Political Roundtable Part XII

[nate33]

I'd love to know how you wound up with your current political stances, nate. I.e. what your history is in politics. How deep your actual interest is. I'm not suggesting it isn't quite deep, btw, but participating in an online message board obviously wouldn't convey that.

Honestly, my interest isn't in finding another way to argue with you. I just really really don't understand how folks get to where you are politically. I.e. unless they were raised around these beliefs & commitments. Doesn't mean there aren't routes to it that could be understood (e.g. discussed), but at present I truly don't understand.

I'm really curious about this too. From nate in particular since he seems the sort to be able to forensically deconstruct the history of his prejudices, but really from anybody. Seems an interesting question.

It is an interesting question...but I doubt you'll get a response.

I reject the premise. The notion that I need to explain how I "got to where I am politically" implies that my position is somehow wrong, abnormal, or illegitimate; and your position is not. I've got half of America on my side and a majority of the states and counties. You explain to me how you got to where YOU are politically.

[closg00]

The original plan was to compile a list of the national media's Fake News only as needed -- but no more often than once a week. Unfortunately, our MSM has done so much lying in the last 5 days, I started to worry that I could lose track. Simply put, the last few days have been a fire hose of Fake News.

Read everything below, and then try to make an argument that Steve Bannon isn't 100% correct about the national media being the opposition party.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/13001/omg-list-last-week-msm-spread-much-fake-news-john-nolte#.WJDbGHpPKSY.twitter

The lies are so blatant, and they just keep flying. I'm concerned that so many fellow citizens are spreading the endless stream of propaganda with such glee and increasing violent rhetoric.

Bizarre times.

I haven't read the article yet, are they referring to Trumps blatant lies?

[Wizardspride]

I'm really curious about this too. From nate in particular since he seems the sort to be able to forensically deconstruct the history of his prejudices, but really from anybody. Seems an interesting question.

It is an interesting question...but I doubt you'll get a response.

I reject the premise. The notion that I need to explain how I "got to where I am politically" implies that my position is somehow wrong, abnormal, or illegitimate; and your position is not. I've got half of America on my side and a majority of the states and counties. You explain to me how you got to where YOU are politically.

Do YOU genuinely want to know or are you just going tit for tat?

Now if you really want to know I have no problem explaining.

[nate33]

It is an interesting question...but I doubt you'll get a response.

I reject the premise. The notion that I need to explain how I "got to where I am politically" implies that my position is somehow wrong, abnormal, or illegitimate; and your position is not. I've got half of America on my side and a majority of the states and counties. You explain to me how you got to where YOU are politically.

Do YOU genuinely want to know or are you just going tit for tat?

Now if you really want to know I have no problem explaining.

Nah. I don't really want to know. Or rather, I already know. Given our school system, most people are, by default, indoctrinated to the left end of the political spectrum. Being a leftist is easy. Nothing is ever your fault and only your intentions matter, not your results.

[DCZards]

He absolutely should not have been in the news. If the same thing had happened with Obama, there would be never-ending condemnation of Fox News giving him a platform.

During the 8 years of the Obama Administration, Fox News gave a platform to Obama haters who were at least as mean-spirited, biased and harmful to our nation's interests as the guy who rushed the stage when Trump was speaking.

Do you honestly believe this? Are you this removed from reality? Give me one example of Fox News giving a platform to somebody who attacked Obama, or even threatened to attack Obama.

Not all "attacks" are physical. Some of the worse, most destructive attacks are verbal, especially when they are lies and they are sustained over 8 years. I could give you dozens of examples of Fox News providing a platform for those type of attacks on Pres. Obama.

[Wizardspride]

I reject the premise. The notion that I need to explain how I "got to where I am politically" implies that my position is somehow wrong, abnormal, or illegitimate; and your position is not. I've got half of America on my side and a majority of the states and counties. You explain to me how you got to where YOU are politically.

Do YOU genuinely want to know or are you just going tit for tat?

Now if you really want to know I have no problem explaining.

