|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 24 2019 22:41 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 21:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 20:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 24 2019 19:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 14:56 Artisreal wrote:On May 24 2019 08:29 Velr wrote:
Yeah, because you like to bash everything, glory to the revolution whiteout a solution. Gogogo.
Seriously, your the worst of the lot.There is a reason most grown ups don't spout the revolution bullshit, i'm sure you will one day arrive at that point. Gh points to many unsolved problems. the nature of them being unsolved involves thinking out of the box. the lightbulb wasnt invented through continuous development of the candle. Without a radical overhaul of how many of us think, we won't solve the problems we face. Climate change and the Conservative positions in the US regarding it are a clear sign for that. It's delusional to think we can continue the trodden paths I have to say that this thread doesn't make me very optimistic folks are ready for even a fraction of the changes necessary. I'm not giving up on em yet though Kwark  On May 24 2019 18:11 Acrofales wrote:On May 24 2019 12:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 12:14 JimmiC wrote:On May 24 2019 12:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 11:58 JimmiC wrote:On May 24 2019 11:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
My point is that revolution and democracy aren't exclusive as you tried to frame them. Revolution can and has led to an exemplary democratic election (more widely recognized domestically and globally as legitimate than the most recent one in the US for comparison).
I assume there's also a reason we're ignoring the bourgeoisie revolution that created the United States and it's government. You've moved the goalposts, Im sure by accident. We were talking about democracy and communism working together. I obviously agree that revolution is required for democracy, this is why I have supported the Venezualan attempt at revolution after their democracy was stolen from them. I didn't move anything it was literally my opening line. Revolutions and democracy aren't exclusive concepts. But if: I obviously agree that revolution is required for democracy I don't understand what exactly you're arguing? That Venezuela was a good example and you have to take our whole conversation into account where I point out that was a very short term result. And how you say Uhhh... what? I'm arguing in favor of a communist revolution, you may not be familiar, but democracy is integral to that. Or are we now going down the path that when you say revolution you just talking generally. If so you need no example because literally every democracy ever has started with a revolution, it is the only way it can happen. Power left or right do not hand over power they consolidate it. Chavez's election is a good example of a revolution leading to a world renown democratic election. I have no interest in arguing beyond Venezuela's 1998 election as one the world should follow when it comes to running legitimate elections (notably more legitimate than the most recent US presidential election). However you want to characterize the ensuing ruling by said leader is irrelevant to the point I was making. As far as your quote from another thread (not this discussion) you raise a valid point. Without revolution we don't have a democracy to save. In all fairness, it's pretty damn easy to organize fair elections if you're hailed as a hero and loved by the people. Democracy isn't under pressure when the ruling party has majority support. The real test is whether that party builds institutions that are capable of guarding the democracy when the party in charge *loses* majority support. Clearly Venezuela is a very bad example of that. Plenty of tin pot dictators started their rule with a majority of the people supporting them. The question isn't how their rule starts, it's how it deals with a transition of power when they face opposition. From Maduro to Lenin, and from Kim Il Sung to Robert Mugabe, the response has been a systematic program of state propaganda, violent suppression of dissenters and other anti-democratic acts aimed at maintaining power. Isn't the bold easily said of the US? I mean that describes the war on drugs (spanning many presidents of both parties) to a T does it not? In case people aren't familiar with why the war on drugs exists: "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." www.cnn.com You won't hear me say anything good about the war on drugs. If you want to argue that the US is not democratic, that is also fine and we can have that discussion. I definitely think it has its flaws. I think most of them are probably not top-down, though. "Flawed" or "not a democracy" it's heading for extinction (of our species) is my overarching point. My main objection in your earlier post wasn't about whether or not the US is currently a democracy, it's the idea of pointing to Venezuela as an example of a revolution leading to democracy. The revolution in Venezuela led to a democracy in about the same sense as the Arabic Spring led to a democracy in Egypt. There's a lot of reasons it went from a world renown democratic election to where it is now, this probably isn't the appropriate venue to discuss but I don't think it's important to the point that revolution is the mother of democracy, not it's antithesis. I know that you proffered this as an example to counter that the idea of a revolution was necessarily anti-democratic. But I think you misconstrued the point made there, which was that a revolution is almost necessarily chaotic, and that implies a loss of control on the part of the revolutionaries (who are definitely not a monolithic group), and the ideals of the revolution may very well get lost in the process and in the worst case lead to a bloody civil war (e.g. the Arabic Spring in Libya or Syria, or for that matter, what is currently happening in Venezuela). It can also be peaceful and lead to an amazing democracy (e.g. the Carnation Revolution in Portugal). But the loss of control and the threat of violence create a situation that can go very wrong very quickly, even with the best intentions of the leaders of the revolution. There are strategies to address these concerns, but you're right that we can't be sure we'll succeed in liberation and preservation of the species, but I balance those concerns against locking in catastrophic climate change in the next decade (which leads to our extinction in the foreseeable future according to the latest science). There are literally children in the streets pleading for their lives to the chagrin of politicians like Dianne Feinstein (D) and yet we're stuck. As a counterpoint I would say that the whole point of a democracy is that you do not need a revolution to start a transition of power. In fact, that is *exactly* why democracy is a strong form of government, because it is meant to allow for a peaceful transition of power according to the will of the people. Which I guess is as good a lead in as any to discuss whether the US is a successful democracy that allows this, or a revolution is the *only* way in which your ideals can be realized?
I agree. One issue is what do we mean when we say "democracy"? I'd say what we have resembles more closely an oligarchy, the campaign finance system/"accountability" system allows absurd levels of corruption, the hopelessness of replacing most of our oligarchs and their minions is a popular refrain, and it's pretty ubiquitously agreed that we're beholden to a two party system incapable of the reforms (just the ones we agree on more or less) in the allotted time. I'd add that the ease with which we "transition power" from one party to the opposition has a lot more to do with their hegemonic commonalities and their corporate owners than the reliability of democracy to transition from opposing powers/interests imo. EDIT: I'd add this (revolution and violent resistance is intrinsic to democracy/liberty) is part of the fabric of the US, exemplified in it's founding days by the quote “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” To put a point on it, even our founders knew a day would come when voting wouldn't be enough. I'm arguing the science says that's today (~40 years ago really, but spilled milk and all) Okay, for starters, there seems to be some confusion (don't think between us, but apparently with nebuchad at least) about the meaning of "revolution". I try to use it in its broadest sense of an "unconstitutional change of power". This can be violent or peaceful, but is not lawful according to the governing laws (it can be moral, though). So if I get this right, your thesis is that such a revolution is needed, because the current system of government is incapable (as demonstrated by the last 40 years, give or take) of adequately addressing problems that *have* to be addressed if we are to survive as a species (not only as a country, but for the good of all humanity). The principal problem is climate change. I would say that climate change is a huge issue, but not actually one that threatens us as a species. It threatens our *society*, and it's possible that political tensions might lead to nuclear war, which could threaten us as a species, but still, humankind is quite unlikely to go extinct because of climate change. Human society as we know it... I'd say quite probably is though.
