller is going to sink Trump or get him impeached or anything, and as far as outrage goes, I think the humanitarian atrocities and abuses that Trump tolerates, advocates, and even perpetrates are a much better reason to be outraged than some hypothetical Moscow penthouse.
Like, I know you and I have had beef in the past or w/e but the second I show up you're throwing punches without even checking if they really apply to what I said. At least wait until I fuck up to jump down my throat - I'm real busy lately and don't have a lot of time to edit my posts, so I'm sure I'll fuck up plenty.
|
On November 30 2018 10:59 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2018 10:55 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2018 10:22 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2018 09:57 xDaunt wrote:
We will see what is in the testimony that Cohen has given, but so far, the stuff that’s leaked is a big nothingburger. While it's a disingenuous stretch to say that pursuit of a business deal with a foreign enemy as he secures the nomination is NBD, its definitely beyond a stretch to say that offering Putin a $50 mil penthouse is NBD. No, it is not a big deal to build in Russia or even to give the leader of the country a gift to grease the wheels for the project. Were you ever critical of Obama for not being willing to be tougher on Russia? For not preventing Putin's Crimea move? You can't actually believe it's not a big deal for a presidential candidate to do that during the campaign. Are you patriotic? Russia is our enemy.
I think you're phrasing the accusation wrong. Is it in the US's best interests to view Russia as an enemy, or to try and turn that enemy into an ally or friend?
I'll be honest, one of the things I always liked about Trump's platform - maybe the only thing in fact - is that he wanted to try and improve things with Russia, difficult though it is. I'm not against moral arguments, but I've yet to hear anyone be willing to follow those arguments to their logical conclusion: a hot war. Everyone knows that a hot war is not a viable option with Russia, which sooner or later means finding a better solution.
On November 30 2018 14:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2018 12:27 ChristianS wrote:On November 30 2018 11:21 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2018 11:02 ChristianS wrote:On November 30 2018 10:55 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2018 10:22 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2018 09:57 xDaunt wrote:
We will see what is in the testimony that Cohen has given, but so far, the stuff that’s leaked is a big nothingburger. While it's a disingenuous stretch to say that pursuit of a business deal with a foreign enemy as he secures the nomination is NBD, its definitely beyond a stretch to say that offering Putin a $50 mil penthouse is NBD. No, it is not a big deal to build in Russia or even to give the leader of the country a gift to grease the wheels for the project. I wasn't around the politics thread at the time. Were you somebody who thought the Obama hot mic thing with Putin was a huge deal? Because this seems way bigger than that to me. The hot mic is absolutely a bigger deal because it suggests that Obama, as President of the United Statses, was doing something behind the scenes with Russia that the American people would not appreciate. Frankly, I wouldn’t have picked you as a poster who would miss that point. Ugh. You never were one to miss a chance to insult someone's intelligence. And yet for all your condescension your point doesn't even work. In both cases the implication was highly scandalous, but it was only implied. All Obama actually said was that he'd have more flexibility after the election, which of course is obviously true. Similarly, Trump forming business plans to buy Putin's favor while running for US president only implies especially scandalous behavior - otherwise buying off foreign leaders is only a somewhat-above-average level of shady. I don't have a lot of time to argue on the internet right now, so I guess forget I asked the question. You still don't get it. Trump, as a private citizen (albeit a candidate for president), was probably offering Putin a kickback to cut the red tape on his proposed real estate project -- a purely private deal having nothing to do with American interests. What Trump did is common place for American developers and business people trying to invest in shithole countries. In contrast, Obama was president, clearly dealing with Putin on a matter deeply concerning US policy. Compared to that, what Trump did is a zero. How about this. Why don't you start expressing some concern and alarm over Uranium One and all of the shit that the Clinton Foundation was up to prior to Hillary losing the election, so that we all know that you're at least sincere in your concern over Trump's potential Moscow deal, and then we can talk.
I thought Uranium One had already been stabbed to death and revealed to be nonsense?
And if you're going to mention the Clinton Foundation, you can't ignore the Trump Foundation, which is even more dubious. And at that point you're emphasising the dubious activities of a private citizen over the far more dubious activities of the President of the United States of America. Go after both, or go after neither, else you just look like you're engaging in typical partisan hackery.
Following on from the earlier back and forth; if Hitler had never ever declared war on the United States, do you think the US would have entered the European sphere of WW 2 at all or stayed out of it?
|
If I understand the discussion it’s on the lines of:
- Oh look, your guy is proven to have extremely serious conflict of interest issues with an ennemy foreign dictatorship that deployed unprecedented efforts to influence the election in his favour.
- Yesbutwhatabout [insert random and unrelated conspiracy theories about crooked Hillary or the black man].
I guess that’s actually quite a good summary of politics of the Trump era in general.
|
Embittered sides will always sling the “your guy did something worse and you ignored or downplayed it” until the cows come home. Welcome to politics.
|
Some of us are wondering why you guys are still playing their games
|
On November 30 2018 23:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
Some of us are wondering why you guys are still playing their games
I have to assume they believe them, given how often Danglars has said we shouldn't assume 'you can't mean that' or 'can't be serious' and the like. As in they genuinely believe that the Democrats are guilty and their guys are innocent.
|
On November 30 2018 23:04 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2018 23:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
Some of us are wondering why you guys are still playing their games I have to assume they believe them, given how often Danglars has said we shouldn't assume 'you can't mean that' or 'can't be serious' and the like. As in they genuinely believe that the Democrats are guilty and their guys are innocent.
