Not wanting to pull troops at this current time =/= wanting perpetual war

Tiff this is a very silly question you are asking. As the current situation stands, pulling troops out at this time will be (is) devastating to our allies, so I would simply not pull out at this time.

Hillary's "Basket of Deplorables" comment was correct, actually.

If I was the commander in chief i would simply not move forward with a decision that would allow thousands of our allies to die

To be clear, I don't think impeachement is inherently anti-democratic or anything. In fact it's obviously an important mechanism for guaranteeing it. I'm just saying that it should be wielded strategically. — StreetlightX

That's fair, I just found the anti-impeachment sentiment expressed near the end of the video puzzling and nonsensical, particularly the statement made by the economist Lowery you quoted earlier for some of the reasons I provided and for additional reasons which maybe I'll delineate on tomorrow.

The point I take away is that it's no good to respond to these world events by doubling down on undemocratic measures ('if the people are dumb and ignorant, then we'll do the right thing for them'). The people must be built. They must be constituted. And we do that by engagement. — StreetlightX

I mean I certainly agree, but as I've previously pointed out to you, impeachment simply isn't a black and white democratic vs. non-democratic process as you've been making it out to be, given that the Democrats won the House in the biggest wave since the early 70s, and an impeachment inquiry is part of that responsibility as elected officials in the occupations they serve. And while not synonymous with a democratic vote by any means, the desire to at least have an impeachment inquiry is enjoying a majority in the polls. I mean, I'm curious, do you think that Nixon should have been impeached? I would assume no, then?

I am looking to support a responsible way out. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Ok but this aint it.

Is this where I draw a distinction between gas chambers for Jews sought out from every corner of Europe and temporary detention centers for those who have sought out residency in the US in open violation of its laws? — Hanover

Again, your ahistorical insistence on narrowly defining Nazism by it's concluding years, rather than taking into account the conditions in which it began to arise, and the conditions which laid the foundations for the acceptance of gas chambers (e.g. constantly referring to an marginalized out-group as subhuman, "rats", "vermin" , while also excluding the conditions that the immigrants are escaping from and what caused them (it was the USA). I've explained all of this multiple times in other threads, to you and to others. Maybe you should get a bunch of tattoos like the main character in Momento so that I don't have to waste my time further repeating myself?

Mark Twain is (apocryphally) have said that "history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes", and I think that's a useful phrase to take into account when calling modern people Nazi's or Fascists, which were essentially political parties that had gained power under specific conditions for a period of time in a particular place. So no, we likely never going to see any exact repetition of these movements and events, but that does not mean that we should discard these otherwise politically salient terms, especially when we seem them echo again so clearly in modernity.

I think some of the most hard hitting stuff was from Lowry, the economist, near the end of the video — StreetlightX

"The way to defeat Trump is to get 50.1% of the vote" — StreetlightX

But this isn't true!!! And he should know this!!!

Whatever you might think of the weirdos at Spiked, I think this is a pretty good video. It's far from a deep or original analysis, but it makes some points that I mostly agree with and that I think people have to learn from, especially Leftists. And really I just like it because it stands up for people who are being derided in liberal and Left circles. I have a humble desire: that we understand what led people to vote the way they did, rather than dismiss them. Their concerns should be ours. — jamalrob

I just watched the video and it's laughably awful, unsurprisingly shallow, biased, and filled with discredited presumptions and absurd claims that we're somehow meant to accept at face value. Rather than providing studies or statistics, it treats anecdata as meaningful, substance analysis. It's been nearly three years since Trump won the 2016 election and we have ample evidence to confirm that racism in fact played a key role in mobilizing votes for Trumps. Not "economic anxiety". In fact, I would challenge anyone to find studies that do show economic uncertainty was the key issue for Trump voters. Unfortunately, a random gym owner does not count. Despite the video claiming that a majority of Trump voters were enticed by his message due to economic struggles, more Hillary voters claimed that the economy was a more important issue than Trump voters (52% vs. 41%), while a majority of Trump supporters claimed that immigration was one of their biggest issues (64% vs 33%). The video claims that Trump voters have been struggling financially while Hillary voters mainly comprised of coastal elites, a majority of voters with income <$50K voted for Hillary (53%) over Trump (41%), while voters with an income over $100K were split 47% vs. 47%.

