The New American Politics thread

[Looch City]

Therefore H equals F.

- Trump

[flylock shox]

In some ways, I'm going to miss Trump when his time is up.

Got off the plane today, glance up at TV in airport, see headline "Trump kicks baby out of rally."

Day improved.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

What is really revealing about this is the lack of any real talent in Trump's campaign. As much as I'm guilty of being a bit hard on poor Mitt Romney, this nitwit wouldn't have got a sniff at a senior position in the Romney campaign.

I listen to Keepin' it 1600 which although these guys are in the bag for the Dems (both guys held very high position in Obama's administration and were with him since day 1) they often have guests from the Republicans including Mitt Romney's campaign manager.

Anyway, they have said on multiple occasions that no one in washington wants to touch the Trump campaign with a 10 foot pole. It's basically career suicide so he isn't able to get anyone who is competent.

[driveway]

If you're looking for a decent right/center-right political podcast "Ricochet" is pretty good. They're not quite #NeverTrump but they're definitely in that National Review-esq ballpark of opinion.

They do have one dumb shtick where the one host leads into promos with long segues, but they get good guests and - while I totally disagree with them - they're often worth listening to.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

If you happen to think that's dirty pool (without taking a position on it), it goes both ways. Saying "one was lying and the other has a good point" is merely exposing your bias, and in any event whether or not they were right is beside the point, which is that they were used to score political points.

So essentially you are advocating fact-free politics?

If you remove "who actually had a point and who was maybe lying" from the equation, you're removing the part where people are supposed to use their brains.

If you call those things "beside the point", then all you are left with are partisan politics (or hating everyone which is even less constructive) or pure emotional reactions. Stuff like "how did it LOOK like" or "how did I feel when I listened to that speech".

I mean yes, obviously both parties will do a lot of the same things during their campaigns. There's a checklist of what types of speeches both parties wanted at their conventions. Veterans or parents of veterans are on that list, same as party alumni, celebrities, multiple ethnicities etc. Everything either party does can be boiled down to "doing it for political gain", but it's actually a really stupid reductionist argument. The political equivalent of "helping others gives people pleasure so everyone is selfish".

But lying should be a big difference.

So no, saying "one was lying and the other has a good point" is not JUST exposing your bias. Bias will probably be a part of it, but it's not necessarily the whole point.

That's not to say that the example blogs from the Rachel Maddow show are not simply hypocritical and don't have a point. They might be just that, which is Busters argument, and even though him saying "I hate Rachel Maddow" is about as surprising as someone saying "I hate the Canucks" on this forum, he might still be right.

If you agree with the above statement about Buster and his comments about the Rachel Maddow show, then you must agree that the guy who wrote the articles might also have a point, even though he's probably biased the other way.

(And no, the truth is not necessarily somewhere in the middle. It's possible that both arguments are right, both are wrong or that only one is right.)

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

So essentially you are advocating fact-free politics? Because that's exactly what this is.

No. It isn't. Don't be dense. If you hold a particular political perspective, you're going to say that one party's message is a bunch of lies and slimy politics, while the other is an important statement that the public needs to hear. Inevitably, that's the argument that's being made, probably by both parties. This does not create a false equivalence, as was suggested.

The merits are beside the point because the point, as I noted, is whether it's okay to score political points by putting grieving parents on a stage. Even if you're right, should you use this sort of tactic? That is a reasonable question to be debated with good arguments on either side. I'm not convinced that you should or shouldn't.

Seriously, why do people have to be like this? If you were trying to have a conversation rather than win an argument on the internet, you'd be summarizing others' views in a way they'd be happy to adopt, rather than the opposite. It's so blindingly obvious what I'm saying, yet you deliberately choose to characterize it in the least charitable way possible. You've read my posts. What the hell are the odds that I want to do away with facts in politics? Does that seem at all likely to you, honestly?

FML that's frustrating.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Seriously, why do people have to be like this? If you were trying to have a conversation rather than win an argument on the internet, you'd be summarizing others' views in a way they'd be happy to adopt, rather than the opposite.

I've that process referred to as "steel-manning" in the past. As in it is the opposite of a Straw Man argument.

Take someone who has a different view, then summarize that view in a way that would have them agree with your summary.

Then raise valid points opposing that argument.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Steel manning is actually strengthening someone's position before responding to it, often by giving supportive examples that they hadn't thought of. Responding to what the person actually thinks rather than some denigrating caricature is just basic decency.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Buster

I've that process referred to as "steel-manning" in the past. As in it is the opposite of a Straw Man argument.

Take someone who has a different view, then summarize that view in a way that would have them agree with your summary.

Then raise valid points opposing that argument.

What do you call pointlessly hammering semantics that are only peripheral to the topic at hand?

[Buster]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Steel manning is actually strengthening someone's position before responding to it, often by giving supportive examples that they hadn't thought of. Responding to what the person actually thinks rather than some denigrating caricature is just basic decency.

Yes, that's a valid addition.

I'm trying to think of when I actually see it happen. It's so rare.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No. It isn't. Don't be dense. If you hold a particular political perspective, you're going to say that one party's message is a bunch of lies and slimy politics, while the other is an important statement that the public needs to hear. Inevitably, that's the argument that's being made, probably by both parties. This does not create a false equivalence, as was suggested.

The merits are beside the point because the point, as I noted, is whether it's okay to score political points by putting grieving parents on a stage. Even if you're right, should you use this sort of tactic? That is a reasonable question to be debated with good arguments on either side. I'm not convinced that you should or shouldn't.

