US Politics: Mueller....Mueller....Mueller...

[Zorral]

55 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Out of curiosity, has it ever occurred to you that such activism also strengthens the less moderate elements of the other side? Trump is extremely unlikely to have become President without the Black Lives Matter movement.

I wondered how long it would take for some toxic bs of this nature to appear as response -- which also indicates a deep ignorance of the whole Black Lives Matter movement -- and why it is necessary.  thanks for proving to me that once again my expectations were the correct one.  BTW, that's sarcasm for those rhetorically impaired.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, WinterFox said:

 

It will never be amended, ever. The country founded by the thirteen British colonies seeking independence is dead. We will not see an end to this vitriol and hatred until, one way or another, a new constitution is written to replace it.

Alas the longer and deeper I go into the history of this nation's founding, the more convinced I am that this country never did exist.  It could not, not with being founded by the extraordinarily wealthy only to increase their own wealth and power, upon the exploitation of both Africans and indigenous peoples, as well as the poorest members of their own societies.  Since they never admitted this was the situation, and indeed, never had any intention of changing that, here we are.  White supremacy and hatred of the poor in this nation has always been here, and here it still is.

[Dr. Pepper]

7 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I wondered how long it would take for some toxic bs of this nature to appear as response -- which also indicates a deep ignorance of the whole Black Lives Matter movement -- and why it is necessary.  thanks for proving to me that once again my expectations were the correct one.  BTW, that's sarcasm for those rhetorically impaired.

Statements like that posters also seems to forget that it was that whole "moderate element" that helped create BLM.  No greater contributor to societal ills than an apathetic population.

[LongRider]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

Out of curiosity, has it ever occurred to you that such activism also strengthens the less moderate elements of the other side? Trump is extremely unlikely to have become President without the Black Lives Matter movement.

What did a previous poster mention?  Oh yeah, gaslighting.  Here it is.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 hours ago, karaddin said:

I just feel like you're already approaching the number of repetitions through "they'll come to their senses, we're better than that" where you have to decide that you actually aren't, and you won't. You can cling to your optimism, but at least try dial down functionally gaslighting terrified members of minority groups by acting as though they're being needlessly alarmist.

I don't see how this ends peacefully, but that doesn't mean it can't. But it won't end peacefully without something radically changing, and seeing that writing in on the wall, listening to the many historians that are shouting from the rooftops about what is going on, and being very afraid is reasonable.

I'm not meaning to gaslight anyone, I just find all this talk of War on the back of some of this to be a bit premature. Being aware is reasonable. Preparing for the eventuality on some level is reasonable. Fear typically comes with an irrationality that exacerbates the problem, so I can't agree with your last sentence. 

[Altherion]

29 minutes ago, Triskan said:

How would you know that?  I'm not questioning the possibility that a movement on one side could motivate the other, but how do you make such a claim about that particular movement and this past election?

Consider what it looks like to the considerable fraction of the population which disliked it: it's a flagrantly racist (just look at the name!) anti-police organization which at the very least disables critical infrastructure such as roads and airports and, although they deny this, also appears to be associated with riots and the shooting of police officers. And the government does absolutely nothing about it! Imagine what will happen if there's another 4 years of this...

Of course, this is quite far from the position circulated by the media and not everybody who was opposed to it held that exact mix of ideas, but I've heard some variation of this from multiple relatives and acquaintances who supported Trump. Given the narrow margin by which Trump won, I suspect it tipped more than enough people into his camp to change the outcome (of course, this is probably true of quite a few other things).

[Week]

8 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Consider what it looks like to the considerable fraction of the population which disliked it: it's a flagrantly racist (just look at the name!) anti-police organization which at the very least disables critical infrastructure such as roads and airports and, although they deny this, also appears to be associated with riots and the shooting of police officers. And the government does absolutely nothing about it! Imagine what will happen if there's another 4 years of this...

Of course, this is quite far from the position circulated by the media and not everybody who was opposed to it held that exact mix of ideas, but I've heard some variation of this from multiple relatives and acquaintances who supported Trump. Given the narrow margin by which Trump won, I suspect it tipped more than enough people into his camp to change the outcome (of course, this is probably true of quite a few other things).

