US politics - When the Barr's so low.

[ThinkerX]

2 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Myocardial infarction.

Perhaps not that far fetched.  In the comments to various political articles, I have been coming across more and more posts, including some by purported medical and psychiatric professionals, claiming that Trump's health is not good.  These people fairly consistently cite Trumps dilated pupils, slurred speech, and repetition; and express concern about the medications he is taking.  Add in issues brought on by a severe weight problem...I frequently find myself wondering if he'll still be in physical condition to stand for office this time next year.

[The Anti-Targ]

21 hours ago, Lykos said:

Jill Filipovic in The Guardian

Quote

Meagan Day, a writer at the left-wing magazine Jacobin, has, along with several other Jacobin writers, assessed Warren as the biggest threat to her candidate of choice, Bernie Sanders, and has been on a mission to take Warren out to clear the path for Sanders. The latest iteration of that strategy has been to suggest that Warren is lying about experiencing pregnancy discrimination.

Wonderful, the left eating its own. The right happily just saying "hey we didn't make this up, this is news from the left that we're just repeating." Stupid bloody left, just stick to analysing policy not playing dig up the dirt bullshit

[ants]

I also read the politico article.  All I'll say is, if a bunch of students are willing to sacrifice millions rather than see their mother die, that's pretty despicable in my view.  To then associate a whole heap of good views on the one person to agree with me, and then imply its because he's a libertarian (which I certainly am not), seems completely illogical.  

The article wants to pretend that there is this swathe of the republican base who are true libertarians.  That what he's saying is representative of the Republican base, who we should listen to more.  To which I say, lol.  This is the same group who when Trump along jumped on the band wagon of trade wars, Trump's arguments for support of workers, and have always been for greater government interference in the areas they're concerned about (same sex marriage, law & order, military numbers, abortion, etc.).  To pretend these are all hard-core true libertarians is fanciful.  

The article also assumes that people are debating in full faith.  If you said that Americans could have guns in regulated militias, but take them away in all other places, according to the professed beliefs of the right this should be fine.  And we all know that's baloney.  The author can't go on about how everyone believes abortion has ethical greyness, and that nobody wants to punish the woman, and then seriously look at Republican legislation and not realise his words are full of it.  There is nothing to stop greater sex education, available birth control, maternity leave and greater parental support etc. being put forward to reduce abortions.  Only one major political party supports this though, and it ain't Republicans. 

Finally, the idea that people in college are somehow representative of Republican base voters who are overwhelmingly non-college educated, is again pretty stupid.  

The reality is that the Democrats have listened.  We know heaps on what is driving Republican voters views.  There were so many bits on why 2016 happened its not funny.  What is fundamentally clear is that what they really want isn't what Fox news wants or traditional Republicans (which is why Trump was so successful in the primary), but also isn't a world where they are willing to trust or believe Democrats, and there are fundamental elements they won't budge on and won't change their vote about.  

[Zorral]

Then I'm not the only one who, reading that, finds the sign to put up is .

Now I have known, and know, quite a few professors and instructors at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and they are really good.  Who the eff is this person (who also was pissy because other schools where she first applied to conduct her 'experiment' wouldn't take her to teach a course in ethics because her degree was in philosophy and not religion.  Which again confirms why I think generally philosophy is just people crawling up theirs and others' tiy know whats.  (Not everybody in philosophy, but still, far too many of 'em, and some of them have done great harm, while having all the greatest intentions of committing good.)

[Jace, Extat]

20 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Perhaps not that far fetched.  In the comments to various political articles, I have been coming across more and more posts, including some by purported medical and psychiatric professionals, claiming that Trump's health is not good.  These people fairly consistently cite Trumps dilated pupils, slurred speech, and repetition; and express concern about the medications he is taking.  Add in issues brought on by a severe weight problem...I frequently find myself wondering if he'll still be in physical condition to stand for office this time next year.

Don't get your hopes up. In my experience the most spiteful and vindictive people tend to live the longest. You know how they say a lot of career-minded folks seem to die shortly into retirement? I think hate and vitriol helps keep some people going. Whether it's sitting on the porch complaining about the blacks or undermining liberal democracy, white guys can live for a depressingly long time even when their lifestyle and health would indicate they should be dead any day.

[Mexal]

Lol John Bolton

 

[Mexal]

Just now, Triskele said:

Is he getting subpoened?  

Oh I’m sure he’s next. Everyone is being deposed now. No one wants to go down with the ship.

[Ser Reptitious]

6 hours ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

I read the politico article. I thought it was a well written, well thought article on the importance of listening to people, cultivating empathy and becoming a better person. It doesn't solve our 2016 problem but if everyone listened better we would have a more pleasant and less dysfunctional culture.

