US Elections: Never Trust a Man with Orange Eyebrows

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why is this important now when it has barely been mentioned over the last 8 years?

I mention it all the time, and frankly I'm nonplussed that it takes something like the other team threatening silly prosecutions for it to be discussed more. War crimes and torture ought not be trivial, and yet it's only normally discussed in a Democrat v. Republican context. This is how America forgives itself everything, by reducing it to partisan rhetoric.

[OldGimletEye]

2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Trump is a huge embarrassment, no doubt. However there are different levels of embarrassment. This would be used by dictators and would-be dictators as an excuse for their own authoritarian behaviors. 

And by all means throw up the bullshit flag. I"m just saying be careful what you wish for. Such an action would likely single that we are entering a very dangerous period in our country's history. It's likely going to be a tough period on the poor and minorities. But at least I don't feel yet that I'm going to be pulled out of my home in the middle of the night. 

You know with some fuckers, if you give them an inch, they will take a mile.

At some point, you just got to say "enough".

[DunderMifflin]

43 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Well, I was really speaking about beliefs and belief systems that many of us on the left would say are factually and ethically wrong.   But I think we can judge the rightness and wrongness of parties just as we can any actions or beliefs or sets of beliefs of anything.  For example, I think we can easily say the Dixiecrat party was wrong.   

Do you think modern Democrats in general are open and listen to accusations from non Republicans that they are morally wrong?   

For example my small opinion is that if building a wall to keep immigrants out is the immoral option, the moral option should be to have open borders. And to my knowledge this far from the policy of the Democrats.

Otherwise it's just supporting immorality at levels you are comfortable with.

 

 

[Sivin]

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

You know with some fuckers, if you give them an inch, they will take a mile.

At some point, you just got to say "enough".

While choosing a hill to die on is certainly noble, defense in depth can produce much more definitive victories at less cost.

[butterbumps!]

9 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Do you think modern Democrats in general are open and listen to accusations from non Republicans that they are morally wrong?   

For example my small opinion is that if building a wall to keep immigrants out is the immoral option, the moral option should be to have open borders. And to my knowledge this far from the policy of the Democrats.

Otherwise it's just supporting immorality at levels you are comfortable with.

The bolded is an example of a false dichotomy.   The extreme opposite of an immoral position doesn't automatically yield the moral position.   

I'd also like to point out that the moral issue is not building the Wall in itself.   The wall is an idiotically impractical and costly boondoggle, and sends a symbolic message that I believe many Americans find distinctly unAmerican.  It's the anti-Statue of Liberty.

But the moral issue at stake is about rounding up the people who are here, who have been here for a long time, who have families that will be torn apart, and are part of the communities, who are otherwise law-abiding and good people just trying to put food on the table and sending them away.

[James Arryn]

10 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

 

 

Trump is a huge embarrassment, no doubt. However there are different levels of embarrassment. This would be used by dictators and would-be dictators as an excuse for their own authoritarian behaviors. 

And by all means throw up the bullshit flag. I"m just saying be careful what you wish for. Such an action would likely single that we are entering a very dangerous period in our country's history. It's likely going to be a tough period on the poor and minorities. But at least I don't feel yet that I'm going to be pulled out of my home in the middle of the night. 

This would be more of a signal of entering dangerous times than re-electing an administration of illegal unilateral invasions and off-grid torture prisons, and electing one sanctioning religious and racial persecution?

[Castel]

4 hours ago, mormont said:

I do wonder why the apparently dominant narrative appears to be 'the American right elected Donald Trump and we need to figure out why that's the American left's fault'.

Because it's the same elements of the American left and their reactionaries off that talking to one another while claiming to be talking about other people.

They pick and choose what they know and what they consider distasteful about their  surroundings and declare it to be the clear, decisive factor that swung the election. 

So, people who either thought the liberal order was inevitable or stiflingly omnipresent will naturally go to that. It was supposed to be inevitable so any failure must surely come from within.While claiming to stand outside it to criticize it.

Yes, that's the solution to Americans getting divided 

[OldGimletEye]

6 minutes ago, Sivin said:

While choosing a hill to die on is noble, defense in depth can produce much more definitive victories at less cost.

I'd never pick terrain, I didn't think I could win on.

I do, however, prefer rapid battles of annihilation rather than ones of slow attrition, to the extent I think my chances are fairly good.

[The guy from the Vale]

3 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Do you think modern Democrats in general are open and listen to accusations from non Republicans that they are morally wrong?   

For example my small opinion is that if building a wall to keep immigrants out is the immoral option, the moral option should be to have open borders. And to my knowledge this far from the policy of the Democrats.

Otherwise it's just supporting immorality at levels you are comfortable with.

 

 

a. Building a wall is ineffectual as to the stated goal, it is a waste of resources and a shameful symbol in opposition to the Statue of Liberty or Ronald Raegan, of all people. " Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." is the polar opposite of that wall. As is "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

b. There can be middle ground between "throw them all out" and "let everybody in". You know, stuff like throwing out criminals, having a visa process, paths to citizenship, all that jazz. Democrats run the spectrum from  the rare "let everybody in" to that middle ground. Republicans used to occupy the area between "throw them all out" and the middle ground. Rubio was the most prominent promoter of the latter position. But, well, it basically cost him all his political capital and he lost that fight, with conservative voters backing the quintessential "throw them all out" candidate instead. 

[DunderMifflin]

6 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

The bolded is an example of a false dichotomy.   The extreme opposite of an immoral position doesn't automatically yield the moral position.   

