US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

She didn't hold back at all. This "presidency" is going to be hilarious. Seriously? Getting upset about a parody? He is so thin-skinned. I was ROFLing. He has gone after Alec Baldwin every time he spoofs him. Talk about needing to grow up. My stomach is hurting from laughing at this fool. I have never seen anyone this ignorant in my life.

I really hope he doesn't do this after he's sworn in

 

[Tennis Fan]

I really hope he doesn't do this after he's sworn in

This is how Trump is. He's always been this way. I refused to watch his reality show because I knew too much about him for years. He's a sick one. People are going to find out the hard way.

 

[Federberg]

He's always struck me as a bit of a fraud. In my previous life I worked for and met a number of billionaires. They have a certain quiet intensity and inner certainty. He just doesn't have that vibe. Admittedly there's always an exception to every rule, but he does give off this air of the Emperor with no clothes about him

 

[Tennis Fan]

He's always struck me as a bit of a fraud. In my previous life I worked for and met a number of billionaires. They have a certain quiet intensity and inner certainty. He just doesn't have that vibe. Admittedly there's always an exception to every rule, but he does give off this air of the Emperor with no clothes about him

That's because unlike most of those billionaires he was gifted his inheritance and didn't work for it. He has no certainty about him at all. He's like the kid who was picked on and now has "come good." He's full of insecurity and fear. Why else would he be spending so much time on social media acting a fool? I wouldn't expect that type of behavior from a CEO of a company, let alone someone who wants to be the President of the U.S. But, mainstream media isn't reporting all of this. They're trying their best to make this clown look legitimate, but it won't work. He's a loose cannon with a narcissistic personality. SMH that anyone voted for this obvious fool.

 

[Federberg]

Superb article....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/m..._20161202&nl=magazine&nlid=76266176&te=1&_r=1

 

[Ricardo]

That's because unlike most of those billionaires he was gifted his inheritance and didn't work for it. He has no certainty about him at all. He's like the kid who was picked on and now has "come good." He's full of insecurity and fear. Why else would he be spending so much time on social media acting a fool? I wouldn't expect that type of behavior from a CEO of a company, let alone someone who wants to be the President of the U.S. But, mainstream media isn't reporting all of this. They're trying their best to make this clown look legitimate, but it won't work. He's a loose cannon with a narcissistic personality. SMH that anyone voted for this obvious fool.

just incapable of posting anything smart.....he was gifted his inheritance? that's all? he wasn't gifted billions, his father although successful, wasn't nearly on the same level as far as net worth goes. All you ever do is write rubbish, you are a worthless clown.

 

[Ricardo]

Superb article....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/m..._20161202&nl=magazine&nlid=76266176&te=1&_r=1

here we go, NYT again......what an objective source, that start non-stop Trump-bashing ever since he started his campaign. Why don't you find something from Vanity Fair to go with it too?

yeah he is a 'fraud', and you are 'genuine'? you haven't met billionaires, you are a fraud yourself.....you can't defend your reference, and your source of info (NYT and others) we all know is always agenda driven. Saying you 'met' billionaires or whatever famous people, hmmmmm.....easy to spot why you make up such things.

 

[Moxie]

here we go, NYT again......what an objective source, that start non-stop Trump-bashing ever since he started his campaign. Why don't you find something from Vanity Fair to go with it too?

yeah he is a 'fraud', and you are 'genuine'? you haven't met billionaires, you are a fraud yourself.....you can't defend your reference, and your source of info (NYT and others) we all know is always agenda driven. Saying you 'met' billionaires or whatever famous people, hmmmmm.....easy to spot why you make up such things.

You denigrate the citing of the NYT, but it's fairly clear you didn't read the article. You don't even have any interest in it. Or any of the other citations. You're just reacting against. You don't even actually have a point of view. You just troll other peoples' opinions. If you have an opinion on the elections, you might state it.

 

[Asmodeus]

Superb article....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/m..._20161202&nl=magazine&nlid=76266176&te=1&_r=1

While it's a well written summation of his book, the problem with this types of academic research is they are non-falsifiable. That is, you can't really prove that his claims are correct or incorrect. Other example of Non-falsifiable Statements (taken from Karl Popper):

• An alien spaceship crashed in Roswell New Mexico.

• A giant white gorilla lives in the Himalayan mountains.

• Loch Ness contains a giant reptile.