Are you talking about the Republican Party and its tacit support of White Supremacist / Nativist organizations? Your description is a far more appropriate for the GOP than for BLM.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 hours ago, WinterFox said:

ME, you're delusional. I understand. Since I've known you I've always seen a positive and funny man, and such creatures are not made to suffer the crushing understanding of the darker human spirit. That you have children you want to see grow and strive in a world still stable, even if the cost of stability is horrifying, is no surprise. Many do not have the capability to see the worst until it is already behind them, I envy you that. Maybe in another life I could have hoped for the kindness of man to win out in a given stage, but ours is still a society of beasts. And when left unchecked the feral runts will inevitably believe they can dictate by virtue of savagery alone. At what point does it become the responsibility of the masses to end the suffering caused by these few?

Okay, now you're jumping to the sort of grand assumptions that Dr. Pepper regularly engages in. I'm almost 50 years old. I have certainly witnessed the darker side of human nature. I've engaged in it firsthand. I survived a 5 year plus meth addiction. I ran with a crowd that engaged in some malicious shit. I've been through a nasty divorce, I more or less lost then regained my family. Watched cancer eat my grandmother and my father-in-law, got to see my father on a respirator for the last 96 hours or so of his like after a horrific motorcycle accident. Watched a really close friend kill himself with drug use, etc, etc.

I can't claim to have witnessed the sort of mind-bending nightmares that say a soldier during wartime might have to deal with (not sure if that's been part of your military experience or not), but I'm no deluded Pollyanna with some Unicorns shitting Rainbows perspective. I'm an optimist by birth and nature and I've refused to let the adult world squeeze that out of me. I'm childish and I use humor as a shield (and sometimes as a sword) but that doesn't make me some wetnose greeny with no concept of how dark our world can be. 

Be careful when you pick up that broad brush.  

[The Anti-Targ]

49 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Consider what it looks like to the considerable fraction of the population which disliked it: it's a flagrantly racist (just look at the name!) anti-police organization which at the very least disables critical infrastructure such as roads and airports and, although they deny this, also appears to be associated with riots and the shooting of police officers. And the government does absolutely nothing about it! Imagine what will happen if there's another 4 years of this...

Of course, this is quite far from the position circulated by the media and not everybody who was opposed to it held that exact mix of ideas, but I've heard some variation of this from multiple relatives and acquaintances who supported Trump. Given the narrow margin by which Trump won, I suspect it tipped more than enough people into his camp to change the outcome (of course, this is probably true of quite a few other things).

Considering the states that swung it for Trump I'd say his jobs/economic promises swung the day for those 10's of thousands of voters who ,made the difference. Not sure anyone who took such an overtly antagonistic view of BLM was ever a likely Clinton voter. 

[drawkcabi]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

Consider what it looks like to the considerable fraction of the population which disliked it: it's a flagrantly racist (just look at the name!) anti-police organization which at the very least disables critical infrastructure such as roads and airports and, although they deny this, also appears to be associated with riots and the shooting of police officers. And the government does absolutely nothing about it! Imagine what will happen if there's another 4 years of this...

Of course, this is quite far from the position circulated by the media and not everybody who was opposed to it held that exact mix of ideas, but I've heard some variation of this from multiple relatives and acquaintances who supported Trump. Given the narrow margin by which Trump won, I suspect it tipped more than enough people into his camp to change the outcome (of course, this is probably true of quite a few other things).

I believe no one or almost no one was tempted to go over to Trump's camp by the actions of some of BLM or other extreme positions taken by some on the left. I do think along with an uninspiring primary candidate beating the inspiring one, it depressed the turn out among the left and/or gave more votes to 3rd party options.

The right was whipped up into an enthusiastic frenzy and coming out to vote at nearly 100% of those who were ever likely to vote for Trump, I think the left was apathetic and maybe around 70% of the strength it was at when voting for Obama in 2008.

I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass of course, really just trying to use them to illustrate a general point of how I think things went and what gave the election to Trump. Mainly enthusiasm beat apathy and hesitancy.

 

 

12 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Considering the states that swung it for Trump I'd say his jobs/economic promises swung the day for those 10's of thousands of voters who ,made the difference. Not sure anyone who took such an overtly antagonistic view of BLM was ever a likely Clinton voter. 

Definitely agree with the bolded, don't disagree with the rest.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Considering the states that swung it for Trump I'd say his jobs/economic promises swung the day for those 10's of thousands of voters who ,made the difference. Not sure anyone who took such an overtly antagonistic view of BLM was ever a likely Clinton voter.

