Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Starlord]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

 

I hope you're not implying Obama simply being a Democrat was a justification for the excessive admiration.

 

I see 2 candidates at 2 different times using charisma, and vague promises to gather a so-called cult following.  Arguing who had better qualities is totally missing the point.    

 

If that's the only difference you see between the two, you're damn right.

[Badger]

Just now, Starlord said:

 

If that's the only difference you see between the two, you're damn right.

 

For the definition of a cult, it is the only difference.  You, yourself are the one who put up a definition of a cult.  Hope&Change has some cult-like qualities by that definition, if you remember 2008.  

[Ragitsu]

6 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

= Hope&Change has some cult-like qualities by that definition, if you remember 2008.  

 

Not to the level of "Make America Great Again". No one moves goalposts like Donald Trump and no one has chronic amnesia concerning his endearing lies like his base.

[Badger]

Just now, Ragitsu said:

 

Not to the level of "Make America Great Again". No one moves goalposts like Donald Trump and no one has chronic amnesia concerning his endearing lies like his base.

 

THe level?  Possibly.  I think 12 years, and a new "cult"  may have dampened the perceptions on that somewhat.   But, regardless.  I saw no where in the posted definition of cult, that made allowances for whether the object of said cult had to be of a certain loathsome quality.  

 

It seems absurd to me, that one cult of personality is ok, because the object of worship was more likable.  Which is what I feel is being argued here.   Is blind loyalty and worship, ever supposed to be ok?  

[Lord Liaden]

See, this is what I was talking about earlier: creating a false equivalency. Admiration for Barack Obama never descended to the level of the blind devotion to Donald Trump that so many of his supporters maintain. When Obama made mistakes, when he fell short of his promises, many people who voted for him, many people in the media, called him out on it. Obama never denied indisputable facts that anyone could see. Obama never claimed genius or infallibility. Obama was rational, and he listened to those who knew more about a subject than he did. Obama was capable of common human compassion. And agree with him or not, he proved he was competent to hold his office.

 

All politicians are not equal. Obama's flaws were not of the same order of magnitude as Trump's. The Democratic Party also has significant flaws, but they are not protecting and enabling a leader they know is incompetent, know is unstable, know is dangerous, for their own selfish benefit.

 

Even if you insist on seeing two evils, in this comparison there is a very clear lesser one.

[Old Man]

44 minutes ago, assault said:

 

It depends on how crude and shouty the communist is.

 

I haven't seen an actual communist in decades, and I venture into some pretty far left corners of the net sometimes.  No one is seriously discussing seizing the means of production or doing away with property ownership.  Today's "far left" policy wish list includes basics like progressive taxation, universal healthcare, and maybe even campaign spending limits.  And conservatives need not worry about any of that this election cycle.

[Ragitsu]

37 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

THe level?  Possibly.  I think 12 years, and a new "cult"  may have dampened the perceptions on that somewhat.   But, regardless.  I saw no where in the posted definition of cult, that made allowances for whether the object of said cult had to be of a certain loathsome quality.  

 

It seems absurd to me, that one cult of personality is ok, because the object of worship was more likable.  Which is what I feel is being argued here.   Is blind loyalty and worship, ever supposed to be ok?  

 

Your argument is precariously close to falling into the pit of false equivalency. Obama's fans were excited at the possibility of change; he more-or-less abused that enthusiasm by hewing to play-it-safe centrism (the Iraq and Afghanistan wars rolled on, Guantanamo Bay remained open, the "war" on drugs was barely diminished, etc) as opposed to a consistently left-oriented body of policy. A good chunk of those who followed him agreed that he didn't go far enough. I'm not seeing "cult" anywhere there.

[Ragitsu]

9 minutes ago, Old Man said:

Today's "far left" policy wish list includes basics like progressive taxation, universal healthcare, and maybe even campaign spending limits.

 

Let's not forget publicly funded colleges/universities; other first-world nations consider that normal policy.

[Hermit]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

 

Some points are on the right track.  But even with those categories, you have only venn diagrammed a small portion of the Trump voters.  I guess, I mention it, more because I have seen Dems make this mistake continually over the 4 years.  The reality is: Trump voters are like the non-Trump voters, who simply came to a different conclusion in 2016.  And those conclusions, factor in hundreds of reasons and issues.  