Nah. I don't really want to know. Or rather, I already know. Given our school system, most people are, by default, indoctrinated to the left end of the political spectrum. Being a leftist is easy. Nothing is ever your fault and only your intentions matter, not your results.

Not sure I agree with the last part of your statement but whatever.

You probably wouldn't agree with my opinion of the right/far right either

[Doug_Blew]

I reject the premise. The notion that I need to explain how I "got to where I am politically" implies that my position is somehow wrong, abnormal, or illegitimate; and your position is not. I've got half of America on my side and a majority of the states and counties. You explain to me how you got to where YOU are politically.

Do YOU genuinely want to know or are you just going tit for tat?

Now if you really want to know I have no problem explaining.

Nah. I don't really want to know. Or rather, I already know. Given our school system, most people are, by default, indoctrinated to the left end of the political spectrum. Being a leftist is easy. Nothing is ever your fault and only your intentions matter, not your results.

Or, as in my case, the stock market and job market and general economy has been much better to me under Clinton and Obama than George H or George W.

[montestewart]

Further, why do so many Trump supporters characterize any objection to Trump or PTM as "rage" or similar? Is that just a way to readily dismiss without consideration as irrational any objection at all, no matter how well-stated, well-reasoned, or well-supported? It sounds a little...hysterical.

Welcome to the club, montestewart. For an entire campaign, Trump supporters were labeled as "angry", or the "angry white man". Only Trump demonstrators never actually set fires to cars, attacked people, burned flags, threw eggs at people, blocked traffic, threw rocks and police, or otherwise disrupted and terrorized entire communities. Democrat protestors actually do these things regularly.

Well, there's a difference between angry and rage, as many Trump supporters were angry, just as Trump frequently presented himself to be. Angry is not irrational. There were very few reports of violent activity during January 21st marches, representing many angry people, and it is a prolific but small number of people who are committing the crimes you mentioned.

You frequently disparage people for painting Republicans and conservatives with a broad brush, and I generally agree with that and try to avoid doing so myself. And still I find myself, my views, and my delivery falsely painted into a corner where they've never been, and repeatedly encounter the "maybe serious or maybe just trolling" stance. So, is there any point to political discussion (as opposed to mere pontification) at all, or do too many people wear a filter that translate words into 100% Agree or 100% Disagree and And1 or FU accordingly?

[DCZards]

I reject the premise. The notion that I need to explain how I "got to where I am politically" implies that my position is somehow wrong, abnormal, or illegitimate; and your position is not. I've got half of America on my side and a majority of the states and counties. You explain to me how you got to where YOU are politically.

Actually, I don't think that's true, Nate. I seriously doubt that half of the people in America or the majority of the states and counties share the kind of racial and cultural bias and ethnocentrism that you regularly exhibit on this board. At least, I hope not.

[Ruzious]

I'm really curious about this too. From nate in particular since he seems the sort to be able to forensically deconstruct the history of his prejudices, but really from anybody. Seems an interesting question.

It is an interesting question...but I doubt you'll get a response.

I reject the premise. The notion that I need to explain how I "got to where I am politically" implies that my position is somehow wrong, abnormal, or illegitimate; and your position is not. I've got half of America on my side and a majority of the states and counties. You explain to me how you got to where YOU are politically.

I understand that answer, but it's discouraging reading your posts to the point where I often can't begin to understand where you're coming from. Just read what John McCain says. And when Lyndsey Graham is the voice of reason for your party, that's a warning sign.

[nate33]

Do YOU genuinely want to know or are you just going tit for tat?

Now if you really want to know I have no problem explaining.

Nah. I don't really want to know. Or rather, I already know. Given our school system, most people are, by default, indoctrinated to the left end of the political spectrum. Being a leftist is easy. Nothing is ever your fault and only your intentions matter, not your results.

Or, as in my case, the stock market and job market and general economy has been much better to me under Clinton and Obama than George H or George W.

