r'hllor's red lobster

u.s. politics: a cruel and unusual government

409 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Lew Theobald said:

I have no particular desire to see it.  Perhaps that's the problem.

Meaning you are refusing to see the light of the racism (and all the other isms that have been in our politics and all our institutions from the first colonial moments up, and are now allowed again to be overtly stated, as back in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th century, and the first 3/4 of the 20th century).

Please, just read Ta-Nehisi Coates Atlantic Monthly piece that's up right now, "The First White President."  It will explain a whole lot for you.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/the-first-white-president-ta-nehisi-coates/537909/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Meaning you are refusing to see the light of the racism (and all the other isms that have been in our politics and all our institutions from the first colonial moments up, and are now allowed again to be overtly stated, as back in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th century, and the first 3/4 of the 20th century).

Is that what I meant?  Good thing I have you to speak for me.  Otherwise there might be misunderstandings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Zorral said:

A new New Deal wid da Dems:

Considering where the investigations into the Russian campaign and election itself meddling, and where the investigations into the Family's finances are going -- would any of what is happening -- AT THE MOMENT because with him all things are ready to implode at any moment -- be connected with the assumption that getting some Dem support when it comes to the indictments, etc.?

I honestly don't think he really worries about it and figures he'll just pardon himself if the illegal things he's done ever get that far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Zorral said:

A new New Deal wid da Dems:

Considering where the investigations into the Russian campaign and election itself meddling, and where the investigations into the Family's finances are going -- would any of what is happening -- AT THE MOMENT because with him all things are ready to implode at any moment -- be connected with the assumption that getting some Dem support when it comes to the indictments, etc.?

Eh, I don't see that as being much of a factor really. He should be more concerned with pissing off his own party to the degree that they would consider impeachment. If it were up to the Dems, proceedings would've already begun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Considering where the investigations into the Russian campaign and election itself meddling, and where the investigations into the Family's finances are going -- would any of what is happening -- AT THE MOMENT because with him all things are ready to implode at any moment -- be connected with the assumption that getting some Dem support when it comes to the indictments, etc.?

That's a very long question with very short answer:  No.  In the unlikely event he continues to work with Dems, doing so lays himself bare once Mueller concludes his investigation.  Dems aren't going to provide him the cover that the GOP will be less and less inclined to the more and more he sides with Dems against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Now, while the text of your statement doesn't explicitly say there is no such thing as conservative dogwhistles, the subtext, including the capitalization of "Conservative" and "Dogwhistle", the quotation mark punctuation around that particular phrase and the addition of the "(TM)" stamp, all serve to call particular attention to that phrase, which, when combined with the juxtaposition of a "code used by conservatives" which "only a liberal can hear", allows the reader to make an reasonable inference that you're intending your statement to be interpreted ironically or sarcastically, which in turn allows the reader to reasonably infer that, while you may not outright believe that conservative dogwhistles don't exist, you at the very least don't think highly of the phrase and view it with disdain.

The reasonable interpretation would be that I was jokingly suggesting the possibility that liberals sometimes use the phrase "conservative dogwhistle" to refer to certain things that they claim to see, which are neither intended by the speaker nor understood by the audience.  After all, it is too easy to ascribe evil to your enemy if you can claim the ability to read their minds.

An unreasonable interpretation would be to read it as a claim that a person (such as a liberal) who claims to read between the lines, and perceive messages not obvious to others, is ALWAYS wrong.  That was not my intent.  But I'm sure you will claim to know better than I, and continue to presume to speak for me.

Next you'll be accusing me of denying that dogs can hear ultrasonic whistles that humans can't.

Edited by Lew Theobald

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Is that what I meant?  Good thing I have you to speak for me.  Otherwise there might be misunderstandings.

Don't clarify it yourself.  You might actually say something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lew Theobald said:

The reasonable interpretation would be that I was suggesting the possibility that liberals sometimes use the phrase "conservative dogwhistle" to refer to certain things that they claim to see, which are neither intended by the speaker nor understood by the audience.

An unreasonable interpretation would be to read it as a claim that a person (such as a liberal) who claims to read between the lines, and perceive messages not obvious to others, is ALWAYS wrong.  That was not my intent.  But I'm sure you will claim to know better than I, and continue to presume to speak for me.

Good thing you're here to clarify what liberals mean.  Otherwise there might be a misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Interesting point, but does that number seem a bit high? I wonder where that data is coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Don't clarify it yourself.  You might actually say something.

