Jump to content

The Political Thread - Machiavelli Edition


Recommended Posts

Regulating anything, denying anything, it's all bad. All of it. If Swift is increasing voter registration that's certainly good. Too bad the new voters are going to vote to take things away from other people. But that's what happens when people think they have only two choices. But that's just how it is in the USA now. It's not about good public policy (if it ever was) it's just about electing people who will f--k over the half of the country you've been told are your enemies.

 

The beauty of the American political system is that it corrects. The Democrats had all the power in 2008. They pissed a lot of people off and lost the House in 2010, the Senate and most of the governorship in 2012, and everything in 2016. After 2016 you could drive from Miami to Spokane Washington and not pass through any district, state or federal with a Democrat representative. The Republicans controlled everything. They are pissing people off and it looks like the Dems will take the House in 2018, in 2020 probably take the Senate if not the WH. And if they do take everything they will piss people off, the Republicans will take the House in 2022 and the cycle continues. It happens in 1992, 1994, 1996, & 2000. Then again in 2000, 2004, and 2006. On an on it goes.

most democratic governments aren't limited to two parties. which may be why 40% of US citizens never vote, they're eager for option C or D but it doesn't really exists. That way, 'correction' wouldn't have to be so drastic every time.

  • Like 1

Remember: Argue the point, not the person. Remain polite and constructive. Friendly forums have friendly debate. There's no shame in being wrong. If you don't have something to add, don't post for the sake of it. And don't be afraid to post thoughts you are uncertain about, that's what discussion is for.
---
Pet threads, everyone has them. I love imagining Gods, Monsters, Factions and Weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In other news, hooligans duke it out on the streets. Fun times.

"When they go low we kick them". This is what you get for inciting violence.

 

 except when you look up the full video, you understand that FOX news cut it off right there and ignored the nuance that completely changes the message.

Remember: Argue the point, not the person. Remain polite and constructive. Friendly forums have friendly debate. There's no shame in being wrong. If you don't have something to add, don't post for the sake of it. And don't be afraid to post thoughts you are uncertain about, that's what discussion is for.
---
Pet threads, everyone has them. I love imagining Gods, Monsters, Factions and Weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In other news, hooligans duke it out on the streets. Fun times.

"When they go low we kick them". This is what you get for inciting violence.

 

 except when you look up the full video, you understand that FOX news cut it off right there and ignored the nuance that completely changes the message.

 

Yep

 

 

“No, no,” Holder says. “When they go low, we kick 'em. That’s what this new Democratic Party is about."

 
Several minutes later, Holder clarifies that he’s not advocating anything illicit.
 
"When I say we, you know, ‘We kick ‘em,’ I don’t mean we do anything inappropriate. We don’t do anything illegal,” Holder said. “But we got to be tough, and we have to fight for the very things that [civil rights leaders] John Lewis, Martin Luther King, Whitney Young – you know, all those folks gave to us.”

But it messes with the narrative. It's in the same video you just have to watch for longer than the 30 second sound bite. Also, they are chanting "Vote!" ... really scary

Free games updated 3/4/21

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In other news, hooligans duke it out on the streets. Fun times.

"When they go low we kick them". This is what you get for inciting violence.

 

 except when you look up the full video, you understand that FOX news cut it off right there and ignored the nuance that completely changes the message.

 

Yep

 

“No, no,” Holder says. “When they go low, we kick 'em. That’s what this new Democratic Party is about."

 

Several minutes later, Holder clarifies that he’s not advocating anything illicit.

 

"When I say we, you know, ‘We kick ‘em,’ I don’t mean we do anything inappropriate. We don’t do anything illegal,” Holder said. “But we got to be tough, and we have to fight for the very things that [civil rights leaders] John Lewis, Martin Luther King, Whitney Young – you know, all those folks gave to us.”

But it messes with the narrative. It's in the same video you just have to watch for longer than the 30 second sound bite. Also, they are chanting "Vote!" ... really scary

 

Voting is a violent act.

