Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - rightleft22

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33
1
"I believe, without having seen 'significant evidence' of such, that significant amounts of vote fraud have been perpetrated, and perpetrated specifically by Democrats.  I will continue to believe this until proof that vote fraud does not exist has been supplied.  I believe this, even knowing that proving the non existence of vote fraud is a logical impossibility."

A great example of why dialog is becoming more difficult if not imposable. It is not longer what we think about reality that matters but what we feel about it.

Be careful that you aren't so certain in your beliefs that you have closed the door on learning anything new. A sure way of creating what it is you fear


Fear is to courage as doubt is to faith

2
Quote
It was an example of why rightleft's claim that if Barr disagrees he must be blind just as the other side is blind, is not necessarily accurate depending on what Barr's actual view of life is.

If that was  how what I was said was interpreted it was most definitely not my intent.

In the Interview Barr was making fun of those on the left trying to create some Utopian society (I assume by using their power to achieve such ends)
Barr talked about using his power to stop such foolishness.  He didn't talk much about the society he was working towards only what he was working against
Based on other articles he has written Barr does have a vision of what he thinks society should to look like (function) and I assume that he is working towards that vision.

I'm not taking about which vision is the better one only that both sides are working to establish their vision and using the power they have to accomplish that vision. 

In the interview it appeared to me that Barr felt that the 'other' side using their power to pursue their vision was not just absurd but wrong. He seemed blind to the fact that he to was using his power to pursue his vision. The foolish (everyone on the left) should be prevented form using their power while he is free to do so, the justification being that his vision is the correct vision.
Of course the other side can and does make same argument, with the right playing the fools,  for the same reasoning.

Such reasoning is flawed and comes about when one can't see the other in themselves. When such lines are drawn dialog becomes very difficult.

3
I don't no why your fighting the idea that Conservatives concept of the "better outcome" also involves 'telling people how to live.

Only if you're trapped in the paradigm of Reagan-esque (Christiam/"moral" majority) social politics. Most of conservatism has moved towards libertarianism on that front.

"Telling people how to live" for the most part at this stage consists of their telling others to stop telling other people how to live. Suggest all you want, but don't force them to live their lives in your preferred manner.

Then how do you explain the conservatives positions on abortions and gay marriage?

Quote
Most of conservatism has moved towards libertarianism

Its why I can no longer think of my self as a conservative I find the libertarian philosophy absurd (as reshaped into its new form - no long close to what Ann R philosophy) Such Libertarianism can only lead to Fascism in my opinion.
That said I can't think of my self as a Liberal either. I no longer understand either movement

4
Quote
For the left-wing thinker, a good system is one that produces good results, and a bad system produces bad ones.

I don't see that view point as being a right or left way of seeing things. I assume most people think that the system they view as best would produce more 'good' results then bad ones.
Are you saying the right-wing thinkers do think that?
Are you saying the left-wing thinker is unable to imagine a system that is nuanced and not only either or? 

Quote
But the right-wing philosophy is that permitting people to choose their own outcome is the greatest good, regardless of what outcomes that brings about.
I don't see that as being THE right-wing philosophy. I suspect Context is required in when one gets to choose ones their own outcome and the good of society.
I assume many on right in such cases would also like to believe they are choosing their own outcome. (even if a illusion)

But I see why dialog is not possible - defining everyone on the left as adhering to such a philosophy and applying it to their concept of justice as it protect people from others choices would make anything they say or think absurd.

I obviously don't understand.

I don't no why your fighting the idea that Conservatives concept of the "better outcome" also involves 'telling people how to live.   

 

5
I personally find Barr philosophy interesting however while discussing it I felt he was blind to his shadow.

The reason I brought up asymmetrical philosophy is because you can't call it equivalent if one person wants others to be left to make their own life choices, while the other person wants everyone to be forced to comply with one idea. True, they are both 'ideas about how society should be', but forcing people to leave each other alone is not the equal and opposite of forcing everyone to do what you want. However I will add to this that since any policy at all will effectively be using force to back it up, I personally don't see much of a difference between anarchist freehaven and socialist diktat specifically in the sense that both will be backed up by some kind of authority and people trying to break it will be opposed. Where the source of that opposition comes is a matter of mechanics, but not of that much interest to me. So on a very pragmatic level I actually do see laissez-faire as being ironically just as controlled a system as any other; it's just controlled to have different parameters of operation. And to that extent I tend to agree with you that a person who feels certain of his views shouldn't be surprised that others do too. However it's not trivial to also understand that people advocating for lower social and political controls distinctly do not agree with me that their way is just another variant of what the opposite side wants; they view the distinction as being not only relevant but in fact critical. So they would not agree with you, and it's not precisely because of blindness, but rather because I think they have a fundamental disagreement with me (and you, I guess) on political philosophy.

I don't view the different world views are equivalent or exact opposites. That wasn't my point at all

Its a misunderstanding of freedom in tension with the rule of law.
For the Conservative not to to be able to acknowledge that their world vision (philosophy) won't be experienced by those that don't agree with that vision as being "told how to live" is a problem. And its a problem for the Liberal as well (maybe more so). Working toward something or against something your still creating something.

