|
Post by dradtke on Nov 8, 2018 11:07:33 GMT -5
For the first time in my life I cast a straight line party ballot for a party I don't believe in I assume by that you mean the Republicans. Trump has been preaching for some time about how the midterm elections were all about him, even though he wasn't on the ballot, and he was right. Now you've voted party line for his supporters, even though you say you disagree. That's quite telling.
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 8, 2018 11:08:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 8, 2018 11:24:23 GMT -5
What would it take for me to take this self-important horseshit from the press seriously? Doubt there's anything. Can't figure out why I should care about what the press does. Not like it matters in real time. This is what I do not understand. I know Peter is a very intelligent man who has a lot of political and life experience. He is not racist nor a rich demagogue with an axe to grind. But he buys into Trump's BS. I just cannot understand his, or others', devotion to Trump. I suspect that Peter considers me a lefty from Oregon, but I voted for a republican governor (Buehler). I like guns. I am pretty much into the right to life movement. But how the hell could I possibly support a lying piece of scum like Trump? How could I not want to have a free press that can openly query the president without retaliation? And I suppose that's a fair question fairly asked. The bottom line is that I've never been deluded enough to believe people are somehow above reproach. That somehow striving in the right way lifts us above the pull of original sin. That somehow enough tsk, tsking from the high and mighty will produce a perfected race (as in human race) that will live in blessed harmony and sing the praises of Coca-Cola from the hill tops like in those old commercials. I also understand that the history of human progress is fairly solidly built on the backs of the occasional flaming jackass. I grew up in Dearborn, MI., hometown of the great Henry Ford. Who, among his other accomplishments, was a pretty hardcore prick. I also believe that the worst of our nature can be contained by proper system design. Shit's going to happen. Don't think yourselves above it. Therefore, I believe in the genius of the American political system design (as originally conceived anyways). Put the assholes in a room and see what can survive and thrive. I give anything that can make it out properly the benefit of the doubt (again, the current system is so damn full of holes it's lost all it's original utility, but once that gets corrected I'm good with it). But that hasn't been the case for quite a while since the more self-impressed among us have clearly moved to skirt the original system design to create that which is more obviously holy and worthy of respect in the name of bipartisan comity and harmony. As far as Trump goes, he's doing a fine job as far as I can see (and I've seen a bit). Hell, my paycheck's bigger. And my truck is cool, a life long desire realized. Do I care about Trump's rumored past? No. Reminds me of the old joke, "no ma'am, we've already established what you are. Now we're just haggling over price." I don't personally see you as anything other than a guy like me, muddling through to the best of our ability. Don't really give a damn who you vote for and why, although rational debate is always good. I think it's great if Pelosi wants to accept Trump's offer to work on healthcare. If they want to work the system as it's designed to work, God bless 'em. Whatever the outcome, I'll stand up and salute. If you want me to think Jim Acosta is the hinge democracy works on, you're pissing on my head and telling me it's raining.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 8, 2018 11:55:10 GMT -5
That was well said, Peter.
|
|
|
Post by david on Nov 8, 2018 12:36:25 GMT -5
This is really hard to grasp, but those words are the problem (as I see it). Few are expressing "devotion" any more than those perceiving such "devotion" were "devoted" to Obama or any other leader. Few "buy into" any more than those perceiving the "buying" "buy" into the leaders who -- incompletely, insufficiently, but pragmatically and as the only viable option -- represent their views in Washington. A fellow forumite who despises me and my pov, nevertheless nailed a truth the other day when he opined that the right deserves a better mouthpiece than Trump to express our valid points of view. I agree, and can wish for better. And I will never vote for Trump. But this is where we are stuck. All Republicans who came before could not withstand the Washington power base. Trump is giving it a try. This is really hard to grasp -- especially because it is COMPLETELY unintentional and I understand that lack of intent -- we're all friends here. But what I'm trying to say when I say that characterizing Peter's and Jeff's and my views on Trump (though none of the three of us agree) as "devotion" is insulting. But that's why the press doesn't get it either. Peter, Jeff, and I are paper cutouts to the Washington press. They don't understand our pov and don't care to. John, I was not referring to you or Jeff or Bruce anyone on the board except Peter, who is the only regular here that I have observed regularly defending Trump. The "others" that I had in mind are some of my close friends and relatives. Oddly, it is easier to speak rationally about political issues on this board than it is when I am with said friends and relatives. I appreciate everyone's opinion here and when I ask a serious question of any of the conservative members here I have always received candid and enlightening responses.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Nov 8, 2018 12:38:34 GMT -5