"I am the expert, asshat." - Hurlshot

"You need to be careful, lest I write another ten page essay on mythology and how it relates to Sailor Moon." - majestic

"I won't say what just in case KaineParker is reading" - Bartimaeus

"Oh no! Is there super secret ending as well? I don’t care." - Wormerine

Link to post
Share on other sites

"When I say we, you know, ‘We kick ‘em,’ I don’t mean we do anything inappropriate. We don’t do anything illegal,” Holder said. “But we got to be tough, and we have to fight for the very things that [civil rights leaders] John Lewis, Martin Luther King, Whitney Young – you know, all those folks gave to us.”

 

Oh, please. You take his 'clarification' at face value? Both parties are run by psychopaths who love violence - as long as it is done by their groupupon the other group. That is simply fact.

 

How many times has a some lefty committed an act of violence and their 'side' argues that they were 'provoked' by mean words. And, the righty does the same thing.

 

All of them love violence.

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's obviously not telling people to literally go kick republicans. It's the same with Hillary Clinton's statement. I don't like Hillary Clinton, I think she's awful, but she obviously did not intend to incite violence. Come on.

 

Their point is that Democrats should go on the offensive, point out Republican bull**** instead of just sitting by meekly. I know Beto O'Rourke for example is getting criticised a lot for being too polite to Ted Cruz - when he could be a lot tougher on him and his past.

Edited by Thingolfin
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"If you're mean to us we'll shoot ourself in the other foot as well!"

 

The relatively small war in Yemen already has Saudi going through its reserves quickly. Whatever threats they have would hurt themselves more than their target especially if they have multiple targets. Sit tight until it blows over and splash out a bit of money to influencers and interference runners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

43419374_10155885751401724_4483151468462

I would also add inadequate to the title. False equivalency and all that.

I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"*

 

*If you can't tell, it's you. ;)

village_idiot.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ou tell me:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/calls-for-civility-after-vandalism-violent-clashes-outside-gop-headquarters-in-new-york

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/410566-clinton-you-cant-be-civil-with-a-party-that-wants-to-destroy

https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/08/antifa-protesters-portland-traffic-riot/

http://abcnews.go.com/US/sen-rand-paul-blindsided-kentucky-home/story?id=50933869

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kentucky-democrat-reportedly-jokes-about-rand-paul-assault-he-can-be-beaten

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/09/25/ted-cruz-restaurant-brett-kavanaugh-protesters/1419181002/

http://www.startribune.com/rosemount-educator-on-leave-after-tweeting-kill-kavanaugh/495903561/

 

 

Of course some of this is all hat and no cattle. But I never once heard any prominent Republicans call for Obama's assassination. Or for Elena Kagans. Or Sotomayors. Of that their children should be kidnapped and raped. No one ever shot up a field of Democrats playing baseball. Or assaulted one in their home.  Not saying there is no violence from the right. There definitely is. But generally the right leaning leaders are not calling for it. Not so the other way.

 

Nazi, left wing, right wing... what it comes down to is are you so determined to have power over other people you are willing to hurt them or kill them to get it? Plain to see where that is going in this country at least. As for me I am a firm believer in the Non aggression principle. But I am also a firm believer in actively and forcefully defending myself.

 

https://qz.com/1182778/the-far-right-was-responsible-for-the-majority-of-extremist-killings-in-2017/

https://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255619/fact-check-is-left-wing-violence-rising?t=1539535571134

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/08/21/which-ideology-has-inspired-the-most-murders-in-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil/

 

This is data, and it bears repeating that the plural of anecdote isn't data.

 

What prominent Democrats have called for Trump's assassination? Honest question.

 

It's good that you have at least amended your view that violence all seems to be coming from one side—even if you accept that perpetrators can be placed anywhere in the normal political spectrum.

 

This isn't a study. It's a conversation. That wasn't data, it was examples. You and I are not going to convince each other of anything. We are and will always be opposite on almost everything from a philosophical standpoint. But that isn't the objective. The conversation itself is the objective. So please keep you observation on what is data and what is anecdote. The credibility of news sources and content in in the eye of the beholder. (speaking generally not to the specific stories you linked).

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Regulating anything, denying anything, it's all bad. All of it. If Swift is increasing voter registration that's certainly good. Too bad the new voters are going to vote to take things away from other people. But that's what happens when people think they have only two choices. But that's just how it is in the USA now. It's not about good public policy (if it ever was) it's just about electing people who will f--k over the half of the country you've been told are your enemies.

