Politics 20/20

[ComradeYellow]

Huh, ain't that something.

I wish I could be excited about Joe, but I cannot be.  Alt-right 4chan types seem to like him because he seems to want to restore America to it's unipolar corporate social-darwinistic world domination "but with a friendly smile" brand of politics that so many people are sheep-herded into.

So I guess I'm on team Trump, if only because he's a bit disruptive to the system, maybe the wrong reasons, but I guess if we trend in that direction maybe we'll get to positive change eventually.

Edited October 25, 2020 by ComradeMaster

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

So I guess I'm on team Trump, if only because he's a bit disruptive to the system, maybe the wrong reasons, but I guess if we trend in that direction maybe we'll get to positive change eventually.

Just Push Buttons Until Something Happens 2020

[Gromnir]

39 minutes ago, Achilles said:

Just Push Buttons Until Something Happens 2020

ordo ab chao

say in latin makes sound legit... more legit.

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

so, bs.

Good to see some self reflection from you for once, as you are indeed spouting BS. Now if only you could recognise it more often you wouldn't think Russia was going bankrupt in 6 months, think you were an expert in earthquakes having never heard of the Mercalli scale, nor complain about how people opine ignorantly on the US while telling me how reality in New Zealand exactly matches your personal experience, in the fricking Dakotas. And then there was your defence of Iraq policy and how the US didn't lie...

Still, at least this time you've managed to find a transcript, unless your mythical Hans Blix video, and it's actually relevant. Small improvements, baby steps, but credit where due.

It actually does show the three previous questions had nothing to do with foreign policy, with the bit you highlighted was Johnson supplying a difference between the mainstream parties- and yours personally- beloved policy of blowing up random brown people for reasons either malign or so utterly and repeatedly moronic as to be functionally malign though.

And you omitted the context at the end where it was clear he did know about Aleppo. Funny that.

Quote

 

JOHNSON: Well, with regard to Syria, I do think that it’s a mess. I think that the only way that we deal with Syria is to join hands with Russia to diplomatically bring that at an end. But when we’ve aligned ourselves with — when we’ve supported the opposition of the Free Syrian Army — the Free Syrian Army is also coupled with the Islamists.

And then the fact that we’re also supporting the Kurds and this is — it’s just — it’s just a mess. And that this is the result of regime change that we end up supporting. And, inevitably, these regime changes have led a less-safe world.

GEIST: So alliance with Russia is the solution to Syria. Do you think Vladimir Putin and Russia are good and a reliable partner?

JOHNSON: Well, I think diplomatically that that is the — that that has to be the solution, is joining hands with Russia to bring — to bring this civil war to an end.

BRZEZINSKI: Joe?

SCARBOROUGH: So, Aleppo is the center of a lot of people’s concerns across the planet about the terrible humanitarian crisis that’s unfolding not only in Syria but, especially, in Aleppo.

You asked, “What is Aleppo?” Do you really think that foreign policy is so insignificant that somebody running for President of the United States shouldn’t even know what Aleppo is, where Aleppo is, why Aleppo is so important?

JOHNSON: Well, no, I do understand Aleppo, and I — I understand the crisis that is going on. But when we involve ourselves militarily — when we involve ourselves in these humanitarian issues we end up — we end up with a situation that in most cases is not better, and in many cases ends up being worse.

And we find ourselves always — politicians are up against the wall and asked what to do about these things and this is why we end up committing military force in areas that, like I say, at the end of the day have an unintended consequence of making things worse.

 

And reminder, these journalists were all creaming themselves over Trump bombing Syria, and it was the one thing he had near unanimous support over. No wonder war hawks hate someone who doesn't want hundreds of thousands of more dead, millions more refugees and trillions of wasted dollars.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

2 hours ago, Achilles said:

It's called a "get out the vote" campaign.

My guess is that you voted at least once, but maybe haven't in a while (or vote infrequently). While *how* you vote isn't public record, whether or not you *do* vote or *have* voted is. The fact that Texas seems to be in-play this election means that campaigns are probably pulling out all the stops to get every voter to the polls.

I've seen several of those and this is the first time I've gotten anything besides a mailer for a candidate.

It's probably because in Texas the more people vote, the better the Democrats generally do. This is a big reason why voting in Texas is so inconvenient, especially if you live around urban areas and are working class.