Definitely society as we know it is ending in the next 100 years. A more drastic difference than we stand from 1919 imo. Not in the flying cars and food replicator way though.
As to our species, your optimism is dependent on surviving ecological collapse on a level that's hard to comprehend.
Human society is in jeopardy from the accelerating decline of the Earth’s natural life-support systems, the world’s leading scientists have warned, as they announced the results of the most thorough planetary health check ever undertaken.
From coral reefs flickering out beneath the oceans to rainforests desiccating into savannahs, nature is being destroyed at a rate tens to hundreds of times higher than the average over the past 10m years, according to the UN global assessment report.
The biomass of wild mammals has fallen by 82%, natural ecosystems have lost about half their area and a million species are at risk of extinction – all largely as a result of human actions, said the study, compiled over three years by more than 450 scientists and diplomats.
www.theguardian.com
I think I've been careful enough to make clear I don't rank our literal extinction as certain but merely our practical extinction reasonably probable based off the available information, but your disagreement seems reasonable enough that should you account in a viable manner for that nuance, I could be swayed.
But insofar as I know your viewpoints, you find our current human society fundamentally unjust. Would it not be better to just muddle along and let whatever violence is the result of climate change happen, rather than precipitate that violence with your own, in order to maintain this fundamentally unjust society?
Not sure exactly what you're asking but I'd say mitigating climate catastrophe and liberation are intrinsically connected and our most important task as humans.
So is it climate change that necessitates a revolution? Or is it the injustices in society? And climate change is just a popular idea that you can piggyback along on (and of course, I don't disagree with you that mitigating (way too late to stop it) climage change is important).
Both and neither. It's our purpose as humans in my view to be more fully human (See: Freire) and that necessitates both liberty and a habitable environment.
The second problem is that you feel there is no transition of power even when it seems superficially that there is. The "democratic government" is a front for the real people with power, and all the members of the US government are beholden to these people with real power. This sounds a lot like a Trumpian deep state, or something straight from a conspiracy theory. Is it possible that, alternatively, the government is actually democratic, but the ideas you have about government are simply in a minority and thus ignored?
"Trumpian deep state" is an effective way to summarily dismiss the notion as the idle prattle of fools but something I think upon examination most people have not just accepted but argued themselves. Rather than refute the notion that institutions operate under their own inertia independent of even Trump it was and often is essentially argued as a benefit of democracy and bureaucracy (happened here recently).
I don't just consider it possible I've thought extensively about the prospect of democracies that are anti-democratic, and/or that use the sociological vulnerabilities of democracy to exploit minorities and marginalized peoples. Also explored the possibility that I'm chicken little, or crying wolf about the pervasive and predominate nature of the problems as I articulate them.
It's only after extensive discussion (people can see it here, I used to be a rather moderate Democrat), research, and experience I've arrived at the conclusions I have. That's not to say I can't be swayed but you seem to be paying attention so you've likely noticed no one is really offering a counterargument (that demonstrates recognition of the position you're objecting to) until you.
Either way, I guess there is a problem in that you do not feel represented by your government, and I guess it is a real question how large a portion of the population feels the same way. Do you think that is a majority of the nation? Or do you think that you are a minority. And if so, why is your revolution just? Why would the people of... Tennessee (to name a random state where the majority of people probably disagrees with everything you want) go along with your ideas? Why are your ideas, fueled by your revolution, a more valid way to rule the country than xDaunt's ideas?
If the majority of the population felt like me, rallying 300k for the armed rebellions Jefferson called necessary to the democracy he helped build, would be as easy as pulling 50k people to a concert. So no, but thinkers/revolutionaries from Marx, to Malcolm, Lenin, to Hampton make a compelling argument for why it's imperative they do. We can expand here if you'd like.
"My revolution" isn't mine, it's the peoples, for the peoples, and of the peoples. It's righteousness is derived from my earlier point on being more fully human, which has entire dissertations written on it and usually isn't welcomed as part of the political discourse but I'd be happy to talk more about that as well.
The why they will listen and how of the revolution isn't mine to determine but I'm willing to share more on my ideas if that's what we want to do. As to why it's better than xDaunt's ideas? I think the best way to demonstrate that would be for an idea to be provided and allow me to critique it and offer an alternative based on the reasoning I've outlined for people to evaluate themselves in reasonably clear light.
|
Barr should be reviewing the intelligence and conduct that preceded the Iraq war if he is not being political. That particular instance of misconduct resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (no exaggeration). The blood of hundreds of thousands of people are on the hands of Bush's intelligence people.
If hes investigating uranium one, He should also be investigating the trump family & China. In both of those cases, the only evidence is proximity in time between financial benefits conferred on the family and the conferrer of benefits having business before the govt.
|
|
|
On May 25 2019 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:
Barr should be reviewing the intelligence and conduct that preceded the Iraq war if he is not being political. That particular instance of misconduct resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (no exaggeration). The blood of hundreds of thousands of people are on the hands of Bush's intelligence people.
If hes investigating uranium one, He should also be investigating the trump family & China. In both of those cases, the only evidence is proximity in time between financial benefits conferred on the family and the conferrer of benefits having business before the govt.
Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore.
What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese.
|
|
|
On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 00:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:
Barr should be reviewing the intelligence and conduct that preceded the Iraq war if he is not being political. That particular instance of misconduct resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (no exaggeration). The blood of hundreds of thousands of people are on the hands of Bush's intelligence people.
If hes investigating uranium one, He should also be investigating the trump family & China. In both of those cases, the only evidence is proximity in time between financial benefits conferred on the family and the conferrer of benefits having business before the govt. Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore. What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese. Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin". It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse.
If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him.
|
On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 25 2019 00:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:
Barr should be reviewing the intelligence and conduct that preceded the Iraq war if he is not being political. That particular instance of misconduct resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (no exaggeration). The blood of hundreds of thousands of people are on the hands of Bush's intelligence people.
If hes investigating uranium one, He should also be investigating the trump family & China. In both of those cases, the only evidence is proximity in time between financial benefits conferred on the family and the conferrer of benefits having business before the govt. Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore. What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese. Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin". It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse. If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him.
What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth?
On the revolution part, no one is going to have a revolution that deals with combat, 50% of the US doesn't even vote. Mind you, I know probably 10-20% of that can't vote yet, but the rest don't even care for politics, you think they're going to care for "revolution"? I don't get why people think others are going to just get up out of their couches and fight some imaginary revolution against the corrupted government who has weapons of mass destruction, and their cops shooting civilians all the time. I can see skirmishes possibly happening if it came to it between the poor people because they have different views, just like the people at top wanted, as always.
The only "revolution" that is going to happen is people voting in more corrupted people until all of our rights are stripped, and the rich can get away with what they want (as if they don't already). The only way to stop it is vote in people who aren't corrupted, good luck with that.
|
On May 25 2019 01:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 25 2019 00:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:
Barr should be reviewing the intelligence and conduct that preceded the Iraq war if he is not being political. That particular instance of misconduct resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (no exaggeration). The blood of hundreds of thousands of people are on the hands of Bush's intelligence people.
