|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Sept 24, 2019 23:30:12 GMT
I don't really want to get into this, but I completely agree with you. Does that mean I got into it?
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 24, 2019 23:34:39 GMT
Kind of. But there's no harm in "getting into this" as long as it's a respectful discussion. No conversion attempts from me, that's for sure.
Conversely, one of my best friends in the world (and someone with whom I agree on a good percentage of actual policies) and I had quite a heated text exchange because he's far more of the activist-left mentality. For him it's one of those "way too late, so obvious" things, and a chance to force people into taking a side. And those who take the wrong side? Idiots! Immoral bastards! Et cetera.
I don't know if it's my age creeping up on me or what, but the righteous zeal that comes easy to us in our youth (relative youth, anyway) is something I just can't--and don't want to--muster anymore. If we want to live together, Step One ought not be demonize our neighbors.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Sept 27, 2019 12:57:07 GMT
I cannot look at Adam Schiff for one second. He literally makes me sick. I have to immediately change the channel. That is all.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 27, 2019 13:46:48 GMT
This whole thing is such a Rorschach test for the public: none of us really know enough about all the context to know anything, and so everyone picks a conclusion based on what they already thought. It's pretty frustrating. Especially considering how belligerent we are about it.
And then we have the people who probably DO know--the likes of Adam Schiff, or Lindsey Graham, or the like--and they're all just playing the same damn games they've been playing for at least 2+ years, and to a lesser degree for, well, about 250 years.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Sept 27, 2019 13:50:57 GMT
And then we have the people who probably DO know--the likes of Adam Schiff, or Lindsey Graham, or the like--and they're all just playing the same damn games they've been playing for at least 2+ years, and to a lesser degree for, well, about 250 years.
I don't like when people play games with our country.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 27, 2019 14:03:25 GMT
And then we have the people who probably DO know--the likes of Adam Schiff, or Lindsey Graham, or the like--and they're all just playing the same damn games they've been playing for at least 2+ years, and to a lesser degree for, well, about 250 years.
I don't like when people play games with our country. Right there with you.
It's an odd place for me, because on one hand I actually appreciate the necessity of a certain amount of unseemliness in the "sausage-making." Realistically, factions that disagree have to do a certain amount of gamesmanship and horse-trading to get anything actually accomplished. I don't love it, but I acknowledge it. So I'm not one of these "100% transparency at all times, throw all the bums out" populists.
BUT ... when the Machiavellian maneuvering overtakes everything, when politics stops being about running a government and is instead about obtaining or maintaining control of the government (and of course securing that plum position at the law firm or consulting firm afterward), when the lying, pandering, and post-hoc justifying becomes so obvious that it's impossible to watch with a straight face, that's when I lose it.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Sept 27, 2019 14:37:19 GMT
I don't like when people play games with our country. ... when the Machiavellian maneuvering overtakes everything, when politics stops being about running a government and is instead about obtaining or maintaining control of the government (and of course securing that plum position at the law firm or consulting firm afterward), when the lying, pandering, and post-hoc justifying becomes so obvious that it's impossible to watch with a straight face, that's when I lose it. Yes, exactly!
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 27, 2019 14:51:25 GMT
Coming from someone whose politics tend to be left of center, this might sound insane, but...
I think when business leaders as a group speak out in favor or against things, that's when we know things are out of control. The reason I say that is, government is basically always inherently pro-business to some degree. Business is what finances campaigns directly or indirectly, and what has the strongest lobbies to write and change legislation and regulation.
Business isn't usually HAPPY with government, because things could always be more in their own (sometimes contradictory, depending on the business) interests. But as long as business knows what is happening, they can work with that. They can make predictions and act on them.
When government is no longer consistent, predictable, or coherent, business speaks out. We see that now in various sectors: agriculture and manufacturing (re the tariffs and assorted trade deals [or non-deals...]), across sectors related to gun legislation and violence, across sectors related to healthcare. I'm not even advocating conservativism or liberalism in this assessment, I'm just saying the parties aren't operating as conservative or liberal: they're operating as anti-Republican and anti-Democrat 99% of the time, and conservative or liberal 1% of the time.
