All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[CSTowle]

Would point out that the Palestinians and the Arab nations around Israel (Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen) have also done some pretty 's##tty' things, as well as some Arab citizens living in Israel

This is good, we have a textbook case of "whataboutism" to go over. First, yes it's obviously true that there is bad behavior in the countries surrounding them. That's known, has been discussed, is taken as a given, and (most importantly to our conversation) is not denied by most people in political discussions.

It also has nothing to do with the discussion of whether Israel is a bad actor and deserves criticism, or whether criticism of Israel can be reflexively insulted, labeled, and dismissed so as to avoid the argument. You do have people defending and denying wrongs by Israel with this tactic. You don't with Egypt or Iran or Afghanistan. That's why they're different. And why it needs to continue to be pointed out.

Originalism and textualism are pure bullshit dreamed up by the Federalist Society to push their anti-democratic, right wing, pro-corporate agenda.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politic...supreme-court/

https://rickladd.com/2020/10/14/orig...m-is-bullshit/

It's trying to say, "Man, wish things were more like they were in the 1700s" while sounding high-minded and scholarly.

Yeah, is there any country in the region that is obviously superior? And if not, that suggests a major bias in the focus on Israel.

There is a third understanding of far-left which Yglesias mentioned that it's a refusal to compromise or prioritize (and one can easily have a similar understanding of the far-right.) You could see that in some all or nothing defenses of the green new deal.

I think it's important to clarify what exactly we mean by these terms. It shouldn't just be that someone to our left we disagree with is automatically far-left.

You have a fair point about practical versus theoretical methods, although it is hard for people who hold unpopular positions to get elected into political office, so the discussion can't be limited to voting records. We do have some fringe statements by elected officeholders who have refused to compromise on left-wing views (and these people have right-wing equivalents as well.)

Being far-left is different from being partisan. Moderates can be ignorant of a big issue so dismissal of center-right concerns is not enough to make someone as far-left.

Extreme reactions to the other party are also not enough to mark someone as far-left. While I was looking for an earlier post on judicial policy, I found an exchange where multiple people thought that when Lindsey Graham asked Amy Coney Barrett in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing "You're not aware of any effort to go back to the good old days of segregation by a legislative body, is that correct?" he was expressing a preference for segregation, rather than sarcastically referencing left-wing criticism. That was foolish, but that kind of stuff seems more of a partisan blind spot than a marker that someone is far-left.

There is a clear bias, and it's on the part of those who reflexively defend Israel with charges of antisemitism when any ounce of criticism is sent their way. Again, doesn't happen with the Yemens or Saudi Arabias of the Middle East. I agree with most of the political definitions being based on personal feelings, though there are some benchmark positions (is capitalism generally good for people, should we have universal healthcare, etc.).

Conservatism (one definition; there are many, of course) - “the holding of political views that favour free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.”

I don’t see “anti-democratic BS” in there. Where are you sourcing your definition from?

There's textbook definition, then there's reality. If you're not familiar with the current reality of the "conservative" Republican Party I'd grab some breakdown videos on the January 6th hearings to see how dedicated they are to conserving democracy and rule of law here.

American politics "Basics 101..."

Republicans have literally drug the entire works way over to the right...

The idea that AOC/Bernie are "Far Left..." when they exist in that already "Right..." system?

That assertion is just hard not to laugh at.

You are essentially asking me to be worried about that the most "Feminist..." frat brother is going to screw the frat life up for everyone.

Which, politely, is just an incredibly dumb idea.

Since Reagan stopped pandering to the religious right and Birchers to get votes for their tax cuts and started truly embracing them they've dropped the label of conservative and become increasingly theocratic and more recently fascist.

That conservative label was then picked up by the Clintons and their "triangulation" strategy that gave the voters Republican-Lite, which worked at the ballot box but dragged the Party right to follow the Republicans.