The intention of Democracy IMO is to find away to work in the middle. This constant demonizing and over generalized statements don't help
   

6
If we don't at least attempt to start from a place where the 'other' could be "acting in good faith" at least to how they view and understand the world I don't see how dialog is possible.

With regards to executive powers I do wonder if Barr would be comfortable giving such power to someone he politically disagreed with.
Would Barr work with Biden as he did for Trump?

7
Quote
I'm not vague, I doubt I'm unclear.  But this was a discussion of Bob Barr and most of the claims about his philosophy were beyond vague and actually dishonestly inaccurate to boot.  Hard to see how you're making that criticism in good faith.

its clear that we arn' talking about the same things, perhaps because I am more concerned about how a person peruses their views then the views themselves and that I suck communicating my thoughts.

I personally find Barr philosophy interesting however while discussing it I felt he was blind to his shadow.
He is a man of certainty and conviction but can't understand others that are equally certain in their convictions and so label's the whole as fools. His justification, because he is right. so everyone on the left is painted with the same brush.   You do the same.

In this regard he uses his power no different then those he disagree with. Even that I don't say he is wrong. Where he fails is to see himself in the other.

My actual view on the 'better way' tends to lay in the middle leaning towards Barr pragmatism but not his method. 

8
Quote
Election fraud works because there is no way to catch it

When we don't act on the facts but instead of what we imagine we are more likely to create the very thing we fear.

The reasoning can't help but devourer itself. If you can't catch it it must be happening. Fred is a murder because he hasn't be caught.

You arn't wrong that just because we can catch fraud it does not mean it isn't their however for the system to work we must work with the facts we have.

9
That it might be possible that the 'left' could be acting in good faith to user its power to create what they imagine is better isn't possible... at least not based on his rhetoric. The 'left' are fools and any use of their power bad.

Maybe it would be easier to see if we used the actual equivalent of what the DNC believes and is acting towards today.  You'd call it say a theocracy, where religious right and wrong are more important than and override the application of the laws, on a good day, and on a bad day where the priests and their close associates can do no wrong and the courts defer to them on all matters.

If that sounds bad to you, ask yourself why it will work better when it's the DNC using it's narrow view of right and wrong to decide everything in your life, and how that's going to look on the bad days.

What does the RNC believe today and acting towards?
Are the RNC view of right and wrong narrow or broad?

Either way DNC or RNC both are attempting to set boundaries under which we live and decide "everything in your life".

It a matter of perspective I think.  Is gay marriage or pro life telling  'everyone how to live their life or is it freedom to live as one wishes.


Both sides by setting boundaries are "telling" people how to live and defining freedom.

10
Quote
It's not that they have a different view of Utopia, it's that the left rejects justice

It statements like this that I can't process.
Prove to me that everyone on the Left rejects Justice.

Or is it a different view on what qualifies as justice and even then id doubt you would you find agreement on that in any group

Are you saying that a person using their power to peruse justice as they understand are not just wrong if you disagree with them but the enemy,  while you can use your power to peruse your vision of justice and stop them without any such judgments.

We can debate different views of justice but when you generalize like you are starting to do all dialog stops

11
Barr can't see that he essentially wants to use power for the same reason as the 'Left', the difference being what Utopia looks like.

I can't speak to Barr's personal belief, but you are not correct that the same mindset is symmetrical on both sides. For instance there is a very distinct and prevalent view in right-wing political philosophy that actually holds suspect the notion of an ideal society, and maintains that a certain degree of badness and misfunction in essentially unavoidable in order to prevent even worse misfunction. The notion of 'fixing all our problems' (a la Star Trek) is seen by them as fundamentally flawed and most likely to issue in much worse problems than it prevents. I do not believe there is an equivalent anti-utopian philosophy on the left. I mention this because if it so happens that Barr subscribes to this philosophy then he is by definition not in the same game as his counterparts on the left. He may have beliefs, mind you, that he would see put into action, but they are not beliefs about how to construct a perfect society.

true. during the interview where Barr is quoted about the 'Utopia' the left wants to create he doesn't explain in detail what he want to Create in stead. More how he was using his power to stop the foolishness of the 'left Utopia'.
I don't view his use of his power that way as right or wrong.

My Point was that he clearly was enjoying using his power to stop the foolish and I assume create something he saw as right or better.
That it might be possible that the 'left' could be acting in good faith to user its power to create what they imagine is better isn't possible... at least not based on his rhetoric. The 'left' are fools and any use of their power bad.

The vision of what is best is different but only one side is misusing its power to achieve its aim, the other side. And if abusing ones power is required to stop the other from achieving there aim its justified because of that. 

I  not saying this kind of reasoning is only happening on one side or the other only that such reasoning is circular and that the troubling part is when someone can't see their doing it. 

12
Quote
The left wants power because that is essentially their state of grace in their secular religion. They want to run peoples' lives so they can design utopia for all of us and that's what turns them on. And it's the lust for power and they weren't expecting Trump's victory and it outrages them.
Quote
Again, all true.  And has nothing to do with the office.

