Jump to content

US Politics: Shutdown Showdown


Mr. Chatywin et al.
 Share

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Lee Atwater  was a cruel sob.  Reagan's advisor/political consultant fits the other criteria including loving the Blues, but would not have worked for a Black boss. And he was before Gingrich got so big on the scene.

You know what, for all of his failings, his approaching death changed him. And changed him for the good. He made his apologies, he begged for forgiveness, he recognized a spiritual vacuum in the soul of America and he prayed that future politicians would recognize the vacuum and try to change it. He was appalled at the things he did in the quest for political power.

A whole lot of other political scumbags have died since and I don’t remember anyone else who had a conversion on the road to Damascus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

The first thing I really recall about US politics very clearly is Billy Boy getting a BJ in the Oval Office, so all I've known is disfunction. :P

Same here:D

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Maybe. I thought she had a real future in the party before she went to BatShitLand. 

I thought the same…

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

but it exploded during the rise of the Tea Party and Trump is the final evolution.

Is it though? It might get worse…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Horseshoe theory is garbage

Why do you say that?  Extremists tend to be extemists regardless of the extreme they care to see enacted.  Someone who thinks the ends justifies the means is willing to roll over those who disagree with them to get to their desired ends…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Seems like this branch of the republican party not only lost all contact with reality but is going full authoritarian. Have to wonder how the lawsuits will go should they attempt this course of action.

Ohio Republicans Refuse To Accept Election Results, Claim Abortion Bans Will Remain (msn.com)

I saw that.  I really wonder if that will be the last straw for the Republican Party in Ohio or if the majority who backed Issue 1 will just keep electing Republicans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why do you say that?  Extremists tend to be extemists regardless of the extreme they care to see enacted.  Someone who thinks the ends justifies the means is willing to roll over those who disagree with them to get to their desired ends…

I don't think it explains everything, but even beyond the authoritarian-leaning ultra-extremes (which is what I think you're getting at here), it explains the convergence of individuals on the left and right with regard to Putin apologists and even Q Anon type conspiracy theories. It's not everyone, obviously, but it's becoming more common and more possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I don't think it explains everything, but even beyond the authoritarian-leaning ultra-extremes (which is what I think you're getting at here), it explains the convergence of individuals on the left and right with regard to Putin apologists and even Q Anon type conspiracy theories. It's not everyone, obviously, but it's becoming more common and more possible.

It isn’t universal… it’s simply far too common.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why do you say that?  Extremists tend to be extemists regardless of the extreme they care to see enacted.  Someone who thinks the ends justifies the means is willing to roll over those who disagree with them to get to their desired ends…

Because if you scratch the surface it's a bunch of centrist platitudes used to obscure actual goals and policies.  "Ends justify the means" "extremists are extreme".

"Regardless of the extreme they want to see enacted" well that's where the big difference is.  It's easy to say "other than the multitude ways these two things are completely different, they share a couple tendencies".  

It's not like trying to achieve your political goals through violence or twisting norms are limited to the left or right.

Eta: It's also completely dependent on circular logic to say that those most outside the political mainstream are extreme.  Yes. Both the far right and far left are anti-establishment.  That's why we put the "far" in there.  

Edited by Larry of the Lawn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Because if you scratch the surface it's a bunch of centrist platitudes used to obscure actual goals and policies.  "Ends justify the means" "extremists are extreme".

"Regardless of the extreme they want to see enacted" well that's where the big difference is.  It's easy to say "other than the multitude ways these two things are completely different, they share a couple tendencies".  

It's not like trying to achieve your political goals through violence or twisting norms are limited to the left or right.

Eta: It's also completely dependent on circular logic to say that those most outside the political mainstream are extreme.  Yes. Both the far right and far left are anti-establishment.  That's why we put the "far" in there.  

What?

Are you really saying there are ends that justify murder of people who have nothing to do with the issue in question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Because if you scratch the surface it's a bunch of centrist platitudes used to obscure actual goals and policies.  "Ends justify the means" "extremists are extreme".

"Regardless of the extreme they want to see enacted" well that's where the big difference is.  It's easy to say "other than the multitude ways these two things are completely different, they share a couple tendencies".  

It's not like trying to achieve your political goals through violence or twisting norms are limited to the left or right.

Eta: It's also completely dependent on circular logic to say that those most outside the political mainstream are extreme.  Yes. Both the far right and far left are anti-establishment.  That's why we put the "far" in there. 

Unless you're a Stalin sympathizer, the critique doesn't extend to people in your circle.

 

Edit: Or unless you sound like Tulsi Gabbard or Glen Greenwald.

Edited by Phylum of Alexandria
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Yes Scot, you can see I've explicitly stated that above. 

I don't have time for having my words twisted into bullshit like this.  

You aren’t attempting apologia for extremism?

Quote

they share a couple tendencies

The couple of tendencies being a willingness to kill or harm people who disagree with them for the mere fact of disagreeing with them.  

That, to my mind, cannot be overlooked or ignored.  Once someone says “I’m willing to kill or hurt people to achive goal X” the person willing to do so becomes suspect in my opinion.

ETA:

There is one exception to this… war seeking to stop invasion or seeking to liberate territory overrun by an invading army.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So… who is willing to defend this leftist extremist who says the Laws of Thermodynamics are creations of captialism?

https://x.com/misanthropefou/status/1708367623400919050?s=46

Assuming that's real and not a parody (I can never be sure these days), I would say that's extreme, but not an example of the Horseshoe theory. Extremists on the left and right have long rejected science when it's inconvenient, but usually for very distinct causes. The Horseshoe variant would be thermodynamics justifying perpetual uniparty neoliberal hegemony or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So… who is willing to defend this leftist extremist who says the Laws of Thermodynamics are creations of captialism?

https://x.com/misanthropefou/status/1708367623400919050?s=46

The funny thing here is that it's capitalism that has been trying to ignore the laws of physics for centuries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Seems like this branch of the republican party not only lost all contact with reality but is going full authoritarian. Have to wonder how the lawsuits will go should they attempt this course of action.

Ohio Republicans Refuse To Accept Election Results, Claim Abortion Bans Will Remain (msn.com)

Although it is disturbing that someone in the Ohio Republican party offices put this out, I would wait until Republican leaders in the state legislature and the governor or attorney general publicly endorse this press release before thinking things have really gone "fully authoritarian" there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You aren’t attempting apologia for extremism?

The couple of tendencies being a willingness to kill or harm people who disagree with them for the mere fact of disagreeing with them.  

That, to my mind, cannot be overlooked or ignored.  Once someone says “I’m willing to kill or hurt people to achive goal X” the person willing to do so becomes suspect in my opinion.

ETA:

There is one exception to this… war seeking to stop invasion or seeking to liberate territory overrun by an invading army.

Where the fuck did I rationalize or justify killing people?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Where the fuck did I rationalize or justify killing people?  

Anyone, regardless of their rationale, who endorses or excuses actions because they believe in the ends those actions pursue, is an extremist and should be rejected.

Hence I agree with the “Horseshoe theory of politics”.  The ends are irrelevant if the means are noxious… because (except in self defense or direct defense of the lives of others) the ends do not justify the means.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Anyone, regardless of their rationale, who endorses or excuses actions because they believe in the ends those actions pursue, is an extremist and should be rejected.

Hence I agree with the “Horseshoe theory of politics”.  The ends are irrelevant if the means are noxious… because (except in self defense or direct defense of the lives of others) the ends do not justify the means.  

Do you think the logic of violence being justified if it's for "the greater good", or whatever, is limited to the extreme ends of the political spectrum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...