US Politics Thread

[Fiero425]

Yes, free speech is still better in the US than in many places, including Germany. But we also have hate speech laws that can and are used to censor divergent views, as well as issues around censorship, "misinformation," cancellation, etc. The whole mis/dis/mal-information is a big one, and one that so-called progressive heroes like AOC cheer for. The government and media are quick to accuse non-sanctioned views as mis/dis/mal, but rarely (if ever) correct themselves.

I fully support trans people to self-define as they want -- to be trans, to live as they choose, etc. But it isn't a blanket, "whatever the most radical trans activists say is gospel truth, because it is the Latest Thing and as a good leftie I agree with it wholeheartedly." For example, I don't think biological men have the right to participate in women's sports, because they're not biological women - regardless of what they claim. I don't think we should be so quick to offer "trans-affirming healthcare" to children, let alone be paid for by American tax-payers. Nor do I think "mis-gendering" someone should be considered hate speech or be prosecutable. Etc.

In other words, self-definition is one thing, but asking the whole world to re-arrange itself around what you want to believe about yourself is quite another. As has often been the case, in its rush to be the liberal savior to the latest focused group of oppression, the Left may actually be doing more harm than good. This doesn't mean I agree with the right, btw -- and really, that's one of my main overarching points: the idea that we have to pick team Blue or Red on every single issue, and thereby feed the endless "culture war" which ultimately serves the ruling class through dividing the people.

Yes, I get it. You think the left is good, the right is bad. I used to think that way too, or at least that the left (Democrats) were the "lesser of two evils." My view has changed over the last 6-7 years...now I hate them all. Haha.

Note that Democrats only supported gay marriage when it became politically expedient to do so. Obama started off as (supposedly) against gay marriage, but when the political tide turned, he "changed" his view.

Note also that the Democrats were much more loudly calling for vaccine mandates --that is, forced medical treatments (or societal exile and restriction if you didn't comply). Democrats have also been more strongly for governmental censorship and oversight. Oh, and who exactly is building that wall? Etc, etc.

I don't give the right a passing grade, though have found some of them better over the last few years on some of the issues mentioned. In that regard, I speak as someone who is deeply disappointed with the "progressive movement" that I used to align with.

You cite things that Democrats have fought for in the past. I think there's a big difference between the Democratic Party of 40+ years ago and the one we have today. What I have found is that, time and time again, when push comes to shove, the establishment left doesn't really fight for the things that really matter. Like Medicare for All. Sure, they give the appearance of "pushing for" some things, but to what degree do they really fight? Nancy Pelosi is infamous for blocking MfA, time and time again. And the Fraud Squad never really fought for it, or use their leverage to push it to the floor when they could have. And none of these people said anything in support of unvaccinated folks, and most them go right along with whatever arena of war the neocons are focused on.

So to be clear, if I haven't been clear already, I'm not a post-left person who has turned to the right. I hate both establishment parties, which I see as two wings of the uni-party that serves the ruling class. The one credit I'll give the Republicans is that they're more honest - they tell you what they're about. Democrats are more deceptive; they say one thing, but usually do nothing at all or even the opposite. So my view is that both establishment parties are corrupt and rotten beyond repair. A pox on both their houses!

Clinton tried to get the ball rolling in '93 w/ Gays in the military! Republicans lost their $#!t, talking to servicemen on ships, submarines, etc., trying to rile them up about being cramped up in places w/ gays! They got away w/ it and Bill pulled back; going totally conservative to save his agenda which he did in the end! Dems have always been on the sides of minorities even if it hurt them politically! In Hawaii, there were the 1st marriages in '97! The rule in our democracy was, if one state made law which made gay marriage legal, all other states had to follow! That was the beginning of the end as Republicans went on a crusade of hate & I've never forgiven them for it! They even paid black leaders and churches to back their efforts! I'm still disgusted by all concerned! "W" overdid it in 2004, winning re-election, but he wound up being a colossal loser as he lost every meaningful fight afterwards! His admin. were a bunch a-#hole haters and they paid for it! OBAMA took over w/ "hope & change!" Unfortunate those haters had a huge comeback anointing a creature like Trump as President! We're still paying for it!

