team politics talking points.

[JohnRoberts]

I do not have much hope for this working, but invite all the passionate, angry, inflamed, forum members to post whatever  is bothering them at the moment, here instead of threads about other topics..

I will not attempt to be the apologist for every partisan slight real and imagined, but may as time allows try to illuminate some issues that seem poorly founded or unsupported by fact. 

No I will not cite any examples.

JR

 

[Bo Deadly]

Honestly JR you are the one who keeps bringing up politics all the time. People wouldn't say half the stuff they do if you didn't keep posting stuff like this.

 

[crazydoc]

try to illuminate some issues that seem poorly founded or unsupported by fact. 

JR

Then I hope you have some insight into reality that the rest of us aren't privy to. Facts don't seem to exist any more - only spin.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Honestly JR you are the one who keeps bringing up politics all the time. People wouldn't say half the stuff they do if you didn't keep posting stuff like this.

Some more of my sloppy thinking I guess....  I see a difference between talking "about" politics (the game) and talking politics (the plays within the game).  I see a lot of talking politics and not much talking about the game in play.

I will repeat the old joke, if you don't know who the patsy is in your poker game, you may be the patsy...  The practice of politics is all about manufacturing sentiment taking advantage of human cognition that is not very thorough or always rational.

I am trying to point out that the political opinion leaders have no clothes on, instead I get accused of being a political spinner.  I guess I should have expected this..... 

never mind. 

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

Then I hope you have some insight into reality that the rest of us aren't privy to. Facts don't seem to exist any more - only spin.

I will have to decline going down that particular philosophical rabbit hole (what is truth?).  There are many objective facts often glossed over when attempting to manipulate sentiment.

I have read several books over the last 6 months about persuasion and how humans make decisions.. Humans are all too easily mislead and jump to conclusions without rigorous thorough inspection.

We are months away from a presidential election so there is weapons grade manipulation going on.  I miss the good old days when partisan politics did not corrupt every single topic (like viral infections), but that is life these days.

Good Luck... especially if playing poker.

JR

 

[Matador]

Why does the discussion always have to be so metaphysical?

Let's start with some specifics of what the GOP supports:

1) Does anyone think Justin Walker is an appropriate pick to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit? Why?
2) Does anyone agree with the blocking of  Merrick Garland?
3) Does anyone agree with the blocking of Obama court appointments (fewest total nominations since 1969)?
4) Does anyone agree with  GOP political gerrymandering?  Of the top 10 gerrymandered states, 9 are GOP controlled.

The issue isn't related to 'a pox on both their houses'.  Both the Democrats and the GOP are both guilty of various offenses:  the issue is that yes, theft and murder are both crimes, but they aren't equivalent crimes.

Can any of these topics be discussed without resorting to whataboutism?  Does anyone who voted for (or is planning on voting for) Trump explain why they support these actions?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Why does the discussion always have to be so metaphysical?

Why ask why? 

Let's start with some specifics of what the GOP supports:

The list is longer than that

1) Does anyone think Justin Walker is an appropriate pick to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit? Why?

Don't know who that is...

2) Does anyone agree with the blocking of  Merrick Garland?

In fact I argued for approving Garland (in this forum at the time). My thoughts back then was that Garland would be more moderate than who President Hillary would likely appoint (recall that I expected her to win).

3) Does anyone agree with the blocking of Obama court appointments (fewest total nominations since 1969)?

I just saw a constitutional argument (editorial) that says President Trump could recess congress himself and make recess appointments for all the positions still blocked after 3+ years. Despite the vast majority of swamp dwellers sheltering in some other place they are pretending to be in session to prevent recess appointments. (Note: recess appointments can get overturned when congress is actually back in session again. John Bolton's appointment as UN ambassador is the poster boy for that).

4) Does anyone agree with  GOP political gerrymandering?  Of the top 10 gerrymandered states, 9 are GOP controlled.

Gerrymandering is at least two centuries old (at least the name is). It has been well inspected.

The issue isn't related to 'a pox on both their houses'.  Both the Democrats and the GOP are both guilty of various offenses:  the issue is that yes, theft and murder are both crimes, but they aren't equivalent crimes.