If hes investigating uranium one, He should also be investigating the trump family & China. In both of those cases, the only evidence is proximity in time between financial benefits conferred on the family and the conferrer of benefits having business before the govt. Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore. What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese. Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin". It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse. If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him. What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth?
Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. So that’s not really at issue any more. The issue is whether the people investigating Trump are dirty. But yes, if this process that we are about to go through shows a valid predicate for investigating Trump, I’ll accept it and move on.
|
On May 25 2019 01:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 25 2019 00:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:
Barr should be reviewing the intelligence and conduct that preceded the Iraq war if he is not being political. That particular instance of misconduct resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (no exaggeration). The blood of hundreds of thousands of people are on the hands of Bush's intelligence people.
If hes investigating uranium one, He should also be investigating the trump family & China. In both of those cases, the only evidence is proximity in time between financial benefits conferred on the family and the conferrer of benefits having business before the govt. Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore. What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese. Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin". It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse. If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him. What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth? On the revolution part, no one is going to have a revolution that deals with combat, 50% of the US doesn't even vote. Mind you, I know probably 10-20% of that can't vote yet, but the rest don't even care for politics, you think they're going to care for "revolution"? I don't get why people think others are going to just get up out of their couches and fight some imaginary revolution against the corrupted government who has weapons of mass destruction, and their cops shooting civilians all the time. I can see skirmishes possibly happening if it came to it between the poor people because they have different views, just like the people at top wanted, as always. The only "revolution" that is going to happen is people voting in more corrupted people until all of our rights are stripped, and the rich can get away with what they want (as if they don't already). The only way to stop it is vote in people who aren't corrupted, good luck with that.
Fair to put you essentially in agreement with Kwark's position?
On April 25 2019 09:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 08:53 JimmiC wrote:
This feels a lot like Deja vu. So if we are going to go over it again, GH can you explain what it is exactly that you would want. Both from a revolution stand point and from a future government stand point. And also what you personally are doing to effect this change? I can think of many reasons why this is the wrong questions to ask, but so that people understand the point I'm arguing let me be clear. The outcome of a revolution or even feasibility of it is largely irrelevant to it's necessity. The apt question here is imo: without revolution, what happens? To which I say unmanaged climate catastrophe on a global scale. What say objectors to revolution? That when the day comes it’ll be the people you’re trying to help hitting you with batons because they’re more afraid of becoming you than what you’re trying to save them from. I’m not unsympathetic, I’m disillusioned.
On April 25 2019 10:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 10:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So what now Kwark? How are the lower classes supposed to get the wealth of the upper classes? If virtue isn't enough because it is tainted by the means, then what is the solution? I have no solutions. Get as much as you can as quickly as possible because the crisis GH warns us of is coming and you don’t want to be the first ones fucked.
|
On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 01:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 25 2019 00:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:
Barr should be reviewing the intelligence and conduct that preceded the Iraq war if he is not being political. That particular instance of misconduct resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (no exaggeration). The blood of hundreds of thousands of people are on the hands of Bush's intelligence people.
If hes investigating uranium one, He should also be investigating the trump family & China. In both of those cases, the only evidence is proximity in time between financial benefits conferred on the family and the conferrer of benefits having business before the govt. Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore. What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese. Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin". It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse. If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him. What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth? Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. So that’s not really at issue any more. The issue is whether the people investigating Trump are dirty. But yes, if this process that we are about to go through shows a valid predicate for investigating Trump, I’ll accept it and move on.
What's the valid predicate for investigating the people investigating Trump? Where's the crime?
|
United States42247 Posts
On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 01:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 25 2019 00:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:
Barr should be reviewing the intelligence and conduct that preceded the Iraq war if he is not being political. That particular instance of misconduct resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (no exaggeration). The blood of hundreds of thousands of people are on the hands of Bush's intelligence people.
If hes investigating uranium one, He should also be investigating the trump family & China. In both of those cases, the only evidence is proximity in time between financial benefits conferred on the family and the conferrer of benefits having business before the govt. Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore. What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese. Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin". It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse. If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him. What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth? Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. So that’s not really at issue any more. The issue is whether the people investigating Trump are dirty. But yes, if this process that we are about to go through shows a valid predicate for investigating Trump, I’ll accept it and move on.
It didn’t though. It said that if he wasn’t the president they’d have recommended charges.
|
On May 25 2019 01:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 01:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 25 2019 00:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:
Barr should be reviewing the intelligence and conduct that preceded the Iraq war if he is not being political. That particular instance of misconduct resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (no exaggeration). The blood of hundreds of thousands of people are on the hands of Bush's intelligence people.
If hes investigating uranium one, He should also be investigating the trump family & China. In both of those cases, the only evidence is proximity in time between financial benefits conferred on the family and the conferrer of benefits having business before the govt. Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore. What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese. Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin". It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse. If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him. What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth? Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. So that’s not really at issue any more. The issue is whether the people investigating Trump are dirty. But yes, if this process that we are about to go through shows a valid predicate for investigating Trump, I’ll accept it and move on. It didn’t though. It said that if he wasn’t the president they’d have recommended charges.
Any chance we can avoid rehashing this by agreeing that rather than use "exonerate" we should just use something to the effect of "Mueller deferred to a congress that can't/won't impress any consequences".
|
On May 24 2019 23:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 22:41 Acrofales wrote:On May 24 2019 21:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 20:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 24 2019 19:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 14:56 Artisreal wrote:On May 24 2019 08:29 Velr wrote:
Yeah, because you like to bash everything, glory to the revolution whiteout a solution. Gogogo.
Seriously, your the worst of the lot.There is a reason most grown ups don't spout the revolution bullshit, i'm sure you will one day arrive at that point. Gh points to many unsolved problems. the nature of them being unsolved involves thinking out of the box. the lightbulb wasnt invented through continuous development of the candle. Without a radical overhaul of how many of us think, we won't solve the problems we face. Climate change and the Conservative positions in the US regarding it are a clear sign for that. It's delusional to think we can continue the trodden paths I have to say that this thread doesn't make me very optimistic folks are ready for even a fraction of the changes necessary. I'm not giving up on em yet though Kwark On May 24 2019 18:11 Acrofales wrote:On May 24 2019 12:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 12:14 JimmiC wrote:On May 24 2019 12:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 11:58 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
You've moved the goalposts, Im sure by accident. We were talking about democracy and communism working together. I obviously agree that revolution is required for democracy, this is why I have supported the Venezualan attempt at revolution after their democracy was stolen from them.