 

[Moxie]

Yes, free speech is still better in the US than in many places, including Germany. But we also have hate speech laws that can and are used to censor divergent views, as well as issues around censorship, "misinformation," cancellation, etc

I'd like you to cite me a "hate speech law." Aside from "libel," which has long been law. You also failed to explain your exemption for "hurt feelings."

. The whole mis/dis/mal-information is a big one, and one that so-called progressive heroes like AOC cheer for. The government and media are quick to accuse non-sanctioned views as mis/dis/mal, but rarely (if ever) correct themselves.

This, I think, is a different thing. Throwing mud out there on social media and on TV, and no one ever has to account for it. I don't know what you mean about "the government [accusing] non-sanctioned views." It's a broad-strokes point, and an example would be helpful.

I also don't understand the obsession with AOC. She's very junior in the House. Yes, she has a big social media presence, but I'd say the media on the right have given her more attention than anyone else. Why so much attention, relative to her actual power?

I fully support trans people to self-define as they want -- to be trans, to live as they choose, etc. But it isn't a blanket, "whatever the most radical trans activists say is gospel truth, because it is the Latest Thing and as a good leftie I agree with it wholeheartedly." For example, I don't think biological men have the right to participate in women's sports, because they're not biological women - regardless of what they claim. I don't think we should be so quick to offer "trans-affirming healthcare" to children, let alone be paid for by American tax-payers. Nor do I think "mis-gendering" someone should be considered hate speech or be prosecutable. Etc.

I would say that we agree on all of this.

In other words, self-definition is one thing, but asking the whole world to re-arrange itself around what you want to believe about yourself is quite another. As has often been the case, in its rush to be the liberal savior to the latest focused group of oppression, the Left may actually be doing more harm than good. This doesn't mean I agree with the right, btw -- and really, that's one of my main overarching points: the idea that we have to pick team Blue or Red on every single issue, and thereby feed the endless "culture war" which ultimately serves the ruling class through dividing the people.

I hear you on this. I have deep roots in NH, (and a house there,) which is the original "Live Free or Die" state, meaning that they are dyed-in-the-wool Libertarians. Like my dad. (I see that everyone here is keen to identify as left-Libertarian, all of a sudden. I'm not convinced by everyone's self-definition.) But, yes, the point is: live and let live. My very WWII-gen parents said, when civil unions were first coming in Vermont: "How does this affect my marriage? It doesn't." Let people self-identify. You do you, and I'll do me, but don't cry foul if I got your pronouns wrong.

I do know what you're saying that the "left" is championing every "latest focused group of oppression," or that it feels that way. I don't think that's the kindest assessment of why people champion civil rights, but you are far from the only person that sees it this way. I could also say that the "right" gloms onto every culture issue as a reason to go to war against it. But I do agree that both sides have tipped too far on the culture wars.

Yes, I get it. You think the left is good, the right is bad. I used to think that way too, or at least that the left (Democrats) were the "lesser of two evils." My view has changed over the last 6-7 years...now I hate them all. Haha.

Has my opinion been so lacking in nuance? I don't think that the left is good and the right is bad. I tend to agree with the Democrats, and disagree with the Republicans, but that's about opinion. Disagreeing is fair argument, is it not? I won't pretend that I don't think that the Republicans are supporting some very strongly anti-Democratic agendas. I find that worrisome.

Note that Democrats only supported gay marriage when it became politically expedient to do so. Obama started off as (supposedly) against gay marriage, but when the political tide turned, he "changed" his view.

As I noted earlier, Lincoln also wasn't originally for the Emancipation Proclamation. People and politicians evolve. If you find either of those positions politically expedient, then you are no idealist.

Note also that the Democrats were much more loudly calling for vaccine mandates --that is, forced medical treatments (or societal exile and restriction if you didn't comply). Democrats have also been more strongly for governmental censorship and oversight. Oh, and who exactly is building that wall? Etc, etc.

I know why this is a problem for you.

I don't give the right a passing grade, though have found some of them better over the last few years on some of the issues mentioned. In that regard, I speak as someone who is deeply disappointed with the "progressive movement" that I used to align with.

That is your right.

You cite things that Democrats have fought for in the past. I think there's a big difference between the Democratic Party of 40+ years ago and the one we have today. What I have found is that, time and time again, when push comes to shove, the establishment left doesn't really fight for the things that really matter. Like Medicare for All. Sure, they give the appearance of "pushing for" some things, but to what degree do they really fight? Nancy Pelosi is infamous for blocking MfA, time and time again. And the Fraud Squad never really fought for it, or use their leverage to push it to the floor when they could have. And none of these people said anything in support of unvaccinated folks, and most them go right along with whatever arena of war the neocons are focused on.

