192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
snood
 
  6  
Sat 4 May, 2019 05:56 pm
@Lash,
Yeah, of course you're right. And 'sides, that was probably the only excerpts released from the only book today.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  5  
Sat 4 May, 2019 08:28 pm
@Lash,
Please don't get all full of yourself because you think you scored big with 'chucklehead'....it's been resurrected from 19th century slang and has been appearing as regularly as 'trope', 'optics', 'narrative' and a fu@kload of other words and is now trotted out AGAIN as if it's fresh and shiny bright. The ancient nuns from grammar school used 'chucklehead', 'hugglemuggle', they might have used hooplehead but that was considered a little too racy for proper nuns.

I'm pretty sure Walter was throwing a little shade your way. You might have noticed if you were not so locked in to some notion of intellectual superiority. But, I don't speak for Walter. Just saying....don't be a sob sister.
Olivier5
 
  4  
Sun 5 May, 2019 01:14 am
@Lash,
So you think the Russians are doing it for the fun of it, huh?

Thanks for the laugh...
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Sun 5 May, 2019 01:26 am
@hightor,
[code]It's okay to call out people as ill-prepared for a prospective job. 
[/quote]
It is okay and fair when the criteria is applied to all candidates, not when applied selectively to two candidates but not the others. Because as I said already, no candidate is ready.

Therefore, Krugman's is an argument in bad faith.

When you read the constitution, do you also ask yourself "What we the people"?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Sun 5 May, 2019 01:35 am
@blatham,
Incrementalism is a belief system adopted by progressive people that are more afraid of change and happier with the status quo than they care to admit. It's not entirely irrational because change is risky by nature, though sometime change is less risky than immobilism.
blatham
 
  2  
Sun 5 May, 2019 02:02 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Incrementalism is a belief system adopted by progressive people that are more afraid of change and happier with the status quo than they care to admit.
There's not a day that goes by where I don't scream at god for inventing language. "What a way to screw everything up, you jerk" is the complaint.

I'm happier with the status quo than I would prefer to imagine myself being. I'm not sending half my money to desolate children in Brazilian favelas. As to incrementalism, one can observe that it is precisely how major social movements have advanced. Obviously, after centuries, racial inequality in the US remains a fact of life for those negatively effected. Colin Kaepernick is guilty of insufficient obsequiousness to whites holding power. That's his crime. But even if such notions continue, there has been a slow, incremental advance for the rights of african americans. MLK wasn't stupid about this. Mandela wasn't either. Likewise, women's suffrage.

Calls for immediate change - the rejection of incrementalism - come from people of real passion and sincerity and, usually, good faith intentions. But this is also the sector of our populations from where the wild-eyed crazies tend to emerge. Neo-nazis aren't incrementalists.

There aren't many easy answers in this as regards choosing best paths forward. Revolutionary zeal is both necessary and dangerous.

That went on too long. Sorry, my mood is a tad tragic this morning.
roger
 
  2  
Sun 5 May, 2019 02:41 am
@blatham,
Sorry to hear about your mood. Everyone has them, though.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Sun 5 May, 2019 02:59 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
When you read the constitution, do you also ask yourself "What we the people"?

No. Basically you had to be a free white educated person with property or sufficient wealth to be taxed.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sun 5 May, 2019 03:13 am
@glitterbag,
I just thought she'd got into kid's telly.

0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Sun 5 May, 2019 03:26 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Incrementalism is a belief system adopted by progressive people that are more afraid of change and happier with the status quo than they care to admit.

Fear of failure is more like it. And the belief that the system can, and should, always be improved.

The political balance of power suggests that incrementalism is the most successful method of ameliorating the faults of our system. The ACA is an example. Barely squeaking through congress, the putative health insurance legislation was immediately challenged and vital elements of it were stripped by the conservative judicial system. But aspects of it survived, survived long enough to be seen as establishing certain features as expected provisions in any subsequent health care reform. Some twenty million citizens retain access to affordable insurance even if the program is barely limping along in the face of unrelenting criticism and continued attempts at sabotage.

The ACA was "incrementalist". The designers looked at the political landscape and made compromises by keeping many characteristics of the status quo while establishing a few new ground rules. With the polarization of the electorate, carefully stoked by right-wing ideologues for decades, anything more radical would have been politically impossible and no doubt would have suffered even greater hostility in the courts. Providing twenty million low-income families with subsidized insurance is better, incrementally, than putting all our support behind a single-payer socialized system which is rejected by the fearful electorate (the "people"), found unconstitutional, and dismantled by the next administration.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Sun 5 May, 2019 03:40 am
@Lash,
Quote:
People who are desperate to ignore the facts try so hard to make it about the messenger, not the message.


In online (and actual) debate, playing the messenger, and avoiding the message, is foul play. Not that any of the regulars here adhere to the "rules" of online etiquette. It's why we're down to a bare minimum of players here lately.

0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  3  
Sun 5 May, 2019 04:12 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:
Incrementalism is a belief system adopted by progressive people that are more afraid of change and happier with the status quo than they care to admit.
There's not a day that goes by where I don't scream at god for inventing language. "What a way to screw everything up, you jerk" is the complaint.

You're right. Let's clarify what we're talking about. I like to think of it in terms of appetite for risk (courage or at worse temerity) vs risk aversion (aka prudence or at worse cowardness). It stands to reason when we think in those terms that we all stand somewhere on a gradiant of risk aversion -- appetite. So between the foolhardy revolutionary and an over-cautious incrementalist, there may exist quite a few shades of grey.