It wasn't until recently that the left wing of the Party was given more of a role than the one the religious right and Bircher types were given pre-Reagan (pander to get votes, ignore until the next cycle), but the most recent generation seems to have shifted away from the Clinton triangulation/third way strategy and embraced leftism.

On the one hand I'm glad (where I am), but on the other I worry it's an indicator the system is breaking down and this is the reflexive reaction to the extremism of the Republican Party (fight fire with fire, and all that). I guess we'll see.

[GindyPosts]

Some sad news to report:

Indiana Rep. Jackie Walorski killed in a car accident

Don't know much about her record in the House, but it's said she was well-liked by both Republicans and Democrats.

Not gonna lie and say I liked her politically, because I didn't, but people genuinely respected her and at least she was honest about who she was. And that's a fucking horrible way to go, I don't care who you are. RIP.

[CaptainEurope]

It probably depends on where you are in the world. In the U.S., Obama and Biden are center-left, Bernie and AOC qualify as further left - but the center edge. The Green party is further to the left than that. In Europe, Obama and Biden are probably center-right, while Bernie and AOC are center-left.

However, the extreme rightward drift of the Republican party can't be ignored. George W Bush would be dismissed as a RINO today, and someone like Nixon comes across as a leftist, although he did come from a time before the so called small government Republicans were the dominant force in the party.

Those two-dimensional spectrums don't make much sense anymore in a modern world. Biden has been to the left on issues of immigration and trans rights of Germany's most left-wing party in parliament, the socialist one that literally used to rule communist Eastern Germany. Left wing parties in Europe in General can be overly "let's not scare off our white working class with identity politics." Even some classic social issues, like the moratorium on foreclosures that Biden gave Americans during the pandemic, is something the Social Democrats in Germany did not ask for. Not sure it happened in any European country.

The left-right spectrum was basically created when only the bottom two layers of Maslow's hierarchy of needs dictated who people voted for. We've moved past that.

[CTTT]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chi...ection-sources

How will dementia-in-chief/Grandpa Joe respond to this? Make the US look as weak as he is? Thinking he can solve this crisis by handing out Skittles or ice cream? Or will we be strong for democracy?

[Tendrin]

Those two-dimensional spectrums don't make much sense anymore in a modern world. Biden has been to the left on issues of immigration and trans rights of Germany's most left-wing party in parliament, the socialist one that literally used to rule communist Eastern Germany. Left wing parties in Europe in General can be overly "let's not scare off our white working class with identity politics." Even some classic social issues, like the moratorium on foreclosures that Biden gave Americans during the pandemic, is something the Social Democrats in Germany did not ask for. Not sure it happened in any European country.

The left-right spectrum was basically created when only the bottom two layers of Maslow's hierarchy of needs dictated who people voted for. We've moved past that.

I keep telling people this and get yelled at for it.

[Gray Lensman]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chi...ection-sources

How will dementia-in-chief/Grandpa Joe respond to this? Make the US look as weak as he is? Thinking he can solve this crisis by handing out Skittles or ice cream? Or will we be strong for democracy?

Whatever the answer is, it will be better that what Benedict Donald would have done.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chi...ection-sources

How will dementia-in-chief/Grandpa Joe respond to this? Make the US look as weak as he is? Thinking he can solve this crisis by handing out Skittles or ice cream? Or will we be strong for democracy?

Considering the source of that article, it isn’t worth taking seriously.

[hyped78]

Democratic Socialists are middle left.

I don't agree with that at all, you're basically saying there isn't "far left" in democratic societies, which in my view isn't correct. But I understand your view and we can agree to disagree, different POVs.

Basic observation?

Trump being their standard bearer?

Common sense?

Take your pick, really...

Trump isn't "Conservatism", he doesn't define "Conservatism". Also, "Conservatism" doesn't exist only in the US, e.g. here in the UK the Conservative Party are in power currently.

I do think for a lot of people far-left is someone to their left they disagree with, and far-right is someone to their right they disagree with.

