RSS Feed
  0 users browsing Discussion. | 2 guests  
Main » Discussion » Anticipating near future politics
Pages: First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last
Posted on 19-09-22, 22:55

Post: #88 of 100
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 85 days
Last view: 6 days
Your "hard numbers" are just random references to the news cycle. When the news stops talking about something that doesn't mean people stop caring about it. People talk about Trump's general corruption all the time. They're even trying to connect him to Epstein. The moment that Russia comes up regarding him again it'll be all over the place. You're also assuming that the Mueller report had a very narrow topic.

You are incredibly uncritical of yourself. It would do you a great deal of good to not develop such strong opinions and to pay more attention to how events flow into one another instead of just taking snapshots and taking permanent stances on them.
Posted on 19-09-22, 22:55
Post: #42 of 58
Since: 10-29-18

Last post: 19 days
Last view: 19 hours
I do think it is largely settled insofar as a bunch of people think he's "exonerated" and a bunch of others are waiting for the Dems to do their Constitutional duty and impeach him based on the crimes that were clearly laid out in the report.

Until that happens, there's honestly not much more to report on.

My assumption is that the Dem leadership wants to see how 2020 shakes out, which may be shrewd but is also super-lame.
Posted on 19-09-23, 00:11
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #641 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 67 days
Last view: 65 days
Posted by wareya
When the news stops talking about something that doesn't mean people stop caring about it.

Well, I don't agree. I only have anecdotal evidence to back this claim up, but it's been my experience that the news cycle is a leading rather than trailing indicator - if the media stops writing about it, it is no longer something to be discussed. Likewise if the media were to change their position, then they would change it to be in accordance with them, we have always been at war with Eastasia-style.

Posted by wareya
Your "hard numbers" are just random references to the news cycle.

It's still quantitative and measurable, which is the best we can get. There isn't really any good way to measure 'word out on the street' save for polling, and I can't find any polls asking the question "is Trump a Russian asset?" over time. Google Trends do measure more than the news cycle, they measure what people are thinking about. If what you're saying is that these two are isomorphic to one another, then that's my point entirely.

People talk about Trump's general corruption all the time. They're even trying to connect him to Epstein. The moment that Russia comes up regarding him again it'll be all over the place. You're also assuming that the Mueller report had a very narrow topic.

The media was into the whole Trump–Epstein stuff too, though - arguing that this was organic seems far-fetched. What the Mueller report was or wasn't about is completely immaterial, what matters is how it was perceived. And we can observe that e.g. Rachel Maddow's ratings sunk considerably (~19%), which indeed does seem to indicate that interest in Trump–Russia connections did sink after it. All that matters is the headlines, which were as I recall them widely considered to be good news for Trump.

That people still talk about it seems fairly reasonable, it's just one of the stock lines of slander that one has for their political opponents. But it has stopped being a common insult levied against him in the press, and perhaps more importantly, it has stopped miring him down. To claim on basis of this that he hasn't been exonerated is as if claiming that the previous holder of the office had not been exonerated from those accusations levied against him on basis of demography, just because it in certain circles remained customary throughout his terms to refer to him while emphasizing his middle name. What is interesting is what the broad layers think, no? And it was certainly not something which kept miring him down as soon as it had been 'dealt with', which is also the case for Trump.

It's kind of like the copier thing. If you ask to use the copier, people let you do it 60% of the time. If you ask to use the copier to copy some documents, people let you do it 97% of the time. Same goes here - if people feel "oh yeah they did the investigation now and it turns out he's OK," then that's good enough for them - problem solved, can now go do something productive with my time instead of obsessing about government minutiae.

You are incredibly uncritical of yourself. It would do you a great deal of good to not develop such strong opinions and to pay more attention to how events flow into one another instead of just taking snapshots and taking permanent stances on them.

