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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You should edit most of yours to change "conservative" to "populist."

Biden is the conservative, traditional candidate this cycle. Trump is a populist. He is not a conservative. Trump is classically liberal, interventionist, willing to upset norms.

I know this upsets the framework you use to preach about one party being reactionary and one party not being so. But, well... facts.

Trump is what conservatism is now. You are using a dictionary definition that no longer describes the conservative movement. They have voted with their feet. And if you're going to describe Trump's party as populist instead of conservative, aren't you acknowledging its reactionary core? Do you think Trump is about preserving anything? "Make America Great Again" is definitionally reactionary. The policies on which he has the strongest instincts -- immigration, trade -- are not "conservative" in your sense in the slightest.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I will never vote for an ex-prosecutor and corporate hack like Harris.

This is beyond stupid when some lefty purist says it. What's your excuse?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

But I think there may be votes lost by faked stories. Doesn’t mean much as we can’t stop it.

How many votes are at issue? I feel a lot, as I think we have lots of people who know in their heart he is bad but might not want to believe it, but will unless they can lie to themselves it isn’t true.

I feel there may be a lot of such people. You and Thurgreed think there are few. Just not sure why you two have the chops to know that answer. Seems a bit pompous. Hope you are right, don’t misunderstand, just not a fan of you all dismissing arguments because “you know.”

You guys aren't even that far apart. You include in the universe of people those who may vote for him because even though they may have heard a bunch of awful, terrible shit about Trump, an inaccurate (or not completely substantiated news report) negative piece on Trump may influence them. You think that number of people may be significant or maybe just not de minimis.

Ty and I are saying, (i) people--even low-information ones--who can be influenced to believe that everything negative (and actually substantiated) about Trump is made up because Lawrence O'Donnell may have jumped the gun on something are looking for anything to justify that vote and (ii) there is no way to avoid making any kind of mistake in a world of 24 hour-constant, unending news.

Ty and I are saying that you can't include the people who fall into my first point in your calculation. As to the second point, yes. I wish all journalists would be extra careful in their reporting. But acting like that's even possible and whining about how sloppy reporting is going to give this lunatic another term is just stupid, homie.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Shoot the bear and kill it or don't shoot. Democrats look like losers.

Trump looked like a loser with the birther thing. Which is why he walked it back. Obama was a winner. He wore it. He owned it. He had The Smile. Hillary was not.

Obama could kill Trump. He knows how to kill Trump. Biden may know how to kill Trump.

The media is filled with whiny losers. The same way the whiny losers at Fox could not undo Obama. Like it or not, Trump and Obama share that "fuck the opponent" swagger. Should we elect presidents on this basis? Probably not. But we're dumb animals acting more on instinct than we know. This is the playing field.



You don't have impeachment because you haven't been able to make a compelling enough case for it politically and in the media. If the GOP can reshape the system (which progressives also seek to do), you have to play by the rules enforced on you. When you win, you get to change the rules.

Is this a good way to run things? Fuck no. But as long as we have adversarial systems in control, this is the wrestling match we endure.



If you've money enough to matter, you're ahead of the tariff silliness. If it's hurting you, as it hurts me, you're a nobody. I'm a nobody. But I'm not missing any meals.



It is all related. And Hank and I have been telling you, why allow the media to be a proxy/whipping boy for Democrats? It's just fucking dumb. Drop this Russia shit and start focusing on how the Trump tax cuts favor well heeled r/e investors.



Chinese water torture works drip by drip. A wall is built with thousands of bricks. Trust me when I tell you, Trump is creating an impression in the Blue Wall that his detractors are insane malcontents. I voted for John Kerry in 2004 and was sure, among all my friends in Philly, that we would right the injustice of the Iraq War. I went to bed drunk and happy and sure the nation would know W was a reckless fool, based on what the media had done for the prior 4 years, and what it had done during the campaign.

I woke up pissed.

If you buy Ty's view, you may wake up seriously pissed in November of next year.

You are insane. There is no point even addressing the objectively ridiculous shit you say in this post.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-the-libs.html

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'm always entertained by how identity works in America. Trump is a traditional conservative, his jingoistic nationalism is right in line with the icons of the right, Goldwater and Reagan, his approach to civil rights is, too, his economics are really not far off (cut taxes and all else follows), his court appointments look identical .... he's just even more of an asshole and a moron than they were, which is why conservatives try to redefine conservatism without him.

Dr. Frankenstein, meet your monster.

It seems everyone has a slightly different definition of conservative. None are necessarily wrong, but they differ enough that the term really has no meaning anymore.

To demonstrate, my grandparents on one side were classic conservatives. They were in favor of low taxes and non-intervention in foreign conflicts unless absolutely necessary. They were not absolutist on anything. They understood the need for regulation but wanted it to be as minimal as possible while still effecting desired oversight. They were involved in finance, but my grandfather hated greedy people. I recall the old man emphasizing hard work and being quiet -- slow accumulation and no ostentatious behavior. Boring.

He refused to trade with people who treated their livestock badly. The idea of "conserving" applied roundly, to everything -- to not being wasteful or consuming more than you needed.

Those values are what I understood to be "conservative." This continues to color my view of the term. I think of conservatives as good stewards of resources, as reasonable people.

I fear your definition is probably now a lot more accurate than mine. But it's hard for me to get the old definition out of my head. It's hard for me to see these interventionist, activist people who don't really give a shit about individual liberty or "conserving" anything for the next generations as anything but dumb, reckless people who want to enforce their stupid rules on others.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Trump is what conservatism is now. You are using a dictionary definition that no longer describes the conservative movement. They have voted with their feet. And if you're going to describe Trump's party as populist instead of conservative, aren't you acknowledging its reactionary core? Do you think Trump is about preserving anything? "Make America Great Again" is definitionally reactionary. The policies on which he has the strongest instincts -- immigration, trade -- are not "conservative" in your sense in the slightest.

