[Nicodimas]

Amphibian does have a point on Trusting politicians, but maybe because I was younger age I remember going to a campaign speech of McCains and it was amazing. I always liked the way he talks, his open question style as it never seemed like fed questions. /shrug. It was a long time ago and to stay political relevant he had to change to type of Republicans that came forth afterwards.

You know this I have been way independent for a long time.

Which politicians left and right do you guys like? Just wondering.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 14 May 2018 - 12:13 AM

[Tsundoku]

I think the USA could do a LOT worse than elect a fair few more like Elizabeth Warren.
She's not perfect (who is?) but she's about the best you'll get these days and comes across as a decent human being who isn't (fully) in the pockets of Wall St etc.

Of course I may be way off base but that's how it seems to me over on this side of the Pacific.

[End of Disc One]

Luv2B_Sassy, on 13 May 2018 - 09:45 PM, said:

@amph, on that tip: https://twitter.com/...702385799548928

Ugh, do not want.

The country is becoming more and more divided over politics and I wish people could just get along and accept their differences. People want to crush the other side, and then what? Keep them under heel? I honestly expect better out of the left than the right, and I wish they would take the high road and try to not stoke the flames.

[Obdigore]

End of Disc One, on 14 May 2018 - 02:20 PM, said:

Luv2B_Sassy, on 13 May 2018 - 09:45 PM, said:

@amph, on that tip: https://twitter.com/...702385799548928

Ugh, do not want.

The country is becoming more and more divided over politics and I wish people could just get along and accept their differences. People want to crush the other side, and then what? Keep them under heel? I honestly expect better out of the left than the right, and I wish they would take the high road and try to not stoke the flames.

You're right, both sides are the same. One side wants to make anyone who isn't a rich white male a subclass with no power or rights, so the other side must be just as bad, right?

[amphibian]

Tsundoku, on 14 May 2018 - 08:55 AM, said:

I think the USA could do a LOT worse than elect a fair few more like Elizabeth Warren.
She's not perfect (who is?) but she's about the best you'll get these days and comes across as a decent human being who isn't (fully) in the pockets of Wall St etc.

Of course I may be way off base but that's how it seems to me over on this side of the Pacific.

Sanders, Warren, yep. They are the kind of elected officials that would be a decent start towards actually treating people well through government. They're not perfect and they have flaws, but they are called extreme left wing when they're not. They're more like the moderate left of the 1970s before Carter was elected President. The country has moved very rightward and done so on a flood of money from the groups, corporations, and people empowered by Reagan's ascension and subsequent deregulation.

I liked much of what Obama did, but anyone who doesn't talk about his failures to corral and hold accountable the financial organizations and individuals of the recession or his continued support of drone strike murders is doing a disservice to the American people.

[amphibian]

I will say this: my dislike of Schumer comes in part from his being the commencement speaker when I graduated college. He spoke for about a half hour about this imaginary couple he uses to mentally bounce ideas off of. Joe and Eileen O'Reilly.

They were just fucking awful sock puppets that he'd occasionally whip out to "prove" he had the middle class in mind for political moves. As I sat next to my cousin who was also graduating, we couldn't figure out why this senator was talking to us about constructing imaginary friends to talk to as we graduated from college.

So I have long thought Schumer was a dipshit and it's partly because he gave a bad speech to an audience I had to be part of. Partly because of his bad political moves too

[QuickTidal]

I'm curious.

Is there a line in the sand where the GOP congress stops letting Trump Admin get away with the lies and crap?

Like what if he pulled a Putin, and the next election was just designed so that he gets back in behind the "facade" of "fairness"...Does the GOP Congress squawk THEN?

I just wonder where the actual line is, because at this point I'm unsure if there is one he could cross and it would be one bridge too far.

You'd have a constitutional crisis right? But what happens in that case?

I realize it's an extreme thought experiment...but I mean up till this point he's gotten away with tonnes of crap, and his Liar Lady covers for him with more lies and everyone accepts it. The media sickeningly doesn't call out SHS or Trump on their shit directly, for fear of losing a seat at the press conference...so with no one REALLY calling foul...where does it stop? Does it stop?