Seriously, why do people have to be like this? If you were trying to have a conversation rather than win an argument on the internet, you'd be summarizing others' views in a way they'd be happy to adopt, rather than the opposite. It's so blindingly obvious what I'm saying, yet you deliberately choose to characterize it in the least charitable way possible. You've read my posts. What the hell are the odds that I want to do away with facts in politics? Does that seem at all likely to you, honestly?

FML that's frustrating.

Wow, I didn't get that from Itse's post at all.

There are two separate arguments from what I can tell. Is it ok to "use" grieving parents for political gain? Either way, it should be equally right or wrong for both parties. I think that is your point and I don't really see anyone arguing against that, frankly.
Itse is saying that notwithstanding that argument, you can still look to what those grieving parents say critically. If they are lying or are proved to be incorrect on their fact checking, that can be called out, grieving parent or not.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

What do you call pointlessly hammering semantics that are only peripheral to the topic at hand?

Busta Rhymes.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Itse is saying that notwithstanding that argument, you can still look to what those grieving parents say critically. If they are lying or are proved to be incorrect on their fact checking, that can be called out, grieving parent or not.

If that's what he was saying, suggesting that I want fact-free politics isn't a very good way of expressing it. In fact, it's ridiculous, considering that a couple of pages ago in this very thread I had a drawn out disagreement with Cali Panthers Fan on the basis that I consider it absolutely essential that every claim about the world be subject to critical analysis. I couldn't agree more with your last sentence.

What I was disputing at the outset was the notion that that whether you agree with the statement of the grieving parent or not is relevant to the question of whether it's exploitative to put them up on a stage to score political points. Of course you're going to be more sympathetic to the emotional case laid out by someone who's trashing the other guys' candidate. Of course you're going to think the other side doing the same is unethical and perverse. Both sides are using the same tactic at the end of the day, so this is not a false equivalence. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[peter12]

Manichean spectacles in political races are by no means unusual, however, it is okay to criticize Clinton for gross political opportunism even when whatever Trump does is much worse.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Manichean spectacles in political races are by no means unusual, however, it is okay to criticize Clinton for gross political opportunism even when whatever Trump does is much worse.

Agreed, and I think we can likely also agree that what is NOT okay is attacking the grieving parents of a fallen soldier, and then later trying to smear them with frivolous and reckless allegations of affiliation with terrorism (which is apparently happening)

That has nothing to do with whether it was appropriate for them to be put on stage by the party in the first place.

[Street Pharmacist]

Neither should have been put on a convention stage. That's exploitation by any definition.

Getting past that judgement though, there's a difference between both how they responded, and whether they should have responded.

I think I've solved your guys' argument

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

And also this is happening apparently:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senio...ry?id=41089609

Seriously, is this the weirdest US election ever? It HAS to be.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

If that's what he was saying, suggesting that I want fact-free politics isn't a very good way of expressing it. In fact, it's ridiculous, considering that a couple of pages ago in this very thread I had a drawn out disagreement with Cali Panthers Fan on the basis that I consider it absolutely essential that every claim about the world be subject to critical analysis. I couldn't agree more with your last sentence.

What I was disputing at the outset was the notion that that whether you agree with the statement of the grieving parent or not is relevant to the question of whether it's exploitative to put them up on a stage to score political points. Of course you're going to be more sympathetic to the emotional case laid out by someone who's trashing the other guys' candidate. Of course you're going to think the other side doing the same is unethical and perverse. Both sides are using the same tactic at the end of the day, so this is not a false equivalence. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I would agree with that, but in my opinion the question of whether putting up grieving parents is exploitive or not is really a side issue, more of a distraction to what is important. I don't care for it, as it seems so transparent appealing to really basic emotions, but it has been going on forever and I don't expect it to change. As such, it is better to move on and parse out what was actually said. I didn't think either parent said anything overly surprising, considering the audience, but the reaction of the candidates was the real story. One reacted as my 4 year old would. I don't want my 4 year old running a bath, let alone a country.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I would agree with that, but in my opinion the question of whether putting up grieving parents is exploitive or not is really a side issue, more of a distraction to what is important. I don't care for it, as it seems so transparent appealing to really basic emotions, but it has been going on forever and I don't expect it to change. As such, it is better to move on and parse out what was actually said.

That's fine, it just means that have a different focus as to what's important about those speeches. Because of their lack of expertise on... anything, really, and their lack of involvement in running the country going forward, I really don't put much stock in what either family has to say substantively. The fact that they've gotten the sort of focus that they have in preference to people whose opinions are informed and relatively speaking actually matter is kind of annoying, in my opinion. It seems to me the sole value of the parents' respective speeches was the emotional value, which ties directly to whether it's ethical to use that emotional value for political gain.

Of course Trump's reaction and especially the reaction of some of his mouthpieces has been abhorrent, that's a separate issue and is so obvious as to be barely worth talking about.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's fine, it just means that have a different focus as to what's important about those speeches. Because of their lack of expertise on... anything, really, and their lack of involvement in running the country going forward, I really don't put much stock in what either family has to say substantively. The fact that they've gotten the sort of focus that they have in preference to people whose opinions are informed and relatively speaking actually matter is kind of annoying, in my opinion. It seems to me the sole value of the parents' respective speeches was the emotional value, which ties directly to whether it's ethical to use that emotional value for political gain.

Of course Trump's reaction and especially the reaction of some of his mouthpieces has been abhorrent, that's a separate issue and is so obvious as to be barely worth talking about.

The conventions weren't just about policy.

For example: would you disagree that the Khan speech has opened the eyes of the sacrifice Muslim families have made? I think that's the leading part of their speech and while incremental, could be important.

I think that speech needed to be made, but at the behest of the Khan's, not on a convention stage with sequins and stage lighting