|
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 December 16 2020 07:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Not a fan of the current pile-on. What are you guys (non-danglars) trying to achieve here?
I don't perceive Danglars as intellectually dishonest and I've had productive discussions with him on many occasions. We're as politically different as it gets, but I've always found that if I present my argument or questions without any insults (thinly-veiled or otherwise), I get honest arguments in return. But start out your post with 'you are the height of intellectual dishonesty' (not really singling you out here stratos_spear, your post just happens to be in my screen currently) then what response do you expect? I sure as hell wouldn't bother giving a good answer to someone with that preconception of me.
I also think this whole.. 'we demand that you repent'- thingy is extremely counter-productive if you're aiming for bridging the gap.
And it's not like Danglars ever expressed much fondness for Trump. I'm Norwegian so obviously I haven't voted in the american elections, but if I had, I would have very happily voted for Hillary, and then Biden. It doesn't mean I want to defend everything they do. If Hillary had become the president and there was some grand corruption scandal involving her, my 'defense' of that would most likely have been something to the effect of 'but lol the republicans ran trump'. Danglars has admitted that Trump is actually worse than the democrat counterparts on non-policy issues - but he has also highlighted that much of the trouble plaguing the republican party isn't exclusive to them (even if it's more prominent there).
I think the relatively bloodless nature of forum posting can hide the extent to which people approach politics, especially home politics, on terms that do not neatly map on to obvious notions of good faith back and forth. Many people, for both good and bad reasons, are very worried about the state of US politics, and part of Danglars' schtick is to ridicule the pronounced fears of anti-Trumpers who have daily had at least a superficial reason (very debatable) to think the structures of the country wouldn't hold. Make no mistake, it's not uniquely a Danglars thing, but these are ongoing half-consequential issues of politics that are kept on the line between tragedy and farce by Republicans too scared of Trump and his base to say "enough!," so there are good reasons why people suspect that they are being yanked around.
|
I have not seen it mentioned that McConnell has finally congratulated Biden:
It was disappointing for me that it took this long, but as I consider McConnell Trump's by far most powerful ally, it is a pretty big deal that he finally does it.
I haven't seen a response from Trump yet, and this one is rather tricky! The easiest way out is probably to call out McConnell for being weak and wrong, but to whom is the party really most loyal? Can he pull the bold move and include McConnell in the plot against him, like he recently implied with Barr and the CIA? Will Trump just ignore it and keep figthing without the party backing him up?
"popcorn"
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/15/politics/mitch-mcconnell-congratulates-joe-biden/index.html
|
On December 16 2020 05:10 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2020 04:17 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2020 03:27 KwarK wrote:On December 16 2020 03:24 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2020 23:19 Nevuk wrote:On December 15 2020 09:49 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2020 08:34 Nevuk wrote:Bill Barr is stepping down, following a series of Trump attacks on him for not having dropped the news about Hunter Biden being under investigation for tax evasion shortly before the election when he had known about it since April (it really wouldn't have mattered : no one gave a shit about Hunter Biden except Trump diehards). A source close to Barr called Trump a deposed king clinging to power, which was ironic, coming from an ally of the person who singlehandedly has done the most to enshrine Trump's power. ("Barr cannot be intimidated by Trump. This is the real story. None of this matters -- it's the deposed king ranting. Irrelevant to the course of justice and to Trump's election loss" ) per CNN edition.cnn.com) The whole attempt to paint the Hunter Biden computer/emails story as some kind of Russian disinformation would've been smacked down hard if anyone leaked that there was an investigation of over two years into Hunter for Chinese money laundering. If you recall, his former business partner Bobulinski alleged all that back after the story, while confirming the authenticity of the emails. The margins of the Biden electoral win in the states that carried him over was between 0.24% and 1.16%. I wouldn't discount the potential release of corroborating information close to the election. You're a little looney on the "nobody gives a shit." As for the moral side, I've had enough of Comey-style prosecutorial releases near an election, and Barr made the right decision to sit on it. Let me issue this correction : no one would have given a shit about what Barr said on the matter. He burned all his credibility with his Mueller summary. In fact, his leaking would have made me even less inclined to believe it. Also, nice attempt to conflate seeming russian agprop with an actual investigation (no one was investigating based on the ridiculous laptop story). Well, you’re definitely on the other side of the divide. For all Barr’s faults, the treatment of the Mueller report was a shining example of good judgement and preservation of the rule of law. The lack of briefings on interminable investigations fall on the other side. And wow, just wow, on the Russian agitprop. The main corroborator of the emails says the exact same allegations as what had been under official investigation for two years, and Democrats become blind and deaf. It’s too perfect for words! The Mueller report stated that misuse of power did occur and that Trump was only not indicted because DoJ policy was for congress to bring impeachment proceedings when the President is criminal. Barr’s summary was that Trump did nothing wrong. Have you read the report? Are you not at all curious why Mueller said Barr’s summary misled the public? He knows, he has been told here if he could not figure it out himself. But his schtick must continue, this is what makes him so much worse than xDaunt. Xdaunt was authentic, he said the things he thought whether or not they made your skin crawl. Danglars believes all the same stuff, perhaps more he just like to stick around the outsides to try to get people to react then claim innocence and get back on his soap box of morality. Danglars being honest or authentic is just not in his nature or character. I have a different read on this. I do think he is being honest and authentic. He is very good at finding small contradictory things within people's posts and focussing on those at the expense of actually addressing what the poster was trying to get across, which leads to many posters accusing him of being dishonest. + Show Spoiler +I think this is probably a result of his professional training (Danglars is a lawyer as far as I recall?). This does mean that sometimes Danglars comes across as obtuse, and he does have a tendency to ignore evidence that contradicts his points, but so do we all.. I have to say, one of the reasons I keep coming back to this thread is to read about what conservatives are talking about, i.e. from Danglars and other conservative posters, without having to wade into actual rightwing message boards that tend to be a bit more, shall we say, on the fanfic side. I also think the thread would benefit from having fewer personal attacks, as those just make people defensive.