I'd also like to point out that the moral issue is not building the Wall in itself.   The wall is an idiotically impractical and costly boondoggle, and sends a symbolic message that I believe many Americans find distinctly unAmerican.  It's the anti-Statue of Liberty.

But the moral issue at stake is about rounding up the people who are here, who have been here for a long time, who have families that will be torn apart, and are part of the communities, who are otherwise law-abiding and good people just trying to put food on the table and sending them away.

Then how does one determine what the moral and right position is? And be certain of it.

[Castel]

1 minute ago, DunderMifflin said:

Then how does one determine what the moral and right position is? And be certain of it.

With difficulty.

[James Arryn]

2 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Then how does one determine what the moral and right position is? And be certain of it.

So, income taxes; %100 or get rid of 'em?

[DunderMifflin]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

So, income taxes; %100 or get rid of 'em?

No, just get rid of 'em. I don't think they are neccesary.

Is my opinion moral or immoral?

[Martell Spy]

Quote

This would be more of a signal of entering dangerous times than re-electing an administration of illegal unilateral invasions and off-grid torture prisons, and electing one sanctioning religious and racial persecution?

Entering an even more dangerous period, then. Yes, it's been a dangerous period this entire century so far. Just as if Trump jailed some reporters, it leads to questions as to what else he will do. If he can jail HIllary and get away with it, he can jail anyone. I'm not saying our current situation isn't a nightmare. It can always get worse though. I'd rather not live in Russia.

[Sivin]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'd never pick terrain, I didn't think I could win on.

I do, however, prefer rapid battles of annihilation rather ones of slow attrition, to the extent I think my chances are fairly good.

Do not be short sighted. Trump could be exposed and ridiculed the day he takes office, depending on if it is a weekend, but at what cost and to which effect? You cannot win this war quickly, it will take 4 years no matter what you do. Even if Trump were to fall in April, an even greater evil stands ready to replace him.

Political, and literal, capital need to be reserved for when the counterattack will be capable of producing a truly definitive result. Go guns blazing today and a battle will be instigated from which liberals cannot withdraw, and the long slog will do nothing but weaken the left while allowing the attacks to grow stale against the right. We should let them wreak their havoc, let the people see what happens. A holding action in the interim on fronts impossible to retreat from will keep the base intact.

And no, 2018 is not the end-goal. It is another holding action, albeit a critical one, to keep as many senate seats as possible. 2020 is when the hammer should fall, the Republican seats will be vulnerable and public opinion will surely have turned against them (or else this is all moot). Returning the oval office to an individual fit to lead it is a bonus.

Democrats are weak right now, and over-extension would be as dangerous as infighting. Focus should be on survival now. Strengthen the center, allow the flanks greater mobility.

I am growing to see this as an opportunity. Twice in the last 20 years stability and even moderate improvement over 8 years was unappreciated by the people and the Republicans were allowed to take control. When they run it into the ground again, they might actually have to face the consequences.

[The guy from the Vale]

5 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

No, just get rid of 'em. I don't think they are neccesary.

Is my opinion moral or immoral?

So you think police, public roads, sewage facilities etc. are all unnecessary?

And I'm saying that as somebody who thinks income tax is one of the worst ways of raising taxes (albeit still better than value-added or sales taxes). But really, moral decisions are made in context, not on the level of slogans. Every decision has to be made anew, with no certainty as to the outcome. There are some guiding principles though, including such things as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[butterbumps!]

16 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Then how does one determine what the moral and right position is? And be certain of it.

out of interest, would you be going down this same line of query with abolitionists back in the day?

We have 400 years of liberal philosophy at our disposal that is specifically aimed at addressing what is the morally correct position to take in any given circumstances.  We figure it out as a society and strive to come to a common consensus.   

Also, not everything is a moral issue.  I think your income tax question is amoral.   And I was talking about beliefs that are just factually wrong as well as those with a moral stake.

[The guy from the Vale]

@Sivin I hope you are right, but I fear this cycle of eight fat years being followed by eight lean years will just continue indefinitely. US voters just don't seem to learn.

[OldGimletEye]

2 minutes ago, Sivin said:

snip

I don't think I'm being shorted sighted. I think there is an ability get a major victory here.

Will it, bring us back control quickly? Nope, it won't.

My only question would be: Are our chances here poor? I don't think they are. And if they're not, I'm not inclined to let conservatives just go on thinking, along with some confused people who may not be biased, that Hillary did something criminal. And that's what an Obama pardon will do.

I realize several blows will need to be delivered here. This is just the first one. I'm only willing to make withdraw here if our chances are that poor. I don't think they are.

[DunderMifflin]

10 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

out of interest, would you be going down this same line of query with abolitionists back in the day?

We have 400 years of liberal philosophy at our disposal that is specifically aimed at addressing what is the morally correct position to take in any given circumstances.  We figure it out as a society and come to a common consensus.   

Also, not everything is a moral issue.  I think your income tax question is amoral.   And I was talking about beliefs that are just factually wrong as well.

I really have no clue, I'd like to think I would not. But id probably be just like millions of other people at the time. There was a real danger to your life for having those positions back then so I'd probably at most just say "yeh slavery isn't cool" around situations where I felt safe and then proceed to do nothing to help.

And 400 years of philosophy is great but I don't think that has led us to any current position of knowing for sure what is right and wrong in every or even most situations. If voting Hillary Clinton is the epitome of being moral then....I just refuse to believe that.

 

I can't even comment on which party had the facts and which doesn't, I already know that's a hole that will lead nowhere fast.