|
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 October 19 2020 06:29 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2020 08:50 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2020 07:08 WombaT wrote:On October 18 2020 04:00 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2020 02:14 Nouar wrote:On October 18 2020 01:47 Doodsmack wrote:
The real danger for biden here is if he engaged in profit sharing with hunter while he was VP. Hunter's people are apparently starting to turn on him, so more could come out. For all we know the FBI has an active investigation on this, considering the FBI seized the contents of the computer shop laptop.
An anonymous source of course. Glad to see the WH Press Secretary going on a campaign. Is she bankrolled by the Trump campaign or by taxpayers ? At least it's from her private account. Glad to see she is taking anonymous sources for verified information. IF this is true, it should of course get prosecuted (about as much as foreign money influx into Trump's residences). However, is there any history of Joe being referenced at as "the big guy" ? It could be anyone lol. It is comforting to see you've learned the lesson about anonymous sources. If more could've done this in the disastrous leak campaign against Trump for the last 4-5 years, the country would be in much better shape. On October 18 2020 02:19 Uldridge wrote:On October 18 2020 00:34 Danglars wrote:
The echo chamber in this case is everybody telling themselves that the average joe that disagrees with you are not trained in critical thought and dwelling in their own echo chambers. I don't think forming this echo chamber is justified or even elevated above the echo chambers it purports to combat. No? I dont care if the average joe agrees with me or not. Fact is that they're not trained in critical thought and get easily sucked into consumerism and propaganda. I have lost the count of people telling me random shit they don't agree with or don't like that's just surface level analysis at best, when the actual situation is always more complex. Populism relies on the fact that the average joe needs/wants these simplifications, but all that happens is a gross misrepresentation of reality, causing a deeply flawed system. In a sense, the average joe is the greatest asset - because you need them to win elections - and the deepest pitfall for society. I'd trust the average joe than a random selection of the people on this forum or running this website. The people concerned with the apparent lack of critical thought in the public at large have proven incapable of applying it when a big orange idiot is composing mean tweets on twitter. I think that's absolutely a problem with reducing a complex situation to a falsely simple one: you don't have to worry about Trump's election, because it wasn't legitimate--you don't have to worry about the people that voted Trump, because they were either deceived, or are racist ingrates--you don't have to worry about the norms people are destroying to stop Trump, because he's always worse in that respect, and the country's peril is so imminent to justify all destructive actions. I've lost count at how many people think themselves to possess critical analytical abilities, and play into propagandistic viewpoints of how the other side thinks and acts. That's why I said I think you're in an echo chamber that justifies the conclusion that your tribe possesses a higher degree of analytic faculties, and it isn't morally above the various echo chambers you decry. As per the denizens of this particular thread this feels a gross misreading of general sentiment, or indeed divergences of opinion. As an observation of someone on a ‘vote blue no matter who’ Facebook page or something it’s absolutely accurate. I don’t recall too much chat about Trump’s election not being legitimate. Plenty about the electoral college being a bad system that should be reformed, but nothing that under the conditions of the day that that victory was illegitimate. People can make up their own minds, this constant bemoaning of echo chambers and being fair and understanding other’s views is only a worthwhile endeavour if the ‘other side’ are working around a consistent ideological framework of difference whereupon negotiation can occur. Case in point the ‘you can’t nominate a Supreme Court justice, the people need their voice heard at the polls first’. From my point of view I don’t think that’s a bad argument, indeed I don’t particularly like how the Supreme Court and lifetime appointments work as a roll of the roulette wheel depending what President is in office. Then a complete flip on that and commentators doing arcane incantations to show it’s actually totally different this time etc. If your buddy continually cheats in your card games do you withhold from that activity or give in to his whining about you not being a good sport? Just to take one of innumerable examples. I think you'd change your mind on the "feels a gross misreading" if you reread any span of 100 pages of 2020 or 2019. These sorts of things only "stick out" to people that don't agree with them--people that agree with them skim over it and have an extremely limited ability to grasp perspective. Secondly, you're barking up the wrong tree regarding echo chambers. You should examine both your beliefs and other people's beliefs critically. It doesn't matter if you think the "other side" is working around "a consistent ideological framework." You're just more likely to fail to diagnose your echo chambers. It's a bad shortcut in logic, which is to say, not logic at all. Compare to alt-universe WombaT: "I don't need to examine liberals echo chambers, because they fail to cohere around a consistent ideological framework. On the other hand, my side (on the right) is fair and understanding." You're both wrong in your presumptions and ought to pursue investigation and analysis. How does that not matter? You talk the very previous sentence about the importance of critically examining the beliefs of others (and yourself), how exactly is this done without there being some kind of structure underpinning said beliefs? I have zero interest in discussing external echo chambers, I largely confine my political discussion to this thread for a dislike of said phenomenon. Probably worse on the left end of the spectrum as moderators tend to be more censorious and happy to wield the bad hammer. I just don’t see how this thread is particularly echoey, what with Jimmy and GH arguing like an old married couple, lively disputes on formerly undisputed observations on the size of newspapers and the like .
You've never seen GH be the only one to the left of the precious few right-wingers on the thread, and 6-7 Europeans and Americans saying variations of the same thing on issue after issue? Of course of course I know that's defensible because things are so awfully "united" against "chaos" these days. But start now and see whether you really can sustain your current beliefs.
You won't get all your work done in one conversation using proper critique. You must try to understand everyone you talk to who thinks differently than you. You might even discover that you were dead wrong about these things lacking "some kind of structure underpinning said beliefs," and others you thought had structure being merely an emanation of hodgepodge prejudices. Find some people that think Trump's a necessary evil or simply the greatest and spend more time talking than you'd previously feel comfortable doing. You don't want to be the fifteenth dolt in this place that thinks there's no good reason to support Trump against Biden, or religious freedom is just a disguise for actual bigotry, or any of the other things that go for established wisdom around these parts.
|
There is also a difference between a campaign rally and a protest. The "need" to gather en masse obviously has to be weighed against the risk of gathering. Major sporting events, concerts, etc. are all canceled (or organized without public), because the importance of attending such events right now is far lower than the risk to public health. I'd personally place a campaign rally only barely above such "frivolous" events, and my experience is that most people in Europe agree. I understand the US is different, so you hold your rallies. But then at least take proper preventive measures as there really is no reason to *not* enforce social distancing and masks at such events. Except that it sends the wrong political message of course. So Trump is willfully encouraging reckless behaviour among his supporters for political gain. I don't really understand how or why you support that.
The women's march may or may not be higher on the importance list depending on what they are protesting for/against. I totally understand some such causes cannot wait, at the very least in the eyes of the victims, and these people need an outlet. I have no idea if this is the case here, but lets assume it isn't, and it is simply a similar political event to a campaign rally. In which case I don't personally feel it should be held, but just as with campaign rallies, understand the US is different, in which case the minimum precautions are social distancing and a mask. Unlike Trump's rallies, I understand the organizers are enforcing this. However, there is another, far larger, distinction: one is organized and promoted by the president. The other by someone nobody cares about. Holding the president to a higher standard, and expecting him to set an example is not a weird idea. Moreover, I don't see Biden endorsing or encouraging the women's march protests (I have no idea if he agrees with their goals), so there is no "both sides" argument to this. There is literally only one side organizing and promoting mass gatherings.
|
Either mass gatherings are safe or they are not. The science says they are not (even if masks and distancing help to mitigate the deadliness of the virus), and therefore the participants in mass gatherings should be scolded and shamed, no matter how much you like the people and the cause behind the gathering. It's very simple really but admittedly the horse has been beaten dead in this thread by now.
|
On October 19 2020 08:34 Doodsmack wrote:
Either mass gatherings are safe or they are not. The science says they are not (even if masks and distancing help to mitigate the deadliness of the virus), and therefore the participants in mass gatherings should be scolded and shamed, no matter how much you like the people and the cause behind the gathering. It's very simple really but admittedly the horse has been beaten dead in this thread by now.