So to be clear, if I haven't been clear already, I'm not a post-left person who has turned to the right. I hate both establishment parties, which I see as two wings of the uni-party that serves the ruling class. The one credit I'll give the Republicans is that they're more honest - they tell you what they're about. Democrats are more deceptive; they say one thing, but usually do nothing at all or even the opposite. So my view is that both establishment parties are corrupt and rotten beyond repair. A pox on both their houses!

You are far from the only person who feels that way. For a long time. I have even posted here about how it would be better if we could open up the two-party system, but they have a lock on it. Always the same problem: if you vote for RFK, Jr., who has just said he's going to run as an independent, you will help elect Donald Trump, who is a neo-fascist, IMO. We need to dump the Electoral College, which has been discussed here, of late. And, if we really wanted to get rid of the two-party system, we should adopt ranked-choice voting on a national level. But that would require those in power, and committed to the two-party system to support it, and they won't. Same as the Republicans won't get rid of the Electoral College, because it keeps them in power, rather than actually appealing to the general electorate, which they haven't done for decades.

 

[Kieran]

I'd like you to cite me a "hate speech law." Aside from "libel," which has long been law. You also failed to explain your exemption for "hurt feelings."

This, I think, is a different thing. Throwing mud out there on social media and on TV, and no one ever has to account for it. I don't know what you mean about "the government [accusing] non-sanctioned views." It's a broad-strokes point, and an example would be helpful.

I also don't understand the obsession with AOC. She's very junior in the House. Yes, she has a big social media presence, but I'd say the media on the right have given her more attention than anyone else. Why so much attention, relative to her actual power?

I would say that we agree on all of this.

I hear you on this. I have deep roots in NH, (and a house there,) which is the original "Live Free or Die" state, meaning that they are dyed-in-the-wool Libertarians. Like my dad. (I see that everyone here is keen to identify as left-Libertarian, all of a sudden. I'm not convinced by everyone's self-definition.) But, yes, the point is: live and let live. My very WWII-gen parents said, when civil unions were first coming in Vermont: "How does this affect my marriage? It doesn't." Let people self-identify. You do you, and I'll do me, but don't cry foul if I got your pronouns wrong.

I do know what you're saying that the "left" is championing every "latest focused group of oppression," or that it feels that way. I don't think that's the kindest assessment of why people champion civil rights, but you are far from the only person that sees it this way. I could also say that the "right" gloms onto every culture issue as a reason to go to war against it. But I do agree that both sides have tipped too far on the culture wars.

Has my opinion been so lacking in nuance? I don't think that the left is good and the right is bad. I tend to agree with the Democrats, and disagree with the Republicans, but that's about opinion. Disagreeing is fair argument, is it not? I won't pretend that I don't think that the Republicans are supporting some very strongly anti-Democratic agendas. I find that worrisome.

As I noted earlier, Lincoln also wasn't originally for the Emancipation Proclamation. People and politicians evolve. If you find either of those positions politically expedient, then you are no idealist.

I know why this is a problem for you.

That is your right.

You are far from the only person who feels that way. For a long time. I have even posted here about how it would be better if we could open up the two-party system, but they have a lock on it. Always the same problem: if you vote for RFK, Jr., who has just said he's going to run as an independent, you will help elect Donald Trump, who is a neo-fascist, IMO. We need to dump the Electoral College, which has been discussed here, of late. And, if we really wanted to get rid of the two-party system, we should adopt ranked-choice voting on a national level. But that would require those in power, and committed to the two-party system to support it, and they won't. Same as the Republicans won't get rid of the Electoral College, because it keeps them in power, rather than actually appealing to the general electorate, which they haven't done for decades.

Just on a couple of points of order on this, who is the ‘everyone…here keen to identify as Left-Libertarian all of a sudden.’

I must be missing a page, I think I only noticed the Dude?

And what have you ever agreed with Republicans on? And disagreed with Democrats on? I’m just curious, to understand all this better…

 

[Moxie]

Just on a couple of points of order on this, who is the ‘everyone…here keen to identify as Left-Libertarian all of a sudden.’