I didn't move anything it was literally my opening line. Revolutions and democracy aren't exclusive concepts. But if: I obviously agree that revolution is required for democracy I don't understand what exactly you're arguing? That Venezuela was a good example and you have to take our whole conversation into account where I point out that was a very short term result. And how you say Uhhh... what? I'm arguing in favor of a communist revolution, you may not be familiar, but democracy is integral to that. Or are we now going down the path that when you say revolution you just talking generally. If so you need no example because literally every democracy ever has started with a revolution, it is the only way it can happen. Power left or right do not hand over power they consolidate it. Chavez's election is a good example of a revolution leading to a world renown democratic election. I have no interest in arguing beyond Venezuela's 1998 election as one the world should follow when it comes to running legitimate elections (notably more legitimate than the most recent US presidential election). However you want to characterize the ensuing ruling by said leader is irrelevant to the point I was making. As far as your quote from another thread (not this discussion) you raise a valid point. Without revolution we don't have a democracy to save. In all fairness, it's pretty damn easy to organize fair elections if you're hailed as a hero and loved by the people. Democracy isn't under pressure when the ruling party has majority support. The real test is whether that party builds institutions that are capable of guarding the democracy when the party in charge *loses* majority support. Clearly Venezuela is a very bad example of that. Plenty of tin pot dictators started their rule with a majority of the people supporting them. The question isn't how their rule starts, it's how it deals with a transition of power when they face opposition. From Maduro to Lenin, and from Kim Il Sung to Robert Mugabe, the response has been a systematic program of state propaganda, violent suppression of dissenters and other anti-democratic acts aimed at maintaining power. Isn't the bold easily said of the US? I mean that describes the war on drugs (spanning many presidents of both parties) to a T does it not? In case people aren't familiar with why the war on drugs exists: "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." www.cnn.com You won't hear me say anything good about the war on drugs. If you want to argue that the US is not democratic, that is also fine and we can have that discussion. I definitely think it has its flaws. I think most of them are probably not top-down, though. "Flawed" or "not a democracy" it's heading for extinction (of our species) is my overarching point. My main objection in your earlier post wasn't about whether or not the US is currently a democracy, it's the idea of pointing to Venezuela as an example of a revolution leading to democracy. The revolution in Venezuela led to a democracy in about the same sense as the Arabic Spring led to a democracy in Egypt. There's a lot of reasons it went from a world renown democratic election to where it is now, this probably isn't the appropriate venue to discuss but I don't think it's important to the point that revolution is the mother of democracy, not it's antithesis. I know that you proffered this as an example to counter that the idea of a revolution was necessarily anti-democratic. But I think you misconstrued the point made there, which was that a revolution is almost necessarily chaotic, and that implies a loss of control on the part of the revolutionaries (who are definitely not a monolithic group), and the ideals of the revolution may very well get lost in the process and in the worst case lead to a bloody civil war (e.g. the Arabic Spring in Libya or Syria, or for that matter, what is currently happening in Venezuela). It can also be peaceful and lead to an amazing democracy (e.g. the Carnation Revolution in Portugal). But the loss of control and the threat of violence create a situation that can go very wrong very quickly, even with the best intentions of the leaders of the revolution. There are strategies to address these concerns, but you're right that we can't be sure we'll succeed in liberation and preservation of the species, but I balance those concerns against locking in catastrophic climate change in the next decade (which leads to our extinction in the foreseeable future according to the latest science). There are literally children in the streets pleading for their lives to the chagrin of politicians like Dianne Feinstein (D) and yet we're stuck. As a counterpoint I would say that the whole point of a democracy is that you do not need a revolution to start a transition of power. In fact, that is *exactly* why democracy is a strong form of government, because it is meant to allow for a peaceful transition of power according to the will of the people. Which I guess is as good a lead in as any to discuss whether the US is a successful democracy that allows this, or a revolution is the *only* way in which your ideals can be realized?
I agree. One issue is what do we mean when we say "democracy"? I'd say what we have resembles more closely an oligarchy, the campaign finance system/"accountability" system allows absurd levels of corruption, the hopelessness of replacing most of our oligarchs and their minions is a popular refrain, and it's pretty ubiquitously agreed that we're beholden to a two party system incapable of the reforms (just the ones we agree on more or less) in the allotted time. I'd add that the ease with which we "transition power" from one party to the opposition has a lot more to do with their hegemonic commonalities and their corporate owners than the reliability of democracy to transition from opposing powers/interests imo. EDIT: I'd add this (revolution and violent resistance is intrinsic to democracy/liberty) is part of the fabric of the US, exemplified in it's founding days by the quote “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” To put a point on it, even our founders knew a day would come when voting wouldn't be enough. I'm arguing the science says that's today (~40 years ago really, but spilled milk and all) Okay, for starters, there seems to be some confusion (don't think between us, but apparently with nebuchad at least) about the meaning of "revolution". I try to use it in its broadest sense of an "unconstitutional change of power". This can be violent or peaceful, but is not lawful according to the governing laws (it can be moral, though). So if I get this right, your thesis is that such a revolution is needed, because the current system of government is incapable (as demonstrated by the last 40 years, give or take) of adequately addressing problems that *have* to be addressed if we are to survive as a species (not only as a country, but for the good of all humanity). The principal problem is climate change. I would say that climate change is a huge issue, but not actually one that threatens us as a species. It threatens our *society*, and it's possible that political tensions might lead to nuclear war, which could threaten us as a species, but still, humankind is quite unlikely to go extinct because of climate change. Human society as we know it... I'd say quite probably is though. Definitely society as we know it is ending in the next 100 years. A more drastic difference than we stand from 1919 imo. Not in the flying cars and food replicator way though. As to our species, your optimism is dependent on surviving ecological collapse on a level that's hard to comprehend. Show nested quote +Human society is in jeopardy from the accelerating decline of the Earth’s natural life-support systems, the world’s leading scientists have warned, as they announced the results of the most thorough planetary health check ever undertaken.
From coral reefs flickering out beneath the oceans to rainforests desiccating into savannahs, nature is being destroyed at a rate tens to hundreds of times higher than the average over the past 10m years, according to the UN global assessment report.
The biomass of wild mammals has fallen by 82%, natural ecosystems have lost about half their area and a million species are at risk of extinction – all largely as a result of human actions, said the study, compiled over three years by more than 450 scientists and diplomats. www.theguardian.comI think I've been careful enough to make clear I don't rank our literal extinction as certain but merely our practical extinction reasonably probable based off the available information, but your disagreement seems reasonable enough that should you account in a viable manner for that nuance, I could be swayed. Show nested quote +But insofar as I know your viewpoints, you find our current human society fundamentally unjust. Would it not be better to just muddle along and let whatever violence is the result of climate change happen, rather than precipitate that violence with your own, in order to maintain this fundamentally unjust society? Not sure exactly what you're asking but I'd say mitigating climate catastrophe and liberation are intrinsically connected and our most important task as humans. Show nested quote +So is it climate change that necessitates a revolution? Or is it the injustices in society? And climate change is just a popular idea that you can piggyback along on (and of course, I don't disagree with you that mitigating (way too late to stop it) climage change is important).
Both and neither. It's our purpose as humans in my view to be more fully human (See: Freire) and that necessitates both liberty and a habitable environment.
I am not well read in these ideas. I did read the article you linked, at least diagonally, and a bit more about what it means to be more fully human. I don't really see how this idea is connected to climate change. In fact, at least in Freire's formulation, to be very much linked with class struggle and oppression. I'd like you to elaborate on this.
Or do you mean that you could use a revolution to affect changes in everything. from how we structure society to how we deal with waste, emissions, etc.?