So a funeral should be treated the same as a night out at the movies? Or are you willing to consider some nuance there?
|
Northern Ireland26796 Posts
On October 19 2020 08:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2020 06:29 WombaT wrote:On October 18 2020 08:50 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2020 07:08 WombaT wrote:On October 18 2020 04:00 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2020 02:14 Nouar wrote:On October 18 2020 01:47 Doodsmack wrote:The real danger for biden here is if he engaged in profit sharing with hunter while he was VP. Hunter's people are apparently starting to turn on him, so more could come out. For all we know the FBI has an active investigation on this, considering the FBI seized the contents of the computer shop laptop. https://twitter.com/kayleighmcenany/status/1317268688706375682 An anonymous source of course. Glad to see the WH Press Secretary going on a campaign. Is she bankrolled by the Trump campaign or by taxpayers ? At least it's from her private account. Glad to see she is taking anonymous sources for verified information. IF this is true, it should of course get prosecuted (about as much as foreign money influx into Trump's residences). However, is there any history of Joe being referenced at as "the big guy" ? It could be anyone lol. It is comforting to see you've learned the lesson about anonymous sources. If more could've done this in the disastrous leak campaign against Trump for the last 4-5 years, the country would be in much better shape. On October 18 2020 02:19 Uldridge wrote:On October 18 2020 00:34 Danglars wrote:
The echo chamber in this case is everybody telling themselves that the average joe that disagrees with you are not trained in critical thought and dwelling in their own echo chambers. I don't think forming this echo chamber is justified or even elevated above the echo chambers it purports to combat. No? I dont care if the average joe agrees with me or not. Fact is that they're not trained in critical thought and get easily sucked into consumerism and propaganda. I have lost the count of people telling me random shit they don't agree with or don't like that's just surface level analysis at best, when the actual situation is always more complex. Populism relies on the fact that the average joe needs/wants these simplifications, but all that happens is a gross misrepresentation of reality, causing a deeply flawed system. In a sense, the average joe is the greatest asset - because you need them to win elections - and the deepest pitfall for society. I'd trust the average joe than a random selection of the people on this forum or running this website. The people concerned with the apparent lack of critical thought in the public at large have proven incapable of applying it when a big orange idiot is composing mean tweets on twitter. I think that's absolutely a problem with reducing a complex situation to a falsely simple one: you don't have to worry about Trump's election, because it wasn't legitimate--you don't have to worry about the people that voted Trump, because they were either deceived, or are racist ingrates--you don't have to worry about the norms people are destroying to stop Trump, because he's always worse in that respect, and the country's peril is so imminent to justify all destructive actions. I've lost count at how many people think themselves to possess critical analytical abilities, and play into propagandistic viewpoints of how the other side thinks and acts. That's why I said I think you're in an echo chamber that justifies the conclusion that your tribe possesses a higher degree of analytic faculties, and it isn't morally above the various echo chambers you decry. As per the denizens of this particular thread this feels a gross misreading of general sentiment, or indeed divergences of opinion. As an observation of someone on a ‘vote blue no matter who’ Facebook page or something it’s absolutely accurate. I don’t recall too much chat about Trump’s election not being legitimate. Plenty about the electoral college being a bad system that should be reformed, but nothing that under the conditions of the day that that victory was illegitimate. People can make up their own minds, this constant bemoaning of echo chambers and being fair and understanding other’s views is only a worthwhile endeavour if the ‘other side’ are working around a consistent ideological framework of difference whereupon negotiation can occur. Case in point the ‘you can’t nominate a Supreme Court justice, the people need their voice heard at the polls first’. From my point of view I don’t think that’s a bad argument, indeed I don’t particularly like how the Supreme Court and lifetime appointments work as a roll of the roulette wheel depending what President is in office. Then a complete flip on that and commentators doing arcane incantations to show it’s actually totally different this time etc. If your buddy continually cheats in your card games do you withhold from that activity or give in to his whining about you not being a good sport? Just to take one of innumerable examples. I think you'd change your mind on the "feels a gross misreading" if you reread any span of 100 pages of 2020 or 2019. These sorts of things only "stick out" to people that don't agree with them--people that agree with them skim over it and have an extremely limited ability to grasp perspective. Secondly, you're barking up the wrong tree regarding echo chambers. You should examine both your beliefs and other people's beliefs critically. It doesn't matter if you think the "other side" is working around "a consistent ideological framework." You're just more likely to fail to diagnose your echo chambers. It's a bad shortcut in logic, which is to say, not logic at all. Compare to alt-universe WombaT: "I don't need to examine liberals echo chambers, because they fail to cohere around a consistent ideological framework. On the other hand, my side (on the right) is fair and understanding." You're both wrong in your presumptions and ought to pursue investigation and analysis. How does that not matter? You talk the very previous sentence about the importance of critically examining the beliefs of others (and yourself), how exactly is this done without there being some kind of structure underpinning said beliefs? I have zero interest in discussing external echo chambers, I largely confine my political discussion to this thread for a dislike of said phenomenon. Probably worse on the left end of the spectrum as moderators tend to be more censorious and happy to wield the bad hammer. I just don’t see how this thread is particularly echoey, what with Jimmy and GH arguing like an old married couple, lively disputes on formerly undisputed observations on the size of newspapers and the like . You've never seen GH be the only one to the left of the precious few right-wingers on the thread, and 6-7 Europeans and Americans saying variations of the same thing on issue after issue? Of course of course I know that's defensible because things are so awfully "united" against "chaos" these days. But start now and see whether you really can sustain your current beliefs. You won't get all your work done in one conversation using proper critique. You must try to understand everyone you talk to who thinks differently than you. You might even discover that you were dead wrong about these things lacking "some kind of structure underpinning said beliefs," and others you thought had structure being merely an emanation of hodgepodge prejudices. Find some people that think Trump's a necessary evil or simply the greatest and spend more time talking than you'd previously feel comfortable doing. You don't want to be the fifteenth dolt in this place that thinks there's no good reason to support Trump against Biden, or religious freedom is just a disguise for actual bigotry, or any of the other things that go for established wisdom around these parts.
Granted it was in my long hiatus from TL, I did all these things in the past, less so now as I don’t frequent social media and politics. I was pretty heavily on that various regions and peoples had been left behind, and that the ostensible left didn’t really give a shit to their concerns and were out of touch. Same with Brexit too, and I absolutely rejected the ‘all these people are dumb and racist’ dismissiveness we saw in both instances (mostly from the lib left mind but I’m splitting hairs)
It’s 2020 going on 2021, it’s not 2016 anymore. So to say you’re voting Trump as you don’t really like him but you do like the cut of his ‘draining the swamp’ rhetoric back then and still supporting Trump now seem completely incompatible.
Likewise if one’s argument shifts behind using Constitutional minutiae as a shield for their ideas, and then goes with fuck the Constitution when it’s some other issue, again they’re not compatible. If one say, hypothetically attacked a sitting President for playing too much golf and seals their lips for a successor who plays even more golf.
That kind of thing. Speaking in broad generalisations
If you see this pattern repeat enough times, a critical, analytical approach will just see that depending on the individual they’re either full of shit or they don’t have a coherent political philosophy, or their moral proclivities just snake around things to get to the correct measure on any specific issue.
There is of course one coherent underlying idea under all of the supposed inconsistencies I’ve mentioned which is ‘own the libs’.
Which is fine, go for that by all means but I’m unsure why it means I owe somebody understanding outside of how to mitigate your damage or work with you on anything.
I have zero expectation of conservatives to go against their own principles in a discussion of disagreements with the left in any way. I do expect some degree of policing Trump when he transgresses things that conservatives supposedly hold dear.
In an alternative timeline where you get more of that, perhaps people are more willing to listen.
