Skip to content

The Politics Thread

1393394396398399694

Comments

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    I have to push back on this idea that it's people not being willing to get on board with Bernie if he wins the nomination rather than the other way around. Because all I see is from that crowd is this constant harping that Elizabeth Warren is an "establishment" candidate and is not a progressive. She is slightly, SLIGHTLY, less left-leaning than Bernie is. But this idea narrative taking shape among the Bernie or Bust crowd that she is somehow Hillary Clinton 2.0 is absolute absurdity. Comparing a career centrist like Hillary to Elizabeth Warren is to be functionally illiterate in regards to politics.

    And I see the same thing I saw in 2016. There is a segment of Bernie's voters who simply will not accept any other candidate. And at this point, the only thing I can see that would salvage this particular inter-party squabble is for whichever one of them wins to pick the other as VP. I have zero problems with Bernie, I would HAPPILY vote for him, but I have a serious problem with his supporters whose litmus test is impossible for any other candidate to reach.

    Beyond that, I really wish Joe Biden would just drop out and go home, but it's not going to happen. Biden is the choice of Democrats who are afraid of their own shadow who believe the solution and way to beat Trump is to promise to go "back to the way it was." Well, it's too late for that. Trump broke the wheel. And frankly, the fact that Biden, who was VP for the entire Obama Administration, thinks Republicans will work with him once Trump is out of the picture is outright delusional. It's disqualifying to me. The man is hampered by the personal friendships he THINKS he has from his days in the Senate. What he doesn't seem to get is that every one of those guys would stick a knife in his back at the first opportunity. And frankly, the idea of watching Biden and Trump basically challenge each other to push-up contests for 4 or 5 months on the campaign trail makes me want to vomit.
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    The notion that conservatives are motivated by fear is a simplistic way of reading the science. Conservative folks do react more strongly to images that evoke fear or disgust, but there's a lot more to politics than a single type of emotion alone.
    WarChiefZekeBalrog99
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305
    Protests in Hong Kong about the level of control exercised by China have been going on for a number of months now, but the levels of violence seen in those seem to be ratcheting up over time. If this carries on much longer any prospects for a peaceful solution will vanish as the original issues become less important than the desire to pay back the other side for their behavior during the protests.
    semiticgoddessThacoBell
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited November 2019
    semiticgod wrote: »
    The notion that conservatives are motivated by fear is a simplistic way of reading the science. Conservative folks do react more strongly to images that evoke fear or disgust, but there's a lot more to politics than a single type of emotion alone.

    It is a distinguishing characteristic between left leaning people and those who self identify as conservative.

    And it makes them "more vulnerable to fear-mongering politicians" So when for example, they're warned of an existential threat of the iNvAsiOn of a CARAVAN this motivates them while others see this and are like "um, what's the big deal here, this is obviously a totally overblown fear mongering ploy."

    "Empirical evidence suggests that conservatives and liberals don’t just have different outlooks and opinions—they also have different brains.

    1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative.
    2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threats.
    3. Conservatives fear new experiences.
    4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes"

    Fear leads to anger, etc. etc. dark side.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    semiticgod wrote: »
    The notion that conservatives are motivated by fear is a simplistic way of reading the science. Conservative folks do react more strongly to images that evoke fear or disgust, but there's a lot more to politics than a single type of emotion alone.

    It is a distinguishing characteristic between left leaning people and those who self identify as conservative.

    And it makes them "more vulnerable to fear-mongering politicians" So when for example, they're warned of an existential threat of the iNvAsiOn of a CARAVAN this motivates them while others see this and are like "um, what's the big deal here, this is obviously a totally overblown fear mongering ploy."

    "Empirical evidence suggests that conservatives and liberals don’t just have different outlooks and opinions—they also have different brains.

    1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative.
    2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threats.
    3. Conservatives fear new experiences.
    4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes"

    Fear leads to anger, etc. etc. dark side.

