US Politics: Make Thread Titles Great Again

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

You should have respect for my very, very, large brain, but I'm afraid I must PARDON myself, which is Totally CONSTITUTIONAL, so I can grab a hamberder before my MEETING, which the Haters and Losers don't want me to have.

#Ihavethebestwords

I think you wrote that while bleeding from the face due to botched plastic surgery. You asked to come into this thread. I said no.

[OldGimletEye]

I think here is the part, where I think AOC, needs take some further inspiration from FDR and then make a "Quarantine Speech".

In this version, she lays out that the Republican Party has become a menace to the public health, and as such needs to be quarantined as not to prevent further damage.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/2/22/18188562/climate-change-david-wallace-wells-the-uninhabitable-earth

Quote

“It is, I promise, worse than you think.”

That was was the first line of David Wallace-Wells’s horrifying 2017 essay in New York magazine about climate change. It was an attempt to paint a very real picture of our not-too-distant future, a future filled with famines, political chaos, economic collapse, fierce resource competition, and a sun that “cooks us.”

Wallace-Wells has since developed his terrifying essay into an even more terrifying book, titled The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming. And it is a brutal read. Wallace-Wells was criticized in 2017 for being too hyperbolic, too doom-and-gloomy. But as Vox’s David Roberts explained at the time, those criticisms were mostly misplaced.

Now, there is some stuff about the New Green Deal I might quibble with. Or perhaps more exactly how to implement it and pay for it. That is an important discussion to have. But the idea that it is radical as opposed to the alternative is absurd.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think you wrote that while bleeding from the face due to botched plastic surgery. You asked to come into this thread. I said no.

Perhaps, perhaps, but I have the bigger Button, and it's Closer to my (enormous, beautiful, strong) Hand (with long tapered fingers), and mine WORKS!

[Rippounet]

13 hours ago, Altherion said:

And incidentally, it's not just Breitbart and Trump supporters who are behind this. Here's a view from the kind of Christian conservative that used to be mainstream a few years ago:

Having learned about a few undeniable evils that existed in the recent past—slavery, Nazi concentration camps, Jim Crow—they’ve seized on the notion of “History” as a moral force that trends in one direction, the direction of progress.

There's so much wrong with the sentence in bold. And at the same time it's interesting to see where the original mistake comes from. The idea that there are "a few evils" that were "in the recent past" that can be dismissed and should be forgotten is batshit crazy tbh.

You were the one who showed me that as a matter of fact: it all starts with having no historical perspective, rejecting any form of determinism and pretending that all that matters is the individual in the here and now, who should be blamed or praised for everything they have, regardless of everything that came before them.
The very core substance of neo-liberalism.

Quote

Is it any wonder, then, so many Americans are desperately trying to portray themselves as victims?

White supremacists certainly do have a thing about presenting themselves as victims for some reason.

Oh yeah, also:

Quote

What’s more, progressivism’s moral code ultimately works against progress. Oppressed identity groups can never really rise up and overcome their victimhood

Yeah, the problem with poor brown people is that they just can't manage to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps." Instead, they keep blaming others for their failures and presenting themselves as victims. Segregation was at least three generations ago for Christ's sake! Can't they just get over it?

This Metzgar woman is quite a piece of work if you ask me. That article is just a slightly more politically correct version of the age-old racist habit of blaming minorities for their problems. What's new is that it blames progressivism rather than the members of minorities themselves. Subtle. Almost.

[Cas Stark]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/jussie-smollett-story-shows-rise-victimhood-culture/583099/

I'm sure there will be a way to discredit this author as well....

[Rippounet]

9 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/jussie-smollett-story-shows-rise-victimhood-culture/583099/

I'm sure there will be a way to discredit this author as well....

It's a much better paper. The main reason for that is that it tries to discuss facts rather than discuss vague notions of what "progressivism" might be.

[Cas Stark]

13 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

It's a much better paper. The main reason for that is that it tries to discuss facts rather than discuss vague notions of what "progressivism" might be.

It's saying basically the same thing, though, that there exists a culture of victimhood in the U.S.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

41 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Perhaps, perhaps, but I have the bigger Button, and it's Closer to my (enormous, beautiful, strong) Hand (with long tapered fingers), and mine WORKS!

You really need to stop photoshopping your fingers and gut. It won’t distract anyone from your mushrooming problems. It sounds like you’ll be having some Stormy days ahead of you. The rats are coming out of the walls for you, and rumor is they’re all over your properties. It’s a real emergency.

