A thread on politics- have some balls and post

[pulpdriver]

Insomuch as appointing people to the Supreme Court leaves pretty much anything open for some horrendous manipulation, sure, because ultimately any particular abuses of due process will end up there. But due process would be the least of the concerns if the court is stacked to that degree for nefarious purposes.

What happens if the court ends up 7/9 in the R favour in the next four years?

 

[Hollow Knight]

What happens if the court ends up 7/9 in the R favour in the next four years?

 

[pulpdriver]

Hilarious but beware of any memes or images that can be related to starting over.

 

[dlanod]

What happens if the court ends up 7/9 in the R favour in the next four years?

Republican judges aren't in and of themselves going to throw out due process. They might be biased towards a certain reading of the Constitution and be more impactful upon other areas of governmental responsibilities, but unless the Supreme Court ends up with a bunch of literal stooges I don't think it will matter too much.

 

[pulpdriver]

Republican judges aren't in and of themselves going to throw out due process. They might be biased towards a certain reading of the Constitution and be more impactful upon other areas of governmental responsibilities, but unless the Supreme Court ends up with a bunch of literal stooges I don't think it will matter too much.

Not at all calling republican judges stooges, more wanted to highlight the impending inequities in the SCOTUS. Your post was one of those ones, sorry mate. You're probably right that nothing significant comes of it but I see it as a highly exploitable area.

 

[Viceregal]

And that is part of my whole point - that they have every right to impose criteria. That the criteria in question affects some groups more than others is a reflection of those groups not of the criteria...

Actually, it's a reflection on those setting the criteria. Again, you're bundling entire nations as "a group of people". Somalia is dangerous, therefore Somalis are dangerous. It's a pretty simple and narrow view. It is racist.
The problem with most racists, is that they don't know they're racist.
Again, you (or Trump's policy) are not judging/individuals but entire inhabitants of whole nations.
I don't think I'm going to convince you either way. You are much more informed and well read on global politics than I, so I can only assume that you are deliberately missing the point or your ideology has completely closed your mind to reason.

'Tis true that one tends to miss the bias in one's own position more than they see the bias in that of the other ...

I'm really not bundling Somalis as a group as dangerous - I am recognising the objective fact that the waters off of Somalia are known to be more dangerous that other pieces of water because of the past, present, and presumably future actions of the pirates that operate there. That is the *only* reason I am avoiding the area. My criteria is that I don't want to be taken by pirates. My actions reflect that so I don't go there.

Will my choice to not sail in those waters affect Somali's more than they will the Irish or the Germans - absolutely - but not because I am targeting Somalis and giving the Irish and Germans a free ride but because the composition of pirates in those waters has a higher proportion of Somali's than German's or Irish. It is the *piracy* I am dodging not the nationality of the pirates ... and if 90% of the pirates there end up being Irish I will still avoid it just the same.

To me you are trying to conflate my specific reluctance to be a victim of piracy into a racist act - and it really truly isn't.

Mind you the only reason I even brought it up was as an illustration that it is legitimate to treat some areas differently from others because of the past, present, and presumably future actions that take place in those areas so perhaps it is more that your objection stream is coming from ... not sure.

There is a line of thought that says that if you apply a rule equally and it affects some group more than others then it is a bad law because it is discriminatory. I personally don't agree with that - I *do* agree that applying a law unequally is discriminatory. I believe it is called disparate impact and that reflects a difference in thought and philosophy which might also be at play here (ie I am being anti pirate - you see that more Somalis are affected than other groups and so judge my attitude to be racist - you are choosing to judge me a racist on the basic of the outcome of my choice not on the motivations of my choice ...

 

[Viceregal]

Okay, I eliminated Breitbart from the outset because... it's Breitbart. Don't demean yourself by posting links to that revolting website

The Guardian article was reporting on a NATO Commander who claimed that ISIS was infiltrating Syrian refugees. They weren't endorsing or confirming his statements in any way. The same article quotes people who say it would be a gross abdication of duty not to resettle the refugees.

Ditto the Express article.. it's just quoting an ISIS recruiter who was making some sketchy claims. They aren't making the claim themselves.

US Herald - quoting the same ISIS flog. Doesn't comment on the veracity of the claim other than to say there is the "potential" for terrorists to infiltrate with refugees. Potential. The same article also says that the vast majority are just innocent people desperately seeking a peaceful life. Not bad balance for a site that calls itself "Real Conservative News Online".

