US Politics: Terminal America

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

Rationalising is certainly covered, yes. Enabling, acquiescing, abiding, tolerating... no, these aren't covered by ME's comment, but it does start down the road towards all of these things.

Again, this is not complicated. If you truly want to avoid normalising something, condemn it without qualifying your condemnation in any way.

If you insert something into a sentence where a justification would normally go - say, for example, after the word 'but' - you are obviously in danger of justifying the thing you're talking about, even if you didn't intend to. This is particularly true if the thing you are inserting can be seen as provoking the thing you're condemning, as is the case here. 

Er... this is, I'm afraid, not the same thing at all. How could you be 'normalising' the Nazis by talking about what you would do and why? You would need to be talking about why they were doing things that caused you to leave.

If you were saying 'it's foreseeable that the Nazis would take my business because after all, some Jews have militantly protested the Republic's policies' then yes, that would be comparable and yes, you would be normalising their actions.

It's certainly not that, nor do I think he has 'sinned'. I've even pointed out that he may be right, that this sort of reaction may be normal, and that I'm not qualified to judge that.

What I've tried to do is make ME and Scot understand what I think it is people mean when they worry about 'normalising' the actions of Republicans. It's not some sort of code for 'you secretly approve of this behaviour'. It's not meant to suggest that they are condoning it or that they are intentionally doing something harmful. It's about moving the conversation in the direction of presenting an abnormal reaction (which it is fair to say would by definition not be expected) as being within the range of expected reactions.

With that, however, I'm out.

Mormont,

Respectfully, by your definition if I predict a bad outcome, like the Republicans using private milita (aka Brown shirts by another name) after Antifa protests in Berkeley... that seems to mean (by your logic) that I'm "normalizing" the Republicans behavior by making that prediction.  Your logic is holding those who attempt to predict what happens responsible for the "normalization" of the behavior they see coming.  That doesn't make sense in my opinion.

[Isalie]

If this is down to a vote, then im definitely on the side saying that escalation from one side will probably mean further escalation from the other side. For example, it was reasonable by Milo to expect that if he just did something sick enough, people would respond with violence. (Which of course would mean more attention to his sad little being)

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, mormont said:

If you truly want to avoid normalising something, condemn it without qualifying your condemnation in any way.

This does not reflect the discussion in a credible way.  ME was originally responding to a post in an offhand manner - unqualified condemnation was apparent immediately, albeit I suppose implicitly.  It was only when he was confronted that he had to explicitly condemn.

5 minutes ago, mormont said:

If you insert something into a sentence where a justification would normally go - say, for example, after the word 'but' - you are obviously in danger of justifying the thing you're talking about, even if you didn't intend to. This is particularly true if the thing you are inserting can be seen as provoking the thing you're condemning, as is the case here. 

While I think I understand what you're going for here, this lacks specificity - and (but?) is hardly solid reasoning for attributing ME and Scot towards "normalizing" something they were criticizing.

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

Er... this is, I'm afraid, not the same thing at all. How could you be 'normalising' the Nazis by talking about what you would do and why? You would need to be talking about why they were doing things that caused you to leave.

To the bolded, wow man.  How it is not clear that this is implied in my original example - i.e. why the Nazis (they) would cause a Jew (you) to leave - is beyond me.  I'm honestly aghast how you can come back at me with that and not see the logic.

25 minutes ago, mormont said:

It's about moving the conversation in the direction of presenting an abnormal reaction (which it is fair to say would by definition not be expected) as being within the range of expected reactions.

I like to think I'm a pretty educated guy, especially about politics, but I have no idea what this means.

28 minutes ago, mormont said:

With that, however, I'm out.

Ok, sorry to bother you.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Breaking News: 

Numerous sources are reporting that the U.S. is expected to officially withdraw from the Pairs Climate Agreement.

More Breaking News:

The U.S.'s standing in the world just took another beating. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Breaking News: 

Numerous sources are reporting that the U.S. is expected to officially withdraw from the Pairs Climate Agreement.

More Breaking News:

The U.S.'s standing in the world just took another beating. 

If you think it's breaking news Trump was going to pull out of the Paris deal...

[Fragile Bird]

4 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Well, I think we've been given our next thread title:

 

 

https://i.imgur.com/kNp9H3r.png

We are only on page 9, it will take several days to finish this thread. A lot can happen in a Trump administration in a couple of days.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, dmc515 said:

I would love to be a fly on the wall during Trump's attempt to strongarm any Senator.  He has little political capital and less credibility, although I could totally see him try to haphazardly emulate "the Johnson Treatment."  

That's precisely the point. He doesn't care about them and doesn't see his successes as being tied to any Senator.  He will openly threaten to destroy them, as he did to multiple Congressmen. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Breaking News: 

Numerous sources are reporting that the U.S. is expected to officially withdraw from the Pairs Climate Agreement.

More Breaking News:

The U.S.'s standing in the world just took another beating. 

Trump makin' America Great Again!!!

Uh, not so much. Oh well.

Hey world, America Is Gonna Look Foolish Again! Yeah!!!!

[Dr. Pepper]

Whatever happened to the Trumpsters wanting to win again?  I thought we were going to win so much that we'd get tired of winning. I mean, Florida eventually being drowned is a win of sorts, but the rest of it is super loser-y.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's precisely the point. He doesn't care about them and doesn't see his successes as being tied to any Senator.  He will openly threaten to destroy them, as he did to multiple Congressmen. 

I agree wholeheartedly.  My point was his threats are as empty as a whiskey bottle after my birthday.  Especially to senators that have no reason to fear him - both McCain and Graham have already weathered primary storms and Collins' Maine constituency is different.  They sent Angus King to Washington.  Independence is an asset.