Meh, the correlation between Republicans controlling Congress and the gains in the stock market is much stronger than the correlation of the Democrats controlling the presidency and the gains in stock market.

https://www.cxoadvisory.com/4036/political-indicators/revisiting-party-in-power-and-stock-returns/

But in reality, I don't think the stock market is a very helpful barometer. There is too much noise and too much time delay. For example, was the latest run-up in the market (which started the day Trump won the election) caused by Trump's election? Or was it due to Obama's policies? I don't know and neither do you. Likewise, the market tanked like crazy as soon as Obama won in 2009. Was that a prediction of future poor performance, or was that just the inevitable recession caused by Bush goosing the economy with debt? I don't know and neither do you.

[nate33]

It is an interesting question...but I doubt you'll get a response.

I reject the premise. The notion that I need to explain how I "got to where I am politically" implies that my position is somehow wrong, abnormal, or illegitimate; and your position is not. I've got half of America on my side and a majority of the states and counties. You explain to me how you got to where YOU are politically.

I understand that answer, but it's discouraging reading your posts to the point where I often can't begin to understand where you're coming from. Just read what John McCain says. And when Lyndsey Graham is the voice of reason for your party, that's a warning sign.

I would hardly characterize McCain and Graham as representative of Republicans in general. Those guys are bought and paid for by the military industrial complex and the Israel lobby. They're ALWAYS for the maximum amount of global intervention. I personally think much higher of several Democrats than I do of Lindsey Graham.

[Ruzious]

I reject the premise. The notion that I need to explain how I "got to where I am politically" implies that my position is somehow wrong, abnormal, or illegitimate; and your position is not. I've got half of America on my side and a majority of the states and counties. You explain to me how you got to where YOU are politically.

I understand that answer, but it's discouraging reading your posts to the point where I often can't begin to understand where you're coming from. Just read what John McCain says. And when Lyndsey Graham is the voice of reason for your party, that's a warning sign.

I would hardly characterize McCain and Graham as representative of Republicans in general. Those guys are bought and paid for by the military industrial complex and the Israel lobby. They're ALWAYS for the maximum amount of global intervention. I personally think much higher of several Democrats than I do of Lindsey Graham.

Hence my comment about Graham, but I think it's pathetic for Republicans to take shots at McCain. The guy's a hero, and while he's not perfect and I strongly disagree with him on many issues - I'd never question his character.

[gtn130]

Nah. I don't really want to know. Or rather, I already know. Given our school system, most people are, by default, indoctrinated to the left end of the political spectrum. Being a leftist is easy. Nothing is ever your fault and only your intentions matter, not your results.

Or, as in my case, the stock market and job market and general economy has been much better to me under Clinton and Obama than George H or George W.

Meh, the correlation between Republicans controlling Congress and the gains in the stock market is much stronger than the correlation of the Democrats controlling the presidency and the gains in stock market.

https://www.cxoadvisory.com/4036/political-indicators/revisiting-party-in-power-and-stock-returns/

But in reality, I don't think the stock market is a very helpful barometer. There is too much noise and too much time delay. For example, was the latest run-up in the market (which started the day Trump won the election) caused by Trump's election? Or was it due to Obama's policies? I don't know and neither do you. Likewise, the market tanked like crazy as soon as Obama won in 2009. Was that a prediction of future poor performance, or was that just the inevitable recession caused by Bush goosing the economy with debt? I don't know and neither do you.

So you're saying the stock market has been stronger with Republicans in power

but you don't believe the stock market is an indicator of anything

ok

[gtn130]

I reject the premise. The notion that I need to explain how I "got to where I am politically" implies that my position is somehow wrong, abnormal, or illegitimate; and your position is not. I've got half of America on my side and a majority of the states and counties. You explain to me how you got to where YOU are politically.

I understand that answer, but it's discouraging reading your posts to the point where I often can't begin to understand where you're coming from. Just read what John McCain says. And when Lyndsey Graham is the voice of reason for your party, that's a warning sign.

I would hardly characterize McCain and Graham as representative of Republicans in general. Those guys are bought and paid for by the military industrial complex and the Israel lobby. They're ALWAYS for the maximum amount of global intervention. I personally think much higher of several Democrats than I do of Lindsey Graham.