Entirely possible I am only grabbing a sliver of the problem or being a touch simplistic.

[Badger]

You're reading too much into what I was posting.  

 

I was only pointing out about the vagueness of that definition of cult.  It needs to be amended for more accuracy.

 

I trust everyone here is being completely honest with themselves on how they felt about Obama and Hope&Change in the moment.  I should have focused on 2016 MAGA than the aftermath.  AS it was much easier to fault Obama 2009 on.  Than in the moment in 2008.

 

 

 

 

[assault]

35 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

I haven't seen an actual communist in decades, and I venture into some pretty far left corners of the net sometimes.  No one is seriously discussing seizing the means of production or doing away with property ownership.  Today's "far left" policy wish list includes basics like progressive taxation, universal healthcare, and maybe even campaign spending limits.  And conservatives need not worry about any of that this election cycle.

 

We're still out there.

 

Of course the current wish list is about what is achievable in the here and now, rather than the stuff which isn't. The connection lies in the fight for what is possible, and overcoming the resistance to it, as well as opposing the push towards (real, not Trumpist delusional) authoritarianism.

 

The current situation is one in which history is roaring along, not standing still. Reality is becoming radical.

 

In the meantime, just asking "why can't we have nice things?" is pretty damn radical.

[Old Man]

13 minutes ago, Badger said:

I trust everyone here is being completely honest with themselves on how they felt about Obama and Hope&Change in the moment.

 

If Obama told me to charge into a pizza parlor with an AR-15 to liberate the children in the basement that Cheney was trafficking, I would absolutely have not done so.

[Lord Liaden]

2 hours ago, Badger said:

You're reading too much into what I was posting.  

 

I was only pointing out about the vagueness of that definition of cult.  It needs to be amended for more accuracy.

 

I trust everyone here is being completely honest with themselves on how they felt about Obama and Hope&Change in the moment.  I should have focused on 2016 MAGA than the aftermath.  AS it was much easier to fault Obama 2009 on.  Than in the moment in 2008.

 

With respect, you're confusing emotions of the moment with an ongoing delusional mindset. It may be fair to compare the euphoria among the supporters of Barack Obama and Donald Trump just after each of them won the Presidency; but euphoria is not cultist devotion. In the case of Obama that euphoria evaporated rapidly in the dissonance between what he appeared to promise and what he actually delivered. Criticism of him mounted, across the political spectrum. His reelection was devoid of the fervor that characterized his first win, defined by his being more palatable than the Republican alternative to the majority of Americans.

 

In the case of Trump's core supporters, their euphoria has calcified into unwavering, almost psychotic devotion. They absolutely believe that he's a success, that he's a genius, that he is making America great again (whatever that's supposed to mean). They unquestioningly accept his assertion that immigrants are a threat to America, that the media are the enemies of the people, that there's a Deep State conspiring to prevent him from solving the country's problems. You'll hear them say, with no hint of self-consciousness, that Donald Trump is the greatest President in history, and according to one segment of them, the chosen instrument of God.

 

No rational argument can sway them. Facts which counter that narrative are disbelieved or ignored. That's the behavior of cultists, which was never in any fashion applied to or encouraged by Barack Obama.

[Dr. MID-Nite]

8 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

With respect, you're confusing emotions of the moment with an ongoing delusional mindset. It may be fair to compare the euphoria among the supporters of Barack Obama and Donald Trump just after each of them won the Presidency; but euphoria is not cultist devotion. In the case of Obama that euphoria evaporated rapidly in the dissonance between what he appeared to promise and what he actually delivered. Criticism of him mounted, across the political spectrum. His reelection was devoid of the fervor that characterized his first win, defined by his being more palatable than the Republican alternative to the majority of Americans.

 

In the case of Trump's core supporters, their euphoria has calcified into unwavering, almost psychotic devotion. They absolutely believe that he's a success, that he's a genius, that he is making America great again (whatever that's supposed to mean). They unquestioningly accept his assertion that immigrants are a threat to America, that the media are the enemies of the people, that there's a Deep State conspiring to prevent him from solving the country's problems. You'll hear them say, with no hint of self-consciousness, that Donald Trump is the greatest President in history, and according to one segment of them, the chosen instrument of God.

