|
Post by celawson on Oct 11, 2018 1:10:37 GMT -5
I have to say it's interesting that Amadan and NT think I am the one who is outraged. I'm not. I wasn't talking about how I personally feel. (And remember, I pointed out that Holder clarified what he was saying.) I was talking about what is energizing Republicans enough to drive them to vote at midterms. And I honestly do not think it's joy about Kavanaugh getting appointed. From what I'm seeing, it's more disgust at the bullying used against him, as well as against prominent Republicans in restaurants, and the rhetoric we are hearing from prominent Dems that call everyone to either shun or kick or be uncivil or harass Republicans. The point was made by NT that there's an energizing wave for the GOP from Kavanaugh's appointment, and I disagreed that that is the biggest factor getting Repubs out to the polls. From what I'm seeing, the Dems are energizing Republicans with their continued bullying and bullying rhetoric.
I don't have to point out examples of Republicans bullying Democrats to be intellectually consistent when I'm answering a point that NT made about the GOP's success with Kavanaugh. I'm telling you what I'm reading on Twitter and hearing on the radio and reading in conservative publications. (And let me tell you, the prominent Repubs I listen to or read were saying that they found Ford to be credible or at least sincere, and certainly felt sympathy for her but felt there was no good option once it became a circus, or a terrible precedent would be set.
To answer Cass:
I do not think Ford was lying. I think she was sincere. And I don't think her wanting to tell the accusation was part of a Democratic plot. Her story had holes, and no one she said was there was able to corroborate, so that makes me uneasy that there was a chance she was not remembering everything accurately. That's not part of any plot. But Feinstein holding onto the accusation for weeks and waiting until a very late time in the process to expose/leak it when they should have used the appropriate confidential means to investigate it right away was part of the plot, and it was disrespectful to Dr. Ford and used her like a tool. I think it was awful to sacrifice her that way. And then the circus that followed was part of the plot. I would seriously like to see the political party percentages of the folks like the law professors who thought K's behavior was disqualifying. I'm certain it will fall along party lines. Just like defense of him does.
Anyway, to correct myself, I don't think there's going to be a red wave. I stated that wrong. I think there's going to be enough of a turnout of Republicans to prevent a significant blue wave, though. That's what I meant.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Oct 11, 2018 7:00:15 GMT -5
But then, I have a cousin who is pushing 60 who has never cast a vote. He's extremely pro-marijuana and anti-war, among other things. I told him he could vote for candidates who feel the same way about those issues, and that this was the only way to get the laws changed. He said "It shouldn't need a law change. That's just how things should be." You can imagine how crazy it makes me. I've been having that same argument with him for literally years. Anyway. I just don't know how you stir someone out of that kind of apathy. Hopefully Swift helps Make Voting Cool Again (MVCA...hmmmm.) Please let your cousin know that he was wise not to waste his time. I'm 66, and for decades I spent the effort to find and support pro-cannabis and anti-war candidates. He's right, it was a complete waste of my time, as opposed to civil disobedience acts I engaged in that did actually move the dial on several issues. Voting is NOT The only way to get laws changed. AAMOF, I see little evidence that voting ever changes specific laws to align with voters views. There are far too many issues represented by the choice of "Column A or Column B" for voting to be an effective way to produce specific policy outcomes. The War on Cannabis is NOT ending because people voted against those candidates who support it, it's ending because of widespread civil disobedience, jury nullification, and socially-liberal states embracing the previously-racist term "states rights" and passing laws in defiance of FedGov. The anti-war battle was lost long, long ago, because the logic of Universal Soldier has no power against the emotional cry to "Support Our Troops" and the conditioning that will likely get one shunned or worse if one points out the truth of our massively aggressive foreign policy, and the complicity of individuals who willingly support that aggressive behavior. No other country behaves as we do internationally, but people are conditioned to believe the most aggressive, intrusive and warlike government on the planet are "peacekeepers" and our children are heroes for dying in support of that international aggression. On a strongly-related note, we are the most heavily-imprisoned population on the planet, and among the most regulated, yet people still claim we are the "land of the free." Voting will not change a mandatory education system that indoctrinates people to believe and support the logical fallacies that keep them obeying "leaders" who rob them, imprison them for innocuous acts that have been "forbidden" and send them off to die in foreign acts of aggression. Your cousin is absolutely right.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 11, 2018 8:44:00 GMT -5
