Author Topic: The Many Faces of US Politics...  (Read 864327 times)

seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21571
    • View Profile
Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« Reply #13035 on: October 08, 2018, 07:50:30 PM »
Again, whitey, tell me the primary sources of your information.
Looks like the Koch bros
Those biscuits are for the visitors

seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21571
    • View Profile
Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« Reply #13036 on: October 08, 2018, 08:01:30 PM »
You can’t understand the US unless you live there is a version of what in philosophy  is referred to as the “practical man” fallacy, the idea that nothing can exist with any meaning outside immediate physical experience. In football it is known as the “never kicked a ball in your life” theory.

Twitter is free. The NYT is $60 for an online sub.
Those biscuits are for the visitors

sid waddell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1728
    • View Profile
Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« Reply #13037 on: October 08, 2018, 08:12:26 PM »


I love how somebody who lives in Ireland is so infatuated, and so much more knowledgeable on US politics than somebody living here. But then again likes most Dems you are probably intellectually superior to the rest of us.  ::)

I love it too, maybe you could love it enough to get as knowledgeable yourself? I don't think the issue is intellectual superiority, but probably more around level of effort to get facts from factual sources.
To be fair, it's pretty much undeniable that there is a strong causative effect between lack of intellect and getting your "news" and "facts" from non-factual sources.


seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21571
    • View Profile
Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« Reply #13038 on: October 08, 2018, 08:20:25 PM »
Klobuchar’s intro here is on the ball.  What is going on in the US right now is not normal

https://youtu.be/OSoYmY4LoX8

Take it away maestro

https://mobile.twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1049359227003781120/video/1
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 08:56:31 PM by seafoid »
Those biscuits are for the visitors

omaghjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3168
    • View Profile
Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« Reply #13039 on: October 08, 2018, 09:08:14 PM »


I love how somebody who lives in Ireland is so infatuated, and so much more knowledgeable on US politics than somebody living here. But then again likes most Dems you are probably intellectually superior to the rest of us.  ::)

I love it too, maybe you could love it enough to get as knowledgeable yourself? I don't think the issue is intellectual superiority, but probably more around level of effort to get facts from factual sources.

Thats not the issue, even if people accept facts they will elevate or demote their importance depending on wether of not it supports their point/causes/man/party.

Sure politicians speeches and retoric have always been littered with inaccuracies and fallacies to make their point. But people dont care, they like what their saying and thats that

Dolph1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« Reply #13040 on: October 08, 2018, 09:11:30 PM »
Gmac being fast and loose with the truth again re: Franken.

He wasn't filmed groping a sleeping woman




He was just explaining to a colleague what Brett Kavanaugh did to Christine Blasey Ford.

On a related topic - Anyone hear any more about Keith Ellison (the democrat vice chair) and the allegations made against him?
I'd expect the #MeToo movement are making his life hell these days.

sid waddell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1728
    • View Profile
Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« Reply #13041 on: October 08, 2018, 11:14:19 PM »
Required reading by Peter Beinart which blows the transparently bogus "false equivalence" "both sides" narrative out of the water.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/has-american-politics-hit-rock-bottom/572452/?utm_source=twb

Civility Has Its Limits
The conflict over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination centered not on tribalism, but on a lack of justice.

Peter Beinart
Professor of journalism at the City University of New York

When it comes to Brett Kavanaugh, there are three camps. The first believes it’s a travesty that he was confirmed. The second believes it’s a travesty that he was smeared. The third believes it’s a travesty that the process was so divisive.

David Brooks is in the third camp. The Kavanaugh hearings, he wrote on Friday, constituted an “American nadir.” You often hear such phrases from people who think the biggest problem with the Kavanaugh battle is that the participants weren’t more courteous and open-minded. Jeff Flake said that in debating Kavanaugh, the Senate “hit bottom.” Susan Collins called it “rock bottom.” Think about that for a second. For most of American history, Supreme Court nominees—like virtually all powerful men—could sexually assault women with complete impunity. Now, because allegations of such behavior sparked a raucous, intemperate political fight, America has hit “rock bottom,” a “nadir.” How much better things were in the good old days, when sexual-assault allegations didn’t polarize the confirmation process, because sexual-assault victims were politically invisible.