Just as with almost every other issue, there is a spectrum of views from positive to negative and it is not obvious which issue is the tipping point for any given voter. I presented a fairly negative description for contrast with the positive one earlier in the thread.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

You want to avoid a war?

Start by treating 'the other side' as people, rather than hostile lunatics.  The area I live in is neck deep in Conservatives.  I have to interact with them daily.  They have families, job concerns, money concerns, hopes, dreams, sick relatives, and badly behaved relatives.  They tend to be very good at certain things: mechanics, small business management, and more.  Very few fit the stereotypes portrayed on this site.

Once you acknowledge them as people, you seek out points in common.  Conservatives here fret about budget deficits and rail against 'socialism' - yet despite multiple complaints about the details, almost none of them wish to see SS, Medicare, and Medicaid come to an end.  Likewise, they have little issue with Disability.  Their actual complaints about medical care tend to pertain to costs - I get an earful of this.  All points than can be agreed to and built upon.

Likewise, most are in favor of public education, though they do have justifiable complaints about the quality of that education. 

Many do object to increases in the minimum wage, but much of that objection is rooted in misconceptions about 'starter jobs,' how such will destroy jobs, and how 'burger flippers don't deserve $15 an hour.  As of late, more and more are wondering at the plight of their mostly younger relatives, who can't seem to progress past the 'starter job' level and expressing frustration why their own paychecks don't translate to much higher than that.   Still, presented correctly - that is in a way that fits their worldview, Conservatives probably would accept modest minimum wage hikes.

More problematic is child care.  Here, the mentality is kids should be born in wedlock, and couples should not have kids until they can financially support them.  Very much 'the man works while the wife stays at home and takes care of the kids.'  That both parents MUST work is something older conservatives have difficulty accepting.  Likewise, the older conservatives tend to be ignorant of child care costs, and the work requirements for most welfare programs.  The ones that are aware sometimes advocate, grudgingly, for limited exceptions. Liberals might be able to garner this into support.

 I forgot to address this the first time around, and I think it is a very important point. What ThinkerX outlines here is at the root of out problem methinks. Everyone who disagrees with you politically is not a subhuman monster. They are not all Nazis or deplorables. When you paint the opposition with such a broad brush, you are cutting the throat of reasonable discourse and making compromise impossible. 

[The Anti-Targ]

2 minutes ago, Triskan said:

 But the bolded only makes sense if one assumes a world of a set amount of voters that can only press 1 or 2.  That's not a good description of the electorate, so you can't break it down to a sliver like "likely Clinton voter" who has an "overly antagonistic view of BLM."  

For what it's worth though, there are probably more that fit that description than one would think.  I'm not of them though.

No, by the time it was all but confirmed that Clinton would be the nominee, any possible Democrat vote with that sort of attitude would have been well and truly turned off voting Democrat if BLM was the last straw. Which suggests the presidency was Trump's / a Republican's a year before polling day. I doubt you'll find a single analyst who thought Clinton was going to lose the election based on pre-2017 BLM activism. IMO the workers of the rust / coal belt who voted Trump might have been antagonistic to BLM, but it was the promises of jobs, and a wall that flipped them. If BLM didn't exist, I think they still would have gone for Trump.

I think Mr Clinton's campaign was right when saying "[It's] the economy, stupid." And Mrs Clinton's campaign was stupid in not realising there was an economic sub-text to this election, or in not realising the exact nature of the economic subtext.

If anything, I think sexism played more of a part on Clinton losing than BLM.

I do wonder if a credible analysis of the voting decisions in PA, MI and WI has been made to see what the major issue was.

Just looking at the OH exit poll I thought this question was quite significant:

Quote

does clinton's use of private email bother you:

 

45% (a large plurality) said the emails bothered them a lot. Not surprisingly that group broke for Trump 88% to 5%. But the size of that group being 45% of voters is the significant thing. On the binary question of were you bothered, yes or no, by the email thing? 60% were bothered and they went for trump by 74% to 18%. Arguably, therefore, you could point to the emails, and in particular Comey's actions just before the election, as possibly being deciding factor for OH.

[Sivin]

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

Alas the longer and deeper I go into the history of this nation's founding, the more convinced I am that this country never did exist.  It could not, not with being founded by the extraordinarily wealthy only to increase their own wealth and power, upon the exploitation of both Africans and indigenous peoples, as well as the poorest members of their own societies.  Since they never admitted this was the situation, and indeed, never had any intention of changing that, here we are.  White supremacy and hatred of the poor in this nation has always been here, and here it still is.

