(10-15-2017 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I can believe the Russians just wanted to cause chaos. i can believe Putin hated Hillary. None of which shows collusion in the slightest. I believe the Facebook ads show they went both ways.

Interesting (and somewhat terrifying) game-theory case here:

If the "Resistance" is correct and Putin *wanted* Trump to win and the Trump campaign in fact colluded, then it is somewhat of a marginal 'victory' for the Resistance, an enormous loss for Trump, and a huge win for Putin.

If Putin rather just wished to 'create confusion and chaos' and there was no 'collusion', the continued chant and push of the "Resistance" has been an enormous time and force multiplier for Putin's goals. In short, in this case the "Resistance" would be an enormous dupe in Putin's favor. In short, if there was no collusion, the continued "Resistance" message would essentially be an enormous ongoing political Viagra for Putin overall.

Given that loss/reward ratio, does one think that the "Resistance" will ever tone down the message for collusion? Seems to me the "Resistance" will be forced to play this card to the absolute Berlin-bunker bitter end, since if not true they have been an absolutely enormous stooge player that has massively increased Putin's original goals. The scorecard would read as the "Resistance" having an utterly enormous loss, Trump a solid win, and Putin a stupendously enormous win.

Terrible three player hand in all cases for the United States as a whole. Utterly devastating loss for the United States in the case that the "Resistance" version is one that is 'concocted to cover up the reasons for a loss'.

This endgame situation (for both cases) is like the layman's translation of the laws of thermodynamics: 1) you can't win; 2) you can't break even; and 3) you can't get out of the game.

My hope is that, whatever the outcome of Mueller's investigation is, that everyone on all sides accepts it as fact and moves on. So if that means they find 0 evidence of collusion, the "Resistance" moves on.

If that means they find ample evidence of collusion, the anti-"Resistance" accepts that and whatever charges come with that, and moves on.

That will be key - accepting the results of the investigation are crucial.

Quote:Your description of the scenarios above is why I believe the intelligence communities assessment that Russia attempted to interfere with the election using various methods (Wikileaks, fake social media accounts, etc). They pretty much had a win-win situation when they found that the Republican candidate's campaign was willing to meet with Russian operatives about dirt. Had they had an unwilling candidate who perhaps immediately went to the press about the contact and didn't try to lie about and obscure meetings with Russian officials, the potential beneficial outcomes for Russia start decreasing.

Quote:But they've thrown enough red meat to the left that it has caused an us vs. them situation between the left and right.

(10-15-2017 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 12:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 11:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I see one very obvious, potential act that could have been Putin trying to help Trump. Within hours of the Access Hollywood tape released about Trump, the Podesta emails were leaked by Wikileaks.
That very easily could have been an attempt to change the narrative and deflect the attention away from Trump and towards Hillary for those on the right.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/18/john-podesta/its-true-wikileaks-dumped-podesta-emails-hour-afte/
There is no reason to rehash what did or didn't help Clinton/Trump. What is important is what actions were taken to try and help. For example, just because you try and murder someone, but don't succeed, doesn't mean that you aren't going to be charged with attempted murder. Intent matters.

That release could have just as easily been coincidental--there would have been some lead time to release things--or done simply to hurt Hillary--she may be scoring some points, so let's hit her now. And the connection between Russia and Wikileaks has not been established, certainly not to the stage supporting a collusion theory.

You're taking a dot here and a dot there, and trying to connect them with very speculative, and very likely non-existent, lines.

And, of course, to you there is no need to determine what did or did not help or hurt anyone, because you've already got your mind made up about who was the boogeyman. You're just waiting for proof to come in.

And you’re doing the exact opposite - saying there are absolutely no dots and no connections. All that means I more apt to believe that Russia was actively trying to hurt Clinton by helping Trump and you aren’t. The investigation is still ongoing so neither of us know who is right.
And I am not saying that the theory I posted is, 100% what happened. I proposed a series of events that could be evidence of a direct Russian attempt to help Donal Trump, if those dots connect. And they connect easily if you believe Wikileaks has just become a wing of the Russian propaganda machine.
You’re not wrong that the timing could have been a coincidence, but I’m not wrong that it could have been intentional - we don’t have all of the facts in the public forum yet.

