What drives the anti-anti-Trump left?
basil said:
terp said:
basil said:
terp said:
If you'd like to take issue with the facts or arguments I present, please do. Honestly, your arguments don't contain any substance to take issue with.
Your argument is that "guys like Gaibbi and Dore" are "truth tellers" and if you don't agree with them you take "offense at their objectivity" and you are "tribal". Did I get that about right?
No
You really shouldn't argue with stuff you just posted earlier today (1st and last paragraph):
I assume you're talking about guys like Taibbi, Dore, etc. I think the thing you take objection to is their objectivity. They see things in a much less tribal way than you do.
and:
The truth tellers will always be criticized because they don't cater to the fashionable prejudices of the masses.
How tedious.
If you dismiss them because they don't focus all criticism on Trump and thus you ignore their arguments because TRUMP BAD so anyone not arguing against Trump is BAD, then I think you are just operating on some orthodoxy. What I don't see on this thread is people looking at the arguments of say a Taibbi. they are just complaining that he doesn't focus all of his ire on Trump. Is that clear enough?
ml1 said:
If I'm interpreting Taibbi, Greenwald, nan, paul and the other anti-anti-Trump voices, their complaint is that the CIA and FBI are so terrible, and historically guilty of such abuses, that we should oppose their opposition to Trump. But as I've argued with Paul here, it's possible to hold both thoughts in one's head -- that the IC is indeed guilty of many horrible abuses, while at the same time Trump needs to be held accountable for his own offenses. Taibbi, in his most recent article even concedes that he thinks Trump is guilty of crimes. He just thinks the CIA and FBI are worse.
I wrote this on another thread, but I think the Ukraine incident crosses an important line and Trump needs to be held to account for this. Once he asked Ukraine to investigate a political rival, it became something else. And even if there was no explicit quid pro quo, it's obvious Ukraine is beholden to Trump and is in no position to refuse a "favor." Let's take this further -- what if in 2 years, Elizabeth Warren is in the White House, and calls up Xi and says that she'll slap a bunch of tariffs on China if they don't launch an investigation of Mitch McConnell and Elaine Chao? That's where we are if Trump gets away with what he has already admitted to doing.
Holding Trump accountable for his actions doesn't mean giving a free pass to the CIA and FBI. It's possible to hold all of them accountable for their crimes past and present. Here's a good article on just this very topic:
Donald Trump is a criminal — and impeachment is a murky, amoral struggle. Both these things are true
Of course, I agree with this (though not surprisingly I'm unable to get through that Salon article :-|). Trump is no angel. At the same time, do the Russiagate leaks give anyone pause? Does the use of Opposition Research to gain FISA warrants give anyone pause?
Trump is no Angel, but I would agree that guys like Clapper & Brennan are potentially more dangerous. Presidents come and go, but guys like that stay connected for life.
This stuff started prior to him being sworn in. To a lot of people it seems like many wanted to overturn the electoral process because they didn't like the outcome. The media hysteria around all of this has been sublime, and if I didn't know better it would seem that the Intelligence Community fed that hysteria. Was that in the best interests of our national security?
terp said:
You are always free to explain yourself.
Sure, I can expand a bit on my initial post on this thread.
The American Exceptionalists see things in a very binary way. They can look at someone like Colin Kaepernick, for instance, see him protesting, and conclude that he must hate America.
And yet, the Anti-Exceptionalists are often equally binary in their thinking. You, for instance, see that I don't agree with your point of view, so you conclude that I must have exactly the opposite position on issues that you do.
The world is more complicated than that.
I'll note that the 16th and 17th century heretics, who were more successful than their predecessors and were able to create sustained movements, ended up being pretty intolerant themselves. Rejecting orthodoxy isn't the same as rejecting dogmatism.
PVW said:
terp said:
You are always free to explain yourself.
Sure, I can expand a bit on my initial post on this thread.
The American Exceptionalists see things in a very binary way. They can look at someone like Colin Kaepernick, for instance, see him protesting, and conclude that he must hate America.
And yet, the Anti-Exceptionalists are often equally binary in their thinking. You, for instance, see that I don't agree with your point of view, so you conclude that I must have exactly the opposite position on issues that you do.