Reminds me of Obama saying if they bring a knife, we bring a gun. ? It's pretty much exactly what Obama said, I just left off the "to the fight." And yeah, I know he was getting it from The Untouchables. He was engaging in some braggadocio in front of a Philly crowd. The quote in context: It is, of course, clearly metaphorical, though it's also quite violent imagery, owing to the introduction of brawling Philly fans. And I appreciate the fact that you don't have a problem with such "colorful" language. The Dem party and most of the Left, however, used to have a big problem with it, if anyone on the Right was uttering it. Indeed, many still had that problem as recently as last year. Because when people on the Right do it, such language has to be taken literally as a matter of course. Now, suddenly, we're back to the metaphorical, so it's okay for Dem pols to call for kicking repubs. I can't help but wonder if the NYT and others would hold Eric Holder responsible if some republican gets kicked to death. I'm betting that they wouldn't, that such an incident would be "unrelated" to Holder's words as a matter of course.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 11, 2018 8:59:15 GMT -5
From what I'm seeing, it's more disgust at the bullying used against him, as well as against prominent Republicans in restaurants, and the rhetoric we are hearing from prominent Dems that call everyone to either shun or kick or be uncivil or harass Republicans. Yes. Like most dishonest and hypocritical people, these Republicans (not you, since you say you are not outraged) scream when poked, and laugh or look away when the other guy is poked. Like most dishonest and hypocritical people, these Republicans (not you, of course - you are only seeing how other Republicans are reacting) have forgotten all the bullying and calls to socially and politically marginalize liberals for the past several decades, but are shocked, disgusted, affronted, outraged, energized, and crying so very very hard at the inhumanity when Maxine Waters makes a stupid speech or a liberal tweets about cutting off Republicans in his friends circle. Wait. You... you mean.... conservative publications and talk radio spend a lot of time drumming up outrage by reporting all the mean things Democrats have said about them? And don't ever comment on Republicans being jerks? Why, I'm shocked, celaw! I would totally have thought conservative publications would be giving a fair and balanced reporting of bullying across the political spectrum! They're lying. Or they are very stupid people. Only very stupid people actually believe the "If this works, liberals are going to activate the False Rape Accusation Cadre from now on" conspiracy theory. Or they're terrible people, if they thought Ford was credible and sincere but that wasn't a good enough reason to keep a rapist off the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 11, 2018 9:05:13 GMT -5
Your cousin is absolutely right. It sounds like Cass's cousin is basically doing nothing other than complaining about how things "ought to be." While I disagree with you about voting being meaningless, I also understand numbers so one person not voting is not really consequential, and I know you are active in other ways, so at least you are doing something proactive to change the world to your liking. I'll give you credit for that. If you're just a guy who doesn't vote, and doesn't do anything else except complain about the laws you don't like, my attitude is "Fuck you, you get the laws you deserve."
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 11, 2018 9:24:04 GMT -5
I have to say it's interesting that Amadan and NT think I am the one who is outraged. I'm not. I wasn't talking about how I personally feel. (And remember, I pointed out that Holder clarified what he was saying.) I was talking about what is energizing Republicans enough to drive them to vote at midterms. And I honestly do not think it's joy about Kavanaugh getting appointed. From what I'm seeing, it's more disgust at the bullying used against him, as well as against prominent Republicans in restaurants, and the rhetoric we are hearing from prominent Dems that call everyone to either shun or kick or be uncivil or harass Republicans. The point was made by NT that there's an energizing wave for the GOP from Kavanaugh's appointment, and I disagreed that that is the biggest factor getting Repubs out to the polls. From what I'm seeing, the Dems are energizing Republicans with their continued bullying and bullying rhetoric. Bullying? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Most likely because the only bullying you will acknowledge is coming from one side of the aisle and not the other. Most likely because you support the bully in the White House. Bullying? I know bullying. I do the best bullying. Everyone says so. I'm not saying this. This is what my friends say. Everybody says this so it must be true. Bullying. That's rich. Well, that depends. Does the opinion of over 2400 law professors mean anything to you?Maybe over 2,400 law professors are wrong about Kavanaugh and Trump, McConnell and you are right. Time will tell. But me? I already know this is a bad hombre.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2018 9:27:44 GMT -5
Yes, to be clear, my cousin is doing absolutely nothing but grumble, and this has always been the case.