It also stands to reason that there is no "correct" shade here. In some situations prudence is advised, in others a little risk taking can be rewarded immensely.

In summary, it's not either incrementalist or revolutionary, it's a gradient, and there's no right or wrong answer, so who's to say that a prudent, baby-step approach to things is always the best one, in any and all circumstances?

Quote:
As to incrementalism, one can observe that it is precisely how major social movements have advanced. [...] MLK wasn't stupid about this. Mandela wasn't either. Likewise, women's suffrage.

Mandela was clearly a revolutionary. MLK as well. He used non-violence to rapidely and radically solve an issue: segregation. Of course it didn't solve racism but that's not what he set out to do. Likewise for women suffrage, these girls were quite radical too in my view.

Quote:
Calls for immediate change - the rejection of incrementalism - come from people of real passion and sincerity and, usually, good faith intentions. But this is also the sector of our populations from where the wild-eyed crazies tend to emerge. Neo-nazis aren't incrementalists.

The thing is, just because the enemy is for radical change in the wrong direction, doesn't disqualify radical change in the right direction.
hightor
 
  4  
Sun 5 May, 2019 05:51 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
The thing is, just because the enemy is for radical change in the wrong direction, doesn't disqualify radical change in the right direction.

If your "enemy" is more powerful than you, radical change is not very likely to succeed. Radical change is disqualified when it is a poor strategy for achieving your goals, regardless of your place on the political spectrum.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Sun 5 May, 2019 06:41 am
While Putin conducts cyber warfare abroad he tightens things up at home.

Quote:
Russia has formally adopted a law that gives its government more control over its domestic internet.

The law means the systems that exchange data between the networks forming the Russian internet must share more information with government regulators.

It also lets regulators exert direct control over what Russians can post, see and talk about online when national security is threatened.

Russian net firms have until 1 November to comply with the law.

Widespread protests were mounted in a bid to stop the law being passed.

The legislation is part of a long-running plan within Russia to rely less on networks outside the country to help data reach its destination.

Instead, Russia wants traffic sent between its citizens to stay inside its cyber-borders instead of travelling across international networks, over which it has less control.

To help with this project, Russia is also working on developing its own net address books so it can operate almost autonomously, although this work will not take effect until 2021.

Eventually, the Russian government wants all domestic traffic to pass through routing points over which it has close oversight.

The Putin government has said the law is needed because of ongoing threats from many nations to retaliate over Russian meddling in elections and politics.

Analysis published early in 2019 suggested the law was part of an effort to set up a mass censorship system similar to that operated in China, which tries to scrub out chat about controversial subjects.

Russia has also recently passed laws that ban "disrespect" of the government. Repeat offenders who are blatant in their criticism of the state, its officials and Russian society could face up to 15 days in jail.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-48147515
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Sun 5 May, 2019 06:46 am
@hightor,
Radical change through personal risk is the only possible solution when your enemy is more powerful than you are.

All else is submission of one degree or another.

Like incrementalism, capitulation, denial.
hightor
 
  2  
Sun 5 May, 2019 07:54 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Radical change through personal risk is the only possible solution when your enemy is more powerful than you are.

It's one possible solution but far from the only one. "Personal risk" can mean different things — in the context we're discussing, making legislative changes, it's a bit dramatic. I doubt that assuming more personal risk will change the electoral map or erase the conservative control of the judiciary. I think that exposing the opposition's weakness, ineffectiveness, dishonesty is a more practical path to reform. The opposition isn't nearly as monolithic as we pretend, and there are voters there, ripe for defection to the other side. I don't think that many people are desperate to storm the Bastille and I don't think it will work. This isn't Sudan.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Sun 5 May, 2019 08:10 am
Quote:
https://i.imgur.com/nCzMqo9l.jpg



Horse sense is why a horse didn't vote for Trump.
hightor
 
  3  
Sun 5 May, 2019 08:35 am
@Walter Hinteler,
What does "political correctness" have to do with it? What a complete moron.
revelette1
 
  2  
Sun 5 May, 2019 08:55 am
@hightor,
Quote:
The disqualification was a crushing turn of events for Maximum Security trainer Jason Servis and jockey Luis Saez, who already had begun celebrating what they thought were their first Derby victories.

Instead, previously undefeated Maximum Security was dropped to 17th of 19 horses for veering out turning for home and stacking up War of Will, Long Range Toddy and Bodexpress (also owned by the Wests), according to Barbara Borden, chief steward of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission. Country House, in turn, was brushed by Long Range Toddy.


AP

There will probably be appeals but so far the winning favorite got disqualified for I guess turning around and causing like a domino affect with horses in the race. I guess Trump thinks there shouldn't be rules. (in spite of being from KY, I know little to nothing about horse or horse races..)


Does he got to turn everything political? Now there will probably be a left and right thing with the KY derby which is just ridiculous.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Sun 5 May, 2019 09:09 am
Mueller and House Judiciary Committee tentatively agree on May 15 for his testimony on Russia investigation, House Democrat says
Quote:
Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.), a member of the committee, said on Fox News Sunday that the special counsel and the panel had reached a tentative agreement for his testimony.

The committee has been seeking to hear from Robert S. Mueller III amid disagreements about whether Attorney General William P. Barr mischaracterized the report in his congressional testimony and statements.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.63 seconds on 07/17/2025 at 03:42:11