United States Politics Thread 46

[masako]

The key issue in all three victories was abortion rights. Repealing Roe, and aggressive anti-abortion laws and prosecutions, are wildly unpopular-- and the abortion rights side is just as fired-up as the anti-abortion side.

Gov. Youngkin of VA was on the Fox just after the election on Nov. 7th and was asked about the apparent rejection of anti-abortion positions/legislation and immediately turned to inflation as being the key issue that needs to be addressed. This speaks volumes about how DEMs should move forward into '24 and how absurdly miscalculated the repeal of Roe was by the braintrust and GOP strategists. If it's handled correctly, the DEMs have a chance to completely up-end the current political landscape.

[Raphael]

Looks like some US right-winger tried to pretend to be a left-winger in order to send terrorist threats:

https://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2023/ ... le-at.html

[Raphael]

Does anyone know anything about when, exactly, the Epstein list will be released, and where we'll be able to see it then?

[masako]

Does anyone know anything about when, exactly, the Epstein list will be released, and where we'll be able to see it then?

Here's the latest I could find, but I'm curious why you posted this in the politics discussion...while this information will likely be used, I have serious doubts that it will have significant or lasting political consequences. The DEM figures that seem to be on the list haven't been in power in decades, and while #45 is on there (allegedly), that will almost assuredly have zero consequence for him politically.

This is much more of a celebrity scandal than a political one, at this point. And as morally abhorrent as it is, the political needle will likely barely twitch as a result of this.

[Raphael]

Ah, thank you anyway!

[hwhatting]

The age argument is of course ridiculous because his main rival is more or less of the same age.

Yes and no. I think the problem with that rebuttal is that it emphasises for younger voters just how limited their choices are: Do you want this doddering old white guy or do you want the other doddering old white guy? Keep in mind that the key to the youth vote is engagement. Many haven't internalised the directive of "Vote every time as if your life depended on it, because it does." For them it's a less a choice between this guy or that guy and more a choice between this guy and not voting at all.

Late to the party, but it seems that Trump is actually somewhat better at Youth engagement than Biden - basically, while he also is an old man, he is a loudmouthed one with bling, which makes him look interesting...

[Raphael]

We already knew that was his position, but now it's official: Trump has openly said that back in the White House, he would tell Putin to "do whatever the hell he wants" to Putin. (All the English-language news outlets I could find are running an AP report that accepts Trump's own ridiculous framing of the matter, so I don't want to link to them.)

Now, if that happens, I will probably be one of the people who get killed by the Russian government sooner or later, in one way or another. So this is not some kind of academic exercise for me. It's about my life. And the lives of people I know in real life.

Which brings us to the ZBB. Not too long ago, in another discussion, Moose-tache talked about how wrong it is when people vote for center-left parties in order to keep the right-wingers from doing too much harm. Near the end of that debate, Moose-tache claimed that those of us who are in favor of voting for center-left parties in order to keep the right-wingers from doing too much harm are not only wrong, we know that we are wrong.

So, according to Moose-tache, when I'm against a scenario under which I sooner or later would get killed, I'm not only wrong, I know that I am wrong.

I must admit that I don't understand that.

So, Moose-tache, can you explain this to me? Why is it that I "know" that I'm wrong when I'm against getting murdered?

[alice]

I think I might have some idea:

Code: Select all

|---------------|---------------|---------------|-----------------|
left      centre-left        centre       centre-right        right        <- nominally
*|<-------------------- IRREDEEMABLY EVIL ----------------------->|        <- actually

* = acceptable in a very specific limited set of circumstances

[vlad]

We already knew that was his position, but now it's official: Trump has openly said that back in the White House, he would tell Putin to "do whatever the hell he wants" to Putin. (All the English-language news outlets I could find are running an AP report that accepts Trump's own ridiculous framing of the matter, so I don't want to link to them.)

Trump didn't "frame" anything. He gave a speech, and then people like you take a tiny isolated phrase from that speech out of context. Context is not "framing".

[Raphael]

Trump didn't "frame" anything.

Of course not consciously, but everyone who talks about things frames things. In this context, his framing was that he talked about countries "not paying there bills", when there aren't any actual bills involved.

He gave a speech, and then people like you take a tiny isolated phrase from that speech out of context. Context is not "framing".

In which "context" would a "tiny isolated phrase" about telling Russia to do whatever the hell it wants to my country, ending in a gruesome death for me, either be appropriate, or be something that I should accept, respect, or support?

[vlad]

Trump didn't "frame" anything.

Of course not consciously, but everyone who talks about things frames things. In this context, his framing was that he talked about countries "not paying there bills", when there aren't any actual bills involved.

He is talking about NATO defense expenditure commitments, which have been an issue since 2006.

