Jump to content

US Politics the Biden's age a nothing burger edition


DireWolfSpirit
 Share

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I obviously lack your on the ground experience, but was just going by the data to crush Scot's dream (a horse needs hobbies) of flipping that seat. That one looks unflippable in the best of times (electorally), and this is not the best of times.

No, but it sounds like because he, Santos and would other Republican are leaving their majority will be even more razor thin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bironic said:

But he still refuses confirmation on the top, most powerful positions, the top 25, such as fleet admirals and so on, saving those for day 1 of fascist take-over, to ensure no military blockages of the destruction of Blue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

But can you have a sense of civic duty if you knowingly enable someone who clearly doesn't? 

Sure, I think so. People display conflicting attributes all the time: priests who are at once pious and cynical, police who are both violent and also refuse bribes, and, yes, politicians who are both civic-minded and highly ambitious, all at once. They just have to tell themselves the right story so the seeming contradictions become possible to live with. I imagine that Haley could tell herself that Trump is better than Biden or any other Democrat, and that, in any case, he won't be around long so the nation can bear another term. She's not the bad person, she'd say to herself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

Sure, I think so. People display conflicting attributes all the time: priests who are at once pious and cynical, police who are both violent and also refuse bribes, and, yes, politicians who are both civic-minded and highly ambitious, all at once. They just have to tell themselves the right story so the seeming contradictions become possible to live with. I imagine that Haley could tell herself that Trump is better than Biden or any other Democrat, and that, in any case, he won't be around long so the nation can bear another term. She's not the bad person, she'd say to herself. 

I understand how they rationalize it, but again, can you really be doing a civic duty if on the balance you are doing far more harm than good while priority number one is doing what's best for you? 

Also, why would you refuse bribes, so long as they're small? Someone has to pay for daddy's caramel corn and acid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I understand how they rationalize it, but again, can you really be doing a civic duty if on the balance you are doing far more harm than good while priority number one is doing what's best for you? 

Also, why would you refuse bribes, so long as they're small? Someone has to pay for daddy's caramel corn and acid. 

The question wasn't what civic duty really is though, it was about a person who thinks of themself as doing good or has a sense of civic duty.  So the rationalization is all that matters.

Otherwise it's just a No True Civic Scotsman all the way down.  

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

26 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

The question wasn't what civic duty really is though, it was about a person who thinks of themself as doing good or has a sense of civic duty.  So the rationalization is all that matters.

Otherwise it's just a No True Civic Scotsman all the way down.  

Not sure this falls under the No True Scotsman fallacy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates the code of conduct of Harvard, MIT and Penn depends on the context:

Quote

The presidents of Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania faced intense scrutiny on Wednesday from business leaders, donors and politicians following their testimony at a House hearing on antisemitism on campus and calls for genocide in Israel.

The criticism focused on the university leaders’ answers to questions on Tuesday about whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates their respective school’s code of conduct on bullying or harassment.

None of the school leaders explicitly said that calling for the genocide of Jews would necessarily violate their code of conduct. Instead, they explained it would depend on the circumstances and conduct.

I honestly don't understand what they were thinking -- the thing that brought this on was obviously a purely rhetorical question. The Republican was not fishing for this response; she just wanted to start with something that everyone could agree on and was flabbergasted when the conversation went this way:

Quote

 

In response to Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik asking whether calling for the genocide of Jews would violate Penn’s code of conduct, Penn President Liz Magill said: “It is a context dependent decision.”

Stefanik responded with shock.

“That’s your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is dependent on the context? That is not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer yes for,” Stefanik said.

 

It's just an amazingly boneheaded reply for people who are supposedly smart enough to lead some of the world's leading institutions. Even if this is what they honestly believe (which makes them very, very vile people), they ought to know enough not to say it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Altherion said:

Apparently, whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates the code of conduct of Harvard, MIT and Penn depends on the context:

I honestly don't understand what they were thinking -- the thing that brought this on was obviously a purely rhetorical question. The Republican was not fishing for this response; she just wanted to start with something that everyone could agree on and was flabbergasted when the conversation went this way:

It's just an amazingly boneheaded reply for people who are supposedly smart enough to lead some of the world's leading institutions. Even if this is what they honestly believe (which makes them very, very vile people), they ought to know enough not to say it.

To be fair to the presidents of those schools they were talking to a Republican and they were probably not sure if they wanted to hear a 'yes, it's a good idea to call for that' or 'maybe?' because it was probably something that Trump might have said earlier that day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

To be fair to the presidents of those schools they were talking to a Republican and they were probably not sure if they wanted to hear a 'yes, it's a good idea to call for that' or 'maybe?' because it was probably something that Trump might have said earlier that day. 

