Jump to content

Archived

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

lokisnow

U.S. Politics: Next-ennials vs stamps

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Altherion said:

Yes. More specifically because deliberately hires contractors that waste public money because this wasted money is going to the right people.

It wouldn't make any difference besides the labeling. Public sector services (e.g. police) are also more expensive and famously inferior.

Maybe this is something that you don't have to such an extent in France, but in the US, the leaders of the public and private sectors come from largely the same set of people and in fact switch places every once in a while. The New York City examples are probably not well-known, but this happens at all levels of the system under both Democrats and Republicans. Robert Rubin went from Goldman Sachs to the Treasury under Clinton, Dick Cheney went from Halliburton to be Vice-President to G.W. Bush, Larry Summers was at so many public and private places that it's hard to pick two, but let's say from D.E. Shaw to the National Economic Counsel under Obama and even if we ignore Trump himself, Rex Tillerson was CEO of Exxon-Mobil before becoming Secretary of State. And even when there isn't anyone who is obviously from a given industry in a position of power, industry always has a seat at the table when major changes are discussed.

Ok. I hear what you're saying and understand why there would be mistrust in government.

But the paradox here is that in the US it's generally believed that people who are successful in the private sector are the right people to manage the public sector. Trump's cabinet is a pretty good example of that, "draining the swamp" notwithstanding.

I dunno how you can fight corruption while keeping faith in the magic of the free market, and thus value the private sector that much. One might even say that a "deep state," and by that I mean an extremely strong public sector and bureaucracy, combined with appropriate judicial oversight, would be far better at dealing with the problem. But hey, what do I know...

23 hours ago, Altherion said:

No, I dismiss "scientific" research that is unfalsifiable or otherwise fails basic tests separating science from pseudoscience. However, this has little to do with US politics to I'll make a separate thread about it.

I'm curious.

23 hours ago, Altherion said:

Not in the US. Several people in this thread have made this kind of reference to the Trump administration, but if you think about it, he has not done many things that a proper authoritarian would quite likely do.

What I meant by "nazi" was people who believe in a hierarchy of races, what Harari calls "evolutionary humanism."
(though I have to say I dislike the terms he uses, to say the least)

Technically, by that definition a government doesn't have to be totalitarian or authoritarian to be nazi. We tend to use fascism and nazism inter-changeably because historically speaking the nazis were also fascists (and still are). But if you look at the ideologies, nazism and fascism can be separated. Or to be more specific, the fascist elements of nazi ideology can be separated from its social darwinism. In fact, that's the truly terrifying thing about nazism: it's an ideology that can seduce enough people to work within what we generally see as a "democratic" framework. Because we live in representative democracies, nazis can seize power with little modification of the institutions in place. It's especially easy in countries that have a strong executive like the US and France.

Arguably, you could even imagine a form of ethno-nationalism that doesn't even involve an ethnic hierarchy (or at least, not officially or openly), thus adopting nazi policies without the nazi ideology. All it takes is a global situation that is so bad that people start thinking that it's normal to favor the historically dominant ethnic group within their nation. Which might happen because of climate change, when the refugees start numbering in the hundreds of millions.

I've wondered for a while now whether all this talk about walls doesn't hide an actual belief in climate change. Climate change denial only makes xenophobia more palatable. But in the next decades one could imagine political parties that advocate ethno-nationalism precisely because they believe in the worst-case scenarios resulting of climate change. That is the darkness that I fear might engulf the West. Soon.

23 hours ago, Altherion said:

Alright, what does she represent? As far as I can tell, it's a less intellectual variant of an ideology that is rejected in the US by the vast majority mixed together with identity politics, but that's probably not what you see.

Indeed I don't see Ocasio-Cortez as coming out that strongly in favor of identity politics. It's mainly because she is latina that she is viewed as a champion of minorities. But unless I'm badly mistaken, her main message has been about defending the poor and the vulnerable generally speaking, not latinos specifically. It seems to me that, like Obama, she can use her own identity to seduce minorities without basing her message on identity politics. Paradoxical, I know, but that's what makes her such an appealing character.
Basically, politicians who are themselves members of minorities could end up being the ideal champions of progressivism. Or to put it differently, politicians who are themselves members of minorities can tone down identity politics, especially if they advocate socialism. The opposite movement, that is, ethno-nationalist neo-liberalism, appears hardly sustainable in the US, given the predicted demographical evolutions.
The sobering thing here, from my perspective, is that ethno-nationalist neo-liberalism can work far better in Europe. If I had to make a wild guess, I'd say trumpism should be temporary in the US. But the comparable movements in Europe will remain on the political scene for the foreseeable future.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

The Dems have nothing to lose, and everything to gain from using whatever means necessary to stall this confirmation. 