Can any of these topics be discussed without resorting to whataboutism?  Does anyone who voted for (or is planning on voting for) Trump explain why they support these actions?

It seems a little ironic to dismiss whataboutism, at the end of a list of whatabouts....    :-[

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

Perhaps I should have given an example. Here is new one, but it quickly morphs into the tired old standbys.

One new political hot button is converting fully to mail-in voting. The classic (rather old) team politics arguments conflate this with increased opportunity for voter fraud (harvesting votes), with opposition to the changes characterized as voter suppression. 

JR

 

[Recording Engineer]

The example is sounding exactly like argument-switching for the same side; going against / going for, to fit a narrative, from one campaign to the next.

It’s amazing how many heads do that; they’re always fighting so fiercely with all their conviction too. It’s so effective, that’s why they do it. Whomever points out the flip-flopping is now on the attack list. That too is very effective and why they do it.

Why do we let them get away with it, effectively encouraging more of it?

 

[Matador]

Don't know who that is...

You said previously that the judiciary was one of your most important considerations for voting for Trump.  He is being groomed for a future SC seat, should Trump win.

In fact I argued for approving Garland (in this forum at the time).

That's great, except that isn't what happened.  Do you agree with what happened?  Is all fair in love and war?

I just saw a constitutional argument (editorial) that says President Trump could recess congress himself and make recess appointments for all the positions still blocked after 3+ years. Despite the vast majority of swamp dwellers sheltering in some other place they are pretending to be in session to prevent recess appointments. (Note: recess appointments can get overturned when congress is actually back in session again. John Bolton's appointment as UN ambassador is the poster boy for that).

He can't recess Congress.

Do you or do you not agree with blocking the current President's appointments?

Gerrymandering is at least two centuries old (at least the name is). It has been well inspected.

I can't tell if you approve or disapprove of gerrymandering.  My question was:

It seems a little ironic to dismiss whataboutism, at the end of a list of whatabouts....    :-[

My list absolutely was not a list of whatabouts.  Whataboutism is answering a question with a justification that someone has done the same thing before.  Since I was asking for a justification in the first place your statement makes no sense.

As for mail in voting:  the GOP continually brings up the warning of voter fraud, and in a particular bit of irony, one of the biggest voter fraud cases in recent memory was a GOP operative in North Carolina:

Prosecutors in North Carolina filed new felony charges against a Republican political operative accused of ballot tampering in a congressional election in 2018.

Leslie McCrae Dowless was charged Tuesday with two counts of felony obstruction of justice, perjury, solicitation to commit perjury, conspiracy to obstruct justice and illegal possession of absentee ballots, according to a statement by Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman.

The SC decision in Shelby County v. Holder basically opened the door to more shenanigans (are we seeing a trend here?).

You don't have to believe me:

[quote author=Donald Trump]
“The things they had in there were crazy. They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again,” Trump said during an appearance on Fox & Friends.
[/quote]

 

[john12ax7]

The big problem I see is that logical rational thinking seems to go away when it's comes to politics.  It becomes team above principle for most of the mainstream choices.  How will anything ever change if people continue to elect Rs with no sense of limited government and fiscal responsibility and Ds with no regard for the working man or civill liberties?

It's an endless debate over which apple is less rotten.

Everyone would be better off electing principled politicians with high moral character,  even if you disagreed with some of their political positions.  Unfortunately they very rarely win.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The big problem I see is that logical rational thinking seems to go away when it's comes to politics.  It becomes team above principle for most of the mainstream choices.  How will anything ever change if people continue to elect Rs with no sense of limited government and fiscal responsibility and Ds with no regard for the working man or civill liberties?

It's an endless debate over which apple is less rotten.

Everyone would be better off electing principled politicians with high moral character,  even if you disagreed with some of their political positions.  Unfortunately they very rarely win.

Yes, but finding that many principled politicians is all but impossible.  Our founders appreciated that and specifically engineered in checks and balances in our government to limit concentration of power.  In the centuries since, this has mostly worked, but the federal government has expanded beyond its original purpose, and seems hungry for even more control over the private sector.