I must be missing a page, I think I only noticed the Dude?

If you go back two pages, you say that you took some test and felt that you fell in the left-libertarian, as well. And Tented seemed to identify right in there. Am I wrong to understand that's what you meant?

And what have you ever agreed with Republicans on? And disagreed with Democrats on? I’m just curious, to understand all this better…

I'm not sure why I'm the one that gets my feet held to the fire by you, and I'm not sure why you get to keep telling me what I think, no matter how much I ask you to stop. Of everyone here, surely I support the Democrats, as a party, but there is a two-party system in the US, and we have to work within it to get things done.

I have certainly ever agreed with individual Republicans, like Liz Cheney, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and others, but it in my lifetime, I have not been able to support the Republican platform, as an agenda. Agreeing with individuals isn't the same thing as supporting the party or putting them in power.

As you can see in the above post, I know a lot about Libertarians, and there is a lot that I agree with them about. You just didn't ask me that. I think I also mentioned things I don't agree with Democrats on.

As a point of order, I think we need to have a conversation around here about what Left and Right actually mean, politically, and what distinctions there are between Left/Right:emocrat/Republican. We should also discuss Left/Right Libertarians. You got upset with me a few days ago for say there is barely a "Left" in the US. In the classical models, there really has been a lot of aversion to extreme left-wing politics in the US. Communism has long been out, and socialism is always tampered with Capitalism. I'd say you define terms differently, so let's define terms, so we can all know what we're talking about.

 

[Kieran]

If you go back two pages, you say that you took some test and felt that you fell in the left-libertarian, as well. And Tented seemed to identify right in there. Am I wrong to understand that's what you meant?

I said I did the test and according to the test I was libertarian left, but I never said I identified as that. My political positions range from conservative in some things, and liberal on others, and that I believe in certain welfare and health policies because I’m a Catholic, not because of left wing politics.

But you think that I’m “keen to identity as libertarian left?” Why would I be? And even if I was keen, why would you think I’m wrong?

You’re complaining I’m holding your feet to the fire but I tend to be direct whereas with your post, I smelt the jab and wondered why it wasn’t more direct.

I'm not sure why I'm the one that gets my feet held to the fire by you, and I'm not sure why you get to keep telling me what I think, no matter how much I ask you to stop. Of everyone here, surely I support the Democrats, as a party, but there is a two-party system in the US, and we have to work within it to get things done.

I have certainly ever agreed with individual Republicans, like Liz Cheney, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and others, but it in my lifetime, I have not been able to support the Republican platform, as an agenda. Agreeing with individuals isn't the same thing as supporting the party or putting them in power.

As you can see in the above post, I know a lot about Libertarians, and there is a lot that I agree with them about. You just didn't ask me that. I think I also mentioned things I don't agree with Democrats on.

As a point of order, I think we need to have a conversation around here about what Left and Right actually mean, politically, and what distinctions there are between Left/Right:emocrat/Republican. We should also discuss Left/Right Libertarians. You got upset with me a few days ago for say there is barely a "Left" in the US. In the classical models, there really has been a lot of aversion to extreme left-wing politics in the US. Communism has long been out, and socialism is always tampered with Capitalism. I'd say you define terms differently, so let's define terms, so we can all know what we're talking about.

I didn’t get upset with you for saying “there is barely a left” - I was amazed that you thought the American political spectrum ranged from “far right to slightly left of centre”, when plainly the far left not only exist but are running rings around everybody trying to dismantle and destroy the fabric of society. We’ve discussed this so often that when you didn’t even acknowledge that they exist, it seemed bizarre. Imagine a card carrying Republican denied the existence of the far right.

I don’t always tell you what you think, by the way, you’re fond of saying that, but I am sceptical when you simply say that you tend to agree with the Democrats. It’s not a tendency. You don’t don’t surprise me in your political views, any more than a Republican wouldn’t surprise me in their political views. I don’t always disagree with your views, by the way, but I am always curious as to how people reach their conclusions. And I do agree with your point that in a two party system, your choices are limited. But this is why I always say that it’s good housekeeping to criticise your own team first, and be aware of its limitations and more loony elements. You may think they’re fighting for civil rights, but I wonder do you ever question that.