Implying, as Brooks, Flake, and Collins do, that America’s real problem is a lack of civility rather than a lack of justice requires assuming a moral equivalence between Brett Kavanaugh’s supporters and Christine Blasey Ford’s. “What we saw in these hearings,” writes Brooks, “was the unvarnished tribalization of national life.” The term tribe implies atavistic, amoral group loyalty: Huns versus Franks, Yankees versus Red Sox, Hatfields versus McCoys. There are no larger principles at stake. “There was nothing particularly ideological about the narratives,” laid out by Kavanaugh and Ford, Brooks declares, “nothing that touched on capitalism, immigration or any of the other great disputes of national life.”


But gender is indeed one of the “great disputes of national life.” The Kavanaugh fight pitted people who worry that #MeToo hasn’t changed America enough, that it’s still too easy for men to get away with sexual assault, against people who fear that #MeToo has changed America too much, that it’s become too easy for women to ruin men’s lives by charging them with sexual assault. That’s not a tribal struggle; it’s an ideological one. It involves competing visions of the relationship between women and men.

Describing Democrats and Republicans as warring tribes has become a political cliché, but it’s wrong. If tribal implies unthinking or inherited group loyalty, then Democrats and Republicans were actually more tribal in the mid-20th century. Back then, when being a Democrat or a Republican signified less about your view of the world, party identity was more a function of regional or ancestral ties. Whether or not they supported civil rights or higher taxes or the Korean War, Irish Catholics from Boston were mostly Democrats; Presbyterians from Kansas were mostly Republicans. Today, party identity is more a function of what you believe. The parties are so bitterly polarized not because they’ve become more tribal but because they’ve become more ideological.

But for Brooks, depicting the supporters of Kavanaugh and Ford as tribes is useful because it doesn’t only suggest moral equivalence, it also implies an equivalence of power. The “tribalization” of American politics, Brooks argues, “leads to an epidemic of bigotry. Bigotry involves creating a stereotype about a disfavored group and then applying that stereotype to an individual you’ve never met. It was bigotry against Jews that got Alfred Dreyfus convicted in 1894. It was bigotry against young black males that got the Central Park Five convicted in 1990. It was bigotry against preppy lacrosse players that led to the bogus Duke lacrosse scandal.”


This is misleading. There is no equivalence between the “bigotry” faced by preppy lacrosse players and that faced by black males. There’s no equivalence, because preppy lacrosse players, in general, enjoy far more privilege and power and thus, the stereotypes people hold of them don’t generally land them in jail or dead. Similarly, there is no equivalence between the “bigotry” faced by men accused of sexual assault and the “bigotry” faced by women who suffer it. There’s no equivalence, because men wield far more power. If you don’t think that matters, try imagining Kavanaugh getting confirmed by a Senate composed of 79 women.

The struggle over Kavanaugh was, at its core, a struggle between people who want gender relations to change and people who want them to remain the same. And throughout American history, whenever oppressed groups and their supporters have agitated for change, respectable moderates have warned that they were fomenting incivility and division. In April 1963, seven white Alabama ministers and one rabbi wrote a letter to Martin Luther King Jr.. The letter articulated no position on segregation and the right to vote. It assumed, instead, a moral equivalence between blacks who wanted race relations to change and whites who wanted them to remain the same. Both sides held “honest convictions in racial matters.” Both “our white and Negro citizenry” should “observe the principles of law and order and common sense.”

The real danger, the authors claimed, was “friction and unrest.” Averting it required “forbearance” and “restraint” on both sides. King, whose Birmingham campaign was titled “Project C”—for confrontation—was purposefully fomenting such friction and unrest through marches, sit-ins, and boycotts. While “technically peaceful,” the ministers and rabbi warned, the “extreme measures” adopted by King and his supporters “incite to hatred and violence.”