[BloodRider]

15 hours ago, Altherion said:

But is Trump really a threat to American institutions? 

Probably.  Were he marginally competent, assuredly.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

If you think it's breaking news Trump was going to pull out of the Paris deal...

It absolutely is breaking news, even if it's not terribly surprising. 

9 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I agree wholeheartedly.  My point was his threats are as empty as a whiskey bottle after my birthday.  Especially to senators that have no reason to fear him - both McCain and Graham have already weathered primary storms and Collins' Maine constituency is different.  They sent Angus King to Washington.  Independence is an asset.

They may be empty initially to the more independent members, but they won't be to the ones that need Trump's base for their reelection, and that in turn could lead those Senators to try and persuade their more independent colleagues. 

[Fez]

27 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Breaking News: 

Numerous sources are reporting that the U.S. is expected to officially withdraw from the Pairs Climate Agreement.

More Breaking News:

The U.S.'s standing in the world just took another beating. 

Although now Trump's that he won't make any announcements for the next few days and some reporters have tweeted that other sources say a decision hasn't been made yet.

Two main options here:

1) Trump really hasn't decided and the people who want him to withdraw, Bannon et al, are trying to force his hand.

2) This is a trial ballon and in the end Trump will only "partially withdraw" and the media coverage will be more favorable because it'll seem like he moderated.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It absolutely is breaking news, even if it's not terribly surprising. 

Yeah that was a smartass comment.  

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They may be empty initially to the more independent members, but they won't be to the ones that need Trump's base for their reelection, and that in turn could lead those Senators to try and persuade their more independent colleagues. 

That's the thing - the vast majority of GOP Senators do not need Trump electorally in the next election cycle.  Seriously, look up the very few Republican Senators facing reelection in 2018.  The only stick Trump has is he's very popular with the base.  Most of the the GOP Senate caucus has no reason to give a shit until at least 2020.

[BloodRider]

11 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Held by the factory? That's fucking terrifying. Why do I envision that as being worse than being held by the cops? 

 Brings a whole new feel to "Help! I'm being held hostage in a fortune cookie factory".

This is something many Libertarians fundamentally do not grok.  If you really honestly ditch government, something is going to fill the void, and by sheer logic, it is not going to be a bunch of individuals doing whatever they want.  It is likely going to be large businesses, or religions - they have the money, the lawyers, and the loyalty - and they will do shit like this given the chance.

As I see it, our best chance is the get back control of the gov't before it is too late (if it isn't already) and bend it back to being focused on serving the individual and not the business and religious collectives it now serves.

[BloodRider]

10 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Just came across this tonight. Sam Harris's latest podcast with Timothy Snyder on his NY Times #1 Bestseller (in the non-fiction category) The Road to Tyranny. I'm only about halfway through it, but it is really entertaining thus far.

Any interviews of Timothy Snyder by a non-douchebag / crypto racist / phrenology apologist?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

This is something many Libertarians fundamentally do not grok.  If you really honestly ditch government, something is going to fill the void, and by sheer logic, it is not going to be a bunch of individuals doing whatever they want.  It is likely going to be large businesses, or religions - they have the money, the lawyers, and the loyalty - and they will do shit like this given the chance.

As I see it, our best chance is the get back control of the gov't before it is too late (if it isn't already) and bend it back to being focused on serving the individual and not the business and religious collectives it now serves.

You should read Rule of the Clan by Mark Weiner.  It makes your point quite eloquently.  Weiner points out "individual liberties" are only protected in areas that have fairly strong and cohesive Nation-States and that in weak states or non-existent states what you see is not a rise of individuals fending for themselves but a rise of clans or their equivalents acting to protect their membership in the collective.  It is a fascinating book:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/books/review/the-rule-of-the-clan-by-mark-weiner-and-more.html

[OldGimletEye]

Wuuut? Nobody wants to work for the Trumpster? I'm shocked!

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/05/trump-can-fire-people-hes-having-trouble-hiring-new-ones

Quote

Unfortunately, Trump has a big problem hiring new staffers who he might trust:

The disclosures from investigations stemming from Russian meddling in last year’s election — coupled with the president’s habit of undercutting his staff — have driven away candidates for West Wing jobs that normally would be among the most coveted in American politics, according to people involved in the search.

Today, in full employment Democrat:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-30/the-fed-shouldn-t-be-afraid-of-growth

Quote

The Federal Reserve has intimated that it intends to keep pulling back on economic stimulus in 2017, both by raising short-term interest rates and by shrinking its holdings of long-term assets. These steps have little to do with controlling inflation. Instead, they are part of a systematically anti-growth approach that the Fed adopted four years ago -- an approach that should be abandoned as soon as possible.

 

Quote

The Fed would be better off using its policy tools to get inflation back up to target, rather than slow growth. And this argues against further tightening in 2017.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Although now Trump's that he won't make any announcements for the next few days and some reporters have tweeted that other sources say a decision hasn't been made yet.

Two main options here:

1) Trump really hasn't decided and the people who want him to withdraw, Bannon et al, are trying to force his hand.

2) This is a trial ballon and in the end Trump will only "partially withdraw" and the media coverage will be more favorable because it'll seem like he moderated.

Both options are quite possible, but I'll add one caveat to #2 in that there is no chance that Trump will receive favorable coverage from the foreign press. 

[Trebla]

6 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Well, I think we've been given our next thread title:

 

 

https://i.imgur.com/kNp9H3r.png

Despite all the vileness and stupidity, this is why I still love Twitter.