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 14 May 2018 - 06:10 PM

[worry]

There doesn't need to be a line. Trump isn't doing anything that isn't perfectly in line with current GOP orthodoxy -- and that includes aligning with other kleptocrats, since that is literally the purpose of GOP policy. Trump just happens to say the quiet part loud, which was previously considered politically unthinkable.

[QuickTidal]

Luv2B_Sassy, on 14 May 2018 - 07:07 PM, said:

There doesn't need to be a line. Trump isn't doing anything that isn't perfectly in line with current GOP orthodoxy -- and that includes aligning with other kleptocrats, since that is literally the purpose of GOP policy. Trump just happens to say the quiet part loud, which was previously considered politically unthinkable.

Okay, that's a fair point...but then what about everyone else? Clearly more of the country is against this than for it (Popular vote)...so what is critical mass for your democracy?

[worry]

End of Disc One, on 14 May 2018 - 02:20 PM, said:

Luv2B_Sassy, on 13 May 2018 - 09:45 PM, said:

@amph, on that tip: https://twitter.com/...702385799548928

Ugh, do not want.

The country is becoming more and more divided over politics and I wish people could just get along and accept their differences. People want to crush the other side, and then what? Keep them under heel? I honestly expect better out of the left than the right, and I wish they would take the high road and try to not stoke the flames.

Is the country more divided, or are we just better able to name the divisions? I would suggest that maybe more people have a voice that were previously silenced. What if the 'high road' actually meant being honest? What if it meant not that we pretend the other side isn't beholden to white nationalists, but saying so plainly -- and that it's unacceptable, in no uncertain terms.

People talk about how we shouldn't "normalize" Trump, but what about what has already been normalized? Like devaluing non-American life, blowing up weddings, ripping children from their parents at the border and imprisoning both. Like openly and academically (in the sense that spineless nerds are paid handsomely to spout talking points) debating which country to regime-change next.

[worry]

QuickTidal, on 14 May 2018 - 07:20 PM, said:

Luv2B_Sassy, on 14 May 2018 - 07:07 PM, said:

There doesn't need to be a line. Trump isn't doing anything that isn't perfectly in line with current GOP orthodoxy -- and that includes aligning with other kleptocrats, since that is literally the purpose of GOP policy. Trump just happens to say the quiet part loud, which was previously considered politically unthinkable.

Okay, that's a fair point...but then what about everyone else? Clearly more of the country is against this than for it (Popular vote)...so what is critical mass for your democracy?

I honestly don't know what would happen in the event of a constitutional crisis. I imagine Trump is expendable, since Mike Pence will do pretty much exactly the same thing, though there are some PR issues to consider. What we do know is that since demographics are trending away from the GOP base, they are willing to pull every last dirty trick to exert white dominance on elections. I don't think there are any silver bullets, but I do think pro-democratic goals should include expanding voting rights, enfranchising the disenfranchised, and eliminating money's warping effects on politics through publicly funding elections.

In the meantime, get people to vote in primaries and not just the general election, get people interested in down-ballot races, and generate motivation to vote through running people who support policy that actually makes lives better. Like, don't ignore the Russia stuff, but don't run on it -- especially not exclusively -- run on policy.

[amphibian]

Also, the more history I study, the less I become sure of what causes a successful revolt to become one.

There have been thousands of mini revolts, some armed, some not, this past century. Some of them fizzled out, others had police airplanes firebombing black neighborhoods (Tulsa, 1921), and others were somewhere in the middle.

I'm not sure what would trigger a nation wide or even state wide revolt against the GOP now. Maybe a too-fast demolition of the Social Security Administration could do it. Maybe Peter Thiel's Palantir evil finally gets mainstream traction and that sets something off.

Or it could be a fruit seller who sets themselves ablaze to protest abominable treatment by the police. We do have a uniformly bad/ill trained police force asked to basically fill in the gaps of an incompetent and often oppressive state. There have even been high profile sparks related to this in the recent past.

