a discussion of the causes of the divergence of American politics and culture

[Birdjaguar]

Scroll back. I already did this so people could decide themselves.
K

OK, sometimes I don't read every post in thread when I try to catch up. Posting it twice won't hurt.

And the number and complexity of your questions...really? Do you want a complete answer t
o all of those? Why?

What presidents or other officials have done is less relevant than what the current administration is doing. They are not likely to be prosecuted or reprimanded beyond what gets said on the internet. We already know that politicians are hypocrites. If the goal is to compare and contrast administrations, that is a fair proposition if you do so in a manner that compares apples to apples. As I have said somewhere in OT, you cannot compare Obama and Trump in first year employment and job creation, because they did not start at similar situations. But you could show an Obama 8 year trend and then slowly build a Trump trend that over time could be compared. Cherry picking specific items to demonstrate something and call it a truth about Obama or Trump or Bush is disingenuous. A perfect example from today is Trump's statement that we should stop allowing people from Sh**hole countries into the US and get more from Norway. is that just an isolated happenstance, or part of some ongoing thread within Trump's way of thinking about other countries?

Anyway, the questions.

1. From what you know, do you think that Mueller was correct in his indictments so far?
2. Do you think that Trump's campaign staff were hiding (by not revealing) their assorted contacts with various Russians during 2016 and early 2017?
3. Do you think Mike Flynn had the best interests of the US in mind while he was working for either the Trump Campaign or the people of the US?
4. Do you think that President Trump's personally owned businesses should profit from his presidency during that presidency?
5. What should happen to Trump and his family if Mueller finds evidence of money laundering in his past business practices?
6. Should Trump release his tax returns?
7. Do you think it is OK for Jared Kushner to have tried to set up a secret, hidden from the US government, back channel of communications with Russians?
8. Should any government official be allowed such a communications channel?

I choose those because we have some actual facts in their regard or they are merely asking for an opinion. They are all current and affecting our nation right now. Other than #6 you could answer yes or no or elaborate as you wish. I think that they help de-politicize the conversation because they address specific items where we know something and whether one likes or hates Trump does not have to be part of the answer.. They are not questions about fitness or character. Number 6 is a hypothetical that may well become real in the future.

Thanks.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Answering specific questions requires critical thinking to pick and choose rather than just parrot blasting from the right wing echo chamber. @Birdjaguar, your request is ruled as overly demanding on those who support right wing positions, thus unfairly biased.

In related news, the right wing echo chamber sites are currently crying about how fact checkers are biased in that they catch right wing conservative sites in far more lies.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

I am amused that you think it is normal to give me homework and that I am under some obligation to accept your homework...and answer these to your satisfaction.

What a strange ritual as an initiation or as a hazing to be a member here. It is even stranger given your shall we say emeritus status.

You might even say it's a bonafide litmus test akin to the grillin' of a Supreme Court nominee where the smartest method is to grin and laugh at the notion.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I am amused that you think it is normal to give me homework and that I am under some obligation to accept your homework...and answer these to your satisfaction.

What a strange ritual as an initiation or as a hazing to be a member here. It is even stranger given your shall we say emeritus status.

If you can't or won't answer, just say so. It has nothing to do with 'hazing.' He's just trying, in a more polite way, to divert you from your course of repeating the same lie over and over and over before it gets you into trouble. Trying to help you out, you being new around here and all.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

I understand what it is from being a student of the behavioral studies and anthropology. It is creating a pecking order where old members think every new person is automatically a troll and so grill them to see if they have similar political ethos so they can stay without minute by minute challenges.

The phenomena is a form of radical fundamentalism where new members are grilled and to ascertain if they shoud be allowed to stay.

And it is precisely on topic as this is a direct result of polarization in American culture where the new phrase "triggering" implies some vehement reflex response when hearing something that is opposite of the peers' dogma.

It is tragically funny as we got past this after the horror of the Red Scare and stopped being gatekeepers and allowed a free exchange of ideas...even shock routine Marxism on university campuses.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I am amused that you think it is normal to give me homework and that I am under some obligation to accept your homework...and answer these to your satisfaction.

What a strange ritual as an initiation or as a hazing to be a member here. It is even stranger given your shall we say emeritus status.

Seven yeses or noes and one sentence equals homework in a discussion forum? I went ahead and did it too. Took me 5 minutes and I went a bit beyond Y and N.

