Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Speak, Shriek, or Squeak! Whatever Technique You Seek in Critique of the Isogeneic Freak.


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I expect Trump will announce a grand jury has been struck to investigate Biden's crimes, and before the election day Barr will bring charges against him.

Well, James Comey showed them how to really tip an election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that might be less easy to have stick; Biden's never got the major pressure of a scandal around the Ukraine the way Clinton had, Biden has never been mired in scandal like that in general, and the one thing that has stuck with him - his harassment and assault accusations - hasn't been something Barr and others have really looked at. 

It's certainly possible, and it wouldn't take much, but we haven't seen the kind of front-page headlines that Clinton routinely grabbed for this. Especially now that Reade appears to be largely discredited, and most of the people who were working on her story have been somewhat burned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, King Ned Stark said:

Do any of you guys think that the majority of the left, whether by a slim margin or vast, believe revolution is the best course forward?

If you define the left narrowly enough, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, DMC said:

I never intended for it to be a friendly exchange.  I'm sick of you shitting on how I make a living and expressing that.

Again, not shitting on it. Asking for it to be better. And you know it has many flaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

If you define the left narrowly enough, yes.

Okay.  I probably used the wrong term; I’m not really politically savvy, or even up to date with the terms and phrases and insults from either side.  I guess I meant democrats, or anyone left of center; what I call the left.  If you say to define it narrowly would mean yes is answer enough.  That it is in fact not a majority.

Righteous revolution sounds romantic, and there have been cases that have won and it stirs people, maybe most notably the founding fathers.  But now isn’t then.  Law enforcement (and I’m no fan of LEO), local, state, and federal; will not lose this fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And you know it has many flaws.

Every discipline has flaws and can be improved.  That's not the approach nor attitude you have articulated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

A lot of my close friends went back to school to learn econometrics and now have very high positions.  Your anecdote isn't any better than mine.

But it does not mean mine is invalid. You always discredit that I have years of actual experience working as a direct aid to elected officials. And for the life of me I have no idea why.

Or should I throw a binder at you? :P

Quote

This just seems like you're making fun of "geeks" at this point.  You're not cooler and certainly don't have a better understanding of politics because you have better social skills.  Get the fuck over yourself.

I wish geek culture had became popular a few years earlier. I might still be playing MTG to this day. I have one card I use as a bookmark.

Quote

What?  First of all, I don't know how you "train people" to interact.  I guess there is some class out there that does that, but it's certainly not a poly sci course, and never should be.  The epistemology of political science should be focused on the understanding of politics.  It's not an apprenticeship in being a campaign operative.

See, this misses everything. You always want to be the smartest person in the room. That's off putting to just about everyone. Politics is not about showing how smart you are. You've forgotten more than I will ever know if I had lifetimes. But you have to charm people. The above might sound good to academics, but you'll lose most regular people.

AND THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT!!!!

I would really love to read your dissertation, and I don't say that in a mocking way. I find the same boring shit as you do interesting. But I would also love to see you door knocking. You could prove me very wrong.
 

Quote

No, you're suggestions reflect a dudebro that wants to denigrate my field because thinking you're just smarter makes you feel better about yourself.  I am very open to suggestions on improving the discipline, but all you have is "teach them how to talk to people," which is both dumb and pointless as an endeavor.

Lol, no. Politics at its core is human interaction. If you cannot interact with another human, text them I guess and just ask if they'll vote? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Every discipline has flaws and can be improved.  That's not the approach nor attitude you have articulated.

To teach young students to.......speak?

Most kids in my poli sci courses, even at higher levels, never wanted to speak in a class. 

Is that good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

To teach young students to.......speak?

Most kids in my poli sci courses, even at higher levels, never wanted to speak in a class. 

Is that good?

Wait poli sci students not wanting to talk in class? But then how will the rest of the students know how smart and cool you are because you can quote Marx or Rand (depending on which side of the aisle you are on).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Wait poli sci students not wanting to talk in class? But then how will the rest of the students know how smart and cool you are because you can quote Marx or Rand (depending on which side of the aisle you are on).

My experiences in cross faculty courses with politics students just left me wishing someone had taught them to shut up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You always discredit that I have years of actual experience working as a direct aid to elected officials. And for the life of me I have no idea why.

It's because such experience does not warrant any credit when it comes to expertise in politics.  Campaign operatives are tools - and I'm happy to be one - unless at the higher levels.  You're no Dave Axelrod.

34 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's off putting to just about everyone. Politics is not about showing how smart you are. You've forgotten more than I will ever know if I had lifetimes. But you have to charm people. The above might sound good to academics, but you'll lose most regular people.

I can't find the clip but this reminds me a lot of a West Wing quote:

Quote

JOSH Sustainable growth in Michigan, new economy in Ohio. Information technology in Pennsylvania. That's what you talk about in September. That's what we mapped out a year ago. You and Bruno and the President are calling audibles.

TOBY That's because we're coming to the line and we're seeing a hairdo from Florida in pass coverage and so that's where we want to put the ball... What's your concern?

JOSH I have any number of concerns, not the least of which we'll lose.

TOBY I don't think so.

JOSH When did we decide to make this about being the smartest kid in the class? What meeting did I miss?

I agree with Toby.  Anyway, charming people has nothing to do with studying political science.  You seem to be under the impression the discipline should entail etiquette school for young ladies.  The discipline is designed to train researchers, not politicians or even political operatives.

