US Politics: RIP EHK FYVM GOP

[Zorral]

6 minutes ago, Quijote Light said:

@Zorral Your second quote is not by the same person. 

GDDIT!  You're right.  The second one is Mother of Others.  Dmmmit!  I'm sorry.  These handles, plus the forum's messed up quoting function -- but still.

 

[all swedes are racist]

never mind saw the above post

[Ser Hedge]

 We should call the next thread "Whose Line is it anyway?"

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Probably out stuff like this that YOU posted:

Then for langniappe, you continued to so inform us there was indeed collusion with russia and communists but it was the Dems.  Sounds just like u no hoohoo -- in certain circles this is called projection, villifying others for the sins that you yourself have committed.

 

To be fair, that quote isn't pro Putin. It's pointing out that Dem. outrage against collusion is kind of shitty because Dem leaders collude. I saw nothing pro Putin there. 

[Jace, Extat]

This post got totally fucked, see the following.

[Larry of the Lawn]

20 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Incorrect conclusion drawn from a correctly identified observance.

If you say something that appeals to base emotion forcefully enough then people will buy it. Facts and reality are irrelevant.

Which is why @larrytheimp is wrong. And it's not even necessarily (exclusively) about racism. It's tribalism and entitlement combined. "This is mine, I don't want anyone else to have it." If you think that only racists and Republicans have that mindset then you need to take a step into the real world for five minutes or drive in traffic. Overcoming such basic impulses to do what is morally and fiscally correct is not a simple as "It's the right thing to do" or else we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

People think there's some kind of binary choice to be made on every political question, that you somehow cannot have both a Navy and a social safety net. Or a functioning economy and workers' rights. This is a fantastically effective hoodwink that will never go away. Ignoring it is the height of stupidity. I mean really, whose vote are you courting by saying that? Is it the illegal immigrant's vote? The one who can't vote? Were liberals drawing a line in the sand that undocumented residents needed health insurance too or else the party was no longer representative of progressive values? That question was so fucking bizarre and counterproductive that I initially wasn't sure I understood it.

And let me be clear, again, for my confused friends. I'm totally on board with the idea, it's the right thing to do for a lot of reasons. But admitting to it does nothing but let Donald and his state media apparatus run ads declaring that "Democrats want to give your tax dollars to illegals" or "Democrats are buying illegal votes" It doesn't matter that it's not true, it doesn't matter that almost all of those folks pay into the system, it doesn't matter that we can afford it, or that it's cheaper... None of that matters because while the Democrat stands there trying to explain reality all the Republican has to do is scream about giving away the country.

If you actually think that facts matter anymore then I want to smoke some of whatever it is you've been hitting for the last four years.

 

4 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Ok, but you're still misrepresenting it with the previous comment. I said "complete abandonment" of competition would be bad. "Complete". That word was not idly placed, because I keep repeating that I desire an equitable society but it keeps getting glossed over as if I'm arguing I'm favor of the status quo as opposed to a more realistic socialist system that preserves the ability of exceptional persons to exceed their peers. You can have a system where a dude can invent something and become wealthy without letting him maliciously exploit the rest of the society.

Fair enough.  My bad, I was still hung up in the healthcare for undocumented workers claim and used your general response to advocating immediate socialism as grounds for an argument.  Was definitely talking past you and a comprehension fail on my part.  

I still stand my position that there nothing wrong with saying you want to give free healthcare to everyone, including undocumented workers and criminals and pedophiles and people who work in 'marketing'.   Even people who drink raw milk *cough, Scot, cough* (they're gonna need it).  

Because no matter where you draw the line in who's in and who's out, the rhetoric is going to be "Dems are spending you're money on people that aren't as good as you ".  Might as well give up the pretense of arguing that.  Change the field.  

As far as your more recent response, thanks for clarifying - I think the socialist Utopia stuff got mixed up with the healthcare because I quoted a bit recklessly.  My bad.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Well this is disturbing:

Quote

Almost every Democrat in the poll -- 93%! -- disapprove of the way migrants are being treated at the border. And here, 60% of Independents are on Democrats' side. But a clear 62% of Republicans approves of the way migrants are being treated.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/03/politics/immigration-poll/index.html

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

To be fair, that quote isn't pro Putin. It's pointing out that Dem. outrage against collusion is kind of shitty because Dem leaders collude. I saw nothing pro Putin there. 

Ok. I'm done arguing with an imbecile but since others are getting drawn into the madness I'll make one last push for theirs' and clarification's sake. I don't care where anybody takes these recursive arguments after this, I wash my hands of it. But here is what was stated and intentionally misconstrued by the other party: 

13 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

 

 

I hate to have to bring up the example but you're being kinda obtuse so I have to cite the Soviet Union. It had some pretty fantastic socialist policies that people in Russia lamented losing so much that Putin was able to turn the state into an unabashed Oligarchy in less than 2 decades.

