Political Watch

[jerry mcmasters]

 
I don't understand why both of those can't be true.  I am deeply cynical and I believe every word I've ever typed here.  How are you not cynical too?  Hell three out of four posts on this forum are some variation of talking about the many ways Americans are dirt-eating morons.
 
There’s nothing wrong with saying “I told you so” when I’m right.  Whether or not I voted or whether or not I am a Thoughtful and Engaged citizen Devoted to making Politics Work for Me simply makes it easier or more difficult to swallow, I guess.

 
You're probably right about yourself; you know yourself better than I do, after all, and if you say you distrust the stated motives of people, which is the essence of cynicism, who am I to correct you?

 
Comparing what politicians say they want, and seeing what we end up with, cynicism seems to jibe with reality. 
 

I'm not generally cynical. I believe that most people at the end of the day speak, vote, and act their motives.
 
I'm certainly skeptical about some folks in their stated motives.

 
I’m only speaking about the context of politics.  I generally have good impressions of people IRL and rarely am disappointed with conduct that doesn’t match words.  SE Texas is pretty chill, people are friendly and good-hearted.  Politics though…there just seem to be too many obstacles and historical forces to overcome to get to some good result, in the US anyway.  Hell, it would be difficult to even find agreement on what that result should be and what it would look like.

[Rhythmcs]

Cynically speaking. Democrats want to pick our pockets and republicans are just racists. IDK, I guess I'm more sympathetic to the thief than the hater.

[Thumpalumpacus]

 
You're probably right about yourself; you know yourself better than I do, after all, and if you say you distrust the stated motives of people, which is the essence of cynicism, who am I to correct you?

 
Comparing what politicians say they want, and seeing what we end up with, cynicism seems to jibe with reality. 

We went from talking about people in general to politicians. Only a fool would trust politicians, but that's a different goalpost.
 

I’m only speaking about the context of politics.  I generally have good impressions of people IRL and rarely am disappointed with conduct that doesn’t match words.  SE Texas is pretty chill, people are friendly and good-hearted.  Politics though…there just seem to be too many obstacles and historical forces to overcome to get to some good result, in the US anyway.  Hell, it would be difficult to even find agreement on what that result should be and what it would look like.

That wasn't really clear.

[jerry mcmasters]

 
Comparing what politicians say they want, and seeing what we end up with, cynicism seems to jibe with reality. 

We went from talking about people  in general to politicians. Only a fool would trust politicians, but that's a different goalpost.

You're mistaken, but it's no big deal.  You entered into an ongoing conversation between Epronovost and I about cynicism and naivety in thinking about politics. See post 2763

 

I’m only speaking about the context of politics.  I generally have good impressions of people IRL and rarely am disappointed with conduct that doesn’t match words.  SE Texas is pretty chill, people are friendly and good-hearted.  Politics though…there just seem to be too many obstacles and historical forces to overcome to get to some good result, in the US anyway.  Hell, it would be difficult to even find agreement on what that result should be and what it would look like.

That wasn't really clear.

It wasn't clear because I didn't think we were talking about a larger context than politics, and it turns out you did, which is fine.  So I wanted to clear it up.

[epronovost]

But what was the reason for saying “your cynicism is unbearably naive” in the first place?

Because i thought your frame of analysis was exactly that; a performance of cynicism all the while offering a strong tacit approval to the status quo. 

Did a shot have to be taken?  I was making a prediction no less than anybody else, and one you agreed with.

Did a shot had to be taken? Absolutely not; it was a bit of a gratuitous blow up. 

I would say though that you didn't make a prediction as much as an observation of the situation which was accurate. Of course, making an accurate description of the US political system as being very, very sick and unlikely to improve soon is fairly easy. The US elected an oligarch with fascists friends twice now. You don't need a PhD in political science to understand that a healthy political system doesn't produce such result. 

The result of your analysis wasn't naive, but the process that led you to that conclusion was as did your behavior. What made my comment a low blow is that I put in the context of the various conversation you and I had on politics over the last what 8 years or so?
 

Today on the radio I heard an add for a phone ap that let you buy and use lottery tickets on your phone.  The character voice in the ad said, cheerfully, “Now I can play lottery scratch off games without leaving my couch!”  Without leaving his couch.  Let that sink in.

Erm, isn't that a "good thing"? If you like gambling small amounts of money in scratch off games; you probably don't like having to go to a convenience store to buy those and then come back to your place to play them. Yes, this, lets feed the gambling addiction of our population part of the problem is depressing and scratch off games do have this cultural aura of being the game played by the elderly poor making the add target a vulnerable portion of the population. On the other hand, have you ever been stuck in a queue in a gas station waiting for that one client who buys and exchange like 8 different types of scratch off games with a cashier who clearly doesn't know anything about scratch off games?

My friend, you can look down your nose at me all you like, but we are cooked whether Jerry does anything constructive or not, and that ain’t cynicism.  Get back to me when more than half of the adult population can read above a sixth grade level.