Well, how else are you supposed to go at things? I think the great chess legend sums up my point of view nicely; Our mind is all we've got. Not that it won't lead us astray sometimes, but we still have to analyze things out within ourselves. ... I think once you start distrusting your own mind you're finished. From there you just get more and more confused. Once you think that your own mind is not your friend any more-your own conscience and your own mind is not your friend-then I think you are on your way to insanity. I do make an effort to keep an open mind and change it whenever I am wrong, and I would be inclined to think that is the local maximum.

Posted by hunterk
I do think it is largely settled insofar as a bunch of people think he's "exonerated" and a bunch of others are waiting for the Dems to do their Constitutional duty and impeach him based on the crimes that were clearly laid out in the report.

Until that happens, there's honestly not much more to report on.

My assumption is that the Dem leadership wants to see how 2020 shakes out, which may be shrewd but is also super-lame.

Why would they want to impeach him? With the economy taking a walk on the proverbial razor's edge, it's a far smarter move to just take it easy and hope he gets stabbed in the back by the Fed. With the whole PPT stuff that might actually never happen though, in which case they win anyway 2024 and onwards.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-09-23, 03:07
Post: #43 of 58
Since: 10-29-18

Last post: 19 days
Last view: 19 hours
Posted by sureanem
What the Mueller report was or wasn't about is completely immaterial ... All that matters is the headlines, which were as I recall them widely considered to be good news for Trump.
...
To claim on basis of this that he hasn't been exonerated is as if claiming that the previous holder of the office had not been exonerated from those accusations levied against him on basis of demography, just because it in certain circles remained customary throughout his terms to refer to him while emphasizing his middle name. What is interesting is what the broad layers think, no?
No, I'm interested in objective reality (something that used to be shared by a majority of people). Truth isn't a matter of who says what the loudest or what you can get the most idiots to believe.

Likewise, Dems *need* to impeach him, not out of political expediency but because it's what the Constitution demands in this situation. By refusing to do their part of it, they are just as complicit in his crimes as the Republicans that shield him.

Also, when the economy goes pear-shaped, it's not going to be because the Fed "stabbed him in the back". That's just buying into his conspiracy drivel. The Fed doesn't have the power to cause or control the business cycle, only to take the edge off the extreme peaks and valleys (at best).
Posted on 19-09-23, 10:22
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #643 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 67 days
Last view: 65 days
Posted by hunterk
No, I'm interested in objective reality (something that used to be shared by a majority of people). Truth isn't a matter of who says what the loudest or what you can get the most idiots to believe.

Sure, but for predicting the future? What the Mueller report was "actually" about is completely immaterial to what people think it is about, since those two are only connected by the thin shred of headlines.

Likewise, Dems *need* to impeach him, not out of political expediency but because it's what the Constitution demands in this situation. By refusing to do their part of it, they are just as complicit in his crimes as the Republicans that shield him.

That seems like a technicality - going off and screaming about the constitution demanding X, Y, and Z makes you no less of a kook than the 4th amendment or 2nd amendment or 1st amendment clientele - none of which are taken very seriously anymore. Political expediency is the only relevant metric here.
As for the actual merits - is the claim really that he should be impeached because the Russians exposed corruption on the part of his opponent? This seems absurd - in any other reality, the Russians would have been praised as the heroes they are for doing so, but here they are just evil, because it lead to the election of Bad Orange Man. Were it really better that people be mislead into voting for his opponent, even if they had then done so on the basis of worse information ('lies')?

Also, when the economy goes pear-shaped, it's not going to be because the Fed "stabbed him in the back". That's just buying into his conspiracy drivel. The Fed doesn't have the power to cause or control the business cycle, only to take the edge off the extreme peaks and valleys (at best).