 

The beauty of the American political system is that it corrects. The Democrats had all the power in 2008. They pissed a lot of people off and lost the House in 2010, the Senate and most of the governorship in 2012, and everything in 2016. After 2016 you could drive from Miami to Spokane Washington and not pass through any district, state or federal with a Democrat representative. The Republicans controlled everything. They are pissing people off and it looks like the Dems will take the House in 2018, in 2020 probably take the Senate if not the WH. And if they do take everything they will piss people off, the Republicans will take the House in 2022 and the cycle continues. It happens in 1992, 1994, 1996, & 2000. Then again in 2000, 2004, and 2006. On an on it goes.

most democratic governments aren't limited to two parties. which may be why 40% of US citizens never vote, they're eager for option C or D but it doesn't really exists. That way, 'correction' wouldn't have to be so drastic every time.

 

You hit the nail square on the head. They saddest part is there ARE other options. The problem with "third parties" (even though most races field 4 candidates of more) is that people are always told "they can't win" That is only true if people think it is. If people voted for third party candidates they WOULD win. And one win helps another and another and another. One thing the Democrats and Republicans agree on (one on many, many things) is to deny ballot access and debate invitations to Libertarians, Greens, etc. The message you hear over and over is "Voting 3rd party is throwing you vote away" and is the same as voting for the party you are supposed to hate. The two parties are well invested in their fostered hatreds.

 

One of the biggest motivations for voting these days is to defeat the alternative rather than vote FOR anyone. It got Trump elected. So they compel people to choose the "lesser evil". But all you get is evil that way. Sauron or Saurman? Pick one! That Aragorn guy? He's third party, he can't win! Don't throw your vote away!

Edited by Guard Dog
  • Like 1

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.thedailybeast.com/elizabeth-warren-releases-native-american-dna-test-results

 

https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/1051783184390664192

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/09/01/did-claiming-native-american-heritage-actually-help-elizabeth-warren-get-ahead-but-complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html

 

So she is Pocahontas after all? Or maybe "leftist" DNA tests doesn't count?

 

I'll never understand why people dislike Elizabeth Warren so much. I can understand not agreeing with her politically, but she seems far more ready to fight corruption than most politicians.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/elizabeth-warren-releases-native-american-dna-test-results

 

https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/1051783184390664192

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/09/01/did-claiming-native-american-heritage-actually-help-elizabeth-warren-get-ahead-but-complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html

 

So she is Pocahontas after all? Or maybe "leftist" DNA tests doesn't count?

 

I'll never understand why people dislike Elizabeth Warren so much. I can understand not agreeing with her politically, but she seems far more ready to fight corruption than most politicians.

LOL. 6-10 generations. In that case I'm native Egiptian. What a joke. Are you trolling Thingolfin or aee you really so indoctrinated.

 

It matches what she's been saying earlier on. The current Chief of the Cherokee Nation, Bill John Baker is only 1/32nd Native as well. She never said she was fullblooded Indian. You are the troll.

Edited by Thingolfin
Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't a study. It's a conversation. That wasn't data, it was examples. You and I are not going to convince each other of anything. We are and will always be opposite on almost everything from a philosophical standpoint. But that isn't the objective. The conversation itself is the objective. So please keep you observation on what is data and what is anecdote. The credibility of news sources and content in in the eye of the beholder. (speaking generally not to the specific stories you linked).

You have a scientific background, so I don't need to remind you that studies are generally the only way we can reliably reach objective conclusions about reality. It's entirely possible that those studies are somehow flawed (relevant in light of the Sokal 2.0 thing a few pages back), but I wasn't able to find anything better. I suppose I can't say your original statement was strictly wrong, as you said the violence "seems" to be coming all from one side. It certainly "seems" that way, if you deliberately choose sources like Fox News and exclude anything with an iota more journalistic rigor. My point was simply that it's really not. If we're not taking facts into consideration, we might as well go full-on flat earther.

 

And it's funny that you think we're so diametrically opposed ideologically. The only significant contention point I can think of is the importance you ascribe to the right to private property in the scale of fundamental rights.

  • Like 1

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-interview-60-minutes-full-transcript-lesley-stahl-jamal-khashoggi-james-mattis-brett-kavanaugh-vladimir-putin-2018-10-14/

 

 


Lesley Stahl: Are you willing to get rid of that Western alliance?

