|
https://twitter.com/getfiscal/status/1119043322490892290
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 04:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:so we should ignore executive abuses of power because when actual leftists are running for office they’ll certainly hold back If the Russia-gate poo poo had been covered in a more measured and proportionate manner then this highly predictable outcome wouldn't have been so devastating or demoralizing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
Have you guys heard of unitary executive theory? Because its not new by any standards https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory Yes. the president is literally an elected king.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Helsing posted:If the Russia-gate poo poo had been covered in a more measured and proportionate manner then this highly predictable outcome wouldn't have been so devastating or demoralizing. I for one am actually fairly vastated and moralized by the report.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Rime posted:It seems like a rather early and snap decision to relegate the Mueller investigation to the realm of conspiracy, given nobody has read the report aside from the guy who washed away Iran/Contra. This thread may not age well. Boy, I sure called that one on the nose. Report is damning. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 16:16
|
|
|
Rime posted:Boy, I sure called that one on the nose. Report is damning. America 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
Rime posted:Boy, I sure called that one on the nose. Report is damning. Whoa, the report proved that the president of the US is a puppet of the Russian state? Man that seems like a really big deal but for some reason nobody in the news is talking about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
so did the mueller report ever show that collusion happened or are the crimes people have pivoted to only obstruction. cause if people want to impeach trump i hope they stop focusing on obstruction and start focusing on the atrocities ICE is committing
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 11:28
|
|
|
Condiv posted:so did the mueller report ever show that collusion happened or are the crimes people have pivoted to only obstruction. cause if people want to impeach trump i hope they stop focusing on obstruction and start focusing on the atrocities ICE is committing People can focus on both of those things
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
Booourns posted:People can focus on both of those things obstruction is a much weaker justification for impeachment than the bullshit being pulled with immigrants. further, it looks like goalpost shifting after people were so adamant that collusion most definitely happened. that's why i think obstruction should be downplayed for ice atrocities if impeachment is gonna be mulled
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
Has pillowpants posted at all since the report has been published? Or glowing fish? It's very important for my purposes which is pointing to my two year old posts predicting this outcome with 100% accuracy and saying "i told you so"
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
Booourns posted:People can focus on both of those things No they can't, that's not what "focus" means
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
Condiv posted:so did the mueller report ever show that collusion happened or are the crimes people have pivoted to only obstruction. cause if people want to impeach trump i hope they stop focusing on obstruction and start focusing on the atrocities ICE is committing our system of justice is pretty simple it's either guilty or not guilty, since they didn't recommend any prosecution that makes him not guilty
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
Mnoba posted:our system of justice is pretty simple it's either guilty or not guilty, since they didn't recommend any prosecution that makes him not guilty in order to be found "not guilty" a charge must first be levied in court. this poo poo didn't even get THAT far. it was an investigation that found nothing with enough meat to pursue beyond "you made cops' jobs harder to do"
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:in order to be found "not guilty" a charge must first be levied in court. exactly, found nothing with enough meat on it which in court means beyond a reasonable doubt which means not guilty
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
I mean its a very strange fixation you have on the formulation "not guilty" as a self-contained shibboleth when it is in fact a phrase that has a context and meaning. Ultimately we're agreeing, its just odd to wave around "not guilty" when there was no constructed case to be guilty of. Words mean things: "focus" has a meaning where you focus upon an object to the exclusion of others, and "not guilty" has a meaning where an investigation determines you are to be accused of wrongdoing and in the subsequent trial you are exonerated. This is not a trivial difference, IMO. For instance, if "being a fuckup failchild" were a crime a lot of people whose allegiances were spread across both parties would be going to jail, and the public would generally celebrate. But it's not. And to the degree that is the observable case I reckon the end-goal of putative ~~Russian Interference~~ was generally exactly this, that our corrupt system be deployed against itself in ways that our media is structurally unable to describe and thus the public is unable to reckon with except in limited venues like D&D. which brings me again to: have glowing fish, pillowpants, and i'm sure jeffersonclay has an alt by now, posted lately. where are they. show yourselves you loving cowards. Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Apr 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Has pillowpants posted at all since the report has been published? Or glowing fish? It's very important for my purposes which is pointing to my two year old posts predicting this outcome with 100% accuracy and saying "i told you so" Glowingfish was probated, haven't seen him since?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
Mnoba posted:exactly, found nothing with enough meat on it which in court means beyond a reasonable doubt which means not guilty more specifically, "my boss says I'm not allowed to indict a sitting president for anything, so here's the six counts of obstruction of justice I would have indicted him for if I was allowed to, in conclusion lol you thought the guy who pronounced going behind congress's back to sell missiles, to a hostile government, to fund nun rape, was Totally Legit on grounds a republican did it, was going to follow the rule of law. how stupid are you people"