Does that also apply to Trump supporters? Because I never seem to see any articles from that side of the aisle exhorting them to listen and cultivate emphy towards Liberals/Democrats. It should go both ways, no?

[OldGimletEye]

8 hours ago, Zorral said:

The author of the piece goes on to suggest that libertarians are a significant part of the electorate, who don't get tabulated as themselves and their way of seeing things, but are lumped in with independents.  She also suggests that libertarians' minds work differently from those of either 'conservatives' or 'progressives.'

I'll say it again, Libertarianism is the mullet of political philosophy. "We've got a fiscally and economically conservative front end, with a socially liberal party in the back!" LOL.

The election of the orange one should have proven once and for all that all the libertarian rhetoric that went on in the Republican Party, particularly during the Obama years, was a fraud. And certainly, most Democrats don't identify as libertarians.  The idea that there is this huge segment of libertarians is extremely suspect. Most people don't believe in doctrinaire libertarianism, although they might believe in certain aspects of it. For instance, I have some things I agree with libertarians on, like intellectual property laws, but I don't buy the whole package. I doubt most independents are really libertarians who just cant find a party. If the author is suggesting that, she should at least present some solid data to back that up. Also, if there were this huge segment of independent libertarians one would expect them to have been absorbed into one of the major political parties.

Generally libertarians get on my fuckin' nerves. Often when they start lecturing others about economics, which is often nothing but a simplistic version of the supply demand model or economics 101, which often doesn't apply to real world situations, like say labor markets or health insurance markets. So much for that vaunted and rational libertarian mind. And then of course there is that bad libertarian habit of frothing at the mouth about the gold standard. That doesn't seem very rational to me.

Also, I glanced through the article, and the author seemingly suggest that libertarians are highly rational utilitarian calculators. If that were true, then they would be at least open to taxing the rich more. Most libertarians in my experience don't see taxing the rich in utilitarian terms. In fact, they often see it as a violation of basic rights, utilitarian calculations almost never come into play when libertarians oppose higher taxes on the wealthy. Seems libertarians can get quite emotional.

[ants]

I did think it was funny the libertarian wanted to change the trolleys course. Felt almost like the hand of government deciding what was best for everyone.....

[DireWolfSpirit]

Frida Ghitas 

Opinion: We need the real story of why Trump sold out the Kurds

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/14/opinions/why-did-trump-abandon-kurds-after-call-with-erdogan-ghitis/index.html

[Centrist Simon Steele]

12 hours ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

I read the politico article. I thought it was a well written, well thought article on the importance of listening to people, cultivating empathy and becoming a better person. It doesn't solve our 2016 problem but if everyone listened better we would have a more pleasant and less dysfunctional culture.

I haven't even read the original post that brought up the article, nor do I know the topic of the article, but if it's libertarians? I'm not listening to them nor cultivating empathy. They're fucking morons. And I'm fully aware of the irony of me saying this to you with absolutely no context to your comment or certainty that you're talking about the article that Dante and DMC mentions. I hate Libertarians so much, I'll roll the dice and say fuck that article.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

12 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

As an old friend said, "Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke weed and get laid."

And be racist. In that white guy way of, "No, man, the markets will take care of all issues related to race" and either they fully know this is bullshit, or they're privileged to a degree they can't understand regulation is the only thread of help to people of color, poor people, etc.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

11 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Wonderful, the left eating its own. The right happily just saying "hey we didn't make this up, this is news from the left that we're just repeating." Stupid bloody left, just stick to analysing policy not playing dig up the dirt bullshit

I'm a Chapo fan (and they love Jacobin), and they're painting Bernie as the only hope and Warren is no better than any other centrist running. I can't say I understand this at all. They've never given a well reasoned argument, but then again, that's not their thing. 

On the one hand, we are in a literal race against time if you're concerned about things like climate, but on the other, Warren would be a huge step away from centrism. 

[Maithanet]

So, is it possible that John Bolton is the whistleblower?  Because nothing about this administration is ever too crazy to be true - he was at most of the meetings in question, he was getting shut of favor/influence, he hates Guiliani's meddling, and he is staunchly anti-Russia. 

[Paladin of Ice]

5 hours ago, Zorral said:

WARNING -- Here cometh a rant so just scroll down and move on 

Going from John Jay College in NYC to teaching an ethics course in a small, North Carolina college as an experiment in 'research.'

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/13/america-cultural-divide-red-state-blue-state-228111

I do not agree with much of what's in this piece. For instance, all my studies of the militias back in the day show that the history of the well regulated militia was about controlling slaves and Native Americans, not about overthrowing a government, and incorporated thusly, very much too, to please the slave states, into the Constitution. What this student is arguing is a very contemporary reading of it by gun people advocating right now the overthrow of the government that is oppressive and thus we all need to be and have the right to be armed. 