In each case, if the statement happens to be wrong, all you will ever find is an absence of evidence --- No spaceship parts. No gorilla tracks in the Himalayas. Nothing but small fish in the Loch.

That would not convince true believers in those statements. They would say --- "The government hid all of the spaceship parts." "The gorillas avoided you and the snow covered their tracks." "Nessie was hiding in the mud at the bottom of the Loch."

None of these statements is falsifiable, so none of them belong in science.

So, while the NYT magazine piece may be true it also can be incorrect so one can legitimately question its validity. The article lacks construct validity.

 

[mrzz]

hmmm.... It may be even worst than that. The artcile has a lot of historical claims that I truly doubt would survive. There were a lot of things that stood out, but the main one (of the first half I had time to read) was this:

"The defeat of Germany and Japan resulted in a grand alliance, led by the United States, in the West and Asia. Pax Americana, along with a unified Europe, would keep the democratic world safe."

This is almost the exact opposite of what truly happened. The end of WWII, as is heavily documented and shown by historians of all political colors, brought huge mass re-allocations. Entire people were moved from one side to another. Borders were sharply defined. Later, the very European Union emerged from a completely economical entity, the European Coal and Steel Community.

What we had after WWI is much more alike what is described on the article. But it came with the heavy price charged on the defeated nations, and I would say that "Pax Americana" is much more about guaranteeing that this mistake would not happen again. I could go on and on...

See, I really like the frame of mind behind this article, this "good vs bad" idea. The old fashioned bad men behind the reaction against a bright future. I would love to truly believe in a cause as perfect as that. But... the ideas behind it are often debatable to say the least...

Probably a lot of people would read my post and say "never mind, this is a racist reactionary" or something like that. Incidentally, this is something that Poper, aptly quoted by @Asmodeus, also touched upon, when criticizing heavier forms of Marxism: "If you criticize Marxism you are an enemy of the people, if you are an enemy of the people, everything you say is false". Ergo, Marxism can´t be falsified.

I kindly ask our posters here on the "liberal" side (I use quotes given my previous comment on this term) to take a deep look to their own set of beliefs and check if they can be falsified. If they can not, we need to change their label, from "political beliefs" to "religious beliefs". And then, maybe, ask who wrote your bible...

 

[Tennis Fan]

hmmm.... It may be even worst than that. The artcile has a lot of historical claims that I truly doubt would survive. There were a lot of things that stood out, but the main one (of the first half I had time to read) was this:

"The defeat of Germany and Japan resulted in a grand alliance, led by the United States, in the West and Asia. Pax Americana, along with a unified Europe, would keep the democratic world safe."

This is almost the exact opposite of what truly happened. The end of WWII, as is heavily documented and shown by historians of all political colors, brought huge mass re-allocations. Entire people were moved from one side to another. Borders were sharply defined. Later, the very European Union emerged from a completely economical entity, the European Coal and Steel Community.

What we had after WWI is much more alike what is described on the article. But it came with the heavy price charged on the defeated nations, and I would say that "Pax Americana" is much more about guaranteeing that this mistake would not happen again. I could go on and on...

See, I really like the frame of mind behind this article, this "good vs bad" idea. The old fashioned bad men behind the reaction against a bright future. I would love to truly believe in a cause as perfect as that. But... the ideas behind it are often debatable to say the least...

Probably a lot of people would read my post and say "never mind, this is a racist reactionary" or something like that. Incidentally, this is something that Poper, aptly quoted by @Asmodeus, also touched upon, when criticizing heavier forms of Marxism: "If you criticize Marxism you are an enemy of the people, if you are an enemy of the people, everything you say is false". Ergo, Marxism can´t be falsified.

I kindly ask our posters here on the "liberal" side (I use quotes given my previous comment on this term) to take a deep look to their own set of beliefs and check if they can be falsified. If they can not, we need to change their label, from "political beliefs" to "religious beliefs". And then, maybe, ask who wrote your bible...

There's a difference between religious and spiritual. So many people miss that.

 

[Federberg]

"The defeat of Germany and Japan resulted in a grand alliance, led by the United States, in the West and Asia. Pax Americana, along with a unified Europe, would keep the democratic world safe."

This is almost the exact opposite of what truly happened. The end of WWII, as is heavily documented and shown by historians of all political colors, brought huge mass re-allocations. Entire people were moved from one side to another. Borders were sharply defined. Later, the very European Union emerged from a completely economical entity, the European Coal and Steel Community.