John, what does GIN stand for? I’ve seen you reference it several times and I have no idea what you are talking about. A inter web search did give a interesting look at the history of the alcaholic beverage.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Nov 8, 2018 12:54:08 GMT -5
John, what does GIN stand for? I’ve seen you reference it several times and I have no idea what you are talking about. A inter web search did give a interesting look at the history of the alcaholic beverage. Mike The Gated Institutional Narrative (GIN) as Jeff calls it.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 8, 2018 13:23:47 GMT -5
John, what does GIN stand for? I’ve seen you reference it several times and I have no idea what you are talking about. A inter web search did give a interesting look at the history of the alcaholic beverage. Mike The Gated Institutional Narrative (GIN) as Jeff calls it. It is a term, coined by Eric Weinstein.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 8, 2018 13:38:08 GMT -5
For the first time in my life I cast a straight line party ballot for a party I don't believe in I assume by that you mean the Republicans. Trump has been preaching for some time about how the midterm elections were all about him, even though he wasn't on the ballot, and he was right. Now you've voted party line for his supporters, even though you say you disagree. That's quite telling. Yes, it's quite telling that you don't understand a word I write.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 8, 2018 15:25:36 GMT -5
The Gated Institutional Narrative (GIN) as Jeff calls it. It is a term, coined by Eric Weinstein. Well. I listened to most of the first hour of that report. Quite good and thought provoking. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 8, 2018 15:53:43 GMT -5
Personally, I find Rubin really hard to listen to. Barely a notch above Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow. But he has the ability to get really amazing guests for his show, and Weinstein is one of the best. That guy is just insanely smart.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Nov 8, 2018 16:32:23 GMT -5
Dang, I'd hoped to get some productive writing done today.
I'll make it short. (Relatively.) As to the self-importance issue: I can only speak for myself, naturally, but in the course of my career in journalism, I've covered local police, courts, county school boards, state legislatures, the U.S. Congress, and the White House. I never had the feeling that I personally was important. That thought just never entered my mind – not even to consider before dismissing. What I did think of as important was the work.
I recollect sitting in the East Room during one of Nixon's last press conferences, almost at the very spot where Jim Acosta was when the White House intern tried to grab the mic away from him, and thinking what a privilege it was to be in that spot at that time, basically as a proxy for all the people in America who might have wished to be there themselves, and to ask the questions I and my colleagues were asking in their behalf. Asking without fear of having our credentials revoked, even when the questions were ones that Mr. Nixon would have preferred not to have been address.
I did that work during the regimes of Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan. My reportage was syndicated by my employer, Congressional Quarterly, in newspapers large and small all over the country, and I did a daily radio show here in DC called "Report on Congress with Donald Smith." And I took all of that as important work, indeed.
Second observation: so much of this thread has involved the ancient and honorable institution of tribalism. Which is a shame, and also a diversion. If the Obama White House had suspended the credentials of a reporter because Obama got his back up about a particular line of questioning (and Obama has famously complained about his treatment by press - make fun of that fact if you feel you need to, but just look at the record) some members of this forum would have gone batshit.
Third: one can complain about Acosta's aggressive behavior. But have another look at that press conference. Trump was blowing his top under questioning by, among others, an African-American correspondent who asked about Trump's claim that he was a "nationalist," and whether that had any connotation of so-called white nationalism. A perfectly legitimate question that could have been easily handled by anyone not infected by a volcanic temperament. Trump chose to lecture the woman for asking what he considered a "racist" question.
In Acosta's case, the atmosphere in the room was visibly drifting into the character of a brawl. Acosta had barely gotten his words out before Trump exploded. We TV viewers actually got to witness, live, in real time, one of the mental episodes that have been described by a growing number of credible people. The intern tried to grab the mic away, and Acosta – far from attacking her – drew back, and tried again to get his question in.
For that, he is now denied entrance onto the White House grounds. They have every right to do that, if that’s the road they want to go down. But we in the press have every right to continue reporting on them, whether from the East Room or out on Pennsylvania Avenue with the White House in distant view. In all honesty, I never found the daily press briefings very helpful anyway: they were mostly dog-and-pony shows. All of my important reporting was done through sources - including very highly placed ones.
