Jump to content

US politics: Donny, you're out of your element


IheartIheartTesla

Recommended Posts

Sounds like there are a bunch of state-level bathroom bills which are having a hard time gaining traction and moving into law, in Republican controlled states. Seems like some significant businesses and pro-sports codes oppose, which could hit states in the revenue and employment soft spots, in addition to activists being a bit more prepared to agitate in opposition. And even some Republicans actually doing what they claim is one of their ideological corner-stones which is to not regulate.

On that topic, and sorry to bring Milo back into the thread, I caught the clip of Milo on Bill Maher's show talking about the transgender bathroom issue. Milo said trans people are disproportionately "involved" in sex offences and that this was not a controversial statistic. My immediate reaction was, he must be flat out lying. I didn't have any stats at my fingertips, but it just felt like a completely wrong assertion based on my own personal knowledge of transpeople (first and second hand). But worse than straight out lying, it turns out Milo was cunningly choosing his words to tell a truth but convey a lie, and in doing so he was basically re-victimising transpeople. I didn't think there could be a worse thing in public discourse than flat out lying. But using a statistic that shows transpeople are disproportionately the victims of sex crimes to plant the idea in people minds that transpeople are disproportionately the offenders is an evil beyond straight out lying.

How do I know he was using a truth to convey a lie? Bill Maher and his guests all interpretted Milo's truthful statement to mean that Milo is claim transpeople are the more often the offender rather than more often being the victims. They actually aided and abetted (unwillingly) Milo's purpose by the way they reacted. Instead of calling Milo out on his manipulative language, they just attacked Milo. So they never actually picked up on Milo's trick (which is a trick he probably uses a lot to both troll his opposition and animate his supporters) and turned it on him to expose what he's doing.

Social progressives have to wise up to these tactics and be a lot more agile if they are going to try to face these sorts of people head on. Because just telling Milo to go fuck himself, which is about all the 3 liberals ended up doing, is pathetic and counter-productive. But I guess that's why one should probably not have comedians pretending to run serious current events panel shows as the first line of defence (or attack) against the social conservative agenda. So this rant is really less about Milo having a heart as black as a lump of coal, as it is a lament of the lack of rhetorical capability among progressives when engaging in head to head debates with the likes of Milo. But what should I expect, Bill Maher is an anti-vaxxer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

To be fair, he's stating the obvious. Climate Change Denier for the head of the EPA, Private school/charter school waiver proponent for Dept of Education, Fast Food CEO for Dept of Labor, etc, etc. It hardly needed to be said, did it?

I know but it's the first time it was stated outright. No longer assumption even if obvious but now fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Look the South was solid (Democrat) within living memory, and within living memory, the Democratic party didn't have 100% the best record on these issues, so let's all be a little bit fair here.  It's not ANCIENT history by any stretch of the imagination.  That said, it is HISTORY post 1960s.  So, you know, we should all be reacting to what the political realities are today.

The fairest way to look at our political history is by ideology, not party affiliation. So whether you want to look at the 1960s or the 1860s, generally speaking it was liberals who were trying to expand people's rights and it was conservatives fighting them every inch of the way, as it still is in 2017.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, S John said:

A lot of right wing people sincerely preach that Nazi's are creatures of the left.  Partly because of the word 'socialist' in national socialism (ignoring the nationalism part), but mainly because they sincerely believe that nothing evil can came from right wing ideology - only good. 

26 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Libertarian (along with Conservatives) sorts having been making this argument for awhile. It's been around for a long time.

The reasoning process is Nazi's didn't follow unfettered capitalism. Liberals don't believe in unfettered capitalism. Ergo, Nazi's and liberals are a like.

I'll have a slightly pedantic moment and remind everyone that depending on how you define right and left, it can absolutely be correct to say that Nazis are from the left.
But then, I've been having fun myself by arguing for a while now that the Soviet regime was on the right.

The problem of course, is that the "standard" right-left spectrum is too simple to properly define reality. A more accurate way to talk about politics should have at least two, if not three spectrums (/spectra). As long as you have only one, you can basically say anything if you play with the definitions.
Like, a common joke about Reagan among some political scientists is to describe him as an anarchist, just to piss American conservatives off ; in fact, it's not uncommon in France to view libertarians as anarchists (though we call them "right-wing anarchists" to be specific). But of course, conservatives could have fun as well by describing Stalin or Mao as fascists.