I think this is a fair summary, but ignoring the substance of a position to pick at trivialities is the definition of a dishonest argument. It is absolutely cancerous to any productive discussion and is a core problem for all the posters that do it.
I am all for a broad range of viewpoints. The friction between opposing ideas is the whole point of engaging in a thread like this, but operating in that way is not engagement.
|
On December 16 2020 08:15 Slydie wrote:I have not seen it mentioned that McConnell has finally congratulated Biden: It was disappointing for me that it took this long, but as I consider McConnell Trump's by far most powerful ally, it is a pretty big deal that he finally does it. I haven't seen a response from Trump yet, and this one is rather tricky! The easiest way out is probably to call out McConnell for being weak and wrong, but to whom is the party really most loyal? Can he pull the bold move and include McConnell in the plot against him, like he recently implied with Barr and the CIA? Will Trump just ignore it and keep figthing without the party backing him up? "popcorn" https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/15/politics/mitch-mcconnell-congratulates-joe-biden/index.html
There's a careful calculus McConnell is trying to walk here. The safe bet is that Trump really will lose all influence within days of leaving office. He has copious amounts of legal troubles and spent the last 4 years going out of his way to piss off all non loyalists. Twitter has stated that his protections end from being banned once leaves office.
Additionally, a LOT of his respect comes from authoritarians who crave that sort of not really strong man as their figurehead. The issue is that once he loses power he loses his appeal to them (part of why they're so desperately fighting for him to cling to power).
His best bet for maintaining power post presidency would be to position himself as a kingmaker. He can't do that. His personality is incompatible with it.
But before he leaves office he can torpedo Mitch"s dreams by making them lose the Senate. I think that's worth it to avoid the long-term effects of placating a fascist temper tantrum, but McConnell has never been one for long term planning. (Additionally, Sinema and Manchin exist as pretty conservative democrats who would block anything that really bothers McConnell)
|
On December 16 2020 07:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Not a fan of the current pile-on. What are you guys (non-danglars) trying to achieve here?
I don't perceive Danglars as intellectually dishonest and I've had productive discussions with him on many occasions. We're as politically different as it gets, but I've always found that if I present my argument or questions without any insults (thinly-veiled or otherwise), I get honest arguments in return. But start out your post with 'you are the height of intellectual dishonesty' (not really singling you out here stratos_spear, your post just happens to be in my screen currently) then what response do you expect? I sure as hell wouldn't bother giving a good answer to someone with that preconception of me.
I also think this whole.. 'we demand that you repent'- thingy is extremely counter-productive if you're aiming for bridging the gap.
And it's not like Danglars ever expressed much fondness for Trump. I'm Norwegian so obviously I haven't voted in the american elections, but if I had, I would have very happily voted for Hillary, and then Biden. It doesn't mean I want to defend everything they do. If Hillary had become the president and there was some grand corruption scandal involving her, my 'defense' of that would most likely have been something to the effect of 'but lol the republicans ran trump'. Danglars has admitted that Trump is actually worse than the democrat counterparts on non-policy issues - but he has also highlighted that much of the trouble plaguing the republican party isn't exclusive to them (even if it's more prominent there).
The intellectual validity of Danglars's arguments aside, you and a couple others seem to be looking through some rose-tinted glasses and think that Danglars comes in here as a respectful interlocutor.
He doesn't. He is and has been a condescending asshole for years. He regularly strawmans peoples arguments so that he can belittle their intelligence, integrity, or honesty.
Even if we ignore the abhorrent ethical implications of his political views, he lost any deserved respect long ago. Call-outs like this are nothing short of gaslighting and a perfect example of holding progressives to a higher standard of conduct than conservatives.
