General US Politics

[Dr. Tarrasque]

12 minutes ago, Edgelord said:

Funny, because other parts of Donald's speech at the UN said that Saudi Arabia is "now committed to targetting terrorists" and that Iran "doesn't respect the sovereignity of nations" and "the rich in Iran are stealing/plundering from the poor" as if he's so concerned with wealth inequality in other countries like Iran now, or that the US doesn't have some intervention in eight or more countries right now. I would have laughed more than once during that speech, because holy shit, laughable statements.

Especially with news like this:

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/21/mike-pompeo-yemen-war-raytheon/

Can I say that Trump may be an establishment shill that has been claiming he's not?

That was already established back in April by one of his appointees

Edited September 28, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Tryhard]

I suppose the one thing about putting him on the level of the establishment is that it reflects badly on current politicians, statespeople and modern presidents. There has been a status quo set. But that's partly obvious with a system that is broken.

Trump manages to both simultaneously want to be an elite like these, and yet they (generally) shun him because of his behaviour at the same time. But it appears like he more or less goes along with Republican policies. Even the ones he stressed he would not do - cut medicare, medicaid compared to a normal Republican position, his budget did exactly that. He's talked a lot about a wall which deviates from Republican orthodoxy but they don't want to give him funding for it because even they think it's a dumb fucking pointless idea, and alas almost two years since the election and nothing looks foreseeable.

Even if you subtract his inane quotes, his personal scandals, and his behaviour, which in my mind count for less, his policies are establishment Republican (and some Democrat) and terrible. Including the continuing of the military-industrial complex.

I don't even get why you would like Trump over any random Republican politician at this point other than the fact that he talks flamboyantly. But that's not a good reason to support someone politically. Especially the ones that pretend that their initial feelings about Kavanaugh didn't suddenly turn into liking him when he actually got picked.

The moral of the story is just because you talk a lot of pompous words about anti-establishment things doesn't make you so.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Edgelord

[Excellen Browning]

IMO being establishment isn't something that's inherently wrong. Representing economic interests isn't wrong.

Trump represents a different kind of establishment; hardcore unregulated free market enthoustiasts, folks like the Koch brothers and that whacko that runs Home Depot these days(and Trump himself), and the american coal industry. People who haven't been in a position of strong influence since... Reagan? Even Bush jr didn't venture into their territory.

[Tryhard]

Not necessarily to the first though I would say representing economic interests over the interests of regular people who voted you in is wrong, but that's what the supposed difference of Democrats and Republicans is meant to be but isn't.

"The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer." ~ Trump

Trump pretends and lies about these things while being servile to corporate power, but I don't really think he's much different from other modern Republicans in that manner.

Preaching to the choir of course but the idea Trump is the one looking out for the little guy and isn't an elite himself is pervasive.

Edited September 29, 2018 by Edgelord

[Etrurian emperor]

7 hours ago, Edgelord said:

Preaching to the choir of course but the idea Trump is the one looking out for the little guy and isn't an elite himself is pervasive.

And I have no idea why considering he's an openly corrupt businessman who did not pay the little guy working for him and who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. 

Say what you want about Farage but I can at least picture him having a beer in the pub with his electorate. 

Edited September 29, 2018 by Etrurian emperor

[Excellen Browning]

7 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

And I have no idea why considering he's an openly corrupt businessman who did not pay the little guy working for him and who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. 

Say what you want about Farage but I can at least picture him having a beer in the pub with his electorate. 

Nigel Farage's dad was a City of London stockbroker and Nigel himself was educated at an expensive private school and became a stockbroker himself. He's very much a rich kid who never knew financial hardship.

[Tryhard]

He also made a pretty penny off not showing up to his position as a MEP, he turned up to about 40% of roll-call votes. (the man who said to the EU that most of them 'have never done a proper job in your lives')

Every worker can surely relate to not showing up to your job 60% of the time and still getting paid a €100K salary.

It's beneficial for people like Farage and Trump to maintain "could have a beer with that guy" perception, but it's almost always a facade.

Edited September 29, 2018 by Edgelord

[Etrurian emperor]

1 hour ago, Excellen Browning said:

Nigel Farage's dad was a City of London stockbroker and Nigel himself was educated at an expensive private school and became a stockbroker himself. He's very much a rich kid who never knew financial hardship.