The Newsweek article isn't written by Newsweek. It is an op-ed piece by George W Bush's former speechwriter that was written for the right wing thinktank the American Enterprise Institute. Same as when "Beryl from Brendale" writes to the Courier Mail letters section about the possums that keep her up at night. It doesn't make it a "Courier Mail article".

NYTimes - Reporting on a claim by a German official. Not making the claim themselves.

I don't want to sound rude, but don't just google headlines next time, have a quick skim of the articles.

Actually I did do a (very) quick skim to make sure that they were at least talking about the subject and not just click bait.

Editors tend to prefer op ed pieces that go with their preferences.

I included the breitbart one because it was on the range of options. Personally I tend to avoid Breitbart and InfoWars just as much as I avoid Salon and Huffington Post - you may consider B-bart revolting - others love it and probably consider some of your sites equally revolting - partially a matter of taste and partially a matter of which side of the media you consider are doing the fake news-ing.

My main element there was not so much to endorse the content of the links but to suggest that the UN report was decidedly not universally accepted opinion. And one could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that a UN sponsored report might tend to the pro-globalist side of the fence...

Here is one from the Chicago Tribune you might prefer?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...n-the-u-s-refugee-program-20170206-story.html

 

[Viceregal]

Looks like the 9th ... is in trouble with ... the 9th!

Apparently the full bench gets to rule on it not just the 3 judge panel ...
A bit of over-reach
http://joshblackman.com/blog/2017/0...ignore-justice-jacksons-youngstown-framework/

And it looks like Trump is planning on letting them own the consequences of the decision until such time as the DOJ decides to bring it to the Supreme Court.
Not that the 9th would have ever over-reached itself before ...

 

[Hollow Knight]

And it looks like Trump is planning on letting them own the consequences of the decision until such time as the DOJ decides to bring it to the Supreme Court.

I think you might be "over-reaching" in giving Donald's strategic nous too much credit there. He was already talking about rewriting the order hours beforehand.

 

[Requiem]

Personally I find the Trump Presidency very amusing, many will disagree with me but that's okay.

Like many though I have legitimate concerns, namely his ignorance concerning scientific policy (Godspeed Elon Musk).

What I want to know is what are people's biggest worries/disagreements/concerns over the next 4+ years of Trump?

 

[Requiem]

I included the breitbart one because it was on the range of options. Personally I tend to avoid Breitbart and InfoWars just as much as I avoid Salon and Huffington Post - you may consider B-bart revolting - others love it and probably consider some of your sites equally revolting - partially a matter of taste and partially a matter of which side of the media you consider are doing the fake news-ing.

There is a LOT of Tu quoque accusations from both the left and right media.

The consistent mudding of the waters is infuriating.

 

[Elixuh]

Personally I find the Trump Presidency very amusing, many will disagree with me but that's okay.

Like many though I have legitimate concerns, namely his ignorance concerning scientific policy (Godspeed Elon Musk).

What I want to know is what are people's biggest worries/disagreements/concerns over the next 4+ years of Trump?

Very broadly, I'd say for many the biggest concern would be that 4 years of Trump could set things back 10+ years. Especially when you look at the people he has put around him.

I don't consider myself to be even moderately informed on politics, but I'm becoming more and more concerned about our own government (moreso than Trump). They seem completely out of sync with the populace. Dutton and Morrison in particular have me constantly SMH. At least we have the memes (sorry Jackess).

 

[Requiem]

Very broadly, I'd say for many the biggest concern would be that 4 years of Trump could set things back 10+ years. Especially when you look at the people he has put around him.

I don't consider myself to be even moderately informed on politics, but I'm becoming more and more concerned about our own government (moreso than Trump). They seem completely out of sync with the populace. Dutton and Morrison in particular have me constantly SMH. At least we have the memes (sorry Jackess).

The memes must flow!

I understand the threat here in Aus, how One Nation has risen to relevence is frighten.

According to the Courier Mail, "PAULINE Hanson is on the fast track to become Queensland’s unofficial preferred premier with support for One Nation surging past the party’s historic result at the 1998 election."

How did we get here?

 

[Leemas]

The memes must flow!

I understand the threat here in Aus, how One Nation has risen to relevence is frighten.

According to the Courier Mail, "PAULINE Hanson is on the fast track to become Queensland’s unofficial preferred premier with support for One Nation surging past the party’s historic result at the 1998 election."

How did we get here?