Those of us dunking on him are just returning what we get.
|
If you really think you are dunking on him you've got to really reread the thread.
|
United States43860 Posts
On December 16 2020 08:07 Sent. wrote:
Whenever Danglars posts something like "I don't condone that specific thing Trump did, but lets not forget that Democrats also..." or "this one controversial thing Republicans did was correct", it's often twisted into "I'm a 100% Trumper and Democrats are the real racists!!1". I don't understand why he keeps interacting with those posters. All it does is bringing him closer to another ban.
You can’t be a part time fascist. You either support the fascists or you don’t.
|
United States43860 Posts
Nazis in 1946:
"What you don't understand is that you don't have to embrace the whole platform. Personally I was only ever really a fan of his autobahns. I know that a lot of people were very concerned about his plan for a thousand year reich but I always knew the communists were going to stop him so that stuff never really mattered to me. Sure, I worked in the munitions factories but I only did that because I knew the Soviets would triumph either way. I won't be shamed for my love of autobahns just because you have a bad grasp of geopolitics. If you were as smart as me you'd have known that the thousand year reich was never realistic and so you would understand that supporting him wasn't an endorsement of that."
The same Nazis in 1946:
"Fuck antifa and the communists though, they're the real enemies".
|
Praising specific actions of a fascist doesn't make you a fascist if they have little to do with fascism, just like shipping tanks to communists doesn't make you a communist, part time communist or a gulag endorser.
Political allies of NSDAP weren't fascists, they were morons who played with fire.
|
Northern Ireland26523 Posts
On December 16 2020 09:43 KwarK wrote:
Nazis in 1946:
"What you don't understand is that you don't have to embrace the whole platform. Personally I was only ever really a fan of his autobahns. I know that a lot of people were very concerned about his plan for a thousand year reich but I always knew the communists were going to stop him so that stuff never really mattered to me. Sure, I worked in the munitions factories but I only did that because I knew the Soviets would triumph either way. I won't be shamed for my love of autobahns just because you have a bad grasp of geopolitics. If you were as smart as me you'd have known that the thousand year reich was never realistic and so you would understand that supporting him wasn't an endorsement of that."
The same Nazis in 1946:
"Fuck antifa and the communists though, they're the real enemies".
You forgot to mention that political polarisation is the real problem really, not different things that movements are shooting for but polarisation itself.
|
On December 16 2020 10:03 Sent. wrote:
Praising specific actions of a fascist doesn't make you a fascist if they have little to do with fascism, just like shipping tanks to communists doesn't make you a communist, part time communist or a gulag endorser.
Political allies of NSDAP weren't fascists, they were morons who played with fire.
It makes no difference to the fascist despot why people support them.
|
On December 16 2020 10:03 Sent. wrote:
Praising specific actions of a fascist doesn't make you a fascist if they have little to do with fascism, just like shipping tanks to communists doesn't make you a communist, part time communist or a gulag endorser.
Political allies of NSDAP weren't fascists, they were morons who played with fire.
Fascism relies on people like Danglars to say "This is clearly bad, but because of polarization, I can't possibly support the other side". Without people who see it as "wrong, but at least roughly in line with my ideology, so I'll go along with it" fascism falls apart. People like Danglars like to hide behind "I don't like him, but I don't stand against him" as if they are in some way not participating. But that has never been true, they are absolutely participants and enablers.
You can't just say "They were morons" as if they thereby have no responsibility.
|
On December 16 2020 11:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2020 10:03 Sent. wrote:
Praising specific actions of a fascist doesn't make you a fascist if they have little to do with fascism, just like shipping tanks to communists doesn't make you a communist, part time communist or a gulag endorser.
Political allies of NSDAP weren't fascists, they were morons who played with fire. Fascism relies on people like Danglars to say "This is clearly bad, but because of polarization, I can't possibly support the other side". Without people who see it as "wrong, but at least roughly in line with my ideology, so I'll go along with it" fascism falls apart. People like Danglars like to hide behind "I don't like him, but I don't stand against him" as if they are in some way not participating. But that has never been true, they are absolutely participants and enablers. You can't just say "They were morons" as if they thereby have no responsibility.
To be fair, so does any other position that seeks to build a broad consensus around a leader that a lot of people don't like. Sub in "Clinton" in place of "fascism" and the argument works without much modification.
|
On December 16 2020 11:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2020 11:23 Mohdoo wrote:On December 16 2020 10:03 Sent. wrote:
Praising specific actions of a fascist doesn't make you a fascist if they have little to do with fascism, just like shipping tanks to communists doesn't make you a communist, part time communist or a gulag endorser.