Well, sure, but it can cause it to crash sooner or later than it should have otherwise. It's definitely reached the end of the line, but there is a need for an actual trigger, like rates rising. Obviously, the people are not interested in boring drivel about 'zombie companies' or 'stagnation', they just want to keep their job and house. So the Fed have the power to make or break a president who is in office during the late stages of the business cycle, and in this sense they can indeed be loyal or disloyal to them.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-09-23, 16:14
Post: #44 of 58
Since: 10-29-18

Last post: 19 days
Last view: 19 hours
Posted by sureanem
As for the actual merits - is the claim really that he should be impeached because the Russians exposed corruption on the part of his opponent?
No, it's that he demonstrably obstructed justice and abused the power of his office (with the purpose of impeding the investigation into his campaign's very real ties and communications with Russian officials and election interference, which the Mueller report did not find rose to the level of criminality on the part of the Trump campaign, though there is reason to believe this is only as a result of their own bungling).

It sounds like you haven't read the report. You really should. (especially before you go telling people what it does or doesn't say)

Posted by sureanem
That seems like a technicality - going off and screaming about the constitution demanding X, Y, and Z makes you no less of a kook than the 4th amendment or 2nd amendment or 1st amendment clientele - none of which are taken very seriously anymore. Political expediency is the only relevant metric here.
This all is a single issue: The president apparently committed crimes (as clearly laid out in the report). It is the Department of Justice's policy that a sitting president cannot be criminally indicted (this is not a value judgment suggesting that a president's actions are inherently legal, ipso facto, but rather a nuts and bolts procedural issue). So, to be taken to trial (and maybe found innocent! who knows?), a sitting president must first no longer be president either through resignation or the one procedural method for removal laid out in the Constitution: impeachment.
Posted on 19-09-23, 20:11
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #644 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 67 days
Last view: 65 days
Posted by hunterk
No, it's that he demonstrably obstructed justice and abused the power of his office (with the purpose of impeding the investigation into his campaign's very real ties and communications with Russian officials and election interference, which the Mueller report did not find rose to the level of criminality on the part of the Trump campaign, though there is reason to believe this is only as a result of their own bungling).

It sounds like you haven't read the report. You really should. (especially before you go telling people what it does or doesn't say)

Right, so it's a procedural crime downstream from the Russia stuff, except for the part where it isn't actually a crime but might have been?

I don't see why reading this report is any important - the actual matter of things are incredibly dull, uninteresting, and most importantly immaterial. If you just read the headlines, that is perfectly enough for analysis here, whereas anything else would just taint your judgement.

Posted by sureanem
This all is a single issue: The president apparently committed crimes (as clearly laid out in the report). It is the Department of Justice's policy that a sitting president cannot be criminally indicted (this is not a value judgment suggesting that a president's actions are inherently legal, ipso facto, but rather a nuts and bolts procedural issue). So, to be taken to trial (and maybe found innocent! who knows?), a sitting president must first no longer be president either through resignation or the one procedural method for removal laid out in the Constitution: impeachment.

My understanding of American law is shoddy, but to nitpick, isn't exactly that the case? Unitary executive means that the president cannot commit a crime (e.g. whatever the president does is inherently legal), but they can remove him from office by means of a vote for which no reason has to be stated, after which he can be tried for other crimes allegedly committed after losing this immunity. It's the same here - the king can by definition not be found guilty of a crime, since a crime is not something a king may be the perpetrator of.

And the report goes along with this, and says that he by definition did not commit any crimes, but that the question otherwise is left in an indeterminate state as it were rude to do otherwise.

However, this is all completely irrelevant. People read the headline, "report says Trump didn't do anything illegal," and they tick that issue off. Nobody goes reading a 400+ page report just to keep up with vulgar politics, especially not for an utterly uninteresting issue outside of an election season. In other words, the predictive value of the report is nil.

The Democrats do not need to impeach him any more than the electorate demands it, and it has not appeared to be very bullish on the matter, so it follows from this they do not need to impeach him at all.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-09-23, 21:38
Post: #45 of 58
Since: 10-29-18

Last post: 19 days
Last view: 19 hours
No, the report didn't say he committed no crimes, but rather that it was not tasked with charging him, as he cannot be charged, as president. Likewise, the president is not above the law and can most definitely commit crimes. That's a difference between a president and a king.

Anyway, the report is actually quite entertaining (in parts) and you can skim it in a couple of hours at most.