I know that. My point is more that he at least puts in the effort and that his personality is affably enough for him to hold an actual conversation with someone of the lower classes. And I believe that as part of his PR strategy he actually did go on to drink with potential voters. 

The whole ''friend of the people'' stick isn't any less fake with Farage but at least there are reasons why people would fall for it. With Trump that's not really the case since he self defines as this great billionaire and he's got a business history  full of  screwing over the little guy.

[Tryhard]

Yeah, you're kind of right there. 

And the fact that he stated publically a couple of months ago that he was more elite than the elites anyway.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-elite-better-apartment-richer-minnesota-rally-a8409621.html

 

Edited September 29, 2018 by Edgelord

[XRay]

1 hour ago, Edgelord said:

And the fact that he stated publically a couple of months ago that he was more elite than the elites anyway.

Ha! He and his voters remind me of dudes with small hands compensating for their size with shit talking and shitty sports cars.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Not sure if this thread is the correct place to discuss this but what is everyone's thoughts on conspiracy theories? Should law enforcement do anything against them? Should they be treated as a misdemeanor to start  with continued offense facing greater punishment?

[XRay]

3 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Not sure if this thread is the correct place to discuss this but what is everyone's thoughts on conspiracy theories? Should law enforcement do anything against them? Should they be treated as a misdemeanor to start  with continued offense facing greater punishment?

With fake news being a pretty political issue currently, I think it fits here pretty nicely, since Trump himself helped promote Obama's birther crap.

l think they are total bull shit like horoscopes and blood type personality. But, as long as it does not cause any damages, I do not think there is a need to treat it as a crime or do anything about them from the police side.

I am not sure how you can measure damages for some stuff like reputation if it does not involve money, especially in cases like Obama's, so punishing Trump for that does not seem feel right until we get that sorted out. On the other hand, if parents deny their children vaccine and they die, that is totally measurable, and I think people who spread them should all be rounded up and punished, and depending on the situation, the parents should also be held responsible for choosing to reject basic common sense.

I would like to see more critical thinking classes in our education system though, so people are less prone to believe them. I think the resources spent on actiely combating fake news is better spent on prevention. I also think public service ad campaigns against fake news is also a good, similar to the anti tobacco ads.

[Excellen Browning]

14 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Not sure if this thread is the correct place to discuss this but what is everyone's thoughts on conspiracy theories? Should law enforcement do anything against them? Should they be treated as a misdemeanor to start  with continued offense facing greater punishment?

It's not in the job description of any law enforcement agency to debunk any sort of myth or belief, but it is their job to enforce the law. 

At best you can toss them into the penal loony bin.

[eclipse]

I don't believe in arresting people for ideas.  But if they act on those ideas, and it's harmful (like calling up the parents of dead kids and harassing them), then law enforcement should step in.

[Tryhard]

Any attempts to crack down on conspiracy theorists will inevitably just led them to claim their words are real because they are being persecuted as they would say. And apparently this is something that (some) people actually buy.

It's on top of the fact that some conspiracy theories have been proven to be true (a very small percentage of what these people claim, because they claim that everything is a conspiracy). Take a look at MK Ultra or, more recently, the accusations that got the US into the Iraq war.

Alex Jones perhaps being correct about less than 1% of what he says doesn't make him legitimate, but I don't think it makes sense to get feds involved.

Edited September 30, 2018 by Edgelord

[Shoblongoo]

On 9/30/2018 at 12:36 AM, Dr. Tarrasque said:

 Should law enforcement do anything against them? 

No. To give law enforcement that power, you have to put the state in  charge of defining what is an acceptable form of political speech vs. what is a conspiracy theory. Once you give them that power, Trump-like creatures will abuse it in full to silence legitimate, critical reporting of their public misconduct by directing law enforcement to treat any such  reporting as unlawful publication of conspiracy theory (i.e. "Fake News"). 

...and then the policy becomes self-defeating, to the extent the goal is to prevent the proliferation of disinformation. You have more confusion and more inability to tell between fact and falsehood when the official State policy on what is acceptable reporting and what is illegal disinformation doesn't accord with fact. 

There is no way to prevent that power from being abused once its vested; the only adequate safeguard is the longstanding position that government should never, ever, ever, EVER have that power.  
___________

This is an education problem--not a law enforcement problem.