The thing the got me with that quote is that Barr Philosophy also involves using power to design a utopia 'as he views was defined by the founding fathers', and having the power to do so which appears to 'turn him on'  - recognizing that proving what turns on one person or a group on would be difficult.

Barr can't see that he essentially wants to use power for the same reason as the 'Left', the difference being what Utopia looks like.

All true and neither right or wrong. It would be foolish to hold beliefs that one didn't work towards.
The foolish part is the demonization of the other because they don't hold the same view of 'Utipia' or how to get thier

All true you say because everyone on the Left views power the same way even though you would use power in the same ways as your enemies

13
should add that I think voiding him out of office is holding him accountable for his foolish ramblings.  In my opinion after he leaves we are all best served by forgetting him (leaving him to history) and letting him golf himself into the sunset.

That said Legally he should still be held accountable for his business practices.

14
That you are able to look past such ramblings does in no way show that many of his followers didn't

I think it would be reasonable to say Trump sets a bad example for people. That is not the same as saying he "incites" people to crimes. Inciting specifically means he is intending to produce criminal behavior. But if he says dumb stuff, even stuff that will have bad effects, but with no care about the consequences and no intentional desire to see crime committed as a result of his statement, then it's simply not incitement. And this kind of language game is part of the problem. You can slide from "he's making irresponsible statements" to "he's inciting", which in some informal way sound kind of the same, but formally are worlds apart and suggest a very different kind of responsibility. In the legal sense if you incite a crime you are directly participating in or even masterminding the crime. If you are just an irresponsible idiot then you are not connected to those subsequent events in the same way that a mob boss is for what his lieutenants do. It's a big difference. But normalization allows the careful choice of words (chosen to impute things for which there is no direct evidence) to create a fact in people's minds that is as good as a fact on the ground for building a case against someone.

Perhaps.  your legal arguments are good, but don't feel that lets Trump off the hook at least as it concerns leadership
There is a reason people in office are or become politicians, we expect/need them to be weigh their words with some care. We expect/need our politicians to respond to varies situations and not react.
 
I feel your making a big assumption that Trump just says dumb stuff without intent. after 4 years continues in the behavior so either he was incapable of learning better or their was 'method to the madness' I believe his communication style was cultivated, intentional and affective and that therefor he ought to be held accountable for the division his ramblings, if not creating or inciting, certainly intensified.

Perhaps that is were we disagree? Your legal arguments let Trump off the hook for his 'ramblings' where as I feel that because he took on a/the political Leadership role much more was required of him and so is accountable for those ramblings. 

Inciting specifically means he is intending to produce criminal behavior. But if he says dumb stuff, even stuff that will have bad effects, but with no care about the consequences and no intentional desire to see crime committed as a result of his statement, then it's simply not incitement.

15
Trump at a rally.
Quote
"If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them," Trump said after warning of possible rabble-rousers. "I'll pay the legal fees,
Trump to cops:
Quote
When you guys put somebody in the car and you're protecting their head you know, the way you put their hand over [their head]," Trump continued, mimicking the motion. "Like, 'Don't hit their head and they've just killed somebody, don't hit their head.' I said, 'You can take the hand away, OK?
Trump at a different rally.
Quote
At a Las Vegas rally later that month, he said security guards were too gentle with a protester. "He's walking out with big high-fives, smiling, laughing," Trump said. "I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you."

You won't get any disagreement from me that he speaks off-the-cuff like a dumb frat boy idiot who likes to sound tough. I heard people talk like this many times. It bugs me, but again let's not confuse rhetorical boasting (which is what I think these statements all amount to) with legal terms like "inciting". I am not "inciting to violence" if I say to someone "man, I'd love to kick that guy's butt." This kind of rhetoric is said all the time by people, and never taken to mean you intend to attack someone. For the President to say it is...impolitic...but come on, you know as well as I do that people have been deliberately misreading his [dumb] public statements from the start, in order to "prove" all sorts of things. The day after the "I can grab a woman by the..." statement came out, I heard people in the office saying quite clearly "he just admitted to rape!" when in fact they were just parroting deceitful reporting on what he did say (not that what he did say was pretty). Then it quickly became "a fact" that he was an "admitted" rapist. Again, this is the sort of normalization I mean. Things take on an aura of truth because others say it is. Actually this speaks to a whole realm of epistemology where we might legitimately wonder how much of our "truth" is actually just a result of repetition in the tribe. The notion of empirical truth is rather new, philosophically speaking, and probably comprises a minimal percentage of the totality of what people think is 'reality.'

Your being very reasonable and forgiving
However Trump as President, any President for that matter, must be held to a higher standard then the average joe.
In the 4 years their is plenty of examples showing that what Trump said in his ramblings and how he says it has influenced many people's actions. His office giving his ramblings greater voice.

That you are able to look past such ramblings does in no way show that many of his followers didn't   

16
Bill Bar philosophy as it regards executive power and Judeo-Christian system morality tends to the extreme. He is a man on a mission

Quote
The crucial point for Barr is his claim that the thinking of the Founders, and therefore “the American government” they created, “was predicated precisely on this Judeo-Christian system” of values handed down by God. According to Barr, “the greatest threat to free government, the Founders believed, was not governmental tyranny, but personal licentiousness—the abandonment of Judeo-Christian moral restraints in favor of the unbridled pursuit of personal appetites.”

