The New American Politics thread

[Looch City]

Of course Putin prefers Trump over Obama.

He can slap around Trump anyway he'd like and make him do (and say) all kinds of stupid ####.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Most tax policy changes come with some groups having their taxes raised and others having theirs lowered. Politics isn't a black/white zero sum game. It's a million different shades of grey.

I don't think you could possibly sum up the current political climate better than this.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I think there's little to no chance Trump could pass any sort of mental fitness test. So on top of taxes, they really should be hammering at the "he's mentally unstable" angle.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Why is that not the only angle? Why do you even care about taxes? That's something you'd definitely want to push on if you were running against, I dunno, Paul Ryan. But this guy is a disaster. He's a lunatic. He's attempting to gain control of the world's most powerful military. That's the story.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by New Era

Social justice is the basis of classical liberal thinking. Good lord.

Nonsense.

Modern "social justice" is more accurately described as the Regressive Left.

Classical Liberals would never encourage the type of thought/speech policing that the modern left considers appropriate.

[Senator Clay Davis]

FYI, there's a Trump AMA this evening, which I'm sure won't be a total ####show.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

FYI, there's a Trump AMA this evening, which I'm sure won't be a total ####show.

Hahaha this should be fun.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Buster

Nonsense.

Modern "social justice" is more accurately described as the Regressive Left.

Classical Liberals would never encourage the type of thought/speech policing that the modern left considers appropriate.

"Regressive left" is a pejorative political epithet, not a political ideology.

[nik-]

Why? He'll just ignore questions he doesn't want to answer and then answer how he wants, relevant or not, to the ones he does.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Makarov

"Regressive left" is a pejorative political epithet, not a political ideology.

Correct.

[nik-]

Regressive left is actually a really narrow definition.

The abandoning of basic principles of liberal societies in order to be absolutely tolerant of other cultures = the regressive left.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Buster

Correct.

Right. So it doesn't really add anything to the discussion. It's just name-calling.

[Thor]

I disagree, the regressive left is a big problem in the west, especially when it comes to dealing with political Islam.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I think there's little to no chance Trump could pass any sort of mental fitness test. So on top of taxes, they really should be hammering at the "he's mentally unstable" angle.

I've come to the conclusion that just about everything he says and does is explainable through the lens of an addict who's brain has become wired through dopamine loops over the years toward certain kinds of attention, but like any dopamine-based addiction, requires constantly increasing levels and stakes for the loop to continue. Which I don't think is that far a reach; there's been some research that suggests that these sorts of addiction predispositions are genetic, and with a history of serious alcohol addiction in the family, it's certainly possible that he's just as addicted as his deceased brother ever was, simply to a more socially acceptable drug.

As much as there would be devastating consequences if he won this election, it's going to be terrifying to see what happens to Trump if he loses. If he's on possibly the most extreme attention-addiction trip of all time, coming down from that is going to be brutal.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Thor

I disagree, the regressive left is a big problem in the west, especially when it comes to dealing with political Islam.

Well, two liberals can legitimately disagree on how best to reconcile competing values like freedom of speech and freedom of religion in a particular circumstance (often a very complex issue). But, in such a situation, labelling the opposing view "the regressive left" doesn't really say anything. I mean, accepting nik's sefinition, how many people in the debate have "abandoned basic liberal principles". I can't really think of any.

[octothorp]

Also, I think I just read the single most offensive thing about Donald Trump that I've ever read: that after his father died and his brother's family was cut out of the will, his brother's family sued. Donald's response was to cancel medical benefits that were paying for critical care of his nephew's infant cerebral-palsy afflicted child. In everything I've ever read about Trump, I'm not sure there's a single thing worse than that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/us...suffering.html

[AltaGuy]

I always wonder when these discussions come up, which they do seemingly daily, "where are these Leftists who are running around praising Saudi Arabia?" Or defending a Muslim's right to institute Sharia law wherever they choose?

And then it all seems like a giant strawman. I know, some "Leftists" are pretty sensitive folk about cultural protections, but almost all of the people I know fighting for more equality and human rights throughout the Muslim world are "Leftists" in some fashion.

I know there is a "Regressive Left" that fits the narrow definition pointed out above. But I don't really understand the fixation/fascination this board and others have with it.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

Jesus:

Reading Trump transcribed always tickles me a bit. If nothing else, the man has a speaking cadence that writers can mimic without much effort.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Well, two liberals can legitimately disagree on how best to reconcile competing values like freedom of speech and freedom of religion in a particular circumstance (often a very complex issue). But, in such a situation, labelling the opposing view "the regressive left" doesn't really say anything. I mean, accepting nik's sefinition, how many people in the debate have "abandoned basic liberal principles". I can't really think of any.

You should definitely look deeper into this debate. There are a lot of people who excuse medieval outlooks as a result of "respecting their culture". They might not outright support the view, but they're way too willing to look past that those are the views in order to appear tolerant. It's one thing to ignore disagreements on the fringes, but when you're doing it to core principles of modern liberal, secular society, you're being dishonest.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by nik-

You should definitely look deeper into this debate. There are a lot of people who excuse medieval outlooks as a result of "respecting their culture". They might not outright support the view, but they're way too willing to look past that those are the views in order to appear tolerant. It's one thing to ignore disagreements on the fringes, but when you're doing it to core principles of modern liberal, secular society, you're being dishonest.

Any examples, outside of Tumblr (which are mostly 4Fakes anyway)?