[Gromnir]

*chuckle*

get yourself caught with shorts 'round your ankles and you retreat to old standbys? predictable. terrible part is just as you misrepresent your past fails, you try to misrepresent the interview in spite o' fact folks can see clear what actual occurred.

hardly a gotcha question and nothing at all like you described. we posted in context, unlike somebody...

a gotcha after three previous questions one o' which has johnson mention regime change? you can't possibly be continuing to push the gotcha' schtick given the reality... but here you are. thank you.

did johnson recognize general mideast conflict issue once SYRIA were supplied? sure. can only imagine the fallout if johnson continued to stumble and bumble after mention o' syria. 

oh and low energy zor is not gonna once again cowardly retreat from his blix misrepresentation. can't even be bothered to literal google "hans blix berkeley"? amazing.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Raithe]

https://www.comicsands.com/spencer-cox-chris-peterson-ad-2648426431.html?

Opposing politicians in Utah have released a joint campaign ad, showing that even though they disagree they can still be civil.

Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox of the Republican party and Chris Peterson, a Democrat, created an ad that shows them standing side by side to discuss what they do agree on.

They hope to be “an example" to the rest of America ahead of the general election.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Raithe said:

https://www.comicsands.com/spencer-cox-chris-peterson-ad-2648426431.html?

 

 

My guess is the church told them to play nice

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

I've seen several of those and this is the first time I've gotten anything besides a mailer for a candidate.

It's probably because in Texas the more people vote, the better the Democrats generally do. This is a big reason why voting in Texas is so inconvenient, especially if you live around urban areas and are working class.

Yeah, I just know that they're pulling out all the stops on this one.

[Gromnir]

7 minutes ago, Achilles said:

My guess is the church told them to play nice

am appreciating and agreeing with the sentiment o' the video o' spencer cox and chris peterson, but am wondering if such a video gets made if the race in question were anything but a forgone conclusion. if race were nail bitter close and the candidates nevertheless kept civil and admirable our applause would be a bit more energetic.

while am not as rabid as gd, am admitting to a healthy degree o' cynicism when it comes to american political battles.

HA! Good Fun!

[Pidesco]

32 minutes ago, Raithe said:

https://www.comicsands.com/spencer-cox-chris-peterson-ad-2648426431.html?

 

 

 

They could have switched colours and no one would have noticed the difference.

[Zoraptor]

6 hours ago, Gromnir said:

get yourself caught with shorts 'round your ankles and you retreat to old standbys?

Seriously, do you ever actually read what you post? I complained it was a question with no context after completely unrelated ones (that had context, your transcript showed it) and your own cite shows exactly that. Indeed, with the context added at the end- which you omitted, way to validate my complaints- it's clear that Johnson knew what he was talking about, also as I said. You get the snark first and foremost because you're utterly incapable of arguing anything in even the slightest approximation of good faith.

Here's what the equivalent would be now.

"Mr Trump/ Biden, what's the difference between you and the other candidate?

Which 3rd party candidate is more likely to take votes from you?

Do you worry about the Clinton Effect in 2020?

What's your view on Artsakh?"

... ??? ...

99% chance neither candidate would give an adequate reply. If you phrased it differently- "what's your view on Nagorno Karabakh? (maybe) or the ongoing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan? (definitely)- you'd get a decent answer, if you just throw out 'Artsakh' they're going to be wondering what you mean; some domestic policy acronym, RSAC? artworks being stolen maybe? Art Sacramoni, is he a mafioso related to Johnny Sac' from the Sopranos? unless they've been briefed ludicrously well. That's why, if you're asking in good faith, you say "what's your view on the situation in Syria", or "Aleppo Syria". As your transcript shows they already knew what the general position was, the point was to ask the question in a deliberately unclear way to get a good soundbite, not to get actual information.

Johnson is certainly not blameless, better media training or thinking better on his feet would have helped, but questions are asked that way and in that sequence to get a desired result. And that result is not to inform people of what the candidate thinks, otherwise you'd ask the questrion clearly.

 

[Gromnir]

*sigh*

what you actual said were, 

9 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

The main reason the Johnson/ Aleppo incident happened was not because of ignorance- though inexperience with interviewer technique was definitely a factor- but because it was clearly intended as a gotcha question; supplied by the interviewer with no context out of the blue. Like asking a series of questions about car mechanics then asking someone what a 'microbe' is. Of course someone might be baffled by that question, the previous ones were about tire pressures and which oil grade to use in an older engine and they're naturally going to be thinking that a 'microbe' is something to do with a car.

johnson flub hardly occurs 'cause previous string o' questions has been similar to queries 'bout car mechanics and then he get hit with microbes. first question had johnson literal respond 'bout regime change.

and why on earth do you feel need to reimagine the questions when those questions are there for all to see? is no need to try and invent a simile when exact words and context is available.

question 1) 

"GEIST: That’s a good place to start. For people who don’t know a lot about you and haven’t had a chance to hear and learn about where you stand on the issues, what is the lane for the Johnson-Weld ticket between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? What do you bring that’s different from those two?

