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

1 hour ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

That really isn’t fair. While I would hate to see Bloomberg be the nominee (and heads up there’s a <.1% chance of that happening), he’s nothing like Trump. Bloomberg is a generic businessman who has some bad policy positions, but at least he respects the office. OTOH, Trump is literally one of the least qualified people in the country to be president who could actually win. He’s basically an old, white version of Kanye who can’t rap.

He has a different face, as stated above.  Where is the evidence he respects the office particularly? He has a great respect for what the office can accomplish, of course, which is why he spends (a lot) money on politicians, campaigns and elections.  Again, his record with women in business is lousy.  Just because one isn't a rapist or serial assaulter doesn't make one a respecter of women and their needs -- or even an ally --  per se.  (That's how low the bar has gotten with the orange nazi and Kavanaugh?)  He is huge on he knows best and everyone should do exactly as he tells them, even when it's about something he knows nothing about.

He was a terrible mayor for most of us, actively working to make the city too expensive for anyone but the globally obscene wealthy. We know what he's like in office.  He's no believer in diversity or equality under the law.  But the only real estate developer he ever met that he didn't like seems to be the orange nazi and that was personal.  

And why him?  There are literally many many many worthy candidates out there the Dems could pull.  He can talk about running ONLY because he's obscenely wealthy and can buy whatever he wants -- like he bought the mayorship of NYC.  The only thing that stopped him from buying the mayorship of London was that he wasn't English.

 

Share this post


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

Got it. Keep that position of yours in mind when the next nominee is a liberal. Because it'll be fucking a-easy for Democratic nominees to prove they didn't do whatever the Republicans and their foot soldiers accuse them of.

You are missing all the points that matter while you're berating something that isn't part of this equation.  What''s happened that you've turned so differently from the sort of thinking and analysis that you used to do?

Share this post


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

You're shifting the burden of proof. Presumption of innocence, which is the basis of all Western legal systems, means the burden of proof is always on the accuser. Ford needs to do a bit more than accuse before Kavanaugh's truthfulness is brought into the picture. You always prove the credibility of the accuser first.

This is true for criminal matters. It is not and has never been true for anything else. This is especially relevant when you're discussing whether or not a person applying for the highest legal office in the land actively is lying about events in his history. 

Again, he's not going behind bars. He's not even losing a job he has. 

Share this post


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

Got it. Keep that position of yours in mind when the next nominee is a liberal. Because it'll be fucking a-easy for Democratic nominees to prove they didn't do whatever the Republicans and their foot soldiers accuse them of.

Ultimately this does not matter in the least, because Republicans will oppose any and every nomination regardless of the person and reason. Merrick Garland wasn't opposed for any actions he took; he was opposed for being nominated by Obama. 

 

Share this post


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

You say this as if it's a situation that Democratic nominees don't routinely face anyway, and as if you don't understand the concept of treating each case on its merits.

Touché. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I don't understand any criticism of Dems trying to prevent the Kavanaugh nomination.  The GOP playbook has been 'no Dem SC nominations by any means necessary'.  The Dems would be foolish to try to stick to procedure or walk some kind of high ground.  They need to adopt a scorched earth policy and do anything they can to delay.  They already lost one spot with Gorsuch.  There's more at stake here than trying to follow some meaningless rules the other side disregarded years ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaving aside the Kavanagh controversy for a moment, here is an interesting article about the need for the rising left of the Democratic Party to develop a coherent foreign policy: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/opinion/democratic-party-cortez-foreign-policy.html

For the record, I agree that candidates like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez should focus on domestic issues, especially for the upcoming election. But people on "the left" (for lack of a better term) that are not running for office should really start to have this discussion, so that as "the left" (hopefully) starts winning elections on the national level they will actually be prepared and have a coherent vision to offer that differs from that of, say, the neo-cons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Being "civil" is likely the best policy most of the time. And in fact, I'm enough of an idealist to believe that most people are decent and will make a good faith effort to reciprocate civility.

But, some people don't operate in good faith and see attempts at civility as a sign of weakness and a lack of resolve. Some people aren't deserving of civility. I have about zero faith the Republican Party or Republicans would try to attempt reciprocate attempts at civility. And you know, I think at some point have a a bit of a right to get a bit fed up with the situation we find ourselves in that has brought upon us by the Republican Party. Right now we some countries such as Hungary that have descended into fascism and the US is perilously close to descending into it and you know somebody needs to raise a little hell about it.