You don't need to read above a sixth grade level to be a positive voice in a democracy; a lot of the most positive voices and actors in politics didn't even knew how to read period (or barely). Yes being educated and well informed are often key healthy politics in a democracy, hence why free mandatory education based on humanist principles of human development are a characteristic of all democracies, but you don't require literacy or scientific knowledge so much so as community bonds, social trust and humanist values. If you got that; you'll be alright.

[Thumpalumpacus]

We went from talking about people  in general to politicians. Only a fool would trust politicians, but that's a different goalpost.

You're mistaken, but it's no big deal.  You entered into an ongoing conversation between Epronovost and I about cynicism and naivety in thinking about politics. See post 2763

 

That wasn't really clear.

It wasn't clear because I didn't think we were talking about a larger context than politics, and it turns out you did, which is fine.  So I wanted to clear it up.

I've been known to misunderstand stuff before. I'd been following your discussion to a point but clearly not with enough attention.

[Thumpalumpacus]

On the other hand, have you ever been stuck in a queue in a gas station waiting for that one client who buys and exchange like 8 different types of scratch off games with a cashier who clearly doesn't know anything about scratch off games?

Yes, I have. It makes me feel all

[SYZ]

The Victorian state government (where I live) is
passing legislation early next year to ban television
gambling advertising in total.

The only places we can buy 'scratchies' is at
some newsagents and pharmacists, or of course
the lotto company's accredited agencies.

[jerry mcmasters]

But what was the reason for saying “your cynicism is unbearably naive” in the first place?

 
Because i thought your frame of analysis was exactly that; a performance of cynicism all the while offering a strong tacit approval to the status quo.
 
Did a shot had to be taken? Absolutely not; it was a bit of a gratuitous blow up. 
 
I would say though that you didn't make a prediction as much as an observation of the situation which was accurate. Of course, making an accurate description of the US political system as being very, very sick and unlikely to improve soon is fairly easy. The US elected an oligarch with fascists friends twice now. You don't need a PhD in political science to understand that a healthy political system doesn't produce such result. 
 
The result of your analysis wasn't naive, but the process that led you to that conclusion was as did your behavior. What made my comment a low blow is that I put in the context of the various conversation you and I had on politics over the last what 8 years or so?

 
I think I see the issue.  I have no problem with something like “Jerry’s right, but he’s a smug asshole the way he says it” or “He shouldn’t say that if he himself isn’t willing to do anything about it.”  But that isn’t a processing error.  We’re doing the exact same processing.
 
The process that led to my conclusion is the same as yours, observed reality, and for goodness sake of course it is an easy one!  You are pointing out nothing about my process that differs from yours in substance.  It is purely my behavior, or my style, that has thrown you off and has led to incorrect assumptions about Performance, advocacy, intention, etc.  If there is something different about the substance of how we both have reached the same conclusion, I would like to hear it.  The way you stated it sounds more like my actual process to get the result is different than yours, like you’re using cold accurate analysis and I’m over here reading goat entrails. 
 
Everything I’ve said was with the intention of being simply descriptive.  Advocacy and performance are incorrect assumptions, but I do understand, we all have (I think) built up little frameworks and psychological profiles of each other (8 years worth!), so I won’t try to argue you out of it, and I appreciate your taking the time to explain your reasoning.
 

Today on the radio I heard an add for a phone ap that let you buy and use lottery tickets on your phone.  The character voice in the ad said, cheerfully, “Now I can play lottery scratch off games without leaving my couch!”  Without leaving his couch.  Let that sink in.

 
Erm, isn't that a "good thing"? If you like gambling small amounts of money in scratch off games; you probably don't like having to go to a convenience store to buy those and then come back to your place to play them. Yes, this, lets feed the gambling addiction of our population part of the problem is depressing and scratch off games do have this cultural aura of being the game played by the elderly poor making the add target a vulnerable portion of the population. On the other hand, have you ever been stuck in a queue in a gas station waiting for that one client who buys and exchange like 8 different types of scratch off games with a cashier who clearly doesn't know anything about scratch off games?

 
It's an indication of which way the wind is blowing.  Just another data point that our agreed upon pessimistic assessment of the current situation and prediction of the future.
 

My friend, you can look down your nose at me all you like, but we are cooked whether Jerry does anything constructive or not, and that ain’t cynicism.  Get back to me when more than half of the adult population can read above a sixth grade level.

 
You don't need to read above a sixth grade level to be a positive voice in a democracy; a lot of the most positive voices and actors in politics didn't even knew how to read period (or barely). Yes being educated and well informed are often key healthy politics in a democracy, hence why free mandatory education based on humanist principles of human development are a characteristic of all democracies, but you don't require literacy or scientific knowledge so much so as community bonds, social trust and humanist values. If you got that; you'll be alright.

 
Of course.  And again, while this seems an exceedingly unlikely future, I do not deny the possibility of better and healthier political behavior, both by individuals and collectively, improving American society and/or averting disaster.  Let me say clearly I do not desire the dystopia I see coming.  Speaking honestly about it and not sugar-coating it is the first step to even thinking about it, though, and this should be the right place to do so.  I would speak differently if I were, say, addressing a roomful of high school students.