He likes to joke about the left attempt to create a utopian society while he himself is attempting to create just that by restoring the nation to the Founders’ vision. The joke being that the other living by their values is laughably absurd while he, being righteous is right and so justified to uses his office to enforce his values.  He appears to be in the classic sense blind to his shadow.

" there's nothing more dangerous than a true believer on his own crazy mission.”

Strangely enough I think the statement attributed to Barr here is something you wouldn't be so quick to disagree with if you substituted "Judeo-Christian" for "common sense" or perhaps "caring about others before yourself". It seems like you're zeroing in on this as being a religious statement, but actually I don't think the meat of it has much of anything to do with religion. He seems to be saying (assuming he said it) that the greatest source of danger to America isn't some big evil government crushing the people underfoot, but of the people simply becoming worse people, behaving in worse ways, and demanding worse things. You can define worse any way you like, and he seems to define it along Judeo-Christian lines, but that's not really the point I see this statement making. The point is that a decline in personal integrity and self-control is the biggest danger; that thinking of little man than immediate desires is not a way to treat your country or yourself. Do you really disagree with that? Or let me rephrase it in a way that perhaps might strike more of a chord with you: do you think the biggest problem of Trump's Presidency was that Big Brother was going to finally lower the boom and become another China, or that his ardent fans seemed immune to reason and preferred to have their tastes satiated (which may include giving the middle finger to The Man, sticking it to politeness, condoning boorishness, whatever else), so that the general tenor of American decency and discourse went into decline?

Maybe you still don't wholeheartedly agree with his point of view anyhow, but I think this concept is not evidence of someone being a religious crusader. I think you'll be able to find plenty of secular people who also think that personal values being in decline is worse than bad government.

It wasn't what the man believes but the methods he feels acceptable in pursuit of his vision of 'How America must Be" that triggered warning bells. 

He has been talking and writing about his philosophy for 30 + years. Much of it is over my head. What I found interesting was how certain he was yet blind to his shadow. He belittles others who think defiantly then he does for wanting to 'create a better world' based on that thinking while he himself is attempting to do the same thing. 
It isn't who's more right or wrong in their pursuit of their ideals but about the inability to see oneself in the other that I find troubling when I hear men like Barr speak.

When I watch him talk about his philosophy I find my self both impressed by his certainty and troubled.

It would be interesting if Biden let him stay on if he remains as steadfast to his thinking as it regards to Executive power.

17
Bill Bar philosophy as it regards executive power and Judeo-Christian system morality tends to the extreme. He is a man on a mission

Quote
The crucial point for Barr is his claim that the thinking of the Founders, and therefore “the American government” they created, “was predicated precisely on this Judeo-Christian system” of values handed down by God. According to Barr, “the greatest threat to free government, the Founders believed, was not governmental tyranny, but personal licentiousness—the abandonment of Judeo-Christian moral restraints in favor of the unbridled pursuit of personal appetites.”

He likes to joke about the left attempt to create a utopian society while he himself is attempting to create just that by restoring the nation to the Founders’ vision. The joke being that the other living by their values is laughably absurd while he, being righteous is right and so justified to uses his office to enforce his values.  He appears to be in the classic sense blind to his shadow.

" there's nothing more dangerous than a true believer on his own crazy mission.”

18
Trump morning of 11/24/2020
Quote
Poll: 79 Percent of Trump Voters Believe ‘Election Was Stolen‘ https://breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/11/23/poll-79-of-trump-voters-believe-election-was-stolen-through-illegal-voting-and-fraud/ via
@BreitbartNews
 They are 100% correct, but we are fighting hard. Our big lawsuit, which spells out in great detail all of the ballot fraud and more, will soon be filled. RIGGED ELECTION!

So after 3 weeks of showing no fraudulent votes their lawsuits are going to start showing "in great detail the ballot fraud and more"! Those lawsuits will all be "filled" with BS and thrown out like the rest. I'm sure the Trumpies will be Charlie Brown and go for the football yet again.

When truth does not matter nor does reality.
I don't believe that purpose of the law suits were to win them - begs the question why
And why the GOP is so intent on creating what they fear

19
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 23, 2020, 05:59:38 PM »
Rush has now turned on Powell

https://www.yahoo.com/news/rush-limbaugh-does-full-180-212356868.html

Not surprised.

I think some of the radio shock jocks propagandists have gone so far down the rabbit hole they believe the crap they gave birth do. 
They have become the Ouroboros, using past statements as proof for their current statements, creating the very things they fear

20
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: November 23, 2020, 03:17:15 PM »
As you mention the tasking of getting it done fails to the lower levels of government with regards to the Federal administration this crises was a gimme, all that was required was to set the tone and provide avenue to recourses where possible.

The administration failed making the local level of government job that mush harder. Sorry but you can't spin this any other way. 

