Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Ghengis Jon]

For Talent and AA

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/14/sport/fabiano-caruana-magnus-carlsen-chess-world-championships-london-spt-intl/index.html

[Kapture1]

What is wrong with Nationalism?

Not talking about blood and soil nationalism, I am talking about nationalism based on our founding ideals. I think the left has successfully labeled any talk of nationalism under this president as supporting white nationalism, and perhaps there are a small percentage that when they say they support nationalism, they mean an ethno nationalism. I don't and neither does Trump.

[Kapture1]

and of course the double standards are off the charts. Do you remember anyone claiming 0bama was referring to Black Nationalism? or White Nationalism?

Did 0bama have Jim Acosta at his press conferences interrupting him and basically calling him a Black Nationalist over this? Did NPR? no? well imagine my shock.


onkgk3yum7y11.jpg?width=768&auto=webp&s=545d8062673a86b863a950e3f1d1890fb2feb624.jpg

[froot loops]

You are better off trying to cultivate the area for the way to produce the next Amazon.

[froot loops]

You got to hand it to the Democrats and how they deploy the ELECTION FRAUD! They are going to give up a seat to Mia Love just to spite Donald Trump because he celebrated her loss. They are very crafty in their schemes.

[Hannibal]

Really? Except around here I generally keep my mouth shut, I've always paid my taxes, have never seen white males as a generality bashed in the media or blamed for all the world's problems, I've never been accused of racism and have never been discriminated in the workplace or when I applied to the greatest university in the world. Of course then again, I'm not angry and don't spout illusionary excuses and grievances for not having the world handed to me on a silver platter. Perhaps if (some) white men didn't gobble down the GOP fueled drivel outlined in your second sentence, they wouldn't be so angry. I think the real question that has to be asked is why have 'hard' conservatives become such hand wringing snowflakes? What drove the GOP from being the party of "work hard, play fair, be honest, and you will change yourself and the world for the better" to "I'm a whiny assed victim, it's never my fault, brutally disparage anyone that does not perfectly align with my ideology, and to be willing to elect an incredibly incompetent buffoon who is detrimental to the nation just to show how mad I am." ? Why is lying now acceptable, intellectual dishonesty admired, and froth mouthed buffoonery required in conservative circles? What happened to setting a good example for others to follow? Why is it now critically important for conservatives to be snowflakes above all?

(Not looking for the standard deflection of "Dems are/did/will do....". I'll gladly rip into them in another conversation.) Why did the GOP change from a noble philosophy to kindergarten level crybabies? Why is fabrication and taking the low road so important?

You ask some good questions. The transformation of which you speak is real. I have the long-winded response and the short version. If you feel like reading a long diatribe, then I can post the long version. The short version is that most of the GOP -- not all, but most -- now prioritizes winning over civility. We need results and Trump is the first guy to provide them in some decent quantity for God knows how long. That is why we don't give a shit what he says. And that's the reality of partisanship. The Democrats embraced this years ago and that is why when they win elections they get what they want. The Republicans are just now catching up. There is still a sizeable contingent of holdouts who still insist on the Republican party being relegated to the role of gracious losers. Those are the Cuckservatives. Those are the guys who still cling to political rhetoric and strategies that have failed 10 times over and who were willing to throw Judge Kavanaugh under the bus the minute that the going got rough. The are quite a few reasons for the kvetching and the anger that you see too. It is boil up from a few decades worth of gaslighting and the frustration of watching one institution after another get infected by cancers like Feminism and Marxism and nothing being done about.it.

[hack]

The big picture is that most of what Bernie Sanders calls ``socialism'' in reference to financial regulation is merely a return to Regan-era policy and regulation over. And people seem to think that the GOP still hasn't been successful over the past few decades in shifting the country to the right by quite a bit. Beyond me how that works, but that's what seems to be happening.

[THE_WIZARD_]

What is wrong with Nationalism?

Not talking about blood and soil nationalism, I am talking about nationalism based on our founding ideals. I think the left has successfully labeled any talk of nationalism under this president as supporting white nationalism, and perhaps there are a small percentage that when they say they support nationalism, they mean an ethno nationalism. I don't and neither does Trump.

Krapture...you are a racist, bigot and homophobe...please leave the country immediately...

[AlabamAlum]

For Talent and AA

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/14/sport/fabiano-caruana-magnus-carlsen-chess-world-championships-london-spt-intl/index.html

Nice piece. Thanks, Jon.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Stop gawking at Jon's piece.

disturbing

[iam416]

Your response implies you see the new generation of Democrats - the ones emerging as a part of the majority in the House - as far left of center

Buchanan:

I don't know where they are relatively speaking, but I unequivocally believe the D are moving left at a rapid rate. And in so doing they've hit or absolutely will hit both economic and "social justice" policy positions that I disagree with.

As to polarization, I more or less agree with overall take. I think when people interact with one another in person it's typically far more engaging. Social media is awful, but such is life. The concern I have re polarization is the seeming self-sorting of Americans into ideological bubble. The reason, IMO, there are only 40-50 competitive House districts isn't fundamentally because of gerrymandering but because of where people live. As such, you lose sight of the "other side" as actual people. And to take it further, politics has always been about fear-mongering, demagoguery and various other disingenuous ways to gather votes. But beneath the crazy claims there was typically a lot of truth and reason -- whether you agreed with it or not. By actually discussing the issues you could get to that reasonable position and work from there. When you don't have that then the extreme message is the extreme message and that's not good.

If the Ds can nominate someone that's tolerable I'll probably vote for them in 2020. So, I'm not PARTY!!! I may be PARTY!!! if the Rs were normal conservative Rs these days. But the protectionist shit I just can't abide.

[THE_WIZARD_]

If HARBAUGH!!! ran as a D...would you vote for HARBAUGH!!!???

[iam416]

And it's pretty clear the Rs have a winning hand on fiscal policy and have moved the country off the Great Society ledge a bit. I mean, they still can't do shit about vast federal programs, but they've moved things more into a personal accountability area which, IMO, is fan-fucking-tastic. However, it's also clear the the true Progs want to move way past whatever FDR and LBJ did.

And it's pretty motherfucking clear that the Ds have pulverized the Rs on social issues.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Fox News is filing an amicus brief in support of CNN and Acosta in federal court. Fully expect the primetime FoxNews Opinionators to blithely ignore that.

[hack]

Again, most of what ``Democratic Socialists" want is just a return to Regan-era policy. Saying they want to move the country to the left is half the story. The other half is where it's been moving the past three decades. Both sides have moved it to the right. Quite a bit.

Those questions aside, what's really important is that it moves in a direction that evidence suggests it should. Is there evidence to suggest a continuation of current Friedmanite policy? There's evidence that we should not. The world is a fundamentally different place than when those ideas were first formulated. There is data now. Back then, all we had were theories. They were right in one sense -- there's been a lot of growth. They were wrong in suggesting that it would be sustainable. In the end, this is always a perceived balance between growth and stability. Electing a Trump, and having him do to the economy what he's doing, isn't stable or sustainable. You can see it in the data.