Easily, it's pretty much exactly what happened in America.
1. People are sick of the major parties.
2. People are scared and their fears are being completely disregarded. Instead of addressing these irrational fears with logical arguments to persuade them we have the main stream media labeling peoples concerns as racist/bigoted/idiotic etc.
3. Because of this growing division between the groups of people rational discussion is dead and instead we just have back and forth name calling and violent groups emerging on both sides.
4. At the end of the day when no ones watching at the poll booths a lot of disenfranchised people will give the big **** you to whomever they are upset with and put down One Nation who actually seem to be the only ones standing up and addressing the fears and concerns of said people.

Tadaaa now we have Pauline in charge.

 

[ZoBlitz]

It will be interesting to see how the re-introduction of compulsory preferential voting affects One Nation in the next Queensland election (compared to OPV that was in place back in 1998). LNP probably won't preference One Nation above Labor this time but you never know...

It'll be a mess regardless. Those elected will split about six months in or become independent and much like after 1998 they won't actually do anything. It would be nice to see someone (the media or the other parties) hammering One Nation on their elected members' records in the various parliaments historically but I guess that's hoping for too much.

 

[carnthemlions]

Easily, it's pretty much exactly what happened in America.
1. People are sick of the major parties.
2. People are scared and their fears are being completely disregarded. Instead of addressing these irrational fears with logical arguments to persuade them we have the main stream media labeling peoples concerns as racist/bigoted/idiotic etc.
3. Because of this growing division between the groups of people rational discussion is dead and instead we just have back and forth name calling and violent groups emerging on both sides.
4. At the end of the day when no ones watching at the poll booths a lot of disenfranchised people will give the big **** you to whomever they are upset with and put down One Nation who actually seem to be the only ones standing up and addressing the fears and concerns of said people.

Tadaaa now we have Pauline in charge.

We won't actually get Pauline, though. In terms of far right party popularity electorally, I'd imagine we're a long way behind much of the Western world at this stage. More serious versions of Hanson have come close to being elected in Europe, and Marine Le Pen seems to have a real chance in France. One Nation is really just Pauline and James Ashby, both of whom are just in it for the easy money anyway. Trump getting elected was bizarre, but it still happened in a US system in which no party generally holds the presidency for more than two terms under any circumstances. A political party that can barely be called that winning enough seats in both houses of parliament is an entirely different proposition.

Your understanding of why this is all happening is pretty simplistic and a fair way off, by the way.

I'm starting to like Trump. He is a different character that's for sure and seems to actually act on his election promises regardless if you think they are good or not. Wish we had Politicians that had half the guts Trump has knowing full well he's probably going to lose the small amount of credibility he has.

Instead, we are stuck with 'cucks' (?) that bend over far too easily.

This is... bad.

Actually I did do a (very) quick skim to make sure that they were at least talking about the subject and not just click bait.

Editors tend to prefer op ed pieces that go with their preferences.

I included the breitbart one because it was on the range of options. Personally I tend to avoid Breitbart and InfoWars just as much as I avoid Salon and Huffington Post - you may consider B-bart revolting - others love it and probably consider some of your sites equally revolting - partially a matter of taste and partially a matter of which side of the media you consider are doing the fake news-ing.

My main element there was not so much to endorse the content of the links but to suggest that the UN report was decidedly not universally accepted opinion. And one could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that a UN sponsored report might tend to the pro-globalist side of the fence...

Here is one from the Chicago Tribune you might prefer?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...n-the-u-s-refugee-program-20170206-story.html

Salon and the Huffington Post (both of which are generally meh) are hardly the equivalent of Breitbart. That would be some sort of Stalinist or anarchist publication at this point. Ooh, 'pro-globalist'. Do you even know what that means? Mark my words, soon they'll be replacing globalist with what they really mean, which will inevitably be 'rootless cosmopolitan'.

Anyway, having recently read a fair bit of academic literature in this area, I can safely say that you're barking up the wrong tree. Not sure what a letter supporting Trump's Muslim ban has to do with anything, you'd be nuts to suggest that the US immigration system is geared to let muslims in. If you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd be well aware that punitive measures against muslims in the US/seeking to enter the US have had bi-partisan support since 9/11.

 

[SizeMatters]

We won't actually get Pauline, though. In terms of far right party popularity electorally, I'd imagine we're a long way behind much of the Western world at this stage. More serious versions of Hanson have come close to being elected in Europe, and Marine Le Pen seems to have a real chance in France. One Nation is really just Pauline and James Ashby, both of whom are just in it for the easy money anyway. Trump getting elected was bizarre, but it still happened in a US system in which no party generally holds the presidency for more than two terms under any circumstances. A political party that can barely be called that winning enough seats in both houses of parliament is an entirely different proposition.