[Deesse23]

AfD is going to dissolve its youth organisation "Junge Alternative", and create a new one. Reason: JA is more extreme (yes, thats possible) than the AfD itself. It is assured that the JA is an extremist organisation. What AfD is trying to do here is to buy time for the upcoming elections and be more "eligible" for a wide rpublic. It does not mean its becoming less fascist than it already is.

[Szuchow]

AfD is going to dissolve its youth organisation "Junge Alternative", and create a new one. Reason: JA is more extreme (yes, thats possible) than the AfD itself. It is assured that the JA is an extremist organisation. What AfD is trying to do here is to buy time for the upcoming elections and be more "eligible" for a wide rpublic. It does not mean its becoming less fascist than it already is.

Hopefully it will piss extremists who wanted to vote on afd and perhaps make them stay home.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Senate Republicans say Pete Hegseth, President-elect Trump’s choice to head the Defense Department, faces a very tough path to confirmation in the Senate and his bleak prospects have been communicated directly to the Trump transition team, which is now mulling other options.

Senate sources say there is a block of likely “hard no’s” in the Senate GOP conference and identify Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) as lawmakers who view Hegseth’s nomination very skeptically.

“I don’t know that there’s a real clear path,” said one Republican senator, adding that colleagues “are very apprehensive” about Hegseth’s nomination.

“It’s damaging to the president,” the senator added. “It doesn’t help us in the Senate.”

Hegseth waged a significant effort to salvage his nomination Wednesday, including by pledging to Republican senators that he would stop drinking if confirmed as secretary of Defense.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5023...on-senate/

I'm thinkin' if you gotta promise to stop drinking in order to run a $900b department, you probably should not be running it. Nothing like an alkie running a military.

[jerry mcmasters]

The drinking doesn't concern me at all but seems he could at least be a Col or Lt Col? Does he even know what the DOD does?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The drinking doesn't concern me at all but seems he could at least be a Col or Lt Col?  Does he even know what the DOD does?

He's a USNG infantry major. He knows fuck-all about operational-level leadership, much strategic level planning or running a giant bureaucracy. He's a field-grade officer, meaning his meat-and-potatoes is steering the companies of his 800-man battalion around.

I appreciate and respect his service, but he is unqualified by dint of experience, and unfit by dint of alcoholism.

[Rhythmcs]

He knows how to ask ncos to do what he's been told to do.

[Minimalist]

The drinking doesn't concern me at all but seems he could at least be a Col or Lt Col?  Does he even know what the DOD does?

He's a USNG infantry major. He knows fuck-all about operational-level leadership, much strategic level planning or running a giant bureaucracy. He's a field-grade officer, meaning his meat-and-potatoes is steering the companies of his 800-man battalion around.

I appreciate and respect his service, but he is unqualified by dint of experience, and unfit by dint of alcoholism.

Plus he's apparently a sex maniac.  He should try to get the pope to make him a cardinal.  THAT he's qualified for.

[Thumpalumpacus]

He's a USNG infantry major. He knows fuck-all about operational-level leadership, much strategic level planning or running a giant bureaucracy. He's a field-grade officer, meaning his meat-and-potatoes is steering the companies of his 800-man battalion around.

I appreciate and respect his service, but he is unqualified by dint of experience, and unfit by dint of alcoholism.

Plus he's apparently a sex maniac.  He should try to get the pope to make him a cardinal.  THAT he's qualified for.

Wait, sex-maniac is a bad thing? Come on now.

[SYZ]

I'd never heard of this guy.

A bit from Wikipedia tells me all I need to know—unfortunately.

[Last month] Hegseth said that "The movement to legitimize
the homosexual lifestyle and homosexual marriages is strong
and must be vigorously opposed", and the decision by The New
York Times to publish announcements of same-sex marriages
had opened the floodgates to incest, polygamy, pedophilia and
child marriage, bestiality, and zoophillia.

"At what point does the paper deem a 'relationship' unfit for
publication? What if we 'loved' our sister and wanted to marry
her? Or maybe two women at the same time? A 13-year-old?
The family dog?", and claimed that "boys can wear bras and
girls can wear ties until we're blue in the face, but it won't
change the reality that the homosexual lifestyle is abnormal
and immoral".

    Cadet Bonespurs must luurve this guy.  Or not?     

Recall that Trump talked about Ivanka Trump's breasts, her
backside, and what it might be like to have sex with her,
remarks that prompted one-time Trump chief of staff John
Kelly to remind the president that Ivanka was his daughter.

[Deesse23]

Romania:

Supreme Court orders the recent election to be repeated, after evidence was presented of an aggressive russian "intervention" (troll farms) pushing a formerly unknown pro russian, religious fundamentalist, nazi lover to 1st place.

[Szuchow]

Romania:

Supreme Court orders the recent election to be repeated, after evidence was presented of an aggressive russian "intervention" (troll farms) pushing a formerly unknown pro russian, religious fundamentalist, nazi lover to 1st place.

This is how civilized state should be run. Sadly I somehow can't imagine same happening in Poland.