Yes, when I was writing the quoted section I had to stop from saying that 'America is dead' on account that I cannot be motivated to truly mourn it. But as some people hold the 'founding fathers' in such esteem I chose to mention those most noble of young rich kids.

3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Okay, now you're jumping to the sort of grand assumptions that Dr. Pepper regularly engages in. I'm almost 50 years old. I have certainly witnessed the darker side of human nature. I've engaged in it firsthand. I survived a 5 year plus meth addiction. I ran with a crowd that engaged in some malicious shit. I've been through a nasty divorce, I more or less lost then regained my family. Watched cancer eat my grandmother and my father-in-law, got to see my father on a respirator for the last 96 hours or so of his like after a horrific motorcycle accident. Watched a really close friend kill himself with drug use, etc, etc.

I can't claim to have witnessed the sort of mind-bending nightmares that say a soldier during wartime might have to deal with (not sure if that's been part of your military experience or not), but I'm no deluded Pollyanna with some Unicorns shitting Rainbows perspective. I'm an optimist by birth and nature and I've refused to let the adult world squeeze that out of me. I'm childish and I use humor as a shield (and sometimes as a sword) but that doesn't make me some wetnose greeny with no concept of how dark our world can be. 

Be careful when you pick up that broad brush.  

Forgive me if I gave the impression that I thought you'd never suffered your own trials and battles. That was not my intention.

But optimists, in my experience, are incapable of dealing with the reprehensible nature of the people around them. They believe in things like redemption and looking for the best in people. Lies, in other words.

I'm only twenty-four, I would never presume to tell you anything about your own life. I am simply conveying my perspective. I've known many an optimist, and I've watched them convince themselves and those around them that the situation will improve time and time again, brushing off each disappointment. It is its own strength, and in fact most likely a dominant evolutionary trait. I admire it after a fashion. But I cannot share it.

43 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I forgot to address this the first time around, and I think it is a very important point. What ThinkerX outlines here is at the root of out problem methinks. Everyone who disagrees with you politically is not a subhuman monster. They are not all Nazis or deplorables. When you paint the opposition with such a broad brush, you are cutting the throat of reasonable discourse and making compromise impossible. 

Do allies of a cause not share the blame for its crimes? If a good ol' fashioned fiscal 'conservative' thinks that white nationalism is an acceptable passenger to his vote for a 'conservative' Supreme Court Justice, he is not absolved of his choice by intentions.

I live with two republicans who make all of the excuses every day. Fine people, more or less. But they are my political enemies because they directly support an increasingly tyrannical coalition of actors.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

Forgive me if I gave the impression that I thought you'd never suffered your own trials and battles. That was not my intention.

But optimists, in my experience, are incapable of dealing with the reprehensible nature of the people around them. They believe in things like redemption and looking for the best in people. Lies, in other words.

I'm only twenty-four, I would never presume to tell you anything about your own life. I am simply conveying my perspective. I've known many an optimist, and I've watched them convince themselves and those around them that the situation will improve time and time again, brushing off each disappointment. It is its own strength, and in fact most likely a dominant evolutionary trait. I admire it after a fashion. But I cannot share it.

Do allies of a cause not share the blame for its crimes? If a good ol' fashioned fiscal 'conservative' thinks that white nationalism is an acceptable passenger to his vote for a 'conservative' Supreme Court Justice, he is not absolved of his choice by intentions.

I live with two republicans who make all of the excuses every day. Fine people, more or less. But they are my political enemies because they directly support an increasingly tyrannical coalition of actors.

No apologies necessary. I get that point of view, and throughout the course of my life I certainly have been bitten on the ass by folks that I probably shouldn't have trusted in hindsight. That said, I don't want to live in a world where redemption is considered to be a lie. I've seen it achieved. I've achieved it myself in some small measure. Good people can and will do bad things from time to time. That doesn't make them inherently bad. Looking for the best in people is also not a lie, it's a point of view. Even people that I would agree are mostly bad, or in some cases even toxic, have redeemable qualities. You're lying to yourself if you can't recognize this. To quote the Beastie Boys, "If your world was all black, and if your world was all white, you wouldn't get much color out of life now, right?" Our world is simply not that simple.

 

 To that last bit, you wouldn't live with monsters though, right? 