On the war front, well I rather suspect, unfortunately, that it will always be with us, and the best we can do is have leaders who limit our involvement to defending ourselves and our allies, and intervening in truly evil situations (genocide and the like) rather than greedy or belligerent reasons.
But on the marijuana front, I think both voters and activists have accomplished and continue to accomplish quite a bit. I believe most people in the general public now favor legalization -- that's quite a shift from where it once was. And it's now legal in some places, a trend I believe will continue.
Advocating for legalization is now a viable, non-crazy political stance for a candidate to take. Yet once upon a time there was an immense uproar when Bill Clinton acknowledged taking a toke back in college. Come on, there's been progress.
None of that is due to my cousin, who is a nice guy, but his only contribution has been to smoke a lot of marijuana.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Oct 11, 2018 9:41:15 GMT -5
Yes, there's been progress, but as usual, political institutions trail society and are being dragged kicking and screaming toward reality. Our supposed "leaders" have been overwhelmingly committed to maintaining the status quo. Look at any area of social change and that situation always holds true. Freedom comes from behavior and is only grudgingly finally granted by legislation.
Case in point: What percentage of congress supports legalization, as opposed to the general population?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 11, 2018 9:48:39 GMT -5
Yes, there's been progress, but as usual, political institutions trail society and are being dragged kicking and screaming toward reality. Our supposed "leaders" have been overwhelmingly committed to maintaining the status quo. Look at any area of social change and that situation always holds true. Freedom comes from behavior and is only grudgingly finally granted by legislation. Case in point: What percentage of congress supports legalization, as opposed to the general population? Well, that's the point. Of course politicians are not trailblazers. But when a sufficient number of voters are in favor of something, they will be too.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Oct 11, 2018 9:51:30 GMT -5
Yes, there's been progress, but as usual, political institutions trail society and are being dragged kicking and screaming toward reality. Our supposed "leaders" have been overwhelmingly committed to maintaining the status quo. Look at any area of social change and that situation always holds true. Freedom comes from behavior and is only grudgingly finally granted by legislation. Case in point: What percentage of congress supports legalization, as opposed to the general population? Well, that's the point. Of course politicians are not trailblazers. But when a sufficient number of voters are in favor of something, they will be too. No, they won't. A sufficient number of voters favor cannibis legislation at the federal level. They have for a while now. How long until legislation catches up? How many lives destroyed in the meantime? What about all the lives destroyed before by an obviously ginned-up war against an innocent population? Isn't there a powerful lesson there?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 11, 2018 10:04:20 GMT -5
Well, that's the point. Of course politicians are not trailblazers. But when a sufficient number of voters are in favor of something, they will be too. No, they won't. A sufficient number of voters favor cannibis legislation at the federal level. They have for a while now. How long until legislation catches up? How many lives destroyed in the meantime? What about all the lives destroyed before by an obviously ginned-up war against an innocent population? Isn't there a powerful lesson there? Come on, Don. You know it's not as simplistic as "When >50% of the population is in favor of something, the laws change." How long until cannibis is legalized at the federal level? A while yet. I estimate ~5-10 years. How long did it take for the federal government to finally grant full civil rights to blacks, women, and gays? They have always lagged behind public sentiment, because the government isn't meant to instantaneously reflect the mood of the public. That's how government works. Yes, I know I still owe you a response on the Anarcho-Libertarian Fantasy world, but if there is a government (and there will always be one), it's going to follow the pattern of all human institutions and tend towards bureaucracy, corruption, and stasis, and move but slowly. That being the case, in a representative democracy, there are at least mechanisms for citizens to effect change, one of which is to exert influence on the electorate, which is only meaningful if the electorate votes. Your alternative, which I guess is to preach anarcho-libertarianism until everyone agrees with you and does away with government altogether, strikes me as considerably less effective than voting.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Oct 11, 2018 10:36:26 GMT -5
Apparently, what you see as a feature, I see as a bug that severely restricts societal change and personal choice, and a reason to limit coercive institutions to a bare minimum of responsibilities and associated powers.