In his response, written from jail, King argued that the white clergymen were mistaking symptom for disease. The problem wasn’t “friction and unrest” between Birmingham’s two tribes. It was centuries of oppression, which there was no frictionless way to overcome. “I am not afraid of the word ‘tension,’” King explained. “We must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”

Even as Bull Connor’s men savagely beat black protesters in the streets, King recognized that Birmingham was not hitting “rock bottom.” It was rising from an almost century-long nadir in which white supremacy—no matter how murderous—was barely even a subject of political controversy, in which black powerlessness was the foundation on which comity between two of America’s white-dominated political parties rested.

The problem that the Kavanaugh struggle laid bare is not “unvarnished tribalism.” The problem is that women who allege abuse by men still often face male-dominated institutions that do not thoroughly and honestly investigate their claims. That problem is not new; it is very old. What is new is that this injustice now sparks bitter partisan conflict and upends long-standing courtesies. Rape survivors yell at politicians in the Senate halls. The varnish—the attractive, glossy coating that protected male oppression of women—is coming off. Brooks, Collins, and Flake may decry the “tension” this exposes. But, as King understood, the “dark depths of prejudice” can’t be overcome any other way.

whitey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2473
    • View Profile
Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« Reply #13042 on: October 08, 2018, 11:55:02 PM »
Required reading by Peter Beinart which blows the transparently bogus "false equivalence" "both sides" narrative out of the water.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/has-american-politics-hit-rock-bottom/572452/?utm_source=twb

Civility Has Its Limits
The conflict over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination centered not on tribalism, but on a lack of justice.

Peter Beinart
Professor of journalism at the City University of New York

When it comes to Brett Kavanaugh, there are three camps. The first believes it’s a travesty that he was confirmed. The second believes it’s a travesty that he was smeared. The third believes it’s a travesty that the process was so divisive.

David Brooks is in the third camp. The Kavanaugh hearings, he wrote on Friday, constituted an “American nadir.” You often hear such phrases from people who think the biggest problem with the Kavanaugh battle is that the participants weren’t more courteous and open-minded. Jeff Flake said that in debating Kavanaugh, the Senate “hit bottom.” Susan Collins called it “rock bottom.” Think about that for a second. For most of American history, Supreme Court nominees—like virtually all powerful men—could sexually assault women with complete impunity. Now, because allegations of such behavior sparked a raucous, intemperate political fight, America has hit “rock bottom,” a “nadir.” How much better things were in the good old days, when sexual-assault allegations didn’t polarize the confirmation process, because sexual-assault victims were politically invisible.

Implying, as Brooks, Flake, and Collins do, that America’s real problem is a lack of civility rather than a lack of justice requires assuming a moral equivalence between Brett Kavanaugh’s supporters and Christine Blasey Ford’s. “What we saw in these hearings,” writes Brooks, “was the unvarnished tribalization of national life.” The term tribe implies atavistic, amoral group loyalty: Huns versus Franks, Yankees versus Red Sox, Hatfields versus McCoys. There are no larger principles at stake. “There was nothing particularly ideological about the narratives,” laid out by Kavanaugh and Ford, Brooks declares, “nothing that touched on capitalism, immigration or any of the other great disputes of national life.”


But gender is indeed one of the “great disputes of national life.” The Kavanaugh fight pitted people who worry that #MeToo hasn’t changed America enough, that it’s still too easy for men to get away with sexual assault, against people who fear that #MeToo has changed America too much, that it’s become too easy for women to ruin men’s lives by charging them with sexual assault. That’s not a tribal struggle; it’s an ideological one. It involves competing visions of the relationship between women and men.