But I see what you're getting at, which is: objective reality doesn't matter to the proles, so it also doesn't matter for "anticipating near future." In which case, nothing matters at all, because the unwashed will change their whims with the breeze, and yesterday's headlines are completely useless by tomorrow. Why even bother trying to predict it? Who even reads headlines before forming an opinion?
Posted on 19-09-24, 06:11
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #645 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 67 days
Last view: 65 days
Objective reality does matter; if a policy is implemented which is going to have disastrous results then it is definitely useful to realize it will have such, and that obviously has predictive value, even if we can hardly rely on this clientele to realize it. Furthermore, the media takes pains to avoid appearing inconsistent with the past. For instance, if they are changing their position on a given matter, they will generally do so slowly and edit older articles to be consistent with it as they go along, instead of publicly announcing a U-turn - this tends to confuse and anger people and in some cases even get them to lose credibility.


There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-09-24, 11:57
Post: #96 of 130
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 14 days
Last view: 1 hour
Posted by sureanem
Objective reality does matter; if a policy is implemented which is going to have disastrous results then it is definitely useful to realize it will have such, and that obviously has predictive value, even if we can hardly rely on this clientele to realize it. Furthermore, the media takes pains to avoid appearing inconsistent with the past. For instance, if they are changing their position on a given matter, they will generally do so slowly and edit older articles to be consistent with it as they go along, instead of publicly announcing a U-turn - this tends to confuse and anger people and in some cases even get them to lose credibility.


Tell that bullshit to the UK and the Brexiteers. ^^
Posted on 19-09-24, 18:19
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #646 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 67 days
Last view: 65 days
Surely if one believes Brexit will have disastrous effects one could make political predictions off that, even if people do not take them into account while voting?

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-09-25, 02:48

Post: #87 of 88
Since: 11-04-18

Last post: 186 days
Last view: 186 days
Posted by hunterk
Likewise, Dems *need* to impeach him, not out of political expediency but because it's what the Constitution demands in this situation. By refusing to do their part of it, they are just as complicit in his crimes as the Republicans that shield him.


it's happening!

well not exactly, it's just an inquiry for now but hopefully it leads to an impeachment
Posted on 19-11-17, 03:29

Post: #13 of 66
Since: 11-13-19

Last post: 18 days
Last view: 17 days
Posted by sureanem
Surely if one believes Brexit will have disastrous effects one could make political predictions off that, even if people do not take them into account while voting?


The entire so-called Brexit election was a total sham, and people were literally lied to. Half the population actually proved that they want isolationism, and that immigration is bad. Or at least, over half of the voting population.

Lest we forget that there are people who think that the United States and places like South Africa were once "bastions of whiteness" or some stupid shit like that. (Chiming in as a subscriber to /r/FragileWhiteRedditor)
Posted on 19-11-17, 05:04 (revision 1)

Post: #125 of 155
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 5 days
Last view: 5 days
Posted by kode54

The entire so-called Brexit election was a total sham, and people were literally lied to. Half the population actually proved that they want isolationism, and that immigration is bad. Or at least, over half of the voting population.

While some of that group are hateful xenophobes, some believe immigration is bad because “conservatives” told them that immigrants are responsible for their problems. The truth is that those conservatives would quickly give up immigration restrictions in a Brexit deal so long as they ensure the UK is removed from EU trade regulations. They’re supported by corporations, and US corporations, too, because they’re afraid they’ll eventually be forced to match the EU’s stronger consumer protections.

Politics is a shit-show right now, with British Trump and American Boris Johnson doing most of the stinking. We need to eject those buffoons and get back to being truthful and respectful to each other again.
Posted on 19-11-17, 13:48 (revision 1)
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #664 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 67 days
Last view: 65 days
Posted by kode54
The entire so-called Brexit election was a total sham, and people were literally lied to. Half the population actually proved that they want isolationism, and that immigration is bad. Or at least, over half of the voting population.

