Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

When are they going to add Barr to the formal inquiry/investigation? Or will that be separate? Do the Democrats have the balls even though it's obvious Barr is a complete fucking hack with his tongue shoved all the way up Trump's ass?

TM

I think the next thing we'll start seeing is some of the rats fleeing the ship. That will make Trump look more vulnerable and then his own people will start turning on each other. Big question is, how many will go down? I'm betting we'll see more than a dozen high Trump officials in jail before it is over.

I just really, really hope that the list expands to include some his fan club in Congress, including McConnell.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think the next thing we'll start seeing is some of the rats fleeing the ship. That will make Trump look more vulnerable and then his own people will start turning on each other. Big question is, how many will go down? I'm betting we'll see more than a dozen high Trump officials in jail before it is over.

I just really, really hope that the list expands to include some his fan club in Congress, including McConnell.

And fucking Nunes. Holy shit, I don't know how that man hasn't been beaten to within an inch of his life already.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

And fucking Nunes. Holy shit, I don't know how that man hasn't been beaten to within an inch of his life already.

TM

How is he always showing up with confidential information before anyone else, and always misrepresenting it?

20 years to life is too good for that guy.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Agreed as to usage, but not as to historical or technical correctness. And the OED sides with me. https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/d...s-congressmen/

OK, Les, choose the side of the dweebs.

[Hank Chinaski]

Just had an onion soup burger for lunch- really good- couldn't get one of them before 2017. President Trump making America great!!!!

(can't seem to upload a photo)

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Just had an onion soup burger for lunch- really good- couldn't get one of them before 2017. President Trump making America great!!!!

(can't seem to upload a photo)

Nice!

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

When are they going to add Barr to the formal inquiry/investigation? Or will that be separate? Do the Democrats have the balls even though it's obvious Barr is a complete fucking hack with his tongue shoved all the way up Trump's ass?



TM

From Schiff's opening statement this morning, I think Barr is already in scope.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

And fucking Nunes. Holy shit, I don't know how that man hasn't been beaten to within an inch of his life already.

TM

I cannot stand him. I listened to his statement this morning and it made my skin crawl.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm going to set aside the issue of why your beliefs about beliefs are sad and empty. You're confused about what polarization is. People have different beliefs. This is part of the human condition. People have always had them and always will. We have laws and politics in part so that we can figure out how to live together, notwithstanding their different beliefs. "Polarization" is a phenomenon in which the semi-random distribution of beliefs increasingly clusters around opposing poles. It's perfectly possible to have a complex society with a wide distribution of different beliefs, but no polarization. We do seem to be getting more polarized lately, but it's not because people have different beliefs.

I think what you say about polarization and climate change is not right. There is no progress on climate change because polarization among conservatives have increasingly caused that significant minority of the country to disregard the science of climate change and to oppose the government doing anything about it.

In my view, often expressed here, polarization in this country is driven by conservatives, who form their views in reaction to a mainstream that they see as hostile. Again and again, conservatives reject mainstream institutions as biased against them, and create their own crappy, politicized alternatives. The Washington Post begets the Washington Times. Harvard begets Liberty University. CNN begets Fox News. There simply are no left-wing alternative institutions of the sort, which means that liberals are in the mainstream institutions, which means that the conservative rejection of the mainstream institutions has its own vicious cycle feeding it. On the other side of the aisle, the left used to be subordinate to centrists, who favored bipartisan compromise, but since conservatives will no longer do bipartisan compromise, the centrist approach seems futile, which leads to secondary polarization on the left.

You are congenitally incapable of faulting conservatives for the way things are without finding equal fault on the left, so you're left to bemoan that our political system doesn't address climate change but unable to see or say that it's conservatives who are blocking progress.

This Vanity Fair piece about Fox News and Trump is interesting for various reasons, but this quote at the end seems so relevant to what I was just saying:

But a person more sympathetic to Trump has told Lachlan that Fox should remain loyal to Trump’s supporters, even if the network has to break from the man. “We need to represent our viewers,” the source said. “Fox is about defending our viewers from the people who hate them. That’s where our power comes from. It’s not about Trump.”