1. From what you know, do you think that Mueller was correct in his indictments so far? Yes he has presented strong cases for the the crimes he sees a committed.
2. Do you think that Trump's campaign staff were hiding (by not revealing) their assorted contacts with various Russians during 2016 and early 2017? Yes, they deliberately withheld contacts.
3. Do you think Mike Flynn had the best interests of the US in mind while he was working for either the Trump Campaign or the people of the US? No, he was working on behalf of Russia and Turkey.
4. Do you think that President Trump's personally owned businesses should profit from his presidency during that presidency? No, using the Presidency to enrich yourself and your family while in office is unethical, probably violates the constitution, and is shameful.
5. What should happen to Trump and his family if Mueller finds evidence of money laundering in his past business practices? They should be prosecuted as any other citizen would. The President is not above the law.
6. Should Trump release his tax returns? Of course.
7. Do you think it is OK for Jared Kushner to have tried to set up a secret, hidden from the US government, back channel of communications with Russians? No, such an action works against the interests of the country and appears to be treasonous given his place in the administration.
8. Should any government official be allowed such a communications channel? No.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It is creating a pecking order where old members think every new person is automatically a troll and so grill them to see if they have similar political ethos so they can stay without minute by minute challenges.

Actually, I would not say that I had seen a new member that I thought was a troll in quite a long time.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

Normally in an Internet forum, and I think I am qualified as I have been around since the Internet first began (just after Arpanet), the norm was to not press new people at all.

Now, here the culture is testing political ethos to see if the person meets the criteria. You do realize this, right? As a societal tool or ritual, it is designed to decrease diversity and establish the "right answers" and stamp out individualism and self-identity and foster group-think.

And this is a product of polarization in American culture and probably in Western culture.

A society looking for right answers as responses has eliminated critical thinking, so immediately it is not aimed at intellectuals or the intelligensia, but looking for saps to carry the party line without question.

Such a ritual should never happen in universities but always happens today as a result of this polarization in American culture.

That is indoctrination. And if it persists, it is a cult.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

1. From what you know, do you think that Mueller was correct in his indictments so far? Yes. He has two guilty pleas and the case against Manafort looks rock solid.
2. Do you think that Trump's campaign staff were hiding (by not revealing) their assorted contacts with various Russians during 2016 and early 2017? Yes, they failed to disclose contacts. This may have been oversights, but when given ample opportunity to review their records and asked again when some they missed had been disclosed by other sources they still 'overlooked' more, which were then also disclosed by other sources. "I don't remember and will only try to remember when prompted by evidence," is not within acceptable standards.
   
3. Do you think Mike Flynn had the best interests of the US in mind while he was working for either the Trump Campaign or the people of the US? No, he was working on behalf of Russia and Turkey.
4. Do you think that President Trump's personally owned businesses should profit from his presidency during that presidency? No, there are clear laws against that going all the way back to the constitution itself, and he claimed to be well aware of those laws and willing to comply with them when he was a candidate
5. What should happen to Trump and his family if Mueller finds evidence of money laundering in his past business practices? Prosecution.
6. Should Trump release his tax returns? Yes. His grounds for refusal are totally specious. If his answer was 'I am just not gonna' then he should have said so instead of this cock and bull nonsense about being under audit.
7. Do you think it is OK for Jared Kushner to have tried to set up a secret, hidden from the US government, back channel of communications with Russians? No. If I had done that I'd be run out of the country on a rail, unless I was jailed.
8. Should any government official be allowed such a communications channel? No.

Okay, that was easy.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Normally in an Internet forum, and I think I am qualified as I have been around since the Internet first began (just after Arpanet), the norm was to not press new people at all.

Who is pressing new people?

As to you, you chose to repeat your false claim about Obama eight times in a row. No one 'pressed' you to do that. As a wild guess, no one WANTED you to do that.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

At this point with such naked hostility, why bother answering someone who has decided to answer in an adversarial manner?

What I posted say in the outrageous Obama executive order is so Orwellian that it speaks for itself. It is undeniable as to its threat to the American Republic.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

At this point with such naked hostility, why bother answering someone who has decided to answer in an adversarial manner?

What I posted say in the outrageous Obama executive order is so Orwellian that it speaks for itself. It is undeniable as to its threat to the American Republic.

Well, no. This lie has already been denied. Only you repeating it yet again is getting it denied yet again. Once more, who is supposedly pressing you, let alone new people?

 

[Cassius Critzer]

This a wonderful publc example of how "triggering" has resulted in a new Dark Ages of anti-intellectualism where dialogue no longer matters.

