The New American Politics thread

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Buster

Briefly:

Mexico: country not a race
"Black people = law and order:": you're projecting/speculation
"Muslim immigration ban": you forgot the word temporary. It's also a classic Trumpian double-bind. If you recognized it as a technique, you might be less worried about the policy implications. The rest is nonsense speculation.
"Khan's speech" : his point was to inflame the lovers-of-victim-politics.

Do you forget that it doesn't matter? Anytime in history any region has officially discriminated against any ethnicity, race, religion, whatever, it is looked back on as a black eye on the history of said place, and has done nothing but bred conflict. Every. Single. Time.

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by Buster

It's just that I don't do requests.

Buster, please keep posting in this thread.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Buster

There are clearly lies and propaganda on both sides of the aisle.

However, there is a third category: those whose mission seems to be to destroy actual discourse. They want to salt the earth when it comes to having reasonable discussions. I know you don't agree with this proposition, but these people seem to come uniquely from the left: Reza, Glen Cenk et al.

What side of the spectrum does Milo Yiannopoulos represent?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yep. The Atlantic article also made this point.

It is possible to have multiple concurrent contributing causes for an event.

It's possible, but in this instance it's on the Republican Party. They did nothing to develop a candidate like the Democrats have. This is all on the Republican leadership. Frankly it stems from them having 17 candidates for President and a complete gong show of a process. Put through 3-5 real candidates, vet them appropriately, and have an honest contest. Their process sunk them and that is all on weak leadership.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Buster

There are clearly lies and propaganda on both sides of the aisle.

However, there is a third category: those whose mission seems to be to destroy actual discourse. They want to salt the earth when it comes to having reasonable discussions. I know you don't agree with this proposition, but these people seem to come uniquely from the left: Reza, Glen Cenk et al.

Listen to the latest podcast from "War College"...they have a legit cybersecurity expert discussing Russia's impact on the election. There are deliberate attempts to disrupt democratic discourse to affect the election outcome...

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Buster

If you raise a point in which I am interested, I'll respond. Otherwise I just skip.

I can see how being caught displaying your hypocritical bias wouldn't interest you, that's the kind of thing that's uncomfortable to talk about. Don't worry though, I couldn't have asked for a weaker or less convincing counter-argument, so I'm happy now.

Cognitive dissonance it is. Solved.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by New Era

It's possible, but in this instance it's on the Republican Party. They did nothing to develop a candidate like the Democrats have. This is all on the Republican leadership. Frankly it stems from them having 17 candidates for President and a complete gong show of a process. Put through 3-5 real candidates, vet them appropriately, and have an honest contest. Their process sunk them and that is all on weak leadership.

I think it's worse than that. I think of the 17 candidates, none of them were any good. There GOP doesn't just have a process problem it has a talent problem.

[RougeUnderoos]

It could also be possible that each Republican candidate actually has been worse than the last, so it's not really crying wolf if there is a wolf.

John McCain seems like a good guy, but remember Sarah Palin. Romney flat out said half the people in the country are freeloaders and that sunk him. GWB made a series of disastrous mistakes they still haven't recovered from but compared to Trump, he should have the next spot on Mount Rushmore.

Not a great candidate in the lot and all don't hold a candle to Trump's bad-nicity.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Plett25

Buster, please keep posting in this thread.

Gold.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Listen to the latest podcast from "War College"...they have a legit cybersecurity expert discussing Russia's impact on the election. There are deliberate attempts to disrupt democratic discourse to affect the election outcome...

I'll check it out, because I haven't heard of it - but promise me it isn't a fringe/conspiracy/infowars podcast.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Buster

I'll check it out, because I haven't heard of it - but promise me it isn't a fringe/conspiracy/infowars podcast.

No, I think that is called "Rush Limbaugh".

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

No, I think that is called "Rush Limbaugh".

That guy hasn't imploded upon himself in a fantastic spectacle of ego, fat and verbal fecal matter yet?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Buster

I'll check it out, because I haven't heard of it - but promise me it isn't a fringe/conspiracy/infowars podcast.

We should probably stop linking Trump's Twitter account then.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Buster

There are clearly lies and propaganda on both sides of the aisle.

However, there is a third category: those whose mission seems to be to destroy actual discourse. They want to salt the earth when it comes to having reasonable discussions. I know you don't agree with this proposition, but these people seem to come uniquely from the left: Reza, Glen Cenk et al.

Get ####ing serious! Those who destroy actual discourse are on the left? How about you discuss how this list of true patriots contribute to the proposition of positive discourse?

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, Ted Nugent, Michael Savage, Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, Dick Morris, Michelle Bachmann, Oliver North, Alex Jones, Laura Inhrahm, Matt Drudge, Bob Beckel, Phil Robertson, Michelle Malkin, the remains of Breitbart's slime empire, SE Cupp, Mark Levin, Charlie Sykes, Erick Erickson, Andrew Napolitano, Karl Rove, Bill Bennett, and the list goes on and on and on.

These are just people that are regular contributors to hate radio on Clear Channel. Sorry, there isn't even a comparison to who is responsible for the tenor that exists in the American political discussion. The reason conservatives are the way they are is because they have a never ending echo chamber of vitriol and hate to listen to.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by New Era

Get ####ing serious! Those who destroy actual discourse are on the left? How about you discuss how this list of true patriots contribute to the proposition of positive discourse?