|
On October 19 2020 08:44 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2020 08:06 Danglars wrote:On October 19 2020 06:29 WombaT wrote:On October 18 2020 08:50 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2020 07:08 WombaT wrote:On October 18 2020 04:00 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2020 02:14 Nouar wrote:On October 18 2020 01:47 Doodsmack wrote:The real danger for biden here is if he engaged in profit sharing with hunter while he was VP. Hunter's people are apparently starting to turn on him, so more could come out. For all we know the FBI has an active investigation on this, considering the FBI seized the contents of the computer shop laptop. https://twitter.com/kayleighmcenany/status/1317268688706375682 An anonymous source of course. Glad to see the WH Press Secretary going on a campaign. Is she bankrolled by the Trump campaign or by taxpayers ? At least it's from her private account. Glad to see she is taking anonymous sources for verified information. IF this is true, it should of course get prosecuted (about as much as foreign money influx into Trump's residences). However, is there any history of Joe being referenced at as "the big guy" ? It could be anyone lol. It is comforting to see you've learned the lesson about anonymous sources. If more could've done this in the disastrous leak campaign against Trump for the last 4-5 years, the country would be in much better shape. On October 18 2020 02:19 Uldridge wrote:On October 18 2020 00:34 Danglars wrote:
The echo chamber in this case is everybody telling themselves that the average joe that disagrees with you are not trained in critical thought and dwelling in their own echo chambers. I don't think forming this echo chamber is justified or even elevated above the echo chambers it purports to combat. No? I dont care if the average joe agrees with me or not. Fact is that they're not trained in critical thought and get easily sucked into consumerism and propaganda. I have lost the count of people telling me random shit they don't agree with or don't like that's just surface level analysis at best, when the actual situation is always more complex. Populism relies on the fact that the average joe needs/wants these simplifications, but all that happens is a gross misrepresentation of reality, causing a deeply flawed system. In a sense, the average joe is the greatest asset - because you need them to win elections - and the deepest pitfall for society. I'd trust the average joe than a random selection of the people on this forum or running this website. The people concerned with the apparent lack of critical thought in the public at large have proven incapable of applying it when a big orange idiot is composing mean tweets on twitter. I think that's absolutely a problem with reducing a complex situation to a falsely simple one: you don't have to worry about Trump's election, because it wasn't legitimate--you don't have to worry about the people that voted Trump, because they were either deceived, or are racist ingrates--you don't have to worry about the norms people are destroying to stop Trump, because he's always worse in that respect, and the country's peril is so imminent to justify all destructive actions. I've lost count at how many people think themselves to possess critical analytical abilities, and play into propagandistic viewpoints of how the other side thinks and acts. That's why I said I think you're in an echo chamber that justifies the conclusion that your tribe possesses a higher degree of analytic faculties, and it isn't morally above the various echo chambers you decry. As per the denizens of this particular thread this feels a gross misreading of general sentiment, or indeed divergences of opinion. As an observation of someone on a ‘vote blue no matter who’ Facebook page or something it’s absolutely accurate. I don’t recall too much chat about Trump’s election not being legitimate. Plenty about the electoral college being a bad system that should be reformed, but nothing that under the conditions of the day that that victory was illegitimate. People can make up their own minds, this constant bemoaning of echo chambers and being fair and understanding other’s views is only a worthwhile endeavour if the ‘other side’ are working around a consistent ideological framework of difference whereupon negotiation can occur. Case in point the ‘you can’t nominate a Supreme Court justice, the people need their voice heard at the polls first’. From my point of view I don’t think that’s a bad argument, indeed I don’t particularly like how the Supreme Court and lifetime appointments work as a roll of the roulette wheel depending what President is in office. Then a complete flip on that and commentators doing arcane incantations to show it’s actually totally different this time etc. If your buddy continually cheats in your card games do you withhold from that activity or give in to his whining about you not being a good sport? Just to take one of innumerable examples. I think you'd change your mind on the "feels a gross misreading" if you reread any span of 100 pages of 2020 or 2019. These sorts of things only "stick out" to people that don't agree with them--people that agree with them skim over it and have an extremely limited ability to grasp perspective. Secondly, you're barking up the wrong tree regarding echo chambers. You should examine both your beliefs and other people's beliefs critically. It doesn't matter if you think the "other side" is working around "a consistent ideological framework." You're just more likely to fail to diagnose your echo chambers. It's a bad shortcut in logic, which is to say, not logic at all. Compare to alt-universe WombaT: "I don't need to examine liberals echo chambers, because they fail to cohere around a consistent ideological framework. On the other hand, my side (on the right) is fair and understanding." You're both wrong in your presumptions and ought to pursue investigation and analysis. How does that not matter? You talk the very previous sentence about the importance of critically examining the beliefs of others (and yourself), how exactly is this done without there being some kind of structure underpinning said beliefs? I have zero interest in discussing external echo chambers, I largely confine my political discussion to this thread for a dislike of said phenomenon. Probably worse on the left end of the spectrum as moderators tend to be more censorious and happy to wield the bad hammer. I just don’t see how this thread is particularly echoey, what with Jimmy and GH arguing like an old married couple, lively disputes on formerly undisputed observations on the size of newspapers and the like . You've never seen GH be the only one to the left of the precious few right-wingers on the thread, and 6-7 Europeans and Americans saying variations of the same thing on issue after issue? Of course of course I know that's defensible because things are so awfully "united" against "chaos" these days. But start now and see whether you really can sustain your current beliefs. You won't get all your work done in one conversation using proper critique. You must try to understand everyone you talk to who thinks differently than you. You might even discover that you were dead wrong about these things lacking "some kind of structure underpinning said beliefs," and others you thought had structure being merely an emanation of hodgepodge prejudices. Find some people that think Trump's a necessary evil or simply the greatest and spend more time talking than you'd previously feel comfortable doing. You don't want to be the fifteenth dolt in this place that thinks there's no good reason to support Trump against Biden, or religious freedom is just a disguise for actual bigotry, or any of the other things that go for established wisdom around these parts. Granted it was in my long hiatus from TL, I did all these things in the past, less so now as I don’t frequent social media and politics. I was pretty heavily on that various regions and peoples had been left behind, and that the ostensible left didn’t really give a shit to their concerns and were out of touch. Same with Brexit too, and I absolutely rejected the ‘all these people are dumb and racist’ dismissiveness we saw in both instances (mostly from the lib left mind but I’m splitting hairs) It’s 2020 going on 2021, it’s not 2016 anymore. So to say you’re voting Trump as you don’t really like him but you do like the cut of his ‘draining the swamp’ rhetoric back then and still supporting Trump now seem completely incompatible. Likewise if one’s argument shifts behind using Constitutional minutiae as a shield for their ideas, and then goes with fuck the Constitution when it’s some other issue, again they’re not compatible. If one say, hypothetically attacked a sitting President for playing too much golf and seals their lips for a successor who plays even more golf. That kind of thing. Speaking in broad generalisations If you see this pattern repeat enough times, a critical, analytical approach will just see that depending on the individual they’re either full of shit or they don’t have a coherent political philosophy, or their moral proclivities just snake around things to get to the correct measure on any specific issue. There is of course one coherent underlying idea under all of the supposed inconsistencies I’ve mentioned which is ‘own the libs’. Which is fine, go for that by all means but I’m unsure why it means I owe somebody understanding outside of how to mitigate your damage or work with you on anything. I have zero expectation of conservatives to go against their own principles in a discussion of disagreements with the left in any way. I do expect some degree of policing Trump when he transgresses things that conservatives supposedly hold dear. In an alternative timeline where you get more of that, perhaps people are more willing to listen.
At least you saw the response to Brexit. That's points in your favor to traits of openness to novel political ideas. I know of so many people, mostly British expats or people in traveling jobs of the leftist persuasion, that meld some version of "Wait, nobody ever suggested that Brexit voters were racists or 'little englanders'" and "Nobody in their right mind could vote for Brexit and think it was in their long term economic or political self interest" and "It was just because of a deceptive advertising campaign." So I guess, good on you for that and it can *broadly* help you in the future.
If you see this pattern repeat enough times, a critical, analytical approach will just see that depending on the individual they’re either full of shit or they don’t have a coherent political philosophy, or their moral proclivities just snake around things to get to the correct measure on any specific issue.
There is of course one coherent underlying idea under all of the supposed inconsistencies I’ve mentioned which is ‘own the libs’.
Just please keep in mind to update your past priors with new information. It's awfully hard to separate a biased filter of news (such as this thread brings to the fore most often) from actual reality. You can *feel* like everybody's just snaking around double standards and bending morals, because you're being exposed to articles telling you second-hand that it's what's happening. Kind of like the mask-protesters are all anybody puts on camera, and ignore larger masses protesting arbitrary application of lockdown orders. I think you're not careful enough to how you observe a pattern that leads you to dismiss the benefits of criticizing your own echo chamber and fruitfully observing others.
And way the fuck too much is made of 'own the libs.' It's there. I own some part of it, because it is simply just desserts for people ignoring countrywide problems if it's mostly affecting poor whites not living in urban cities. Yeah, you're all there in ivory towers talking about transgender bathroom issues and never hearing about an opium epidemic, well here's a hefty helping of chaos in the sleek machine that matter-of-factly has a practiced ignorance of problems that don't matter to political outcomes. Populism, in that sense, delivers that satisfying result. The elite liberal establishment has been operating in their own interest and is detached from the interests of the citizens (globalization, immigration, trade), so it's time to own the libs.
The more regular use of 'own the libs' here is confession of political ignorance. Posters can't imagine the concerns of people with different values, or the possibilities of long term change in policies and discourse, so they chalk it up to mean-spirited desire for retribution. It's a weak form of political analysis, mere centimeters above the "but Trump" excuse. It's almost an ironic meme at this point, for how often it's overused. Why get principled judges on the Supreme Court that apply the laws instead of writing new ones, leaving the writing of laws to Congress, and make their creation more responsive to elected political representation? Why to own the libs, of course!
|
I'll be honest I gave up reading through the above response because it felt like you were over explaining things to sound smart. It's like when you're asked to explain what the artist meant in school, sometimes there is no deeper meaning and you should stop trying to pull at things that aren't there.
|
I love the assumption that because someone is arguing from the left, they are sitting in their ivory towers sipping wine while the rest of the world has to suck it up, and that they have absolutely no claim whatsoever to populist interests. I mean, it's pretty fucking ignorant to say that Bernie Sanders didn't have hugely enthusiastic populist support. In general, it's just a dumb generalization to make.