The second problem is that you feel there is no transition of power even when it seems superficially that there is. The "democratic government" is a front for the real people with power, and all the members of the US government are beholden to these people with real power. This sounds a lot like a Trumpian deep state, or something straight from a conspiracy theory. Is it possible that, alternatively, the government is actually democratic, but the ideas you have about government are simply in a minority and thus ignored?
"Trumpian deep state" is an effective way to summarily dismiss the notion as the idle prattle of fools but something I think upon examination most people have not just accepted but argued themselves. Rather than refute the notion that institutions operate under their own inertia independent of even Trump it was and often is essentially argued as a benefit of democracy and bureaucracy (happened here recently).
Is it inertia? Or is it a hidden power (oligarchy)? I would say those are two different problems that require different solutions. I probably started this confusion by invoking "Trumpian deep state", which is more alike to inertia, whereas you explicitly mentioned oligarchy.
I think inertia is inherent in any large institution. You simply have people who have been doing something one way for a long time, and it isn't easy to change people to now do something a different way. Sure, you could simply replace them and train people to now do something a different way, but that takes time, effort and money... and probably you simply can't find the people willing to do that every time you want to change something.
I don't just consider it possible I've thought extensively about the prospect of democracies that are anti-democratic, and/or that use the sociological vulnerabilities of democracy to exploit minorities and marginalized peoples. Also explored the possibility that I'm chicken little, or crying wolf about the pervasive and predominate nature of the problems as I articulate them. It's only after extensive discussion (people can see it here, I used to be a rather moderate Democrat), research, and experience I've arrived at the conclusions I have. That's not to say I can't be swayed but you seem to be paying attention so you've likely noticed no one is really offering a counterargument (that demonstrates recognition of the position you're objecting to) until you. Show nested quote +Either way, I guess there is a problem in that you do not feel represented by your government, and I guess it is a real question how large a portion of the population feels the same way. Do you think that is a majority of the nation? Or do you think that you are a minority. And if so, why is your revolution just? Why would the people of... Tennessee (to name a random state where the majority of people probably disagrees with everything you want) go along with your ideas? Why are your ideas, fueled by your revolution, a more valid way to rule the country than xDaunt's ideas? If the majority of the population felt like me, rallying 300k for the armed rebellions Jefferson called necessary to the democracy he helped build, would be as easy as pulling 50k people to a concert. So no, but thinkers/revolutionaries from Marx, to Malcolm, Lenin, to Hampton make a compelling argument for why it's imperative they do. We can expand here if you'd like.
The little bit I read about Freire referred to him as a neo-Marxist. It's worth noting that the places that claimed to be executing Marxist revolutions ended with atrocities of dehumanization. How will a neo-Marxist revolution avoid these pitfalls. Insofar as I understand Freire, he feels it is a job of education, and he was primarily a pedagogist, not a revolutionary. His ideas seem to center around educating people differently, rather than overthrowing government. Maybe the overthrowing government comes *after* but in that case the legwork has not yet been done. How do we ensure that the revolution leads to a fuller realization of humanity rather than simply another iteration of oppression?
"My revolution" isn't mine, it's the peoples, for the peoples, and of the peoples. It's righteousness is derived from my earlier point on being more fully human, which has entire dissertations written on it and usually isn't welcomed as part of the political discourse but I'd be happy to talk more about that as well.
You probably need to for me (and others) to understand more fully what you actually think should happen.
The why they will listen and how of the revolution isn't mine to determine but I'm willing to share more on my ideas if that's what we want to do. As to why it's better than xDaunt's ideas? I think the best way to demonstrate that would be for an idea to be provided and allow me to critique it and offer an alternative based on the reasoning I've outlined for people to evaluate themselves in reasonably clear light.
I don't want to put words in xDaunt's mouth, but my understanding is that he:
1) doesn't believe climate change is a problem, and
2) even if it is, we should just deal with the consequences rather than deal with the source, as dealing with the source requires international collaboration that he doesn't believe is in the US's best interest.
So lets start with that? 
|
On May 25 2019 01:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 01:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 25 2019 00:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:
Barr should be reviewing the intelligence and conduct that preceded the Iraq war if he is not being political. That particular instance of misconduct resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (no exaggeration). The blood of hundreds of thousands of people are on the hands of Bush's intelligence people.
If hes investigating uranium one, He should also be investigating the trump family & China. In both of those cases, the only evidence is proximity in time between financial benefits conferred on the family and the conferrer of benefits having business before the govt. Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore. What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese. Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin". It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse. If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him. What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth? Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. So that’s not really at issue any more. The issue is whether the people investigating Trump are dirty. But yes, if this process that we are about to go through shows a valid predicate for investigating Trump, I’ll accept it and move on. It didn’t though. It said that if he wasn’t the president they’d have recommended charges.
Did it say that explicitly? Can you provide a quotation?
|
United States42247 Posts
On May 25 2019 01:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 01:30 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 01:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 25 2019 00:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:
Barr should be reviewing the intelligence and conduct that preceded the Iraq war if he is not being political. That particular instance of misconduct resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (no exaggeration). The blood of hundreds of thousands of people are on the hands of Bush's intelligence people.
If hes investigating uranium one, He should also be investigating the trump family & China. In both of those cases, the only evidence is proximity in time between financial benefits conferred on the family and the conferrer of benefits having business before the govt. Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore. What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese. Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin". It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse. If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him. What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth? Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. So that’s not really at issue any more. The issue is whether the people investigating Trump are dirty. But yes, if this process that we are about to go through shows a valid predicate for investigating Trump, I’ll accept it and move on. It didn’t though. It said that if he wasn’t the president they’d have recommended charges. Any chance we can avoid rehashing this by agreeing that rather than use "exonerate" we should just use something to the effect of "Mueller deferred to a congress that can't/won't impress any consequences".
That would require a basic level of honesty from xDaunt. So no, I don’t think we can. Right now he’s working from a different set of facts. His sources include alternative (non) facts and ideas such as non (actual) crimes. He’s pushing conspiracy theories and refusing to acknowledge the established facts of reality such as “Trump stole money from his Foundation”.
Regretfully pretty much every xDaunt posts requires the immediate response of “liar”. I would much rather he stop lying but if he cannot bring himself to do so it is necessary to call out his lies. The current strategy of the Trumpers is to lie so often and with such brazen disregard for facts that people’s assumptions about the dignity of office, professionalism, and just general human decency cause some of the lies to be accepted.
|
United States42247 Posts
On May 25 2019 01:37 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 01:30 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 01:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 25 2019 00:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:
Barr should be reviewing the intelligence and conduct that preceded the Iraq war if he is not being political. That particular instance of misconduct resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (no exaggeration). The blood of hundreds of thousands of people are on the hands of Bush's intelligence people.
If hes investigating uranium one, He should also be investigating the trump family & China. In both of those cases, the only evidence is proximity in time between financial benefits conferred on the family and the conferrer of benefits having business before the govt. Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore. What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese. Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin". It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse. If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him. What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth? Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. So that’s not really at issue any more. The issue is whether the people investigating Trump are dirty. But yes, if this process that we are about to go through shows a valid predicate for investigating Trump, I’ll accept it and move on. It didn’t though. It said that if he wasn’t the president they’d have recommended charges. Did it say that explicitly? Can you provide a quotation?