As for definitions of political terms we use, we had this about cultural Marxism on a previous occasion, and anything that smacks of treating people according to their group identity has its origins in Marxism. And identity politics is rife in America and in its institutions. It’s weaponised everywhere now in west.

But it’s a good idea that we should be clear in our use of language, and our definitions and distinctions, when we speak. Call things what they are, and be clear about it. The left are not always wrong in their views, but they are wrong when they blame the right for its excesses while ignoring their own. And there’s a vice versa in that too…

 

[Federberg]

Am I the only one finding it delicious that Chicago is ending its status as a sanctuary city? All that Democratic Party self righteousness is changing now that they're facing the immigrant swarm directly. I thought it was obscene when both Texas and Florida started shipping illegal immigrants up North, but I have to concede that there was some brilliance there. It's easy to act like the better person when you're not facing this stuff. I always found a lot of the moral superiority a bit fake. No point accusing people of racism when your major cities are hyper-segregated, and the solutions that would resolve the issue would have an adverse impact on your champagne socialist lives Utterly delicious!

 

[Federberg]

^oh! And looking at the polling data, it's minorities that particularly want to end sanctuary cities. Not a huge surprise to people who live in the real world and can absorb common sense and reality!

 

[Kieran]

^oh! And looking at the polling data, it's minorities that particularly want to end sanctuary cities. Not a huge surprise to people who live in the real world and can absorb common sense and reality!

New York wants out, too, after smugly telling migrants that they were welcome to a “shelter state”.

Mayor Adams on CNN:

This Issue Will Destroy New York

I think the border states were right to transport their problem to people who accused them of being racists when they were struggling to handle it. Who’s racist now? Biden - who was VP in the regime that built the cages - is now building the wall.

It’s hard to make this stuff up…

 

[Federberg]

New York wants out, too, after smugly telling migrants that they were welcome to a “shelter state”.

Mayor Adams on CNN:

This Issue Will Destroy New York

I think the border states were right to transport their problem to people who accused them of being racists when they were struggling to handle it. Who’s racist now? Biden - who was VP in the regime that built the cages - is now building the wall.

It’s hard to make this stuff up…

Obama was a pragmatist about it. The issue is that when Republicans want to focus on immigration they get hit with the identity politics card. Must be infuriating

 

[Kieran]

Obama was a pragmatist about it. The issue is that when Republicans want to focus on immigration they get hit with the identity politics card. Must be infuriating

Exactly. He was doing what he was elected to.

Barack Obama - Deporter in Chief:

Based on statements so far, Trump's plan to remove the undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes is similar to what President Obama declared in 2014.

 

[Fiero425]

Exactly. He was doing what he was elected to.

Barack Obama - Deporter in Chief:

That's one of many problems I had w/ Obama! No matter how well he came off, Republicans did their best to try dirtying him up! He tried to appease those animals early on w/ mass deportaions one of those ugly acts of cowardness! He ran from controversy trying to stay one step ahead of the slime being thrown! Trump can take a bow though on how he tossed long-standing immigrant kid of 6 out of the country! I can still see this woman on the news! She voted fot Trump! He told her what he would do if elected! Her husband of 12 years was snatched up by Feds dropping their kids off at school! He was summarily kicked out; no hearing, no nothing! Even I wouldn't berate her today w/ "I told you so b!tch!" That man has hurt so many families; just maliciously! It hasn't saved us a damned thing! It just made us more of a laughing-stock internationally!

 

[Federberg]

That's one of many problems I had w/ Obama! No matter how well he came off, Republicans did their best to try dirtying him up! He tried to appease those animals early on w/ mass deportaions one of those ugly acts of cowardness! He ran from controversy trying to stay one step ahead of the slime being thrown! Trump can take a bow though on how he tossed long-standing immigrant kid of 6 out of the country! I can still see this woman on the news! She voted fot Trump! He told her what he would do if elected! Her husband of 12 years was snatched up by Feds dropping their kids off at school! He was summarily kicked out; no hearing, no nothing! Even I wouldn't berate her today w/ "I told you so b!tch!" That man has hurt so many families; just maliciously! It hasn't saved us a damned thing! It just made us more of a laughing-stock internationally!

but why was it cowardly. That's the law of the land. And now we're seeing, in New York and Chicago, it's different when they're lying on your streets. These are economic migrants

 