In about two decades I've watch the Republican Party elect two clowns as president and watched them completely botch two major issues such the Iraq War and the GFC and completely ignore a variety of other important issues. And now we find ourselves with one ignorant orange clown as president. I've simply lost my patience with the the Republican Party and I do not think people should be expected to be patient forever.

And if the US should survive the orange clown and if conservatives start up with good old "but, but he didn't do the true conservatism" thing, I'm going to have some very choice words about the matter as I doubt being civil will do anything.

And finally, I don't believe that civility always works. It's kind of like when I heard some conservative clown say he wanted to shoot Obama. I could have opted for something like the very civil  "oh please don't say that. That is not very nice thing to day!", but I think that exercise in civility would have not effectively gotten my point across. Instead  I opted to use the very uncivil, but I think more effective, retort , "You know what? You're nothing a but a chicken shit Ted Nugent wannabe coward." While that sure in the hell wasn't a very civil thing to say, I do in fact believe in was more effective in getting my point across.

You, and others, seem to equate civility with "being nice". I equate civility with keeping your head and your rationality, attacking the issues not the personalities, not escalating the emotion of a situation, being assertive not aggressive. And other things. When the other side is also being civil in the same way, then civility also means being respectful. But being respectful in all situations is not necessary, but it's a good idea not to be disrespectful. When you know someone is acting in bad faith, you can still deal with it without losing your shit and also acting in bad faith. These are the things I try to do when in trade talks. Niceness, meekness, appeasement, these are not what civility is and I would fail every time if that's what I did.

If I don't know how to call people on their shit and remain civil, it's not a problem with the concept of civility, its a problem with me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kavanaugh Accuser Says in Letter That She Will Testify Next Week If Conditions Are “Fair”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/blasey-ford-willing-to-testify-next-week-about-kavanaugh-letter-says.html

Quote

As of Thursday morning, attorneys representing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, had yet to respond to the Republican-run Senate Judiciary Committee’s offer to hear her testimony next Monday. With Ford apparently hesitant to abide by the GOP’s strategically hurried schedule for finishing Kavanaugh’s hearings, his confirmation was beginning to seem more likely. But Ford’s representatives now say that she is willing to testify soon, if not Monday, under certain conditions:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

You, and others, seem to equate civility with "being nice". I equate civility with keeping your head and your rationality, attacking the issues not the personalities, not escalating the emotion of a situation, being assertive not aggressive. And other things. When the other side is also being civil in the same way, then civility also means being respectful. But being respectful in all situations is not necessary, but it's a good idea not to be disrespectful. When you know someone is acting in bad faith, you can still deal with it without losing your shit and also acting in bad faith. These are the things I try to do when in trade talks. Niceness, meekness, appeasement, these are not what civility is and I would fail every time if that's what I did.

If I don't know how to call people on their shit and remain civil, it's not a problem with the concept of civility, its a problem with me.

 

 

When I was talking about civility before, I was implying that people were debating in good faith. If the person is debating in bad faith just to "own the libs," tear them to pieces and pull no punches. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Spencer, by all accounts, called civilly for the peaceful ethnic cleansing of the US. His tone was polite, he did not attack any people directly, and he was promoting an idea. 

There are some ideas that are simply uncivil at their core, and they do not deserve to be challenged in any way other than to be attacked, beaten, castigated, ostracized and mocked. They do not deserve a civil debate, because the very nature of that debate makes those ideas seem legitimate and reasonable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

When I was talking about civility before, I was implying that people were debating in good faith. If the person is debating in bad faith just to "own the libs," tear them to pieces and pull no punches. 

The huge problem is that the rethugs cleverly recast this entire debate about Kavanaugh's fitness to be on the SCOTUS away from his fitness, his lies, his many actions and behaviors and utterances that prove him unfit, to one thing and one thing only -- will Ford testify?  and then, if she does, when and how?  and then, she's lying.

Ford never should have been or at least never needed to be part of this national discussion at all.  The rethugs and Kavanaugh, his career and all his associates have provided more than enough.  Yet, somehow, it all comes down to a woman he went to Georgetown prep with back when they were both adolescents.