Isn't the premise of democracy that people hear arguments from many different sources, some of which are lies and some of which are not, and are able to use their powers of reason to decide for themselves with which ones to agree?
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.


If you're saying that people are unable to tell right from wrong and that some sort of action against these lies is thus required for a "functioning democracy," then what exactly is the point of voting?

Posted by BearOso
Politics is a shit-show right now, with British Trump and American Boris Johnson doing most of the stinking. We need to eject those buffoons and get back to being truthful and respectful to each other again.


It seems then as if being "truthful and respectful" is not an efficient way to go at politics. I think you dislike these figures because they go all-in and obtain results. The fact of the matter remains that the skilled politician is the one which manages to advance his or her cause, and both of these figures have done far more for their movement than has been accomplished in the past half-century. I mean, people claim they are new and revolutionary, but this is not the case at all - many politicians have attempted to accomplish the same goals and failed, fading into utter irrelevance.

It's far better to go all-in and sort out the paperwork later than to get mired down in paperwork, fail, and then cope with that you at least did things by the book.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-11-17, 19:03

Post: #212 of 265
Since: 10-29-18

Last post: 23 hours
Last view: 2 hours
Posted by sureanem
If you're saying that people are unable to tell right from wrong and that some sort of action against these lies is thus required for a "functioning democracy," then what exactly is the point of voting?

As with many other concepts (unions, feminism, goto-considered-harmful, ...) it's more helpful to look at what they're trying to prevent. Voting is supposed to prevent a ruler from having absolute powers. It's just a fail-safe device, not a silver bullet or guiding principle.

My current setup: Super Famicom ("2/1/3" SNS-CPU-1CHIP-02) → SCART → OSSC → StarTech USB3HDCAP → AmaRecTV 3.10
Posted on 19-11-17, 20:34 (revision 1)
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #665 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 67 days
Last view: 65 days
But both democracy and feminism have far stronger goals than that. Why else would they have had it presented as the ultimate, overriding goal? I remember vividly it being taught in schools and how the French Revolution was a victory for human rights, etc, etc.

To take a trivial example, what then is the point of universal suffrage democracy? Surely, if the only point is to prevent absolute monarchy, then it would suffice with a far more limited system in which some subset of the population once every four years got to vote whether to dissolve the government or not. For instance, why would you bother holding referendums?

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-11-17, 21:18

Post: #98 of 100
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 85 days
Last view: 6 days
Concepts don't have goals.
Posted on 19-11-18, 00:13 (revision 2)
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #666 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 67 days
Last view: 65 days
You are right, but certainly they may be advanced with some particular end goal in mind. And indeed the broader movement, such as the movement to abolish the 'goto' statement may have some particular end goal in mind, which might also be different from the stated such goal - in this example, as described in the link, the move to structured programming and not actually the cessation of the goto statement, which by the way is a perfectly fine control flow construct and a sorely underrated one.

Kids are learning to code and they start off by throwing ten different types of loops at them when they hardly grok control flow, then they go on to introduce them to map and generators and all sorts of nonsense. This is wrong and incompetent. They should learn the basic concepts first, then make programs and get a general feel for debugging, and then they can be introduced to the exotic kinds of loops. It's a shame all the alleged "beginner languages" (Python, Javascript) sorely lack these facilities - indeed, Python doesn't even have a goto statement.

Perhaps indeed there should be a return to teaching them the very ropes using BASIC. It feels barbaric, but I don't think we have much of a choice. Failing that, at least the exotic loops should be introduced gradually, as such;

wk. 1: environment and whatever
wk. 2: the goto statement
wk. 3: the while loop
wk. 4-7: general programming and such
wk. 8: exotic loops

/rant

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-11-18, 00:43
Custom title here

Post: #767 of 862
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 10 hours
Last view: 2 hours
Posted by "sureanem"
I remember vividly it being taught in schools and how the French Revolution was a victory for human rights, etc, etc.






--- In UTF-16, where available. ---
Pages: First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last
Main » Discussion » Anticipating near future politics
you need to wake up michael