All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[Spike-X]

Watching MSNBC: Donald Trump gets bored when there is no conflict. He's like a serial killer who's gun finger gets itchy and is looking for someone to shoot.

Point of order - serial killers usually don't use guns.

[Tami]

Point of order - serial killers usually don't use guns.

That was my best attempt to get to the spirit of the idea put forth. Replace Serial Killer with Assassin or Mobster or something.

[Tazirai]

This guy needs to go away.

[Mister Mets]

See I think that there is indeed a focus on this kind of equivocation...because it happens more often. Though I think it actually is unfair to frame the kind of equivocations that are being criticized above as those "defending the wisdom of tradition/the majority." Because the kind of equivocations that seem to infuriate many on the left and, indeed, many moderates is the kind where we pretend that, somehow, Nazis are equally as bad as those who counter-protest. That somehow the ideas don't matter anymore when a counter-protester throws a punch and the Nazi drives a car through people. Suddenly, they are both violent movements and are equally bad. That's what a lot of people who've defended Trump's statements seem to say.

The ideas do still matter. Nazis are a group that has coalesced around an ideology of hatred towards African Americans and Jewish individuals. They are more similar to the KKK than they are to those counter-protesting them. Yet, Trump decided to equivocate and make it seem as though those that marched with Nazis are equally as bad as those that marched with counter-protesters. One side may have a few "bad eggs" but the other side is solely made up of bad eggs with a few that are even worse than the spoiled bunch. People aren't defending tradition here when they make these false equivalences. They aren't defending tax cuts for the wealthy or any other policy that may have an inadvertent negative impact on minority populations. People aren't saying that people who defend those policies, inherently, are white supremacist or racist. But defending white supremacists and racists and giving them cover for being white supremacist and racists by saying those that aren't are just as bad? No, I think that people are right to focus on that and condemn that.



I don't quite know where these vague examples of equivocation come from. Can I perhaps get some examples of these? I would really appreciate it.

From the context of your comments, I took equivocation to be a willingness to excuse or mitigate the actions of others. That's done often enough on the left, especially when it comes to sentencing reform, discipline in schools and discussions of poor decisions made by people who are impoverished.

On the point about equivalences, postmodernism started in left-wing academia as a way to suggest that things we find reprehensible as a society have equal moral weight. There are plenty of left-wing defenses of antisemitism in the Muslim world.

Going with the most common definition of equivocation (being vague about where you stand), that one is done by some conservatives, but it's hardly exclusive to them. In some cases, there's a lack of information that would make it difficult to make an exact statement on the implications of an action. Liberals will also often be vague about the intended and likely effects of policies, especially when it's in a controversial direction before the country's on board. I don't recall anyone on the left saying that someone who refuses to aid a gay marriage in a professional policy should be fined in the presidential elections before it started happening. There will also often be support for massive spending programs without sufficient explanations about where the money is coming from.

[Mister Mets]

People are dying or are about die in areas of Puerto Rico from lack of aid. And Trump seems to be getting a pass.

What's he failing to do?

I read somewhere that this NFL Sunday was the highest rated NFL weekend in SEVEN YEARS.

Nope.

http://deadline.com/2017/09/redskins...bc-1202176141/

On the contrary, even if you could prove the motivations of whites during the Jim Crow/Civili Rights era, I don't think you can prove that the monuments carry the same meaning for contemporary Southerners, unless you can read minds.

I remember saying that I think Nazism might always be a potential threat to modern Germany, so draconian measures there can be justified. I don't think either the return of the Confederacy or Jim Crow will ever be a comparable threat, but YMMV. I don't remember anything about swastikas, so you'll have to resort to a quote if you want to discuss the matter.

FWIW, various pop-culture works do keep alive the idea that the swastika wasn't purely a Nazi symbol, not to mention various non-fictional essays on the subject. The other week I started reading Dennis Wheatley's occult thriller THE DEVIL RIDES OUT, and in an early chapter a character mentions the Asian provenance of the swastika. The book was written in 1934.

The current explanation for the statues means that they weren't meant for white southerners, but that they were meant primarily to send a message to others (IE- black southerners/ northerners.) That doesn't really jibe with the obsession with the lost cause.

Granted, this would be a thing where evidence is going to be hard to find. If someone reads a diary entry by an ancestor who served on a city council and brags about how they're putting a statue of a confederate soldier in the black part of town to keep them in line, that diary's probably not getting shared with anyone else.

[Kirby101]

What's he failing to do?

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...on-Puerto-Rico

[Old Man Ollie 1962]

What's he failing to do?

Nope.

http://deadline.com/2017/09/redskins...bc-1202176141/


The current explanation for the statues means that they weren't meant for white southerners, but that they were meant primarily to send a message to others (IE- black southerners/ northerners.) That doesn't really jibe with the obsession with the lost cause.