What we had after WWI is much more alike what is described on the article. But it came with the heavy price charged on the defeated nations, and I would say that "Pax Americana" is much more about guaranteeing that this mistake would not happen again. I could go on and on...

I don't think any reasonable person would see anything racist or reactionary about your points.

I'm certainly not going to try to defend the whole article. I liked it because it was thoughtful and tried to put where we are now in a historical context. I'm surprised that you would disagree with the basic statement that the Alliance between America and Western Europe was a bastion of the post World War 2 order. Yes there were huge dislocations, the rise of the USSR and its satellite states, Israel etc, but the creation of NATO and other Western (American) structures occurred in the aftermath of World War 2.

I'll grant you that the aftermath of World War 1 saw elimination of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, and the period we seem to be entering seems to hark back to the era of Great Powers, but to me the essence of this article is the vulnerability of democratic institutions and the fraying of the Western liberal consensus. We are complacent in the West, and seem to believe as an article of faith that assaults on our institutions will do no lasting harm

It's a great place to start a discussion I thought...

 

[Federberg]

While it's a well written summation of his book, the problem with this types of academic research is they are non-falsifiable. That is, you can't really prove that his claims are correct or incorrect. Other example of Non-falsifiable Statements (taken from Karl Popper):

• An alien spaceship crashed in Roswell New Mexico.

• A giant white gorilla lives in the Himalayan mountains.

• Loch Ness contains a giant reptile.

In each case, if the statement happens to be wrong, all you will ever find is an absence of evidence --- No spaceship parts. No gorilla tracks in the Himalayas. Nothing but small fish in the Loch.

That would not convince true believers in those statements. They would say --- "The government hid all of the spaceship parts." "The gorillas avoided you and the snow covered their tracks." "Nessie was hiding in the mud at the bottom of the Loch."

None of these statements is falsifiable, so none of them belong in science.

So, while the NYT magazine piece may be true it also can be incorrect so one can legitimately question its validity. The article lacks construct validity.

I would rather look at this as an article that encourages the thoughtful to assess where we are. I do agree that there's no practical way for us to assess whether real damage has been done. We can shrug and say "people are worrying over nothing", or if we care about our future we can look at a simple outcome analysis... (A) distrust of the media, the establishment and other pillars of Western society could lead to anarchy/authoritarianism or (B) post-truthism will not harm democratic institutions and things will continue as normal.

It seems to be me we all need to make a decision about whether we believe (A) or (B). It doesn't have to be a factional decision, we can base it on our individual observations

 

[mrzz]

I don't think any reasonable person would see anything racist or reactionary about your points.

I'm certainly not going to try to defend the whole article. I liked it because it was thoughtful and tried to put where we are now in a historical context. I'm surprised that you would disagree with the basic statement that the Alliance between America and Western Europe was a bastion of the post World War 2 order. Yes there were huge dislocations, the rise of the USSR and its satellite states, Israel etc, but the creation of NATO and other Western (American) structures occurred in the aftermath of World War 2.

I'll grant you that the aftermath of World War 1 saw elimination of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, and the period we seem to be entering seems to hark back to the era of Great Powers, but to me the essence of this article is the vulnerability of democratic institutions and the fraying of the Western liberal consensus. We are complacent in the West, and seem to believe as an article of faith that assaults on our institutions will do no lasting harm

It's a great place to start a discussion I thought...

I agree it is a great place to start a discussion. If you were trying to find a common point of view with "the other side", you nailed it. We need to go precisely that route, that is, historical/political analysis to find some common ground and thus face the distentions.

But, things are getting so polarized that I am sure you saw the article way more "neutral" than we posters that responded to it. The other way around could easily happen, I am pretty sure of that. The problem with polarized times is that each side gets fixated in finding cracks on the other side armour´s, and never look at themselves. I realized this on my own responses on Cali´s "Jews" thread.

Back to your post, I don´t disagree with the fact that the alliance between America and W Europe is a bastion of post WW2 order. I disagree with the stance that this alliance is built on the concept of European Union. It is no coincidence that you cited NATO, a purely military alliance. Your point about the vulnerability of the democratic institutions is a valid one, but the translation of this concern to what actually is going on is debatable.