(10-15-2017 11:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 11:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't see where Putin was trying to help Trump, or why he would have done so. I think he may well have been trying to hurt Hillary. But I see no love between Trump and Putin.

I agree that "deplorables" probably hurt her worse than the leaked emails. But what I think hurt more than anything was Comey's recommendation not to prosecute. Basically what he said was, "She has done X, Y, and Z, which constitute all you need to prove to convict for several crimes, but I recommend not prosecuting." That sent a very strong message that there is a double standard. I listened to Comey and thought, "Wow, if I'd done what she did, I'd be dong 40 in Leavenworth." I think a lot of other people--pretty much anybody who had served in the military and had access to classified information--had to have the same thought.

I see one very obvious, potential act that could have been Putin trying to help Trump. Within hours of the Access Hollywood tape released about Trump, the Podesta emails were leaked by Wikileaks.

That very easily could have been an attempt to change the narrative and deflect the attention away from Trump and towards Hillary for those on the right.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/18/john-podesta/its-true-wikileaks-dumped-podesta-emails-hour-afte/

There is no reason to rehash what did or didn't help Clinton/Trump. What is important is what actions were taken to try and help. For example, just because you try and murder someone, but don't succeed, doesn't mean that you aren't going to be charged with attempted murder. Intent matters.

(10-15-2017 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  ...Russia was actively trying to hurt Clinton by helping Trump...

(10-15-2017 01:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 12:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 11:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I see one very obvious, potential act that could have been Putin trying to help Trump. Within hours of the Access Hollywood tape released about Trump, the Podesta emails were leaked by Wikileaks.
That very easily could have been an attempt to change the narrative and deflect the attention away from Trump and towards Hillary for those on the right.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/18/john-podesta/its-true-wikileaks-dumped-podesta-emails-hour-afte/
There is no reason to rehash what did or didn't help Clinton/Trump. What is important is what actions were taken to try and help. For example, just because you try and murder someone, but don't succeed, doesn't mean that you aren't going to be charged with attempted murder. Intent matters.

That release could have just as easily been coincidental--there would have been some lead time to release things--or done simply to hurt Hillary--she may be scoring some points, so let's hit her now. And the connection between Russia and Wikileaks has not been established, certainly not to the stage supporting a collusion theory.

You're taking a dot here and a dot there, and trying to connect them with very speculative, and very likely non-existent, lines.

And, of course, to you there is no need to determine what did or did not help or hurt anyone, because you've already got your mind made up about who was the boogeyman. You're just waiting for proof to come in.

And you’re doing the exact opposite - saying there are absolutely no dots and no connections. All that means I more apt to believe that Russia was actively trying to hurt Clinton by helping Trump and you aren’t. The investigation is still ongoing so neither of us know who is right.
And I am not saying that the theory I posted is, 100% what happened. I proposed a series of events that could be evidence of a direct Russian attempt to help Donal Trump, if those dots connect. And they connect easily if you believe Wikileaks has just become a wing of the Russian propaganda machine.
You’re not wrong that the timing could have been a coincidence, but I’m not wrong that it could have been intentional - we don’t have all of the facts in the public forum yet.

You are mischaracterizing my posts. I'm not saying there are no dots. There are dots. There are just no lines connecting them, at least not from the facts we have. I'm not saying they could not possibly be connected. I'm just saying that so far they aren't. That being the case, I'm not going to go overboard until they do.

(10-15-2017 01:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I’m not going overboard either. I provided evidence of a potential connection to counter your claim that there was abaolutely nothing that could connect Putin with helping Trump. I even said that the evidence led to a potential outcome, not a certain one. And the uncertainty was why I refrain from stating that anyone DID collude.

(10-15-2017 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 01:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I’m not going overboard either. I provided evidence of a potential connection to counter your claim that there was abaolutely nothing that could connect Putin with helping Trump. I even said that the evidence led to a potential outcome, not a certain one. And the uncertainty was why I refrain from stating that anyone DID collude.

Again, you are mischaracterizing my posts. I have never said anything remotely approaching that there could not possibly be anything connecting Putin to Trump. What I've said is that there is nothing factually evident right now that suggests any sort of collusion. There are certainly isolated data points, but those could very easily have been coincidental or could have involved normal business having nothing to do with any sort of collusion. Is collusion a possible outcome? Certainly. It's possible that Donald Trump is gay. But not likely.