|
Northern Ireland26796 Posts
On October 19 2020 09:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2020 08:44 WombaT wrote:On October 19 2020 08:06 Danglars wrote:On October 19 2020 06:29 WombaT wrote:On October 18 2020 08:50 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2020 07:08 WombaT wrote:On October 18 2020 04:00 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2020 02:14 Nouar wrote:On October 18 2020 01:47 Doodsmack wrote:The real danger for biden here is if he engaged in profit sharing with hunter while he was VP. Hunter's people are apparently starting to turn on him, so more could come out. For all we know the FBI has an active investigation on this, considering the FBI seized the contents of the computer shop laptop. https://twitter.com/kayleighmcenany/status/1317268688706375682 An anonymous source of course. Glad to see the WH Press Secretary going on a campaign. Is she bankrolled by the Trump campaign or by taxpayers ? At least it's from her private account. Glad to see she is taking anonymous sources for verified information. IF this is true, it should of course get prosecuted (about as much as foreign money influx into Trump's residences). However, is there any history of Joe being referenced at as "the big guy" ? It could be anyone lol. It is comforting to see you've learned the lesson about anonymous sources. If more could've done this in the disastrous leak campaign against Trump for the last 4-5 years, the country would be in much better shape. On October 18 2020 02:19 Uldridge wrote:On October 18 2020 00:34 Danglars wrote:
The echo chamber in this case is everybody telling themselves that the average joe that disagrees with you are not trained in critical thought and dwelling in their own echo chambers. I don't think forming this echo chamber is justified or even elevated above the echo chambers it purports to combat. No? I dont care if the average joe agrees with me or not. Fact is that they're not trained in critical thought and get easily sucked into consumerism and propaganda. I have lost the count of people telling me random shit they don't agree with or don't like that's just surface level analysis at best, when the actual situation is always more complex. Populism relies on the fact that the average joe needs/wants these simplifications, but all that happens is a gross misrepresentation of reality, causing a deeply flawed system. In a sense, the average joe is the greatest asset - because you need them to win elections - and the deepest pitfall for society. I'd trust the average joe than a random selection of the people on this forum or running this website. The people concerned with the apparent lack of critical thought in the public at large have proven incapable of applying it when a big orange idiot is composing mean tweets on twitter. I think that's absolutely a problem with reducing a complex situation to a falsely simple one: you don't have to worry about Trump's election, because it wasn't legitimate--you don't have to worry about the people that voted Trump, because they were either deceived, or are racist ingrates--you don't have to worry about the norms people are destroying to stop Trump, because he's always worse in that respect, and the country's peril is so imminent to justify all destructive actions. I've lost count at how many people think themselves to possess critical analytical abilities, and play into propagandistic viewpoints of how the other side thinks and acts. That's why I said I think you're in an echo chamber that justifies the conclusion that your tribe possesses a higher degree of analytic faculties, and it isn't morally above the various echo chambers you decry. As per the denizens of this particular thread this feels a gross misreading of general sentiment, or indeed divergences of opinion. As an observation of someone on a ‘vote blue no matter who’ Facebook page or something it’s absolutely accurate. I don’t recall too much chat about Trump’s election not being legitimate. Plenty about the electoral college being a bad system that should be reformed, but nothing that under the conditions of the day that that victory was illegitimate. People can make up their own minds, this constant bemoaning of echo chambers and being fair and understanding other’s views is only a worthwhile endeavour if the ‘other side’ are working around a consistent ideological framework of difference whereupon negotiation can occur. Case in point the ‘you can’t nominate a Supreme Court justice, the people need their voice heard at the polls first’. From my point of view I don’t think that’s a bad argument, indeed I don’t particularly like how the Supreme Court and lifetime appointments work as a roll of the roulette wheel depending what President is in office. Then a complete flip on that and commentators doing arcane incantations to show it’s actually totally different this time etc. If your buddy continually cheats in your card games do you withhold from that activity or give in to his whining about you not being a good sport? Just to take one of innumerable examples. I think you'd change your mind on the "feels a gross misreading" if you reread any span of 100 pages of 2020 or 2019. These sorts of things only "stick out" to people that don't agree with them--people that agree with them skim over it and have an extremely limited ability to grasp perspective. Secondly, you're barking up the wrong tree regarding echo chambers. You should examine both your beliefs and other people's beliefs critically. It doesn't matter if you think the "other side" is working around "a consistent ideological framework." You're just more likely to fail to diagnose your echo chambers. It's a bad shortcut in logic, which is to say, not logic at all. Compare to alt-universe WombaT: "I don't need to examine liberals echo chambers, because they fail to cohere around a consistent ideological framework. On the other hand, my side (on the right) is fair and understanding." You're both wrong in your presumptions and ought to pursue investigation and analysis. How does that not matter? You talk the very previous sentence about the importance of critically examining the beliefs of others (and yourself), how exactly is this done without there being some kind of structure underpinning said beliefs? I have zero interest in discussing external echo chambers, I largely confine my political discussion to this thread for a dislike of said phenomenon. Probably worse on the left end of the spectrum as moderators tend to be more censorious and happy to wield the bad hammer. I just don’t see how this thread is particularly echoey, what with Jimmy and GH arguing like an old married couple, lively disputes on formerly undisputed observations on the size of newspapers and the like . You've never seen GH be the only one to the left of the precious few right-wingers on the thread, and 6-7 Europeans and Americans saying variations of the same thing on issue after issue? Of course of course I know that's defensible because things are so awfully "united" against "chaos" these days. But start now and see whether you really can sustain your current beliefs. You won't get all your work done in one conversation using proper critique. You must try to understand everyone you talk to who thinks differently than you. You might even discover that you were dead wrong about these things lacking "some kind of structure underpinning said beliefs," and others you thought had structure being merely an emanation of hodgepodge prejudices. Find some people that think Trump's a necessary evil or simply the greatest and spend more time talking than you'd previously feel comfortable doing. You don't want to be the fifteenth dolt in this place that thinks there's no good reason to support Trump against Biden, or religious freedom is just a disguise for actual bigotry, or any of the other things that go for established wisdom around these parts. Granted it was in my long hiatus from TL, I did all these things in the past, less so now as I don’t frequent social media and politics. I was pretty heavily on that various regions and peoples had been left behind, and that the ostensible left didn’t really give a shit to their concerns and were out of touch. Same with Brexit too, and I absolutely rejected the ‘all these people are dumb and racist’ dismissiveness we saw in both instances (mostly from the lib left mind but I’m splitting hairs) It’s 2020 going on 2021, it’s not 2016 anymore. So to say you’re voting Trump as you don’t really like him but you do like the cut of his ‘draining the swamp’ rhetoric back then and still supporting Trump now seem completely incompatible. Likewise if one’s argument shifts behind using Constitutional minutiae as a shield for their ideas, and then goes with fuck the Constitution when it’s some other issue, again they’re not compatible. If one say, hypothetically attacked a sitting President for playing too much golf and seals their lips for a successor who plays even more golf. That kind of thing. Speaking in broad generalisations If you see this pattern repeat enough times, a critical, analytical approach will just see that depending on the individual they’re either full of shit or they don’t have a coherent political philosophy, or their moral proclivities just snake around things to get to the correct measure on any specific issue. There is of course one coherent underlying idea under all of the supposed inconsistencies I’ve mentioned which is ‘own the libs’. Which is fine, go for that by all means but I’m unsure why it means I owe somebody understanding outside of how to mitigate your damage or work with you on anything. I have zero expectation of conservatives to go against their own principles in a discussion of disagreements with the left in any way. I do expect some degree of policing Trump when he transgresses things that conservatives supposedly hold dear. In an alternative timeline where you get more of that, perhaps people are more willing to listen. At least you saw the response to Brexit. That's points in your favor to traits of openness to novel political ideas. I know of so many people, mostly British expats or people in traveling jobs of the leftist persuasion, that meld some version of "Wait, nobody ever suggested that Brexit voters were racists or 'little englanders'" and "Nobody in their right mind could vote for Brexit and think it was in their long term economic or political self interest" and "It was just because of a deceptive advertising campaign." So I guess, good on you for that and it can *broadly* help you in the future. Show nested quote +If you see this pattern repeat enough times, a critical, analytical approach will just see that depending on the individual they’re either full of shit or they don’t have a coherent political philosophy, or their moral proclivities just snake around things to get to the correct measure on any specific issue.