I don't think populism is reactionary. I mean, you can see it that way, true. But isn't it really more insurgent? Trump's populism seems more Mao or Lenin than William Jennings Bryan.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-the-libs.html

TM

I think buying Greenland is an excellent idea. Too bad Trump screwed it up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It seems everyone has a slightly different definition of conservative. None are necessarily wrong, but they differ enough that the term really has no meaning anymore.

To demonstrate, my grandparents on one side were classic conservatives. They were in favor of low taxes and non-intervention in foreign conflicts unless absolutely necessary. They were not absolutist on anything. They understood the need for regulation but wanted it to be as minimal as possible while still effecting desired oversight. They were involved in finance, but my grandfather hated greedy people. I recall the old man emphasizing hard work and being quiet -- slow accumulation and no ostentatious behavior. Boring.

He refused to trade with people who treated their livestock badly. The idea of "conserving" applied roundly, to everything -- to not being wasteful or consuming more than you needed.

Those values are what I understood to be "conservative." This continues to color my view of the term. I think of conservatives as good stewards of resources, as reasonable people.

I fear your definition is probably now a lot more accurate than mine. But it's hard for me to get the old definition out of my head. It's hard for me to see these interventionist, activist people who don't really give a shit about individual liberty or "conserving" anything for the next generations as anything but dumb, reckless people who want to enforce their stupid rules on others.

You are stuck on the idea that "conservative" refers to some set of intellectual principles or policies. It doesn't. Conservatism is whatever conservatives believe. It's primarily a tribal affiliation, defining itself in reaction and opposition to the rest of the country, and the ideas follow from that. During the Obama years, conservatism meant fiscal restraint, because conservatism were against whatever Obama wanted to spend money on. Now it means the opposite, because conservatives are spending the money. As Slate says, the core of conservatism is triggering the libs. Conservatism is in favor free speech when conservatives are speaking on college campuses and against free speech when Facebook and Twitter are running social media platforms. Conservatism is pro-law enforcement when police are stopping black drivers, and anti-law enforcement when the FBI is investigating Russian campaign interference. There is no intellectual principle involved.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't think populism is reactionary. I mean, you can see it that way, true. But isn't it really more insurgent?

Populism is a reaction to cosmopolitan elites. An insurgency is a form of armed rebellion. I can't think of a populist movement that has turned into an insurgency.

Trump's populism seems more Mao or Lenin than William Jennings Bryan.

What are you taking? That is some pretty potent shit.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You are insane. There is no point even addressing the objectively ridiculous shit you say in this post.

TM

I'm thinking about it more broadly. You're assuming certain things as predicates. You and I can't discuss this issue, I think, because you require that I acknowledge that the GOP has "destroyed the entire system." If I don't accept that predicate, almost all of the rest of what you've written fails.

I don't accept that predicate. It's one of many causes.

You also assert that "three years of constant news of complete corruption and numerous fucking scandals, self-dealing, and favoritism to our fucking enemy" is proof of those things. It isn't. It's news about allegations of those things, and some facts that suggest those things are taking place. But has there been a court finding he engaged in self-dealing? No. Has he acted favorably to Putin? Yes. But has it been proven this is for some nefarious reason? No.

So your points there, which seem to be: (1) that we should all be incensed at this man; and, (2) that anyone who isn't incensed at him is willfully ignorant or complicit in his awfulness, are based on your views. You seem to think no one has any valid reason to disagree with your view that Trump is awful.

But they do. And they can. And unless he's convicted of something or impeached, it's just you and everybody else who hates him telling everyone who doesn't, or doesn't care, how they must think. If you don't understand how this alienates voters on the fence, I fear you might be insane.

I think you're entitled to your opinion. But I think your opinion, that every criticism about Trump should be turned up to 11 and the media should continue to act aggressively as possible in attacking him is smart policy is actually unwise and counterproductive.

Don't be so certain about what you think you know. This is how you wound up with 2016. I knew Hillary was going to win. I was not humble. Hank was the only one who said, "You might be wrong." I suspect most of us made fun of him. Who was right?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Non-political question for all of you: I'm trying to hire a paralegal. I'm surprised by (a) the relatively low quality of the applicants, from what I can tell, and (b) how many have or are in the process of getting law degrees from poorly respected law schools. Are there a lot of people with fourth-tier law degrees working as paralegals?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Populism is a reaction to cosmopolitan elites. An insurgency is a form of armed rebellion. I can't think of a populist movement that has turned into an insurgency.

The guy is gutting the govt. This is not reaction - this is an active effort to radically alter our course and future.

What are you taking? That is some pretty potent shit.

He's trying to rip apart the established systems from inside. I was looking for superlatives because, well, even I fall into using crazy analogues when talking about Trump. It's hard not to do so.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The guy is gutting the govt. This is not reaction - this is an active effort to radically alter our course and future.



He's trying to rip apart the established systems from inside. I was looking for superlatives because, well, even I fall into using crazy analogues when talking about Trump. It's hard not to do so.

You mean he's trying to "starve the beast"? Where have I heard that before?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The guy is gutting the govt. This is not reaction - this is an active effort to radically alter our course and future.

I appreciate your hyperbole, but changing the government from the inside is not an insurgency.

He's trying to rip apart the established systems from inside. I was looking for superlatives because, well, even I fall into using crazy analogues when talking about Trump. It's hard not to do so.

The differences with Mao and Lenin are far greater than the similarities.