I repeat how I began this thread, that the suspension of Acosta's press credentials, as an act of retribution, is an attack on all Americans who value a press that does not cow-tow to the party or person in power. It is an attack on all reporters who are not inclined to sit down and shut up when they are ordered to.
If my brothers and sisters currently working in that vineyard were to ask me, I would tell them what they already know. This disgusting behavior on the part of this White House is an attack of all of us in our functionings as part of the fourth estate. I will be very interested in seeing how the corps reacts, knowing that if Trump can do this to Acosta, he can do it to anybody. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, I would say: it tolls for thee.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 8, 2018 16:41:29 GMT -5
I've run searches through Google and Duck Duck Go to find a decent overview of Weinstein's GIN notion from Weinstein and find videos (which I refuse to sit through) and Twitter threads (which strike me as suboptimal as a format for exploring such an idea). Has he bothered to write a piece at more-than-tweet length outlining exactly how this is supposed to work? I also find references to third-party discussions of his "intellectual dark web" notion but nothing from W. himself.
I confess that a lot of this reminds me of the kind of new gnosticism I've been seeing since I first encountered National Review conservatism around 1960. "Hey--stop listening to those left-wing elites. Listen to me and my elites instead."
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 8, 2018 16:57:14 GMT -5
Reagan's term ended January 20th, 1989. I started at Ford doing powertrain development on January 3, 1989. There were still cars with carburetors at that point.
Didn't get a computer with a dial up internet connection until roughly 5 years later and didn't get a cell phone for the car until probably 2 years after that.
That was a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 8, 2018 17:07:11 GMT -5
" Third: one can complain about Acosta's aggressive behavior. But have another look at that press conference. Trump was blowing his top under questioning by, among others, an African-American correspondent who asked about Trump's claim that he was a "nationalist," and whether that had any connotation of so-called white nationalism. A perfectly legitimate question that could have been easily handled by anyone not infected by a volcanic temperament. Trump chose to lecture the woman for asking what he considered a "racist" question."
IMHO, no, that's a BS question. Nationalist is the opposite of Globalist, nothing more. A Nationalist believes in independent and sovereign countries. A globalist is one of those "One-world" utopians who doesn't have a clue and therfore calls nationalists racists. You don't even know that Mexican isn't a race it's a nationality.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 8, 2018 17:34:08 GMT -5
Nationalist is the opposite of Globalist, nothing more. A Nationalist believes in independent and sovereign countries. A globalist is one of those "One-world" utopians who doesn't have a clue and therfore calls nationalists racists. You don't even know that Mexican isn't a race it's a nationality. As I've posted elsewhere, language changes, but nevertheless words have histories. And contexts. And implications and associations and connotations. Then there's the matter of false dichotomies, which requires a different reading list to correct.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 8, 2018 17:56:27 GMT -5
Nationalist is the opposite of Globalist, nothing more. A Nationalist believes in independent and sovereign countries. A globalist is one of those "One-world" utopians who doesn't have a clue and therfore calls nationalists racists. You don't even know that Mexican isn't a race it's a nationality. As I've posted elsewhere, language changes, but nevertheless words have histories. And contexts. And implications and associations and connotations. Then there's the matter of false dichotomies, which requires a different reading list to correct. Which is your opinion and justification for calling someone who believes that the U.S. is a great sovereign country a racist? Right? The bible according to Russell.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 8, 2018 18:12:04 GMT -5
Huh?
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 8, 2018 18:36:07 GMT -5
Let me be clear then. You think "Nationalist" means "White Supremacist" because it fits your worldview. I think "Nationalist" doesn't mean much of anything beyond believing in ones own country. I google the word and it says: "Dictionary na·tion·al·ist /ˈnaSH(ə)nələst/ noun noun: nationalist; plural noun: nationalists 1. a person who advocates political independence for a country. "a Scottish nationalist" a person with strong patriotic feelings, especially one who believes in the superiority of their country over others. adjective adjective: nationalist 1. relating to nationalists or nationalism. "a nationalist movement" " So I'm right except that it doesn't match your world view so I'm wrong. Which means you're full of it, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Nov 8, 2018 18:57:04 GMT -5
Bruce, all Russ said was word meanings vary over time, in various cultures, amid fluid world events, etc., which is true. I don't see any evidence of Russ saying that "nationalist" now equates to "racist."
|
|