[Rippounet]

15 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

It's saying basically the same thing, though, that there exists a culture of victimhood in the U.S.

And that's basically the only thing the two articles have in common.

The Atlantic piece says that the existence of such victimhood shows that there's been significant progress. The Federalist piece uses it to question the very legitimacy of this progress.  One is hard to argue with, the other is a load of conservative crap. 

[Fragile Bird]

2 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

Probably to provide additional evidence that it wasn't that casual of an acquaintance, e.g. not possible that the brothers attacked him and he didn't recognize them, which at this point, seems to be his only course of a defense, since the police have made it very clear that the only people in the area at the time were the brothers and the timeline lines up perfectly that they "attacked" him.

Totally and completely unnecessary in a press conference. The DA or ADA or whatever she was read out all the evidence in enormous detail for 20 minutes or more. Complete overkill. The (black) police chief said things along the lines of ‘how dare he as a black person’ do this this and that. When have you ever seen a white police chief go on for twenty minutes about how dare a white man play on the racial divide in the US, when have you ever seen a DA read out the facts for twenty minutes in a case against a white man, step by minute step being set out? If reporters would ask for more detail they would say ‘it will come out in court’. No way did they need to say Smollett bought recreational drugs from one of the brothers. No way did the DA have to present the entire fucking case in a press conference.

My analogy of using a nail gun where a few nails would have done the job is perfectly apt.

Smollett may well be guilty as charged, but he was publicly crucified. The Chicago police always seem to do things by extremes.

[Zorral]

Old white guys in congress and elsewhere, who spend who knows how many hundreds of thousands of dollars every year for their toys and their comfort getting their junk tied in knots about a young, personable congress woman spending money on her appearance -- a congress woman, who like many other legislators and office holders across the country, locally and nationally -- are photographed and put on television and other media constantly -- this is just hilarious.

Obvs, this brown female representative just doesn't know what her place is, even in the Capitol: she's supposed to reflect who she is by dragging around in rags and begging for hand-me-downs, instead of shopping judiciously for a la mode clothing that has been discarded by the truly rich or are from sample showings and sales.  That she's so good at this -- and yah, that does cost money too because she's got to have the same status clothes as those women on screen who interview her, etc. -- only makes women admire her more.

BTW -- Nancy Pelosi's wardrobe and jewelry isn't inexpensive either, and is extensive.

This shyte from these shyte heads -- just leaves me scratching my head.  You'd think they never have had any contact ever with real women and their real lives.

 

[Guest]

On a serious note, it looks like Pelosi is playing hardball, having scheduled a floor vote for Tuesday on the resolution of disapproval.

Quote

House Democrats are wasting no time in their effort to block President Trump's emergency declaration at the southwest border, scheduling a floor vote Tuesday on the disapproval resolution introduced Friday by Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas). 

I'm just confused as to scheduling it so quickly. I mean, on the one hand, they're already announcing that the bill has 228 co-sponsors, including Justin Amash (R-MI), which means it already has enough support to pass. However, on the other hand, Congress has been in recess all week for the President's Day holiday, so I would have thought that Pelosi would have taken advantage of that to use next week to try and whip more votes and/or try and make some deals with Republicans, to get as large a "yes" vote on the resolution as possible.

Unless she's timing the vote to coincide with Trump's summit with Kim next week in Vietnam in order to draw press coverage away from that looming debacle, which if that were the case it seems like she would schedule the vote to take place during the summit and not before.

I had expected Ms. Pelosi to slow-walk this as long as she could in order to keep it in front of the press as long as possible before Trump's inevitable veto (assuming that enough Republicans defect to pass the resolution in the Senate - Collins has already announced she is voting for the resolution as long as it's "clean", which as far as I can tell, it is, and I think Murkowski and probably Gardner will jump on board, which leaves quite a few previously outspoken opponents on the Republican side to work to try and get them to join approving the resolution...my guess would be at least 1 out of Alexander, Roberts, Moran, McSally or Tillis will join). 

Also, with noises that the Mueller report might drop next week, it would seem prudent to wait to schedule a vote after that happens to give time for Republican MCs to read and digest the information in the report, which may make a few of them more inclined to support the resolution.