    I could probably just riposte with my argument that folks on the left live in 'La la Kumbaya Land' naivety where everything is fair, everybody gets along and nobody wants for anything, but I really don't believe that all liberal pegs fit in that slot. Likewise I'd like to see a little less paladin-like morality preaching on your side as well.
    semiticgoddessWarChiefZekeGrond0BallpointMan
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    I do think there is some truth to the fact that conservatives are more likely to have a higher level of threat awareness and detection. At least from my own experience. I feel like I am more wary of the potential hidden dangers to things than most of those who I debate with. I also see society as more fragile than we would like to believe. I question the intentions of anyone with authority. I can believe the research, but I don't think it is anything to be ashamed about. I like that part about myself. It's a psychological disposition, and possibly genetic, at least partially.
    Balrog99smeagolheartGrond0
  • ArviaArvia Member Posts: 2,101
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    semiticgod wrote: »
    The notion that conservatives are motivated by fear is a simplistic way of reading the science. Conservative folks do react more strongly to images that evoke fear or disgust, but there's a lot more to politics than a single type of emotion alone.

    It is a distinguishing characteristic between left leaning people and those who self identify as conservative.

    And it makes them "more vulnerable to fear-mongering politicians" So when for example, they're warned of an existential threat of the iNvAsiOn of a CARAVAN this motivates them while others see this and are like "um, what's the big deal here, this is obviously a totally overblown fear mongering ploy."

    "Empirical evidence suggests that conservatives and liberals don’t just have different outlooks and opinions—they also have different brains.

    1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative.
    2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threats.
    3. Conservatives fear new experiences.
    4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes"

    Fear leads to anger, etc. etc. dark side.

    I could probably just riposte with my argument that folks on the left live in 'La la Kumbaya Land' naivety where everything is fair, everybody gets along and nobody wants for anything, but I really don't believe that all liberal pegs fit in that slot. Likewise I'd like to see a little less paladin-like morality preaching on your side as well.

    Besides, you call yourself a conservative, but you don't seem to be as conservative as they come, either.
    Balrog99
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    edited November 2019
    Arvia wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    semiticgod wrote: »
    The notion that conservatives are motivated by fear is a simplistic way of reading the science. Conservative folks do react more strongly to images that evoke fear or disgust, but there's a lot more to politics than a single type of emotion alone.

    It is a distinguishing characteristic between left leaning people and those who self identify as conservative.

    And it makes them "more vulnerable to fear-mongering politicians" So when for example, they're warned of an existential threat of the iNvAsiOn of a CARAVAN this motivates them while others see this and are like "um, what's the big deal here, this is obviously a totally overblown fear mongering ploy."

    "Empirical evidence suggests that conservatives and liberals don’t just have different outlooks and opinions—they also have different brains.

    1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative.
    2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threats.
    3. Conservatives fear new experiences.
    4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes"

    Fear leads to anger, etc. etc. dark side.

    I could probably just riposte with my argument that folks on the left live in 'La la Kumbaya Land' naivety where everything is fair, everybody gets along and nobody wants for anything, but I really don't believe that all liberal pegs fit in that slot. Likewise I'd like to see a little less paladin-like morality preaching on your side as well.

    Besides, you call yourself a conservative, but you don't seem to be as conservative as they come, either.

    I'm fiscally conservative but tend towards libertarian otherwise. I'm also not totally averse to flexing our American muscles once in a while to keep the balance of power steady (thus not a true libertarian either). Also not really opposed to trying out new, well-thought out ideas. I'm actually rather hard to put in a box really...

    Maybe a 'conservaliberaltarian'?
    Grond0Arvia
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited November 2019
    In a properly functioning democracy, this morning's first open testimony in the impeachment hearings alone would be enough to remove Trump from office. In the end, if you're going to ask me why as I get into my mid-late 30s I will never in my life vote for a Republican, I would present two things that are absolutely impossible for me to ever forgive. The lies that led us into Iraq, and their totally craven support of this mobster President. If we don't draw the line at extorting a foreign country to the tune of a half a billion dollars in taxpayer funded, Congressionally appropriated military aide to manufacture dirt on your political opponent, then no line exists for anything whatsoever.
    ThacoBellsmeagolheartsemiticgoddess
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    Running shadow foreign policy outside of official channels to help your own political prospects is not only Latin words, it's extortion and bribery.
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    @Arvia: I would definitely classify @Balrog99 as a solid fiscal conservative, given his immense skepticism of Democratic plans on taxes and spending, despite his relatively libertarian views on social issues. Likewise, I would classify @ThacoBell as a conservative as well, despite being a bit of the flipside to Balrog99: strongly pro-life, but much more in favor of fiscal policy that targets economic inequality.