I'd written a long text to try to explain why this is wrong, but I don't think I'll convince anyone who isn't already, so I'll just say that in the current context, such thinking is very dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

What's any of that matter?  The GOP has already demonstrated, as has been pointed out ad nauseum in this thread, that they already will do anything possible to sabotage a Dem SC pick.  The Dems have nothing to lose, and everything to gain from using whatever means necessary to stall this confirmation.  Because no matter what they do they'll be stonewalled next time around.  Whether it's accusations of pedophilia, or a refusal to even consider the nominee, the Republicans will resist kicking and screaming.  

It doesn't matter if the accusations are credible or not.  It's a strange argument for you to make after you've defended Trump's lies as quality propaganda (I remember you describing yourself as a 'connosieur of propaganda').  If you don't believe the accusations against Kavanaugh, you must at least appreciate the pragmatic political consequences, no?

You are conflating two different concepts here. It is true that as a political maneuver, this is can be argued to be a pretty good one: the Democrats are forcing Republicans to choose between antagonizing gullible fence-sitters and antagonizing their base (the long term implications aren't as good as you think, but the Democrats can deal with that later). It is also true that the people who ran this story made the most of it. I must particularly commend whoever wrote the Washington Post article de-anonymizing  the allegation -- that was clearly done by a professional.

However... the underlying content is thin and the most that can be made of it is still not very much so people who genuinely find this credible or plausible or anything of the sort need to think a bit harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

I'd written a long text to try to explain why this is wrong, but I don't think I'll convince anyone who isn't already, so I'll just say that in the current context, such thinking is very dangerous.

You are clearly oblivous to the issue of what a stacked court at all levels means. You do realize what will happen yea? And how people will have their rights attacked? A sexual predator has no fucking business sitting as a judge at any level, let alone the supreme court. We already have on there in Thomas, we don't need another one. 

You'll welcome fascism with open arms because fighting it might upset republicans. I call that cowardly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I'd written a long text to try to explain why this is wrong, but I don't think I'll convince anyone who isn't already, so I'll just say that in the current context, such thinking is very dangerous.

As of now I am convinced that any deference for procedure was nuked from orbit with the GOP refusing to even consider Garland.  What could the Dems get out of letting Kavanaugh get confirmed without a fight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, more incestuous sexual assault in the GOP:

 

http://m.startribune.com/state-rep-jim-knoblach-ends-re-election-bid-after-allegations-by-daughter/493988571/

Quote

 

In 2015, Laura Knoblach, then 20 years old, was back home for the Fourth of July and her parents were shooting fireworks off in the backyard. "I was walking back in [and] my dad just grabs me and like throws me up against a car and he basically grabbed each of my wrists and like pinned my wrists above my head and just started like making out slobbering open mouth kisses with tongue on my neck and biting my ear," she said. Later that night, Laura Knoblach said the family was watching a movie together and her father put his face between her legs repeatedly, kissing and licking up her legs. At one point, according to Laura Knoblach, her mother told him to stop because it was inappropriate to do that to his adult daughter, but that her father laughed and continued the behavior.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Zorral said:

You have missed that at the time this assault took place many of Dr. Blasey's classmates noted how different she now was, and that she basically just disappeared from the scene.  Other of her classmates recall that at the time at the school the kids talked about it. 

I read about the classmate that claimed this in a Facebook posting, and then quickly took it down and has essentially refused to talk about it any further.  Dr. Ford has asserted that she didn't tell anyone about the alleged assault until 2012.  If that is the case and the classmate is telling the truth, then Kavanaugh and/or Judge must have told other people about their assault of Ford since there is no indication that anyone else has first hand knowledge of the alleged assault.  It's possible they bragged about sexually assaulting a girl, but I think that it's unlikely.  Most people don't go around bragging about committing sexual assault.  If they were that kind of people, I would think that there should be many victims coming forward by now.  If they really did brag about it, the press should be able to confirm this and confirm that many of Ford's classmates heard about the assault.  Ford and Kavanaugh went to different schools, so for this to spread from Kavanaugh's school to Ford's school means that tons of people should have heard about the assault.  That this hasn't been confirmed yet suggests to me that the classmate didn't really hear about the assault at the time and was just being overzealous in her support of Ford.