I wonder what Nate was saying about these guys before Papa Trump came into the picture.

Is there a single issue you don't agree with Trump on?

[doclinkin]

I'm really curious about this too. From nate in particular since he seems the sort to be able to forensically deconstruct the history of his prejudices, but really from anybody. Seems an interesting question.

It is an interesting question...but I doubt you'll get a response.

I reject the premise. The notion that I need to explain how I "got to where I am politically" implies that my position is somehow wrong, abnormal, or illegitimate; and your position is not. I've got half of America on my side and a majority of the states and counties. You explain to me how you got to where YOU are politically.

Happy to when I get a minute. No implication intended, though I can see why you'd be defensive given the tone of this thread, in general.

This thread though is a rare intersection of differing ideas and real dialogue between honestly held opposing viewpoints. Usually we each get our opinions from sources we trust, then compare them with others who likely believe the same as we do. Here, since we share the affliction that is wizards fandom we rub digital elbows with folks from distant countries and varying experiences and different beliefs. Makes me curious less about what your beliefs are, and more about how they were formed.

I've gotten to watch Induveca develop over the past dozen years or so, in the years since he and barelyawake and I were sparring on the ESPN boards. I have seen where he's gotten some of his views, with frustration with some of his own relatives and countrymen, and as he has developed himself into a self-made businessman. I can see where he has developed certain biases and preferences, etc. Watching him grow or change (well or maybe that's all the creatine and human growth hormone as he bloats and pumps himself up).

And over the past decade I've seen where even your views (in my opinion) have become seemingly more certain, and in the case of Trump, its been curious this year to watch as your bent your usually data-based incisive mindset to work really hard to justify some of his more outlandish behavior.

But really though I've noticed a change, and was curious what if anything happened over those years that solidified those beliefs, or if it was something I simply wasn't paying attention to when I briefly strafed past the politics thread over the years. Which then called the larger question of how do any of our views form, and in knowing that maybe that helps us figure out how to influence each other or actually have dialogue beyond YOU LIE YOU ARE WRONG YOU ARE TEH STUPID.

I dunno. Seems worth examining.

[payitforward]

I'm really curious about this too. From nate in particular since he seems the sort to be able to forensically deconstruct the history of his prejudices, but really from anybody. Seems an interesting question.

It is an interesting question...but I doubt you'll get a response.

I reject the premise. The notion that I need to explain how I "got to where I am politically" implies that my position is somehow wrong, abnormal, or illegitimate; and your position is not. I've got half of America on my side and a majority of the states and counties. You explain to me how you got to where YOU are politically.

nate -- I'm sorry you took my interest the way you did. Especially if you took the request as implying an insult of any kind.

I didn't mean to suggest that your position on the political spectrum somehow requires an explanation in a sense that e.g. mine wouldn't require one. In fact, let me reject that idea explicitly. It doesn't.

But everyone & everything has a history. An individual history I mean. There'll be people in that "half of America" who hold their positions based on different histories. Ditto in the other half.

We have enough occasions for disagreement, nate, & on subjects fraught with enough tension that those disagreements are often posed in ways that don't qualify as polite, or often not even respectful, speech. I plead guilty to doing that on occasion.

That's not what my request meant to reflect -- the opposite in fact. I was hoping to open a discussion that could lead to more understanding rather than simply underlining or deepening difference.

Of course, you're hardly required to talk about the subject. But if you're willing to, then I'll respond by discussing my own history in the same terms as you do. I can't speak for doc, but I hope he'd be willing to say the same.

Does that offer at least pull the thorn of my original request?

[nate33]

It is an interesting question...but I doubt you'll get a response.

I reject the premise. The notion that I need to explain how I "got to where I am politically" implies that my position is somehow wrong, abnormal, or illegitimate; and your position is not. I've got half of America on my side and a majority of the states and counties. You explain to me how you got to where YOU are politically.