[ThinkerX]

Quote

Do allies of a cause not share the blame for its crimes? If a good ol' fashioned fiscal 'conservative' thinks that white nationalism is an acceptable passenger to his vote for a 'conservative' Supreme Court Justice, he is not absolved of his choice by intentions.

I live with two republicans who make all of the excuses every day. Fine people, more or less. But they are my political enemies because they directly support an increasingly tyrannical coalition of actors.

To quote the philosopher: 'Those who fight monsters risk becoming monsters themselves.' 

Don't use politics as an excuse to dehumanize people with whom you disagree politically.  Instead, find points in common and build from there.

 

19 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

But optimists, in my experience, are incapable of dealing with the reprehensible nature of the people around them. They believe in things like redemption and looking for the best in people. Lies, in other words.

I older than ME.  I lack his experiences, but I have stood at the fringes of disturbing events.  Like him, I agree that redemption is possible, though it tends to be a long, slow path with many pitfalls. 

I also acknowledge that different people view the world very differently. And sometimes those views clash.  That does not make them evil.

But yes, there are a fair number of folks out there who seem to lack redeeming qualities.

[Sivin]

14 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 To that last bit, you wouldn't live with monsters though, right? 

Yes, I have lived with monsters. And the question of whether I do so right now does not have a clear answer. My roommate who knows I am trans is supportive of my transition goals, but supports fascist elements of our political spectrum that see me as nothing more than a pervert. He also believes that in the near future I could be 'cured'.

I live with these people out of necessity, not because I believe in their inherent goodness.

They are complicit in attacks on my status as a human being. I could forgive them that if they were not also complicit in attacks on our democracy and basic freedom.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, WinterFox said:

Yes, I have lived with monsters. And the question of whether I do so right now does not have a clear answer. My roommate who knows I am trans is supportive of my transition goals, but supports fascist elements of our political spectrum that see me as nothing more than a pervert. He also believes that in the near future I could be 'cured'.

I live with these people out of necessity, not because I believe in their inherent goodness.

They are complicit in attacks on my status as a human being. I could forgive them that if they were not also complicit in attacks on our democracy and basic freedom.

I suspect your definition of monster and mine probably differ significantly. The number of folks I've known in my life that I could honestly describe as being monsters I can count on one hand. And there's no way in hell I'd live with any of them.

[Sivin]

7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I suspect your definition of monster and mine probably differ significantly. The number of folks I've known in my life that I could honestly describe as being monsters I can count on one hand. And there's no way in hell I'd live with any of them.

I've sat at the dinner table with a soon-to-be convicted pedophile. I've drank beers with men who happily shared stories of shooting into crowds of frightened Iraqi civilians. I've known monsters, and I am trying to convey that I will endure their machinations no longer. My roommate now is only still my roommate because I can reconcile that his belief that any form of non-conformity can be 'cured' is benign and not connected to a conscious bias. He is not truly a monster, only an unwitting enabler. One I will soon be free of.

Those who sell hatred and greed in a package of feeble violence will not be persuaded to see the error of their ways, and the fools who contribute to their expansion cannot be reasoned with. They left reason behind when they chose to be ruled by falsehoods and charlatans, patience and understanding was the vessel through which their pathogen mutated into what we see today.

[MerenthaClone]

On 5/28/2017 at 0:41 AM, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

So let's go bodyslam that motherfucker? Reasonable argument is what we have as a civilized society. Rule of law. You don't get to go around physically attacking those who disagree with you, and I believe this will ultimately play out in Mr. Jacob's favor, if he pursues it.

Lets walk something right back because I am ridiculously tired of seeing people try to make Gianforte's actions more acceptable by comparing it to the actions of private citizens vs private citizens.  The argument about the role of violence within a civil society is one I do not have time to get in to right now. I suspect that the more you trust that the system will work in your favor, ie, the more white, rich, straight, cis, and male you are, the more likely you are to decry the use of violence while missing all of the violence done by said system in your favor, but again, not the point.  One does not have to agree with your statement that "you don't get to go around physically attacking those who disagree with you" to be able to say that "one does not attack members of the press performing their social role" and conversely, one can make the argument that Gianforte was absolutely wrong to attack Jacobs while also believing that violence does have a role in society.  

Making him a mere member of society is explicitly one of the things the RWM is attempting to.  Doing so minimizes his actions and allows you to muddy the argument by getting into a massive ethical discussion.  Please stop doing so.