Granted, this would be a thing where evidence is going to be hard to find. If someone reads a diary entry by an ancestor who served on a city council and brags about how they're putting a statue of a confederate soldier in the black part of town to keep them in line, that diary's probably not getting shared with anyone else.

I'm curious, Mets. Where do you get the majority of your news? What is your most trusted source of local/national/international news? List a few cable networks, web sources and newspapers. Talk radio shows ...

[Tami]

San Juan mayor: "We're having a humanitarian crisis here"

Puerto Rico is suffering and the Trump admin isn't doing enough to help.

San Juan mayor: 'This is a big S.O.S. for anybody out there'

[Red Wolf]

I'm curious, Mets. Where do you get the majority of your news? What is your most trusted source of local/national/international news? List a few cable networks, web sources and newspapers. Talk radio shows ...

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Mister Mets]

I'm curious, Mets. Where do you get the majority of your news? What is your most trusted source of local/national/international news? List a few cable networks, web sources and newspapers. Talk radio shows ...

I don't really watch cable or TV news.

My main sources would be podcasts and online news, although I do read The Atlantic, New York and New Yorker.

I regularly check out RCP, the New York Times, 538 and Daily Beast. My RSS feed includes the conservative blog Hot Air, National Review online, Outside the Beltway, International Business Times, Mediaite, NPR's It's All Politics, Taegan Goddard's Political Wire, POLITICO- Top Stories, Slate's News & Politics, Eric Ostermeier's Smart Politics, The Fix, The New Yorker, The American Prospect, Thinkprogress, Esquire's News & Politics, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and the Mary Sue.

Podcasts I listen to almost all the time are Slate's Political Gabfest, the New Yorker's political roundtable, KCRW's Left, Right, and Center, NPR's On The Media and a few National Review podcasts (Three Martini Lunch, Ricochet, Mad Dogs and Englishmen.) On occasion, I'll listen to Brian Lehrer, Slate's Trumpcast (not a pro-Trump series), David Axelrod's Axe files, Politically Reactive, Vox's The Weeds and the Ezra Klein Show.

Come to think of it, a big part of my news consumption is online forums. I've been active on this thread for about two years. I was active on the Bendis board political thread for a few years back. I'll also get a lot of links on twitter, and there's a political forum I've been somewhat active in for a few years.

I also know some people who work in DC (congressional staffers.)

[Old Man Ollie 1962]

I don't really watch cable or TV news.

My main sources would be podcasts and online news, although I do read The Atlantic, New York and New Yorker.

I regularly check out RCP, the New York Times, 538 and Daily Beast. My RSS feed includes the conservative blog Hot Air, National Review online, Outside the Beltway, International Business Times, Mediaite, NPR's It's All Politics, Taegan Goddard's Political Wire, POLITICO- Top Stories, Slate's News & Politics, Eric Ostermeier's Smart Politics, The Fix, The New Yorker, The American Prospect, Thinkprogress, Esquire's News & Politics, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and the Mary Sue.

Podcasts I listen to almost all the time are Slate's Political Gabfest, the New Yorker's political roundtable, KCRW's Left, Right, and Center, NPR's On The Media and a few National Review podcasts (Three Martini Lunch, Ricochet, Mad Dogs and Englishmen.) On occasion, I'll listen to Brian Lehrer, Slate's Trumpcast (not a pro-Trump series), David Axelrod's Axe files, Politically Reactive, Vox's The Weeds and the Ezra Klein Show.

What are your thoughts on Thom Hartmann, Michael Medved, Jim Bohannon and Joe Madison ?

[Mister Mets]

What are your thoughts on Thom Hartmann, Michael Medved, Jim Bohannon and Joe Madison ?

I've disliked Medved ever since he spoiled Million Dollar Baby because he didn't like the message. That's the main thing I know about him.

I don't know the others. I don't really listen to conventional talk radio. The handful of radio shows I listen to I get as podcasts, and I'll be exposed to those in a different way (IE- I'll listen to Brian Lehrer if he has a segment on a topic I'm interested in, rather than because it's on at a particular time.)

[Old Man Ollie 1962]

I've disliked Medved ever since he spoiled Million Dollar Baby because he didn't like the message.

I don't know the others. I don't really listen to conventional talk radio. The handful of radio shows I listen to I get as podcasts, and I'll be exposed to those in a different way (IE- I'll listen to Brian Lehrer if he has a segment on a topic I'm interested in, rather than because it's on at a particular time.)

Back in the day, I used to listen to Ray Taliaferro on KGO. NPR, BCC, Radio Africa, Radio Free Europe. I read the Atlantic, New York and New Yorker. Haven't read the Washington Post in a while. I do occasionally peruse the corporate news media TV channels. Not much of a blog reader.

[Red Wolf]

Listened to KILI Radio 90.1(Reservation)/88.7(Rapid City) FM.

[Old Man Ollie 1962]

Listened to KILI Radio 90.1(Reservation)/88.7(Rapid City) FM.

Porcupine Butte on Pine Ridge?