As to your last paragraph, there are a million ways to enhance one's own agency and encourage others to do likewise that don't involve convincing 51% of the people to elect people who generally are not at all interested in allowing more individual choice among the populace.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 11, 2018 10:44:46 GMT -5
Apparently, what you see as a feature, I see as a bug that severely restricts societal change and personal choice, and a reason to limit coercive institutions to a bare minimum of responsibilities and associated powers. As to your last paragraph, there are a million ways to enhance one's own agency and encourage others to do likewise that don't involve convincing 51% of the people to elect people who generally are not at all interested in allowing more individual choice among the populace. I see it as a bug to which there is no realistic alternative. It's like complaining that humans often make decisions based on emotion that they should make based on logic and reason. Yes, we do. If you figure out a solution to that, take your seat on Mount Olympus. Until then, we deal with reality, which is government with all its flaws, and work with it to enhance the positives and ameliorate the negatives. I think you're basically complaining that human nature is unperfected, while I'm saying that human nature is imperfectible. You choose to "enhance your own agency" by working outside the government and trying to avoid it as much as possible. That's a valid choice for you, but it's not scaleable.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Oct 11, 2018 10:49:06 GMT -5
Just as I predicted, there's a front page Fox news article on Holder which does NOT include his qualifying remarks after the kick statement but only talks about the kick, and there's a small article at National Review which does the same. This is like gossip, and in today's world of on-line info, gossip travels far and wide in a few seconds. I don't agree with this tactic, but I also think a prominent person like Holder (and Clinton) should watch their rhetoric. And of course, as should Trump. This discourse is immature and problematic and embarrassing. But the horse is out of the barn, and I don't know how we're going to get it back in. Look at Ted Cruz -- he was very reasonable and tried to be sympathetic to both sides and tried to gently admonish this battlefield stuff at the hearings...and he and his wife get chased out of a restaurant for it. Below is the clip of him at the hearings. He certainly was not Lindsey Graham.
And yes, I agree that Trump is a bully, and I agree that Trump has contributed greatly to this atmosphere and fanned the flames, and I agree that he, as POTUS, should hold himself to a higher and more unifying standard. In some cases, I like that he stands up to certain things, but I just wish he'd do it more gracefully and selectively and with more compassion and attempts at unifying. I don't agree with Cassandra's predictions a lot of the time, and I am still waiting for her predictions of Trump getting in big trouble for Russian collusion to play out (I don't think it ever will, because I don't think there was any), or her predictions of Trump's tax stuff being a big deal, or the economy tanking, but one thing I do agree with her is that Trump being elected to POTUS would coarsen political discourse in the U.S. I was hoping he'd tone things down after the election. He has not. And here we are.
EDITED TO ADD:
I would also like to point out that Brett Kavanaugh is not a rapist. Dr. Ford did not accuse him of rape. Dr. Ford did not say she was raped. No one has accused him of rape.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 11, 2018 10:59:48 GMT -5
And yes, I agree that Trump is a bully, and I agree that Trump has contributed greatly to this atmosphere and fanned the flames, and I agree that he, as POTUS, should hold himself to a higher and more unifying standard. In some cases, I like that he stands up to certain things, but I just wish he'd do it more gracefully and selectively and with more compassion and attempts at unifying. I don't agree with Cassandra's predictions a lot of the time, and I am still waiting for her predictions of Trump getting in big trouble for Russian collusion to play out (I don't think it ever will, because I don't think there was any), or her predictions of Trump's tax stuff being a big deal, or the economy tanking, but one thing I do agree with her is that Trump being elected to POTUS would coarsen political discourse in the U.S. I was hoping he'd tone things down after the election. He has not. And here we are.
EDITED TO ADD:
I would also like to point out that Brett Kavanaugh is not a rapist. Dr. Ford did not accuse him of rape. Dr. Ford did not say she was raped. No one has accused him of rape.
Attempted rapist, then. Much better. As for agreeing that Trump is a bully and hoping he'd be nicer, he has no reason to be, because you were going to support him no matter what.
|
|