But the article has indeed a problem. It is way too long. We need at least dozen threads to cover all the topics. I, for one, would love to see a lot of posters here write about them. The only rule I would suggest is this: the words "Trump" and "Clinton" are forbidden...

 

[Federberg]

I agree it is a great place to start a discussion. If you were trying to find a common point of view with "the other side", you nailed it. We need to go precisely that route, that is, historical/political analysis to find some common ground and thus face the distentions.

But, things are getting so polarized that I am sure you saw the article way more "neutral" than we posters that responded to it. The other way around could easily happen, I am pretty sure of that. The problem with polarized times is that each side gets fixated in finding cracks on the other side armour´s, and never look at themselves. I realized this on my own responses on Cali´s "Jews" thread.

Back to your post, I don´t disagree with the fact that the alliance between America and W Europe is a bastion of post WW2 order. I disagree with the stance that this alliance is built on the concept of European Union. It is no coincidence that you cited NATO, a purely military alliance. Your point about the vulnerability of the democratic institutions is a valid one, but the translation of this concern to what actually is going on is debatable.

But the article has indeed a problem. It is way too long. We need at least dozen threads to cover all the topics. I, for one, would love to see a lot of posters here write about them. The only rule I would suggest is this: the words "Trump" and "Clinton" are forbidden...

Haha! I completely agree! This is bigger than those two.

Clearly because of my loathing of the methods of one of the campaigners I'm seen as aligned with the other. Personally I see my position as more nuanced than that, quite apart from the fact I wasn't the biggest fan of the other candidate anyway! My concern is more global in nature. If we do irreparable harm to the institutions we've come to depend on, we had better know what's going to replace them. It might be much much worse.

The obvious analogy is extremely inflammatory but I'll use it anyway, even if I get flamed for it... Nazi Germany. No doubt there were many who wanted Germany to be great again after the disastrous Great War, and they disregarded any concerns about the morality or legality of what was proposed because they had great faith in the institutions of 1930s Germany. Things disintegrated in a way that no one could have foreseen.

I'll add that I find unthinking factionalism to be bordering on the juvenile. This is a very serious topic

 

[Federberg]

 

[Federberg]

^and the dude is a Clinton supporter by the way

 

[mrzz]

Haha! I completely agree! This is bigger than those two.

Clearly because of my loathing of the methods of one of the campaigners I'm seen as aligned with the other. Personally I see my position as more nuanced than that, quite apart from the fact I wasn't the biggest fan of the other candidate anyway! My concern is more global in nature. If we do irreparable harm to the institutions we've come to depend on, we had better know what's going to replace them. It might be much much worse.

The obvious analogy is extremely inflammatory but I'll use it anyway, even if I get flamed for it... Nazi Germany. No doubt there were many who wanted Germany to be great again after the disastrous Great War, and they disregarded any concerns about the morality or legality of what was proposed because they had great faith in the institutions of 1930s Germany. Things disintegrated in a way that no one could have foreseen.

I'll add that I find unthinking factionalism to be bordering on the juvenile. This is a very serious topic

Nazi germany is becoming a hot topic lately. Your analogy is a very good one, but a lot of people are trying to frame their adversaries in a nazi portrait. You wouldn ´t believe the things happening in Brazil, where, if I would believe in all sides, everyone is nazi here. So we would be the first ever 100% nazi country with samba. Would you believe that?

The whole debate is interesting, yes, but at some point we need to put the finger on touchy issues, without (at least from the beginning) labeling the other side. The quoted article touched my nerve when I read

"Most people in the crowd probably didn’t have a clue who Farage — the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party — actually was."

Of course they didn´t, they are a bunch of ignorant Tr* supporters, right?

I am pretty sure you quoted the article with all good faith. I am calling attention to this to show how difficult it is to actually build bridges. The divide is either cemented on peoples minds, or subtly encapsulated in the message. Then there was the connection (in the article) with the unity concept, which I mentioned above that I disagree. So from there it was hard to me to follow it impartially.

What bothers me a bit (no, I am lying, it bothers me a lot) it is the subjacent notion that "unity" (as opposed to nationalism) has some moral higher ground by definition. Less barriers are better for trade, I agree completely with you on that, but that´s it. A general call for "unity" is quite different to "Equal opportunities" (something I would stand for).