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, Ted Nugent, Michael Savage, Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, Dick Morris, Michelle Bachmann, Oliver North, Alex Jones, Laura Inhrahm, Matt Drudge, Bob Beck, Phil Robertson, Michelle Malkin, the remains of Breitbart's slime empire, SE Cupp, Mark Levin, Charlie Sykes, Erick Erickson, Andrew Napolitano, Karl Rove, Bill Bennett, and the list goes on and on and on. These are just people that are regular contributors to hate radio on Clear Channel. Sorry, there isn't even a comparison to who is responsible for the tenor that exists in the American political discussion. The reason conservatives are the way they are is because they have a never ending echo chamber of vitriol and hate to listen to.

It seems what we're supposed to do is try and be nice to them, accept their stupidity and hatred, and try to work forward from there because if we just tell them they're stupid they're liable to get upset and not listen. Hold the hands of the truly horrible so that they can still feel ok with how horrible they are and everyone gets equal time.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by New Era

Get ####ing serious! This who destroy actual discourse are on the left? How about you discuss how this list of true patriots contribute to the proposition of positive discourse?

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, Ted Nugent, Michael Savage, Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, Dick Morris, Michelle Bachmann, Oliver North, Alex Jones, Laura Inhrahm, Matt Drudge, Bob Beck, Phil Robertson, Michelle Malkin, the remains of Breitbart's slime empire, SE Cupp, Mark Levin, Charlie Sykes, Erick Erickson, Andrew Napolitano, Karl Rove, Bill Bennett, and the list goes on and on and on. These are just people that are regular contributors to hate radio on Clear Channel. Sorry, there isn't even a comparison to who is responsible for the tenor that exists in the American political discussion. The reason conservatives are the way they are is because they have a never ending echo chamber of vitriol and hate to listen to.

I don't want to open the can of worms, because I think this is ground we have covered.

But I draw a pretty big distinction between, say, Rush Limbaugh who is an entertainer, and a propagandist, and someone who tries to destroy the people who are trying to have a reasonable conversation. As I said, the left and the right both have their blowhards - mostly harmless echo chamber types.

But there is a difference between that, and sinister character assassination of people who aren't interested in participating in pure partisan discussion, but are attempting to have difficult discussions about difficult topics. I'm trying to think of someone like Reza that has arisen out of the right, but I can't right now. It's a problem that seems to have fomented in the university system.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Buster

I'll check it out, because I haven't heard of it - but promise me it isn't a fringe/conspiracy/infowars podcast.

Not a bit of tinfoil...

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Buster

But there is a difference between that, and sinister character assassination of people who aren't interested in participating in pure partisan discussion, but are attempting to have difficult discussions about difficult topics. I'm trying to think of someone like Reza that has arisen out of the right, but I can't right now. It's a problem that seems to have fomented in the university system.

I mentioned one above, a Brietbart specialist.

Go ahead and google the name of Yiannopoulos' latest speaking tour, and his justification for it, and tell me that he's trying to create valid discourse about "tough topics".

We both know you'll ignore this anyway, but it will be informative to others so I'll post it regardless.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by New Era

Get ####ing serious! Those who destroy actual discourse are on the left? How about you discuss how this list of true patriots contribute to the proposition of positive discourse?

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, Ted Nugent, Michael Savage, Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, Dick Morris, Michelle Bachmann, Oliver North, Alex Jones, Laura Inhrahm, Matt Drudge, Bob Beckel, Phil Robertson, Michelle Malkin, the remains of Breitbart's slime empire, SE Cupp, Mark Levin, Charlie Sykes, Erick Erickson, Andrew Napolitano, Karl Rove, Bill Bennett, and the list goes on and on and on.

There is a huge range of quality, honesty, reasonableness, and just general flavour of commentary in this list. Mark Levin and Sean Hannity are pretty different animals. Hell, Alex Jones and Pat Robertson, while crazy, are very different types of crazy. I do agree that there's been plenty of dishonesty from right-wing pundits, though. Limbaugh basically invented it.

Re: Buster, what's the difference between propagandists of this sort and Cenk? I've no doubt that Rush is just as happy to dishonestly smear his opponents as Glenn Greenwald is. The only immediately occurring difference is the credibility the left wing guys have with the left; no one in this thread takes Limbaugh or Coulter seriously. You obviously know that, hence your hesitation to post Coulter's article earlier.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Go ahead and google the name of Yiannopoulos' latest speaking tour, and his justification for it, and tell me that he's trying to create valid discourse about "tough topics".

I'll take a swing at this.

His tour was basically a trolling festival, but it does have the "valid discourse" element that in his view, being a troll on social issues is important to push the limits of what is acceptable discourse because he's a free speech absolutist. He's basically of the view that people in college should be exposed to views they disagree with and might even find crazy or offensive, and is enacting the most extreme example of that. The reactions he got on campuses like DePaul actually made his point about the deterioration of campus culture better than any carefully worded and constructed argument ever could. I'm getting most of this, by the way, from this interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9VikXNZ4Gk

I think there's actually a reasonable debate to be had on that point. Does being a provocateur and making statements in the most over-the-top, dramatic, hyperbolic way actually serve a purpose? I'd suggest it does, but that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits because stupid people can't parse what you're doing.

I don't think you actually care about any of that, though, and are likely to simply dismiss it all as irrelevant, because I don't think you're actually committed to thinking critically about any of it.