Social and political issues

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by redforever

No different than the extreme environmentalists, non-vaxers etc on the other side of the equation. Extremists exist on both sides of the equation.

Really? Extreme environmentalists and white nationalists are cut from the same cloth in your books?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by redforever

No different than the extreme environmentalists, non-vaxers etc on the other side of the equation. Extremists exist on both sides of the equation.

False equivalency is false. The extremists on one side have a very limited sphere of influence on policy formation or general direction of the party. The extremists on the other side are actually setting policy and driving the whole damn country off the proverbial cliff!





There is a difference!

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by New Era

False equivalency is false. The extremists on one side have a very limited sphere of influence on policy formation or general direction of the party. The extremists on the other side are actually setting policy and driving the whole damn country off the proverbial cliff!

There is a difference!

Nah, they're the same. Take a look at all those extreme environmentalists who've shot up synagogues and mosques over the past few years.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Nah, they're the same. Take a look at all those extreme environmentalists who've shot up synagogues and mosques over the past few years.

The people shooting up synagogues and mosques are setting policy? Wouldn't they also fall into the category of "very limited sphere of influence on policy formation or general direction of the party"?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The people shooting up synagogues and mosques are setting policy?

I mean their ilk have far more influence on American policy at the moment than the leftist academics and media personalities Cliff keeps fretting about.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Can't say I agree with that at all. Who are the big movers and shakers among the murderous racist cretins who are pulling the strings of the GOP in Congress? Or even the non-murderous racist cretins, for that matter? It's not like Richard Spencer is calling up Mitch McConnell and dictating strategy to him.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The people shooting up synagogues and mosques are setting policy? Wouldn't they also fall into the category of "very limited sphere of influence on policy formation or general direction of the party"?

Depends. Would you classify the likes of Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller as people who would be associated with people of like mind who shoot up mosques and synagogues? Maybe, maybe not? We do know for certain they are representative and active in groups that would be considered the fringe of the fringe, have hate followings, and both have had their hands in major policy decisions during Trump's time in office.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Can't say I agree with that at all. Who are the big movers and shakers among the murderous racist cretins who are pulling the strings of the GOP in Congress? Or even the non-murderous racist cretins, for that matter? It's not like Richard Spencer is calling up Mitch McConnell and dictating strategy to him.

Didn't the sitting Vice-President just have an evangelical Christian rabbi speak at an event that was meant to mourn the victims of the synagogue shooting? Which group's beliefs do you believe that move more closely aligns with?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Honestly, I'm deliberately trying to avoid following the day to day tabloid nonsense that is the Trump administration, but yeah, I don't think that at all aligns the VP - or other evangelical Christians like him - with the likes of Spencer, or of people who murder other people because they're Jewish (or Muslim).

I think that's an incredibly crude outlook, actually, which is tied to the manichaeism of a statement like "which group's beliefs do you believe that move more closely aligns with", as if there were two options here. I mean, I think Nancy Pelosi's public statements more closely align with environmental extremists than the opposite extreme, but there's no cause to suggest that Nancy Pelosi is in league with environmental extremists, or that they're dictating Democratic party policy in congress.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Cliff's hysterics and hypocrisy on this issue is one of the longest running jokes on CP.

LOL! Only on CP are long posts linking to articles in the Atlantic, Guardian, and New York Times regarded as hysterics. So I guess snarky one-liners and clips of the Colbert Report are judicious insights?

But hey, don't let me get in the way of your fun. What could be more stimulating than joining in with 30 or 40 other people to share your hatred for a bunch of other people with dozens of posts a day, every day, for weeks, months, and years on end?

Spoiler!

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Honestly, I'm deliberately trying to avoid following the day to day tabloid nonsense that is the Trump administration, but yeah, I don't think that at all aligns the VP - or other evangelical Christians like him - with the likes of Spencer, or of people who murder other people because they're Jewish (or Muslim).

I think that's an incredibly crude outlook, actually, which is tied to the manichaeism of a statement like "which group's beliefs do you believe that move more closely aligns with", as if there were two options here. I mean, I think Nancy Pelosi's public statements more closely align with environmental extremists than the opposite extreme, but there's no cause to suggest that Nancy Pelosi is in league with environmental extremists, or that they're dictating Democratic party policy in congress.

