advertisement


Trump Part 16

Status
Not open for further replies.
vuk said:
in your example, the behaviour presented in both statements is equally bad
Click to expand...

And in your statement you were factually wrong and had the sort of extreme narrowness of scope of which WIlliam Barr would approve. But to be honest I don't really think your technique is quite as illuminating as you suggest, especially in a political question where it looks very close to spin.

On the subject of US cable news, I gave up watching because it takes them 20 mins to cover something that could be done in five and, particularly in regard to Maddow, this bizarrely belabored way of presenting information as if designed for people who cannot follow the logic of a simple sequence of facts. But what really makes her unwatchable is her habit of not just the leading questions you mention, but how her questions are always prefaced be a two minute speech. Lots of the them do this and it's very for someone used to a UK style of news show.

Even worse is how this also happens in congress which is why AOC's and Kamala Harris's questions have been so excellent.
 
maxflinn said:
What a pair of demented loons though...
Click to expand...

i don't think they are demented. it's two very wealthy, intelligent women upset about the collapse of society as they like it -- in the control of a wealthy, educated and, perhaps above all, polite professional class. the underlying psychology is the same as that of the trump supporter or radical progressive leftists like us, just that we all have different ideals that are not being met. that said, some ideals are arguably better than others.
 
@matthewr

who are your top 3 dem presidential picks? (not who you predict will win the nomination, but you want to win)

[interested in how others here would answer that, as well]
 
I don't know if I have a Top 3 at this state but candidates I like are Harris, Warren and Buttigieg. I like competence and strong leadership which is why I like Harris, Warren is the only person who has actually policies (which is probably her mistake!) and Buttigieg because he triggers all my middle class liberal soft spots.

I suspect it will come down to a choice between Biden the establishment candidate, Sanders the populist and Harris as the compromise. I think Harris is by far the best suited to taking on Trump as she is by far the best equipped for dealing with his bullshit. There are far too many random minor candidates who have no chance and I think should drop out, although I guess they all think Obama was once the random minor candidate.
 
Incidentally, @vuk, you might like Vaush on youtube. He comments on what we might call the politics meta from a leftist POV. He frequently makes me laugh and I like his combative style in dealing with people like Ben Shapiro.

 
vuk said:
[interested in how others here would answer that, as well]
Click to expand...

I’d want to study a lot of polling etc as with America, being a truly binary system, it is all about getting Republicans out and Democrats in. I don’t care which Democrat as *any* Democrat is better than *any* Republican. Basically all of them would reverse the damage to civil rights, healthcare, gun control, foreign policy etc to some substantial degree. There is no prospect of aiming at a beneficial hung parliament the way there is in the UK and other areas, so it really is all about who is best placed to get Trump the hell out of there. At this point I don’t know who that is.
 
matthewr said:
And in your statement you were factually wrong and had the sort of extreme narrowness of scope of which WIlliam Barr would approve. But to be honest I don't really think your technique is quite as illuminating as you suggest, especially in a political question where it looks very close to spin.

On the subject of US cable news, I gave up watching because it takes them 20 mins to cover something that could be done in five and, particularly in regard to Maddow, this bizarrely belabored way of presenting information as if designed for people who cannot follow the logic of a simple sequence of facts. But what really makes her unwatchable is her habit of not just the leading questions you mention, but how her questions are always prefaced be a two minute speech. Lots of the them do this and it's very for someone used to a UK style of news show.

Even worse is how this also happens in congress which is why AOC's and Kamala Harris's questions have been so excellent.
Click to expand...
Cable delivery has evolved to accomplish eyeball control while stretching content over a 24/7 schedule. I don't watch either, but susceptible individuals watch endlessly.
 
The thing is that the whole rotten system has been normalised & part of what is being fought for by Seth & others is NOT to normalise Trump' collusion & introduce further disease into the same rotten system. What he & others are doing, IMO, is attempt to draw attention to & outrage at Trump's behaviour. On the other side, the GOP & other rump apologists want to achieve this normalisation.

Watch how Barr will attempt (& maybe achieve) the shutdown of all the investigations spawned from Mueller's investigation. This statement from Barr is chilling - i paraphrase 'If Trump believes an investigation is unfair then it's not illegal for him to shut it down' - this was given as the excuse for Trump's attempts to shutdown Mueller
 
It is worth re-emphasing two key points:

1) Trump and his acolytes are attempting to put themselves effectively above the law.