21
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: November 23, 2020, 02:01:07 PM »
Quote
even though IMO this is more a failure of local government and leadership (mostly municipal)

Quote
If a department fails to meet its goals is it the cooperate problem or just the departments'. What advice would you have for the senior cooperate management.  What role do they have in the setting of those goals and the ability of the department/team to meet them?


If a department fails to meet its goals is it the cooperate problem or just the departments'. What advice would you have for the senior cooperate management.  What role do they have in the setting of those goals and the ability of the department/team to meet them?

Uh, you do realize that in the Federal System that the United States has, the states are co-equal to the Federal Government, not subservient.

The states are not "departments" within a larger corporate structure, they are their own corporate entity. Now cities and counties, depending on the constitutions of the respective state, may be sub-servient to the dictates of the state, and probably are(most are).

But blaming the Board of Paramount(circa 5 years ago) for negligent management practices at CBS(circa 5 years ago) is a bit weird? So why are you trying to make our government work in a way it is not designed to do so?

I would think that such crises is when federal leadership is most needed.

I was responding to -
Quote
IMO this is more a failure of local government and leadership (mostly municipal)

Local, state and federal all have a part to play blaming it on local leadership begs the question I asked.

The Board of paramount will feel the affects of negligent management practices at CBS. I would think that part of the solution is going to require direction from the Board. It true crap flows down but the buck stops at the top

And this isn't about blame its about accountability with each part of the system doing its part.  That said if the Board does nothing and or just assigns blame, they fail and should be removed.

22
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: November 23, 2020, 01:03:15 PM »
Quote
even though IMO this is more a failure of local government and leadership (mostly municipal)

If a department fails to meet its goals is it the cooperate problem or just the departments'. What advice would you have for the senior cooperate management.  What role do they have in the setting of those goals and the ability of the department/team to meet them?


I think people should be allowed to make informed decisions as it comes to travel.
I would make it mandatory to wear a mask when traveling and expect such guild lines to come down from the top not just the local level. 

I like this article https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54251632

23
Are Trump's lawyers that bad that they do not know how to file a case where they have standing? Even ones with affidavits that have been tossed out as not specific enough in their claims?

1-about 30 so far in law suits.  It is time to put up or shut up. Give the evidence to the judges.  You keep claiming conspiracies' but no evidence.

How about those servers in Germany?  Or the State of Michigan not certifying the results? You made both of those claims. And they ended up wrong.

 No, I'm still right.

The only Trump-elated case that was withdrawn was one that had seen its goal succeed already. All other were private parties tat were not looked at due to no standing to bring the suit. Too bad, because all of them were probably dead on. The servers in Frankfort were seized, but Guiliani and Powell are not in the loop, and can't wave a magic wand to get access immediately. They said so at the time.  The Michigan canvassers are still standing against ant certification.

Your statement does not match reality but then the point of the lawsuits is obviously not to win them
Its to do the very thing which seems to be working on you. - can you say Gas lit

24
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 19, 2020, 04:52:25 PM »
Or will Trump, after all is said and done, and the courts find all of his claims with out merit, will he say it was a clean election, Biden won fair and square and that he, Trump, lost?  Can he admit the he lost?

Every other President that has lost an election has admitted that. And I am not talking now. I am talking about after Biden is sworn in.

Trump has never shown such a ability so I wouldn't count on it. Such thing goes against his "Art of the deal' philosophy and phycological make up.
Its one of the 'character' traits that many of his followers admire without it appears spending much time pondering how such character traits might not make for great leadership

25
General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
« on: November 19, 2020, 01:31:57 PM »
Or Republicans could just stop their objections to Medicaid and Medicare negotiating better drug prices on behalf of the country. Which is how all those other countries get their better prices. Shipping the medicines overseas and then buying them back is an inefficient workaround. Also it will lead to people buying from fraudulent sellers at some point.

Or Democrats could stop proposing solutions without addressing their problems, since that's what's behind virtually the entire mess in the first place.  Nothing like creating a new problem with your solution to ensure that government needs to keep getting bigger.

Depends on how you define 'big government' From the fanatical perspective government get bigger under republicans while providing less for the money

26
General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
« on: November 19, 2020, 12:26:05 PM »
So the pharma companies held back results, even though the timing of the results is almost exactly what they said they would be way back in the start.

It's just a fact that the first announcement of results came from a data run conducted after the election and reported within the same week.  That run was scheduled to be made earlier where it would have been reported in mid October.  Hmmm... Imagine what a 90% effective vaccince report connected to Warp Speed would have done to the election.  The Biden campaign only really pushed 2 issues, and undermining the "Trump failed on COVID" meme would likely have titled the election. 

Is it any wonder that Biden's campaign was meeting with big pharma and pressuring them not to make announcements?

Is it any surprise that Fauci refused to say any positive about vaccines until after the votes were cast, when he suddenly started being much more public and positive on how soon it will be ready?

Quote
yeah, going to need some sources on that claim.

Why?  No one is willing to believe anything that they don't already agree with on these topics.  How about you actually learn about something about the topic before setting your opinion in stone?

Interesting... Big Pharma typically prefer Republican administrations. - Less regulation and accountability.   