I guess I just figured a reasonably delayed vote would be preferable to a hastily scheduled one.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I had expected Ms. Pelosi to slow-walk this as long as she could in order to keep it in front of the press as long as possible before Trump's inevitable veto (assuming that enough Republicans defect to pass the resolution in the Senate - Collins has already announced she is voting for the resolution as long as it's "clean", which as far as I can tell, it is, and I think Murkowski and probably Gardner will jump on board, which leaves quite a few previously outspoken opponents on the Republican side to work to try and get them to join approving the resolution...my guess would be at least 1 out of Alexander, Roberts, Moran, McSally or Tillis will join). 

Don’t forget Romney and Lee. Paul too.  

Anyways, the reason to speed it up is because McConnell will have to hold a vote within 18 days, and that could badly fracture his caucus. I’d venture to guess that privately most Republicans hate that Trump did this to them. They won’t override his veto, but don’t be shocked if a number of them sign on to the resolution.  

[OldGimletEye]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

 The Federalist piece uses it to question the very legitimacy of this progress.  One is hard to argue with, the other is a load of conservative crap. 

I read the Federalist piece and here is where I will make some comments about the conservative mistakes contained therein.

Quote

Without God, the Christian has no framework for right and wrong, for ultimate truth, or for the transcendent meaning that renders life beautiful.

Uh, ya like the ancient Greeks pretty much dispatched this question several thousand years ago, when they asked, "Is moral because god commands it, or does god command it because it is moral?"

If you believe in 1, then basically you believe God is just making shit up arbitrarily as far as ethical questions are concerned. In short, he is very arbitrary. Not exactly a desirable for a supreme being I should think.

On the other hand, if you believe in two, then evidently moral behavior is based independently of god. So, god isn't nesessary to conclude than ethical system can exist.

Quote

Progressivism attempts to fill this God-shaped void with its own modern deities.

Well it seems to me that the idea of taking religion and god out of political debates long preceded the modern progressives. In fact, I'd say it's origins begin in the Enlightenment when some people though that endless religious wars and disputes were highly destructive.

People like Jordan Peterson can run around and say we should get back to the Enlightenment, which is fine, but then it makes no sense for him to sit around and argue that we should get back to "Judeo-Christian Values". The fact of the matter is that many people during the Enlightment period were often in bitter battles with religious authorities. That is where the whole idea of separation of church and state got started.

Quote

To determine truth, progressives largely look to Science (although the worship of Science is slipping, as it is increasingly conflicts with the god of Self)

Somewhat true. The fact of the matter there has been some bitter battles about the nature of science and objective truth on the left.

Now me personally, I'm not exactly thrilled with the idea that there are no objective truths, or maybe, I should say that more precisely that some truth claims can't be said to be more truthy than others, even if we may not know the exact truth. I'm not exactly a big fan of Derrida, Doritos, Tacos or whatever the hell his name was, and his progeny and I think they have created an epistemological mess.

The point here is that there was been a debate on the left about the nature of science and objective truth.

Quote

 Finally, to know what is morally right, progressives turn to something they call History. 

I guess the author never heard of the study of Ethics, which is a fairly major preoccupation of philosophy.

Quote

Now, by “History,” please understand that I do not mean the study and understanding of actual events in the past. I mean the moral force people invoke when they talk about being “on the right side of history.”

Yeah, I think I look at history to get some objective facts about the world. I do believe in such a thing.

Now people like Ben Shapiro like to say that liberals put "feelings above facts", but it looks like they aren't the only ones.

Quote

Without God’s goodness as a plumb line for right and wrong, moderns have no framework with which to judge the clear evils that exist in human behavior.

Because as we all know, without god, nobody can have an ethical system.

Quote

 So they’ve settled on a simplistic moral standard that boils all sin down to a single category: oppression.

Right, because we could care less about murder, arson, and so forth. 

Quote

they’ve seized on the notion of “History” as a moral force that trends in one direction, the direction of progress.

Well interesting enough, the people that first started this idea were the Whigs. You know, the people that brought you the Glorious Revolution and such. Back in the day, classical liberals used to celebrate those sort of things. The old American right considered itself the descendants of the Classical liberals. 

This idea did not start with the modern left. Sorry.

Quote

History has a right side and a wrong side, and that line—however vague and changeable it might appear—is what separates good from evil. What’s more, we can look at our sample of known historical events and determine who the good and evil actors are. The oppressors are wicked, and the oppressed are righteous.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the Nazi's were wrong. And so was the US confederacy.