Yes and yes.
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the
constitutional separation of powers."1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising
prosecutorialjurisdiction.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.
Or, to get to the heart of calling xDaunt a liar.
xDaunt:
Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump
Literal text of the Mueller report:
Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
It's absolutely disgraceful that xDaunt thinks that he can tells these lies about a report that specifically addresses whether it exonerates the President and states, in absolutely certain terms, that it does not. There has to be some level of decorum to any discussion for it to work.
|
On May 25 2019 01:27 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 01:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 25 2019 00:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:
Barr should be reviewing the intelligence and conduct that preceded the Iraq war if he is not being political. That particular instance of misconduct resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (no exaggeration). The blood of hundreds of thousands of people are on the hands of Bush's intelligence people.
If hes investigating uranium one, He should also be investigating the trump family & China. In both of those cases, the only evidence is proximity in time between financial benefits conferred on the family and the conferrer of benefits having business before the govt. Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore. What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese. Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin". It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse. If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him. What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth? Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. So that’s not really at issue any more. The issue is whether the people investigating Trump are dirty. But yes, if this process that we are about to go through shows a valid predicate for investigating Trump, I’ll accept it and move on. What's the valid predicate for investigating the people investigating Trump? Where's the crime?
A few that come to mind immediately are criminal conspiracy to defraud a court, criminal conspiracy to conduct unlawful surveillance, perjury, etc. Just start with the Carter Page FISA warrant. There's ample evidence to investigate what the FBI was doing when it made that application.
|
On May 25 2019 01:37 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 01:30 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 01:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 25 2019 00:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:
Barr should be reviewing the intelligence and conduct that preceded the Iraq war if he is not being political. That particular instance of misconduct resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (no exaggeration). The blood of hundreds of thousands of people are on the hands of Bush's intelligence people.
If hes investigating uranium one, He should also be investigating the trump family & China. In both of those cases, the only evidence is proximity in time between financial benefits conferred on the family and the conferrer of benefits having business before the govt. Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore. What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese. Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin". It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse. If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him. What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth? Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. So that’s not really at issue any more. The issue is whether the people investigating Trump are dirty. But yes, if this process that we are about to go through shows a valid predicate for investigating Trump, I’ll accept it and move on. It didn’t though. It said that if he wasn’t the president they’d have recommended charges. Did it say that explicitly? Can you provide a quotation?
The report explicitly exonerates Trump on the Russia collusion stuff but refuses to explicitly exonerate him on the obstruction charge. I've already explained in detail the sleight of hand that Mueller used when discussing the obstruction charge, so I'm not going to repeat it here. What matters, and why I say that Trump was exonerated on this charge anyway, is that Mueller did not conclude that there was sufficient evidence of a chargeable crime of obstruction. That's the bottom line. What I believe declassification is going to show is that the investigation of the Russia stuff was never validly predicated to begin with and was all an attempt to set up Trump for obstruction of justice. So to that extent, one could argue that there is still some exoneration that has yet to occur.
|
On May 25 2019 01:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 23:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 22:41 Acrofales wrote:On May 24 2019 21:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 20:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 24 2019 19:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 14:56 Artisreal wrote:On May 24 2019 08:29 Velr wrote:
Yeah, because you like to bash everything, glory to the revolution whiteout a solution. Gogogo.
Seriously, your the worst of the lot.There is a reason most grown ups don't spout the revolution bullshit, i'm sure you will one day arrive at that point. Gh points to many unsolved problems. the nature of them being unsolved involves thinking out of the box. the lightbulb wasnt invented through continuous development of the candle. Without a radical overhaul of how many of us think, we won't solve the problems we face. Climate change and the Conservative positions in the US regarding it are a clear sign for that. It's delusional to think we can continue the trodden paths I have to say that this thread doesn't make me very optimistic folks are ready for even a fraction of the changes necessary. I'm not giving up on em yet though Kwark On May 24 2019 18:11 Acrofales wrote:On May 24 2019 12:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 12:14 JimmiC wrote:On May 24 2019 12:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I didn't move anything it was literally my opening line.
[quote]
But if:
[quote]
I don't understand what exactly you're arguing? That Venezuela was a good example and you have to take our whole conversation into account where I point out that was a very short term result. And how you say Uhhh... what? I'm arguing in favor of a communist revolution, you may not be familiar, but democracy is integral to that. Or are we now going down the path that when you say revolution you just talking generally. If so you need no example because literally every democracy ever has started with a revolution, it is the only way it can happen. Power left or right do not hand over power they consolidate it. Chavez's election is a good example of a revolution leading to a world renown democratic election. I have no interest in arguing beyond Venezuela's 1998 election as one the world should follow when it comes to running legitimate elections (notably more legitimate than the most recent US presidential election). However you want to characterize the ensuing ruling by said leader is irrelevant to the point I was making. As far as your quote from another thread (not this discussion) you raise a valid point. Without revolution we don't have a democracy to save. In all fairness, it's pretty damn easy to organize fair elections if you're hailed as a hero and loved by the people. Democracy isn't under pressure when the ruling party has majority support. The real test is whether that party builds institutions that are capable of guarding the democracy when the party in charge *loses* majority support. Clearly Venezuela is a very bad example of that. Plenty of tin pot dictators started their rule with a majority of the people supporting them. The question isn't how their rule starts, it's how it deals with a transition of power when they face opposition. From Maduro to Lenin, and from Kim Il Sung to Robert Mugabe, the response has been a systematic program of state propaganda, violent suppression of dissenters and other anti-democratic acts aimed at maintaining power. Isn't the bold easily said of the US? I mean that describes the war on drugs (spanning many presidents of both parties) to a T does it not? In case people aren't familiar with why the war on drugs exists: "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." www.cnn.com You won't hear me say anything good about the war on drugs. If you want to argue that the US is not democratic, that is also fine and we can have that discussion. I definitely think it has its flaws. I think most of them are probably not top-down, though. "Flawed" or "not a democracy" it's heading for extinction (of our species) is my overarching point. My main objection in your earlier post wasn't about whether or not the US is currently a democracy, it's the idea of pointing to Venezuela as an example of a revolution leading to democracy. The revolution in Venezuela led to a democracy in about the same sense as the Arabic Spring led to a democracy in Egypt. There's a lot of reasons it went from a world renown democratic election to where it is now, this probably isn't the appropriate venue to discuss but I don't think it's important to the point that revolution is the mother of democracy, not it's antithesis. I know that you proffered this as an example to counter that the idea of a revolution was necessarily anti-democratic. But I think you misconstrued the point made there, which was that a revolution is almost necessarily chaotic, and that implies a loss of control on the part of the revolutionaries (who are definitely not a monolithic group), and the ideals of the revolution may very well get lost in the process and in the worst case lead to a bloody civil war (e.g. the Arabic Spring in Libya or Syria, or for that matter, what is currently happening in Venezuela). It can also be peaceful and lead to an amazing democracy (e.g. the Carnation Revolution in Portugal). But the loss of control and the threat of violence create a situation that can go very wrong very quickly, even with the best intentions of the leaders of the revolution. There are strategies to address these concerns, but you're right that we can't be sure we'll succeed in liberation and preservation of the species, but I balance those concerns against locking in catastrophic climate change in the next decade (which leads to our extinction in the foreseeable future according to the latest science). There are literally children in the streets pleading for their lives to the chagrin of politicians like Dianne Feinstein (D) and yet we're stuck. As a counterpoint I would say that the whole point of a democracy is that you do not need a revolution to start a transition of power. In fact, that is *exactly* why democracy is a strong form of government, because it is meant to allow for a peaceful transition of power according to the will of the people. Which I guess is as good a lead in as any to discuss whether the US is a successful democracy that allows this, or a revolution is the *only* way in which your ideals can be realized?