The world is more complicated than that.
I'll note that the 16th and 17th century heretics, who were more successful than their predecessors and were able to create sustained movements, ended up being pretty intolerant themselves. Rejecting orthodoxy isn't the same as rejecting dogmatism.
The killing of the poor perpetuated by the Military Industrial Complex in places like Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, etc is objectively wrong. I'm pretty binary on that. You've got me there.
terp said:
PVW said:
terp said:
You are always free to explain yourself.
Sure, I can expand a bit on my initial post on this thread.
The American Exceptionalists see things in a very binary way. They can look at someone like Colin Kaepernick, for instance, see him protesting, and conclude that he must hate America.
And yet, the Anti-Exceptionalists are often equally binary in their thinking. You, for instance, see that I don't agree with your point of view, so you conclude that I must have exactly the opposite position on issues that you do.
The world is more complicated than that.
I'll note that the 16th and 17th century heretics, who were more successful than their predecessors and were able to create sustained movements, ended up being pretty intolerant themselves. Rejecting orthodoxy isn't the same as rejecting dogmatism.
The killing of the poor perpetuated by the Military Industrial Complex in places like Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, etc is objectively wrong. I'm pretty binary on that. You've got me there.
And anyone who does not share your particular outlook is in favor of killing the poor?
I never said that. But its funny the way people tend to react to other news items in context of the savagery we have shown across the globe. And that destruction that we perpetuate is done under both parties.
terp said:
I never said that. But its funny the way people tend to react to other news items in context of the savagery we have shown across the globe. And that destruction that we perpetuate is done under both parties.
And I never said that I'm for the slave trade in modern Libya, yet somehow you've decided I must be. Remind me again how you came to that conclusion?
PVW said:
terp said:
I never said that. But its funny the way people tend to react to other news items in context of the savagery we have shown across the globe. And that destruction that we perpetuate is done under both parties.
And I never said that I'm for the slave trade in modern Libya, yet somehow you've decided I must be. Remind me again how you came to that conclusion?
Mostly it's the antiseptic analysis of the murder of hundreds of thousands like below:
PVW said:
I think it's just Americentrism. Take legitimate criticism of American actions, interpret the entire rest of the world through that lens, and any party advancing a critique of American excesses gets elevated. Whether Putin is or is not a brutal authoritarian is less relevant than the fact that he's an effective counterweight against American imperialism. Whether Assad bombs hospitals and gasses Syrians is less relevant than the fact that he's fighting against an American military presence.
It's a distorted mirror of American exceptionalism. To the degree that it challenges people to question their understanding of America's role in the world, it's healthy and constructive. To the extent that it completely strips agency and context from every country, organization, and cause outside of America, it's destructive and dangerous.
terp said:
PVW said:
terp said:
I never said that. But its funny the way people tend to react to other news items in context of the savagery we have shown across the globe. And that destruction that we perpetuate is done under both parties.
And I never said that I'm for the slave trade in modern Libya, yet somehow you've decided I must be. Remind me again how you came to that conclusion?
Mostly it's the antiseptic analysis of the murder of hundreds of thousands like below:
PVW said:
I think it's just Americentrism. Take legitimate criticism of American actions, interpret the entire rest of the world through that lens, and any party advancing a critique of American excesses gets elevated. Whether Putin is or is not a brutal authoritarian is less relevant than the fact that he's an effective counterweight against American imperialism. Whether Assad bombs hospitals and gasses Syrians is less relevant than the fact that he's fighting against an American military presence.
It's a distorted mirror of American exceptionalism. To the degree that it challenges people to question their understanding of America's role in the world, it's healthy and constructive. To the extent that it completely strips agency and context from every country, organization, and cause outside of America, it's destructive and dangerous.
Ah, so now we're back to "since I don't share your view point, I must have the opposite position on issues that you do."
We've completed the circle. Shall we call it quits, or do you want to have another go at congratulating yourself on your own righteousness?
I'd add that it's American Imperialism that tends to strip agency and context from every country, organization, and cause outside of America. And yes, it's destructive and dangerous.
To not see that is the definition of whistling past the graveyard.