It might seem fun or pedantic (depending on your mood) but it reflects a genuine problem with the usual "right-left" dichotomy. After all, depending on where you're standing (/living) liberalism is sometimes viewed as being a right-wing ideology. Even if you look at the origins of this left-right spectrum (i.e. the French revolution) it's not entirely clear that the "left" is supposed to be "liberal," because the original "leftists" were hardly liberal and the Revolution led to the Terror, which could easily be seen as a form of fascism.

The way I see it though, the deeper fallacy is saying that the "right" is about individual liberty or freedom. After all, one of FDR's four freedoms was freedom of want, and social justice/equality is a defining feature of the modern left. In my humble opinion, right-wing politics deprive individuals of economic freedom through wage slavery and the increases in inequality that they create ; what they do is replace "political oppression/interference" with economic oppression (which itself too often becomes political oppression again :rolleyes:).
Which means the true defenders of freedom in our day and age are undoubtebly on the left. ;)

Anyway, if you meet someone who wants to say that Nazis are on the left, then you can safely argue that liberalism is on the right. Or vice-versa. Since such people talk out of their ass anyway, there's no reason not to do the same. :P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The fairest way to look at our political history is by ideology, not party affiliation. So whether you want to look at the 1960s or the 1860s, generally speaking it was liberals who were trying to expand people's rights and it was conservatives fighting them every inch of the way, as it still is in 2017.

Absolutely. Before Goldwater, it was common to point out (truthfully) that in many areas of the South the Republican party was the more LIBERAL party. How soon people forget things like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

The fairest way to look at our political history is by ideology, not party affiliation. So whether you want to look at the 1960s or the 1860s, generally speaking it was liberals who were trying to expand people's rights and it was conservatives fighting them every inch of the way, as it still is in 2017.

Had I been alive around 1850, I'd would hope I would have a bit a sympathy for many of those Central European 48ers, many of whom became good progressive Republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ormond said:

Absolutely. Before Goldwater, it was common to point out (truthfully) that in many areas of the South the Republican party was the more LIBERAL party. How soon people forget things like that. 

I don't think they forget. They pretend not to know. Commodore is a great example of this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, dmc515 said:

The 538 "analysis" entirely misses the point that the Trump administration is decidedly behind even formulating any major legislative initiative.  The idea is to capitalize on the honeymoon period by identifying a president's priorities and then beginning the legislative process - which in terms of effecting significant policy change can often take awhile.  For example, the Bush Tax Cuts and No Child Left Behind did not receive final passage until Summer 2001, but they were introduced by Bush in the first weeks of his presidency.

That's fair, but it's still not entirely telling or indicative that they'll be unable to get anything through congress. I think, honestly, they're a bit gunshy after the fuckup that was the muslim ban. 

18 hours ago, dmc515 said:

As to the bolded, not sure what you're getting at - passing a new budget IS a new law by definition, even CRs.  And while sure the GOP can use reconciliation in that case, the Dems only need to pick off three Republicans in the Senate.  I think he WOULD get the funding for the increases described in the DHS memos I quoted (not incidentally, I don't think increasing employment at those levels is very controversial), but he will encounter significant difficulties putting together a minimum winning coalition for any comprehensive immigration reform.

I'm not saying a new budget - I'm saying using existing funds, which is at the discretion of the agencies. As long as they're not adding a ton of extra money they require nothing of a change. So, for instance, the local deputizing of police for ICE requires no 'new' money. As long as you can shift money from somewhere else to make the deportation camps or raise the money elsewhere, they require no 'new' money. 

That said, specific budget resolutions can be passed without the 60-member threshold, though they won't be signed into law until later. Chances are good that they'd be fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Crazydog7 said:

Please tell me (although I doubt it) that what I saw about the Dear Leader and his new plan for a nuclear arms race are not accurate.  Sweet Jesus how are the Republican water carriers going to spin this in any way as a “sane” statement. 

You just beat me to it. Although I was just gonna write, Oh God,  now he wants more nuclear weapons... O God, oh God, oh God.

