US Politics: Terminal America

[James Arryn]

18 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

"You Lie" 

Lies aren't really lies. Here's how it works: the elites decide on a version of things that suits their purpose, and then through elitish machinations like identity politics propagate same until it becomes accepted as 'truth'. Then along comes some disenfranchised white guy suffering under the Neo-Thoreauian Ministry of PCTruth, he (often unwittingly) points out that the emperor is wearing hypocritical clothing, gets stomped down by elites and their ignorant SJW pawns, to the soundrtrack of 'money money money' and evil laughter. 

And for a while this works. But then eventually real people have enough, shave their heads (optional!) and boldly step across the idealogical barrier by using so-called 'racist' or w/e language, and rather than being stomped down as in days of pre-Randian yore, actually find that other people agree with them (which would never, ever happen if they were actually racist) and, underpants gnoming later, we have Donald Trump and the rebirth of new truth. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

He's saying that the dems would abolish the filibuster if put in the same situation. 

Oh, yeah.  Guess I still need to work on understanding Trump's tweets.

[denstorebog]

Heh. Spicey just held what must have been his shortest and most frustrated press briefing ever, and was actually booed at the end.

He spent the first 5 minutes outlining how Trump basically created world peace on his Big Trip Abroad, after which he took a few questions that quickly went to press freedom, the Kentucky shooting and fake news. He was asked to give an example of fake news, and he used the 'earpiece' story from the Eurotrip. After a short, heated exchange where several journalists argued that that was a fucking irrelevant example given the war against the press that's going on, he abruptly left, and several boos were heard before the sound was cut.

Another dog year in Spicey's life.

[HoodedCrow]

Trump and his handlers are softening us up for bypassing the filibuster. They groom people for accepting lies, fraud, treason and violence.

[MerenthaClone]

1 hour ago, aceluby said:

I almost responded to the same post because of the lazy Monday morning quarterbacking analysis that you picked up on.  It's just more 'both parties are ultimately the same' garbage he's been spewing for basically ever.

I'm still waiting for him to admit that he was wrong about Trump's willingness to stand up to "elites".  During the run-up to the election, we got to be regaled with constant tales about how Clinton would surely sell us out to Wall Street but Trump had the chance to stand up for the little guy, so on the whole, might not be too bad.  In the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary re: Trump's level of badness, are any of the "truth is in the middle" shameless equivocators going to admit just how wrong they were, or are they just keep clutching to their desperate, blind, neutrality?

[James Arryn]

2 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

I'm still waiting for him to admit that he was wrong about Trump's willingness to stand up to "elites".  During the run-up to the election, we got to be regaled with constant tales about how Clinton would surely sell us out to Wall Street but Trump had the chance to stand up for the little guy, so on the whole, might not be too bad.  In the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary re: Trump's level of badness, are any of the "truth is in the middle" shameless equivocators going to admit just how wrong they were, or are they just keep clutching to their desperate, blind, neutrality?

If you think cameras have agendas, you needn't ever be bothered by pictures contrary to your opinion.

[Sivin]

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

If you think cameras have agendas, you needn't ever be bothered by pictures contrary to your opinion.

Ooh! I'm gonna steal that one!

[mormont]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Actually, no we're not in agreement here.

Then we are not in agreement, and that means you're wrong, I'm afraid. Even if that makes you angry.

The meaning of the words in context is very clear: you're saying that people bringing guns is within the range of expected responses, and that is literally what it means to 'normalise' something. 'Natural progression' in relation to human behaviour is a very different thing from 'natural phenomenon' in relation to hurricanes, so I'm sorry, but I don't think you've made any sort of substantive argument there. Besides, 'don't stress' is not the message you're being accused of sending. This is:

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

That said, if you can't see the sort of violence that has been more and more prevalent at political rallies over the past two years or so leading to this, I'm not sure what to tell you.

That idea that this is in some way a natural development, that upsets people because it takes some of the blame from the people doing the thing you say is unacceptable and places it on others. That inevitably diminishes their responsibility.

If you really do condemn this you can't be explaining it away. Can't have it both ways. That's what you're doing here, whether you realise it or not.

[Guy Kilmore]

I am finding this conversation confusing.

If I say that it is natural for a percentage of a population to have abnormal behavior.  I am then saying that abnormal behavior is normal?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

That idea that this is in some way a natural development, that upsets people because it takes some of the blame from the people doing the thing you say is unacceptable and places it on others. That inevitably diminishes their responsibility.

If you really do condemn this you can't be explaining it away. Can't have it both ways. That's what you're doing here, whether you realise it or not.

 Yeah, that last point is salient. The Echo Chamber here doesn't want to take any responsibility for how we've gotten to this place. It's all on the Cons. It's all on the GOP.  And if you don't agree with the Echo Chamber, you are an apologist or a gaslighter or even a traitor.

I can condemn the act and recognize that there is an aspect to it that is explainable. That you can't is unfortunate. Whether you realize it or not. 

[Altherion]

9 hours ago, Inigima said:

Show me.

The one I was thinking of is the Berkeley protest in February. There, the police was present, but did absolutely nothing to stem the violence because they were ordered not to act. There is also the Middlebury protest in March where the police arrived too late. In both cases, people were injured and there was also property damage.

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

But I wasn't saying that college educated voters are less likely to support anti-establishment candidates (Bernie did very well among the well-educated I believe). My point was that they are less likely to support neo-fascism (all ilks of it). I was originally answering a question about how to preserve democracy IIRC.