Political allies of NSDAP weren't fascists, they were morons who played with fire. Fascism relies on people like Danglars to say "This is clearly bad, but because of polarization, I can't possibly support the other side". Without people who see it as "wrong, but at least roughly in line with my ideology, so I'll go along with it" fascism falls apart. People like Danglars like to hide behind "I don't like him, but I don't stand against him" as if they are in some way not participating. But that has never been true, they are absolutely participants and enablers. You can't just say "They were morons" as if they thereby have no responsibility. To be fair, so does any other position that seeks to build a broad consensus around a leader that a lot of people don't like. Sub in "Clinton" in place of "fascism" and the argument works without much modification.
I don't see how you can allow Clinton to come up in your thoughts so much. It is possible to have discussions without relating things to Clinton.
|
On December 16 2020 12:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2020 11:26 LegalLord wrote:On December 16 2020 11:23 Mohdoo wrote:On December 16 2020 10:03 Sent. wrote:
Praising specific actions of a fascist doesn't make you a fascist if they have little to do with fascism, just like shipping tanks to communists doesn't make you a communist, part time communist or a gulag endorser.
Political allies of NSDAP weren't fascists, they were morons who played with fire. Fascism relies on people like Danglars to say "This is clearly bad, but because of polarization, I can't possibly support the other side". Without people who see it as "wrong, but at least roughly in line with my ideology, so I'll go along with it" fascism falls apart. People like Danglars like to hide behind "I don't like him, but I don't stand against him" as if they are in some way not participating. But that has never been true, they are absolutely participants and enablers. You can't just say "They were morons" as if they thereby have no responsibility. To be fair, so does any other position that seeks to build a broad consensus around a leader that a lot of people don't like. Sub in "Clinton" in place of "fascism" and the argument works without much modification. I don't see how you can allow Clinton to come up in your thoughts so much. It is possible to have discussions without relating things to Clinton.
It’s an example that works and is immediately topical; no need to think more into it than that to support a pointless deflection.
|
I mean, if you are starting from the position that Clinton = fascism, then yes, I guess you could just sub it in without modification
To everyone else, that would be ridiculous.
|
On December 16 2020 12:55 Belisarius wrote:
I mean, if you are starting from the position that Clinton = fascism.
That's not what I was saying. This is:
On December 16 2020 11:26 LegalLord wrote:
To be fair, so does any other position that seeks to build a broad consensus around a leader that a lot of people don't like.
No point in waxing philosophical about "enablers of fascism" as Mohdoo did when it's pretty much trivially true that any group that intends to compete in the mainstream will seek to build a broad consensus among often-reluctant supporters. The presumed "fascist" individuals do this, and so do literally any mainstream politicians of your choice. Talking about fascism is just an alarmist way to claim something nefarious for something trivially true of anyone in politics.
|
I mean, fascists do quite a bit more than that, so it's not a very useful nor interesting point. When people talk about fascism/fascists they're very obviously not talking about just any politicians.
|
United States43860 Posts
Most of the fascist supporters explain that their main reason for supporting the guy who refuses to acknowledge the results of the election he lost and routinely calls for violence and imprisonment of his opponents is so that he could make a bunch of political appointments to the judiciary. They see no issues with this. It really is “well sure he’s a fascist but what I care about most is ensuring that he controls the courts”.
|
On December 16 2020 12:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2020 12:16 Mohdoo wrote:On December 16 2020 11:26 LegalLord wrote:On December 16 2020 11:23 Mohdoo wrote:On December 16 2020 10:03 Sent. wrote:
Praising specific actions of a fascist doesn't make you a fascist if they have little to do with fascism, just like shipping tanks to communists doesn't make you a communist, part time communist or a gulag endorser.
Political allies of NSDAP weren't fascists, they were morons who played with fire. Fascism relies on people like Danglars to say "This is clearly bad, but because of polarization, I can't possibly support the other side". Without people who see it as "wrong, but at least roughly in line with my ideology, so I'll go along with it" fascism falls apart. People like Danglars like to hide behind "I don't like him, but I don't stand against him" as if they are in some way not participating. But that has never been true, they are absolutely participants and enablers. You can't just say "They were morons" as if they thereby have no responsibility. To be fair, so does any other position that seeks to build a broad consensus around a leader that a lot of people don't like. Sub in "Clinton" in place of "fascism" and the argument works without much modification. I don't see how you can allow Clinton to come up in your thoughts so much. It is possible to have discussions without relating things to Clinton. It’s an example that works and is immediately topical; no need to think more into it than that to support a pointless deflection.
Your Clinton obsession us really disturbing, and you totally miss the point. Clinton is not someone that anyone believing in democracy and in his right mind *should* reject. She didn't try to subvert democracy and to openly steal an election.
Everybody in a democracy vote or support people they don't like from time to time unless they are completely clueless. That is not what we are talking about.
And seriously cut it with your "yes but Clinton" arguments on every topic. It's getting really annoying and is systematically missing the point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