[Fiero425]

but why was it cowardly. That's the law of the land. And now we're seeing, in New York and Chicago, it's different when they're lying on your streets. These are economic migrants

It was so obvious Obama thought it would take some heat off him when it came to Repulbicans & conservatives! He was wasting his fk'n time! Those people showed their entire arse to the world! They were ugly, insulting, & for the most part disgusting POS! it wasn't enough to go after him, they had to drag in his wife & kids! I've been DONE w/ Republicans ever since! Electing Trump and overlooking his colossal fraud of an admin. showed they have no patriotism or even loyalty to the democracy! Look at how they've run things over the last 20 years! Sabotage is more like what they've been doing! As I've said, I'm glad to be a Sr. so I don't have to deal w/ this BS for much longer if I can help it!

 

[Moxie]

I said I did the test and according to the test I was libertarian left, but I never said I identified as that. My political positions range from conservative in some things, and liberal on others, and that I believe in certain welfare and health policies because I’m a Catholic, not because of left wing politics.

That's a fine distinction, so I hope you can understand if I took that as you identifying as such. I personally believe much of what I believe because of moral choices of my own. This is why I object to you call my views tribalistic...you always assume that I don't make my choices for my own reasons, and freely.

But you think that I’m “keen to identity as libertarian left?” Why would I be? And even if I was keen, why would you think I’m wrong?

You’re complaining I’m holding your feet to the fire but I tend to be direct whereas with your post, I smelt the jab and wondered why it wasn’t more direct.

I couldn't see any reason that I should be the one to "tell" you how you should identify, when you could clarify it yourself, which you did.

I didn’t get upset with you for saying “there is barely a left” - I was amazed that you thought the American political spectrum ranged from “far right to slightly left of centre”, when plainly the far left not only exist but are running rings around everybody trying to dismantle and destroy the fabric of society. We’ve discussed this so often that when you didn’t even acknowledge that they exist, it seemed bizarre. Imagine a card carrying Republican denied the existence of the far right.

It's the history of the left in the country that makes me say that. But it has to do with definitions. (See below.)

I don’t always tell you what you think, by the way, you’re fond of saying that, but I am sceptical when you simply say that you tend to agree with the Democrats. It’s not a tendency. You don’t don’t surprise me in your political views, any more than a Republican wouldn’t surprise me in their political views. I don’t always disagree with your views, by the way, but I am always curious as to how people reach their conclusions. And I do agree with your point that in a two party system, your choices are limited. But this is why I always say that it’s good housekeeping to criticise your own team first, and be aware of its limitations and more loony elements. You may think they’re fighting for civil rights, but I wonder do you ever question that.

I didn't say that you "always" tell me what I think, but you do, which you admit, and I find that disparaging. You give a laundry list of notions and attribute them to me, but call it "rhetorical." That's a passive aggressive trap which I refuse to fall into, so you respond by say, "but I think I know how you'd respond." that's not direct...it's a cheap tactic. I'm sorry if I fail to surprise you, but it's hard to surprise someone who already knows what he thinks.

As for definitions of political terms we use, we had this about cultural Marxism on a previous occasion, and anything that smacks of treating people according to their group identity has its origins in Marxism. And identity politics is rife in America and in its institutions. It’s weaponised everywhere now in west.

I still don't agree that cultural Marxism is a thing, so there's that problem with your notion of a far-left in the US, as far as definitions go. Nor your idea that identity politics is one of the worst things we have to deal with. There are problems with it, including on the right, with white nationalist identity politics, and amongst the young, who are so afraid to put a foot wrong that they're paralyzed.

But it’s a good idea that we should be clear in our use of language, and our definitions and distinctions, when we speak. Call things what they are, and be clear about it. The left are not always wrong in their views, but they are wrong when they blame the right for its excesses while ignoring their own. And there’s a vice versa in that too…

As we continually discuss.

 

[Moxie]

Am I the only one finding it delicious that Chicago is ending its status as a sanctuary city? All that Democratic Party self righteousness is changing now that they're facing the immigrant swarm directly. I thought it was obscene when both Texas and Florida started shipping illegal immigrants up North, but I have to concede that there was some brilliance there. It's easy to act like the better person when you're not facing this stuff. I always found a lot of the moral superiority a bit fake. No point accusing people of racism when your major cities are hyper-segregated, and the solutions that would resolve the issue would have an adverse impact on your champagne socialist lives Utterly delicious!