[Maark Abbott]

amphibian, on 14 May 2018 - 08:16 PM, said:

Also, the more history I study, the less I become sure of what causes a successful revolt to become one.

There have been thousands of mini revolts, some armed, some not, this past century. Some of them fizzled out, others had police airplanes firebombing black neighborhoods (Tulsa, 1921), and others were somewhere in the middle.

I'm not sure what would trigger a nation wide or even state wide revolt against the GOP now. Maybe a too-fast demolition of the Social Security Administration could do it. Maybe Peter Thiel's Palantir evil finally gets mainstream traction and that sets something off.

Or it could be a fruit seller who sets themselves ablaze to protest abominable treatment by the police. We do have a uniformly bad/ill trained police force asked to basically fill in the gaps of an incompetent and often oppressive state. There have even been high profile sparks related to this in the recent past.

Didn't a lawyer self-immolate in Central Park this year as a protest?

[amphibian]

Yes. He did so for a few reasons, with ecological reasons being the ones he chose to highlight in his note. He talked about fossil fuels killing the planet etc.

[amphibian]

Here is Vann Newkirk III talking about what to do to energize the young black vote, which may be sufficient to tip elections leftwards even as the GOP stays solid in their voting blocs: https://www.theatlan...rs-want/559775/

[worry]

Quote

...the data suggest that these voters increasingly identify as and behave like true independents. “They see themselves as being persuadable,” Shropshire said. “They want to be approached.”

This is interesting, and I think it's the trend among younger people on 'the left' (broad brush) in general, though proportionally different group to group. Which is both a good and bad thing. The GOP knows what its constituents want (traditional, aka short-sighted reactionary white, dominance) and they give it to them (at least in an illusory sense, since all but nominal power goes to economic elites -- but definitely the 'right' people get beaten up the worst).

But the Dems, establishment Dems in particular, often don't seem to know or care what their constituents want. Even if they start out progressives, Washington money-culture warps them. Isn't it sad that a voting bloc demanding policy that actually benefits their lives is seen as "independent"? That says at least as much about the Democratic Party than it does the voters.

[worry]

Osita Nwanevu expanded on that tweet I posted about liberals being "nice".

https://slate.com/ne...lenty-nice.html

Quote

Political commentators generally take very little interest in thinking through the implications and consequences of arrogance and condescension on the right. How often are Republicans told by centrist surveyors of the cultural scene that they might benefit politically from reaching out to enthusiastically pro-choice young women, that the fire-and-brimstone approach of calling supporters of Planned Parenthood pro-infanticide and symbols of the fall of man might be counterproductive? How much respect for ideological opponents is evinced whenever conservative pundits call the activists of Black Lives Matter thugs and black Democrats dupes? Is the average liberal or leftist in America today more clueless or judgmental about lifestyles different from their own than Republicans who spent years warning that gay marriage and the decriminalization of homosexuality would justify and enable bestiality? Is the average left activist on campus more hostile to dissenting opinions than Ben Shapiro was when he argued that Iraq war critics should be prosecuted for sedition?

Worth noting in contrast, perhaps, that just today President Trump referred to some deportees this way: "These aren't people. These are animals." And that the Department of Homeland Security is, as we speak, preparing U.S. military bases to become concentration camps for immigrant minors ripped away from their parents.

[Maark Abbott]

Luv2B_Sassy, on 16 May 2018 - 11:17 PM, said:

Osita Nwanevu expanded on that tweet I posted about liberals being "nice".

https://slate.com/ne...lenty-nice.html

Quote

Political commentators generally take very little interest in thinking through the implications and consequences of arrogance and condescension on the right. How often are Republicans told by centrist surveyors of the cultural scene that they might benefit politically from reaching out to enthusiastically pro-choice young women, that the fire-and-brimstone approach of calling supporters of Planned Parenthood pro-infanticide and symbols of the fall of man might be counterproductive? How much respect for ideological opponents is evinced whenever conservative pundits call the activists of Black Lives Matter thugs and black Democrats dupes? Is the average liberal or leftist in America today more clueless or judgmental about lifestyles different from their own than Republicans who spent years warning that gay marriage and the decriminalization of homosexuality would justify and enable bestiality? Is the average left activist on campus more hostile to dissenting opinions than Ben Shapiro was when he argued that Iraq war critics should be prosecuted for sedition?