As soon as anyone says that the second amendment and militias are about overthrowing the government, they have revealed a staggering amount of ignorance, indoctrination, or both.

The reason it says militias in the second amendment is that a huge chunk of the Founding Fathers wanted absolutely nothing to do with keeping a large standing army. They viewed it as a constant threat to the liberty of the people and were deathly afraid of the role a military could play in either overtly overthrowing a government or more subtly bending a government to its will. No less than James Madison (future President/Chief Architect of the Constitution/writer of the Bill of Rights/co-author of the Federalist Papers) gave a number of speeches and wrote various letters that showed his utter loathing of standing armies, and that's despite the fact that Madison was one of the biggest voices in favor of a strong central government. He did his best to keep an army too difficult to use and in the Constitution, including putting it into the checks and balances equation by making the Peesident commander of the army and Congress the ones who needed to fund it. Even then, no bill could provide funding for the military for longer than 2 years at a time. ("The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years")

And if you look up quotes from the Founding Fathers about standing armies, you'll find just about everyone from super federalist Alexander Hamilton to the chief of the anti-federalists, Thomas Jefferson, all had nasty things to say about keeping an army.

So the original idea was not to have a standing army at all, but a citizen militia for defense. Trouble is, it takes a lot more to make an effective fighting force than a bunch of guys bringing their guns from home. You need supply lines to keep them fed, clothed, and armed. You need drilling and practice to keep army cohesion in place during battle, to keep skills sharp, (you can't exactly simulate a team of people loading and firing a cannon at home by yourself) and keep people knowledgeable about appropriate tactics. You need various kinds of expertise in technical matters like engineering, weapon maintenance, preferably good medical treatment, etc. It needs a wide array of competence at all levels, especially officers who know what they're doing and senior NCOs who can keep rank and file in line and execute orders from above effectively.

There's a reason why, although it was an incredible taboo to criticize the militia publicly in those days, (ordinary people had romantic notions of how the ordinary militia had won against the British, which very much wasn't true, but contradicting it was the third rail of politics in those days) George Washington privately said in letters that the militia was worse than useless on actual military matters and from the moment he first came to office to just days before his death he called for a more professional military for the US and better officer training.

State militias did have a backup purpose of being a check on Federal power grabs, (and in the South of enforcing the order of white supremacy and keeping slaves in line) but mostly they were intended to be the main line of defense because much of the founding generation were terrified that a large, professional, standing army would be used the same way Oliver Cromwell had used his army to overthrow parliament, or Caesar did to break the Roman Senate, or the various, horrific realties that had been the armies of The 30 Years War.

The militias proved themselves horribly unsuited to that and were an outdated notion less than 20 years after the Constitution was first adopted, it was just never taken out of there.

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

And be racist. In that white guy way of, "No, man, the markets will take care of all issues related to race" and either they fully know this is bullshit, or they're privileged to a degree they can't understand regulation is the only thread of help to people of color, poor people, etc.

I agree with your assessment of the racial awareness of Libertarians. It's telling that almost every self-professed Libertarian I know of is some upper middle class white guy (big overlap with the neckbeard techbro demographic).

However, the racism is part of the standard Republican feature set.

[Fragile Bird]

Once again, we live in a crazy world when John Bolton was the only sane person in the Executive.

[IheartIheartTesla]

13 hours ago, Triskele said:

Well, that all makes sense if the charge is BS which it does indeed sound like it was in this case.  But "who cares" would be a strange take if it weren't BS especially when the Dem primary is going on.  

For example, Trump's attacks on the Bidens are not all BS.  Sure, there's all the ways that Trump of all people making this particular accusation rings hollow, but it certainly does appear that the Bidens are dabbling in the corruption-light that got Hillary in trouble and will probably play with a lot on the left.

If your point was really "of course it's BS, so ignore" I'd understand.  

I don't know about you, but even if there is some non-BS aspect to this pregnancy hoopla it doesn't matter to me. You have to weigh the 1000s of lies told by Trump against one kinda-sorta maybe lie and ask oneself why you would even engage in that discussion.

To reiterate, I don't care even if she embellished the truth or reduced a complex situation to an easy to understand story. This is literally of no consequence to anyone except herself, unlike Trump's lies which have real effects on real people.

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

So, is it possible that John Bolton is the whistleblower?  Because nothing about this administration is ever too crazy to be true - he was at most of the meetings in question, he was getting shut of favor/influence, he hates Guiliani's meddling, and he is staunchly anti-Russia. 

I guess it depends how much you trust the NY Times reporting on the whistleblower. They said he was a CIA officer detailed to the National Security Council. Probably someone that was around Bolton a lot, at any rate.