27
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 18, 2020, 12:05:11 PM »
Worth nothing that the dissent wasn't "we would find in favor of Trump," it was "why the *censored* are we even issuing a decision on this case?" Which means Trump's lawyer's arguments were spectacularly bad.

I suspect that winning the cases isn't the primary reason for filing the the cases.
I'm anticipating a future argument that the number of cases filed proves something and that the system is against Trump
I also suspect that a number of 'Faithless elector's' will use that argument to justify being 'faithless'

28
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: November 17, 2020, 04:17:38 PM »

So with the the question of wearing masks and the idea of freedom.
Does freedom found in the great good of the many or the individual? (the question assume masks provide some protection)

29
General Comments / Re: Lame Duck Actions
« on: November 17, 2020, 02:24:20 PM »
That last one worries me.  All the pundits I've read say that there's nothing to worry about, that our highest-ranking military personnel won't agree to anything illegal.

But as someone said, if you saw this happening in another country, what would you think?  :o

Ask Noel, he says I'm a nut for thinking there is a small possibility Trump may try to incite enough violence to activate the insurrection act and declare martial law before Jan 20th. I see the DC Trump support rally as a trial balloon for how to make something like that happen. "Proud boys stand by."

Not like the pundits to be wrong. They still don't get it or don't want to see. If Trump thinks he can get away with something he will try and his followers will follow

30
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: November 17, 2020, 10:53:47 AM »
As a dog whistle the crying out for 'FREEDOM' is quite effective. When used in such a manner you usually don't have to look very deep to find that someone is attempting to create boundaries/laws to limit a some groups rights, often even those who will be doing the fighting and dying to this 'FREEDOM' only they will never see it that way until its to late.

When you say rights, I'm left to wonder if you don't mean "entitlements" instead. You might want to say they're the same thing, but they're not when approached from the perspective of Natural Rights.

Where for the purpose of Natural Rights, an entitlement is "the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment" due to (insert reason here).

Actually I was thinking of one segment of the population attempting to impose there values (not rights but often viewed as rights) onto another group and call it freedom.
Slavery for example or the evangelical that wish to impose their values as it concerns marriage on everyone feeling they are being discriminated against (not free) when they can't. Enforcing their values on others isn't using the government to enforce values (which they hate)  its living from a place of faith and beliefs = freedom. Of course for those that do not hold to those belief it feels like anything but freedom.  But to this they are unaware.

I probably screwed up that up - its the paradox that the exercise of 'freedom' always involves setting boundaries which means their are going to be people in side and those outside.
In a democracy we try to balance this as best as we can which requires compromise. 

31
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: November 17, 2020, 10:37:37 AM »
Trump is incapable of transcending the times in which he chose to lead because it is not possible for him or anyone to do so as Leadership embodies the broken system that created it?
Until the system is corrected, leadership is off the hook in transcending 'itself' and any moment that might help correct the system?

Thanks for taking the time to parse what I wrote. I guess it's not such an obvious concept, but yes, it's hard to place blame when it was 100% clear going in what America was getting. And worse, when was people asked for was a dark mirror of what they had already become. I personally don't believe in demanding that someone else steps up and transcends the norm when you are not willing or able to do the same. To the extent that some people here may transcend the norm and therefore feel entitled to make this demand, my suggestion again is that the demand is better placed toward ordinary people. Despite what some Ancient Greeks believe, I do not agree - and certainly not in a democratic republic - that the responsibility of educating the public is in the great leader, the Pericles. But let's not confuse this with the fact that I do agree that I do view leading as a massive responsibility that requires self-sacrifice.

I don't disagree. Yet I have to ask what role leadership plays in aiding or hindering the 'ordinary people' to transcend the moment and or their biases and restore a balance to the system.
I feel its circular. If leadership is a reflection of the system and can't be asked to transcend the system or be held accountable for their role in the system and the people follow that leader how is that not self perpetual?   I don't know how we get out of the current divisions.

32
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: November 16, 2020, 05:57:56 PM »
I think we see in Europe a bit of what Fenring's talking about. Trump could have done a better job on masks. But the European leaders did a better job. They did a great job on taking the virus seriously, recommending masks and social distancing, doing a shutdown, and all of it. And still much of their population is ignoring their leaders and even openly rebelling against common sense to save lives.

One wonders how many of those in Europe were encouraged by what they saw was happening in the US?
If the G20 leadership were all on side with the same message and encouraged to do by its most influential leaders   

33
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: November 16, 2020, 05:39:59 PM »
If I'm reading Fenring correctly he's saying the Trump is symptomatic of the current reality (that is split in two)
He holds limited responsibility for being what 70+ million people want and 70+ million fear.

Trump isn't responsible for not appealing to the peoples 'better selves' or the greater 'good' verses individual 'good'/'freedom because the people choose to follow a person that does not have that compacity. Trump is a reflection of the people/system and therefor not 'to blame' or held accountable.

Trump is incapable of transcending the times in which he chose to lead because it is not possible for him or anyone to do so as Leadership embodies the broken system that created it?
Until the system is corrected, leadership is off the hook in transcending 'itself' and any moment that might help correct the system?