2) If we think about the 2020 election then the most obvious thing to say is that Russia will try to help Trump again and Trump will again embrace this.
 
matthewr said:
There are far too many random minor candidates who have no chance and I think should drop out, although I guess they all think Obama was once the random minor candidate.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. We don't need 12 months of fractious circular firing squads wearing down the leading candidates - we need a good degree of unity to deliver a victory in the GE.
 
vuk said:
i don't think they are demented. it's two very wealthy, intelligent women upset about the collapse of society as they like it -- in the control of a wealthy, educated and, perhaps above all, polite professional class.
Click to expand...
I don't think Rachel Maddow cares about much, Vuk. She's extraordinarily wealthy, and got that way for parroting the Washington consensus, and rabidly spreading vile Russiaphobia and conspiracy theories non-stop for the last three years, while rarely, if ever mentioning the grotesque crimes of her own country including interference in elections and governments all over the world that makes any alleged Russian meddling in US2016 look like child's play, and the slaughter of thousands of innocents in Yemen, where a US supported blockade is starving the whole country, leading to the worst humanitarian crisis this century.

Morally defunct, I'd say.

I won't even begin to talk about the other creature, and her extremist, genocidal American Exceptionalist ideology that has left countries destroyed and millions dead in its wake.
vuk said:
the underlying psychology is the same as that of the trump supporter or radical progressive leftists like us, just that we all have different ideals that are not being met. that said, some ideals are arguably better than others.
Click to expand...
I think the underlying psychology of those people is very far from that of a Tulsi Gabbard, or Bernie Sanders, or any of the people who support them based on their shared ideals.
 
Tony L said:
Basically all of them would reverse the damage to civil rights, healthcare, gun control, foreign policy etc to some substantial degree.
Click to expand...
At the risk of annoying you, Tony, which is not my intention, I'd just like to point out that, based on what I've seen of the various candidates, and their records, which matter, it's not likely that all would substantially reverse the damage - as you put it - in those areas you mentioned, bar perhaps civil rights.

All would be better to varying degrees than Trump though. That I can agree with, but given the last Democratic administration failed so badly that people ended up desperate enough to vote for Trump, I'd place more importance on the right Democrat (no pun intended) becoming president in 2020.

Another corporate shill won't be much different to Trump, in terms of actual policies, and the knock-on effect.

He/she will seem very nice in comparison, though.
 
maxflinn said:
I'd just like to point out that, based on what I've seen of the various candidates, and their records, which matter, it's not likely that all would substantially reverse the damage - as you put it - in those areas you mentioned, bar perhaps civil rights.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Look at any Democrat and you will see movement on all the areas I listed. Trump has been an utter disaster; pretty much a KKK-mentality when it comes to civil rights, he reversed Obamacare, denies climate science/any environmental responsibility, empowered the NRA despite almost weekly mass shootings (many from white supremacists), empowered the “pro-life” religious misogynists and homophobic bigots, enabled Netanyahu with regards to settlements, Israel's capital city etc, is causing huge issues in Venezuela etc etc etc. All the things I argued with you would happen were he to be elected. Any Democrat would stand firmly against all of this and seek to undo the huge damage he has caused. You and Vuk endlessly blather on about how awful Hillary Clinton was, but none of this far-right shit would have happened on her watch. Absolutely none. The same goes for any other Democrat as far as I can tell.

Sure, given the choice I’d prefer someone to the left of the mainstream Democrat spectrum as that might achieve the damage reversal a little faster, but as I say above the prioty is to remove Trump and his administration at *any* cost. That boils down to picking the Democrat most likely to win. As I say I don’t know who that is yet. To put it another way I’d happily take a Democrat to the right of Hillary if it gets Trump out. I am far from convinced fighting Trump’s popularism with the sort of left-wing popularism you and Vuk favour is the right strategy, but regardless I hope the Democrats find a genuinely strong and viable candidate of whatever type can win.
 
There are no Democrats to the right of Hillary, to my knowledge, and thank god.

I personally think only a proper progressive Democrat can beat Trump. Sanders or Gabbard.

And if, as is likely the DNC try to get a corporatist over the line by using the Superdelegates, at the expense of a Sanders or Gabbard, then I see the likely voting apathy amongst progressives making Trump a certainty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top