Pretty sure being concerned about politicians accidentally doing a seemingly good thing for extremely bad reasons has to do with more than just the question of their worthiness.
Printable View
Pretty sure being concerned about politicians accidentally doing a seemingly good thing for extremely bad reasons has to do with more than just the question of their worthiness.
What else has it got to do with?
Unless you were operating under the assumption politicians (especially those you disagree with) have the best of intentions and wouldn't the right thing?
Trump just went on a deranged twitter rampage. We're one tweet away from a nuclear war. :o
Please explain.
4-5 tweets in half an hour. All some combination of conspiratorial and insane.
How'd you go from one tweet to nuclear war?
At 5 tweets in half an hour and if we're one tweet from nuclear war then we are facing nuclear war in six minutes. Though you posted that over six minutes ago.
:bulb:
Randblade currently:
http://www.guardiansofthegalaxygames...er-380x415.jpg
I'm a superhero? Never read those comics or seen that film.
:haha: you're making this to easy
:):up:
When are you going to grow out of this 'both sides, lol' thing? It was ridiculous even in the Bush era, but now it's just outright denial.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
You're speaking to someone who supported the Lib Dems going into coalition with the Tories and continues to do so, so this is an absolutely ridiculous line to take.Quote:
You'd rather defeat came at the hands of the ideologically pure, I get that, we've had that part of the discussion repeatedly over years. It's not just naive, it's politically ignorant. Democracies do not, can not function that way, no matter what their structure. No matter what the policy or issue is, you are never going to be able to get a majority that not only takes the correct position but does so for the same reason in their hearts that you have.
The trouble is your idyllic view of politics as the art of gentlemanly compromise and moderation between well meaning but ideologically driven people with fundamentally clashing principles producing some virtuous mean thanks to the robust nature of US political institutions completely falls down when one side (the Republican side, to be clear) has now gone so far beyond the pale as to become actively malicious and possibly even treasonous and b) US political institutions aren't as robust as you like to think they are.
We have indeed had this discussion many times over the years, I've repeatedly said that direction the Republican party was taking, with it's growing populism and anti-intellectualism was extremely dangerous and you were always, like, "nah, it'll be fine because something something the golden mean".
Well guess what?
In short, it's not me whose naive, it's you. Your faith in the US political process is and has been naive.
Here goes Nunes showing his true colors again
White House shut down Trump-Russia hearings to stop Sally Yates giving key testimony
Swalwell on Nunes fallout: ‘This is what a cover-up to a crime looks like’
Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, says she found out meetings were cancelled this week through "media reports," not from Chairman Devin Nunes.
Sometime after you cut out the faux righteousness and acknowledge that you're engaged in demonization. That your side is holy and the political opposition is actively malevolent. Bad people are figures like Foley and Weiner, ones seeking sexual contact with minors or abusing their office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Easy to say as an abstract generalization but when it comes to the nitty gritty it never seems to come out that way.Quote:
You're speaking to someone who supported the Lib Dems going into coalition with the Tories and continues to do so, so this is an absolutely ridiculous line to take.
There's nothing gentlemanly about it, and you're at least as blind as you accuse me of being if you think anything I've said ever goes to such an idea. Power and leverage play large roles and while arm-twisting isn't typically the norm (not when bribes in the form of cheap constituency service are so easy to provide) it has a place as well. Again, for both sides.Quote:
The trouble is your idyllic view of politics as the art of gentlemanly compromise and moderation
Oh, most politicians aren't ideologues. Look at Nunes, nothing ideological there. Of course, plenty of them are beholden to people who ARE ideologues (people for whom it is easy to be one since they don't actually have to produce something through the byzantine negotiations involved in actual governance) and have to try and meet the expectations laid on them if they're going to continue enjoying that support which is so valuable for reelection (and, for those who see the writing on the wall of their political careers, possibly their future lucrative employment as lobbyists).Quote:
between well meaning but ideologically driven people with fundamentally clashing principles
And there we go. "The people who don't agree with me are evil." Some of them are ideologues (and hence are stupid). Many of them are venal. And the worst of those (not in Congress, I suspect, but perhaps a few in the administration) may have let their greed and ambition push them into something which is actually traitorous (though none of that group will be among the Freedom Caucus who you claimed you were ranting about, they're the ones who are just stupid). But that doesn't stop you from conflating them all into one undifferentiated mass of WRONG.Quote:
completely falls down when one side (the Republican side, to be clear) has now gone so far beyond the pale as to become actively malicious and possibly even treasonous and b) US political institutions aren't as robust as you like to think they are.