He gave a speech, and then people like you take a tiny isolated phrase from that speech out of context. Context is not "framing".

In which "context" would a "tiny isolated phrase" about telling Russia to do whatever the hell it wants to my country, ending in a gruesome death for me, either be appropriate, or be something that I should accept, respect, or support?

The context is a hypothetical scenario that did not in fact occur, and which Trump was trying to prevent occurring. I don't care if you "accept, respect, or support" it, I care about you falsely portraying Trump as supporting a Russian invasion when he does not support it.

[bradrn]

He gave a speech, and then people like you take a tiny isolated phrase from that speech out of context. Context is not "framing".

In which "context" would a "tiny isolated phrase" about telling Russia to do whatever the hell it wants to my country, ending in a gruesome death for me, either be appropriate, or be something that I should accept, respect, or support?

The context is a hypothetical scenario that did not in fact occur, and which Trump was trying to prevent occurring. I don't care if you "accept, respect, or support" it, I care about you falsely portraying Trump as supporting a Russian invasion when he does not support it.

His precise words were: ‘I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want’. If that’s not supporting a Russian invasion, I don’t know what is. That it’s a hypothetical scenario doesn’t make it better or excuse it.

[vlad]

In which "context" would a "tiny isolated phrase" about telling Russia to do whatever the hell it wants to my country, ending in a gruesome death for me, either be appropriate, or be something that I should accept, respect, or support?

The context is a hypothetical scenario that did not in fact occur, and which Trump was trying to prevent occurring. I don't care if you "accept, respect, or support" it, I care about you falsely portraying Trump as supporting a Russian invasion when he does not support it.

His precise words were: ‘I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want’. If that’s not supporting a Russian invasion, I don’t know what is. That it’s a hypothetical scenario doesn’t make it better or excuse it.

If a Russian invasion of Kazakhstan were the only way to prevent a genocide, would you support Russia invading Kazakhstan?

If someone you liked said something like this, you would immediately understand the point they were making. But because it's Trump, your brain shuts off, and you interpret it in the most insanely negative way possible.

[Raphael]

Trump didn't "frame" anything.

Of course not consciously, but everyone who talks about things frames things. In this context, his framing was that he talked about countries "not paying there bills", when there aren't any actual bills involved.

He is talking about NATO defense expenditure commitments, which have been an issue since 2006.

He keeps talking about "paying", making it sound as if it was about other countries owing money to the USA, which is neither accurate, nor how this stuff was talked about in 2006.

I don't care if you "accept, respect, or support" it, I care about you falsely portraying Trump as supporting a Russian invasion when he does not support it.

Oh, stop telling me that I'm somehow imagining what's clearly visible right in front of my eyes. I'm not "falsely portraying" Trump as anything. He said "I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want", and I'm saying that he said that.

If a Russian invasion of Kazakhstan were the only way to prevent a genocide, would you support Russia invading Kazakhstan?

That's not the hypothetical Trump used, as you know very well.

If someone you liked said something like this, you would immediately understand the point they were making. But because it's Trump, your brain shuts off, and you interpret it in the most insanely negative way possible.

More like, because it's Trump, your brain shuts off, and you're trying to scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with some ridiculously convoluted way to interpret his words positively.

[vlad]

Of course not consciously, but everyone who talks about things frames things. In this context, his framing was that he talked about countries "not paying there bills", when there aren't any actual bills involved.

He is talking about NATO defense expenditure commitments, which have been an issue since 2006.

He keeps talking about "paying", making it sound as if it was about other countries owing money to the USA, which is neither accurate, nor how this stuff was talked about in 2006.

He's simplifying for his audience. Less than a minute earlier in the same speech, he was complaining about the USA spending $200 billion on Ukraine, while Europe only spent $25 billion (according to him -- I don't know if those numbers are accurate). He's clearly talking about European countries pulling their weight within NATO, not paying money directly to the US.

I don't care if you "accept, respect, or support" it, I care about you falsely portraying Trump as supporting a Russian invasion when he does not support it.

Oh, stop telling me that I'm somehow imagining what's clearly visible right in front of my eyes. I'm not "falsely portraying" Trump as anything. He said "I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want", and I'm saying that he said that.

He said "If [certain conditions], I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want", and you're pretending the conditions don't exist.

If a Russian invasion of Kazakhstan were the only way to prevent a genocide, would you support Russia invading Kazakhstan?

That's not the hypothetical Trump used, as you know very well.

It wasn't meant to be, I was responding to bradrn.

If someone you liked said something like this, you would immediately understand the point they were making. But because it's Trump, your brain shuts off, and you interpret it in the most insanely negative way possible.