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/201...-trump-now.html Cross posting Otteration. Andrew Sullivan on the Mueller report.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Glowingfish was probated, haven't seen him since? He has not spoken since. He is taking a break until the taxs come out. He'll spring out of his RAHOWALlusion bunker with an unkept beard screening about shady NY property sales I was probated for yelling NO COLLUSION in the investigation thread and i definitely wear it as a badge of honor
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 01:22
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Glowingfish was probated, haven't seen him since? Which is too bad he has a great new avatar
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:https://nymag.com/intelligencer/201...-trump-now.html 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 13:13
|
|
|
Try this one, weird it worked yesterday https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...t25_laM&cf=1
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 14:32
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:more specifically, "my boss says I'm not allowed to indict a sitting president for anything, so here's the six counts of obstruction of justice I would have indicted him for if I was allowed to, in conclusion lol you thought the guy who pronounced going behind congress's back to sell missiles, to a hostile government, to fund nun rape, was Totally Legit on grounds a republican did it, was going to follow the rule of law. how stupid are you people" also "you can't be a member of a criminal conspiracy IF you don't personally commit the underlying crime AND you didn't know there even was an underlying crime". whew.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Try this one, weird it worked yesterday Oh look, a rich rear end in a top hat with a track record of bad policy endorsements whose most notable contribution to public discourse has been to aggressively promote race science and who thinks Trump got into power because there was "too much democracy" is now arguing that Democrats should follow up on the total failure of the Mueller probe by... doubling down on that strategy! Because if there's one thing that would really help out liberals in America right now it is crowding out the conversation about expanding healthcare or making a fairer economy by continuing to fixate on an unwinnable battle in Congress. Brandor doesn't it ever loving occur to you that the reason monsters like Sullivan keep pushing this particular approach is because they actually know that their preferred policies are unpopular and can only gain the consent of the populace in a situation where the political spectrum is very narrow and the opposing side is demonized? Sullivan in particular jumped onto the race science bandwagon in the 1990s because it provided a convenient excuse for overlooking the incredible damage that neoliberalism did to black communities in America, naturalized the poverty of black communities as some kind of genetic inevitability, and thereby served to help legitimize Bill Clinton's right-wing pivot in the 1990s on crime and welfare. Real politics involves gaining and wielding power to improve the lives of your supporters. The reason Democrats are so eager to talk about impeachment is because if they had to actually compete with the Republicans by offering to use political power to improve the lives of their supporters then they would start raising dangerously high expectations, like the idea that maybe Americans could ask the rich to pay more taxes so that regular Americans can enjoy affordable healthcare, clean drinking water and bridges that don't collapse, things that most rich countries take for granted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
I don't buy that we can't do both. Ain't poo poo going to happen in Congress until the next election anyway. Do you think it's a bad thing that Congress assert it's self over the executive? Know what that didn't go far enough. Scratch that question. Do you think it's worth saving period? The current (admittedly anachronistic and hosed) representative constitutional democracy we have? I think this is a seperate question from what needs to be done about neoliberalism (I suspect you don't.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I don't buy that we can't do both. Ain't poo poo going to happen in Congress until the next election anyway. bernie's currently trying to get the senate to override trump's veto on scaling back war powers
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I don't buy that we can't do both. Ain't poo poo going to happen in Congress until the next election anyway. Ok. So just to be clear. You do not think that the leadership of the Democratic party by and large have a massive financial investment in maintaining the party's current relationship to a relatively small group of consultants, lobbyists and donors? You don't think that the top priority for those people is finding a way to beat Trump without actually empowering the Berniecrats? You don't think huge parts of the Democratic establishment are currently in panic mode over the popularity of the Sanders campaign? Because anytime I see someone make this ridiculous "we can do both" point they always seem to be posting from some alternative universe where the Democratic leadership are reliable allies of the left. Sure, maybe in theory it is possible to do both. That is not what is happening though. quote:Do you think it's a bad thing that Congress assert it's self over the executive? Thinking things can remain the way they have is the most utopian belief of all. It makes calls for a racial ethnostate of fully automated gay luxury space communism seem positively grounded and plausible by comparison. The Liberals talking about "saving the system" are the most deluded people of all. The system is already dead, we're currently squabbling over what to build among the ruins. The sooner we recognize this the more of the old order we might be able to save. But if you do want to save something of the current order then the only way to do that is to become a radical. If anything resembling liberal pluralism and democracy are going to survive then they first must be rescued from the liberal class itself. People like Andrew Sullivan, and the citizens like yourself who keep giving them attention