    It is a bit odd, of course, that "conservative" can apply to two people who disagree on a lot of issues. But then, these are inherently loose and generic terms; there's bound to be ambiguity and fuzzy boundaries around liberalism and conservatism.
    Balrog99ThacoBell
  • ArviaArvia Member Posts: 2,101
    Well, it's complicated because "conservative" and "liberal" don't mean the same thing when you're talking about taxes or social issues, for example, and vary greatly from country to country.
    Thank you for pointing out the details.
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    In the hearings today, Ambassador Bill Taylor, interestingly enough, said that the situation with Ukraine was not a "quid pro quo." Yet he said right after that aid to Ukraine was dependent on the Ukrainian government doing what the Trump administration wanted, and that the Trump administration made that very clear to the Ukrainians. The only difference between that situation and a "quid pro quo" is that a quid pro quo is a non-explicit trade, in which both parties would assume that the agreement was implied.

    An explicit trade, money for meddling, would be even worse than a quid pro quo--it's just a more shameless variant of a quid pro quo.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    semiticgod wrote: »
    In the hearings today, Ambassador Bill Taylor, interestingly enough, said that the situation with Ukraine was not a "quid pro quo." Yet he said right after that aid to Ukraine was dependent on the Ukrainian government doing what the Trump administration wanted, and that the Trump administration made that very clear to the Ukrainians. The only difference between that situation and a "quid pro quo" is that a quid pro quo is a non-explicit trade, in which both parties would assume that the agreement was implied.

    An explicit trade, money for meddling, would be even worse than a quid pro quo--it's just a more shameless variant of a quid pro quo.

    We need to do away with this stupid phrase. Dumb it down to where the American people can understand it (which definitely requires not speaking Latin). This is extortion and bribery. That's all there is to it. And on the subject of Latin and politics, one of my favorite clips from the West Wing:

    Grond0
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    GOP officials are trying to bring deep state conspiracy theories into the hearings and are trying to pressure Taylor to say, in effect, "Trump has good reason to investigate all the bad guys trying to hurt him." Taylor's responses tend be "I'm not familiar with that conspiracy theory," a phrase he of course did not use.

    Is this the strategy here? To suggest that Trump coerced Ukraine into meddling, but that he only did it to investigate the Democratic bad guys?
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited November 2019
    semiticgod wrote: »
    GOP officials are trying to bring deep state conspiracy theories into the hearings and are trying to pressure Taylor to say, in effect, "Trump has good reason to investigate all the bad guys trying to hurt him." Taylor's responses tend be "I'm not familiar with that conspiracy theory," a phrase he of course did not use.

    Is this the strategy here? To suggest that Trump coerced Ukraine into meddling, but that he only did it to investigate the Democratic bad guys?

    You literally cannot understand what the Republicans are talking about at any given time unless you watch FOX News or listen to AM radio 8 hours a day. However, if you DID do so, it would all make perfect sense. Jim Jordan's only aim is to provide sound bites to play on Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham's prime-time shows. It's a symbiotic relationship.
    smeagolheartThacoBell
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    edited November 2019
    And now we've got another GOP official asking Taylor "why should we impeach Trump," trying to paint Taylor as a tool of the pro-impeachment movement, and then loudly talking over Taylor to prevent him from answering, in the last ~40-50 seconds of his time. He tried to withdraw his question before Taylor could answer it, but got overruled and wasn't able to stop Taylor from answering the question. Throwing out an accusation, demanding a response, and then trying to silence the person and run out the clock before he can respond.