Yet history shows that in such times those we think of as Great leaders transcend the moment. Begs the question: What role does Leadership play in how we act and think about our selves.

34
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: November 16, 2020, 03:28:23 PM »
We need a leader that will work to finding a way to solve it not exasperate it.

Well, sure. When I suggested Trump was a symptom, this includes the fact that he's essentially 'like ordinary people' insofar as he does and says whatever he feels like with no regard for a bigger picture. That is unfortunately for a President, but on the other hand it makes him no more responsible as a agent as any individual is. The fact that he has a super-important job is an issue for the voters; but as what we might call a citizen's duty if he's as bad as everyone else then my position is that everyone else needs to own that and better themselves, rather than wish they had a better leader. I'm not saying strong leadership wouldn't have helped; it would have. But to be fair it's not a politician's fault that the people have messed up priorities, nor is it something we can change at the immediate moment that most politicians are going to say whatever will rally their base. That's a problem with the political system, and it all feeds back into itself. We are far removed from what I would call the aristocratic concept of the elite telling the people they'd better shut up and take their medicine. I kind of wish a bit more of that was in the mix, tbh.

I had to read that over a few times and I think I understand. 
“Every nation gets the government it deserves.” - Joseph de Maistre

We see the world as we are not as it is and we see in Trump ourselves - our shadow or savior. 

35
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: November 16, 2020, 01:55:37 PM »
I agree he did not cause the virus. But he is responsible for his own downplaying of the severity of the virus, his lack of preparation for what he really knew early on was going to be a pandemic, and his refusal to set an example by wearing a mask and selling using a mask as a patriotic duty.  His followers would wear a mask if he told them to. If he told them it was the main way to keep the economy open and running.  if he put it as a selfless sacrifice on par to what previous generations have done to help one another.  If had appealed to the basic goodness of people.

Would all of them have followed?  Of course not.  But do you think a good portion of them would have, Hell yes.  We could be heading into winter with a much lower infection rate with at least 2 vaccines due on the horizon.  Less than one year of sacrifice, and we would have made it through with less than 400,000 dead (which is where I think we are going to be, easily, by the end of Feb. 2021).

And in all likelihood had Trump been capable of such a appeal to the basic goodness of people he would have won the election.

36
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: November 16, 2020, 01:01:29 PM »
And to me that is Trump's largest failure. To not lead the people to doing something against their wishes. In fact leading them away from science on this. Actively opposing it.

Well you can blame him if you like, but I think a combination of partisan politics, echo chamber media, and social media, all push people to hugely believe that anything they feel like is that they should get, immediately. The idea of contrary views having to be respected, or of having to submit oneself to any kind of higher authority that says things you don't already believe, is foreign to the American psyche right now. Maybe Trump didn't help; maybe he's even a symptom of the problem - maybe even a notable symptom; be he is not himself the problem.

I agree he is not to blame for the problem which existed before he became a politician. I took msquared point to be that Trump is accountable for how he manipulated the issue towards his own end and made it worse. 

If we agree this current environment where a large percentage of people "believe that anything they feel like is that they should get, immediately. The idea of contrary views having to be respected, or of having to submit oneself to any kind of higher authority that says things you don't already believe" - is a problem. We need a leader that will work to finding a way to solve it not exasperate it.

Trump may not be to blame for the origin of the problem but he's the guy in charge.  By not holding men like Trump accountable for how the deal with such problems then they and we become the problem.

37
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: November 16, 2020, 11:58:55 AM »
Most people don't define terms like 'freedom' before they use them, similar I think as such concepts of love, forgiveness.... Instead we assume we know what we mean when we use those words and assume that others hearing those words know what we mean.

Its a lot of assuming. and as the saying go's we are more likely to make a ass of you and me when we do so.   

As a dog whistle the crying out for 'FREEDOM' is quite effective. When used in such a manner you usually don't have to look very deep to find that someone is attempting to create boundaries/laws to limit a some groups rights, often even those who will be doing the fighting and dying to this 'FREEDOM' only they will never see it that way until its to late.

38
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: November 16, 2020, 10:57:05 AM »
Another vaccine at about 94% effective rate (Moderna) announced today.  It seems like in a few months we will have several good options for a vaccine, but will the Trump supporters take it?

Taking the vaccine will likely be a issue for many on the right and left if for different reasons.   

39
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 13, 2020, 04:27:28 PM »
Going to look into my crystal ball....

I see future charges that Trump and members of his family embezzled funds from campaign donations for personal use.

40
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 13, 2020, 01:10:27 PM »
He calls it transference.  You project on other what you would do.
Trump loves to cheat (see his personal life and his golf game) so he is positive every one else is cheating. I mean why not?  It helps you win and winning is everything.

Its beyond transference and projection. IMO
Lambert appears to authentically believe Trump is a man of the highest integrity and morality.   Nothing Trump did, does or says can or should be questioned. 
Trump does not cheat at golf he manages the reality of the experience. If the score shows that he lost its because everyone else cheated, which excuses his cheating as not being cheating.