 

This statement was made in response to repeated assertions that radical socialist governing principals were the only legitimate function of a state system. I countered (reluctantly, because it's kinda routine but that doesn't make it untrue) that the Soviet Union had pretty great socialist programs. And when those went away Vladimir Putin used public dissatisfaction with their loss to further his own self-enrichment. (That means he manipulated people's anger for his own gain.)

I cannot believe that this was genuinely misunderstood to mean what was next accused by the belligerent:

13 hours ago, a good and nice guy said:

 

and lmao are you trying to claim that 1) putin is operating on behalf of the average russian citizen and that 2) the average russian is better off now than under the soviets?

I honestly cannot fathom how that interpretation was reached in good faith, because it wasn't. I called Russia a fucking Oligarchy for chrissakes. Oligarchies are inherently not in service of the average citizen. I did not realize I would need to explain this, and if that was a mistake then I sincerely apologize, but I think what's going on here is something a bit different than a simple misunderstanding.

How do I know? Because of the following:

12 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Y'know if I'd popped into that socialism thread a few hours ago I coulda saved my fingers some typing. You have to radically reform your (largely facile) arguments continuously in an attempt to preserve your self-proclaimed moral authority. I mean, I pointed out that the Soviets had socialist programs that people liked so much they resented democracy when those programs went away. Clearly as an example that just providing said programs is not justification for the existence of a governing entity, because the Soviets did terrible shit. But somehow you turned that into... some kind of pro-Putin argument? I didn't realize I had to add a whole paragraph to explain that Putin used the anguish over the loss of those programs to further his own inequitable designs in short order. I thought it was implied by a basic understanding of history.

 

I then stated the above in what was meant to be my final comment on the matter. A thorough explanation of my position to an unreasonably basic degree designed to refute an obvious falsehood that I had suggested Putin was acting with the interests of the Russian population at heart. But the response to this statement was... wait, let me get this right...

3 hours ago, a good and nice guy said:

where did you get any “pro putin” argument? he’s an oppressive, pro-capital, nationalist monster. i was explicitly saying that the average russian worker was better off under socialism than the current capitalist system. talk about willful misrepresentation. 

A completely unprovoked defense against a fictional accusation of being aligned with Putin??? I never stated that the other individual was defending Putin, I refuted the ludicrous notion that I was doing so. But rather than absorb and consider my response, the individual in question felt the need to defend themselves against a nonexistent slight instead of engaging in a comprehensive discourse. This is so obviously not a good faith actor that I'm done arguing with it, but I hope this has provided clarity for folks like Simon and others who may have been discombobulated by the nonsensical shit being thrown against the walls.

I get it, I'm not being sarcastic or mean. That conversation is hard as fuck to follow because half of the participants are not interested in having a conversation, but instead are making pathetic attempts to score political ideologue credits without confronting the realities of the in-progress discourse. Or in other words, acting like a jackass.

That's it, I divorce from this subject because it's not going anywhere. Good day, all.

 

 

ETA: Some funky shit happened with the formatting, this is the corrected statement.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

but instead are making pathetic attempts to score political ideologue credits without confronting the realities of the in-progress discourse. Or in other words, acting like a jackass.

To the internet!

 

[Jace, Extat]

9 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

 

Fair enough.  My bad, I was still hung up in the healthcare for undocumented workers claim and used your general response to advocating immediate socialism as grounds for an argument.  Was definitely talking past you and a comprehension fail on my part.  

I still stand my position that there nothing wrong with saying you want to give free healthcare to everyone, including undocumented workers and criminals and pedophiles and people who work in 'marketing'.   Even people who drink raw milk *cough, Scot, cough* (they're gonna need it).  

Because no matter where you draw the line in who's in and who's out, the rhetoric is going to be "Dems are spending you're money on people that aren't as good as you ".  Might as well give up the pretense of arguing that.  Change the field.  

As far as your more recent response, thanks for clarifying - I think the socialist Utopia stuff got mixed up with the healthcare because I quoted a bit recklessly.  My bad.

I appreciate the further clarifications on your part and can disagree in good humor. I think it's a losing argument and I wanna win. I get that you have an irrational belief in the triumph of human goodness or something and won't abuse you for what is an enviable disposition. That shit got wild fast, and I hope I've made it clear who I hold responsible for derailing a number of formerly intelligent conversations among competing ideas based from shared convictions.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I appreciate the further clarifications on your part and can disagree in good humor. I think it's a losing argument and I wanna win. I get that you have an irrational belief in the triumph of human goodness or something and won't abuse you for what is an enviable disposition. That shit got wild fast, and I hope I've made it clear who I hold responsible for derailing a number of formerly intelligent conversations among competing ideas based from shared convictions.