"JOHNSON: Well, I think there’s a big six-lane highway down the middle that encompasses 60 percent of Americans. And broadly speaking, fiscally conservative, socially inclusive, skeptical when it comes to our military intervention. Skeptical when it comes to our going in and supporting regime changes that have not resulted in a more safe world — free markets.

"So I think that that encompasses about 60 percent of the electorate and I think that the two-party system has really, really got to the fringes on both sides."

again, since appears lost on zor, johnson specific identifies regime change in response to what is a "who are you," question. 

question 2)

"BARNICLE: Which of those candidates of the two-party system — Republican candidate, Democratic candidate — do you draw the most votes from?

"JOHNSON: You know, in all of these polls it’s just, remarkably, 50-50. Amazingly, I think, though, that with the exception of just a few polls it’s more votes from Hillary.

"BARNICLE: Do you —

"JOHNSON: But I think — I think when it ends up it will really be 50-50."

second question asks candidate from which party johnson is drawing more voters. 

question 3)

"BARNICLE: But do you worry about the Nader effect in 2000?

"JOHNSON: I don’t worry one bit about it. I really do think that the two-party system is broken. I don’t think Democrats are able to balance a checkbook these days. That’s it’s all about bigger government and higher taxes. And then Republicans with, I think, the social agenda. Look, whatever your social inclinations are just don’t force it on me. And I think the Republican Party has gotten really extreme in that category."

question three is no more than a follow-up to question two.

...

and then aleppo

no bs. no reimagine. 

you are comic exposing self with this silliness and nobody here requires a reimagining o' questions when questions and full context is readily available and discernable. were interviewer hitting johnson with question after question on tax reform and then sudden drops a query 'bout some obscure hamlet nobody save those with a subscription to foreign affairs is aware? were like, "asking a series of questions about car mechanics" before hitting johnson with aleppo?  is gotcha only 'cause you misremembered or read somewheres on reddit  that it were a gotcha w/o bothering to do the incidental research needed to see actual questions and context. trend.

if this were a gotcha it were the worst gotcha setup we ever seen. heck, if you need explain how it were a gotcha, then it likely weren't.

as @Hurlshot surmises, am suspecting johnson just didn't know aleppo from ankara. after all, once syria were mentioned, johnson responded as follows:

"JOHNSON: Well, with regard to Syria, I do think that it’s a mess. I think that the only way that we deal with Syria is to join hands with Russia to diplomatically bring that at an end. But when we’ve aligned ourselves with — when we’ve supported the opposition of the Free Syrian Army — the Free Syrian Army is also coupled with the Islamists.

"And then the fact that we’re also supporting the Kurds and this is — it’s just — it’s just a mess. And that this is the result of regime change that we end up supporting. And, inevitably, these regime changes have led a less-safe world."

again johnson mentions regime change in response to first actual question. he were aware and conscious o' regime change topic and am suspecting he were prepared to talk 'bout syria... had a clear prepared response for syria. johnson simple didn't know or recognize the significance o' aleppo. 

try and imagine a gotcha outta this is mild amusing. hang on so tenacious to gotcha narrative when is utter unsupportable from actual questions and context  is laughable... and predictable.

HA! Good Fun!

ps "hans blix berkeley"

 

[BruceVC]

8 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Good to see some self reflection from you for once, as you are indeed spouting BS. Now if only you could recognise it more often you wouldn't think Russia was going bankrupt in 6 months, 

Zora I want to give you some constructive feedback around how you seem to debate generally but specifically with Gromnir

I have noticed you constantly bring up what Gromnir said  years ago around the real weak state of the Russian economy and how "in 6 months the Russian foreign reserve would be exhausted ". So he was wrong with this prediction but this has very little to do with debates you have with Gromnir nowadays and has no relevance to what he is often right about. In life when we bring up comments made years ago in a debate it demonstrates an insecurity or lack of facts about the current topic. Lets focus on the current topic and not so much on  past topics unless relevant

All of us on this forum have been wrong about certain predictions and views around geopolitics, if we used this  as a benchmark of the current veracity of our comments then there would be no point having any debates because  all our current views would be dismissed

Use links or cogent arguments to make your point and spend less time concerned when someone said something years ago that was wrong 

 

 

[Gromnir]

13 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Zora I want to give you some constructive feedback around how you seem to debate generally but specifically with Gromnir

I have noticed you constantly bring up what Gromnir said  years ago around the real weak state of the Russian economy and how "in 6 months the Russian foreign reserve would be exhausted ".