By Gawd, Ford has more sense and courage in her little finger than the entire DNC, the Dem senators and reps and the party itself.  Without her speaking up, he'd be confirmed today, without anybody saying a word about his many lies under oath over the years, his support for arming the entire nation openly and everywhere, his refusal to even speak to or shake the hand of a parent of color who lost his child in the Parkland shooting, his sneers about women, his determination, like the orange nazi himself, that only women who look and dress as models could be in his presence whether at work in a legal office or anywhere else, and so much more.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

When I was talking about civility before, I was implying that people were debating in good faith. If the person is debating in bad faith just to "own the libs," tear them to pieces and pull no punches. 

But why, when you can easily expose the bad faith of the other AND stay on your high horse at the same time? There are very few situations where it's necessary to climb down into the muck to defeat the muck raker. People often only do that because they like getting dirty, but that doesn't make it the best tactic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Richard Spencer, by all accounts, called civilly for the peaceful ethnic cleansing of the US. His tone was polite, he did not attack any people directly, and he was promoting an idea. 

There are some ideas that are simply uncivil at their core, and they do not deserve to be challenged in any way other than to be attacked, beaten, castigated, ostracized and mocked. They do not deserve a civil debate, because the very nature of that debate makes those ideas seem legitimate and reasonable. 

Yes, it really helps to be civil and respectful as you are civilly, courteously ordered to form orderly lines for the firing squad.  It really helps to be courteous when every word uttered to yourself, about yourself, and one's own ilks, are gatling guns inside the velvet glove.

Good faith only works when everybody is operating in good faith.  These people never operate in good faith.  Good faith?  They laugh in your face and then spit in it, at the very idea.v  Which Kavanaugh has done over and over again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But why, when you can easily expose the bad faith of the other AND stay on your high horse at the same time? There are very few situations where it's necessary to climb down into the muck to defeat the muck raker. People often only do that because they like getting dirty, but that doesn't make it the best tactic. 

It doesn't make it a bad tactic, either. Sometimes debate is important because you want to convince others via reasoning and argument that yours is the best idea. Sometimes, righteous anger and great fury are more important because you want to convince others that this shitbag is an evil motherfucker who needs to be stopped, and no one should listen to this bigoted asshat's lies. 

And sometimes you need more than that. 

All of these things have their place. They always will. In particular, when your opponent is treating you like a punching bag, not punching back makes you look weak. When you feel like you're getting punched you don't want leaders who are taking the high road - you want leaders who are going to fight back for you, fight on your side, and win. 

Share this post


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

righteous anger and great fury

I believe you're referring to "great vengeance and furious anger"

 

Share this post


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

Leaving aside the Kavanagh controversy for a moment, here is an interesting article about the need for the rising left of the Democratic Party to develop a coherent foreign policy: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/opinion/democratic-party-cortez-foreign-policy.html

For the record, I agree that candidates like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez should focus on domestic issues, especially for the upcoming election. But people on "the left" (for lack of a better term) that are not running for office should really start to have this discussion, so that as "the left" (hopefully) starts winning elections on the national level they will actually be prepared and have a coherent vision to offer that differs from that of, say, the neo-cons.

No longer invading other countries or trying to enforce your laws across international borders would be a good start for a left leaning administration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chuck Grassley Says the Real Victim of the Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Allegations Is … Chuck Grassley

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/chuck-grassley-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-republicans.html

Quote

Grassley’s letters are the prose equivalent of a sulk and stamping feet. “Had Dr. Ford not made her allegations public via the Washington Post over the weekend, I still would not know her identity,” Grassley wrote to Feinstein. “It has caused me to have to reopen the hearings for the fifth day of testimony, when we easily could have—and should have—raised these issues before or during the first four days of the hearing.” It is remarkable to watch a man who has the power to control Senate proceedings claim procedural victimhood in the adjudication of a sexual assault allegation. Of the leak that made Ford’s then-anonymous allegations public, Grassley wrote to Senate Democrats, “This is but the latest—and most serious—of your side’s abuse of this confirmation process.” These Democrats aren’t just subjecting Grassley to inconvenience and delays. They’re perpetrating abuse.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grassley is a massive steaming pile of a person. He has no right to talk about abuses of process after what they did with Merrick Garland and now trying to jam through a perjurer. 

Share this post


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

×