Except, as New Era pointed out, people like Bannon, Miller, and their ilk have been or are directly tied to the Trump administration and have major input on policy decisions.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

LOL! Only on CP

You know that's not remotely true. Hell, Pod Save America gets 1.5 million downloads per episode or something like that.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Except, as New Era pointed out, people like Bannon, Miller, and their ilk have been or are directly tied to the Trump administration and have major input on policy decisions.

I don't know that much about Miller, but Bannon is a pretty different animal from the guys in Charlottesville chanting "Jews will not replace us". Remember, the original suggestion was that white nationalists, of the "kill the jews and muslims" persuasion, have their fingers on the policy buttons of the GOP. I certainly wouldn't object to someone calling Bannon a cretin, but it's a very different brand of... cretiny? Cretinousness?

That's sort of like calling Jordan Peterson a white supremacist. You're just dumping everything objectionable into one big bucket labelled "enemies of all that is good and righteous". That's a very popular but not very useful or accurate way to be politically engaged. The American political landscape is completely ####ed, which is also a proxy for chaotic and highly complicated.

[rubecube]

Let's put it this way, relative to their size, who has a bigger influence on American policy at the moment, evangelical Christians or those who believe man-made climate change is real?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't know that much about Miller, but Bannon is a pretty different animal from the guys in Charlottesville chanting "Jews will not replace us". Remember, the original suggestion was that white nationalists, of the "kill the jews and muslims" persuasion, have their fingers on the policy buttons of the GOP. I certainly wouldn't object to someone calling Bannon a cretin, but it's a very different brand of... cretiny? Cretinousness?

If you're knowingly using rhetoric to dog-whistle to those who commit those violent acts, you're not much better than them, IMO. This isn't like lumping in someone like Mitt Romney with the KKK because the KKK just happens to vote Republican more often than Democrat. It's lumping people whose words and actions fuel violence in with the violence they're fueling.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Let's put it this way, relative to their size, who has a bigger influence on American policy at the moment, evangelical Christians or those who believe man-made climate change is real?

Those are much different and much bigger groups... I don't actually know the answer. I'd think probably the evangelical Christians, but not so much because the current Congress is in their pocket as because they're ignoring climate change in favour of a much more influential set of donors: those who have a vested monetary interest in not having aggressive environmental legislation enacted.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Those are much different and much bigger groups... I don't actually know the answer. I'd think probably the evangelical Christians, but not so much because the current Congress is in their pocket as because they're ignoring climate change in favour of a much more influential set of donors: those who have a vested monetary interest in not having aggressive environmental legislation enacted.

Does the reason really matter? The argument was that the far-right's extremists currently cast a wider sphere of influence than the far-left's. Bannon, Miller, Pence, and others have all held prominent roles in the current administration. There isn't a comparable left-wing equivalent. It'd be like if Obama gave Noam Chomsky a cabinet position, except Chomsky would also have to be a flagrant racist.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yeah, that's a fair comparison. I would say Chomsky is more like a left-wing version of Bannon than he is the analogue of the people I originally thought we were talking about, which is the truly heinous underbelly of the right, who commit murder and hate crimes. So by that standard, I agree. Though I would add the caveat that I think this could be an area where the left's crazy train is lagging a few years behind the right's, but given its current heading, will get there eventually. I also obviously don't think much of your conflation of people who say things that evil people latch onto with those evil people, for a number of reasons, but I think we've disagreed in the past on that.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

One of Cliff's long, rambling posts with lots of links highlighting lots of perceived problems.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

You continue to bring up issues but you don't seem to offer potential solutions. I understand that you're not responsible for fixing what's wrong but to continually state the problems eventually just comes off as complaining and not productive. I'd like to hear what YOU suggest.

Yeah Cliff, why not share YOUR solution with us. You've been asked many, many times but usually go silent or disappear if anyone asks you for YOUR SOLUTION.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

LOL! Only on CP are long posts linking to articles in the Atlantic, Guardian, and New York Times regarded as hysterics. So I guess snarky one-liners and clips of the Colbert Report are judicious insights?

But hey, don't let me get in the way of your fun. What could be more stimulating than joining in with 30 or 40 other people to share your hatred for a bunch of other people with dozens of posts a day, every day, for weeks, months, and years on end?

Spoiler!

Ah, poor persecuted Cliff.

It must be tough for you now that people are actually asking you to back up your endless complaints and commentary with an actual solution.

So ...... ?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Yeah Cliff, why not share YOUR solution with us. You've been asked many, many times but usually go silent or disappear if anyone asks you for YOUR SOLUTION.

So ...... ?