 

 

wasn't our prediction. zor were claiming sanctions were gonna be laughed off by russia 'cause o' their vast currency reserves. in response we quoted a harvard economist who said if russia didn't take drastic measures, they could be bankrupt in 6-18 months, and that sanctions would make all that much more difficult for russia to avoid such a fate. 'course russia took severe austerity measures, but fact remains we were referencing the opinions o' a harvard economist to refute zor's belief sanctions were a non issue.

btw, johnson admitted in a follow-up interview that he simply forgot aleppo, and didn't make any claim o' gotcha. additional, johnson made numerous other foreign affairs blunders during the campaign. 

regardless, is best not to take zor claims at face value.

HA! Good Fun!

[HoonDing]

Johnson makes Drump look like Benjamin Disraeli.

[Gfted1]

17 hours ago, KaineParker said:

I got a letter from someone I've never heard of begging me to vote, complete with handwritten appeal. This is a first and it strikes me as weird, guess by my demographic they expect me to hate Trump but be unlikely to vote (both of which are true tbh). 

This has happened to me twice (and my wife once), via random text. I havent voted since one of the Bush's (cant remember which) and my wife has never voted, so who know why.

[Pidesco]

37 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

This has happened to me twice (and my wife once), via random text. I havent voted since one of the Bush's (cant remember which) and my wife has never voted, so who know why.

You guys don't care about down ballot votes?

[Gfted1]

29 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

You guys don't care about down ballot votes?

No, we do not.

I just texted my wife and she sent me pictures of our voter registration cards. I didnt even know I was registered! Bastards better not call me for jury duty again. 

[Hurlshort]

I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that we have a couple folks here who don't vote, given that 40% of the country does not. It just seems strange that they would deign to spend hours here bantering back and forth over politics but not take 5-10 minutes to be involved in the decisions that are being made. I get not caring about all the federal election stuff, but the local measures have a real and significant impact on your lives. 

[Gfted1]

Life is truly a mystery. But seriously, I hope the dont F-ing catch me up in jury duty again. Thats the worst. 

[Hurlshort]

15 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Life is truly a mystery. But seriously, I hope the dont F-ing catch me up in jury duty again. Thats the worst. 

Every jurisdiction can be different, but not voting does not excuse you from jury duty. You would also probably need to forgo a driver’s license or ID card, filing tax returns, seeking unemployment, owning real estate, participating in the census, or getting your name on any of a number of government databases.

So good luck. 

[Malcador]

21 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Life is truly a mystery. But seriously, I hope the dont F-ing catch me up in jury duty again. Thats the worst. 

Well now they know you hope they don't, they've moved you up the list  

Funny how awful jury duty is, here one huge problem they have is the pay for the jurors.  In Ontario for example

"Employers are required by law to give employees time off for jury duty and for people selected to serve as a juror. The law does not require employers to pay an employee’s salary during this time.

Jurors receive the following payment for serving on a jury:

• From day one to ten: No fee.
• From day 11 to 49: $40 per day.
• From day 50 to the last day of trial: $100 per day. Trials of this length are rare.

If you’re serving as a juror and the trial lasts longer than 10 days, the court where the trial is taking place will arrange payment.

There is no allowance for childcare expenses or parking."

God this forum software is crap, tried commenting after a quote and it put my comment in it..  Anyway, the issue is a lot of people have the choice of doing their civic duty and not paying rent this month.  

Edited October 26, 2020 by Malcador

[Pidesco]

Incidentally, for years I never really thought about it, because trial by jury is so ubiquitous in pop culture. But at one point I started to reflect on it, and it seems to me like trial by jury is an absolutely idiotic way to make important judicial decisions.

[Gfted1]

@Malcador The three days I was there was basically me just screaming in my own head. Just imagine not being able to scroll past a lawyers wall of text and being trapped in the same room with them.