More and more people are questioning mainstream media (and I say this because the source of the article is the NYT) because it is completely evident that the dividends are immense for the ones who control the narrative. (Remember, I am not against mainstream media precisely due to one argument you raised: they can be accounted for what they say). The problem is this narrative is becoming as ridiculous as it gets. Here´s one example:

I was on a long flight two weeks ago, forgot to bring a book along, and, without many options, ended up watching one blockbuster movie, Tarzan. Roughly speaking, the guys portrayed English colonizers in Africa as people respecting the culture of the natives, that mingled with the locals, and were fighting some obscure interests of a few representatives of the old monarchic powers in Europe. Yeah right...

I do not mind the industry trying to educate people in one or another political direction. I would prefer not, but this obviously part of the game. But I do mind people re-writing history. There´s no such thing as an historical white lie.

 

[Federberg]

Nazi germany is becoming a hot topic lately. Your analogy is a very good one, but a lot of people are trying to frame their adversaries in a nazi portrait. You wouldn ´t believe the things happening in Brazil, where, if I would believe in all sides, everyone is nazi here. So we would be the first ever 100% nazi country with samba. Would you believe that?

The whole debate is interesting, yes, but at some point we need to put the finger on touchy issues, without (at least from the beginning) labeling the other side. The quoted article touched my nerve when I read

"Most people in the crowd probably didn’t have a clue who Farage — the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party — actually was."

Of course they didn´t, they are a bunch of ignorant Tr* supporters, right?

I am pretty sure you quoted the article with all good faith. I am calling attention to this to show how difficult it is to actually build bridges. The divide is either cemented on peoples minds, or subtly encapsulated in the message. Then there was the connection (in the article) with the unity concept, which I mentioned above that I disagree. So from there it was hard to me to follow it impartially.

What bothers me a bit (no, I am lying, it bothers me a lot) it is the subjacent notion that "unity" (as opposed to nationalism) has some moral higher ground by definition. Less barriers are better for trade, I agree completely with you on that, but that´s it. A general call for "unity" is quite different to "Equal opportunities" (something I would stand for).

More and more people are questioning mainstream media (and I say this because the source of the article is the NYT) because it is completely evident that the dividends are immense for the ones who control the narrative. (Remember, I am not against mainstream media precisely due to one argument you raised: they can be accounted for what they say). The problem is this narrative is becoming as ridiculous as it gets. Here´s one example:

I was on a long flight two weeks ago, forgot to bring a book along, and, without many options, ended up watching one blockbuster movie, Tarzan. Roughly speaking, the guys portrayed English colonizers in Africa as people respecting the culture of the natives, that mingled with the locals, and were fighting some obscure interests of a few representatives of the old monarchic powers in Europe. Yeah right...

I do not mind the industry trying to educate people in one or another political direction. I would prefer not, but this obviously part of the game. But I do mind people re-writing history. There´s no such thing as an historical white lie.

I'm glad you recognised my caution in bringing up the Nazis. While I'm very concerned about some of the things that were said in the campaign, it would be too hysterical to make that association at this stage in the game. At the very least we need to see what the President elect does before any judgements can be made. For me the issue is more about the erosion of the institutions we can trust. While I'm a bit more sceptical about the whole issue of media bias in the recent election, my position has been more about outcome than process, i.e., in any other election it may well have been reasonable to say that the media was biased, but in this one, with fake news and Trump's dominance of the narrative it was an irrelevance, and if anything it worked to his advantage.

I will also say that it's completely wrong to label all Trump supporters as racists. I mean it doesn't make any sense... a huge number of those people voted for Obama. There has to be an acceptance that for whatever reason the losing candidate was not popular (at least in terms of the electoral college)

Just getting back to the whole Nazi thing. My point is nothing to do with labeling the Trump campaign or the majority of his supporters. I'm more focused on the erosion of democratic institutional frameworks. We need to be extremely careful because the endgame is fascism and worse

 

[Ricardo]

You denigrate the citing of the NYT, but it's fairly clear you didn't read the article. You don't even have any interest in it. Or any of the other citations. You're just reacting against. You don't even actually have a point of view. You just troll other peoples' opinions. If you have an opinion on the elections, you might state it.

Before you get too excited and trigger-happy, don't you notice that I actually meant NYT as a whole to be one of the Trump-bashing media? its true i am not interested in what NYT has to say, since i don't take any one-sided media to be my source of info.

You refer to NYT all the time, see our difference?