Your understanding of why this is all happening is pretty simplistic and a fair way off, by the way.

This is... bad.

Salon and the Huffington Post (both of which are generally meh) are hardly the equivalent of Breitbart. That would be some sort of Stalinist or anarchist publication at this point. Ooh, 'pro-globalist'. Do you even know what that means? Mark my words, soon they'll be replacing globalist with what they really mean, which will inevitably be 'rootless cosmopolitan'.

Anyway, having recently read a fair bit of academic literature in this area, I can safely say that you're barking up the wrong tree. Not sure what a letter supporting Trump's Muslim ban has to do with anything, you'd be nuts to suggest that the US immigration system is geared to let muslims in. If you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd be well aware that punitive measures against muslims in the US/seeking to enter the US have had bi-partisan support since 9/11.

Not sure how it's bad? Do you enjoy selecting parties that never actually do what they say during elections promises? You're a strange character.

 

[M Malice]

Easily, it's pretty much exactly what happened in America.
1. People are sick of the major parties.
2. People are scared and their fears are being completely disregarded. Instead of addressing these irrational fears with logical arguments to persuade them we have the main stream media labeling peoples concerns as racist/bigoted/idiotic etc.
3. Because of this growing division between the groups of people rational discussion is dead and instead we just have back and forth name calling and violent groups emerging on both sides.
4. At the end of the day when no ones watching at the poll booths a lot of disenfranchised people will give the big **** you to whomever they are upset with and put down One Nation who actually seem to be the only ones standing up and addressing the fears and concerns of said people.

Tadaaa now we have Pauline in charge.

great post Leemas, maybe the pitchforks will be coming out in australia soon? if people feel they are being belittled they will lash out.

found this on the science board (from 2014 although probably becoming more and more relevant) and thought this would be the appropriate thread on our board. thoughts from one of the .01%.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014

part of the article cut and pasted-

If we don’t do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It’s not if, it’s when.

 

[Caiphus]

We won't actually get Pauline, though. In terms of far right party popularity electorally, I'd imagine we're a long way behind much of the Western world at this stage. More serious versions of Hanson have come close to being elected in Europe, and Marine Le Pen seems to have a real chance in France. One Nation is really just Pauline and James Ashby, both of whom are just in it for the easy money anyway. Trump getting elected was bizarre, but it still happened in a US system in which no party generally holds the presidency for more than two terms under any circumstances. A political party that can barely be called that winning enough seats in both houses of parliament is an entirely different proposition.

Your understanding of why this is all happening is pretty simplistic and a fair way off, by the way.

This is... bad.

Salon and the Huffington Post (both of which are generally meh) are hardly the equivalent of Breitbart. That would be some sort of Stalinist or anarchist publication at this point. Ooh, 'pro-globalist'. Do you even know what that means? Mark my words, soon they'll be replacing globalist with what they really mean, which will inevitably be 'rootless cosmopolitan'.

Anyway, having recently read a fair bit of academic literature in this area, I can safely say that you're barking up the wrong tree. Not sure what a letter supporting Trump's Muslim ban has to do with anything, you'd be nuts to suggest that the US immigration system is geared to let muslims in. If you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd be well aware that punitive measures against muslims in the US/seeking to enter the US have had bi-partisan support since 9/11.

The equivalent of brietbart and Infowars are usuncut and occupy democrats. And she it was only a buzzfeed investigation (and their hard journalism is surprisingly decent) but each of the liberal equivalents was only half as dishonest. (to me liberals are as centrist as you can get.)

 

[Leemas]

We won't actually get Pauline, though. In terms of far right party popularity electorally, I'd imagine we're a long way behind much of the Western world at this stage. More serious versions of Hanson have come close to being elected in Europe, and Marine Le Pen seems to have a real chance in France. One Nation is really just Pauline and James Ashby, both of whom are just in it for the easy money anyway. Trump getting elected was bizarre, but it still happened in a US system in which no party generally holds the presidency for more than two terms under any circumstances. A political party that can barely be called that winning enough seats in both houses of parliament is an entirely different proposition.

Your understanding of why this is all happening is pretty simplistic and a fair way off, by the way.

This is... bad.

Salon and the Huffington Post (both of which are generally meh) are hardly the equivalent of Breitbart. That would be some sort of Stalinist or anarchist publication at this point. Ooh, 'pro-globalist'. Do you even know what that means? Mark my words, soon they'll be replacing globalist with what they really mean, which will inevitably be 'rootless cosmopolitan'.