Much of the framing in the documentary is patently absurd. After several British stay voters said that leave voters (at 10:00) based their decisions on racism and xenophobia, a writer retorts "well actually, in many polls, leave voters said they are not hostile to migrants and they don't have racist views". Well of course few would claim otherwise, so that's not a proper way of measuring whether or not they actually were motivated by racism. What did any of you expect? A interviewee looking straight into the camera and saying "yes, I hate blacks and Mexicans and that's why I voted Trump"?

Then they pivot to Obama voters who subsequently voted for Trump, despite not offering any stats on whether or not this is a significant voting segment. In fact, only about 9% to 12% of Obama voters voted for Trump in 2016, and racial resentment nevertheless played a role in that switch. Oh, but I guess we'll never actually know the truth since that one gym owner said he had several biracial grandkids so he couldn't possibly be racist.

While none of this economic anxiety bullshit stands up to scrutiny, I think it's interesting how we're are supposed to be overly sympathetic to ostensibly economically struggling whites, despite other ethnic groups, particularity Black Americans, having also struggled (in more meaningful ways) yet have never resorting to a voting for a overtly racist, fascist-adjacent strong man.

The Nazi hyperbole goes from mildly annoying to insulting, but to speak literally, as if we are just a few years from actual gas chambers and genocide, is absurd and may evoke a yawn, depending upon how passionate I am at the time — Hanover

Since the Trump administration started the child separation less the two years ago, young children who have gone months without seeing their parents go without "showers, toothbrushes, or clean clothes, or beds" and wear dirty clothes covered in "mucous or mud-stained", forced to sleep on the hard floor without mattresses, sometime with lights on and in cold temperatures, making them susceptible to the flu , which they are not given proper treatment for. At least seven children have died.

I mean, go ahead an yawn at this, I don't think of you a morally considerate person by any means, so I wouldn't be surprised, but this is all within just two years under conditions more favorable than Germany faced at the time, yet wind the clock ahead several years and factor in the effects of global warming in third world countries and who fucking knows how things might escalate.

He's just had a heart attack, he's 77 and looks every day of it — Wayfarer

Biden had two aneurysms in 1988 and can't speak more than a minute without digressing into jabberwocky, but his deteriorating health issues aren't magnified in the way that Bernie's has been. I do think that he will eventually drop out either because of health issues or simply because I think Warren will eventually trail him, but either way he's hardly a distraction when 1) he's still polling well, and well above most other contenders and 2) many key topics that the Democrats are grappling with are directly because of him and their popularity within the Democratic party.

He's been within the top 3 in polls this entire time and only recently dropped to third what are you talking about

Hitler and Trump is that the former had death camps where millions of people were systematically murdered in an attempt to create a pure race — Hanover

Look up what was happening in Germany in 1934

BREAKING: Person who will vote for Trump thinks the Democrats shouldn't nominate a left wing candidate.

I don't really like him all that much to be honest, but the joy I would have in seeing him resurrected after a Democratic full on attack, I just can't explain. It would be like the giddiness I felt watching Hillary supporters crying on election night. — Hanover

Unabashed political nihilism

I've explained this before, but I voted for Trump. As I've said many times, I'm a very idiosyncratic sort of libertarian socialist — Terrapin Station

Oh my god

Yeah WaPo is a bit of a joke — StreetlightX

Basically every publication is a joke in their own way. The key is to build a portfolio of trusted journalists and writers across publications.

For instance, I don't believe that Jeff Bezos exercises editorial control over what the WaPo editors choose to publish. — Wayfarer

The Washington Post once ran 16 negative stories about Bernie Sanders within 16 hours.

This, though, is entirely right. Trump has been an incredible force of galvanization, for the right and left alike. The left certainly has alot to thank him for. Zizek was right, imo, of seeing a Trump presidency as a far better prospect for the left than a Clinton one, even though he got railroaded by the left for it. — StreetlightX

Sure, we've seen (somewhat) similar political dialectics arise during the Bush administration from the Left, the Obama administration from the Right, and now again from the Left thanks to a Trump presidency and GOP controlled government, albeit the Left now, due to the 2008 recession and the palpable critique of Capitalism it generated, is more vigorous and tenacious than in many decades past. However, I remain unconvinced that a Trump presidency has been, in hindsight, 'desirable' for the Left, given the substantive damage done by the Trump administration, and more generally, a GOP controlled government to the lives of people. The conceptual tools for critiquing Capitalism remain as relevant as ever (if not more so than in decades past), with or without Trump.