Describing Democrats and Republicans as warring tribes has become a political cliché, but it’s wrong. If tribal implies unthinking or inherited group loyalty, then Democrats and Republicans were actually more tribal in the mid-20th century. Back then, when being a Democrat or a Republican signified less about your view of the world, party identity was more a function of regional or ancestral ties. Whether or not they supported civil rights or higher taxes or the Korean War, Irish Catholics from Boston were mostly Democrats; Presbyterians from Kansas were mostly Republicans. Today, party identity is more a function of what you believe. The parties are so bitterly polarized not because they’ve become more tribal but because they’ve become more ideological.

But for Brooks, depicting the supporters of Kavanaugh and Ford as tribes is useful because it doesn’t only suggest moral equivalence, it also implies an equivalence of power. The “tribalization” of American politics, Brooks argues, “leads to an epidemic of bigotry. Bigotry involves creating a stereotype about a disfavored group and then applying that stereotype to an individual you’ve never met. It was bigotry against Jews that got Alfred Dreyfus convicted in 1894. It was bigotry against young black males that got the Central Park Five convicted in 1990. It was bigotry against preppy lacrosse players that led to the bogus Duke lacrosse scandal.”


This is misleading. There is no equivalence between the “bigotry” faced by preppy lacrosse players and that faced by black males. There’s no equivalence, because preppy lacrosse players, in general, enjoy far more privilege and power and thus, the stereotypes people hold of them don’t generally land them in jail or dead. Similarly, there is no equivalence between the “bigotry” faced by men accused of sexual assault and the “bigotry” faced by women who suffer it. There’s no equivalence, because men wield far more power. If you don’t think that matters, try imagining Kavanaugh getting confirmed by a Senate composed of 79 women.

The struggle over Kavanaugh was, at its core, a struggle between people who want gender relations to change and people who want them to remain the same. And throughout American history, whenever oppressed groups and their supporters have agitated for change, respectable moderates have warned that they were fomenting incivility and division. In April 1963, seven white Alabama ministers and one rabbi wrote a letter to Martin Luther King Jr.. The letter articulated no position on segregation and the right to vote. It assumed, instead, a moral equivalence between blacks who wanted race relations to change and whites who wanted them to remain the same. Both sides held “honest convictions in racial matters.” Both “our white and Negro citizenry” should “observe the principles of law and order and common sense.”

The real danger, the authors claimed, was “friction and unrest.” Averting it required “forbearance” and “restraint” on both sides. King, whose Birmingham campaign was titled “Project C”—for confrontation—was purposefully fomenting such friction and unrest through marches, sit-ins, and boycotts. While “technically peaceful,” the ministers and rabbi warned, the “extreme measures” adopted by King and his supporters “incite to hatred and violence.”


In his response, written from jail, King argued that the white clergymen were mistaking symptom for disease. The problem wasn’t “friction and unrest” between Birmingham’s two tribes. It was centuries of oppression, which there was no frictionless way to overcome. “I am not afraid of the word ‘tension,’” King explained. “We must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”

Even as Bull Connor’s men savagely beat black protesters in the streets, King recognized that Birmingham was not hitting “rock bottom.” It was rising from an almost century-long nadir in which white supremacy—no matter how murderous—was barely even a subject of political controversy, in which black powerlessness was the foundation on which comity between two of America’s white-dominated political parties rested.

The problem that the Kavanaugh struggle laid bare is not “unvarnished tribalism.” The problem is that women who allege abuse by men still often face male-dominated institutions that do not thoroughly and honestly investigate their claims. That problem is not new; it is very old. What is new is that this injustice now sparks bitter partisan conflict and upends long-standing courtesies. Rape survivors yell at politicians in the Senate halls. The varnish—the attractive, glossy coating that protected male oppression of women—is coming off. Brooks, Collins, and Flake may decry the “tension” this exposes. But, as King understood, the “dark depths of prejudice” can’t be overcome any other way.

Bullsh1t.....it was a democratic hit job and delay tactic that backfired and I’m delighted he got confirmed.

Not a shred of evidence that Kavanaugh was involved in anything apart from underage drinking and poor judgement about what he wrote in his yearbook. FFS her best friend who was supposedly present said she had no knowledge of such a gathering and that she didn’t even know BK

(Seemingly/supposedly the FBI have text messages where people close to Dr Ford tried to coax Ms Keyser to change her original statement)

But, believe what you want.....it’s a free country.

