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

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Have heard some Democratic Congresscritters say this, but not enough.

Given that it's exactly what the whistleblower said, I think you'll be hearing it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

"Values" or "beliefs" are a narcissism that blinds people from seeing each situation subjectively.

Even assuming you mean "objectively," this is more than a little bit sad, on a few different dimensions.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

"Values" or "beliefs" are a narcissism that blinds people from seeing each situation subjectively (sic).

Your "belief" that you possess greater objectivity than others and that your opinions therefore contain more "value" is the most blinding narcissism of all.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Adder

Given that it's exactly what the whistleblower said, I think you'll be hearing it.

I haven't read the redacted complaint, but I see a focus in the media that the complaint alleged Trump implied a threat for political gain which he then tried to hide through classification.

That is different (maybe only slightly) than focusing on him violating Congress' power of the purse, putting Ukraine in jeopardy, and using YOUR money to extort a political hit piece on an enemy (dems should compare Trump to Nixon, his enemies list, misuse of office for political purposes, and resultant resignation in the face of impeachment as often as possible).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Are you really so stupid as to believe that this is how people, much less politicians, actually make decisions? Because it isn't.

Not entirely. Many politicians will do so here because they need some framework within which to work and some authorities to cite. Others will just decide with some emotional or "gut" justification. The ones who matter - GOP senators, should it come to that - will decide based on politics. They will have aides using some form of the court rules to craft two releases:

1. Justification for throwing Trump out, if that seems the safe or advantageous political route;
2. Justification for acquitting Trump, if that seems the safe or advantageous political route.

There will be a mix of legal standards used in this stuff because either way these guys go, they have to have looked at it carefully. Also, their lawyers will be involved.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Your "belief" that you possess greater objectivity than others and that your opinions therefore contain more "value" is the most blinding narcissism of all.

I don't think my opinions are of greater value. I think, as the saying goes, opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Don't overlegalize impeachment.

In a hyperpolarized political environment, it’s tempting to analyze all problems through a legal lens. The law is one of the few American institutions remaining with a claim to legitimacy, which it maintains by virtue of its neutrality. But it shouldn’t be the only standard by which presidents are judged. The purpose of the criminal law is to decide who goes to jail; the question of what counts as a “high crime and misdemeanor” is meant to determine when a chief executive is no longer fit for office. There is obviously some overlap, but criminality is neither necessary nor sufficient. And although impeachment is an inherently political process, that doesn’t mean it is any less legitimate or less respectful of the rule of law than is the criminal process. Long-standing constitutional norms counsel against using impeachment except in the gravest of circumstances and certainly not as a tool of partisan warfare. The Clinton impeachment suggests that voters will punish politicians who push impeachment for frivolous reasons. And the high procedural barriers—impeachment by House majority followed by removal by two-thirds of the Senate—ensure a kind of due process, both for the president and for the people who voted for him.

There will be time to sort out the issues of legal criminality; impeachment doesn’t preclude that, and it may well turn out that Trump broke the law. But right now the focus should be on whether Trump satisfied his constitutional duties: to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” We won’t need the criminal law to know if he’s failed.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Even assuming you mean "objectively," this is more than a little bit sad, on a few different dimensions.

I do mean it objectively. And it is sad. Look around us at all the polarization. Are these mobs of animated and often angry people all thinking subjectively about each issue? No. They're emoting, or they're sticking to some ethos. It's impossible to not do so as I think those instincts are hardwired into us. But it's worth recognizing this flaw in our makeup.

And I don't think people have to become robots to overcome this. We merely need to remind ourselves everything is unique. There are endless scenarios we encounter, and hewing to some core set of "beliefs" can impede our ability to most effectively and cooperatively navigate them.

The "bundling" element of our politics, I think, has to go. I think it has a lot to do with this polarization because it compels people to get behind sets of issues rather than address each issue individually. It forms groups aligned against one another. It compels a devil's bargain with each vote, and it stifles innovation.

Right now, if climate change were a referendum issue, you might see a Green New Deal. But because climate change has to be bundled into a pile of other issues that split the people who'd vote to address it, it's going to be 85 degrees for the next three weeks in the Northeast, and Greenland is melting.

John McCain argued for unbundling cable packages years ago - for allowing an ala carte ordering of channels. We need to dust off his speech there and apply it our politics. This picking sides shit based on "beliefs" and "values" is just creating warring armies of idiots.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Not entirely. Many politicians will do so here because they need some framework within which to work and some authorities to cite. Others will just decide with some emotional or "gut" justification. The ones who matter - GOP senators, should it come to that - will decide based on politics. They will have aides using some form of the court rules to craft two releases:

1. Justification for throwing Trump out, if that seems the safe or advantageous political route;
2. Justification for acquitting Trump, if that seems the safe or advantageous political route.

There will be a mix of legal standards used in this stuff because either way these guys go, they have to have looked at it carefully. Also, their lawyers will be involved.

Maybe there are a few principled souls out there somewhere, but the decision making will primarily be political. Everything else is window-dressing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't think my opinions are of greater value. I think, as the saying goes, opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one.

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.

When you say "subjectively" I think you mean "objectively." I only note this as my record here compels me to take every chance to criticize a poor word choice, grammar error etc.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I do mean it objectively. And it is sad. Look around us at all the polarization. Are these mobs of animated and often angry people all thinking subjectively about each issue? No. They're emoting, or they're sticking to some ethos. It's impossible to not do so as I think those instincts are hardwired into us. But it's worth recognizing this flaw in our makeup.

And I don't think people have to become robots to overcome this. We merely need to remind ourselves everything is subjective. There are endless scenarios we encounter, and hewing to some core set of "beliefs" can impede our ability to most effectively and cooperatively navigate them.

The "bundling" element of our politics, I think, has to go. I think it has a lot to do with this polarization because it compels people to get behind sets of issues rather than address each issue individually. It forms groups aligned against one another. It compels a devil's bargain with each vote, and it stifles innovation.

Right now, if climate change were a referendum issue, you might see a Green New Deal. But because climate change has to be bundled into a pile of other issues that split the people who'd vote to address it, it's going to be 85 degrees for the next three weeks in the Northeast, and Greenland is melting.

John McCain argued for unbundling cable packages years ago - for allowing an ala carte ordering of channels. We need to dust off his speech there and apply it our politics. This picking sides shit based on "beliefs" and "values" is just creating warring armies of idiots.

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.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

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.

Another instant classic.



TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

When you say "subjectively" I think you mean "objectively." I only note this as my record here compels me to take every chance to criticize a poor word choice, grammar error etc.

Haha. Good call. Christ, that's a fuckup. I think what I'm really looking for is discretely. Uniquely. I was trying to express a need to take everything on a one on one or one-off basis. You can objectively group things.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Another instant classic.



TM

Deserved.

[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