41
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 13, 2020, 12:28:51 PM »
Lambert like a very large percentage of the 70 million that voted for Trump believe without any doubt that the democrats are trying to steal the election regardless of proof.
Accusing the 'other' while looking away from the realty as presented by the facts. When truth and facts don't matter neither does reality. 

I don't see how dialog is possible when the experience of reality is so different. 
For myself I find myself asking if its my experience of reality that might be off.. I wonder if the Lambert's ever ask themselves that question.

42
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 12, 2020, 01:59:53 PM »

Trying to get my head around how the experience of reality can be so different between people
70 million viewing things one way and 70 million seeing it in another.
Are we all being gas-lit?

The final part of it is just plain and simple partisanship.  People are really really invested in their own point of view and their "side".  Because that is what they have been taught by all media because it sells and gets out the vote, and because we live in an age of unprecedented peace and prosperity where only 1-2% of the population has been exposed to the horrors of war that are stark lessons against partisanship.

Was the architect  of the "matrix" correct? Humanity can't handle prosperity and needs a certain amount of opposition to 'feel' engaged with life?

What's happening now feels different to me and I wonder if our current communication technology isn't exasperating the tendency towards tribalism.
Confirmation bias, Seeing the world as we are not as it is begs the question. how do we see ourselves.

One of my hopes with a Biden Presidency was that just maybe we get a break from the constant political tweet intended to grab our attention. We need space to look away.

43
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 12, 2020, 01:26:49 PM »
In the immortal words of Bart Simpson, everybody:

"Chill out, man"

Trying to get my head around how the experience of reality can be so different between people
70 million viewing things one way and 70 million seeing it in another.
Are we all being gas-lit?

44
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 12, 2020, 12:34:07 PM »
Trump would rather break the game than loose.

I suspect that many of the 70 million supporters/followers support that

I'm not sure why when all in all we live in a time were we have much more to be grateful for then upset about.
I think we ask for to much from life and it makes us stupid. 

45
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 12, 2020, 12:24:39 PM »
Should American democracy die?
What should replace it?

46
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 12, 2020, 12:11:48 PM »
The Trump Admin can run around attempting any number of things, but ultimately it will likely come down to state legislatures and Congress.

Unless Trump manages to get the courts to flip the results, it is unlikely that the Legislatures will intervene in fear of voter backlash in two years. Currently Republicans are on a glide slope to success in 2022, drastic measures to save Trump's 2nd term has to be considered very politically dangerous in any state that such an option is on the table.

State legislatures that are controlled by Republicans and are getting the chance to draw their own boundary lines may be more willing to take a risk on alienating Biden voters than you think. Particularly if they can hide behind unfounded fraud claims and say things like we can't know the true outcome of the election. Trump and his family have been applying as much pressure as they can to lawmakers to support his claims. If Penn, Georgia, and Arizona all decide to change and maybe try to do something that seems "fair" like allocating electors by CD after the election already happened I can see them trying to get away with it. After the senate republicans completely flipped on their word about SC justices in a presidential election year forgive me if I have no faith in Republican's honor to not change the rules in order to win.

I suspect that is what is going happen.
If such a thing does happen what would that say about American version of democracy.

47
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 12, 2020, 10:49:36 AM »
RL22,

“Could that be the game plan?”

Trumps game plan is to win, win legally, but win. I was counting him out until yesterday. I also counted him out in 2016. He has a habit of proving me wrong.

I fear 'legally' will be in the eyes of the beholder
Trump has a habit of creating the conditions that he then uses for his own gain. In this case creating the distrust in the process, eliminating those who might stand up against him and then taking what he wants.

Be careful what you wish for

48
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 12, 2020, 10:41:28 AM »
Scary


49
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 12, 2020, 10:28:22 AM »

How much patience will you have? Presumably he would file the best suits first? So if Trump is still trying to litigate this for 4 years does the right not accept Biden as president the entire time? At some point batting zero is batting zero and you should quit expecting the next swing to be a home run.

I don't need patience.  After December 14th, the Electoral College will vote and the entire thing will be moot.  They can keep throwing lawsuits, but the election will be over.  I don't need patience because it's not my job to decide the election.  Every lawsuit should be heard.

Is their a danger that the GOP use the lawsuits, whether they win or not, baseless or not, as grounds to "Gusification of the electoral college"
Their are laws that allow the Electoral college to over ride the election results with the excuse perhaps because they have been tarnished by the 'lawsuits'

Could that be the game plan? 

50
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 10, 2020, 01:00:04 PM »
Begs the question if there is another motive behind the GOP contesting the results other then suspected fraud
What does the GOP gain?

I think most of the old school GOP wants Trump to shut up and go away but they're afraid of alienating him and his voters and losing a primary in 2 or 4 years. So they are saying things like the president has the right to pursue whatever legal strategies he wants and we won't call the election until he's done. Certifications of state votes are going to start piling up over the next 2 weeks. It will be an interesting dance they are going to have to walk if Trump still refuses to accept the reality of his loss.

One wonders then how they are weighing the possible harm to their personal standing with the GOP base and the potential harm to the country.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33