For example, this similar polarization happened among Goggle employees. An engineer posted what he actually thought. He listed his conservative political leanings and then was pilloried for it. When personally threatened by a co-worker, he notified Human Resources who did nothing and management orchestrated a campaign against him.

He is suing Google now, and no doubt they will settle out of court as Google cannot win. And the scandal of it is so revealing as a company squashing the world of ideas( what is the most accurate reality?) and building a group-think of political correctness.

Why? Polarization of American culture.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Be the change you want to see. Engage in less provocative dialogue.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

Be the change you want to see. Engage in less provocative dialogue.

This is too rich. It began immediately and the topic is provocative. I have thus far spoken in a moderate tone among the extreme left for the most part.

Were I to actually discuss the topic in a manner that you would see in any American university, well it would get ugly fast because of this "triggering" phenomena.

You cannot have honest dialogue when constantly mincing words. It causes ambiguity as the actual thing you mean to say is muted.

And the left feel no compulsion to mince words.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I have thus far spoken in a moderate tone among the extreme left for the most part.

Actually, repeating the same post over and over when it has already been responded to and nothing new remains to be added is considered trolling in some venues. It may be worth consulting the local rules to see if this is one of them.

By the way, who is this "extreme left" that you consider yourself to be "among"?

 

[Cassius Critzer]

It strikes me as odd that the polarization in American culture is so pronounced that "leftist" is not just a word but when used by a conservative or moderate then is perceived to be a perjorative.

That makes no sense. No conservative would ever think that being labeled so is a perjorative.

Political and religious identity ( and antitheism is the rejection of religion and /or God so philosophically discussed in this way) is so attached to the core of self-identity that everyone knows the surest way to conflict is to discuss either or both. Which means by design any topic in which there are political or religious aspects are controversial and produce antipathy.

So the basis of dialogue is to ignore the natural reflex response of antipathy of hearing a political idea that you disagree with.

Triggering is automatically excusing this natural response and trying to avoid dialogue as it is uncomfortable.

There is nothing comfortable about political discourse. And dialogue is never actually intended to persuade. The point is to understand why people feel the way they do as it is in their core identity and affects the community.

No man is an island so dialogue is essential to practical realistic communities.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It strikes me as odd that the polarization in American culture is so pronounced that "leftist" is not just a word but when used by a conservative or moderate then is perceived to be a perjorative.

That makes no sense.

Political and religious identity ( and antitheism is the rejection of religion and /or God so philosophically discussed in this way) is so attached to the core of self-identity that everyone knows the surest way to conflict is to discuss either or both. Which means by design any topic in which there are political or religious aspects are controversial and produce antipathy.

This seems like a bit of a sidestep. Was it meant to be an answer to "who are these extreme left that you are among?" Or was it something else?

 

[Cutlass]

I am amused that you think it is normal to give me homework and that I am under some obligation to accept your homework...and answer these to your satisfaction.

What a strange ritual as an initiation or as a hazing to be a member here. It is even stranger given your shall we say emeritus status.

You might even say it's a bonafide litmus test akin to the grillin' of a Supreme Court nominee where the smartest method is to grin and laugh at the notion.

And yet you try to give me homework to prove your false accusations of illegal immigrants voting. Double standard much?

 

[Cutlass]

It strikes me as odd that the polarization in American culture is so pronounced that "leftist" is not just a word but when used by a conservative or moderate then is perceived to be a perjorative.

That makes no sense. No conservative would ever think that being labeled so is a perjorative.

Political and religious identity ( and antitheism is the rejection of religion and /or God so philosophically discussed in this way) is so attached to the core of self-identity that everyone knows the surest way to conflict is to discuss either or both. Which means by design any topic in which there are political or religious aspects are controversial and produce antipathy.

So the basis of dialogue is to ignore the natural reflex response of antipathy of hearing a political idea that you disagree with.

Triggering is automatically excusing this natural response and trying to avoid dialogue as it is uncomfortable.

There is nothing comfortable about political discourse. And dialogue is never actually intended to persuade. The point is to understand why people feel the way they do as it is in their core identity and affects the community.

No man is an island so dialogue is essential to practical realistic communities.

.

The issue is that actual 'leftists' in the US constitute a minority too small to fill Giants Stadium. Most of the people you are calling leftist are not, and do not in any sense share an identity with leftists. So you are being deliberately insulting by lying about that.