« Last Edit: October 09, 2018, 12:08:43 AM by whitey »

sid waddell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1728
    • View Profile
Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« Reply #13043 on: October 09, 2018, 12:43:12 AM »


Bullsh1t.....it was a democratic hit job and delay tactic that backfired and I’m delighted he got confirmed.


As a hardcore Republican and an outright misogynist, well, duh you're delighted.

You forgot the "salty liberal tears" bit there.

Must do better.

Gmac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
    • View Profile
Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« Reply #13044 on: October 09, 2018, 03:04:05 AM »
You can’t understand the US unless you live there is a version of what in philosophy  is referred to as the “practical man” fallacy, the idea that nothing can exist with any meaning outside immediate physical experience. In football it is known as the “never kicked a ball in your life” theory.

Twitter is free. The NYT is $60 for an online sub.
danny Healy Rae is making a big speech tomorrow about the price of round bales should be good

omaghjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3168
    • View Profile
Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« Reply #13045 on: October 09, 2018, 05:55:53 AM »
You can’t understand the US unless you live there is a version of what in philosophy  is referred to as the “practical man” fallacy, the idea that nothing can exist with any meaning outside immediate physical experience. In football it is known as the “never kicked a ball in your life” theory.

Twitter is free. The NYT is $60 for an online sub.

It gives you context and an understanding that you don't have and cant experience by reading about it with preconceived notions. You cant choose who you meet in the same way as you can choose what you read so it exposes you to perspectives at a personal perspective that you just cant get working from concepts alone.

I'll give you an example. I know a couple of fellas one is Hispanic (whatever that is) the other is Asian (sort of). both young, educated, fairly nerdy, good jobs, good craic, decent lads. To you or me or any1 else they come across as down to earth, smart and normal.. But what do they do their free time? They drive out into their desert to drink beer and shoot guns at shitty targets they set up. I get a good ole laugh outta this cos to me its the most hillbilly thing I ever heard of. Now they hate Trump think he and most Republicans are morons but if you try and tell them they shouldn't be allowed to shoot their guns in the desert in the desert because some psychopath shot up a school they wouldn't think its ridiculous or be outraged or anything else... they would just laugh their heads off as to to them what you are saying would be completely illogical. A German fella got into it with them about guns once and starting citing all these countries with low gun crime rates, it soon shutup when they asked him about Switzerland (he didnt have a clue incidentally!) Now I don't know how they vote, I suspect blue but if the right GOP candidate came along they would vote for them in a flinch.

Now this is the thing you don't get about reading politics in America you don't get the one on one interaction with people, so you don't really get to understand where they are coming from and how genuine they are.
You dont get a feel of the vastness of opinions, eventually you find out that everyone has a different opinion, no one it turns out fits the mould of a typical righty or liberal. And these people come in all shapes, shades, ages and places.
You dont get how politics affects you personally, your income, healthcare, roads, rent, crime in your area. And how you feel about that. You can hypothessze all you want about how you'll feel but the truth is... you just dont know until your in that situation.

Also... never kicked a ball is very true you would know it if ye ever did. I could never tell how good a footballer some is until I played agin or with them , it just gives you a perspective that you cant get when your watching in the stands....and commenting on American politics from Ireland well I am afraid your only watching in the stands.

And most Americans would think its hilarious that you even are watching from the stands, the only people that take notice of you are eejits like me expats...a good portion of whom cant or don't vote.

seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21571
    • View Profile
Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« Reply #13046 on: October 09, 2018, 06:37:25 AM »
You can’t understand the US unless you live there is a version of what in philosophy  is referred to as the “practical man” fallacy, the idea that nothing can exist with any meaning outside immediate physical experience. In football it is known as the “never kicked a ball in your life” theory.

Twitter is free. The NYT is $60 for an online sub.