Ford's accusations against Kavanaugh are believable to me.  I wouldn't say I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt though.  More around 50/50.  I'm naturally a skeptic though and want to see more evidence or corroboration of existing evidence.  If a couple more women accused Kavanaugh of similar behavior, then I'd be much more inclined to believe them, and I'm sure that Kavanaugh would then be finished.  Maybe that's why the Republican's want to hurry up the confirmation process.  If no one else comes forward though, Kavanaugh is getting confirmed within a couple weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 6 highest ranking Republicans on the senate judiciary committee voted against the violence against women reauthorization act of 2013.

Chuck Grassley
Orrin Hatch
Lindsey Graham
John Cornyn
Mike Lee
Ted Cruz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Altherion said:

Very briefly, in this thread I'm mainly trying to convince people that identity politics as practiced by the modern American left is a bad idea. I don't have a What is to be done? pamphlet for you; if it was obvious (or at least as attractive as the original was to its contemporaries), somebody would have publicized it already.

1. I'd like to know what exactly what your issue with "identity politics" exactly is. It would be helpful if you could write your key objections in a few simple sentences that are easy to understand,

2. For the most part, I think analyzing policy through the lens of class, gender, and race and so forth is pretty sensible as policy or policy issues are likely to affect different groups differently. I'll give one example to make the point. Take Raj Chetty's study on social mobility. He found, among other things, that women tend have less social mobility and income than men, until you get to boys born into the lowest social classes and then the result flips for whatever reason. This what I believe many on the left would call "intersectionality" and it seems pretty sensible to me as a method to analyze policy and to understand a variety of issues.

3. Your notions of "neo-liberalism" and "the elites" seems vastly different from standard notions of those concepts. This is the only explanation I can think of why you claim to have no idea about what to do about neo-liberalism. The fact of the matter is that many people have written for years about the excesses of neo-liberalism, and there are several policies ideas out there about what to do about it. That you refuse to name just one of them makes me think you are pretty confused about what neo-liberalism is, as most people understand that term, or you're just throwing in ten cent words to make whatever point you're trying to make look credible.

4. If your real beef isn't with neo-liberalism, but with identity politics, then so state clearly and precisely as you can. If I wanted to read reams of obscure and impenetrable text where I'm sitting here scratching my head and saying to myself "what in the hell did I just read?" I'd go and read Ayn Rand or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I'd written a long text to try to explain why this is wrong, but I don't think I'll convince anyone who isn't already, so I'll just say that in the current context, such thinking is very dangerous.

You are already worried now that the Democrats are merely using credible arguments against the character of Kavanaugh. Which they have resort to since the GOP has been turning blind eyes to his lying, been hiding other data on his history, been ignoring the option of even trying for a candidate with a broader potential support.

This isn't some weird escalation, this is a basic inquest into someone who would gain a lot of power in the weird US system.

It doesn't make sense to worry about the basis due prudence the Democratic senators are doing now, in the eye of the GOP powers-that-be abandoning it already. And showing bad faith with regard to SCOTUS back to the last vacancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Serious Callers Only said:

Frankly you should be more worried about the civil war than the civil discourse.

I shit you not there is a billboard of Abraham Lincoln about ten minutes from my house that says "a house divided against itaelf cannot stand" and then a call for "civility from both sides".  I don't think they're trying to be ironic.

Share this post


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

I shit you not there is a billboard of Abraham Lincoln about ten minutes from my house that says "a house divided against itaelf cannot stand" and then a call for "civilility from both sides".  I don't think they're trying to be ironic.

The irony of that billboard is that Lincoln was pretty much a moderate where the slavery question was concerned. He was pretty much willing to let the practice continue in the South.
But, the South wasn't all that interested in "civility" and decided to declare war.
Lincoln tried "civility."
It didn't work.
It would have been nice if the people who made that billboard had thought about that.

But, of course, we know how "both siders" roll. They think they look all reasonable and stuff by simply declaring it's "both sides". To bad for them, that just isn't the case at this current juncture in our history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Ok. I hear what you're saying and understand why there would be mistrust in government.

@Altherion claims to be against neo-liberalism.

Then gets basically into a bunch of libertariannish public choice theory arguments.

Something here does not quite compute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Claims to hate identity politics, yet continually sings the praises of corpse pickled in vodka, Steve Bannon and his white supremacist dribblings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mudguard said:

I read about the classmate that claimed this in a Facebook posting, and then quickly took it down and has essentially refused to talk about it any further.  Dr. Ford has asserted that she didn't tell anyone about the alleged assault until 2012.  If that is the case and the classmate is telling the truth, then Kavanaugh and/or Judge must have told other people about their assault of Ford since there is no indication that anyone else has first hand knowledge of the alleged assault.  It's possible they bragged about sexually assaulting a girl, but I think that it's unlikely.  Most people don't go around bragging about committing sexual assault.  If they were that kind of people, I would think that there should be many victims coming forward by now.  If they really did brag about it, the press should be able to confirm this and confirm that many of Ford's classmates heard about the assault.  Ford and Kavanaugh went to different schools, so for this to spread from Kavanaugh's school to Ford's school means that tons of people should have heard about the assault.  That this hasn't been confirmed yet suggests to me that the classmate didn't really hear about the assault at the time and was just being overzealous in her support of Ford.