I agree. One issue is what do we mean when we say "democracy"? I'd say what we have resembles more closely an oligarchy, the campaign finance system/"accountability" system allows absurd levels of corruption, the hopelessness of replacing most of our oligarchs and their minions is a popular refrain, and it's pretty ubiquitously agreed that we're beholden to a two party system incapable of the reforms (just the ones we agree on more or less) in the allotted time. I'd add that the ease with which we "transition power" from one party to the opposition has a lot more to do with their hegemonic commonalities and their corporate owners than the reliability of democracy to transition from opposing powers/interests imo. EDIT: I'd add this (revolution and violent resistance is intrinsic to democracy/liberty) is part of the fabric of the US, exemplified in it's founding days by the quote “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” To put a point on it, even our founders knew a day would come when voting wouldn't be enough. I'm arguing the science says that's today (~40 years ago really, but spilled milk and all) Okay, for starters, there seems to be some confusion (don't think between us, but apparently with nebuchad at least) about the meaning of "revolution". I try to use it in its broadest sense of an "unconstitutional change of power". This can be violent or peaceful, but is not lawful according to the governing laws (it can be moral, though). So if I get this right, your thesis is that such a revolution is needed, because the current system of government is incapable (as demonstrated by the last 40 years, give or take) of adequately addressing problems that *have* to be addressed if we are to survive as a species (not only as a country, but for the good of all humanity). The principal problem is climate change. I would say that climate change is a huge issue, but not actually one that threatens us as a species. It threatens our *society*, and it's possible that political tensions might lead to nuclear war, which could threaten us as a species, but still, humankind is quite unlikely to go extinct because of climate change. Human society as we know it... I'd say quite probably is though. Definitely society as we know it is ending in the next 100 years. A more drastic difference than we stand from 1919 imo. Not in the flying cars and food replicator way though. As to our species, your optimism is dependent on surviving ecological collapse on a level that's hard to comprehend. Human society is in jeopardy from the accelerating decline of the Earth’s natural life-support systems, the world’s leading scientists have warned, as they announced the results of the most thorough planetary health check ever undertaken.
From coral reefs flickering out beneath the oceans to rainforests desiccating into savannahs, nature is being destroyed at a rate tens to hundreds of times higher than the average over the past 10m years, according to the UN global assessment report.
The biomass of wild mammals has fallen by 82%, natural ecosystems have lost about half their area and a million species are at risk of extinction – all largely as a result of human actions, said the study, compiled over three years by more than 450 scientists and diplomats. www.theguardian.comI think I've been careful enough to make clear I don't rank our literal extinction as certain but merely our practical extinction reasonably probable based off the available information, but your disagreement seems reasonable enough that should you account in a viable manner for that nuance, I could be swayed. But insofar as I know your viewpoints, you find our current human society fundamentally unjust. Would it not be better to just muddle along and let whatever violence is the result of climate change happen, rather than precipitate that violence with your own, in order to maintain this fundamentally unjust society? Not sure exactly what you're asking but I'd say mitigating climate catastrophe and liberation are intrinsically connected and our most important task as humans. So is it climate change that necessitates a revolution? Or is it the injustices in society? And climate change is just a popular idea that you can piggyback along on (and of course, I don't disagree with you that mitigating (way too late to stop it) climage change is important).
Both and neither. It's our purpose as humans in my view to be more fully human (See: Freire) and that necessitates both liberty and a habitable environment. I am not well read in these ideas. I did read the article you linked, at least diagonally, and a bit more about what it means to be more fully human. I don't really see how this idea is connected to climate change. In fact, at least in Freire's formulation, to be very much linked with class struggle and oppression. I'd like you to elaborate on this. Or do you mean that you could use a revolution to affect changes in everything. from how we structure society to how we deal with waste, emissions, etc.?
Mostly the bold part. Freire comes out of Brazil and some context (historical, and contemporary) that may help you make the connections (that is my hope anyway).
In 1961, he was appointed director of the Department of Cultural Extension at the University of Recife. In 1962, he had the first opportunity for large-scale application of his theories, when, in an experiment, 300 sugarcane harvesters were taught to read and write in just 45 days. In response to this experiment, the Brazilian government approved the creation of thousands of cultural circles[clarification needed] across the country.[citation needed]
The 1964 Brazilian coup d'état put an end to Freire's literacy effort, as the ruling military junta did not endorse it. Freire was subsequently imprisoned as a traitor for 70 days. After a brief exile in Bolivia, Freire worked in Chile for five years for the Christian Democratic Agrarian Reform Movement and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. In 1967, Freire published his first book, Education as the Practice of Freedom. He followed it with his most famous work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, first published in 1968.
en.wikipedia.org
Now contemporary:
There are precious few details from the Bolsonaro administration regarding education known to the public, but one of them calls attention: the plan to wipe the name Paulo Freire from all Brazilian schools.
The commonality being the threat Freire's teaching pose to military authoritarian fascists. No revolution can be truely and enduringly successful without implementing the pedagogical teachings of Freire (and others in a similar light) and fascists know it imo.
+ Show Spoiler +The second problem is that you feel there is no transition of power even when it seems superficially that there is. The "democratic government" is a front for the real people with power, and all the members of the US government are beholden to these people with real power. This sounds a lot like a Trumpian deep state, or something straight from a conspiracy theory. Is it possible that, alternatively, the government is actually democratic, but the ideas you have about government are simply in a minority and thus ignored? Show nested quote +"Trumpian deep state" is an effective way to summarily dismiss the notion as the idle prattle of fools but something I think upon examination most people have not just accepted but argued themselves. Rather than refute the notion that institutions operate under their own inertia independent of even Trump it was and often is essentially argued as a benefit of democracy and bureaucracy (happened here recently).