It's amazing how they lack either pragmatism OR ideology; instead they are almost purely partisan.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Oct 5, 2019 15:17:14 GMT
I wish Bernie Sanders a quick recovery and future good health, but this heart issue basically seals his fate. He wasn't going to win the nomination anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 5, 2019 15:25:58 GMT
Even before it was announced that he'd had a heart attack--back with the initial news that he'd had stents put in--I figured it was an unfortunate situation for him (obviously) but also a perfect opportunity to bow out of the race. His poll numbers were declining despite strong fundraising because Sen. Warren has simply been more appealing generally, and shown a broader range of topics than Sanders's narrow but deep scope. She is a softer replacement for the cranky old man yelling all the time, to be blunt about it.
He has been a movement candidate, and over the past four years or so went from anonymous to the general public to one of the most influential politicians in the country. There is no doubt that he pulled the mainstream Democratic party to the left and helped bring previously verboten words and ideas (socialism!) into the limelight of polite society.
But the heart attack does exacerbate one of two primary concerns about the Democratic frontrunners, and none more than Sanders: they're old. The three frontrunners are all in their 70s, and Sanders is nearly 80. It isn't ageist to point out that people of that age have a far, far higher likelihood of medical emergencies that would incapacitate them, and Sanders basically just lived that out, unfortunately. The presidency is a demanding job, and people want more certainty (not that there is ever real certainty) that the person they elect is able to carry out that job. Let's be real: nobody voted for Dan Quayle, Al Gore, or Dick Cheney when they elected George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W Bush. And similarly it won't be comforting if Bernie lugs along Stacy Abrams for the ride.
It's amazing what Sanders has done in what are inevitably the latter years of his career. But I do think he ought to drop out of the race and focus on his health first, the senate second, and the presidential election not at all.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 8, 2019 18:47:04 GMT
I saw and was disappointed by this column by Paul Krugman in the NYT today. Krugman is a Nobel-winning economist and obviously a smart guy, but in my opinion his partisanship has increasingly ruined his columns since … well, I’ve noticed it since sometime during the first Obama administration. It’s not to say that he isn’t ever correct: it would be hard to be wrong all the time. And it’s not to say I don’t share some of his political views: I do tend toward liberalism over conservatism (though I find room for both and don’t even see them as inherently contradictory). And it’s not even to say I don’t agree with placing disproportionate blame for some of our political dysfunction on Republicans: I do concur with the Ornstein and Mann book he references (though he seems to miss that its main point wasn’t one-sided, but rather that it blamed our hyperpartisanship overall and on both sides, even while concluding Republicans had taken it further than Democrats as of that point in 2012). Krugman is falling into a trap I observe more all the time, which is condemning any attempts at seeing both sides of issues or at making relative peace as being “whataboutism” or, as he does here, simply condemning centrism entirely. Krugman is making an artificially one-sided argument that blames Republicans for all of our ills, lying about those Republicans, condemning centrists (for supporting these allegedly evil Republicans), and by failing to mention them at all, implying that the only virtuous people remaining are the far-left progressives. Lying? Yes. Lying. First, “fanatical centrists.” Even the term is meant to be an insult. But think about what those two words mean, and then think about how they would even work together. Fanatical is “extreme, uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.” It is usually reserved for extremists, partisans. How exactly would a bipartisan centrist even BE fanatical? By zealously pursuing … compromise? Umm… Second, these fanatical centrists “aren’t a large slice of the electorate?” Interesting, and presumably news to the 35% of Americans who defined themselves as moderate (as compared to 35% as conservative and 26% as liberal, per a 2019 Gallup poll). There is some other reputable poll from within the past years that, while I don’t have it at my fingertips at the moment, showed something like roughly 8-10% identify on each extreme end of the political spectrum. So call me crazy, but I’d say “fanatical centrists” ARE a large slice of the electorate. That may not lead to cross-party voting, but that doesn’t