PVW said:
terp said:
PVW said:
terp said:
I never said that. But its funny the way people tend to react to other news items in context of the savagery we have shown across the globe. And that destruction that we perpetuate is done under both parties.
And I never said that I'm for the slave trade in modern Libya, yet somehow you've decided I must be. Remind me again how you came to that conclusion?
Mostly it's the antiseptic analysis of the murder of hundreds of thousands like below:
PVW said:
I think it's just Americentrism. Take legitimate criticism of American actions, interpret the entire rest of the world through that lens, and any party advancing a critique of American excesses gets elevated. Whether Putin is or is not a brutal authoritarian is less relevant than the fact that he's an effective counterweight against American imperialism. Whether Assad bombs hospitals and gasses Syrians is less relevant than the fact that he's fighting against an American military presence.
It's a distorted mirror of American exceptionalism. To the degree that it challenges people to question their understanding of America's role in the world, it's healthy and constructive. To the extent that it completely strips agency and context from every country, organization, and cause outside of America, it's destructive and dangerous.
Ah, so now we're back to "since I don't share your view point, I must have the opposite position on issues that you do."
We've completed the circle. Shall we call it quits, or do you want to have another go at congratulating yourself on your own righteousness?
You seem incapable of expressing your opinion. So, I guess we should call it quits.
terp said:
Of course, I agree with this (though not surprisingly I'm unable to get through that Salon article :-|). Trump is no angel. At the same time, do the Russiagate leaks give anyone pause? Does the use of Opposition Research to gain FISA warrants give anyone pause?
Trump is no Angel, but I would agree that guys like Clapper & Brennan are potentially more dangerous. Presidents come and go, but guys like that stay connected for life.
This stuff started prior to him being sworn in. To a lot of people it seems like many wanted to overturn the electoral process because they didn't like the outcome. The media hysteria around all of this has been sublime, and if I didn't know better it would seem that the Intelligence Community fed that hysteria. Was that in the best interests of our national security?
It’s not hysteria. Trump really is a malignant narcissist criminal con man. It's possible for all the actors in this story to be completely repugnant. Which isn't an excuse to give Trump a free pass.
Russiagate was definitely hysteria. I think CNN ran 8500 stories on it. It was 24X7. They were going to turn off our heat during the arctic blast. He was a puppet. The walls were clexercise. This went on for over 2 years.
The only problem is that there wasn't any proof of any of it. If I didn't know better I would have thought it was a political exercise.
And the free pass thing is a straw man. If there is proof then certainly go after it. I just hope the proof isn't on an IRS hard drive.
terp said:
And the free pass thing is a straw man. If there is proof then certainly go after it. I just hope the proof isn't on an IRS hard drive.
the proof is that Trump admitted leaning on Ukraine to investigate Biden
terp said:
Russiagate was definitely hysteria. I think CNN ran 8500 stories on it. It was 24X7. They were going to turn off our heat during the arctic blast. He was a puppet. The walls were clexercise. This went on for over 2 years.
The only problem is that there wasn't any proof of any of it. If I didn't know better I would have thought it was a political exercise.
horsepoop. CNN ran stories on the Mueller investigation, because it was a big deal. What were they supposed to do - ignore it?
And there was plenty of "proof" in the Mueller report, you just refuse to acknowledge it.
It was you guys who defined "Russiagate" and kept on referring to it as such (a term I rarely heard in the MSM), not the media or anyone else. As nan is more than happy to tell you, I watch CNN a lot - and they never (or very rarely) used the term.
terp said:
When did he do that and what do you mean by "lean on"?
if you're the president of the US, asking for a favor from Ukraine is leaning on them.
He said this:
The conversation I had was largely congratulatory. It was largely corruption—all of the corruption taking place. It was largely the fact that we don’t want our people, like Vice President Biden and his son, creating to [sic] the corruption already in the Ukraine,
Only someone being willfully obtuse would say that wasn't an admission, taken in combination with the White House's own summary of the call.
drummerboy said:
terp said:
Russiagate was definitely hysteria. I think CNN ran 8500 stories on it. It was 24X7. They were going to turn off our heat during the arctic blast. He was a puppet. The walls were clexercise. This went on for over 2 years.