 

No rational argument can sway them. Facts which counter that narrative are disbelieved or ignored. That's the behavior of cultists, which was never in any fashion applied to or encouraged by Barack Obama.

 

And you wonder why the hope of progressive Americans is dwindling?

[Cygnia]

Thousands of Americans backed by rightwing donors gear up for protests

[TrickstaPriest]

While I don't want to pile on you, Badger, I will point out that I don't think Obama ever encouraged his base by saying that his political opponents should be forced out of the country, or shouted 'liberate' on twitter at his rival states.

 

As enthused as people ever were for Obama, the words "Civil War" never once came up.  I never thought I would literally have to flee the country.

 

edit: and that's including the changes to the drone strike program, which I still hate him for.

[Badger]

10 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

With respect, you're confusing emotions of the moment with an ongoing delusional mindset. It may be fair to compare the euphoria among the supporters of Barack Obama and Donald Trump just after each of them won the Presidency; but euphoria is not cultist devotion. In the case of Obama that euphoria evaporated rapidly in the dissonance between what he appeared to promise and what he actually delivered. Criticism of him mounted, across the political spectrum. His reelection was devoid of the fervor that characterized his first win, defined by his being more palatable than the Republican alternative to the majority of Americans.

 

In the case of Trump's core supporters, their euphoria has calcified into unwavering, almost psychotic devotion. They absolutely believe that he's a success, that he's a genius, that he is making America great again (whatever that's supposed to mean). They unquestioningly accept his assertion that immigrants are a threat to America, that the media are the enemies of the people, that there's a Deep State conspiring to prevent him from solving the country's problems. You'll hear them say, with no hint of self-consciousness, that Donald Trump is the greatest President in history, and according to one segment of them, the chosen instrument of God.

 

No rational argument can sway them. Facts which counter that narrative are disbelieved or ignored. That's the behavior of cultists, which was never in any fashion applied to or encouraged by Barack Obama.

 

Yeah, this argument makes sense.  I was also thinking last night, about when Obama came to my area and promised along the lines   "he would think about our area the first thing in the morning and last thing at night" and how quite a few people here still think he actually did that.  But, I realize what gets me most mad is when a blanket statement about conservatives get dumped when only a few actually apply to it, and that would amount to the same thing.

 

 

[TrickstaPriest]

5 minutes ago, Badger said:

But, I realize what gets me most mad is when a blanket statement about conservatives get dumped when only a few actually apply to it, and that would amount to the same thing

 

I can appreciate that.  I try and steer people away from 'conservatives this' and 'conservatives that'.  You have your reasons.

 

My point I'm trying to get across, then, is that... I don't know, maybe I'm younger than all of you, I've never in my life had the expectation that the US was going to boil over in violence, at the behest and encouragement of a President, before now.

 

edit: changed 'aid' to 'encouragement'

[Badger]

24 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

While I don't want to pile on you, Badger, I will point out that I don't think Obama ever encouraged his base by saying that his political opponents should be forced out of the country, or shouted 'liberate' on twitter at his rival states.

 

As enthused as people ever were for Obama, the words "Civil War" never once came up.  I never thought I would literally have to flee the country.

 

Well, I am a conservative in a place that tends to lean a bit more left than I do.  So, me getting piled on, is going to happen now and again. 😁

 

I do have a weakness sometimes with taking personally, when someone blasts conservatives in general.  But, here, I think it is more anger and frustration based.  Or at least I hope so.

[TrickstaPriest]

7 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

Well, I am a conservative in a place that tends to lean a bit more left than I do.  So, me getting piled on, is going to happen now and again. 😁

 

I do have a weakness sometimes with taking personally, when someone blasts conservatives in general.  But, here, I think it is more anger and frustration based.  Or at least I hope so.

 

welp hit refresh and lost my post.  agh.

 

Taking it personally is human when your core beliefs or identity is under attack.  That's not wrong.

 

The fear and bruises you are experiencing aren't because of a minor fear in itself - like I said, I don't think there has been a single time in my lifetime that I've seen a situation that so believably can collapse the entire country.  And everything that's happened since has only encouraged that.

 

It's the combination of having a government that is more-and-more pushing a system towards collapse, radio and news and youtube channels encouraging this outcome, and a small but eager population willing to push the entire thing.  This isn't just going to tow the line, it's stressing a system to its breaking point, and playing chicken with who or what will break it first.

