I would agree with you if we lived in a world where being a bad person was actually viewed as disqualifying...but that's not the world we live in. And because of that, if we dispense with the idea that you need to at least pretend to be a good person to hold elected office, the idea that you need to at least pretend to be a good person in society in general gets eroded along with it.

Look at how emboldened certain people have become to yell "go back to where you came from, Trump's gonna kick you out" at minorities because of his campaign. Is that a good thing, that these people are showing (at the expense of all the people who now suffer increased abuse) who they really are?

I'm sure some would argue "yes", but I would argue that we were better off when racists actually felt scared and ashamed enough to sit in the shadows, shut the **** up, and keep their evil thoughts to themselves.

I would argue yes. The reason i say that is because it leads to conversation which leads to improvement in my opinion. It's very anecdotal and many years ago, but that sentiment was expressed by a black guy i was talking to. He wanted to know who the people are that hate him without knowing him.

And politics aside, I feel the same way. If people are pre judging me for some reason, I would like to know. Then I have the choice to engage them and change their minds, ignore them, or identify them as a threat that should be eradicated somehow.

Mongidig. Could you elaborate on how you conclude "it appears to be self defense"


After that, and totally unrelated, would you mind posting what you scored on the SAT? Disregard if you are not in the US or did not take it.

I am genuinely curious, thanks

The reporter was jamming his recorder in his face and wouldn't stop. No means no! Just terrible.

I sirry I not in US of A. What is this SAT! I did not take anything. I no thief.

So why do you care so much about American politics? I'm not in the UK so I don't post in the UK politics thread in the other forum, as an example.

Because they do not have khazitstan forum here. I like America...USA#1

My wife and sister was born in USA....Shes a great women!

American politics affects everyone around the world (esp the western world), so we all have a stake and a right to participate in discussing it.

It's Kazakhstan, Borat.

It's a grievance against hypocrisy. But I go back and forth on it, really. Should we denigrate Trump for being the despicable and unworthy person he is, or should we soberly focus on the issues and maintain civility?

By denigrating Trump (with blazing obscenities and so fourth) we are being honest and rounding out the criticism of him. Plus it is gratifying. It also seems to have tactical significance, like how Gore was basically mocked and ridiculed down into a close race with the last village idiot to inhabit the presidency.

The downside is we are indulging in a personal politics which very often turns off the undecided and gives democratic elites (and their corporate masters) cover to avoid the actual issues. "Vote for me because Trump is dumb, not because I am going to do anything for you." Another downside is increasing the solidarity of the right. Those people feed off of hate. Hate is sustenance to them, feeding their inborn belligerency.

Looking back it seems like the democratic contribution to the discourse decided to drop civility in favor of mocking and ridiculing Trump and his supporters on a very personal level. Ok fine. Maybe that was the right play despite the outcome. But once you do that it is hypocritical to turn around and accuse the other side of lowering civility standards.

Trump's being a moronic, anti-fact, conspiracy theorizing, woman degenerating, racist, authoritarian, lying huckster is pretty relevant to his job performance.

So, I guess calling him fat and saying he has small hands is pointless mocking?

I'm not sure that isn't a welcome development in the near term. I don't think that the usual propagandized idealism seen up until Trump was a positive manipulation. The array of "spreading democracy and humanitarian values" pretexts for what is actually pure savagery is insidious in so far as it has worked to deceive people. I would rather have an enemy who means what they say as opposed to one who is a cunning liar who can manipulate masses of people onto their side, against their own interests.

Of course, the WWII fascists were also more honest in that way so there is probably a case to be made the other way.

An etiology of the current political tone is actually a bit more involved than space or my immediate knowledge permits. But I'll give it a shot. I think the republicans started it under Reagan but the "place" is maintained by both parties now. The destruction of unions is at the heart of it, which is why republicans are more responsible initially. Other tactical innovations by republicans, outgrowths of their "southern strategy" and a philosophy of exploiting irrational fears, such as those made by Lee Atwater, also helped set the tone. The essential dynamic is that republicans destroyed the traditional funding base of the democrats when they destroyed unions. This gave an opening for corporations to increase their influence over the democratic party as it needed funding parity with the republican party.

What do elections look like when a (somewhat) hidden corporate constituency controls all the major parties? Pretty much what you see now. The goal is to narrow the discussion to less critical matters and fill the remaining void with personal attacks and other entertainment so that politicians have minimal accountability to the actual policy preferences of the electorate because they are not even discussed. Imagine you are a multi-national corporation who has purchased politicians. You've been getting an amazing ROI historically but the thought of someone actually being elected who has a mandate to act on behalf of the people still gives you the occasional nightmare- it could technically happen. A candidate body slamming someone or a sculpture of naked Trump is exquisite to you, like the sound of Mario punching out gold coins from bricks except they are REAL GOLD COINS!

