Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

It'd be nice if Trump pardoned himself.

1) That requires Trump to admit guilt, unlike a commutation. I'd feel nice if he admitted a few things.

2) I don't want Democrats to keep pursuing him after he leaves office. If we don't, the lock-her-uppers win. Republicans will never stop pursuing charges against Democrats, even after they leave office.

Here, poke through this reddit post.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askaconservative/comments/hp0kmr/how_do_you_feel_about_trump_commuting_roger/

Quote
Quote
Quote

They’re just going after these people because they’re trumps friends. Pardon Manafort next.

Do you think these people have done anything wrong?

Yes. I also don't care. For the most part their crimes are very minimal but even if they weren't I still wouldn't care. This is the political reality the left has brought us to. Why should I care when the Left flouts the rule of law on a daily basis? The law isn't meant to go one way and there is no way I am going to respect law when it does.

 

Remember, Democracy is a highly restrained war. We topple governments and foment revolutions with wars and votes because we trust the other side will restrict themselves to that standard. If they THINK Democrats are flouting the law, they will feel no shame in following suit. If they can be persuaded that there is a détente, in which bad faith persecution of politicians will stop when the politician leaves office, then they MAY not break that détente. They MAY not escalate.

 

If they PERCIEVE Democrats as breaking the détente, they will never slow.

 

As it stands, Republicans believe they are owed some lawbreaking because of  "Hillary's Emails". The fact that she was never punished means only that

  • Hillary was just that good a crook
  • the investigative agencies are complicit (deep state)
  • Republicans were simply too merciful. If Democrats are not so merciful, well... 

Seriously, spend a little time on every news item to look at Conservative reporting, opinion pieces, and internet forums. Find out how they perceive the issues, and especially how they perceive the conflict. Remember that there can't ever be an end to the conflict; conflict is what democracy IS. All that remains to Liberals is to manage how Liberal actions are perceived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there were no conflict, there would be no parties. But, if one man is certain of one solution to a problem, and his neighbor is certain of a different solution (or even disagrees that there is a problem requiring a solution), there is conflict. We have voting and public deliberation so that conflict will stay in that arena. Parties exist because there are enough people in favor of differing solutions. 

 

strifedemotivator.jpeg?v=1403276125

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But any conflicts over an issue are supposed to be resolved by all involved parties casting their votes, and respecting the decision of the majority (or whatever supermajority or other balancing mechanism has been established). That second part is what's so often lost in the current partisan strife. Democracy is supposed to be a cooperative, consensual form of government, in which the people or their representatives develop a compromise position which the majority can support; not where one party driven in lock-step uses a majority to browbeat or punish another party. That's what we're seeing in America today, but for the majority of my lifetime that's not how it was done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Democracy is supposed to be a cooperative, consensual form of government, in which the people or their representatives develop a compromise position which the majority can support; not where one party driven in lock-step uses a majority to browbeat or punish another party. That's what we're seeing in America today, but for the majority of my lifetime that's not how it was done.

 

Very well said.

 

The strain between the compassionate and competitive is very necessary.  Both sides have critically important points to make and the conversation and compromise have to continue. 

Without that we'll rapidly drift towards violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Badger said:

Life itself is conflict.

 

8 hours ago, Pariah said:

Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

 

And in politics, everyone is selling something.

 

See, those kinds of sweeping generalizations are what lead to fatalism and despair that's self-defeating and paralyzing. If life is nothing but conflict, how are we ever supposed to achieve peace? If life is only pain, what's the point of ever trying to be happy? All of those things exist in life, and in their contrast they serve a purpose. Conflict makes us cherish peace. Happiness gives us the hope and motivation to overcome pain.

 

Those generalizations can also lead us to treat life as though it was the "reality show" Survivor, an artificial construct in which participants are rewarded for deceit and treachery. In real survival situations everyone has to work together, or no one survives. Our current pandemic has made that clearer than ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen a distinction made between democratic politics and despotic politics. Either way, the fundamental question is, "Who gets their way?" In democratic politics, factions seek victories on particular issues but don't try to win completely on everything and forever. In despotic politics, factions seek permanent supremacy and the destruction of rivals. (Their political destruction, at least -- a permanent irrelevance.)

 

Thing is, it looks to me like Republicans/conservatives already chose despotic politics. Completely. Voter suppression, ultra-gerrymandering, refusing even to take a vote on Merrick Garland -- those aren't tactics to persuade or to gather a stronger coalition, those are tactics to lock out the other side.

 

Perhaps many conservatives genuinely believe this is all righteous defense against liberals flouting the law. That doesn't make it true. And if they can't come up with any Democratic offenses worse than Hillary's emails, I am not inclined to believe their claim. OTOH, conservatives have clearly lost on various cultural issues dear to their heart, such as opposition to same-sex marriage, where the Left won by impeccably lawful means. So it looks to me like the Left can get what it wants democratically or judicially, and the Right knows it must go despotic or lose completely.

 

So, should liberals accept the new reality and embrace despotic politics as the alternative to being crushed? That depends on how far Trump goes this fall, and how far other Republicans are willing to go along. I don't think we are at the point of supreme emergency yet, though I can see it on the horizon. If Trump loses fairly and goes -- screaming, no doubt, but goes -- I'd prefer to let most investigations drop or at least be done quietly, with the aim of preventing future mischief.

 

Still, I hope someone points out to Trump -- and forces him to listen, as best they can -- that if he can get away with a criminal presidency and then pardon himself, a Biden presidency could say, "Screw the pardon: We're nailing Trump to the wall." Break whatever laws are necessary, then pardon itself for doing so.