Ford's accusations against Kavanaugh are believable to me.  I wouldn't say I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt though.  More around 50/50.  I'm naturally a skeptic though and want to see more evidence or corroboration of existing evidence.  If a couple more women accused Kavanaugh of similar behavior, then I'd be much more inclined to believe them, and I'm sure that Kavanaugh would then be finished.  Maybe that's why the Republican's want to hurry up the confirmation process.  If no one else comes forward though, Kavanaugh is getting confirmed within a couple weeks.

Really? Does the phrase ' grab them by the pussy' ring any bells? Kavanaugh is a creep and deserves all the shit heaped on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 12:19 AM, ants said:

 

I'm still trying to figure out how heavy drinking suddenly makes accusations against you credible.  Or how being nominated by Trump does either.  Or what the Republicans have been doing to get people to support his nomination.  None of these make this accusation more or less credible, unless you want to play party politics and stereotyping.  

Are you really that thick? I didn't say that being a heavy drinker makes you less credible. The stories about Kavanaugh and his jolly crew of friends is that they regularly got wasted in high school. Dr. Ford said in her story he was very drunk. Kavanaugh said he has no memory of any such party. Being blacked-out drunk is a historic defense for many crimes. Any lawyer can pull out many historic court decisions where men were either found not guilty or guilty of a lesser offence because of extreme drunkenness, including rape and murder, because the court found they were so drunk they could not form the necessary intent to commit the crime.

Ergo, if the Democrats nominate someone with a history of drunkenness in their youth they deserve to have Republicans uncover conduct like Kavanaugh's in their candidate.

Perhaps you have a history of drunkenness at university, or have good friends who had a history of drunkenness at school and you think holding that against them in the future is wrong? No one in this thread who wants this matter investigated have said that youthful stupidity should be held against someone later in life. EXCEPT IF THEY ARE BEING NOMINATED TO A LIFETIME POSITION ON THE SUPREME COURT. Cuz, ya know, credibility.

Of course, Kavanaugh said he wasn't even at that party, which implies that someone knows exactly what party was being discussed. Then the Republican talking heads (saw them on CNN) came out and started claiming it was just "rough play" between friends.  Then they rolled out "it was the other guy". That tells me the Republicans who vetted him know the story, and have been preparing for it to come out. I will repeat, I was extremely suspicious when I saw commercial after commercial with women praising Kavanaugh for what a great guy he is. Let's not forget the story that has come out of Yale Law School that he wanted women clerks who look like models.

And of course there are stories about Kavanaugh's heavy drinking in university and in law school that have come out from fellow students and from his own fond recollections. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

"Former Donald Trump aide Jason Miller has been accused of secretly administering an "abortion pill" to a woman he got pregnant during an affair, new court documents show.

The court filing, obtained and reported on by Splinter, alleges that Miller had an affair with a woman he met at a strip club in Orlando, Florida in 2012. As a result of the affair the woman got pregnant, at which point Miller is accused of giving her with an abortion pill without her knowledge or consent. The woman claims that the pill caused her to lose the baby and nearly costed her her life.

The filing goes on to claim that Miller showed up at Jane Doe's apartment with a smoothie in hand. Unbeknownst to Jane Doe, the Smoothie contained an abortion pill. The pill induced an abortion, and Jane Doe wound up in a hospital emergency room, bleeding heavily and nearly went into a coma," the document reads."

 

https://www.newsweek.com/former-trump-aide-administered-abortion-pill-1134501

 

Party of family values

So murder and attempted murder? If we go by conservative definitions at least.

 

Anyway not the first time either:

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/536892/

(another affair with another Trump campaign latina aide which he pressured to abort and then was discarded after. His wife was pregnant too). I guess you can sell out the country and promote rapists to office but can't escape child support (yet). This worm was hired as a 'commentator' after the campaign at... drumroll... CNN!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

You are clearly oblivous to the issue of what a stacked court at all levels means.

Sorry, are we operating under the impression that this will actually prevent Kavanaugh from being confirmed now? Because I would have thought everyone agreed that this isn't going to change a thing for the Republicans, who mostly don't give a shit about women and women's rights anyway.

Share this post


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

×