I don't hate Fox viewers, and they don't need protection, but boy do they like to feel that grievance.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I'm going to set aside the issue of why your beliefs about beliefs are sad and empty. You're confused about what polarization is. People have different beliefs. This is part of the human condition. People have always had them and always will. We have laws and politics in part so that we can figure out how to live together, notwithstanding their different beliefs. "Polarization" is a phenomenon in which the semi-random distribution of beliefs increasingly clusters around opposing poles. It's perfectly possible to have a complex society with a wide distribution of different beliefs, but no polarization. We do seem to be getting more polarized lately, but it's not because people have different beliefs.

This sounds intelligent, as does Malcolm Gladwell, but upon further inspection is helium.

I think what you say about polarization and climate change is not right. There is no progress on climate change because polarization among conservatives have increasingly caused that significant minority of the country to disregard the science of climate change and to oppose the government doing anything about it.

I disagree. I think a lot of conservatives would get behind climate change initiatives. Maybe not the Green New Deal, but something. But when you mix those into a platform including the rest of what the Democrats are selling, they say, "yeah, fuck that."

In my view, often expressed here, polarization in this country is driven by conservatives, who form their views in reaction to a mainstream that they see as hostile.

This is helium. Your helium. I get the idea behind it, but it results from you thinking too much and thinking you've a high minded explanation for things that you don't. You're right a bit here, as to some conservatives, but nowhere near as much as you think.

Again and again, conservatives reject mainstream institutions as biased against them, and create their own crappy, politicized alternatives.

Huh? I think most of the institutions that count, where people have power and money, trend conservative. When I'm around conservatives with coin, or power, as I'm sure you'd agree, they don't feel ostracized. They feel sort of embarrassed that a bunch of silly loons like the Squad and people who think similarly really believe they can make a difference. They laugh at people like you, people like me even, and they really laugh at the Trumpkins and the rank and file Democrats who think they'll see a revolution. Those are the real conservatives that matter. Conservatives without power are just whiners, like progressives who never have power.

The Washington Post begets the Washington Times. Harvard begets Liberty University. CNN begets Fox News. There simply are no left-wing alternative institutions of the sort, which means that liberals are in the mainstream institutions, which means that the conservative rejection of the mainstream institutions has its own vicious cycle feeding it.

That's true. But again, that's for the infantry. And the Washington Times? Really? Who are the ten people who read that? You also have the chicken before the egg. Fox, and I know this pretty well, was created to service a demographic. It's a business entity, nothing more. The crazy right wing didn't create Fox - they created its success, after Ailes brilliantly fed it to them. MSNBC and CNN are doing the same thing right now. The media's a silly fuck show of products aimed at credulous audiences filled with "beleifs" and "values."

On the other side of the aisle, the left used to be subordinate to centrists, who favored bipartisan compromise, but since conservatives will no longer do bipartisan compromise, the centrist approach seems futile, which leads to secondary polarization on the left.

This is an excellent point. A super important point overlooked too often. Why is this? Because centrism fucked the Democratic base. It drove a lot of that base toward populism, which manifested itself in Trump.

Still want to have a dumb argument about which party is to blame? Anything my dumb Archie Bunker relatives can blame on Ds, I can argue was caused more by Rs. Anything your simple mind can see only as caused by Rs, I can historically link back to Ds as well. Stop being tribal. Start looking at issues as stand alones.

You are congenitally incapable of faulting conservatives for the way things are without finding equal fault on the left, so you're left to bemoan that our political system doesn't address climate change but unable to see or say that it's conservatives who are blocking progress.

I totally blame credulous conservatives for the majority of lack of effort on climate. I just stated earlier that Jimmy Carter had brilliantly warned on climate back in 1979. Was he a conservative?

Failure to address climate change is largely caused by misinformation peddlers playing to conservatives, and dumb conservatives who ought to know better than to buy the bullshit. The Democrats are much better on this issue than the Rs. I 100% agree.

BUT, you could get a lot of conservatives and moderates who'd like to do something about climate to do so if it were done by referendum. I want to do something about climate. But I also don't like a lot of the Democratic party's platform. Similarly, I'd also like to pay minimal taxes. But I can't vote for Donald Trump. Given me an a la carte menu of policies, however, and I guarantee I will vote for a mix that address climate, prison reform, cuts defense, reasonably enhances safety nets while eliminating administrative costs (UBI lite), but is also are business friendly, cuts not only regulation but eliminates many federal laws that make doing business costly, and is as revenue neutral as possible.