Personally, I have no problem if someone disagrees with my definitions of far-left or far-right or whatever. If they want to use a different definition, I'm okay with it. I'm trying to understand where they're coming from.

For some people it's more about scoring points. This leads to some really pedantic digressions as they try to equivocate, to push someone else to use their terminology and then to apply some baggage to it, or alternatively to reject a label that's obviously true. One example of the latter would be a rich Hollywood liberal denying that he is a member of the one percent, when by any definition (income or wealth) it applies.

I can understand that people may have different definitions, although we should be open about it to avoid misunderstandings. That's the case with thwhtGuardian's view, I don't agree with it and his definition of "far left" vs. "middle left", etc., but I respect and recognize what he's saying

It probably depends on where you are in the world. In the U.S., Obama and Biden are center-left, Bernie and AOC qualify as further left - but the center edge. The Green party is further to the left than that. In Europe, Obama and Biden are probably center-right, while Bernie and AOC are center-left.

However, the extreme rightward drift of the Republican party can't be ignored. George W Bush would be dismissed as a RINO today, and someone like Nixon comes across as a leftist, although he did come from a time before the so called small government Republicans were the dominant force in the party.

I think it's highly debatable whether Bernie and AOC are center-left in Europe. As stated, Bernie's views are quite similar to that of Corbyn UK/ Melenchon FR/ Iglesias ES - and these are all far left politicians here.

To the best of my knowledge, no, there are no elected officials at the Federal level who should be considered far left. Far left has a very real meaning, it's not how I define it, it's just how it's defined period. While there may not be full consensus on what exactly are the core philosophies that one can point to and unequivocally say, "That's far left" other than total communism it's generally known that it's broadly everything to the left of democratic socialism...and that's not a subjective opinion that's just reality.

And it's the same with center left, it's not a personal opinion, it's a political reality and pretty much all of main stream members of the Democratic party are squarely center left with even the more "frindge" elements like Sanders being just off center left.

The confusion only arises because the Republican's have turned socialism into a dirty word which makes people think that anything with the word socialism is far to the left when it simply isn't true.

Socialism is "far left" by definition - "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

A quick word about Nancy Pelosi's trip to Taiwan and the difference between her trip and Newt Gingrich's trip in 1997. 1997 was a highly significant year for China. It was the year that Great Britain handed control over Hong Kong back to China. So at the time, China wanted the world to believe that they would allow Hong Kong a large measure of political autonomy. Whether they actually intended to follow through on that is immaterial. They wanted to world to believe it, so it would have been a bad time to show such a public hard line on Taiwan. So that may be the reason they didn't rattle their sabers as loudly back then as they are now.

Also, Newt went to Beijing in 1997. Those were different times.

[hyped78]

This is good, we have a textbook case of "whataboutism" to go over. First, yes it's obviously true that there is bad behavior in the countries surrounding them. That's known, has been discussed, is taken as a given, and (most importantly to our conversation) is not denied by most people in political discussions.

It also has nothing to do with the discussion of whether Israel is a bad actor and deserves criticism, or whether criticism of Israel can be reflexively insulted, labeled, and dismissed so as to avoid the argument. You do have people defending and denying wrongs by Israel with this tactic. You don't with Egypt or Iran or Afghanistan. That's why they're different. And why it needs to continue to be pointed out.

There is a clear bias, and it's on the part of those who reflexively defend Israel with charges of antisemitism when any ounce of criticism is sent their way. Again, doesn't happen with the Yemens or Saudi Arabias of the Middle East. I agree with most of the political definitions being based on personal feelings, though there are some benchmark positions (is capitalism generally good for people, should we have universal healthcare, etc.).

There's textbook definition, then there's reality. If you're not familiar with the current reality of the "conservative" Republican Party I'd grab some breakdown videos on the January 6th hearings to see how dedicated they are to conserving democracy and rule of law here.