There is of course one coherent underlying idea under all of the supposed inconsistencies I’ve mentioned which is ‘own the libs’. Just please keep in mind to update your past priors with new information. It's awfully hard to separate a biased filter of news (such as this thread brings to the fore most often) from actual reality. You can *feel* like everybody's just snaking around double standards and bending morals, because you're being exposed to articles telling you second-hand that it's what's happening. Kind of like the mask-protesters are all anybody puts on camera, and ignore larger masses protesting arbitrary application of lockdown orders. I think you're not careful enough to how you observe a pattern that leads you to dismiss the benefits of criticizing your own echo chamber and fruitfully observing others. And way the fuck too much is made of 'own the libs.' It's there. I own some part of it, because it is simply just desserts for people ignoring countrywide problems if it's mostly affecting poor whites not living in urban cities. Yeah, you're all there in ivory towers talking about transgender bathroom issues and never hearing about an opium epidemic, well here's a hefty helping of chaos in the sleek machine that matter-of-factly has a practiced ignorance of problems that don't matter to political outcomes. Populism, in that sense, delivers that satisfying result. The elite liberal establishment has been operating in their own interest and is detached from the interests of the citizens (globalization, immigration, trade), so it's time to own the libs. The more regular use of 'own the libs' here is confession of political ignorance. Posters can't imagine the concerns of people with different values, or the possibilities of long term change in policies and discourse, so they chalk it up to mean-spirited desire for retribution. It's a weak form of political analysis, mere centimeters above the "but Trump" excuse. It's almost an ironic meme at this point, for how often it's overused. Why get principled judges on the Supreme Court that apply the laws instead of writing new ones, leaving the writing of laws to Congress, and make their creation more responsive to elected political representation? Why to own the libs, of course!
Well they’re just flat out wrong on people conflating Brexit voters with racism, was pretty bloody prevalent!
The issue with Brexit is that basically everything Remainers said is coming to pass, including myself, while factoring in the issues people had. And yet people won’t consider they were wrong on any of this stuff when it’s standing in front of them, glowering at them and occasionally headbutting them.
I think personally a proper national policy in incentivising industry and redistributing resources to the poorer regions was the way to go in addressing a lot of the grievances people had, not leaving the European Union. Likewise in the US context some more concerted effort to spread the pie could be effective.
I believe we’ve agreed on this in the past, ‘just move’ is not really a satisfactory solution for many people, I’m a homeboy myself. Likewise ‘learn to code’ is just incredibly dismissive and arrogant.
Likewise we have the asymmetric impact of immigration. It’s pretty easy for x middle class person to like it when they’re dealing with fellow students or co-workers in their professional jobs. It’s working class communities that have to assimilate first generation poor migrants generally.
Which isn’t to say I’m against migration, but it’s not experienced equally across society, and people can be overly pious on it.
I disagree on a lot of what else you said, who’s not concerned with an opium epidemic? There’s a clear link between your current healthcare setup and said opium epidemic, namely it’s cheaper to just fire opioid painkillers at people than alternatives and they end up hooked.
One of the chief arguments for healthcare reform is specifically to cut out such cost saving incentives that lead to such outcomes. Likewise the States has a way higher per capita consumption of all sorts of brain-altering medication as a result of said system. Had conversations with Yanks whose med lists make me wince, and I’m on medication for the rest of my life and spent a year in hospital.
Where’s the rights pushing the opiate crisis to the forefront of things incidentally?
Why get ‘principled’ SC judges who don’t make laws they just enforce them? When they do that? I mean ideally it wouldn’t be their job but hey, when Congress is blocked from functioning too it gets tricky.
As per my mentioning of a consistent framework, why is it not possible to nominate a SC judge because an election is coming, and possible to nominate another one when an election is indeed much closer?
Oh it’s completely inconsistent and utter bollocks? As I said before I don’t like the SC as it functions and actually the idea of waiting for the public to have their say is one I agree with the spirit of.
When you do a complete 180 on a rationale you yourself established, in a more extreme circumstance temporally, well no it’s bollocks. People know you’re full of shit and have zero interest in giving you the benefit of the doubt.
It’s not my particular preference but you wanna play those games eventually your opponent says fuck it and mirrors and it’s now just a numbers game detached from principles of wider consent and societal cohesion moving forwards. We shall see how that goes
|
Northern Ireland26796 Posts
On October 19 2020 10:01 NewSunshine wrote:
I love the assumption that because someone is arguing from the left, they are sitting in their ivory towers sipping wine while the rest of the world has to suck it up, and that they have absolutely no claim whatsoever to populist interests. I mean, it's pretty fucking ignorant to say that Bernie Sanders didn't have hugely enthusiastic populist support. In general, it's just a dumb generalization to make.
Look I’ll have you know my 14k takeaway last year built me a fantastic Ivory Tower, with wines, the BEST wines, possibly from France.
I love sitting up here and ordering around all those non-elite plebs, it’s great.
|
On October 19 2020 09:53 Zooper31 wrote:
I'll be honest I gave up reading through the above response because it felt like you were over explaining things to sound smart. It's like when you're asked to explain what the artist meant in school, sometimes there is no deeper meaning and you should stop trying to pull at things that aren't there.
And like when the school tries to teach you that there's deeper meaning to artistic works, maybe the real connection is when you discover for yourself the same truth while not being made to do it or having somebody tell you that it's there.
On October 19 2020 10:13 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2020 09:28 Danglars wrote:On October 19 2020 08:44 WombaT wrote:On October 19 2020 08:06 Danglars wrote:On October 19 2020 06:29 WombaT wrote:On October 18 2020 08:50 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2020 07:08 WombaT wrote:On October 18 2020 04:00 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2020 02:14 Nouar wrote:On October 18 2020 01:47 Doodsmack wrote:The real danger for biden here is if he engaged in profit sharing with hunter while he was VP. Hunter's people are apparently starting to turn on him, so more could come out. For all we know the FBI has an active investigation on this, considering the FBI seized the contents of the computer shop laptop. https://twitter.com/kayleighmcenany/status/1317268688706375682 An anonymous source of course. Glad to see the WH Press Secretary going on a campaign. Is she bankrolled by the Trump campaign or by taxpayers ? At least it's from her private account. Glad to see she is taking anonymous sources for verified information. IF this is true, it should of course get prosecuted (about as much as foreign money influx into Trump's residences). However, is there any history of Joe being referenced at as "the big guy" ? It could be anyone lol. It is comforting to see you've learned the lesson about anonymous sources. If more could've done this in the disastrous leak campaign against Trump for the last 4-5 years, the country would be in much better shape. On October 18 2020 02:19 Uldridge wrote:On October 18 2020 00:34 Danglars wrote:
The echo chamber in this case is everybody telling themselves that the average joe that disagrees with you are not trained in critical thought and dwelling in their own echo chambers. I don't think forming this echo chamber is justified or even elevated above the echo chambers it purports to combat. No? I dont care if the average joe agrees with me or not. Fact is that they're not trained in critical thought and get easily sucked into consumerism and propaganda. I have lost the count of people telling me random shit they don't agree with or don't like that's just surface level analysis at best, when the actual situation is always more complex. Populism relies on the fact that the average joe needs/wants these simplifications, but all that happens is a gross misrepresentation of reality, causing a deeply flawed system. In a sense, the average joe is the greatest asset - because you need them to win elections - and the deepest pitfall for society. I'd trust the average joe than a random selection of the people on this forum or running this website. The people concerned with the apparent lack of critical thought in the public at large have proven incapable of applying it when a big orange idiot is composing mean tweets on twitter. I think that's absolutely a problem with reducing a complex situation to a falsely simple one: you don't have to worry about Trump's election, because it wasn't legitimate--you don't have to worry about the people that voted Trump, because they were either deceived, or are racist ingrates--you don't have to worry about the norms people are destroying to stop Trump, because he's always worse in that respect, and the country's peril is so imminent to justify all destructive actions. I've lost count at how many people think themselves to possess critical analytical abilities, and play into propagandistic viewpoints of how the other side thinks and acts. That's why I said I think you're in an echo chamber that justifies the conclusion that your tribe possesses a higher degree of analytic faculties, and it isn't morally above the various echo chambers you decry. As per the denizens of this particular thread this feels a gross misreading of general sentiment, or indeed divergences of opinion. As an observation of someone on a ‘vote blue no matter who’ Facebook page or something it’s absolutely accurate. I don’t recall too much chat about Trump’s election not being legitimate. Plenty about the electoral college being a bad system that should be reformed, but nothing that under the conditions of the day that that victory was illegitimate. People can make up their own minds, this constant bemoaning of echo chambers and being fair and understanding other’s views is only a worthwhile endeavour if the ‘other side’ are working around a consistent ideological framework of difference whereupon negotiation can occur. Case in point the ‘you can’t nominate a Supreme Court justice, the people need their voice heard at the polls first’. From my point of view I don’t think that’s a bad argument, indeed I don’t particularly like how the Supreme Court and lifetime appointments work as a roll of the roulette wheel depending what President is in office. Then a complete flip on that and commentators doing arcane incantations to show it’s actually totally different this time etc. If your buddy continually cheats in your card games do you withhold from that activity or give in to his whining about you not being a good sport? Just to take one of innumerable examples. I think you'd change your mind on the "feels a gross misreading" if you reread any span of 100 pages of 2020 or 2019. These sorts of things only "stick