and legitimacy, are the greatest risk of all. You cannot choose your enemies. You're stuck with Trump/whomever follows him and the GOP. But you could at least have some expectations of your so called friends. And anyone looking at the situation realistically and without sentiment would be forced to conclude that the liberal commentariat and most of the Democratic party are more invested in preserving their current privileged position than they are in being realistic about what will be required to actually put America back on a proper footing. I find it so telling how many posters in D&D refer to the Democratic party using terms like "we". That to me is the most dangerous idea of all, that you can rely on a party of rich corporate lobbyists and sociopathic political climbers to save liberal democracy. These are literally the people who conducted its last rights and drove a stake through its atrophied heart in the 1990s in the name of the 'end of history' and the only political task you can actually imagine accomplishing is to somehow put these ghouls back into power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Thinking things can remain the way they have is the most utopian belief of all. It's this Helsing: "1. One can drop the story for another story. Religious folk becoming atheists are an example . Conversions are another example. Capitalists becoming Marxist another. 2. One can ignore the contradiction. This sends one down the road of the sorts of cult dynamics Prester talks about. 3. One can attempt to reconcile the narrative with the contradiction. " Of course things cannot remain as they are that is 2). That's the end of history crowd. And I agree it's non-viable. I'm asking about the nature of your response. Is it 1) or 3) ? This is a practical repercussion of me being a religious person. The two differing approaches each have different risks. Another way I could ask this is, do you think it's dead? If it's dead 3) will fail and 1) will happen anyway. To me that means it's always worth attempting 3).
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
Can we talk about how keefe killed tupac because honedlt i thougjt this was the conspiracy thread not uspol pocket reference
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2019 07:15
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's this Helsing: Before I could hope to answer this you would have to explain what the difference is between changing a story instead of reconciling it. As presented this is too vague for me to answer. Though I would say that even if 1 "will happen anyway", exactly what will happen and how is not set in stone which means just because option 1 might be inevitable is in no way an excuse to shrug and say "oh well, nothing to be done, might as well try 3". Also, I find it hard to reconcile your Christian beliefs with your apparent faith in American state power and the emissaries of that power. To be blunt, the religion I see in your posts is the American civic religion that believes the American government is fundamentally benign and noble. To be a little blunt and rude about my feelings, it comes off like to you it didn't matter that Obama signed off on the killing of children or completely abandoned his promise to help underwater homeowners because he talked pretty words and name dropped your favorite theologians.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2019 16:22
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Before I could hope to answer this you would have to explain what the difference is between changing a story instead of reconciling it. As presented this is too vague for me to answer. Though I would say that even if 1 "will happen anyway", exactly what will happen and how is not set in stone which means just because option 1 might be inevitable is in no way an excuse to shrug and say "oh well, nothing to be done, might as well try 3". Let's see if I can ask this in a more clear way: The American Civic religion is clearly failing and Donald Trump is a symptom of that failure. Does it have the capacity to recover? Can it be reconciled with the realities (and your criticisms of Obama are a good example ofb these realities ) and not kill children and transfer wealth to the richest of us? We can either attempt to throw it out entirely or we can attempt to alter it and do better. Helsing posted:Also, I find it hard to reconcile your Christian beliefs with your apparent faith in American state power and the emissaries of that power. To be blunt, the religion I see in your posts is the American civic religion that believes the American government is fundamentally benign and noble. To be a little blunt and rude about my feelings, it comes off like to you it didn't matter that Obama signed off on the killing of children or completely abandoned his promise to help underwater homeowners because he talked pretty words and name dropped your favorite theologians. Life is more complicated than this Helsing. I go to work everyday and try to prevent the loss of life. I'm being very literal and concrete when I say that. I'm pretty drat good at it. But as I do it, over time I grow very aware of the purposes and ends of all the cargos I briefly interact with. I also grow increasingly aware of all the international systems the work I do supports and the externalities of those systems. When we act in the world regardless of the ends or means we get blood on our hands. All we can do, is the best we can do, we are never innocent. Yes I participate in the American Civic religion. But we only get to change what we continue to participate in! The dilemma is also why I'm obessed with those particular theologians. The thing that I find confusing, and I wouldn't limit this to you, is that it seems widespread here to not have experienced this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Can we talk about how keefe killed tupac because honedlt i thougjt this was the conspiracy thread not uspol pocket reference Andy Kaufman didn't fake his death, he died of AIDS. "In The Truth, Finally" his girlfriend reveals that he was not only a sex addict (already well known), he was bisexual and says there's no way he survived the AIDS epidemic. If you read behind the lines, he died of AIDS and his ultra conservative family covered it up by encouraging the myth that he faked his death.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 06:23
|
|
|