Yes, but the far left folks who always criticize Israel never seem to criticize Palestine and the surrounding Arab nations, do they? In fact, many support them. E.g. Jeremy Corbyn is a good example.

And when I say that anti-zionism and anti-semitism go hand in hand, the fact that they always criticize Israel while supporting Palestine is just another element. Zionism is a political movement which supports the right of Jewish people to their own homeland in the land of their ancestors - anti-Zionism is denying the Jews' right to self determination... those same people that are anti-Zionist support the creation of a Palestinian state. So they support self-determination for Arabs but they reject self-determination for Jews - this is anti-semitism.

Criticizing Israel for its policies, oppression, etc., is criticizing Israel and its politicians, it's not necessarily "anti-zionism".

Conservatism - first of all, the "current reality of the conservative Republican Party" isn't the definition of Conservatism. And second, Conservatism exists outside of the US, there's a big world out there, many Conservative parties are in power in Europe.

[hyped78]

Even some classic social issues, like the moratorium on foreclosures that Biden gave Americans during the pandemic, is something the Social Democrats in Germany did not ask for. Not sure it happened in any European country.

It happened here in the UK, at least, if we're talking about the same thing: "A moratorium on possession proceedings against homeowners was in place from March 2020 to 1 April 2021" (Coronavirus (Covid-19): mortgage support measures)

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...fings/sn04769/

Other European countries did the same/ similar.

[hyped78]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chi...ection-sources

How will dementia-in-chief/Grandpa Joe respond to this? Make the US look as weak as he is? Thinking he can solve this crisis by handing out Skittles or ice cream? Or will we be strong for democracy?

I think it's important to say - and this is just my opinion - that if/when China invades Taiwan, some people might point fingers at Pelosi, but actually they would do it anyways. Pelosi's visit didn't trigger anything that the Chinese weren't already looking to do. I honestly rate what Pelosi did very, very highly, she's a no nonsense gutsy woman.

If/when China invades Taiwan (and I personally think it's more a question of "when" than "if") then I don't think the US can do much, whoever the President is at the time?
Direct Military intervention? "Impossible"
Military aid? Complicated
Economic sanctions? Considering that China is now de facto "the factory of the world", not sure how feasible that is

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/04/a...-ml/index.html

[CTTT]

Whatever the answer is, it will be better that what Benedict Donald would have done.

I'm guessing your answer would be what Neville Chamberelain did for Hitler before WWII keep giving and letting others expand and then when at the doorstep then respond.

[hyped78]

I'm guessing your answer would be what Neville Chamberelain did for Hitler before WWII keep giving and letting others expand and then when at the doorstep then respond.

Chamberlain: "Peace for our Time"

How did that work out?

[The Cool Thatguy]

Trump isn't "Conservatism", he doesn't define "Conservatism". Also, "Conservatism" doesn't exist only in the US, e.g. here in the UK the Conservative Party are in power currently.

Yes he is, and yes he does.

You are defined by the leader that you embrace, especially after he attempts a coup and keeps undermining and attacking democracy.

Trump defines Republicans now.

[Gray Lensman]

I'm guessing your answer would be what Neville Chamberelain did for Hitler before WWII keep giving and letting others expand and then when at the doorstep then respond.

Well, we can see what Biden has done for the current invasion crisis, which is the cut the aggressor out of most of the global financial system, much of the global trading network, provide up to date intelligence to aid the defenders in their fight, provide modern weapons and training on said weapons, and rally the rest of Europe to do much of the same - although those nations that remember the Soviet yoke didn't need any encouragement. Still, getting Switzerland of all places to apply sanctions is something that really hasn't been done before.

Meanwhile, the former guy called the move "Genius."


The poorly thought out Chamberlain quip would better apply to Obama or Dubya, who both did very little while Putin carved pieces off of other nations during their administrations. But applying it to Biden demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about history.