At least you have admitted that there is uncertainty. That's a large step ahead of many of your fellow travelers on the left.

(10-15-2017 04:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 01:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I’m not going overboard either. I provided evidence of a potential connection to counter your claim that there was abaolutely nothing that could connect Putin with helping Trump. I even said that the evidence led to a potential outcome, not a certain one. And the uncertainty was why I refrain from stating that anyone DID collude.

Again, you are mischaracterizing my posts. I have never said anything remotely approaching that there could not possibly be anything connecting Putin to Trump. What I've said is that there is nothing factually evident right now that suggests any sort of collusion. There are certainly isolated data points, but those could very easily have been coincidental or could have involved normal business having nothing to do with any sort of collusion. Is collusion a possible outcome? Certainly. It's possible that Donald Trump is gay. But not likely.
At least you have admitted that there is uncertainty. That's a large step ahead of many of your fellow travelers on the left.

Because being on the left side of the political spectrum means you're a communist. Nice.

(10-15-2017 04:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 04:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 01:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I’m not going overboard either. I provided evidence of a potential connection to counter your claim that there was abaolutely nothing that could connect Putin with helping Trump. I even said that the evidence led to a potential outcome, not a certain one. And the uncertainty was why I refrain from stating that anyone DID collude.

Again, you are mischaracterizing my posts. I have never said anything remotely approaching that there could not possibly be anything connecting Putin to Trump. What I've said is that there is nothing factually evident right now that suggests any sort of collusion. There are certainly isolated data points, but those could very easily have been coincidental or could have involved normal business having nothing to do with any sort of collusion. Is collusion a possible outcome? Certainly. It's possible that Donald Trump is gay. But not likely.
At least you have admitted that there is uncertainty. That's a large step ahead of many of your fellow travelers on the left.

Because being on the left side of the political spectrum means you're a communist. Nice.

Pretty much, yes, if you are left of center left. The whole of leftist political thought has its roots in collectivist theory--just like socialism and communism.

Disagree? Fine, please point out the differences.

(10-15-2017 04:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 04:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Pretty much, yes, if you are left of center left. The whole of leftist political thought has its roots in collectivist theory--just like socialism and communism.
Disagree? Fine, please point out the differences.

So what you're saying is that once you go left of center you're a full fledged communist? In order not to offend you, if that is not what you're saying, and I'm misinterpreting your statement, please explain.
Because it sounds like you're saying there is no difference between believing in full blown communism and believing that some government regulation is necessary on capitalist framework.
And I have no idea what that means for social progressives. Are you suggesting that being in favor of state-sponsored gay marriage, laws protecting LGBTQ individuals from being fired for being LGBTQ, decriminalization/legalization of marijuana or other drugs all of a sudden makes someone a communist?
I understand the theory that the liberal side of the spectrum has similarities with communism/socialism, but having similarities, or even roots in it, does not mean that the political outlook IS that.

(10-15-2017 04:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 04:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 04:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Pretty much, yes, if you are left of center left. The whole of leftist political thought has its roots in collectivist theory--just like socialism and communism.
Disagree? Fine, please point out the differences.

So what you're saying is that once you go left of center you're a full fledged communist? In order not to offend you, if that is not what you're saying, and I'm misinterpreting your statement, please explain.
Because it sounds like you're saying there is no difference between believing in full blown communism and believing that some government regulation is necessary on capitalist framework.
And I have no idea what that means for social progressives. Are you suggesting that being in favor of state-sponsored gay marriage, laws protecting LGBTQ individuals from being fired for being LGBTQ, decriminalization/legalization of marijuana or other drugs all of a sudden makes someone a communist?
I understand the theory that the liberal side of the spectrum has similarities with communism/socialism, but having similarities, or even roots in it, does not mean that the political outlook IS that.

I think what I said is what is bolded, which is not the same as your mischaracterization.

I hope that pro-LGBTQ and decriminalization of drugs makes one a communist, because by that standard I am one.

What I am saying is that wholesale redistribution of income and wealth has its roots in the same collectivist philosophy as do socialism and communism--and fascism too, for that matter. And all require powerful, centralized governments to execute them. And I oppose that.