Actually, the Democrats and liberals should adjust their policy positions and messaging so that's more welcoming towards Republicans and conservatives, because Leftists arent real people and their views don't matter.

Nice. You've reduced the identity of about half of the population to a few social stances and declared you'll never talk to them. How's that working out for you? — Benkei

Working out pretty good since only 24% of Americans consider themselves Republicans, not "half of the population". Either way, I'm obviously generalizing, certainly not every Republican voter feels the same way - but to circle back my original point, why should political representatives care what this segment of the population - particularly those who do believe in what I've outlined - think about impeachment? They shouldn't. Instead they should convince and mobilize both Democratic voters and left leaning independent, not those who vote for or sympathize with a Nazi party.

I won't commit to the belief that the privileged are incapable of knowing what is fair or not due to their fear of losing their privilege, which means I must accept their complaints of oppression as I would any other. To ignore those complaints would assume the privileged are intellectually or morally inferior and that they cannot judge actual oppression versus true equality. — Hanover

'White Privilege', as an extension of a dominate group identity, is, to paraphrase Charles Mills, as water to a fish. Invisible because it is natural to the dominate white polity that has not suffered the disadvantages, prejudices, and discrimination, codified, socialized or otherwise, that out-groups/minorities have been and are subjected to. Just as one isn't "intellectually inferior" because one isn't consciously aware that they are breathing, I don't necessarily find this form of white ignorance linked to "intellectual inferiority" unless, pace Mills, it is an ignorance that resists, an ignorance that fights, an ignorance that is militant and reifies itself, especially political. The challenge, as always, is to recognize it, understand how privilege is made manifest, and fight for those who are deprived of it.

What your reaction betrays is your and the average American's inability to have a conversation with people you don't agree with. If the US is that hopeless that you can't even muster the effort to engage fellow citizens you're better of moving to Mexico. — Benkei

As I'm sure you're well aware, I can and have had multiple conversations with people I've disagreed with, on this very forum and elsewhere, on political topics such as immigration, abortion, wealth inequality, healthcare etc., but that's ultimately irrelevant when faced with the fact that a political party has tied itself, Gordian-like, to morally untenable positions regarding immigration, healthcare, abortion, and attitudes towards the rich and the poor. There is is no "common ground" no "middle position" to adjudicate with people who are content to have their immigrant neighbors ripped from their families and sent to strange countries to die, have children separated, likely indefinitely, from their parents and placed in inhumane conditions. There is no "middle ground" to be found with people who believe that abortion should be banned or severely restricted, or that it is morally acceptable that people can go bankrupt from healthcare or simply die because of an inability to pay for it. And it's certainly not acceptable to cordially engage with a fellow citizen who is part of a party that has a 91% approval rating for a man that, it has recently been discovered, inquired if the US could "shoot migrants in the legs" to deter them from entering the states.

Of course, the GOP has engaging in power politics for decades - increasingly so in the last ten years - and yet it's always the Left or liberals that are admonished for not reaching across the aisle, as if that's a winning strategy in these increasingly polarize ideological times. Sorry, I personally find it morally abhorrent to work with a nascent Nazi party.

You should. They're your neighbours so you'd better work it out. — Benkei

This betrays an immense naivete on contemporary American politics as I've outlined multiple times elsewhere in this thread.

To be clear, I'm not specifically against the impeachment proceedings as such. I'm against the fascinated glare that it holds for so many, I'm against the celebratory note that accompanies the many discussions around it, and I'm against the wholesale substitution of legal mechanisms for the democratic exercise of power(s) as a primary mechanism for political change. — StreetlightX

Sure, I certainly agree with that - although I do want to point out that in this specific case of legal mechanisms, i.e. the impeachment inquiry against Trump, was only able to be carried out - required a democratic exercise of power viz., the "blue wave" midterm 2018 election which enabled the Democratic Party to gain a majority control of the House.

Trump ought to be destroyed by political mobalization and bold, creative, and daring ideas - not this tinker-toy legal grace. — StreetlightX

Insofar as this "tinker-toy legal grace" fails to remove Trump from office, despite exposing additional maliciousness, criminality, incompetence and keeping it at the forefront of the news cycle, creating further public backlash to an already unpopular president while also shifting additional blame onto a GOP controlled senate leads to "political mobilization" that 1) votes Trump out of office (which can occur regardless of the inquiry) and 2) leads to seat gains in the Senate, and perhaps a blue turnover (unlikely without the GOP controlled Senate's compliance in acquitting Trump), then that seems like the ideal, yet certainly not unrealistic, outcome.