We know this is an issue and has been one long before the war broke out. Leadership at a lot of universities, and to me strangely a lot of the top ones, have at best had a hard time trying to handle this. Responses like the one above are more common than many might think. Penn's president would have given the same answer to a Democrat, so blaming the party of the member asking the question is missing the forest for the trees. 

Edited by Tywin et al.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

To be fair to the presidents of those schools they were talking to a Republican and they were probably not sure if they wanted to hear a 'yes, it's a good idea to call for that' or 'maybe?' because it was probably something that Trump might have said earlier that day. 

What context makes advocating genocide okay?

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

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

Apparently, whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates the code of conduct of Harvard, MIT and Penn depends on the context:

I honestly don't understand what they were thinking -- the thing that brought this on was obviously a purely rhetorical question. The Republican was not fishing for this response; she just wanted to start with something that everyone could agree on and was flabbergasted when the conversation went this way:

It's just an amazingly boneheaded reply for people who are supposedly smart enough to lead some of the world's leading institutions. Even if this is what they honestly believe (which makes them very, very vile people), they ought to know enough not to say it.

I'm positive that Stefanik wasn't just tossing out an easy softball question.  If they agreed with her that calling for genocide was a violation of the code of conduct, which admittedly sounds very reasonable, then the follow up question from Stefanik would be why haven't you expelled the students or fired the professors that have been calling for the genocide of Jews?  It doesn't even matter to Stefanik if the students and/or professors weren't actually calling for the genocide of Jews.  Right now, it's very common to claim any support of Palestinians or criticism of Israel is antisemitic or worse, such as supporting Hamas and hence supporting the genocide of Jews.  Stefanik was just there to score points and get some soundbites, which she did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

I'm positive that Stefanik wasn't just tossing out an easy softball question.  If they agreed with her that calling for genocide was a violation of the code of conduct, which admittedly sounds very reasonable, then the follow up question from Stefanik would be why haven't you expelled the students or fired the professors that have been calling for the genocide of Jews?  It doesn't even matter to Stefanik if the students and/or professors weren't actually calling for the genocide of Jews.  Right now, it's very common to claim any support of Palestinians or criticism of Israel is antisemitic or worse, such as supporting Hamas and hence supporting the genocide of Jews.  Stefanik was just there to score points and get some soundbites, which she did.

But there have been many students and some professors saying they support Hamas without receiving the proper pushback, whatever you think that should be. Again, there's nothing wrong with criticizing the current Israeli government or expressing support for Palestinians who are enduring a horrific situation, however, there needs to be a firm stance that taking the next step and supporting Hamas is not okay in any way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But there have been many students and some professors saying they support Hamas without receiving the proper pushback, whatever you think that should be. Again, there's nothing wrong with criticizing the current Israeli government or expressing support for Palestinians who are enduring a horrific situation, however, there needs to be a firm stance that taking the next step and supporting Hamas is not okay in any way.  

Universities are in a difficult spot because of the importance they place on freedom of expression and free speech.  Should a student that states that they support Hamas be expelled?  If yes, this starts you on the slippery slope of expelling students for saying all sorts of objectional comments, and clearly the universities don't want to go down this path.

The three universities asked the question were all private universities, so I think they had more leeway in how they could potentially respond to such speech.  But at public universities, First Amendment free speech protections probably would prevent expulsion for just making general comments of supporting Hamas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

I'm positive that Stefanik wasn't just tossing out an easy softball question.  If they agreed with her that calling for genocide was a violation of the code of conduct, which admittedly sounds very reasonable, then the follow up question from Stefanik would be why haven't you expelled the students or fired the professors that have been calling for the genocide of Jews?  It doesn't even matter to Stefanik if the students and/or professors weren't actually calling for the genocide of Jews.  Right now, it's very common to claim any support of Palestinians or criticism of Israel is antisemitic or worse, such as supporting Hamas and hence supporting the genocide of Jews.  Stefanik was just there to score points and get some soundbites, which she did.

I completely agree with you in that Stefanik had a follow up to the reasonable question with something trickier, but the solution to that cannot be to answer the reasonable question with this bizarre hedging. There is nothing Stefanik could have followed up with which would have allowed her to score as many points or generate the kind of soundbites that she got from trying to avoid the preliminary question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Universities are in a difficult spot because of the importance they place on freedom of expression and free speech.  Should a student that states that they support Hamas be expelled?  If yes, this starts you on the slippery slope of expelling students for saying all sorts of objectional comments, and clearly the universities don't want to go down this path.

The three universities asked the question were all private universities, so I think they had more leeway in how they could potentially respond to such speech.  But at public universities, First Amendment free speech protections probably would prevent expulsion for just making general comments of supporting Hamas.

It really isn't the slippery slope you described. The greater concern should be with the turning of a blind eye to people expressing they want others to be killed because of their ethnicity and/or religion. That's not free speech, that's hate speech. It shouldn't be hard to call it out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...