I favor the approach of starving the beast to shrink the bureaucracy...  So far it seems republicans are spending almost as much as the democrats. I am glad that I'm old and will be gone when the bill for all this spending comes due.  If I was younger I would be more angry than I already am.  8)

JR

 

[cyrano]

The big problem I see is that logical rational thinking seems to go away when it's comes to politics.  It becomes team above principle for most of the mainstream choices.  How will anything ever change if people continue to elect Rs with no sense of limited government and fiscal responsibility and Ds with no regard for the working man or civill liberties?

It's an endless debate over which apple is less rotten.

Everyone would be better off electing principled politicians with high moral character,  even if you disagreed with some of their political positions.  Unfortunately they very rarely win.

A recent study about it came to the conclusion that it's the worst if you only have two parties. The more parties you have, the less chance of thinking bilateral...

This paper wasn't about politics only. The same is true for violence in sport. You'jj on;y see violence in sports with two sides. Not in athletics or bike/car racing fi, as there are way more than two sides to the problem.

 

[L´Andratté]

very interesting. Is that paper online somewhere? 

 

[john12ax7]

That is an interesting study. In the US there actually are more than 2 parties,  but what is the solution to actually get people to vote for them? I constantly hear "I don't want to throw my vote away". Ranked choice voting would help with this somewhat.

Government would also be better if it represented an  actual cross section of society.  Where are the scientists,  engineers,  teachers,  artists,  etc?  The wealth range of Congress is also nowhere close to society.  It's no wonder policies benefiting the wealthy are advanced above others.  Our "representatives" do not really represent the people at all.

 

[cyrano]

very interesting. Is that paper online somewhere?

Yes. But it's a hard one to find. It's been a while and it is no longer in this machine's browser history.

Came across another interesting one:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0062275

Draws a line between dictatorship and being infected with parasites 

 

[JohnRoberts]

I am relieved to see that the hyperbolic social justice #metoo movement has relaxed their guilty until proved innocent posture regarding sexual harassment.  :

JR

[edit- this morning I read the WSJ report about her claims and while it appears she formally complained about him inappropriately rubbing her neck and shoulders making her uncomfortable (she was pretty attractive back then), the sexual assault she now claims was not officially reported at the time as far as I can tell. 

This is yet another "he said-she said", while she has far more supporting evidence of discussing the attack with friends and relatives than the Kavanaugh accuser did. It is not unusual for a young woman to not formally report an assault at the time, many didn't (or so I read).

Revisiting it now seems more than a little opportunistic, but the obvious hypocrisy from how she is being treated by the left is instructive. Sound bites from Joe Biden's potential VP candidates from back during Kavanaugh hearings and now, seem dramatically different.

The American public is likely to be forgiving of whatever did or didn't happen decades ago. [/edit]

[edit2- isn't saying something "never never happened" a double negative?  (humor)  [/edit]

 

[kambo]

A recent study about it came to the conclusion that it's the worst if you only have two parties. The more parties you have, the less chance of thinking bilateral...

This paper wasn't about politics only. The same is true for violence in sport. You'jj on;y see violence in sports with two sides. Not in athletics or bike/car racing fi, as there are way more than two sides to the problem.

there was a very old study very similar to it, i remember reading it at Ottoman Emire political history and modern Turkey's first political party, and why they introduced more political parties etc etc!

 

[JohnRoberts]

You guys missed an opportunity to cast shade on a republican political operative.  :

Apparently a republican campaign bundler, jumped into the PPE reselling business. This is a somewhat shady business since real established PPE makers only sell direct to health professionals, government, etc., and have established distributers, who follow similar guidelines. 

When the state of CA realized who he is they cancelled a $6M mask order, while it isn't clear that he could have sourced those masks. Instead CA placed their order with Chinese company BYD, an electric car maker that retooled to make PPE. (Warren Buffett owns shares in BYD.)

Apparently FDA failed to approve BYD's mask after a factory inspection that revealed a less that acceptable manufacturing operation.

I guess there will always be carpetbaggers trying to take advantage of government spending.

JR

PS I find it instructive that prices for large N95 orders like that, even from China are >$1 ea. Those masks can't cost more than tens of cents to mass produce. 

 

[living sounds]

The case against Biden is getting weaker and weaker:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/15/tara-reade-left-trail-of-aggrieved-acquaintances-260771

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-74-former-biden-staffers-think-about-tara-reades-allegations