To admit that our country has a problem with the political power of conspiracy theory is to admit that we have large swaths of our voting population that are fundamentally unable to assess the credibility of information in front of them, or apply basic critical thinking skills to their consumption of news + formation of political opinions. 

Thats an education failure, and that's where the problem is to be addressed.

Not through the creation of a political police-state. 
 

[XRay]

23 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

There is no way to prevent that power from being abused once its vested; the only adequate safeguard is the longstanding position that government should never, ever, ever, EVER have that power.

 

23 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Thats an education failure, and that's where the problem is to be addressed.

This is just for the sake of argument, but what makes education different from suppressing conspiracy theory? Like, what prevents the government from abusing the education system to brain wash us, which sort of achieves the same result as suppressing speech? Trump and Devos are already undermining our education system by redirecting funding away to their charter schools, but they could have also weaponize the education system directly instead to promote their agenda. Right now, it seems like they are doing it a round about way by weakening the current system and building their own system.

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, XRay said:

 

This is just for the sake of argument, but what makes education different from suppressing conspiracy theory? Like, what prevents the government from abusing the education system to brain wash us, which sort of achieves the same result as suppressing speech? 

They could.

But I would much sooner trust professional educators and academics to pushback against political abuse of public education + maintain professional independence in the face of an abusive president then a politically-appointed bureau of speech regulators.

________

Like--this is something my wife tried in her classroom last year. (she teaches middle school and high school level language arts)

Instead of students showcasing their reading and writing skills with random fuck-off book reports, they would be assigned to report on a current event. To begin with, an event would be presented in class by way of 3 sources:

-A neutral, fact-based account
-An account with a blatant right-wing bias
-An account with a blatant left-wing bias

Students will then be assigned an event or issue to report on. Their report must first give a fact-based description of the event or controversy using neutral sources. Then outline the opposing positions on the issue, using both right-wing and left-wing biased sources.

Then conclude with the students offering their own opinions on which positions they personally agree or disagree with, and the reason why.

Time is allotted in class for students to discuss/defend the positions they've taken in their reports.

For example, when Mueller handed-down his last set of indictments, three articles were presented in class:

1) A CNN article detailing the identities of the persons indicted, the substance of the charges against them, their known contacts within the United States, and the criminal penalties for conviction on their charges. (i.e. the facts and just the facts. no opinions)

2) An opinion piece from TheHill, opining the indictments were proof that the whole Russia investigation was a witchhunt because "no evidence of collusion."

3) An opinion piece from POLITICO, opining the indictments were further proof that Trump's defense of Russia on the issue of interference in the 2016 election was treasonous and grounds for impeachment.

They then had to research the issue on their own, identify the "facts" and the "opinions," and present their own opinions based on their research.

This checks all the conventional book-report objectives for evaluating competency in reading comprehension and vocabulary and ability to organize thoughts and ideas via written use of the English language. Then on top of that it teaches:

• What are the current events and controversies in government?
• What is the difference between a fact and an opinion?
• What is the difference between fact-based reporting and demagoguery?
• How do you use facts to form opinions?
• How do you use facts to form fact-based opinions?
  
  ______________
  
  ^^^
  Thats a lesson plan you could very easily implement in any language arts or social studies class in America--call it civic education, or call it a reading comprehension + persuasive writing curriculum. w/e 
  
  I like the idea of putting it in the Language Arts classroom because no disrespect to Dickens and Shakespeare or Hemmingway and the like, but that strikes me as a MUCH more useful knowledge and better use of education time for primary gen ed. then learning how to write a Sonnet or parsing through the nuances of Victorian-era symbolism and social stratification in Great Expectations.

[FrostyFireMage]

Based on these accounts of Julie Swetnick's character I have severe doubts on the legitimacy of her accusations. It's pretty fucked up how you can defame someone like this and potentially ruin their life while receiving almost no punishment if caught out.

[eclipse]

The fact that they're anonymous doesn't help.  What's to stop someone that doesn't like her from posting the same thing over the years?

[Shoblongoo]

2 hours ago, FrostyFireMage said:

Based on these accounts of Julie Swetnick's character I have severe doubts on the legitimacy of her accusations. It's pretty fucked up how you can defame someone like this and potentially ruin their life while receiving almost no punishment if caught out.