out" to people that don't agree with them--people that agree with them skim over it and have an extremely limited ability to grasp perspective. Secondly, you're barking up the wrong tree regarding echo chambers. You should examine both your beliefs and other people's beliefs critically. It doesn't matter if you think the "other side" is working around "a consistent ideological framework." You're just more likely to fail to diagnose your echo chambers. It's a bad shortcut in logic, which is to say, not logic at all. Compare to alt-universe WombaT: "I don't need to examine liberals echo chambers, because they fail to cohere around a consistent ideological framework. On the other hand, my side (on the right) is fair and understanding." You're both wrong in your presumptions and ought to pursue investigation and analysis. How does that not matter? You talk the very previous sentence about the importance of critically examining the beliefs of others (and yourself), how exactly is this done without there being some kind of structure underpinning said beliefs? I have zero interest in discussing external echo chambers, I largely confine my political discussion to this thread for a dislike of said phenomenon. Probably worse on the left end of the spectrum as moderators tend to be more censorious and happy to wield the bad hammer. I just don’t see how this thread is particularly echoey, what with Jimmy and GH arguing like an old married couple, lively disputes on formerly undisputed observations on the size of newspapers and the like . You've never seen GH be the only one to the left of the precious few right-wingers on the thread, and 6-7 Europeans and Americans saying variations of the same thing on issue after issue? Of course of course I know that's defensible because things are so awfully "united" against "chaos" these days. But start now and see whether you really can sustain your current beliefs. You won't get all your work done in one conversation using proper critique. You must try to understand everyone you talk to who thinks differently than you. You might even discover that you were dead wrong about these things lacking "some kind of structure underpinning said beliefs," and others you thought had structure being merely an emanation of hodgepodge prejudices. Find some people that think Trump's a necessary evil or simply the greatest and spend more time talking than you'd previously feel comfortable doing. You don't want to be the fifteenth dolt in this place that thinks there's no good reason to support Trump against Biden, or religious freedom is just a disguise for actual bigotry, or any of the other things that go for established wisdom around these parts. Granted it was in my long hiatus from TL, I did all these things in the past, less so now as I don’t frequent social media and politics. I was pretty heavily on that various regions and peoples had been left behind, and that the ostensible left didn’t really give a shit to their concerns and were out of touch. Same with Brexit too, and I absolutely rejected the ‘all these people are dumb and racist’ dismissiveness we saw in both instances (mostly from the lib left mind but I’m splitting hairs) It’s 2020 going on 2021, it’s not 2016 anymore. So to say you’re voting Trump as you don’t really like him but you do like the cut of his ‘draining the swamp’ rhetoric back then and still supporting Trump now seem completely incompatible. Likewise if one’s argument shifts behind using Constitutional minutiae as a shield for their ideas, and then goes with fuck the Constitution when it’s some other issue, again they’re not compatible. If one say, hypothetically attacked a sitting President for playing too much golf and seals their lips for a successor who plays even more golf. That kind of thing. Speaking in broad generalisations If you see this pattern repeat enough times, a critical, analytical approach will just see that depending on the individual they’re either full of shit or they don’t have a coherent political philosophy, or their moral proclivities just snake around things to get to the correct measure on any specific issue. There is of course one coherent underlying idea under all of the supposed inconsistencies I’ve mentioned which is ‘own the libs’. Which is fine, go for that by all means but I’m unsure why it means I owe somebody understanding outside of how to mitigate your damage or work with you on anything. I have zero expectation of conservatives to go against their own principles in a discussion of disagreements with the left in any way. I do expect some degree of policing Trump when he transgresses things that conservatives supposedly hold dear. In an alternative timeline where you get more of that, perhaps people are more willing to listen. At least you saw the response to Brexit. That's points in your favor to traits of openness to novel political ideas. I know of so many people, mostly British expats or people in traveling jobs of the leftist persuasion, that meld some version of "Wait, nobody ever suggested that Brexit voters were racists or 'little englanders'" and "Nobody in their right mind could vote for Brexit and think it was in their long term economic or political self interest" and "It was just because of a deceptive advertising campaign." So I guess, good on you for that and it can *broadly* help you in the future. If you see this pattern repeat enough times, a critical, analytical approach will just see that depending on the individual they’re either full of shit or they don’t have a coherent political philosophy, or their moral proclivities just snake around things to get to the correct measure on any specific issue.
There is of course one coherent underlying idea under all of the supposed inconsistencies I’ve mentioned which is ‘own the libs’. Just please keep in mind to update your past priors with new information. It's awfully hard to separate a biased filter of news (such as this thread brings to the fore most often) from actual reality. You can *feel* like everybody's just snaking around double standards and bending morals, because you're being exposed to articles telling you second-hand that it's what's happening. Kind of like the mask-protesters are all anybody puts on camera, and ignore larger masses protesting arbitrary application of lockdown orders. I think you're not careful enough to how you observe a pattern that leads you to dismiss the benefits of criticizing your own echo chamber and fruitfully observing others. And way the fuck too much is made of 'own the libs.' It's there. I own some part of it, because it is simply just desserts for people ignoring countrywide problems if it's mostly affecting poor whites not living in urban cities. Yeah, you're all there in ivory towers talking about transgender bathroom issues and never hearing about an opium epidemic, well here's a hefty helping of chaos in the sleek machine that matter-of-factly has a practiced ignorance of problems that don't matter to political outcomes. Populism, in that sense, delivers that satisfying result. The elite liberal establishment has been operating in their own interest and is detached from the interests of the citizens (globalization, immigration, trade), so it's time to own the libs. The more regular use of 'own the libs' here is confession of political ignorance. Posters can't imagine the concerns of people with different values, or the possibilities of long term change in policies and discourse, so they chalk it up to mean-spirited desire for retribution. It's a weak form of political analysis, mere centimeters above the "but Trump" excuse. It's almost an ironic meme at this point, for how often it's overused. Why get principled judges on the Supreme Court that apply the laws instead of writing new ones, leaving the writing of laws to Congress, and make their creation more responsive to elected political representation? Why to own the libs, of course! Well they’re just flat out wrong on people conflating Brexit voters with racism, was pretty bloody prevalent! The issue with Brexit is that basically everything Remainers said is coming to pass, including myself, while factoring in the issues people had. And yet people won’t consider they were wrong on any of this stuff when it’s standing in front of them, glowering at them and occasionally headbutting them. I think personally a proper national policy in incentivising industry and redistributing resources to the poorer regions was the way to go in addressing a lot of the grievances people had, not leaving the European Union. Likewise in the US context some more concerted effort to spread the pie could be effective.
I also think the US had a Brexit-esque lapse between the preferred reality and the actual reality. People that wanted to limit immigration to aid in assimilating new immigrants were immediately regarded as racists and xenophobes. It was later claimed that that was never the case, and it really was fine before Trump goes tweeting all kinds of bullshit incendiary stuff. So if you can imagine someone denying that Brexit=racism has an American analogue that leads to Trump=status quo is fine, then you're well on your way to comprehending my viewpoint. It was a rebellion against real problems that were historically ignored, and it's a shame that the only vehicle for that rebellion was personally flawed and professionally incompetant.
[/quote]I believe we’ve agreed on this in the past, ‘just move’ is not really a satisfactory solution for many people, I’m a homeboy myself. Likewise ‘learn to code’ is just incredibly dismissive and arrogant.
Likewise we have the asymmetric impact of immigration. It’s pretty easy for x middle class person to like it when they’re dealing with fellow students or co-workers in their professional jobs. It’s working class communities that have to assimilate first generation poor migrants generally.
Which isn’t to say I’m against migration, but it’s not experienced equally across society, and people can be overly pious on it.
I disagree on a lot of what else you said, who’s not concerned with an opium epidemic? There’s a clear link between your current healthcare setup and said opium epidemic, namely it’s cheaper to just fire opioid painkillers at people than alternatives and they end up hooked. [/quote]
How about, the current legal setup that considers pain as a symptom in need of redress in pills, or your doctor is vulnerable to lawsuit. The healthcare cop-out is insufficient in this case.
One of the chief arguments for healthcare reform is specifically to cut out such cost saving incentives that lead to such outcomes. Likewise the States has a way higher per capita consumption of all sorts of brain-altering medication as a result of said system. Had conversations with Yanks whose med lists make me wince, and I’m on medication for the rest of my life and spent a year in hospital.
Where’s the rights pushing the opiate crisis to the forefront of things incidentally?
Essentially, Trump has a message that he feels that pain and wants the joblessness and manufacturing flight to end. It's not a promise that he's the guy that will make it happen, but he's at least acknowledging the suffering and telling people he's working to end it. It's a large bit better than being entirely forgotten, even when he fails to deliver.
Why get ‘principled’ SC judges who don’t make laws they just enforce them? When they do that? I mean ideally it wouldn’t be their job but hey, when Congress is blocked from functioning too it gets tricky.
I do want Congress blocked from functioning when 51% can't agree to unite behind something. It's time to take it back to the voters and persuade them of one course or another. The disunity is reason enough to hesitate and pursue the debate in public discourse, rather than pass legislation to improve (#billspassed) to act like it's a good thing. The alternative is legislators doing as they wish, rather than seek majorities behind one position or another.