The only problem is that there wasn't any proof of any of it. If I didn't know better I would have thought it was a political exercise.
horsepoop. CNN ran stories on the Mueller investigation, because it was a big deal. What were they supposed to do - ignore it?
And there was plenty of "proof" in the Mueller report, you just refuse to acknowledge it.
It was you guys who defined "Russiagate" and kept on referring to it as such (a term I rarely heard in the MSM), not the media or anyone else. As nan is more than happy to tell you, I watch CNN a lot - and they never (or very rarely) used the term.
Yeah.
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
Russiagate was definitely hysteria. I think CNN ran 8500 stories on it. It was 24X7. They were going to turn off our heat during the arctic blast. He was a puppet. The walls were clexercise. This went on for over 2 years.
The only problem is that there wasn't any proof of any of it. If I didn't know better I would have thought it was a political exercise.
horsepoop. CNN ran stories on the Mueller investigation, because it was a big deal. What were they supposed to do - ignore it?
And there was plenty of "proof" in the Mueller report, you just refuse to acknowledge it.
It was you guys who defined "Russiagate" and kept on referring to it as such (a term I rarely heard in the MSM), not the media or anyone else. As nan is more than happy to tell you, I watch CNN a lot - and they never (or very rarely) used the term.
Yeah.
And how, exactly, is that different than the way the news media normally covers stuff? Shock! They exaggerate! They try to attract viewers to increase their ratings!
You know, the profit driven, market-controlled way of the Hayekians.
You reap what you sow.
terp said:
PVW said:
I'd love to see more objectivity. What I generally see is an inverse American exceptionalism, where instead of never criticizing US policy, there's only criticism of US policy. Such a narrow focus in either a positive or negative direction doesn't strike me as especially objective.
I gotchya. So, you're for the slave trade in modern Libya? You appreciate the lawlessness created in Western Iraq that resulted in a pseudo-state controlled by ISIS running around with American weapons.
You appreciate it when we have CIA backed forces getting in fire fights w/ Pentagon backed forces in Syria. You understand that sometimes your government needs to back Al Qaeda in fighting a suddenly evil dictator whom we used to send people to as part of our extraordinary rendition policies not very long ago.
You support aiding the House of Saud in an effort to kill and maim in Yemen.
You understand that when we run military exercises in eastern Europe right on the Russian border that is all above board, but when in reaction the Russians do the same thing on their side of the border its aggression. You even understand that sometimes you have to perpetuate coups right on Russian's doorstep and when they take steps to ensure their security, that this is just part of some global domination strategy on the part of the wily Putin.
I totally get it. You have to have a really slanted view of the world to take issue with any of this stuff.
This is a great post.
ml1 said:
If I'm interpreting Taibbi, Greenwald, nan, paul and the other anti-anti-Trump voices, their complaint is that the CIA and FBI are so terrible, and historically guilty of such abuses, that we should oppose their opposition to Trump.
This completely misses the point and it confirms what you indicated on another thread, that you make "conclusions" about my posts before you read them.
The complaint about the CIA / FBI is that their opposition to Trump has nothing to do with his real High Crimes -- leaving the Paris Accord, the Iran Nuclear Deal, the INF, eliminating methane limits, gutting Federal science agencies -- but is based on Trump's attacks on the Intelligence Community (see video below) and calls for better relations with Russia. It's also true that their opposition to Trump is based on a fraud that has poisoned our relations with Russia and increased the danger of nuclear war by intention or accident.
drummerboy said:
terp said:
Russiagate was definitely hysteria. I think CNN ran 8500 stories on it. It was 24X7. They were going to turn off our heat during the arctic blast. He was a puppet. The walls were clexercise. This went on for over 2 years.
The only problem is that there wasn't any proof of any of it. If I didn't know better I would have thought it was a political exercise.
horsepoop. CNN ran stories on the Mueller investigation, because it was a big deal. What were they supposed to do - ignore it?
And there was plenty of "proof" in the Mueller report, you just refuse to acknowledge it.