It gives you context and an understanding that you don't have and cant experience by reading about it with preconceived notions. You cant choose who you meet in the same way as you can choose what you read so it exposes you to perspectives at a personal perspective that you just cant get working from concepts alone.

I'll give you an example. I know a couple of fellas one is Hispanic (whatever that is) the other is Asian (sort of). both young, educated, fairly nerdy, good jobs, good craic, decent lads. To you or me or any1 else they come across as down to earth, smart and normal.. But what do they do their free time? They drive out into their desert to drink beer and shoot guns at shitty targets they set up. I get a good ole laugh outta this cos to me its the most hillbilly thing I ever heard of. Now they hate Trump think he and most Republicans are morons but if you try and tell them they shouldn't be allowed to shoot their guns in the desert in the desert because some psychopath shot up a school they wouldn't think its ridiculous or be outraged or anything else... they would just laugh their heads off as to to them what you are saying would be completely illogical. A German fella got into it with them about guns once and starting citing all these countries with low gun crime rates, it soon shutup when they asked him about Switzerland (he didnt have a clue incidentally!) Now I don't know how they vote, I suspect blue but if the right GOP candidate came along they would vote for them in a flinch.

Now this is the thing you don't get about reading politics in America you don't get the one on one interaction with people, so you don't really get to understand where they are coming from and how genuine they are.
You dont get a feel of the vastness of opinions, eventually you find out that everyone has a different opinion, no one it turns out fits the mould of a typical righty or liberal. And these people come in all shapes, shades, ages and places.
You dont get how politics affects you personally, your income, healthcare, roads, rent, crime in your area. And how you feel about that. You can hypothessze all you want about how you'll feel but the truth is... you just dont know until your in that situation.

Also... never kicked a ball is very true you would know it if ye ever did. I could never tell how good a footballer some is until I played agin or with them , it just gives you a perspective that you cant get when your watching in the stands....and commenting on American politics from Ireland well I am afraid your only watching in the stands.

And most Americans would think its hilarious that you even are watching from the stands, the only people that take notice of you are eejits like me expats...a good portion of whom cant or don't vote.

Whether or not you think people can understand something without direct experience depends on how your brain works. Some people can only do what they know.

What is going on in the US now is fascinating. An economic system is dying. The richest 1% own around 50% of everything. The GOP has managed to convince people that this is fine.
Those biscuits are for the visitors

omaghjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3168
    • View Profile
Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« Reply #13047 on: October 09, 2018, 07:15:42 AM »
You can’t understand the US unless you live there is a version of what in philosophy  is referred to as the “practical man” fallacy, the idea that nothing can exist with any meaning outside immediate physical experience. In football it is known as the “never kicked a ball in your life” theory.

Twitter is free. The NYT is $60 for an online sub.

It gives you context and an understanding that you don't have and cant experience by reading about it with preconceived notions. You cant choose who you meet in the same way as you can choose what you read so it exposes you to perspectives at a personal perspective that you just cant get working from concepts alone.

I'll give you an example. I know a couple of fellas one is Hispanic (whatever that is) the other is Asian (sort of). both young, educated, fairly nerdy, good jobs, good craic, decent lads. To you or me or any1 else they come across as down to earth, smart and normal.. But what do they do their free time? They drive out into their desert to drink beer and shoot guns at shitty targets they set up. I get a good ole laugh outta this cos to me its the most hillbilly thing I ever heard of. Now they hate Trump think he and most Republicans are morons but if you try and tell them they shouldn't be allowed to shoot their guns in the desert in the desert because some psychopath shot up a school they wouldn't think its ridiculous or be outraged or anything else... they would just laugh their heads off as to to them what you are saying would be completely illogical. A German fella got into it with them about guns once and starting citing all these countries with low gun crime rates, it soon shutup when they asked him about Switzerland (he didnt have a clue incidentally!) Now I don't know how they vote, I suspect blue but if the right GOP candidate came along they would vote for them in a flinch.