 

The fact that it's small numbers (in all of this) isn't very helpful if no one else is opposing them.  Then those small numbers are the only numbers that really matter.

 

So you are getting a lot of heat because people are genuinely scared, because no one with the power to do so is even trying to push against this momentum.

 

It's a world without heroes.

 

A world without All Might.

 

Heh.

[Ragitsu]

44 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

But, I realize what gets me most mad is when a blanket statement about conservatives get dumped when only a few actually apply to it, and that would amount to the same thing.

 

 

 

Standard disclaimer: not all conservatives are Republican. The corollary, however, is that most Republicans are conservative.

 

With that out of the way, consider that Trump's approval rating among Republicans ticked in around ninety to ninety-four percent until recently. Ninety to ninety-four percent. Sane people wonder why - despite the neon-yellow writing on the heavily illuminated wall -  his support is a fanaticism that blinds them to reality. You're frustrated and I understand that; I've heard from conservatives that find Trump repugnant precisely because he is the antithesis of their core ideology. We are also allowed frustration. Only, in our case, that frustration results from witnessing an overwhelming number of conservatives flocking to this guy as if he's the Messiah when he, in all likelihood, would have been the perfect antagonist in a biblical parable.

[L. Marcus]

Not the Messiah, but a very naughty boy.

[dmjalund]

2 hours ago, Cygnia said:

Thousands of Americans backed by rightwing donors gear up for protests

the "Other" stimulus package

[TrickstaPriest]

Man.  So when things started to look bad, I had a set of 'low bars' I felt would be good indicators of when 'it's time to leave'.  This was sparked by how people talked about 9/11.

 

1.  The government stops acting like civilians/populations are something to be protected (edit: or that their lives are something of value).

2.  The government acts to spy and/or arrest arbitrarily.

3.  Ownership of required materials (houses, cars) becomes financially infeasible for nearly everyone.

 

But I've apparently learned a lot about governing bodies since the early 2000s.  Since then I've had to add a slew of new details. 

I changed #3 to be 'of required materials or services'.

 

I've had to add new categories: 

#4.  Major public/government figures acting and advocating for violence/arrest of political enemies. 

#5.  Major public/government figures being repeatedly fired/removed for minor disagreements with highest government figures. 

#6.  Major, almost unilateral, restricted ability to purchase or sell materials or services based on minor or major political disagreements.

 

Keep in mind 'political disagreements' are disagreements on topics or solutions, but I do not count the least-powerful party acting in 'violation of basic human rights' to be a 'political disagreement'.  Perhaps this creates a loophole for anti discrimination laws, but I treat that on a case by case basis.  If the laws are applied appropriately... well, I don't know if you know what it's like to live in an area where almost no one will sell to you, but... see #6.

 

So, I thought I had to consider it a violation of #1 when Maria devastated Puerto Rico and our government turned any aid into a farce.  Then I caught myself more than once reconsidering if it was a violation of #1.  Then I thought the government threatening to refuse aid to California because of 'fire policy mismanagement' a violation of #1. 

 

The point of this.

 

Today I caught myself considering whether the idea of an 'overreaction response to coronavirus' means #1 may not be violated.  Even though the behavior of the government had nothing to do with some kind of initial knowledge of the situation, but it is a violation because there was a lack of interest in acting in readiness at all.

 

Please consider this thought when you wonder if your morals or considerations of safety are being violated.  It's been very easy and tempting to tell myself 'maybe it's not so bad' until I actually sit down with the priorities and thoughts I put together almost 20 years ago.

 

Also for those who feel our current situation is an overreaction... maybe.  But it's a lot cheaper to be prepared against a pandemic properly than to go into extensive quarantine because your federal government barely tried.  That's the real failure here (to me) that is barely talked about.

[Ragitsu]

9 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

Also for those who feel our current situation is an overreaction... maybe.  But it's a lot cheaper to be prepared against a pandemic properly than to go into extensive quarantine because your federal government barely tried.  That's the real failure here (to me) that is barely talked about.

 

Overreaction is the least favored of all parents; if their protestations are challenged by eventual mundanity, they are deemed "alarmist" and "paranoid". If, on the other hand, their protestations ward off catastrophe long before it has a chance of being spotted, they are deemed "alarmist" and "paranoid".