Exactly.  At this point it's apparent he's utterly incapable of making any declarative statement on any actual beliefs or positive argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Good thing you're here to clarify what liberals mean.  

Oh I know what they MEAN.  I'm merely suggesting that their conclusions might be wrong in some cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Oh I know what they MEAN.

Well it's a good thing you're here to speak for them.  Otherwise the liberals here might not ever know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sword of Doom said:

DeVos is a scumbag. 

Yes, she sure is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Oh I know what they MEAN.  I'm merely suggesting that their conclusions might be wrong in some cases.

What a special snowflake you must be.  No one can possibly know what you mean, but you're able to generalize the intent of all liberals.  By mere suggestion, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, denstorebog said:

Trump is really playing with fire now. If working with Democrats over Republiicans really makes him upbeat enough that it is something we're going to see more of, he truly will Lose His Base™, and yes, I realize that has become something of a trope. But coverage of cooperation with Democrats will pierce the right-wing media bubble, it will bring down the wrath of Coulter, Jones, et. al., and it will make him completely useless to his own congressmembers. And at the same time he will never be able to buy himself enough love from any centrists there might be left in the country to offset the beating he's going to get.

You don't run on being an extremist just to start cooperating with the enemy.

I can't help but feel like cooperating with Trump is going to backfire on the Democrats. If there's one skill Trump has, it's cutting deals that eventually fuck over his partners and leave him without consequences. No one ever profits from working with him, except other amoral monsters like Putin. I sure as fuck don't trust Pelosi and Schumer to maneuver this situation with any skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I can't help but feel like cooperating with Trump is going to backfire on the Democrats. If there's one skill Trump has, it's cutting deals that eventually fuck over his partners and leave him without consequences. No one ever profits from working with him, except other amoral monsters like Putin. I sure as fuck don't trust Pelosi and Schumer to maneuver this situation with any skill.

I think you're overestimating Trump's capabilities.  All "Chuck and Nancy" have done at this point is afforded themselves the same type of leverage in December without binding the "fiscal cliff" to Harvey funding - and in the process helped to further poison the well between Trump and GOP leadership on shared interests, names tax cuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I can't help but feel like cooperating with Trump is going to backfire on the Democrats. If there's one skill Trump has, it's cutting deals that eventually fuck over his partners and leave him without consequences. No one ever profits from working with him, except other amoral monsters like Putin. I sure as fuck don't trust Pelosi and Schumer to maneuver this situation with any skill.

I definitely know what you mean, but at the same time, I get why the Democrats are doing it. Raising/eliminating the debt ceiling is really important, so there's that; but on top of that, the Democratic base seems to value cooperation and bipartisanship far more than the Republican base, as far as I can tell. It just seems like a sound call from a political risk-benefit analysis to me, but the unpredictability of Trump is always a serious concern and there are a nearly unlimited amount of ways this could blow up in their face due to that, although each one individually is probably as unlikely as the next. 

Edited by IamMe90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

I think you're overestimating Trump's capabilities.  All "Chuck and Nancy" have done at this point is afforded themselves the same type of leverage in December without binding the "fiscal cliff" to Harvey funding - and in the process helped to further poison the well between Trump and GOP leadership on shared interests, names tax cuts.

It's hard to know what to make of Trump's entire life -- he clearly has some kind of low animal cunning, and learned well from a ratfucker like Roy Cohn. You may be right about overestimating him, but people have been underestimating him for too long. It can't just be Rich White Manhattan Asshole Privilege that's allowed him to skate free of the consequences of his own monstrous traits for so long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

It's hard to know what to make of Trump's entire life -- he clearly has some kind of low animal cunning, and learned well from a ratfucker like Roy Cohn. You may be right about overestimating him, but people have been underestimating him for too long. It can't just be Rich White Manhattan Asshole Privilege that's allowed him to skate free of the consequences of his own monstrous traits for so long.

The bolded is certainly true.  However, this deal is legislative horse-trading, and his record and experience in that arena is either non-existent or all negative, depending on your perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Interesting point, but does that number seem a bit high? I wonder where that data is coming from.

Given that there are roughly 800,000 of them, $11.64B means an average of $14,550 in taxes paid per person. This is significantly above the average for Americans so either there is something skewing the average (e.g. if Warren Buffet walks into a medium-sized bar, on average, everybody there is suddenly a billionaire) or they are significantly wealthier than most Americans or the $11.64B number is bogus. I think the third option is by far the most likely, especially given say, this $14 hourly wage estimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.