I don't think either side really believes it. I think by and large they've both bought into a cynical and short-term cycle of "they started it" or "but they're worse" as the situation fits.
Republicans know Trump is a exploitative conman, but he's THEIR exploitative conman, just as Democrats knew Hillary was an exploitative conwoman, but she was theirs.
I don't think it's really much more complicated than that. All the other stuff is just what people say to soothe the cognitive dissonance and moral apathy imo.
|
You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.
Hillary Clinton, one month ago
This came to mind on the topic of political tribes. Civility, but only once and if my team comes back into power. Because you see these other guys...
Come on Mueller report, show down your cards soon, sir!
|
On November 30 2018 19:07 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2018 10:59 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2018 10:55 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2018 10:22 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2018 09:57 xDaunt wrote:
We will see what is in the testimony that Cohen has given, but so far, the stuff that’s leaked is a big nothingburger. While it's a disingenuous stretch to say that pursuit of a business deal with a foreign enemy as he secures the nomination is NBD, its definitely beyond a stretch to say that offering Putin a $50 mil penthouse is NBD. No, it is not a big deal to build in Russia or even to give the leader of the country a gift to grease the wheels for the project. Were you ever critical of Obama for not being willing to be tougher on Russia? For not preventing Putin's Crimea move? You can't actually believe it's not a big deal for a presidential candidate to do that during the campaign. Are you patriotic? Russia is our enemy. I think you're phrasing the accusation wrong. Is it in the US's best interests to view Russia as an enemy, or to try and turn that enemy into an ally or friend? I'll be honest, one of the things I always liked about Trump's platform - maybe the only thing in fact - is that he wanted to try and improve things with Russia, difficult though it is. I'm not against moral arguments, but I've yet to hear anyone be willing to follow those arguments to their logical conclusion: a hot war. Everyone knows that a hot war is not a viable option with Russia, which sooner or later means finding a better solution. Show nested quote +On November 30 2018 14:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2018 12:27 ChristianS wrote:On November 30 2018 11:21 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2018 11:02 ChristianS wrote:On November 30 2018 10:55 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2018 10:22 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2018 09:57 xDaunt wrote:
We will see what is in the testimony that Cohen has given, but so far, the stuff that’s leaked is a big nothingburger. While it's a disingenuous stretch to say that pursuit of a business deal with a foreign enemy as he secures the nomination is NBD, its definitely beyond a stretch to say that offering Putin a $50 mil penthouse is NBD. No, it is not a big deal to build in Russia or even to give the leader of the country a gift to grease the wheels for the project. I wasn't around the politics thread at the time. Were you somebody who thought the Obama hot mic thing with Putin was a huge deal? Because this seems way bigger than that to me. The hot mic is absolutely a bigger deal because it suggests that Obama, as President of the United Statses, was doing something behind the scenes with Russia that the American people would not appreciate. Frankly, I wouldn’t have picked you as a poster who would miss that point. Ugh. You never were one to miss a chance to insult someone's intelligence. And yet for all your condescension your point doesn't even work. In both cases the implication was highly scandalous, but it was only implied. All Obama actually said was that he'd have more flexibility after the election, which of course is obviously true. Similarly, Trump forming business plans to buy Putin's favor while running for US president only implies especially scandalous behavior - otherwise buying off foreign leaders is only a somewhat-above-average level of shady. I don't have a lot of time to argue on the internet right now, so I guess forget I asked the question. You still don't get it. Trump, as a private citizen (albeit a candidate for president), was probably offering Putin a kickback to cut the red tape on his proposed real estate project -- a purely private deal having nothing to do with American interests. What Trump did is common place for American developers and business people trying to invest in shithole countries. In contrast, Obama was president, clearly dealing with Putin on a matter deeply concerning US policy. Compared to that, what Trump did is a zero. How about this. Why don't you start expressing some concern and alarm over Uranium One and all of the shit that the Clinton Foundation was up to prior to Hillary losing the election, so that we all know that you're at least sincere in your concern over Trump's potential Moscow deal, and then we can talk. I thought Uranium One had already been stabbed to death and revealed to be nonsense? And if you're going to mention the Clinton Foundation, you can't ignore the Trump Foundation, which is even more dubious. And at that point you're emphasising the dubious activities of a private citizen over the far more dubious activities of the President of the United States of America. Go after both, or go after neither, else you just look like you're engaging in typical partisan hackery. Following on from the earlier back and forth; if Hitler had never ever declared war on the United States, do you think the US would have entered the European sphere of WW 2 at all or stayed out of it?
Russia is indeed our enemy, and that wont change, which Republicans would have been very happy to tell you, and did in fact tell us, before Trump.
|
On December 01 2018 00:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.
Hillary Clinton, one month ago This came to mind on the topic of political tribes. Civility, but only once and if my team comes back into power. Because you see these other guys... Come on Mueller report, show down your cards soon, sir!
Yeah. It'd be great if your guys believed in the same idea, though, wouldn't it? The closest Trump's ever come to stirring civility was his inauguration speech. And the rest of the party's followed suit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