Now this is the thing you don't get about reading politics in America you don't get the one on one interaction with people, so you don't really get to understand where they are coming from and how genuine they are.
You dont get a feel of the vastness of opinions, eventually you find out that everyone has a different opinion, no one it turns out fits the mould of a typical righty or liberal. And these people come in all shapes, shades, ages and places.
You dont get how politics affects you personally, your income, healthcare, roads, rent, crime in your area. And how you feel about that. You can hypothessze all you want about how you'll feel but the truth is... you just dont know until your in that situation.

Also... never kicked a ball is very true you would know it if ye ever did. I could never tell how good a footballer some is until I played agin or with them , it just gives you a perspective that you cant get when your watching in the stands....and commenting on American politics from Ireland well I am afraid your only watching in the stands.

And most Americans would think its hilarious that you even are watching from the stands, the only people that take notice of you are eejits like me expats...a good portion of whom cant or don't vote.

Whether or not you think people can understand something without direct experience depends on how your brain works. Some people can only do what they know.

What is going on in the US now is fascinating. An economic system is dying. The richest 1% own around 50% of everything. The GOP has managed to convince people that this is fine.


Politics is not conceptual like mathematics, quantum mechanics or metaphysics, its start point is a human experience not some macro analysis ... the only way to fully understand it is by living that experience.

Its like watching a film if you wanted to understand a film would you read a load of reviews or would you watch the film

Kickham csc

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« Reply #13048 on: October 09, 2018, 11:14:00 AM »
You can’t understand the US unless you live there is a version of what in philosophy  is referred to as the “practical man” fallacy, the idea that nothing can exist with any meaning outside immediate physical experience. In football it is known as the “never kicked a ball in your life” theory.

Twitter is free. The NYT is $60 for an online sub.

It gives you context and an understanding that you don't have and cant experience by reading about it with preconceived notions. You cant choose who you meet in the same way as you can choose what you read so it exposes you to perspectives at a personal perspective that you just cant get working from concepts alone.

I'll give you an example. I know a couple of fellas one is Hispanic (whatever that is) the other is Asian (sort of). both young, educated, fairly nerdy, good jobs, good craic, decent lads. To you or me or any1 else they come across as down to earth, smart and normal.. But what do they do their free time? They drive out into their desert to drink beer and shoot guns at shitty targets they set up. I get a good ole laugh outta this cos to me its the most hillbilly thing I ever heard of. Now they hate Trump think he and most Republicans are morons but if you try and tell them they shouldn't be allowed to shoot their guns in the desert in the desert because some psychopath shot up a school they wouldn't think its ridiculous or be outraged or anything else... they would just laugh their heads off as to to them what you are saying would be completely illogical. A German fella got into it with them about guns once and starting citing all these countries with low gun crime rates, it soon shutup when they asked him about Switzerland (he didnt have a clue incidentally!) Now I don't know how they vote, I suspect blue but if the right GOP candidate came along they would vote for them in a flinch.

Now this is the thing you don't get about reading politics in America you don't get the one on one interaction with people, so you don't really get to understand where they are coming from and how genuine they are.
You dont get a feel of the vastness of opinions, eventually you find out that everyone has a different opinion, no one it turns out fits the mould of a typical righty or liberal. And these people come in all shapes, shades, ages and places.
You dont get how politics affects you personally, your income, healthcare, roads, rent, crime in your area. And how you feel about that. You can hypothessze all you want about how you'll feel but the truth is... you just dont know until your in that situation.

Also... never kicked a ball is very true you would know it if ye ever did. I could never tell how good a footballer some is until I played agin or with them , it just gives you a perspective that you cant get when your watching in the stands....and commenting on American politics from Ireland well I am afraid your only watching in the stands.

And most Americans would think its hilarious that you even are watching from the stands, the only people that take notice of you are eejits like me expats...a good portion of whom cant or don't vote.

Whether or not you think people can understand something without direct experience depends on how your brain works. Some people can only do what they know.