Which again leads me to ask that question you still haven't answered: what material harm do you allege was inflicted here? Thump that chest, Steely, pound the table. Let loose all that outrage. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.Quote:
We have indeed had this discussion many times over the years, I've repeatedly said that direction the Republican party was taking, with it's growing populism and anti-intellectualism was extremely dangerous and you were always, like, "nah, it'll be fine because something something the golden mean".
Well guess what?
In short, it's not me whose naive, it's you. Your faith in the US political process is and has been naive.
I do not the Alber-arguing, though. First it was the Freedom Caucus, then it was the Congressional GOP, and now I imagine you're going to broaden again to the entire party, as you grasp for that "material harm" to hang things on. Maybe mention that Oklahoma state legislator?
Like so many posts in this thread, one gets the sense that this exchange is going to age like fine wine as more information about the election and the Trump administration comes out.
Calling a spade a spade is not 'demonisation'. The Republican party is irredeemable at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
How is a specific example an abstract generalisation? It is literally the exact opposite of that.Quote:
Easy to say as an abstract generalization but when it comes to the nitty gritty it never seems to come out that way.
Cease all pearl clutching related activity immediately.Quote:
And there we go. "The people who don't agree with me are evil."
You just listed all the ways that they're wrong, and your issue is that I called them wrong? You'd like me to be more granular about the ways the different bits of the Republican party are wrong, like the moderates are spineless cowards, the teapers are doctrinaire imbeciles, the Trumpites are fascists and traitors, the religious right are empathy-deficient scum... that sort of thing?Quote:
Some of them are ideologues (and hence are stupid). Many of them are venal. And the worst of those (not in Congress, I suspect, but perhaps a few in the administration) may have let their greed and ambition push them into something which is actually traitorous (though none of that group will be among the Freedom Caucus who you claimed you were ranting about, they're the ones who are just stupid). But that doesn't stop you from conflating them all into one undifferentiated mass of WRONG.
I have answered it, there was no material harm, but not want of trying and that makes the Republican party, in it's entirety and also as an institution, shitheads, for what they just tried to pull.Quote:
Which again leads me to ask that question you still haven't answered: what material harm do you allege was inflicted here?
Sounds a lot like this whole line of argument you're trying to make. Still don't really understand what point you're trying to make. Other than 'strong opinions make me uneasy'.Quote:
Thump that chest, Steely, pound the table. Let loose all that outrage. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I think you may have genuinely misunderstood my point. It was always aboutthe entire Republican party.Quote:
I do not the Alber-arguing, though. First it was the Freedom Caucus, then it was the Congressional GOP, and now I imagine you're going to broaden again to the entire party, as you grasp for that "material harm" to hang things on. Maybe mention that Oklahoma state legislator?
https://searchinternethistory.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Highlights from Trump's favorite TV show: Fox and Friends
https://streamable.com/rdsuw
The 265 members of Congress who sold you out to ISPs, and how much it cost to buy themQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Every single vote for this was from a Republican.
Kind of surprised Dread didn't defend this yet with another "it will help my grandma check her email" post.
Twitter Link
Though I'm more disturbed by the "independent" numbers.
Hmm, some of them are remarkably cheap - can we start a Patreon or kickstarter to get a Trump impeachment before 2019?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Putin will be their most valued customer. Now he won't even have to infect computers with malware :o
Make of this what you will:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-director...lection-576417
Regardless of how much of that is true, Obama certainly didn't appreciate the full extent of the threat, nor did he take the prospect of Trump winning the election seriously.
So, at long last, I can join the chorus. "Gee, thanks Obama! :mad: "Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/u...e-reports.html
That explains why Trump has been nonstop attacking the NYT on twitter for the past 3 days. The big boys are toying with Trump and he has gotten so bent out of shape that he even suggested that libel laws need changed. :haha:
Now we're getting somewhere:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-fl...ity-1490912959
That looks like a trap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
For whom?
"He has made the offer to the FBI and the House and Senate intelligence committees through his lawyer but has so far found no takers, the officials said."
I'll wager he's either got nothing on Trump, nothing they don't already have from other sources, or they're real keen to prosecute him.
"When you are given immunity, that means you have probably committed a crime,"
-Flynn
oh and Blackwater is involved, because of course it is
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.cd5d35dfede4
Looks like the writing staff on this season of America have been playing a lot of Deus Ex games.