 

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, I am amused by Trump's outrage that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have not shown consistent and obedient fealty. His own world-view should have told him this: He gave them something that he can't take back, and he has nothing else that they want. Therefore he has no leverage. They don't need him anymore. So why should they give a rat's ass what he wants?

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump always insists on personal loyalty to himself from his underlings, or everyone he categorizes as an underling. This is consistent behavior for someone who is treacherous himself, and therefore always fears treachery from others. There's also probably an element of mob-boss mentality, in which Trump sees himself as bestowing "favors," and therefore expects reciprocity.

 

At bottom though, I don't think what most upsets him is that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh did this. It's that they dared do this to HIM! The center of the universe. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Perhaps many conservatives genuinely believe this is all righteous defense against liberals flouting the law. That doesn't make it true. And if they can't come up with any Democratic offenses worse than Hillary's emails, I am not inclined to believe their claim.

 

I'm not conservative, but my conservative friends are much more worked up about what they see as a completely illegal investigation of a political opponent by having the Obama FBI investigating then candidate Trump.

 

Regardless if you believe that has any merit or not - that is a major grief point among conservatives.

 

Using intelligence agencies to undermine or outright remove political opponents before they're even in office would certainly fall in the despotic side of this conversation.

 

Again, not saying I believe that's what happened, but I'm in Texas and my conservative friends are all over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There might have been a basis for that if the fact an investigation into possible ties between the Russian government and Trump campaign officials was being conducted had been made public prior to the election. The FBI launched their investigation in July of 2016, after receiving intelligence suggestive of that situation, and not at the instruction of either Obama or Clinton. It wasn't until January of 2017 that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence announced they were investigating deliberate intervention in the election by Russia. https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/us/2016-presidential-election-investigation-fast-facts/index.html

 

If they were going to undermine Trump, they had plenty of time to do so before ballots were cast.

 

1 hour ago, ScottishFox said:

Using intelligence agencies to undermine or outright remove political opponents before they're even in office would certainly fall in the despotic side of this conversation.

 

*Cough*Ukraine*cough*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

 

See, those kinds of sweeping generalizations are what lead to fatalism and despair that's self-defeating and paralyzing. If life is nothing but conflict, how are we ever supposed to achieve peace? If life is only pain, what's the point of ever trying to be happy? All of those things exist in life, and in their contrast they serve a purpose. Conflict makes us cherish peace. Happiness gives us the hope and motivation to overcome pain.

 

Those generalizations can also lead us to treat life as though it was the "reality show" Survivor, an artificial construct in which participants are rewarded for deceit and treachery. In real survival situations everyone has to work together, or no one survives. Our current pandemic has made that clearer than ever.

 

Might be overthinking. Life isn't perfect. Every adversity you overcome, is a battle you won.  Conflict is essentially just adversity.

 

Not sure about the Survivor thing. Might look at it more as war consist of units working together for victory, if you worry about a need to bring together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎15‎/‎2020 at 12:08 AM, Badger said:

Life itself is conflict.

 

On ‎7‎/‎15‎/‎2020 at 1:04 AM, Pariah said:

Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

 

And in politics, everyone is selling something.

 

On ‎7‎/‎15‎/‎2020 at 9:57 AM, Lord Liaden said:

See, those kinds of sweeping generalizations are what lead to fatalism and despair that's self-defeating and paralyzing. If life is nothing but conflict, how are we ever supposed to achieve peace? If life is only pain, what's the point of ever trying to be happy? All of those things exist in life, and in their contrast they serve a purpose. Conflict makes us cherish peace. Happiness gives us the hope and motivation to overcome pain.

 

I can't speak to Badger's statement, but the first line of Pariah's is essentially a direct quote from Princess Bride (he just dropped the word "princess"), so I took that mostly tongue-in-cheek.  Perhaps you already knew, LL, but it seemed like you were taking it completely seriously, so I wondered if maybe you didn't realize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

There might have been a basis for that if the fact an investigation into possible ties between the Russian government and Trump campaign officials was being conducted had been made public prior to the election. The FBI launched their investigation in July of 2016, after receiving intelligence suggestive of that situation, and not at the instruction of either Obama or Clinton. It wasn't until January of 2017 that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence announced they were investigating deliberate intervention in the election by Russia. https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/us/2016-presidential-election-investigation-fast-facts/index.html

 

If they were going to undermine Trump, they had plenty of time to do so before ballots were cast.

 

 

*Cough*Ukraine*cough*

 

You're not wrong, but its easy to see how a conservative would perceive that as tit for tat.  You investigated me so now I'm investigating you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BoloOfEarth said:

 

 

 

I can't speak to Badger's statement, but the first line of Pariah's is essentially a direct quote from Princess Bride (he just dropped the word "princess"), so I took that mostly tongue-in-cheek.  Perhaps you already knew, LL, but it seemed like you were taking it completely seriously, so I wondered if maybe you didn't realize.

Yeah, I tried to clarify what I meant, by mine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Starlord said:

 

It's interesting how each party argues that the other should be relegated to "the dust bin of history."

 

But this article takes the "cancel culture" argument to an extreme. For example, the name of the month of July has long since ceased to have any significance to any auditor aside from that simple fact. Few people beyond historians even realize who it's named for. But monuments and statues to specific persons are deliberately designed to commemorate that person, and to make people aware of them. It's also disingenuous to ignore that many of the symbols and monuments to figures from the American Confederacy were raised during the civil rights movement, and the point they were making is very clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...