Please. Tell Merrick Garland how unfairly Kavanaugh is being treated.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Additionally, there's a good chance that thing is photoshoped and even if it isn't, given how she's willing to testify under oath and has several security clearances, she's in a better position than Kavanaugh and it would take any of these guys coming out with evidence for this sort of thing to even phase her credibility. What's really hurting Kavanaugh are the increasing number of lies specially after Trump nominated him and these lies are under oath

Back to the subject of Conspiracy Theories, I agree that it is an education issue and should be addressed by dealing with that but at the same time, that won't necessarily deal with folks who are no longer in school and peddle conspiracy theories. I figured getting law enforcement involved would be a waste before asking the question but as much as it is probably a breach of free speech, I don't believe peddlers of conspiracy theories should get away with abusing free speech scott free, specially if the conspiracy theory is dangerous. The president for one, should not be peddling conspiracy theories and Tucker Carlson shouldn't have a fucking show to spread white nationalist propaganda. You could argue that it's just a small number of people that buy into that crap but I don't know, I think these stunts by Tucker Carlson should face some form of consequence because even though not all Americans buy into it, it can still be a tool that they can perpetuate and use to recruit more nutcases into voting for future Trumps or worse.

[Johann]

5 hours ago, FrostyFireMage said:

Based on these accounts of Julie Swetnick's character I have severe doubts on the legitimacy of her accusations. It's pretty fucked up how you can defame someone like this and potentially ruin their life while receiving almost no punishment if caught out.

Random anonymous online posts somewhere are giving you doubts? For all you can tell, that's just a campaign put together by trolls to discredit her. Frankly, based on his testimony, there's more reason to doubt anything come out of Kavanaugh's mouth since you can demonstrably show where he's evaded questions and lied.

Simply coming forward about this stuff pretty much overturns the lives of these women. They're getting death threats for crying out loud. Plus, if they are found to be committing perjury, they'd definitely end up facing serious charges. It's not some petty game to sabotage another person.

[XRay]

1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

I figured getting law enforcement involved would be a waste before asking the question but as much as it is probably a breach of free speech, I don't believe peddlers of conspiracy theories should get away with abusing free speech scott free, specially if the conspiracy theory is dangerous.

Once it has been shown that they will immediately or did cause some sort of damage via injury, death, monetary loss, etc., then the law can get involved. If the damage is not physical or monetarily measurable, it is hard to charge them with an offense since there is no harm being done besides making people more "stupid," and making people more stupid is not physically harming them and they are not losing any money.

On the more benign side, flat earthers, horoscope people, and religious people are not harming anyone with their outlandish beliefs. On the other hand, vaccine deniers and similar quackery are harming people by causing physical illness or death, so they can be charged with harming people; and even if they are harming people, if they are indirectly harming people, it is hard to charge them too. For example, it is pretty easy to charge the parents for neglect if they refuse medical treatment for their child and they die as a result, but it is not so easy to charge people who influenced the parents that cause them to refuse medical help for their child.

[Phoenix Wright]

2 hours ago, Johann said:

Random anonymous online posts somewhere are giving you doubts? For all you can tell, that's just a campaign put together by trolls to discredit her. Frankly, based on his testimony, there's more reason to doubt anything come out of Kavanaugh's mouth since you can demonstrably show where he's evaded questions and lied.

Simply coming forward about this stuff pretty much overturns the lives of these women. They're getting death threats for crying out loud. Plus, if they are found to be committing perjury, they'd definitely end up facing serious charges. It's not some petty game to sabotage another person.

1

 

i think one of my most hated 21st-century political developments is that this is something that actually happens. in a positive light, it's somewhat beautiful that normal people have found a platform by which to exercise considerably more power than they otherwise would have in any other platform (aside from voting).

however, it seems to never be used for progressive purposes. or even simply educational purposes. they're used to manipulate people and spread lies in order to discredit the opposition because it's easy and it works.

frostyfiremage, note in the future that it's a fact russian operatives held an online brigade to elevate trump's status. now more than ever, it is imprudent to believe anonymous people. there was a recent new york times article that was fully anonymous--to the general public. that was okay because folks at the times know the person's identity. (which, i suppose a leap of faith is required to believe that ny times actually knows the person. but, you'd have to be quite cynical to think they were lying, especially given the respect that the times garners.)

believe facts, not hearsay.