39 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I would really love to read your dissertation

I really don't think you would.  And I'm not saying that in any arrogant or superior way.  It's just really fucking boring.  My dad asked me one time to read one of my papers, I said ok and he was like "ya know maybe I can give you feedback."  That was seven years ago, still waiting.

41 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But I would also love to see you door knocking. You could prove me very wrong.

I've canvassed for campaigns since 2004.  Hell, I worked for Clean Water Action for a bit in which knocking on doors was literally my job.

44 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Politics at its core is human interaction.

Human interaction is at the core for politicians.  The study of politics?  Not so much.

42 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Most kids in my poli sci courses, even at higher levels, never wanted to speak in a class. 

Is that good?

JFC, do any undergrads really want to participate in any class?  This is...you know much we try to get kids to actively contribute?  And you know how much that fails?  This is across literally all disciplines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Human interaction is at the core for politicians.  The study of politics?  Not so much.

To emphasize this point, my thesis chair at UCF was a horrid teacher.  He had zero, if not negative, communication skills.  But he still came outof A & M where he worked with Edwards and Bond and taught me a shitload about presidential politics.  One of my current advisors absolutely loathes teaching, or most general human interaction.  He's still one of the top courts scholars in the country.

And stop being jealous about how me and Kal have sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, King Ned Stark said:

Okay.  I probably used the wrong term; I’m not really politically savvy, or even up to date with the terms and phrases and insults from either side.  I guess I meant democrats, or anyone left of center; what I call the left.  If you say to define it narrowly would mean yes is answer enough.  That it is in fact not a majority.

Righteous revolution sounds romantic, and there have been cases that have won and it stirs people, maybe most notably the founding fathers.  But now isn’t then.  Law enforcement (and I’m no fan of LEO), local, state, and federal; will not lose this fight.

I'm not sure anyone dreams of revolutions the way you mean it. We're no longer in the 18th century ; heck, we're not even in the 20th anymore.
Everyone is aware (on some level or the other) that the nature of power and politics has changed. Today, "revolutions" may start on social media, and a thousand political movements can appear and die on the internet every single day. The romantic view of the popular uprising taking political power is... well, a romantic view. I'd argue it's seldom a historically accurate view too, and even go as far as to say that "revolutions" generally fail.

I don't think I've ever met a true revolutionary. Maybe that cute girl in uni 20 years ago whose friends were stockpiling guns in some old warehouse... (?) An exception to the rule that one, and batshit crazy, obviously (too bad, she did have that adorable mole... ). Anyway, I mostly meet moderates of one type or the other, with a handful of collapsologists or nihilists now and then. The left is a pretty big family, but when we talk of "revolution" these days it's mostly about raising awareness. Almost no one would pick a gun and storm the capital. I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

To emphasize this point, my thesis chair at UCF was a horrid teacher.  He had zero, if not negative, communication skills.  But he still came outof A & M where he worked with Edwards and Bond and taught me a shitload about presidential politics.  One of my current advisors absolutely loathes teaching, or most general human interaction.  He's still one of the top courts scholars in the country.

And stop being jealous about how me and Kal have sex.

Oh stop now. Aren't many great films based on how academics suck when they have to apply what they know? 

And for the last part, I went to find a video you'd laugh at, but when you type in "South Park" and various forms of "Weird alien sex," you get a lot of disturbing shit dude, and I couldn't even find what I was looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Yet, in the very same poll, Trump's approval/disapproval is 42/54.  So (at least) 16% of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track, but are voting for Trump anyway.  The Republican Party has been reduced to a personality cult. 

Wait a second. The approval/disapproval question is NOT the same thing as a question about who one is voting for. There can be people who "approve" of Trump but still think Biden would be better. There can be people who "disapprove" of Trump and still think Biden would be worse. 

Of course there would be a big positive correlation between the two things, but they are not identical questions. 

P.S. I know there were times during Obama's presidency when I would have said "Yes" to the "wrong track" question, but I never blamed Obama for that and always would have voted for him if I could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Aren't many great films based on how academics suck when they have to apply what they know? 

And for the last part, I went to find a video you'd laugh at, but when you type in "South Park" and various forms of "Weird alien sex," you get a lot of disturbing shit dude, and I couldn't even find what I was looking for.

Huh?  I can't think of any films off the top of my head you're referring.  This seems to be a typical "those that can't, teach" attitude, which is already stupid.  But especially when you consider most academics don't give a shit about teaching and are primarily focused on (and paid for) research.

I know what South Park episode you're referring to.  Pretty sure it's simply titled "Cancelled."  Good shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing is ever truly written in stone. Everything is in flow. I see a possible future with 3 new North American countries where we now have one. All three powerful nations but not hyperpowers. Awesome future. A truly multipolar world where cooperation is the only way forward. If it happens at least something good came out of Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Arakan said:

Nothing is ever truly written in stone. Everything is in flow. I see a possible future with 3 new North American countries where we now have one. All three powerful nations but not hyperpowers. Awesome future. A truly multipolar world where cooperation is the only way forward. If it happens at least something good came out of Trump. 

U.S. geography is not conducive to such division. East, West, and South would fight over the middle parts of old America around Kansas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

U.S. geography is not conducive to such division. East, West, and South would fight over the middle parts of old America around Kansas.

As a European I can tell you: nothing is ever written in stone. The Russian Empire / Soviet Union collapsed and so can the US. Not very likely but possible nonetheless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...