make them extreme … it might just mean they reject the perceived excessive extremism in the party they identify less with. Third, Krugman is trying to argue that Trump isn’t an outlier among the modern Republican party, but rather a natural inheritor of their presidential nomination, that “the GOP hasn’t suddenly changed.” Really? So how is it that the big money in 2016 backed Jen Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, and Ted Cruz (at various points) to keep Mr. Trump off the ticket? How is it that the GOP has been changing rules in states across the country to minimize the risk of never-Trumper sentiment and embarrassment in the awarding of delegates and at the convention? Why is it that so many Republican officials have either publicly opposed him, switched parties, or retired? If he were perfect for the party’s worldview, it would seem the party would have been behind him all the way and its pillars would have supported him. I don’t say any of this to defend Trump, whom I dislike. I don’t say it to pretend everyone on both sides is the same (the “whataboutism” I mentioned before, trying to find tit for tat at every opportunity). But I say it to defend the concept of centrism, first of all, and to call out what can at its most charitable reading be called confirmation bias by Krugman, and at its worst could be called flatly dishonest argumentation to benefit his preferred progressives on the farther left. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that the more people who can unify, the better our country will be. And the way to unify isn’t by running further into a corner, but by going into the center and welcoming others to join you there. www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/opinion/republicans-trump-moderates.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 10, 2019 13:43:28 GMT
The president is holding a rally in town today, which I understand will fill Target Center to capacity (so about 18k, I think). Local media is reporting that at least thousands of protesters and counter-protesters are expected downtown as well, and I can personally report that already yesterday there were small groups and individual protesters out.
It has been--as is EVERYTHING these days--controversial. The progressive Democratic mayor made a policy change forbidding off-duty police to wear their uniforms while attending political events, which was seen as directly related to the president's visit, and (as has now been publicized nationwide) refused to pay the half-million dollar security bill, saying Target Center's management company (AEG) was responsible; they, in turn, planned to bill the White House, which publicly refused. That has all been worked out, apparently, but not before our mayor and our president got into a Twitter spat. Elected leaders have nothing else to do than fight on social media, I guess.
Me? I'm lucky to be doing some work at a satellite office this afternoon, about 45 miles out of town. So happily I'll miss the chaos.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Oct 10, 2019 20:41:14 GMT
Well, well, well. This'll be interesting to see where it leads to:
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 11, 2019 13:12:28 GMT
I won't get too into it--let's be honest, we're at about 3 years of a broken record here--but last night's Minneapolis rally and protest lived down to my expectations, sadly. The linked Star Tribune article discusses the protests specifically, which I find hugely disappointing.
One main message of anti-Trump protesters is that he is divisive and hateful. With that in mind, then, how effective does this sound at changing hearts and minds: "How does it feel to be a racist and a bigot?" or "Nazi scum! Get off our streets!"
(The "Nazi scum" in question were citizens attending the rally. Which is to say, representative of roughly 20% of the U.S. population and 46% of presidential election voters. That's a LOT of Nazis...which of course means it's a watering down of the idea.)
The story below also tells of people knocking Trump-branded hats off people's heads, trying to block traffic, and various other screaming at protesters. “This is about showing the world that a whole bunch of people showed up to protest Trump,” said Zach Fagerness, a 26-year-old Minneapolis software engineer. “A couple people yelling doesn’t matter, but when you have an army of people screaming, that’s what matters.”
Screaming crowds are what matters? I disagree. (Quietly. Without screaming.) My unscientific estimate is that precisely zero minds were changed as a result of the protests, but I'm sure a lot of protesters felt good about themselves for their signs of righteousness and virtue...
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Oct 11, 2019 13:15:15 GMT
I watched Trump's rally on FOX last night, and after that wrapped up, they showed live coverage of the protesters outside the building. Very scary.
|
|