It was you guys who defined "Russiagate" and kept on referring to it as such (a term I rarely heard in the MSM), not the media or anyone else. As nan is more than happy to tell you, I watch CNN a lot - and they never (or very rarely) used the term.
CNN censored anyone who dissented from the Russiagate narrative. So did the rest of the mainstream media. That's why CNN's coverage amounted to brainwashing, not journalism. Which explains why you believe that there was plenty of "proof" in the Mueller report.
terp said:
ml1 said:
terp said:
When did he do that and what do you mean by "lean on"?
if you're the president of the US, asking for a favor from Ukraine is leaning on them.
Oh. I thought you actually had something.
And that's more impeachable that withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear Agreement and INF Treaty?
terp said:
basil said:
terp said:
basil said:
terp said:
If you'd like to take issue with the facts or arguments I present, please do. Honestly, your arguments don't contain any substance to take issue with.
Your argument is that "guys like Gaibbi and Dore" are "truth tellers" and if you don't agree with them you take "offense at their objectivity" and you are "tribal". Did I get that about right?
No
You really shouldn't argue with stuff you just posted earlier today (1st and last paragraph):
I assume you're talking about guys like Taibbi, Dore, etc. I think the thing you take objection to is their objectivity. They see things in a much less tribal way than you do.
and:
The truth tellers will always be criticized because they don't cater to the fashionable prejudices of the masses.
How tedious.
If you dismiss them because they don't focus all criticism on Trump and thus you ignore their arguments because TRUMP BAD so anyone not arguing against Trump is BAD, then I think you are just operating on some orthodoxy. What I don't see on this thread is people looking at the arguments of say a Taibbi. they are just complaining that he doesn't focus all of his ire on Trump. Is that clear enough?
Yes, that makes more sense
paulsurovell said:
terp said:
ml1 said:
terp said:
When did he do that and what do you mean by "lean on"?
if you're the president of the US, asking for a favor from Ukraine is leaning on them.
Oh. I thought you actually had something.
And that's more impeachable that withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear Agreement and INF Treaty?
Yes, because it is against the law, and withdrawing from these agreements (however stupid) is not
paulsurovell said:
This completely misses the point and it confirms what you indicated on another thread, that you make "conclusions" about my posts before you read them.
The complaint about the CIA / FBI is that their opposition to Trump has nothing to do with his real High Crimes -- leaving the Paris Accord, the Iran Nuclear Deal, the INF, eliminating methane limits, gutting Federal science agencies -- but is based on Trump's attacks on the Intelligence Community (see video below) and calls for better relations with Russia. It's also true that their opposition to Trump is based on a fraud that has poisoned our relations with Russia and increased the danger of nuclear war by intention or accident.
Sorry for giving you credit for a better rationale than this one.
We've been through this. Those are not high crimes as long as Trump can plausibly claim to be pursuing "better deals."
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
If I'm interpreting Taibbi, Greenwald, nan, paul and the other anti-anti-Trump voices, their complaint is that the CIA and FBI are so terrible, and historically guilty of such abuses, that we should oppose their opposition to Trump. But as I've argued with Paul here, it's possible to hold both thoughts in one's head -- that the IC is indeed guilty of many horrible abuses, while at the same time Trump needs to be held accountable for his own offenses. Taibbi, in his most recent article even concedes that he thinks Trump is guilty of crimes. He just thinks the CIA and FBI are worse.
I wrote this on another thread, but I think the Ukraine incident crosses an important line and Trump needs to be held to account for this. Once he asked Ukraine to investigate a political rival, it became something else. And even if there was no explicit quid pro quo, it's obvious Ukraine is beholden to Trump and is in no position to refuse a "favor." Let's take this further -- what if in 2 years, Elizabeth Warren is in the White House, and calls up Xi and says that she'll slap a bunch of tariffs on China if they don't launch an investigation of Mitch McConnell and Elaine Chao? That's where we are if Trump gets away with what he has already admitted to doing.
Holding Trump accountable for his actions doesn't mean giving a free pass to the CIA and FBI. It's possible to hold all of them accountable for their crimes past and present. Here's a good article on just this very topic:
Donald Trump is a criminal — and impeachment is a murky, amoral struggle. Both these things are true