Quote

While adherents of progressivism may sincerely believe they’re working to end oppression, the fact is that their model of morality requires oppression in order to exist. 

It does? Perhaps we just recognize it as a reality in lots of cases.

Quote

Progressives decry the “privilege” and “power” of some identity groups over others, but the reality is that they don’t seek to abolish class struggle, but rather to wield it. 

And what is the justification for not worrying that some groups may not be treated fairly? Conservative wishful thinking?

 

As for the rest of this nonsense, I could continue, but I'm getting tired.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Don’t forget Romney and Lee. Paul too.  

Anyways, the reason to speed it up is because McConnell will have to hold a vote within 18 days, and that could badly fracture his caucus. I’d venture to guess that privately most Republicans hate that Trump did this to them. They won’t override his veto, but don’t be shocked if a number of them sign on to the resolution.  

Also, based on statements they've made, you could potentially add Blunt, Sasse, Toomey, Grassley, Ernst, Rubio, Thune, Perdue and Cornyn as potential "ayes". Obviously not all of these Republicans are going to vote for the resolution, but that's a pretty damn wide field to choose from to pick up just 4 votes (I'm assuming that Schumer will make sure Manchin stays in line - he just won re-election after all, and doesn't have to worry about campaigning for 5-6 years, which is an eternity...and I suppose depending on the number of Republican ayes, they could let Jones vote against the resolution, but imo, he really needs to view himself as a dead man walking, and use that to do the most good possible while he still has a chance).

Oh, so kind of hitting them with a double whammy then? Mueller report drops, which I'm sure many in Congress will either read or will have heard things from those who read it, even if the public never gets to see it, and which may provoke some internal strife, and then hitting them with this resolution, further exposing the fault lines.

I imagine there are some pissed-off Republicans giving old Yertle hell these days.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

50 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Oh, so kind of hitting them with a double whammy then? Mueller report drops, which I'm sure many in Congress will either read or will have heard things from those who read it, even if the public never gets to see it, and which may provoke some internal strife, and then hitting them with this resolution, further exposing the fault lines.

I imagine there are some pissed-off Republicans giving old Yertle hell these days.

Perhaps, but I could certainly be wrong. They’re obviously not trying to dump a ton of stuff at the same time to hide it, so my best guess is that they want to use it to turn up the heat on wavering Republicans. I guess we’ll find out in the next few weeks.

Also, on an unrelated note abortion funding just took a hit. Congratulations again, white women….

[Kalbear]

In unrelated to ratfucking news, I heard an interview with Pete Buttigieg today, and I am totally on board for him. He's a great public speaker, is not afraid of his views, is not afraid of his past, and is quite inspirational. Comparing the climate situation to the kind of great problem of the depression and World War 2 - and linking how the US used that as a springboard to greater political and economic success - is remarkable. 

I specifically liked his message about how Democrats need to stop focusing on policy and focus on what the values that democrats have are, and too often Republicans are allowed to control the narrative of the values. 

I don't think he can win for a variety of reasons, but he's very, very good, and I can easily see him being governor of Indiana or Illinois soon and using that as a stepstone to greater things. 

I can't find a recording of it but it was on Amy Walter today. 

[Ormond]

37 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

I don't think he can win for a variety of reasons, but he's very, very good, and I can easily see him being governor of Indiana or Illinois soon and using that as a stepstone to greater things. 

 

This is a minor point, but why would you think the mayor of South Bend, Indiana would possibly become the governor of Illinois? When was the last time we had someone who began his or her political career in one state become the governor of another state?  I would think it would be a lot harder to be elected a governor than it is a senator in that situation -- and have we had examples of Senators within the last few generations who fit that criterion who are not named Kennedy or Clinton and have been Senators from any state other than New York? 

[lokisnow]

14 minutes ago, Ormond said:

This is a minor point, but why would you think the mayor of South Bend, Indiana would possibly become the governor of Illinois? When was the last time we had someone who began his or her political career in one state become the governor of another state?  I would think it would be a lot harder to be elected a governor than it is a senator in that situation -- and have we had examples of Senators within the last few generations who fit that criterion who are not named Kennedy or Clinton and have been Senators from any state other than New York? 

if I were to guess, it'd be that Kal knew South Bend was in either Indiana or in Illinois, but didn't know which one for certain.

[Varysblackfyre321]

Some good for news possibly :https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/22/arts/music/r-kelly-charged-indicted.html

It’s really not to the credit to the world the man has been free and popular so long.