Goldwater was the progenitor of the modern conservative movement. Neither Trump nor Goldwater can be classified as neo-fascist without expanding that term to encompass at least a quarter of the overall political spectrum, but Goldwater was almost certainly closer to it than Trump is.

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Trump was elected at a time when Americans are more educated than ever, but he was elected by about 22% of eligible voters IIRC. Basically it doesn't matter as much how educated Americans are if almost half of them abstain and a guy like Trump manages to mobilize the least educated.
Which is why I was saying education is only one factor among others. It can be a decent shield against dangerous candidates... If the political process is functional in the first place.

But the process has not changed. Yes, the US system leads to low turnout and the well known quirks of the Electoral College, but it has always been that way. And the least educated of 2016 are still more educated than a significant fraction of the population in 1964 (when just under half of the population even finished high school). Sadly, more educated is not the same thing as smarter.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Looks like Trumpy the Clown is preparing his Twitter Bot army for action...

 

[Sivin]

13 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Yeah, that last point is salient. The Echo Chamber here doesn't want to take any responsibility for how we've gotten to this place. It's all on the Cons. It's all on the GOP.  And if you don't agree with the Echo Chamber, you are an apologist or a gaslighter or even a traitor.

I can condemn the act and recognize that there is an aspect to it that is explainable. That you can't is unfortunate. Whether you realize it or not. 

I see we've reached the accusations of an echo chamber stage.

Manhole, you claim Mormont (and others) have an inability to see nuance in your comments.

And yet you, a professed pacifist, cannot see the difference between a bunch of kids refusing to have to hear actual Nazi's at their school and a member of the government condoning armed gangs to keep him from have to hear from his constituents or reporters.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

I see we've reached the accusations of an echo chamber stage.

Manhole, you claim Mormont (and others) have an inability to see nuance in your comments.

And yet you, a professed pacifist, cannot see the difference between a bunch of kids refusing to have to hear actual Nazi's at their school and a member of the government condoning armed gangs to keep him from have to hear from his constituents or reporters.

I don't believe that's what he said.  I believe he's saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that the former (bunch of kids) creates the environment that the latter (member of the government condoning armed gangs) are using as the excuse for the latter's actions.  In other words that it is foreseeable that the latter would use the former to excuse an action like bringing the Republican version of the brown shirts to rallies.  

I do not believe ME is offering a statement condoning, justifying, or "normalizing" the actions of the Republicans.  I believe he is saying their actions are foreseeable based upon the earlier actions of antifa protesters.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, WinterFox said:

I see we've reached the accusations of an echo chamber stage.

Manhole, you claim Mormont (and others) have an inability to see nuance in your comments.

And yet you, a professed pacifist, cannot see the difference between a bunch of kids refusing to have to hear actual Nazi's at their school and a member of the government condoning armed gangs to keep him from have to hear from his constituents or reporters.

Not claiming an equivalence here. That said, a percentage of the "bunch of kids" you refer to are not pacifists, that's kind of the point. They have adopted fascist tactics. They've destroyed property and injured people. That's not pacifism.

And pointing out that this is an escalation of polarization is not condoning the action. This idiot's pronouncement is going to get people killed and when that happens, he should be held responsible for it. Or better yet, the appropriate authorities should step in to prevent it from occurring in the first place.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I do not believe ME is offering a statement condoning, justifying, or "normalizing" the actions of the Republicans.  I believe he is saying their actions are foreseeable based upon the earlier actions of antifa protesters.  

Thank you Ser Scot. That is exactly what I'm stating. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 And just to clarify, I'm not putting all this escalation on Antifa, the Right is complicit in this as well. If you just look at the progression of the various Berkeley incidents, both sides have upped the ante with each passing event. One could reasonably argue that a Milo Yiannopoulos event at Berkeley is by itself a provocation. 

[Altherion]

3 hours ago, James Arryn said:

What if this mantra of yours is not the fundamental raison d'être for gravity, pollution, autocorrect any any/every other evil under the sun? What if the reasons are more connected with, like, what Republicans do bolstered by a majority belief that he was a Kenyan Muslim?

Then they were amazingly lucky in that this silly belief resulted in a nearly optimal political strategy. I wouldn't bet money on it though. Remember, Obama was elected in 2008 and in this election, he not only won the Electoral College, but also the largest share of the popular vote in 30 years. He also won reelection in 2012 (albeit by a smaller margin). Thus, attitudes towards him are not likely to explain the magnitude of the Democrats' defeat in 2010.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

He's done it before, and McConnell has slapped him down before.

Also, shows how little he's paying attention since both health care and tax cuts are only subject to the 51 vote threshold anyway; assuming Republicans can actually work out their reconciliation plan.

You're correct, he apparently tweeted the same thing a month ago. As far as McConnell goes, I fear that the pressure may eventually get too strong and his hand is forced. Imagine the temptation to go nuclear a year from now if Republicans have yet to have any major legislative victories and look like they're about to get wiped out in the midterms. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You're correct, he apparently tweeted the same thing a month ago. As far as McConnell goes, I fear that the pressure may eventually get too strong and his hand is forced. Imagine the temptation to go nuclear a year from now if Republicans have yet to have any major legislative victories and look like they're about to get wiped out in the midterms. 

Versus using the nuclear option to pass what is very likely to be an extremely unpopular Bill that results in them getting wiped out in the midterms.