President Donald Trump: Now, I like NATO, NATO's fine. But you know what? We shouldn't be paying almost the entire cost of NATO to protect Europe. And then on top of that, they take advantage of us on trade. They're not going to do it anymore. They understand that.

Lesley Stahl: Okay, but are, it does seem this, are you willing to disrupt the Western Alliance? It's been going for 70 years. It's kept the peace for 70 years.

President Donald Trump: You don't know that. You don't know that.

Lesley Stahl: I don't know what?

President Donald Trump: You don't know that.

Lesley Stahl: Is it true General Mattis said to you, "The reason for NATO and the reason for all these alliances is to prevent World War III?"

President Donald Trump: No, it's not true.

Lesley Stahl: What's not true?

President Donald Trump: Frankly, I like General Mattis. I think I know more about it than he does. And I know more about it from the standpoint of fairness, that I can tell you.

Lesley Stahl: I'm gonna try one more time. Okay.

President Donald Trump: I know-- and, Lesley, you don't have to try again. I know exactly what you're saying--

Lesley Stahl: Well, answer my question.

President Donald Trump: The answer is this. I will always be there with NATO, but they have to pay their way. I'm fully in favor of NATO, but I don't wanna be taken advantage of.

 

Poor Mattis.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites

And it's funny that you think we're so diametrically opposed ideologically. The only significant contention point I can think of is the importance you ascribe to the right to private property in the scale of fundamental rights.

The preservation and protection of property is the core of the (american)libertarian ideology, disagreement with that does diametrically oppose you to libertarians.

"I am the expert, asshat." - Hurlshot

"You need to be careful, lest I write another ten page essay on mythology and how it relates to Sailor Moon." - majestic

"I won't say what just in case KaineParker is reading" - Bartimaeus

"Oh no! Is there super secret ending as well? I don’t care." - Wormerine

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more Native than Warren and nobody is gonna is mistake me for being  one. I'm whitey mc white.

 

Nazi.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC Warren put that she was native American on a job or grant application when(forget which)  she was in her 20's. People lie (or embellish) on those things for preferential treatment. Fast forward 40 years later and she's running for Senate and  that application gets dug up. So she is presented with two options:

  1. Come clean and admit she lied 40+ years earlier
  2. Stick with the lie, no matter how preposterous it is.

She opted for door #2

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to post
Share on other sites

please keep you observation on what is data and what is anecdote. The credibility of news sources and content in in the eye of the beholder.

 

 

SUCH POSTMODERN NEO-MARXISM REEEEEEEEEE

  • Like 1

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC Warren put that she was native American on a job or grant application when(forget which)  she was in her 20's. People lie (or embellish) on those things for preferential treatment. Fast forward 40 years later and she's running for Senate and  that application gets dug up. So she is presented with two options:

  1. Come clean and admit she lied 40+ years earlier
  2. Stick with the lie, no matter how preposterous it is.

She opted for door #2

 

I'd like to see the actual test itself, but to be honest, I personally don't really care whether she has Native American ancestry or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Regulating anything, denying anything, it's all bad. All of it. If Swift is increasing voter registration that's certainly good. Too bad the new voters are going to vote to take things away from other people. But that's what happens when people think they have only two choices. But that's just how it is in the USA now. It's not about good public policy (if it ever was) it's just about electing people who will f--k over the half of the country you've been told are your enemies.

 

The beauty of the American political system is that it corrects. The Democrats had all the power in 2008. They pissed a lot of people off and lost the House in 2010, the Senate and most of the governorship in 2012, and everything in 2016. After 2016 you could drive from Miami to Spokane Washington and not pass through any district, state or federal with a Democrat representative. The Republicans controlled everything. They are pissing people off and it looks like the Dems will take the House in 2018, in 2020 probably take the Senate if not the WH. And if they do take everything they will piss people off, the Republicans will take the House in 2022 and the cycle continues. It happens in 1992, 1994, 1996, & 2000. Then again in 2000, 2004, and 2006. On an on it goes.

most democratic governments aren't limited to two parties. which may be why 40% of US citizens never vote, they're eager for option C or D but it doesn't really exists. That way, 'correction' wouldn't have to be so drastic every time.