    I'm weary of the bad faith attempts to throw out random counter-accusations and conspiracy theories to distract from the subject of the inquiry and change the subject, raising their voices and talking over witnesses. I keep seeing it in these hearings--officials using hearing time to make accusations instead of actually asking any questions.
    smeagolheartThacoBell
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    One of them keeps denigrating Taylor's testimony as hearsay, but the only reason it qualifies as hearsay is because other officials are not testifying themselves. If you really wanted to clear out the hearsay and get things directly from the horse's mouth, you would compel President Trump to testify under oath.
    ThacoBell
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    semiticgod wrote: »
    @Arvia: I would definitely classify @Balrog99 as a solid fiscal conservative, given his immense skepticism of Democratic plans on taxes and spending, despite his relatively libertarian views on social issues. Likewise, I would classify @ThacoBell as a conservative as well, despite being a bit of the flipside to Balrog99: strongly pro-life, but much more in favor of fiscal policy that targets economic inequality.

    It is a bit odd, of course, that "conservative" can apply to two people who disagree on a lot of issues. But then, these are inherently loose and generic terms; there's bound to be ambiguity and fuzzy boundaries around liberalism and conservatism.

    Funny, because I call myself a conservative and feel like I have little in common, politically, with either of them. I suppose the label is overly broad.

    Then again, I lean economically left and culturally right. Is there a word for that?
    semiticgoddess
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    semiticgod wrote: »
    @Arvia: I would definitely classify @Balrog99 as a solid fiscal conservative, given his immense skepticism of Democratic plans on taxes and spending, despite his relatively libertarian views on social issues. Likewise, I would classify @ThacoBell as a conservative as well, despite being a bit of the flipside to Balrog99: strongly pro-life, but much more in favor of fiscal policy that targets economic inequality.

    It is a bit odd, of course, that "conservative" can apply to two people who disagree on a lot of issues. But then, these are inherently loose and generic terms; there's bound to be ambiguity and fuzzy boundaries around liberalism and conservatism.

    I lean economically left and culturally right. Is there a word for that?

    Free thinker?
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659

    Then again, I lean economically left and culturally right. Is there a word for that?

    It means a lot of things to a lot of people, but that sounds a lot like populism.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    Found this gem of an article tonight. Food for thought before a good night's sleep...

    https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/11/13/opinions/political-tribalism-not-reason-america-divided-cupp/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/
    Grond0
  • BillyYankBillyYank Member Posts: 2,768
    semiticgod wrote: »
    @Arvia: I would definitely classify @Balrog99 as a solid fiscal conservative, given his immense skepticism of Democratic plans on taxes and spending, despite his relatively libertarian views on social issues. Likewise, I would classify @ThacoBell as a conservative as well, despite being a bit of the flipside to Balrog99: strongly pro-life, but much more in favor of fiscal policy that targets economic inequality.

    It is a bit odd, of course, that "conservative" can apply to two people who disagree on a lot of issues. But then, these are inherently loose and generic terms; there's bound to be ambiguity and fuzzy boundaries around liberalism and conservatism.

    Funny, because I call myself a conservative and feel like I have little in common, politically, with either of them. I suppose the label is overly broad.

    Then again, I lean economically left and culturally right. Is there a word for that?

    So kinda Socialist, but kinda Nationalist, so that would make... Oh crap!



    I'm sorry, but you cannot throw me that straight line and expect me to not come back with the obvious punchline.
    Balrog99BallpointMan
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    I'll go ahead and say once more that the Nazis did send socialists to the gas chambers. The National Socialists were not all that big on socialism.
    smeagolheartStummvonBordwehrBallpointManArvia
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    semiticgod wrote: »
    I'll go ahead and say once more that the Nazis did send socialists to the gas chambers. The National Socialists were not all that big on socialism.

    They were big on murdering socialists, communists, Jews, and gypsies among others.
    StummvonBordwehr
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    semiticgod wrote: »
    @Arvia: I would definitely classify @Balrog99 as a solid fiscal conservative, given his immense skepticism of Democratic plans on taxes and spending, despite his relatively libertarian views on social issues. Likewise, I would classify @ThacoBell as a conservative as well, despite being a bit of the flipside to Balrog99: strongly pro-life, but much more in favor of fiscal policy that targets economic inequality.

    It is a bit odd, of course, that "conservative" can apply to two people who disagree on a lot of issues. But then, these are inherently loose and generic terms; there's bound to be ambiguity and fuzzy boundaries around liberalism and conservatism.