Yeah, that's a privilege, I guess. I want what I want. So do we all. The radical change away from parties and candidates and platforms, in favor of a al carte policy voting, needs to start somewhere. Think of me like Jesus, or Martin Luther.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This sounds intelligent, as does Malcolm Gladwell, but upon further inspection is helium.

Fine, but you sound like an idiot when you use the word "polarization" to describe the fact that people have different views. Consider what the "poles" in "polarization" are.

I think a lot of conservatives would get behind climate change initiatives. Maybe not the Green New Deal, but something. But when you mix those into a platform including the rest of what the Democrats are selling, they say, "yeah, fuck that."

You are out of your mind. Conservatives deny climate change now, in large part (I think) because progressives care so much about it. The former is empirically undeniable. As the problem has gotten worse, conservatives increasingly deny that it exists and oppose doing anything about it. The current Administration is rolling back air quality protections that industry doesn't want rolled back, just to say "f*ck you" to Obama. That is quintessentially conservative.

This is helium. Your helium. I get the idea behind it, but it results from you thinking too much and thinking you've a high minded explanation for things that you don't. You're right a bit here, as to some conservatives, but nowhere near as much as you think.

Nice talking to you.

Huh? I think most of the institutions that count, where people have power and money, trend conservative. When I'm around conservatives with coin, or power, as I'm sure you'd agree, they don't feel ostracized. They feel sort of embarrassed that a bunch of silly loons like the Squad and people who think similarly really believe they can make a difference. They laugh at people like you, people like me even, and they really laugh at the Trumpkins and the rank and file Democrats who think they'll see a revolution. Those are the real conservatives that matter. Conservatives without power are just whiners, like progressives who never have power.

I guess we are using the word "conservatives" in different ways. You're talking about Republicans. I'm talking about conservatives.

Still want to have a dumb argument about which party is to blame?

No, I was trying to describe polarization.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think, and I think I'm right about this, however, that coming to each issue subjectively, as opposed to coming at it with a bias, will allow for better quality of decisions, conclusions, and yes, opinions. If you come to a subject with a "belief" about it, that colors your view of it. If you come to it open, your view of it is more accurate.

I think, and I think I'm right about this, and I think my thoughts about my thinking are valid, that someone who is unsure of the difference between subjective and objective is perhaps not the best person to deliver facile lectures on the virtue of unbiased analysis.

I also believe, and I believe that I am correct about this, and I believe that my beliefs about what I believe are objectively true, that someone who thinks that they can "come to an issue" without any bias or preconceived notions, is delusional. And that their decisions, conclusions, and yes, opinions, are the least interesting of all because they are unable to recognize that they, like all humans, have beliefs and biases. And they are consequently completely unable to even begin to understand how these beliefs and biases affect and shape their analysis of the issue. And they thus have fool's arrogance of thinking their analysis is somehow more subjective, even though they mean to say objective. Which is ironic. But I do appreciate your wisdom about how our "biases" will "color our views" about things. I'm sure nobody here ever realized that before yesterday.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I do appreciate your wisdom about how our "biases" will "color our views" about things. I'm sure nobody here ever realized that before yesterday.

That could be the starting point for a conversation, though.

Or, we could just wish for a world where everyone sheds their beliefs and thinks objectively.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That could be the starting point for a conversation, though.

Or, we could just wish for a world where everyone sheds their beliefs and thinks objectively.

I look forward to the robot world.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I guess we are using the word "conservatives" in different ways. You're talking about Republicans. I'm talking about conservatives.

It's almost impossible to tell what either of these categories stands for other than raw desire for power. This is the result of years of embracing hypocrisy as a core value.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's almost impossible to tell what either of these categories stands for other than raw desire for power. This is the result of years of embracing hypocrisy as a core value.

"Republicans" are comfortable being on the right, but also comfortable being the establishment. "Conservatives" are in a state of (increasingly populist) reaction, and see Republicans as part of the problem when they are firmly in power. When conservatives are in power, they struggle because they can't complain about the people in power; also, exercising power forces pragmatic compromise with reality, which makes it harder to sustain grievance. (Trump, for example, has the most powerful job in the country, and keeps complaining about his poor treatment at the hands of the media, bureaucrats who work for him, etc. It's absurd, but it works for him because it's so authentic.)

Republicans care about power, and are willing to be hypocritical to get it (like many Democrats, and many other people). Conservatives are motivated by grievance, and are not so much hypocritical as willing to argue in bad faith because they feel that mainstream discourse is structured to disadvantage them.