Is it inertia? Or is it a hidden power (oligarchy)? I would say those are two different problems that require different solutions. I probably started this confusion by invoking "Trumpian deep state", which is more alike to inertia, whereas you explicitly mentioned oligarchy. I think inertia is inherent in any large institution. You simply have people who have been doing something one way for a long time, and it isn't easy to change people to now do something a different way. Sure, you could simply replace them and train people to now do something a different way, but that takes time, effort and money... and probably you simply can't find the people willing to do that every time you want to change something. It's both, the inertia wasn't set into motion by gnomes or dwarven machinations, it was people, powerful people. Fixing it is hard, people on this page make the argument it's hopeless, I think revolution offers us hope, not a guarantee. However, refusing revolution does offer a rather morbid guarantee of it's own. Show nested quote +I don't just consider it possible I've thought extensively about the prospect of democracies that are anti-democratic, and/or that use the sociological vulnerabilities of democracy to exploit minorities and marginalized peoples. Also explored the possibility that I'm chicken little, or crying wolf about the pervasive and predominate nature of the problems as I articulate them. It's only after extensive discussion (people can see it here, I used to be a rather moderate Democrat), research, and experience I've arrived at the conclusions I have. That's not to say I can't be swayed but you seem to be paying attention so you've likely noticed no one is really offering a counterargument (that demonstrates recognition of the position you're objecting to) until you. Either way, I guess there is a problem in that you do not feel represented by your government, and I guess it is a real question how large a portion of the population feels the same way. Do you think that is a majority of the nation? Or do you think that you are a minority. And if so, why is your revolution just? Why would the people of... Tennessee (to name a random state where the majority of people probably disagrees with everything you want) go along with your ideas? Why are your ideas, fueled by your revolution, a more valid way to rule the country than xDaunt's ideas? If the majority of the population felt like me, rallying 300k for the armed rebellions Jefferson called necessary to the democracy he helped build, would be as easy as pulling 50k people to a concert. So no, but thinkers/revolutionaries from Marx, to Malcolm, Lenin, to Hampton make a compelling argument for why it's imperative they do. We can expand here if you'd like. The little bit I read about Freire referred to him as a neo-Marxist. It's worth noting that the places that claimed to be executing Marxist revolutions ended with atrocities of dehumanization. How will a neo-Marxist revolution avoid these pitfalls. Insofar as I understand Freire, he feels it is a job of education, and he was primarily a pedagogist, not a revolutionary. His ideas seem to center around educating people differently, rather than overthrowing government. Maybe the overthrowing government comes *after* but in that case the legwork has not yet been done. How do we ensure that the revolution leads to a fuller realization of humanity rather than simply another iteration of oppression? Scares me to think what you might have read but he was certainly influenced by Marx, I don't know if "neo-marxist" is an appropriate term or mentioning that "Marxist revolutions failing" has much value without context. Pedagogy/education and revolution are intrinsically connected as well. I think Hampton articulates it particularly well here in this short clip on the importance of education to the revolution. + Show Spoiler +We have lots of work to do, but that's why I'm here (and elsewhere) saying what I am. Show nested quote +
"My revolution" isn't mine, it's the peoples, for the peoples, and of the peoples. It's righteousness is derived from my earlier point on being more fully human, which has entire dissertations written on it and usually isn't welcomed as part of the political discourse but I'd be happy to talk more about that as well.
You probably need to for me (and others) to understand more fully what you actually think should happen. I can point folks towards reading lists, podcasts, videos, etc...I'm willing to discuss my ideas (not under the presumption I speak for the revolution though), but if they want to know they have to engage like you have so that fruitful dialogue is possible. Show nested quote +
The why they will listen and how of the revolution isn't mine to determine but I'm willing to share more on my ideas if that's what we want to do. As to why it's better than xDaunt's ideas? I think the best way to demonstrate that would be for an idea to be provided and allow me to critique it and offer an alternative based on the reasoning I've outlined for people to evaluate themselves in reasonably clear light.
I don't want to put words in xDaunt's mouth, but my understanding is that he: 1) doesn't believe climate change is a problem, and 2) even if it is, we should just deal with the consequences rather than deal with the source, as dealing with the source requires international collaboration that he doesn't believe is in the US's best interest. So lets start with that? Uhh.. Who am I trying to convince?
On May 25 2019 01:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 01:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 01:30 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 01:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 25 2019 00:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:
Barr should be reviewing the intelligence and conduct that preceded the Iraq war if he is not being political. That particular instance of misconduct resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (no exaggeration). The blood of hundreds of thousands of people are on the hands of Bush's intelligence people.
If hes investigating uranium one, He should also be investigating the trump family & China. In both of those cases, the only evidence is proximity in time between financial benefits conferred on the family and the conferrer of benefits having business before the govt. Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore. What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese. Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin". It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse. If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him. What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth? Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. So that’s not really at issue any more. The issue is whether the people investigating Trump are dirty. But yes, if this process that we are about to go through shows a valid predicate for investigating Trump, I’ll accept it and move on. It didn’t though. It said that if he wasn’t the president they’d have recommended charges. Any chance we can avoid rehashing this by agreeing that rather than use "exonerate" we should just use something to the effect of "Mueller deferred to a congress that can't/won't impress any consequences". That would require a basic level of honesty from xDaunt. So no, I don’t think we can. Right now he’s working from a different set of facts. His sources include alternative (non) facts and ideas such as non (actual) crimes. He’s pushing conspiracy theories and refusing to acknowledge the established facts of reality such as “Trump stole money from his Foundation”. Regretfully pretty much every xDaunt posts requires the immediate response of “liar”. I would much rather he stop lying but if he cannot bring himself to do so it is necessary to call out his lies. The current strategy of the Trumpers is to lie so often and with such brazen disregard for facts that people’s assumptions about the dignity of office, professionalism, and just general human decency cause some of the lies to be accepted.
Welp, was worth a shot
|
United States42247 Posts
On May 25 2019 01:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 01:37 IgnE wrote:On May 25 2019 01:30 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 01:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 25 2019 00:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:
Barr should be reviewing the intelligence and conduct that preceded the Iraq war if he is not being political. That particular instance of misconduct resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (no exaggeration). The blood of hundreds of thousands of people are on the hands of Bush's intelligence people.
If hes investigating uranium one, He should also be investigating the trump family & China. In both of those cases, the only evidence is proximity in time between financial benefits conferred on the family and the conferrer of benefits having business before the govt. Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore. What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese. Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin". It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse. If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him. What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth? Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. So that’s not really at issue any more. The issue is whether the people investigating Trump are dirty. But yes, if this process that we are about to go through shows a valid predicate for investigating Trump, I’ll accept it and move on. It didn’t though. It said that if he wasn’t the president they’d have recommended charges. Did it say that explicitly? Can you provide a quotation? The report explicitly exonerates Trump on the Russia collusion stuff but refuses to explicitly exonerate him on the obstruction charge. I've already explained in detail the sleight of hand that Mueller used when discussing the obstruction charge, so I'm not going to repeat it here. What matters, and why I say that Trump was exonerated on this charge anyway, is that Mueller did not conclude that there was sufficient evidence of a chargeable crime of obstruction. That's the bottom line. What I believe declassification is going to show is that the investigation of the Russia stuff was never validly predicated to begin with and was all an attempt to set up Trump for obstruction of justice. So to that extent, one could argue that there is still some exoneration that has yet to occur.
You mixed up your words there. You wrote "refuses to explicitly exonerate him". What you meant was "explicitly refuses to exonerate him". Same words, different order. Different meaning too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