Mainstream democrats will not "go high" because they know they are not supposed to since going high basically means focusing on issues. Going low, dragging down the politics, is what their controllers want. It might turn out, however, that as people drop out of the parties (independents now the majority minority) that the electorate will be less inclined to pay attention to planned distractions as partisanship is a major component of the distractions. If you're not a democrat you are going to be less likely to cheer on John Stewart ripping the republicans a new one for policies also carried out by the democrats.

Remember, Bernie Sanders did very well this last season while running a super clean campaign, all the while the democratic machinery maligning him unfairly, constantly slinging mud about "Bernie bros", violence (lol), etc., not to mention rigging debates and so on. "Bernie bros" smears is what the democratic party is all about, and they only beat Bernie by cheating.

Meanwhile, Sanders went from being (nationally) unknown and saddled with the "socialist" label to arguably actually winning the democratic nomination. And he did this while being virtually blacked out early on from the corporate controlled media (which also plays a major role in setting the tone). So don't sit up and tell me going high doesn't work because somehow the republicans managed to high jacked the sensibilities of the American public so successfully that now going low is all that appeals to voters. Bernie Sanders, staying high, is currently the most popular politician in the country, and polls suggest he might have one the whole thing had he been the nominee.

A lot of true statements about Trump would be trivial mockery when said of others, so it might be true that you can't honestly appraise Trump without appearing to rude, overly personal, or otherwise out of bounds.

You might casually call most any politician a huckster, taking some small liberties to do so in consideration of any number of their actions. And those who value a cleaner politics might accurately call out your claim as mud slinging. Trump, on the other hand, is an actual huckster by the plain legal definition. But when you call him that it sounds just like when you're calling any politician that, and so it isn't taken as literally as it should. In this way someone like Trump seems to really benefit from what our politics has become. In an politics era abounding with frivolous accusations of serious failings, those with actual serious failings can be just one of the crowd.

The dem party is pretty well known for the idea that they deserve more of the wealth created by others. I'm not sure the best criticism of repubs is that they think the deserve more than what they have.

I'm in the wealthy loser group.

You are making things up and pulling them out of your ass, again.

Let's say someone enjoys yelling "go back to where you came from, Trump's going to kick you out" to minorities, but isn't actually racist, just likes trolling and offending people. Would you think someone doing that is a good thing?

If not, then why is that behavior morally acceptable if the person is actually racist? Do you think authenticity is sufficient for an action to be moral? It doesn't matter what you believe, just so long as you believe it?

My disagreement with this view is that I think people should acknowledge that they have evil impulses and desires that they should fight against. If you or someone else is pre-judging someone for a bad reason, such as racism, then you/they should attempt to restrain themselves from acting on that evil prejudice, including insulting people. I can understand that the person being insulted might feel a sense of relief in having their suspicions of prejudice confirmed, but that doesn't make it right to act on that prejudice.

Racist?

Only proves that he will follow the money on all fours wherever it is.

And that gormless grin was still present 30 years ago.

Why oh why instead of employing him didn't Tyson just take him out with one punch?

Do you seriously think Mike Tyson would have him as an adviser if he thought for one second he was a racist?

Pure genius. Or simple, honest analysis. Since the later is so rare, it appears as the former. Thank you for the honesty. You have inspired me to continue/expand my criticisms of conservatives.

Tyson was probably too thick and surrounded by too many people who wanted a slice of him that he probably couldn't tell who was a racist and who wasn't.

Tyson is far from thick if you actually know anything about him.

Didn't Tyson blow hundreds of millions of dollars and have to declare bankruptcy at least partly because he had a lot people taking advantage of him?

Edit: He seems to think that's what happened at least.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/24/inve...on-bankruptcy/

"I can't even call them leeches. That's too decent of a word to call them."

Yeah, he was taken advantage of by some managers and hangers-on, most notably Don King.

But he still supports Donald Trump and even endorsed him during the election.

I don't get the origin/point of this Tyson derail. Ben Carson supports Trump too, to the point of serving in his administration (and I'm sure one or two other black people are somewhere in the White House too), and like 8%? of black people voted for him. Is your point just that no white dude who's ever had a black friend could possibly be a racist?