As per my mentioning of a consistent framework, why is it not possible to nominate a SC judge because an election is coming, and possible to nominate another one when an election is indeed much closer?
Oh it’s completely inconsistent and utter bollocks? As I said before I don’t like the SC as it functions and actually the idea of waiting for the public to have their say is one I agree with the spirit of.
When you do a complete 180 on a rationale you yourself established, in a more extreme circumstance temporally, well no it’s bollocks. People know you’re full of shit and have zero interest in giving you the benefit of the doubt.
It’s not my particular preference but you wanna play those games eventually your opponent says fuck it and mirrors and it’s now just a numbers game detached from principles of wider consent and societal cohesion moving forwards. We shall see how that goes
President nominates, Senate confirms. When they're the same party, no conflict exists, and qualified candidates join the bench. Watch any hour-long part of the Senate confirmation process, and see the amount of simple grandstanding and political statement giving that is ostensibly a questioning of the candidate. The actual conclusion is that the time frame is over-long for all the wasted time Senators give in their own grandstanding. But you're not touching on judicial philosophy, which was my point, so I digress.
I'm fine admitting that my opponents are mirroring Trump and becoming Trump in order to oppose Trump. I don't dictate the terms by which Democrats choose to oppose him. We'll see how it goes. The alternative, which was electing Hillary, does not appear to be the better choice even looking back 4 years. America dodged a bullet, and good on her.
|
On October 19 2020 04:11 NewSunshine wrote:
Trump supporters literally have no standard for their leader aside from "he's not a lefty". He can do literally no wrong, because as long as they can point to someone - anyone - who can compare to him in that moment, what he's doing becomes OK.
Not exactly, there was plenty of criticism from many supporters when he launched pre-emptive strikes in Syria in 2018.
Looking back after his first term though i'd say the situation regarding ISIS is far better now than it was under Obama/Biden, would you agree?
If Trump had started a new war, instead of winding current wars down and withdrawing troops, then a decent portion of his base would have abandoned him IMO.People are over the wars.
|
On October 19 2020 17:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2020 04:11 NewSunshine wrote:
Trump supporters literally have no standard for their leader aside from "he's not a lefty". He can do literally no wrong, because as long as they can point to someone - anyone - who can compare to him in that moment, what he's doing becomes OK. Not exactly, there was plenty of criticism from many supporters when he launched pre-emptive strikes in Syria in 2018.
Looking back after his first term though i'd say the situation regarding ISIS is far better now than it was under Obama/Biden, would you agree? If Trump had started a new war, instead of winding current wars down and withdrawing troops, then a decent portion of his base would have abandoned him IMO.People are over the wars.
You should ask your previous allies who actually fought them if they feel the same.
|
On October 19 2020 17:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2020 04:11 NewSunshine wrote:
Trump supporters literally have no standard for their leader aside from "he's not a lefty". He can do literally no wrong, because as long as they can point to someone - anyone - who can compare to him in that moment, what he's doing becomes OK. Not exactly, there was plenty of criticism from many supporters when he launched pre-emptive strikes in Syria in 2018. Looking back after his first term though i'd say the situation regarding ISIS is far better now than it was under Obama/Biden, would you agree? If Trump had started a new war, instead of winding current wars down and withdrawing troops, then a decent portion of his base would have abandoned him IMO.People are over the wars. You mean the strikes that the Republicans forbid Obama from doing?
yeah that sure doesn't show the hypocrisy...
Or how do you celebrate Trump for withdrawing when the locals wanted the US to stay and yet criticise Obama for leaving when the Iraqi government asked for the US to leave?
Also those strikes did nothing and certainly did not cause the downfall of ISIS. Ask the Kurds in Syria how wonderful Trump's strategy was when they were hung out to die.
Heck ask the US troops how they feel about Russian bounties on their head.
|
On October 19 2020 09:28 Danglars wrote:
And way the fuck too much is made of 'own the libs.' It's there. I own some part of it, because it is simply just desserts for people ignoring countrywide problems if it's mostly affecting poor whites not living in urban cities.
I think there is also an element here that you're missing. Many of the "own the libs" people see that most of the mainstream media either mocks them or accuses them of all manner of terrible things (whether it is deserved or not, or is even real, is irrelevant to their perception) and they see "owning the libs" as a way to fight back against that. It is a group of people who perceives themselves as being bullied and made fun of (regardless of the truth) and now has a President and a political movement that bullies and makes fun of the people who they think have bullied them.
For all that the American right-wing has historically mocked the American left-wing for being "eternal victims" there is a non-insignificant element of victimhood and grievance pandering among the American right-wing. And that finally boiled over in the election of Trump (though one could argue the "boiling over" really began in 2008). Republican political messaging has focused on powerful forces (news media, government, Hollywood, academia, etc) bullying and harassing "everyday Americans" for a long time, so it is natural that many Republicans would feel justified in having a bully of their own.
|
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/joe-bidens-chances-to-win-the-2020-presidential-election-have-never-been-better-oddsmakers-say-11602684816?mod=mw_more_headlines
How can Trump change this trend? Seems impossible to me with not much time left.
A landslide is starting to become quiet likely which would erase any possible doubts about the outcome of the election.
Polarization i think will decrease after the election if there will indeed be a landslide, though biden will face an enormous problem with the epidemic and for now i dont see how he will do any better then trump on that subject so it might only be a temporary relieve.
The true left in the usa is a very marginal part of politics. Both the democrats as well as the republicans are right wing neo liberals (liberal as in the european meaning of the word liberal).The difference between the democrats and republicans is more like the difference between progressive and conservative then the difference between left and right.
Progressive is seen as beeing equal to leftwing by many people but there is a big difference between the two and its possible to be both progressive and rightwing.
|
Ed O'Keefe on CBS' Face the Nation and Joe Concha (Reporter for The Hill) on twitter both claiming Biden has called a lid until Thursday evenings debate.Disappointing if true two weeks out from the election.
|
On October 19 2020 18:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2020 17:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 19 2020 04:11 NewSunshine wrote:
Trump supporters literally have no standard for their leader aside from "he's not a lefty". He can do literally no wrong, because as long as they can point to someone - anyone - who can compare to him in that moment, what he's doing becomes OK. Not exactly, there was plenty of criticism from many supporters when he launched pre-emptive strikes in Syria in 2018. Looking back after his first term though i'd say the situation regarding ISIS is far better now than it was under Obama/Biden, would you agree? If Trump had started a new war, instead of winding current wars down and withdrawing troops, then a decent portion of his base would have abandoned him IMO.People are over the wars. You mean the strikes that the Republicans forbid Obama from doing? yeah that sure doesn't show the hypocrisy... Or how do you celebrate Trump for withdrawing when the locals wanted the US to stay and yet criticise Obama for leaving when the Iraqi government asked for the US to leave? Also those strikes did nothing and certainly did not cause the downfall of ISIS. Ask the Kurds in Syria how wonderful Trump's strategy was when they were hung out to die. Heck ask the US troops how they feel about Russian bounties on their head.
Obama era and the RINOs from 7+ years ago is kind of irrelevant now.Trump has changed the party.Thats why you've got one of the Neo-Con Co-Authors of PNAC (Project for the New American Century) Bill Kristol endorsing Biden.Kristol was pushing for Iraqi regime change back in 1998, He's a hardline interventionist warmonger. You want these people endorsing your candidate? Go for it.
The Kurds, you want to send US troops back to Syria to help factional Middle East conflict? Doubt this would have much support in either party.Take out Assad and the country could descend into chaos and slave trade could return like it did in Obama/Biden's other middle east disaster Libya.
US should be more non-Interventionist.ISIS caliphate is defeated, time to pull back.The left is still anti-war anti-interventionist or not anymore since it's a Trump position? Bizarre.
|
On October 19 2020 21:14 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2020 18:31 Gorsameth wrote:On October 19 2020 17:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 19 2020 04:11 NewSunshine wrote:
Trump supporters literally have no standard for their leader aside from "he's not a lefty". He can do literally no wrong, because as long as they can point to someone - anyone - who can compare to him in that moment, what he's doing becomes OK. Not exactly, there was plenty of criticism from many supporters when he launched pre-emptive strikes in Syria in 2018. Looking back after his first term though i'd say the situation regarding ISIS is far better now than it was under Obama/Biden, would you agree? If Trump had started a new war, instead of winding current wars down and withdrawing troops, then a decent portion of his base would have abandoned him IMO.People are over the wars. You mean the strikes that the Republicans forbid Obama from doing? yeah that sure doesn't show the hypocrisy... Or how do you celebrate Trump for withdrawing when the locals wanted the US to stay and yet criticise Obama for leaving when the Iraqi government asked for the US to leave? Also those strikes did nothing and certainly did not cause the downfall of ISIS. Ask the Kurds in Syria how wonderful Trump's strategy was when they were hung out to die. Heck ask the US troops how they feel about Russian bounties on their head. Obama era and the RINOs from 7+ years ago is kind of irrelevant now.Trump has changed the party. The Kurds, you want to send US troops back to Syria to help factional Middle East conflict? Doubt this would have much support in either party.Take out Assad and the country could descend into chaos and slave trade could return like it did in Obama/Biden's other middle east disaster Libya. US should be more non-Interventionist.ISIS caliphate is defeated, time to pull back.The left is still anti-war anti-interventionist or not anymore since it's a Trump position? Bizarre. So don't talk about Obama, except for you who talks about Obama?