What I would call social democracy, which most of western Europe has, does have a very comprehensive safety net, but that's based upon a society taking care of its own, not upon massive redistribution. Take a look at their top individual and corporate tax rates to see a big difference. Yes, there are a few with slightly (like 5% or so) higher individual rates, but as many are actually lower, all of them have lower corporate rates. Their philosophy is everybody benefits and everybody pays. That's very different form massive redistribution. And that's where I draw the line.

I'm fine with universal health care (on the Bismarck model, not single payer) and with a guaranteed minimum income. But those are safety net things, not massive redistribution things.

Quote:And I have no idea what that means for social progressives. Are you suggesting that being in favor of state-sponsored gay marriage, laws protecting LGBTQ individuals from being fired for being LGBTQ, decriminalization/legalization of marijuana or other drugs all of a sudden makes someone a communist?

Quote:a person who is intellectually sympathetic to the ideology of a political organization, and who co-operates in the organization's politics, without being a formal member of that organization.

Quote:fellow travelers on the left

(10-15-2017 04:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So then why call me a communist, which you did by saying MY fellow travelers on the left?
Of course there on those on the left who are communist, I just didn't get the need for the jab like that.
Also, mischaracterizing and misunderstanding posts are two different things. I even said that if I misunderstood your post, to please explain. Suggesting I am mischaracterizing your post is suggesting that it is intentional. Misunderstanding your post is not.

(10-15-2017 04:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So what you're saying is that once you go left of center you're a full fledged communist?

(10-13-2017 05:02 PM)ausowl Wrote:  That's unfair to presidents 41 and 43, esp. with respect to outreach to Hispanics.

Off the top of my head, can think of more than a few country club R's starting as early as the 80's through today that spent/spend time and money working against domestic violence and sexual assault.

(10-13-2017 02:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-13-2017 12:28 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-13-2017 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So -- to sum up : Democratic divisive politics == good; Republican divisive politics == bad.

Got it.

I personally find both 'brands" of divisive politics rather disgusting. But, whatever blows your hair back, dude.

Give me an example of liberal "divisive" politics. Genuine question. If you believe, for example, calling out racism and discrimination is the same as appealing to and trying to exacerbate racism, then we don't have much to discuss. But I'm open to the idea that I'm missing something.


Edit: Also, it's not clear to me whether you are agreeing or disagreeing that Trump has been much more divisive than previous presidents.

Perhaps the fact that most Democratic talking points are called out in terms of anything whatsoever being "racist", "sexist", etc.

Hell, even CFRB and Fannie Mae regs are debated from the liberal side with an omnipresent calling out of that.

The fact that everything under the sun is called out in terms of whatever the discrimination de jour for the progressive cause should be evidence enough. I guess not for you.

As for more "divisive" I would rank Obama and Trump about equally. They make the rest of the Presidents look like rank amateurs in that regard.

PS : By the way, I would suggest you actually read about the amendment fight in Alabama. It wasn't just taking language of :

Quote:“Separate schools shall be provided for white and colored children, and no child of either race shall be permitted to attend a school of the other race.”

Had the article you so feverishly posted been accurate and without the sin of omission, it (and you) would have noted that *no one* was against this deletion. Not even White Pointy Hat Snaggle Tooth Evil Ogre Moore.

The Alabama provision *also* sought to strike out the provision that the state did not guarantee the "“right to education or training at public expense.” And the state also had been involved in massive court intervention relating to funding levels for schools that resulted in the courts being the de-facto authority setting taxing and spending levels.

One can debate whether the deletion of the provision is a good idea or a bad idea. but leave it to TPM (and perhaps their readers and followers, I might presume) to brand *any* opposition to the combined deletions as motivated *solely* by "White Pointy Hat" reasons.

So yeah, I'm pretty much sick and tired of the knee-jerk reactions like this; and for that reason I tend to brand this as Democratic divisive politics. Obama and his administration were masterful at this stuff.

Thanks for the absolute crystal clear example there AustinOwl. I mean, why pay attention to the minutiae and other underlying facts when given the opportunity to cast it *solely* in racial terms.

So again, in sum you say:

Democratic knee jerk characterization of everything in racial/whatever discriminatory terms == good;

Republican divisive political actions == bad.

Again, I find both branches disgusting.

(10-16-2017 11:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  So I retract my original statement and will say that over the past 10-15 years the Republican party has been taken over by those who want to turn back the clock on equality and inclusiveness and even basic civil rights.