 

You hit the nail square on the head. They saddest part is there ARE other options. The problem with "third parties" (even though most races field 4 candidates of more) is that people are always told "they can't win" That is only true if people think it is. If people voted for third party candidates they WOULD win. And one win helps another and another and another. One thing the Democrats and Republicans agree on (one on many, many things) is to deny ballot access and debate invitations to Libertarians, Greens, etc. The message you hear over and over is "Voting 3rd party is throwing you vote away" and is the same as voting for the party you are supposed to hate. The two parties are well invested in their fostered hatreds.

 

One of the biggest motivations for voting these days is to defeat the alternative rather than vote FOR anyone. It got Trump elected. So they compel people to choose the "lesser evil". But all you get is evil that way. Sauron or Saurman? Pick one! That Aragorn guy? He's third party, he can't win! Don't throw your vote away!

 

 

Actually the problem isn't that people are told that the third parties can't win, its that somehow or another people in the democratic process believe that you have to vote for the winner, for some reason.

 

Are they handing out $20s to everyone who backed the winning candidate?  If not then back the candidate you believe in.  If you don't believe in any of them, given them a vote of no confidence by voting for a fictional character.

 

The only wasted vote is the one not made.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Regulating anything, denying anything, it's all bad. All of it. If Swift is increasing voter registration that's certainly good. Too bad the new voters are going to vote to take things away from other people. But that's what happens when people think they have only two choices. But that's just how it is in the USA now. It's not about good public policy (if it ever was) it's just about electing people who will f--k over the half of the country you've been told are your enemies.

 

The beauty of the American political system is that it corrects. The Democrats had all the power in 2008. They pissed a lot of people off and lost the House in 2010, the Senate and most of the governorship in 2012, and everything in 2016. After 2016 you could drive from Miami to Spokane Washington and not pass through any district, state or federal with a Democrat representative. The Republicans controlled everything. They are pissing people off and it looks like the Dems will take the House in 2018, in 2020 probably take the Senate if not the WH. And if they do take everything they will piss people off, the Republicans will take the House in 2022 and the cycle continues. It happens in 1992, 1994, 1996, & 2000. Then again in 2000, 2004, and 2006. On an on it goes.

most democratic governments aren't limited to two parties. which may be why 40% of US citizens never vote, they're eager for option C or D but it doesn't really exists. That way, 'correction' wouldn't have to be so drastic every time.

 

You hit the nail square on the head. They saddest part is there ARE other options. The problem with "third parties" (even though most races field 4 candidates of more) is that people are always told "they can't win" That is only true if people think it is. If people voted for third party candidates they WOULD win. And one win helps another and another and another. One thing the Democrats and Republicans agree on (one on many, many things) is to deny ballot access and debate invitations to Libertarians, Greens, etc. The message you hear over and over is "Voting 3rd party is throwing you vote away" and is the same as voting for the party you are supposed to hate. The two parties are well invested in their fostered hatreds.

 

One of the biggest motivations for voting these days is to defeat the alternative rather than vote FOR anyone. It got Trump elected. So they compel people to choose the "lesser evil". But all you get is evil that way. Sauron or Saurman? Pick one! That Aragorn guy? He's third party, he can't win! Don't throw your vote away!

 

 

Actually the problem isn't that people are told that the third parties can't win, its that somehow or another people in the democratic process believe that you have to vote for the winner, for some reason.

 

Are they handing out $20s to everyone who backed the winning candidate?  If not then back the candidate you believe in.  If you don't believe in any of them, given them a vote of no confidence by voting for a fictional character.

 

The only wasted vote is the one not made.

 

 

Or a blank ballot even. It'd be interesting if blank ballots were legitly counted like they were in Brazils recent Presidential election.

 

Anyhow, the real reason Warren is doing all of this is because she is so obviously running for President: https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/politics/elizabeth-warren-2020-dna-test/index.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC Warren put that she was native American on a job or grant application when(forget which)  she was in her 20's. People lie (or embellish) on those things for preferential treatment. Fast forward 40 years later and she's running for Senate and  that application gets dug up. So she is presented with two options:

  1. Come clean and admit she lied 40+ years earlier
  2. Stick with the lie, no matter how preposterous it is.

She opted for door #2

 

Source on that?

 

https://t.co/LTQ6d1sMwM

 

""In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren’s professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman."

 The Boston Globe

Edited by Thingolfin
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...