    Its kinda funny how people will classify politics. I've been called both a liberal that leans conservative, and a conservative that leans liberal by friends irl. Both times by people who disagreed with me politically.
    Balrog99
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited November 2019
    While Trump is intimidating witnesses in real-time, Roger Stone is found guilty on ALL counts, including more obstruction of the Mueller probe. Not a single member of Trump's inner-circle brought up on charges in regards to the case was in the end found innocent. ALL of them were convicted or plead guilty. His campaign manager, his Deputy Campaign Manager, his foreign policy adviser, his National Security Adviser, his personal lawyer and his longtime political guru. Every single one of them convicted by a jury or admitting to their crimes.
    semiticgoddessGrond0ThacoBell
  • BelleSorciereBelleSorciere Member Posts: 2,108
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    I could probably just riposte with my argument that folks on the left live in 'La la Kumbaya Land' naivety where everything is fair, everybody gets along and nobody wants for anything, but I really don't believe that all liberal pegs fit in that slot. Likewise I'd like to see a little less paladin-like morality preaching on your side as well.

    This is one of the serious problems with US politics in that people seem to genuinely think that centrist neoliberals and liberals are leftists. The Overton Window is a hell of a drug.

    Actual leftists (as in various flavors of socialists, communists, and anarchists, excluding ancaps who are neither leftist nor anarchist) are perfectly aware of what the world is like, which is why many would love to overthrow the current order. I don't know a single leftist who believes the nonsense you just spouted. This is why they want a world where things are as fair as possible, where people can at least try to get along, and where no one wants for anything. These are good goals.

    As far as "paladin-like morality preaching" from anyone to the left of Hillary Clinton? Conservatives want to destroy people's lives with their policies, let the infrastructure break down, and do this while funneling as much money as possible into the wealthiest one percent's bank accounts. I'm hard-pressed to see the modern GOP as anything but profoundly immoral and unethical to the point of openly advocating genocide, and the people who vote them in are culpable as well.

    If paladin-like morality preaching is "You know, maybe it's actually good to let people live their lives, insure they have good health care, shelter, and enough food, and aren't persecuted just for who they are" then I can only imagine where the typical Republican wants everything to be, and it really does make them look like genuinely awful people
    GundanRTOThacoBell
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    edited November 2019
    Conservatives want to destroy people's lives with their policies

    You caught me. The number 1 thing I care about in my political policy is how many lives I can destroy. And all it takes is a vote!
    If paladin-like morality preaching is "You know, maybe it's actually good to let people live their lives, insure they have good health care, shelter, and enough food, and aren't persecuted just for who they are" then I can only imagine where the typical Republican wants everything to be, and it really does make them look like genuinely awful people

    I think your analysis needs more nuance but ok
    Balrog99
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    I could probably just riposte with my argument that folks on the left live in 'La la Kumbaya Land' naivety where everything is fair, everybody gets along and nobody wants for anything, but I really don't believe that all liberal pegs fit in that slot. Likewise I'd like to see a little less paladin-like morality preaching on your side as well.

    This is one of the serious problems with US politics in that people seem to genuinely think that centrist neoliberals and liberals are leftists. The Overton Window is a hell of a drug.

    Actual leftists (as in various flavors of socialists, communists, and anarchists, excluding ancaps who are neither leftist nor anarchist) are perfectly aware of what the world is like, which is why many would love to overthrow the current order. I don't know a single leftist who believes the nonsense you just spouted. This is why they want a world where things are as fair as possible, where people can at least try to get along, and where no one wants for anything. These are good goals.

    As far as "paladin-like morality preaching" from anyone to the left of Hillary Clinton? Conservatives want to destroy people's lives with their policies, let the infrastructure break down, and do this while funneling as much money as possible into the wealthiest one percent's bank accounts. I'm hard-pressed to see the modern GOP as anything but profoundly immoral and unethical to the point of openly advocating genocide, and the people who vote them in are culpable as well.

    If paladin-like morality preaching is "You know, maybe it's actually good to let people live their lives, insure they have good health care, shelter, and enough food, and aren't persecuted just for who they are" then I can only imagine where the typical Republican wants everything to be, and it really does make them look like genuinely awful people

    There's a way for people to have good healthcare, shelter, and enough food. It's called working. As far as letting people live their lives and not persecuting them? Fine by me...
Sign In or Register to comment.