Best Korea posted:Andy Kaufman didn't fake his death, he died of AIDS. "In The Truth, Finally" his girlfriend reveals that he was not only a sex addict (already well known), he was bisexual and says there's no way he survived the AIDS epidemic. If you read behind the lines, he died of AIDS and his ultra conservative family covered it up by encouraging the myth that he faked his death. Okay but the black impala owned by amir was never found
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 06:32
|
|
|
here's a cool little magazine about conspiracy theories: https://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Life is more complicated than this Helsing. I go to work everyday and try to prevent the loss of life. I'm being very literal and concrete when I say that. I'm pretty drat good at it. But as I do it, over time I grow very aware of the purposes and ends of all the cargos I briefly interact with. I also grow increasingly aware of all the international systems the work I do supports and the externalities of those systems. This is overly vague because you're not clear regarding what the "American Civic religion" consists of. In reality there are many aspects of US society and culture that are fundamentally incompatible with a decent and fair society. So you need to be clear about what you're trying to preserve here, and why it's somehow necessary to support these ideas in order to accomplish change. To be frank, I get the general impression that you're trying to "intellectualize" the vague feeling of "I feel like other people don't understand the 'complexities' of society and thus they are too ignorant to come up with good solutions, while I and/or the people I personally and professionally respect do understand them." This sort of perspective generally translates to an anti-democratic mindset that believes that only those with sufficient credentials in society should have the right to propose significant change to society (with any significant change proposed by the "underclass" being viewed as fundamentally invalid, since they couldn't possibly understand the 'complexities' involved).
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This is overly vague because you're not clear regarding what the "American Civic religion" consists of. In reality there are many aspects of US society and culture that are fundamentally incompatible with a decent and fair society. So you need to be clear about what you're trying to preserve here, and why it's somehow necessary to support these ideas in order to accomplish change. These symbols are vague and that is the space where the fight for defining them is. Let's get specfic, a good example is freedom: There is freedom in the libertarian sense. Freedom in the "liberal" but not libertarian sense. Freedom in the Christian sense. Freedom to vs freedom from. The symbol has all these possible meanings. Some of these meaning are "fundamentally incompatible with a decent and fair society" some are not. The question is which do we try to make real with the actions of our lives. Or to go: well gently caress this freedom thing I'm not going to participate in that symbol. Then the problem there is we just end up playing the same game with a different set of symbols. It's not about preserving, it's about interpretation and then the living of the interpretation. Doing those things then changes other people! Ytlaya posted:To be frank, I get the general impression that you're trying to "intellectualize" the vague feeling of "I feel like other people don't understand the 'complexities' of society and thus they are too ignorant to come up with good solutions, while I and/or the people I personally and professionally respect do understand them." This sort of perspective generally translates to an anti-democratic mindset that believes that only those with sufficient credentials in society should have the right to propose significant change to society (with any significant change proposed by the "underclass" being viewed as fundamentally invalid, since they couldn't possibly understand the 'complexities' involved). I've written about in the climate thread but in my field there are multiple models of the same thing for different audiences. It's not this class understands and this one doesn't. It's this model is in this language and only people who speak that language understand that model. It must be translated. And the communication must flow in both directions, it has to be a conversation. Without the conversation you get one side doing what your saying here and the other side with real complaints being ignored and rightly becoming increasingly angry. The absence of that conversation is one of the things that allows "conspiracy theories" and harmful cult like myths to propogate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2019 04:22
|
|
|
*holds up egg* This is your brain.BrandorKP posted:These symbols are vague and that is the space where the fight for defining them is. Let's get specfic, a good example is freedom: There is freedom in the libertarian sense. Freedom in the "liberal" but not libertarian sense. Freedom in the Christian sense. Freedom to vs freedom from. The symbol has all these possible meanings. Some of these meaning are "fundamentally incompatible with a decent and fair society" some are not. The question is which do we try to make real with the actions of our lives. *smashes frying pan on egg* This is your brain without materialist dialectics. Any questions?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 09:28
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Lvv1f5Qu4
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 09:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
Brandor, I really don't want to put your back up here, but: What if this outcome was entirely predictable many years ago not through hermeneutic exegesis of hitherto common nouns, but actually looking at material relations and making empirical observations upon them? What if--and I truly don't mean to sound insane here--what if some people on a forum were trying to tell you about this process *for literal years, now?* Your point about language is good! it's also kinda quaint in the year 2019 though; Chomsky is whom Chomsky is mostly on the basis of originally talking about those linguistic models, and the rest is... well... historical materialism. Because when you start talking about abstracts in a serious way other than spinning your wheels, you start grinding into observable realities which can be observed, measured, and yes: predicted to within a confidence interval. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG1Ima2FiMM https://twitter.com/MollyWolly8/status/1028687465891147776 
Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Apr 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 09:33
|
|