More like, because it's Trump, your brain shuts off, and you're trying to scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with some ridiculously convoluted way to interpret his words positively.

I am not a Trump supporter. There are plenty of legitimate things to criticize Trump for without making up bullshit. It's not "ridiculously convoluted", it's the most natural interpretation, and it's consistent with things he's said in the past.

[bradrn]

The context is a hypothetical scenario that did not in fact occur, and which Trump was trying to prevent occurring. I don't care if you "accept, respect, or support" it, I care about you falsely portraying Trump as supporting a Russian invasion when he does not support it.

His precise words were: ‘I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want’. If that’s not supporting a Russian invasion, I don’t know what is. That it’s a hypothetical scenario doesn’t make it better or excuse it.

If a Russian invasion of Kazakhstan were the only way to prevent a genocide, would you support Russia invading Kazakhstan?

Yes, of course I would — but that’s a highly disingenuous analogy. Ukraine was not committing or planning a genocide, no matter how much Putin witters on about supposed ‘Nazis’. (Its president is Jewish, for heaven’s sake!)

I don't care if you "accept, respect, or support" it, I care about you falsely portraying Trump as supporting a Russian invasion when he does not support it.

Oh, stop telling me that I'm somehow imagining what's clearly visible right in front of my eyes. I'm not "falsely portraying" Trump as anything. He said "I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want", and I'm saying that he said that.

He said "If [certain conditions], I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want", and you're pretending the conditions don't exist.

No, Raphael is saying it’s an unacceptable thing to suggest under any conditions. And, honestly, I agree with him. Encouraging the invasion of random countries (which are not committing genocides etc.) is a pretty despicable thing to say.

[vlad]

His precise words were: ‘I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want’. If that’s not supporting a Russian invasion, I don’t know what is. That it’s a hypothetical scenario doesn’t make it better or excuse it.

If a Russian invasion of Kazakhstan were the only way to prevent a genocide, would you support Russia invading Kazakhstan?

Yes, of course I would

I can't believe you would openly support a Russian invasion like that. That it’s a hypothetical scenario doesn’t make it better or excuse it!

[bradrn]

If a Russian invasion of Kazakhstan were the only way to prevent a genocide, would you support Russia invading Kazakhstan?

Yes, of course I would

I can't believe you would openly support a Russian invasion like that. That it’s a hypothetical scenario doesn’t make it better or excuse it!

In my view, an invasion is justifiable only when it prevents some greater tragedy. A genocide is such a tragedy. NATO (not the US) receiving slightly less money is not.

And even then, I would support any invasion only to the extent required to prevent the genocide. That’s different to Trump‘s encouragement to ‘do whatever the hell they want’, merely because some country has paid slightly less money than it should have.

[Raphael]

He said "If [certain conditions], I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want", and you're pretending the conditions don't exist.

No, I'm asserting that the conditions don't particularly matter.

I am not a Trump supporter. There are plenty of legitimate things to criticize Trump for without making up bullshit.

What did I make up? Besides, for any of your "legitimate things to criticize Trump for", there are certainly people who would react to you making those criticisms very much in the way you reacted to me and bradrn here.

It's not "ridiculously convoluted", it's the most natural interpretation,

How so? I'd say the most natural interpretation of anyone's words is that they mean what they say, unless they're being sarcastic.

[Raphael]

I just saw three posts on Bluesky that look, frankly, quite utopian to me. They were posted by someone who goes by the handle "Michael Tae Sweeney":

https://bsky.app/profile/mtsw.bsky.soci ... umhkhw5m2h

Made this point before but I think millennials and older really underrate the extent to which younger conservatives experienced the (quite successful!) 2010s school anti-bullying campaigns as a radicalizing and defining event for their politics.

https://bsky.app/profile/mtsw.bsky.soci ... umk3rl3e2h

(and zoomers conversely underestimate the extent to which bullying kids over sexual orientation or race was just widely accepted in society and tolerated by authority figures in the 80's, 90's and 00's)

and then, in response to someone else asking

Can you elaborate on this a bit?

the response

https://bsky.app/profile/mtsw.bsky.soci ... umsxaohh2k

Sure. A bunch of bigoted assholes who had been taught that being a bigoted asshole was Correct and Good suddenly found themselves facing harsh punishments for acting this way in school, and their anger over this simmered into an identity defining political stance.

To be honest, this sounds at least partly too good to be true to me. So, supposedly, in the 2010s, some schools in the USA had anti-bullying campaigns that not only worked in the sense that they actually reduced bullying, but even led to serious resentment among bullies or would-be-bullies, to the extent that some people's politics were defined by them?

Could anyone who is more in touch with "those kids these days" than me tell me whether there's anything to that or not?