Well, that's rather a lot of schadenfreude against cities (I'm including NY here, based on the subsequent posts,) that already have a lot of immigrants, for a long time. Is it really "moral superiority" to try to have an accepting policy, when you have acted on it? A huge influx of people does create housing problems, and a strain on social systems. I'm not clear why "glee" is the proper reaction.

 

[Moxie]

@Kieran I just read that the poet Louise Gluck has died. You'll appreciate this quote from her, "I dislike being herded into certainty."

 

[Kieran]

That's a fine distinction, so I hope you can understand if I took that as you identifying as such. I personally believe much of what I believe because of moral choices of my own. This is why I object to you call my views tribalistic...you always assume that I don't make my choices for my own reasons, and freely.

It’s not really a fine distinction but I get that in the bustle of reading posts we often can make mistakes.

I didn't say that you "always" tell me what I think, but you do, which you admit, and I find that disparaging. You give a laundry list of notions and attribute them to me, but call it "rhetorical." That's a passive aggressive trap which I refuse to fall into, so you respond by say, "but I think I know how you'd respond." that's not direct...it's a cheap tactic. I'm sorry if I fail to surprise you, but it's hard to surprise someone who already knows what he thinks.

Well actually I was trying to broaden the reference to not make it sound like it was only you I was referring to. But I think I know your answers to those questions. And the thing is, you may be right or wrong in your positions but I don’t remember any of your positions contradicting Democrat party talking points. I just don’t. Whether it’s race, gender, migration, whatever the issue might be, I don’t remember you ever saying, that’s wrong, dunno why they believe that.

This particularly struck me whenever we discussed trans. You said the interviewer questioning the crazy activists had an agenda - but didn’t think that the so-called therapists who were chemically castrating little boys had an agenda.

I still don't agree that cultural Marxism is a thing, so there's that problem with your notion of a far-left in the US, as far as definitions go. Nor your idea that identity politics is one of the worst things we have to deal with. There are problems with it, including on the right, with white nationalist identity politics, and amongst the young, who are so afraid to put a foot wrong that they're paralyzed.

This is another reason. There are dyed in the wool republicans who think they have no far right. Your own President said antifa was only an idea. When you dismiss concerns as being non existent it makes me think that where you’re from, they’re not discussing these things as being concerning. People are too kind to their own tribe, and the others are bigots. Neither tribe ever address the bigots on their own side. And yes, there are identity politics issues with the far right. Based on this awareness of identity politics, I just don’t see why you don’t see it with race hustlers, for instance.

But anyway, it exists and it’s a large problem in the west. It’s one of the most transparent weapons the far left use to try to divide us..

 

[Kieran]

@Kieran I just read that the poet Louise Gluck has died. You'll appreciate this quote from her, "I dislike being herded into certainty."

I like that quote. There’s a history of great poets telling us to slay our sacred cows. I agree with it. Hold our beliefs close to the fire, see how they withstand it. It can be painful but it’s necessary, because that’s the only way to know they’re real…

 

[Kieran]

Well, that's rather a lot of schadenfreude against cities (I'm including NY here, based on the subsequent posts,) that already have a lot of immigrants, for a long time. Is it really "moral superiority" to try to have an accepting policy, when you have acted on it? A huge influx of people does create housing problems, and a strain on social systems. I'm not clear why "glee" is the proper reaction.

I think people feel that schadenfreude because other states were labelled racist for saying the flow had to be stopped. I personally find it very funny how quickly the New York mayor and Governor flip flopped, and now he’s doing a tour of Central America, seemingly panicking about it and begging them not to come…

 

[Federberg]

Well, that's rather a lot of schadenfreude against cities (I'm including NY here, based on the subsequent posts,) that already have a lot of immigrants, for a long time. Is it really "moral superiority" to try to have an accepting policy, when you have acted on it? A huge influx of people does create housing problems, and a strain on social systems. I'm not clear why "glee" is the proper reaction.

yes it is when you're getting the ones who've got their sh1t together. Try the ones that land on your doorstep after a long trip over the Rio Grande. It's different. I think you know that. Your mayor certainly does. All an accepting policy does is encourage even more to come. You folks should be pushing aggressively to help sort out the issues in there home countries, rather than exerting energy attaching -ism's to the folks wanting the laws to be correctly applied