What is going on in the US now is fascinating. An economic system is dying. The richest 1% own around 50% of everything. The GOP has managed to convince people that this is fine.

And mainstream Democrats as well, it's all based on the American mentality; if you work hard enough you can make it too.

When you talk to republicans and democrats (in NJ, as the differences between the two have regional variances), the conversations will centre around the following arguments, big government 'v' small government, new immigrants needing to adapt to America, not the other way around ''v' America should be set up to ease entry into American society (immigrant support services). immigration policy, (economic immigrant policy 'v' family immigrant policy), and lastly taxes.

During discussions that I've had, I've always found them to being interesting, and the rep and demo leaning people have honest points.

For example, Rep attitude to taxes, lower corp taxes to encourage company's to employ more people in USA with better paid jobs which in turn helps pull people out of poverty 'v' high taxes to support the poor with benefits

These are the debates that you will exposed to while living in America, debates that you wont hear in the news channels.

 

seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21571
    • View Profile
Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« Reply #13049 on: October 09, 2018, 01:35:33 PM »
You can’t understand the US unless you live there is a version of what in philosophy  is referred to as the “practical man” fallacy, the idea that nothing can exist with any meaning outside immediate physical experience. In football it is known as the “never kicked a ball in your life” theory.

Twitter is free. The NYT is $60 for an online sub.

It gives you context and an understanding that you don't have and cant experience by reading about it with preconceived notions. You cant choose who you meet in the same way as you can choose what you read so it exposes you to perspectives at a personal perspective that you just cant get working from concepts alone.

I'll give you an example. I know a couple of fellas one is Hispanic (whatever that is) the other is Asian (sort of). both young, educated, fairly nerdy, good jobs, good craic, decent lads. To you or me or any1 else they come across as down to earth, smart and normal.. But what do they do their free time? They drive out into their desert to drink beer and shoot guns at shitty targets they set up. I get a good ole laugh outta this cos to me its the most hillbilly thing I ever heard of. Now they hate Trump think he and most Republicans are morons but if you try and tell them they shouldn't be allowed to shoot their guns in the desert in the desert because some psychopath shot up a school they wouldn't think its ridiculous or be outraged or anything else... they would just laugh their heads off as to to them what you are saying would be completely illogical. A German fella got into it with them about guns once and starting citing all these countries with low gun crime rates, it soon shutup when they asked him about Switzerland (he didnt have a clue incidentally!) Now I don't know how they vote, I suspect blue but if the right GOP candidate came along they would vote for them in a flinch.

Now this is the thing you don't get about reading politics in America you don't get the one on one interaction with people, so you don't really get to understand where they are coming from and how genuine they are.
You dont get a feel of the vastness of opinions, eventually you find out that everyone has a different opinion, no one it turns out fits the mould of a typical righty or liberal. And these people come in all shapes, shades, ages and places.
You dont get how politics affects you personally, your income, healthcare, roads, rent, crime in your area. And how you feel about that. You can hypothessze all you want about how you'll feel but the truth is... you just dont know until your in that situation.

Also... never kicked a ball is very true you would know it if ye ever did. I could never tell how good a footballer some is until I played agin or with them , it just gives you a perspective that you cant get when your watching in the stands....and commenting on American politics from Ireland well I am afraid your only watching in the stands.

And most Americans would think its hilarious that you even are watching from the stands, the only people that take notice of you are eejits like me expats...a good portion of whom cant or don't vote.

Whether or not you think people can understand something without direct experience depends on how your brain works. Some people can only do what they know.

What is going on in the US now is fascinating. An economic system is dying. The richest 1% own around 50% of everything. The GOP has managed to convince people that this is fine.


Politics is not conceptual like mathematics, quantum mechanics or metaphysics, its start point is a human experience not some macro analysis ... the only way to fully understand it is by living that experience.

Its like watching a film if you wanted to understand a film would you read a load of reviews or would you watch the film
Politics now is a function of economics.
Sometimes experience is not a reliable guide to the future. Climate change is an example
Those biscuits are for the visitors