Happy to when I get a minute. No implication intended, though I can see why you'd be defensive given the tone of this thread, in general.

This thread though is a rare intersection of differing ideas and real dialogue between honestly held opposing viewpoints. Usually we each get our opinions from sources we trust, then compare them with others who likely believe the same as we do. Here, since we share the affliction that is wizards fandom we rub digital elbows with folks from distant countries and varying experiences and different beliefs. Makes me curious less about what your beliefs are, and more about how they were formed.

I've gotten to watch Induveca develop over the past dozen years or so, in the years since he and barelyawake and I were sparring on the ESPN boards. I have seen where he's gotten some of his views, with frustration with some of his own relatives and countrymen, and as he has developed himself into a self-made businessman. I can see where he has developed certain biases and preferences, etc. Watching him grow or change (well or maybe that's all the creatine and human growth hormone as he bloats and pumps himself up).

And over the past decade I've seen where even your views (in my opinion) have become seemingly more certain, and in the case of Trump, its been curious this year to watch as your bent your usually data-based incisive mindset to work really hard to justify some of his more outlandish behavior.

But really though I've noticed a change, and was curious what if anything happened over those years that solidified those beliefs, or if it was something I simply wasn't paying attention to when I briefly strafed past the politics thread over the years. Which then called the larger question of how do any of our views form, and in knowing that maybe that helps us figure out how to influence each other or actually have dialogue beyond YOU LIE YOU ARE WRONG YOU ARE TEH STUPID.

I dunno. Seems worth examining.

Sorry if I snapped at you, doc. We disagree politically on most things, but I hold you in the highest esteem. I consider you perhaps the smartest person on this board and I'm disappointed that you don't post that much anymore (on either politics or basketball).

Perhaps when I get a chance, I'll make an effort to try and describe how I came around to what I believe now. Maybe later tonight after the game.

Regarding Trump, I originally considered him an outlandish clown as well. But then I saw how effective he was. He refused to play the media's game, which is to always put conservatives on the defensive. Trump took the fight to the media and exposed how wildly biased and agenda-driven they truly are. Maybe Trump is a clown and has managed to destroy the integrity of the media totally by accident, but I'm inclined to think that he's actually really, really smart and this has been his plan all along. It seems to me that Trump has manipulated the media and public opinion all of his life, so it stands to reason that he's pretty good at it.

[nate33]

I understand that answer, but it's discouraging reading your posts to the point where I often can't begin to understand where you're coming from. Just read what John McCain says. And when Lyndsey Graham is the voice of reason for your party, that's a warning sign.

I would hardly characterize McCain and Graham as representative of Republicans in general. Those guys are bought and paid for by the military industrial complex and the Israel lobby. They're ALWAYS for the maximum amount of global intervention. I personally think much higher of several Democrats than I do of Lindsey Graham.

I wonder what Nate was saying about these guys before Papa Trump came into the picture.

Is there a single issue you don't agree with Trump on?

Two years ago, I would have disagreed with Trump on trade, but after doing some more research on the economics of protectionism, I think Trump may actually be on the right track. I think there are limits to the effectiveness of protectionism, but modest tariffs can be helpful to offset the advantages less developed nations have with respect to environmental and labor regulations.

I suppose I disagree with Trump on the transgender issue. I think transgenderism is rare enough that it should be classified as more of a mental illness than anything else. (And I don't mean this in a negative way. I'm not trying to ridicule them. I think they need real help from mental professionals rather than surgery.) As I understand it, most people who consider themselves transgender are also very likely to be depressed, and that depression doesn't get any better even when they "switch". https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth

I'm a little concerned with Trump's policy in the Middle East. At this point, I'll take a wait and see approach. His rhetoric has been conflicting so I'm not sure where he stands. Are we going to "bomb the hell out of ISIS" or should we never have fought wars in the Middle East in the first place. I'm hoping he is taking steps to extricate ourselves from the region.

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

Gonna disregard this, though, since the Rasmussen poll, the most accurate poll of all (see election, see sex tape), has different results.

FAKE NEWS!