Anyway, having recently read a fair bit of academic literature in this area, I can safely say that you're barking up the wrong tree. Not sure what a letter supporting Trump's Muslim ban has to do with anything, you'd be nuts to suggest that the US immigration system is geared to let muslims in. If you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd be well aware that punitive measures against muslims in the US/seeking to enter the US have had bi-partisan support since 9/11.

Or is the answer really as simple as I've suggested and not at all as complex as you're pointing out. You've got to remember a large proportion of the population isn't obviously as well educated or read as you.

What you're saying may or may not be correct but the way it reads with your quite rude & dismissive attitude comes off extremely snobbish and to be honest distracts completely from the point you're making as I stopped reading as soon as you started making disparaging remarks.

As I pointed out before if you want to reach people don't attack, don't pull the whole I'm right you're wrong card no one ever in history has responded positively too that.

Simplify the message, back it up with evidence and don't be a dick about it and people will understand and their viewpoints will change.

I've changed countless minds of family and friends simply by not being a dick about it.... it's really not that hard

 

[Caiphus]

Or is the answer really as simple as I've suggested and not at all as complex as you're pointing out. You've got to remember a large proportion of the population isn't obviously as well educated or read as you.

What you're saying may or may not be correct but the way it reads with your quite rude & dismissive attitude comes off extremely snobbish and to be honest distracts completely from the point you're making as I stopped reading as soon as you started making disparaging remarks.

As I pointed out before if you want to reach people don't attack, don't pull the whole I'm right you're wrong card no one ever in history has responded positively too that.

Simplify the message, back it up with evidence and don't be a dick about it and people will understand and their viewpoints will change.

I've changed countless minds of family and friends simply by not being a dick about it.... it's really not that hard

At the same time, evidence doesn't mean shit. No one cares about evidence in the current climate especially if it goes against "common sense", isn't able to be simplified and contravenes confirmation bias. If it doesn't feel right it's just elites thinking they know more than regular folk's practical experience.

Unfortunately we're in a period where we are starting to learn that facts and experience are getting to be pretty far apart and there is no way to nicely let people know their experience is going to have to be invalidated for them to know the truth.

 

[Leemas]

At the same time, evidence doesn't mean shit. No one cares about evidence in the current climate especially if it goes against "common sense", isn't able to be simplified and contravenes confirmation bias. If it doesn't feel right it's just elites thinking they know more than regular folk's practical experience.

Unfortunately we're in a period where we are starting to learn that facts and experience are getting to be pretty far apart and there is no way to nicely let people know their experience is going to have to be invalidated for them to know the truth.

I'm sorry I disagree with that completely. I think there are plenty of nice ways to change a persons view. You find me an example of someone changing their viewpoint after being invalidated, I'll give you a million bucks.

It's that exact attitude that will just further disenfranchise an already angry & upset group of people.

It's like trying to pull a thorn out of my dogs foot. If I go in all gung ho and aggressively grab his leg and start man handling him to get it out he's gonna bite back. It may be the best thing for him but he doesn't know that. But tempt him in with a treat, pat him calm him down. Take the time to do it slowly and carefully and he's happy as Larry. It may be more time & effort but if you really want to change someone's mind it's really the only way.

Making someone feel invalidated or stupid will never ever work and only leads to a more aggressive counter.

 

[Leemas]

I implore everyone who thinks along that line to check out a bloke named Daryl Davis and what he's about. Really proves my point how kindness and love can change attitudes.

 

[Requiem]

I'm sorry I disagree with that completely. I think there are plenty of nice ways to change a persons view. You find me an example of someone changing their viewpoint after being invalidated, I'll give you a million bucks.

It's that exact attitude that will just further disenfranchise an already angry & upset group of people.

It's like trying to pull a thorn out of my dogs foot. If I go in all gung ho and aggressively grab his leg and start man handling him to get it out he's gonna bite back. It may be the best thing for him but he doesn't know that. But tempt him in with a treat, pat him calm him down. Take the time to do it slowly and carefully and he's happy as Larry. It may be more time & effort but if you really want to change someone's mind it's really the only way.

Making someone feel invalidated or stupid will never ever work and only leads to a more aggressive counter.

Exactly, why should someone change their views if you don't empathise with their POV?!

 

[Caiphus]

I understand that perspective if it is just ideology, but facts are facts.