And let's face fact, just as there will be (potentially severe) backlash if Trump is removed via impeachment, there will undeniably be backlash and cries of conspiracy of a different name, if he loses the election. The long run is already fucked.

EDIT: Further, a failure to move forward with an impeachment inquiry signals to Trump that he can make additional attempts to illegally undermine political rivals and Democratic candidates potentially shaping the outcome of the election. The failure of the Democrats to start an impeachment inquiry against Trump after the Mueller report was a signal that he could continue to abuse the power of the office for self-gain.

Because there will be a trial in the Senate, Maw. I know you've got your mind made up about his guilt regardless of what the Senate will conclude. That is most likely not true of everybody, especially Republican voters — Benkei

Well if you don't see his flagrant misuse and abuse of the office, and various acts including his attempts to dismantle the Mueller investigation and investigate a political rival with the aid (and bribery) of a foreign government, or more seriously, the systemic creation of concentration camps for people of color, as justifiably impeachable offenses, then I simply don't know what else to tell you.

But for the thousandth fucking time, who cares about GOP voters? I mean god damn, a majority of them support and will vote for Trump even of he's literally standing on their heads crushing their skulls, so no one should give a shit how they will react to an inquiry or a failure to impeach (even though there has been an increased support among GOP voters for an impeachment inquiry).

It does to me. A lot people think it's a sort of legal proceeding and if he survives impeachment, they can play it as "not guilty" and that will be to his benefit because many will believe it. In other words, the outcome will affect whether voters will continue to think he should be impeached. — Benkei

Why on earth would people who believe that Trump should be impeached think that an acquittal by a *GOP controlled senate* absolves him, rather viewing it as yet another example of toxic GOP partisanship and as a response to this flagrant violation of duty, vote him out of office themselves?

will def check it out

The present vein of discussion started with an emotional message from Maw about the cuteness of the OP's strategy — frank

Yeah I totally should have used a "logical" message

undocumented immigrants pay taxes

So while a majority of voters probably want impeachment I doubt it matters for the impeachment outcome in a Senate controlled by the Republicans. And then come election time that will be played in favour of the Republicans. — Benkei

Sorry, but that doesn't make a lick of sense. A majority of voters favor impeachment, but when the GOP controlled Senate acquittes him, voters will be spurred to...vote for Trump?

you don't need to separate families at the border and throw people in concentration camps in order to "enforce the border". Further, illegal immigrants also pay taxes, so not sure what "not paying their fair share" means here.

I think it's cute that your breaking point for Trump was when he asked a foreign government to investigate a political rival, and not, say separating families and placing them in concentration camps.

Exactly. And the reason for that is that there appears a divide between people who think the end justifies the means and those who don't. And in the US that seems to follow party lines to an important extent.

But we'll see because I'm not offering a theory here just gut feelings. — Benkei

Since Democratic leadership announced the impeachment inquiry there has been a notable uptick in voter favorability towards impeachment. Among all voters the favorability towards impeachment rose 7 points, and increased 5 points among GOP voters, and 6 points among independents. So I'm curious if you still think that a failure to impeach by the Senate will be transformed into a Trump victory come 2020, despite growing support across party lines.

Unsurprisingly, support for Trump's impeachment has increased since the Democrats announced the inquiry

I usually digest the book fairly well on a first read, but will sometimes return to it for a re-read within a few years if I find it still relevant to my interests or simply highly worth returning to if I originally found it influential (e.g. Marx's Capital, Amartya Sen's Development As Freedom, Cioran's works).

Somewhat similar to StreetlightX, I will gravitate towards a topic (e.g. ethics, politics, economics, pessimism), but usually not for too long because of my terrible ADHD, so I typically bounce around topics.

Thanks, btw, for mentioning the Charles Mills' book - looks like my jam; I'll wait, though, for your 4-1-1 if & when you'd be so kind. — 180 Proof

For sure :victory:

Trick Mirror: Reflections on Self-Delusion by Jia Tolentino
The World of Late Antiquity: AD 150-750 by Peter Brown
Black Rights/White Wrongs: The Critique of Racial Liberalism by Charles Mills