Doesn't fly dude.
The lefts position is the same it has been since forever, don't randomly go to war but if you are in a war don't just abandon the allies that fought for you. That's how you get a whole new generation ready to do another 9/11.
|
Remember how NY Post is a bastion of good, verified reporting? The reporters themselves had issues with the story.
The NYTimes is reporting that the author the Hunter Biden article refused to have their name on the byline, and the only person put on it initially was not informed of the decision to put her as the byline until AFTER publication, along with having done very little work on it. The other person who eventually had their name added has appeared on instagram with members of the Trump campaign and has not written an article for four years for the Post.
The NYT, WSJ, and WaPo were all unable to verify any of the information in the article as well. It's either a hoax or russian propaganda, stop falling for it. WSJ is also another Murdoch paper, so it's not like we're talking only liberal bastions here.
Dailybeast summary (since NYT tends to be paywalled)
Two New York Post employees told The New York Times that the primary author of its Wednesday Hunter Biden article, whose veracity three news organizations have been unable to independently verify, refused to appear on the byline. The sources also said Gabrielle Fonrouge, one of the article’s two named authors, did little of its reporting and writing and was unaware of her byline until after its publication. The other named author, Post deputy politics editor Emma-Jo Morris, did not have a byline in the newspaper until Wednesday’s article, according to the Times, and previously had publicly available Instagram photos with former Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani told the Times he went to the Post with the hard drive because “either nobody else would take it, or if they took it, they would spend all the time they could to try to contradict it before they put it out.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-york-post-reporter-refused-to-put-name-on-hunter-biden-article-report-says?ref=home
Original article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/business/media/new-york-post-hunter-biden.html
The provided metadata is also problematic. Is it 100% dispositive? No, but it's really fucking close.
It was created well after it was supposedly turned into the repair shop, but before Rudy claimed to have gotten it.
One of the other alleged conspiracies doodsmack has been throwing around, that the government conspired to falsely charge Flynn, has had some new info as well.
That new info is that the DoJ tampered with evidence that they submitted on Flynn's behalf, in order to back up QAnon conspiracy theories. They attached incorrect dates on post-it notes on files, then submitted these incorrect files to help back up Flynn's case.
Their defense is that this was an accident, but it beggars belief because they redacted items DIRECTLY NEXT TO THE FALSE DATES and also did it in an entirely different case.
Note : even their defense admits they tampered with the evidence. It happened, we know it happened, we can see it on the documents.
They've also been submitting completely unnecessary evidence to help Flynn. Not Brady papers, just generic "this is our prosecutorial plan" in a manner that's insane - basically, if something sounds bad out of context, they submitted it, and only it, without any of the context. This is where we're getting all the "entrapment" bullshit from. That wasn't what happened.
Some snippets from a recent Opening Arguments (a legal podcast) analysis on this. (Warning, long). Note that the main lawyer, was once a partner at the same firm as Strzok's lawyer, but they've had no working relationship for a very long time, with the exception of a single interview for the podcast(he clarifies this earlier in the transcript of the show).
+ Show Spoiler +Note : ellipsis are for non-legal commentary from the cohost, which I've excised for length
This came out during oral argument, that Sidney Powell was in the White House discussing whether or not she wanted Donald Trump to pardon Michael Flynn at the same time she was in court preparing these arguments with respect to the government’s, now all of a sudden I’m sure totally above board position that no, it just has to move to dismiss this case under Rule 48, “there isn’t any evidence.”
Here’s how they’re manipulating that system.
[...]
the government has an obligation under Brady v. Maryland to produce potentially exculpatory documents, and produce them to defense counsel. That is an affirmative obligation, when you discover it you’ve got to turn it over whether they’ve asked for it or not. The reason we do this is because usually the government is trying to prosecute your client, not working with defense- [...]
-in order to stop the prosecution of somebody who has confessed multiple times to committing the crime in open court. But, you know, in this crazy world we live in that’s upside down that’s where we are. So, the government is continuing to produce documents that are not Brady material, that it is not required to produce, and it keeps feeding them piecemeal to Sidney Powell in order to fuel her conspiracy theory nonsense. This example, and again, this is linked in the show notes, is truly awful.
Here’s what the government produced to Sidney Powell a couple of days ago and then disclosed they were producing as part of their Brady obligations in Court. It is the note of an associate working in the Department of Justice on Peter Strzok’s team and it is their notes from getting together at a prosecutorial team meeting. Again, super early in the process, January 25th, 2017. Basically, right as Lt. General Flynn has spoken to the Mueller team. They’re then getting together to talk about what this means.
First off, these are internal lawyer notes. You do not have to produce them. Even if I write in my notes “defendant might be innocent (question mark)?”
[...]
I am entitled to my thoughts as an attorney working the case. That is not Brady material. But nevertheless, that’s what they’ve produced. They’ve produced a lawyer’s contemporaneous notes as their working through this case at an incredibly early phase, and they’ve done it in a way there is, without a doubt, a 100% consistent way of understanding this document. This is designed to muddy the waters.
So, this one-page set of notes says the following. It starts off with, other than listing everyone in the room, then it says “tolls – did he talk to admin first,” that’s an open question and that is the lawyer taking the notes of going oh, we need to look at, in charging this person with a crime, did – again, in charging Flynn with a crime – is the statute of limitations tolled because of Michael Flynn’s activities with respect to the presidential administration. They leave that as an open question.
Then it says “Logan Act – (quote) ‘no reasonable prosecutor’” (end quote).
[...]
Now, again, that is something that was discussed in the meeting. It’s something we’ve said on the show, which is the standard is would a reasonable prosecutor bring a case under the Logan Act? You might say yeah, nobody ever gets prosecuted under the Logan Act and I am 100% certain, because the reason I could be – I say 100% certain a lot – but you can say that in this case because the government did not charge [Laughing] Michael Flynn with a violation of the Logan Act, because they decided yeah, no reasonable prosecutor would charge him under the Logan Act in these circumstances.
Then under that are a couple of small bullets, these are lines that say “- uphill battle; – other transition teams; – first time to use it.”
[...]
It is clear that what happened was there was an internal debate that said “maybe we should charge this guy under the Logan Act,” and the prosecutors were like [Sighs] you know what? We could. Put a pin in that. But if we charge him with the Logan Act you need to know that’s gonna be an uphill battle. We would get into, they would muddy the water by talking about what other presidential transition teams have done, because the Logan Act prevents you from having contact with a foreign government on behalf of the U.S. government when you were not authorized to do so, and when you are on the presidential transition team and you’re talking to Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, in December, all things that Michael Flynn did, you’re not speaking on behalf of the U.S. government, you are speaking on behalf of the President-elect who does not get to be President until January.
So, there is a fair argument here that says yeah, if we were to charge him under the Logan Act then they would muddy up the waters by talking about what other presidential transition teams have done and they would argue look, there was no intent, they thought they were gonna be the President, it was December.
Flynn's lawyer also admitted she had been talking to Trump about a potential pardon in court.
So the conspiracy is actually the entirely other way : the government is conspiring WITH FLYNN'S LAWYER to get him
out of charges that he confessed to in open court.
Unnecessary Brady disclosures filing and concerned document :
http://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Sullivan-Brady-disclosure.pdf
http://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/FBI-Lawyer-Doc.pdf
Should lying to the FBI be a crime? I dunno. Perjury definitely should be, though. He confessed that he knew lying to the FBI was a crime, and that he did so in order to lessen political blow back.
Regardless, the FBI is a massively republican leaning institution, so all these theories about how they were out to get Trump, the GOP president, are pure bullshit with barely the thinnest shreds of out of context evidence.
From now on, don't treat anything Doodsmack says as correct. He is, at best, presenting unverified conspiracy theories as true.
The issue is that it takes 100x more effort to debunk these theories than it does to prove them. I briefly fell for the Flynn one, which is why I'm somewhat pissed off about that one.
Court filing complaining about the alteration with the alterations attached
http://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Goelman-letter.pdf
News source on the DOJ response.
Justice Department says it 'inadvertently' altered Flynn notes
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/07/politics/flynn-justice-department-altered-documents/index.html
Full Transcript source
https://openargs.com/transcript-of-oa428-govt-caught-lying-for-flynn/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