Worth noting in contrast, perhaps, that just today President Trump referred to some deportees this way: "These aren't people. These are animals." And that the Department of Homeland Security is, as we speak, preparing U.S. military bases to become concentration camps for immigrant minors ripped away from their parents.

Interesting as well is that (from what I read, unverified as I'm at work) the US' UN ambassador walked out as the Palestinian ambassador was about to deliver a speech?

[Cause]

Luv2B_Sassy, on 16 May 2018 - 11:17 PM, said:

Worth noting in contrast, perhaps, that just today President Trump referred to some deportees this way: "These aren't people. These are animals." And that the Department of Homeland Security is, as we speak, preparing U.S. military bases to become concentration camps for immigrant minors ripped away from their parents.

I don't understand the need to speak this way. I have no idea why Trump wants to separate the children of illegal immigrants from their parents. It is certainly heavy handed. I also believe its not necessarily a new trumpian policy. It is most certainly not going to be a concentration camp; they wont be starved, beaten, forced to do hard labour etc. It will be a prison. A prison is not a concentration camp no matter how powerful the image it conjures.

Today we throw around words like concentration camp and genocide and brutal assault like they were light as a feather and not very powerful and very specific words. Recently a protester was escorted out of my countries parliament. The guard gripped her by the arm and walked her out. The protesters speak about the brutal assault, the sexual harassment/rape because the guard touched a women and he was a man, her loss of dignity. Misuse of words and terms like this contributes as much to our deplorable post truth era as anything trump says.

[Silencer]

Cause, on 17 May 2018 - 09:29 AM, said:

Luv2B_Sassy, on 16 May 2018 - 11:17 PM, said:

Worth noting in contrast, perhaps, that just today President Trump referred to some deportees this way: "These aren't people. These are animals." And that the Department of Homeland Security is, as we speak, preparing U.S. military bases to become concentration camps for immigrant minors ripped away from their parents.

I don't understand the need to speak this way. I have no idea why Trump wants to separate the children of illegal immigrants from their parents. It is certainly heavy handed. I also believe its not necessarily a new trumpian policy. It is most certainly not going to be a concentration camp; they wont be starved, beaten, forced to do hard labour etc. It will be a prison. A prison is not a concentration camp no matter how powerful the image it conjures.

Today we throw around words like concentration camp and genocide and brutal assault like they were light as a feather and not very powerful and very specific words. Recently a protester was escorted out of my countries parliament. The guard gripped her by the arm and walked her out. The protesters speak about the brutal assault, the sexual harassment/rape because the guard touched a women and he was a man, her loss of dignity. Misuse of words and terms like this contributes as much to our deplorable post truth era as anything trump says.

You're aware, of course, that the Trump admin is also trying to roll back protections against child labor? While it might be early to declare the detention centers (because that is more accurate than prison, if we're being specific with our words) as being concentration camps, I would not be surprised in the least if that is what they end up being under Trump. This is a man who refers to immigrants as animals specifically as a derogatory and degrading, dehumanizing term. And making detention centers into almost-as-bad-as-actual-concentration-camps is something that Australia has already done, and something that Trump has expressed admiration for. So, yeah.

I can't speak to what happened in South Africa's parliament or what "protesters" are or are not saying, but just because some people are being hyperbolic or alarmist in some respects doesn't hold the same weight as the literal President of the United States being a prolific liar and bigot. His position has authority and like it or not carries weight as a guide to behavior more than any individual protester would usually hold. His words legitimize beliefs and opinions on a massive scale and while that doesn't excuse other people blowing things out of proportion it certainly can put things in perspective. And there's a big difference between misrepresenting what something is or what someone has done, and making a logical prediction of what something could become.

Of course, a bit less certitude in the words chosen wouldn't be inappropriate. "to possibly become" might have been more acceptable?