All good, although you mistake my cynicism for optimism.  I am convinced any one that swerves back around to Trump or third party or not voting base on that alone was already a lost cause, and will make the same move based on something less extreme.  Like, "oh, DACA, well what about the homeless and veterans?". But yeah this has been some wild shit here.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

All good, although you mistake my cynicism for optimism.  I am convinced any one that swerves back around to Trump or third party or not voting base on that alone was already a lost cause, and will make the same move based on something less extreme.  Like, "oh, DACA, well what about the homeless and veterans?". But yeah this has been some wild shit here.

The problem is it's another example of an issue that once explained is likely popular, but it's too easy for Republicans to create a quick soundbite that will scare people off.

[Zorral]

But, one wails plaintively, why is anything proposed or explained that is intelligent and / or sensible immediately branded as 1) impossible; 2) gonna lose the election; 3) socialist, commie, etc., 4; capitalism the only good proper and right!-- see 1 and 2 and 3 previous.  And then hours and days and years and centuries are spent arguing over what is commie, what is socialist, what is capitalist, while the capitalist system has women dying in huge numbers in childbirth due to lousy health care, and infants dying due to lousy health care and lack nutrition, and the forests, the lungs of the planet, are destroyed.  And then it becomes only about polls of Dems vs Rethugs, and elections -- while elections are stolen all over the place and voters are repressed from voting.

It's all quite ridiculous, amirite?

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

But, one wails plaintively, why is anything proposed or explained that is intelligent and / or sensible immediately branded as 1) impossible; 2) gonna lose the election; 3) socialist, commie, etc., 4; capitalism the only good proper and right!-- see 1 and 2 and 3 previous.  And then hours and days and years and centuries are spent arguing over what is commie, what is socialist, what is capitalist, while the capitalist system has women dying in huge numbers in childbirth due to lousy health care, and infants dying due to lousy health care and lack nutrition, and the forests, the lungs of the planet, are destroyed.  And then it becomes only about polls of Dems vs Rethugs, and elections -- while elections are stolen all over the place and voters are repressed from voting.

It's all quite ridiculous, amirite?

Yeah, I think that's what we're saying. You gotta take what you can and drink until it almost seems like enough. And then the next day start again. Methodical is the only approach we have.

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Yeah, I think that's what we're saying. You gotta take what you can and drink until it almost seems like enough. And then the next day start again. Methodical is the only approach we have.

Again, I'd urge you to get blazed as shit as well

[DMC]

If I had a sig, it'd be Weber's quote that "politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards."  Here's the full quote:

Quote

“Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards. It takes both passion and perspective. Certainly all historical experience confirms the truth - that man would not have attained the possible unless time and again he had reached out for the impossible. But to do that a man must be a leader, and not only a leader but a hero as well, in a very sober sense of the word. And even those who are neither leaders nor heroes must arm themselves with that steadfastness of heart which can brave even the crumbling of all hopes. This is necessary right now, or else men will not be able to attain even that which is possible today.” 

 

[Zorral]

6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Again, I'd urge you to get blazed as shit as well

And then ... AND THEN ... what am I supposed to think about the United States Army taking out the airports in the War of Independence and ... AND ... doing what... what did the army do in the War of Independence at Fort McHenry? Defended Baltimore? But Fort McHenry,  per se. if I recall my historical plaques correctly, wasn't built until 1800.

I can't drink.  My head already hurts. So much.

 

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Zorral said:

And then ... AND THEN ... what am I supposed to think about the United States Army taking out the airports in the War of Independence and ... AND ... doing what... what did the army do in the War of Independence at Fort McHenry? Defended Baltimore? But Fort McHenry,  per se. if I recall my historical plaques correctly, wasn't built until 1800.

Alternatively, if you smoke enough weed or eat enough mushrooms, maybe you can make sense out of Trump History.

[Larry of the Lawn]

28 minutes ago, DMC said:

If I had a sig, it'd be Weber's quote that "politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards."  Here's the full quote:

 

I'd respond  with the obvious and cliche, despite being a poignant zinger from Zappa, that politics are the entertainment department of the MIC. 

Paraphrased

[Zorral]

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

Alternatively, if you smoke enough weed or eat enough mushrooms, maybe you can make sense out of Trump History.

Snuffle.  Sniff.  Waaaaa. No-no-nonononoooooooo!