Something about it being a good business, or whatever.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/john-boehner-obamacare-republicans-235303'


Boehner: Republicans won't repeal and replace Obamacare
'They’re basically going to fix the flaws and put a more conservative box around it,' Boehner said.

 

How to lose a constitutional democracy

http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/21/14664568/lose-constitutional-democracy-autocracy-trump-authoritarian
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the history lessons about the American parties, guys! I always had a feeling that the Republicans of history's past had a somewhat more sensible program, way before the Tea Party further radicalized it. But I could never put my finger on when exactly they shifted to conservatism at all costs.

And I'm obviously not the only one. This discussion reminds me of the atmosphere in the chat of Star Trek Online the days after Trump's election. What shall I say, I needed some relieve. And I couldn't believe that the Trumpsters were trolling everything even there, ranting about immigrants and praising their great emperor until the actual Trekkie crowd gave up arguing back. But there was that one guy who kept using this echo chamber to repeat over and over again that conservatism freed the slaves and therefore we should all praise today's Republicans for it. That was the last straw or something: A wave of ridicule swept over the entire chat, somewhat fixing my hope for mankind.

Still, that Trumpists show up in a Star Trek community is a good sign for me how tone-deaf his true believers are. Hating everything that even has the name 'social' in it, calling it communist with a frothing mouth and yet they have no problem watching and playing Star Trek, which was always supposed to be pretty damn left with its political messages. Like this guy arguing that Picard would crack down on oh so tyrannical SJW's. Yes, really. Picard, the one character who is supposed to be written as paragon of humanism and perceived as condescending by many people for good reasons (and I say that as a big fan of his character). Things like this make me doubt that conservatives, or at least radical conservatives, are thinking anything regarding their political standpoint and the one of the people around them through. It's only about 'we against them', about painting some vague picture of an enemy that needs to be opposed at every turn, never even sparing a thought for what exactly it is they are opposing and what exactly it is that they stand for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it before, partisan democracy is not the future and definitely not the model of democracy for societies emerging out of non-democratic rule into democracy. Trump may indeed be the best thing for a swifter dismantling of partisan democracy and the formulation of a non-partisan democratic system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Crazydog7 said:

Please tell me (although I doubt it) that what I saw about the Dear Leader and his new plan for a nuclear arms race are not accurate.  Sweet Jesus how are the Republican water carriers going to spin this in any way as a “sane” statement. 

Quote

“Let it be an arms race,” the president in waiting was reported to have told Mika Brzezinski, co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe programme, in an early phone call on Friday.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Darryk said:

Bannon is real scum of the earth. And a coward, too.

He clearly avoids public appearances, except at places like CPAC where he's preaching to the converted anyway, because he doesn't want to put himself in a position where he'd have to defend his warped ideology with logical arguments.

 

I get the impression tho, that CPAC doesn't quite understand that Bannon's agenda is not their agenda.  Bannon wants to destroy government completely, and that is not what they want.  They just want to control and profit from it. 

Quote

There are three pillars of Trump's plan

"I kind of break it up into three verticals of three buckets," Bannon said. "The first is kind of national security and sovereignty and that's your intelligence, the Defense Department, Homeland Security.

"The second line of work is what I refer to as 'economic nationalism' and that is Wilbur Ross at Commerce, Steven Mnuchin at Treasury, (Robert) Lighthizer at Trade, (National Trade Council head) Peter Navarro, (adviser) Stephen Miller, these people that are rethinking how we're gonna reconstruct our trade arrangements around the world.

"The third, broadly, line of work is what is 'deconstruction' of the administrative state."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/steve-bannon-world-view/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nasty LongRider said:

I get the impression tho, that CPAC doesn't quite understand that Bannon's agenda is not their agenda.  Bannon wants to destroy government completely, and that is not what they want.  They just want to control and profit from it. 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/steve-bannon-world-view/index.html

Except Bannon doesn't really seem to want that either. There's certainly some parts of government he wants to dismantle. But what he really seems to want is a government that supports and protects white Christians (and maybe Jews) and their religious values, and is defending the faithful in the inevitable clash of civilizations.

Listen to stuff like this his Vatican conference address in 2014, when he was much more unguarded about his views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...