The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

[babe]

Well, Gone With the Wind, while one of the greatest movies ever, did portray slavery unrealistically and in a good light.

Might be more accurate to say it portrayed slavery "realistically" in terms of what the Southern plantations owners preferred to see it as. No doubt there were some slaves who were appreciated, even loved, by their owners much better than Chevron appreciates or loves its free-ranging "slaves", or say some slaughterhouse/meatpacker values its "illegal immigrant" cheap labor. The "Me Too" people obviously don't feel our elites have really made all that much progress, and one way or another our elites, our "managers", and our "owner" class today exploits us all regardless of our melanin or lack thereof, just as horribly and efficiently as the slave owners ever did.

But hey, we get to find our own little apartments to live in, and pay the bills for, and quarrel with the landlords over the plumbing. And we get to sit in front of flat-screened TVs to take our daily propaganda and worship our owners and their star entertainers, at least when we're not on the job or sleeping, whatever time that is.....

I'm sure OB calls all that "Progress".

Blackwell got it right. Property is what creates all other rights. Property is equivalent, as a right, to "Life". Unless a human has access to the resources of the good earth, enough to supply food and fiber and weapons for defense, we can be nothing more than slaves under any political system.

Life depends on the stuff we can control and use for ourselves.

 

[One Brow]

"Race" or "racism" is a false construct for any argument, any discussion.... as well as the other isms you embrace.

Of course. All categorizations are, at their heart, false. They are abstractions that allow us to simplify a complex world.

Once you accept the hypothesis as relevant, you are mired in the mud of your own definitions.

Sure. If you have a better way, bring it on.

I see the discussions built from such stuff as artificial, like strings on a puppet.... as a device used to manipulate others of presumably no intelligence and presumptively no real "stuffing" we could call "life". You make humans mere objects. You dehumanize us all, by resorting to such arguments.

"Discussions" is a false construct. You lumping all different kinds of interactions based on a few identifiable features. "Humans" is a false construct, applied to very distinct organisms based on a commonality of ancestry.

We use labels because they describe things. The label "discussion" refers to an interaction with certain basic features, the label "human" refers to organisms with a specific ancestry, and the label "racism" refers to behaviors with specific effects.

It is human nature, and in fact, in various respects, the nature of all living things, to respond to whatever is perceived, in either a positive or negative way. Single celled organism are evidently doing that as soon as we can recognize their abilities or methods. Everything responds to nutrition by selectively absorbing it across cell membranes, already equipped with sites for transport, or with tactics like engulfing, redefining boundaries.

The attempt to moralize it positively or negatively is your own determination to be "the boss" of others. Political idealism or not, it is just that stupid.

1) So, your position is that when societies refuse to let black people ride in certain seats on the bus, sit at specific lunch counters, or go to specific public schools, this is neither morally positive nor morally negative?

2) You think calling out someone else for poor behavior is the same as asserting control over their lives?

The decision to recognize others positively, whatever they are, and to posit positive rights and respect them, is better made by focusing not on the problems you presume to fix, but on the positive values you wish to embrace.

History says otherwise.

hmmm..... I think I just said.... It's better to respect others than to preach to them......

OK, there is no way we can really escape our humanity and leave all our beliefs or notions behind and make it cleanly into your damn Utopia, and there is no reason we should want to. And, apparently, there is no place where we can escape from your determination to impose your beliefs on us.

I agree that any utopia, if possible, is so far off that I would probably not recognize it if I were to see it.

I find your last sentence ironic, since by your standard, here you are imposing your belief on me.

 

[babe]

Naturally, since it's not a problem for you. I've seen people make similar comments about sexism, homophobia, ablism, etc. People often feel that when they are not affected by a problem, it's not a real problem.

The problem is in your head, not his.



Did it occur to you that, as a person not affected by racism, perhaps your opinion on what is racist is not particularly reliable or authoritative?

please.... focus on your words here....."your opinion on what is racist is not particularly reliable or authoritative".....

please, apply the logic to yourself.



Can there be racist actions without racist intent?

Since "racist" is only a word people use negatively or positively, and the meaning exists variably in the heads of the people using the word, it fails as an objective standard relating either religious, moral, scientific or legal "fact" in any discussion.

Make up some other damn word people can use any way they want, and make of crime of it, too. Your logic would be the same, and the political use of the word would be the same.

Here's one: "Socialist".

Can there be criminal actions without criminal intent? Can there be socialist actions without socialist intent?

Can there be virtuous actions without virtuous intent?

You say people often feel that when they are not affected by a problem, it's not a real problem. A problem for who? A "problem" in the abstract, is pretty much a useless discussion.

You seem to want to infer that people who are not even thinking of "race" or skin color as morbidly preoccupied with its relevance. I'd say that if you have to start any discussion of any human interaction as necessarily influenced negatively by "race" or skin color, you've got a problem with imposing your imagination on the subject.

I'd also say we are all "racist" in various ways, some positive and some negative, and that it's nobody's business unless we are objectively damaging another person's rights or being very unfair or hurtful intentionally. Beyond that, we all have the right to love what we love, to be comfortable with who and what we are, and to choose our friends accordingly. Most people hurt themselves most in their bigotry, in their prejudices, and in their ignorance of all kinds.

Learning to appreciate others who are in some superficial way "different" is a high human accomplishment, and an advantage in the business of life and the joy of life. Learning to appreciate others who are substantiatively different in belief, in culture, or values, is an even higher accomplishment. When you can get along with people whatever they are, you are doing yourself a great favor.

And, OB, this little sermonette is just to say, I really hate the political use of people's problems to push a false political agenda like Progressivism, where the intent is to legislate, regulate, and totally dominate human beings for the express power of the little ruler class.

 

[babe]

Of course. All categorizations are, at their heart, false. They are abstractions that allow us to simplify a complex world.



Sure. If you have a better way, bring it on.



"Discussions" is a false construct. You lumping all different kinds of interactions based on a few identifiable features. "Humans" is a false construct, applied to very distinct organisms based on a commonality of ancestry.

We use labels because they describe things. The label "discussion" refers to an interaction with certain basic features, the label "human" refers to organisms with a specific ancestry, and the label "racism" refers to behaviors with specific effects.



1) So, your position is that when societies refuse to let black people ride in certain seats on the bus, sit at specific lunch counters, or go to specific public schools, this is neither morally positive nor morally negative?

So, all through the sixties I was just mystified about the news. I'd never been to the South. I lived out West where my grandpa prayed long prayers for the Blessings of the Lamanites, and my mother sent me back to the barn if a plate of bacon, eggs, and a pitcher of orange juice when I came back from milking the cows and said there were men sleeping in the hay. Piutes, mostly.

Not good business, turning out customers or fussing over seating in a bus for no good reason. Shouldn't need laws to overcome stupidity. But rights are absolute. Some argue that if you own the joint, you get to make the rules, like JFC for example. I argue that "Open to the Public" means equally open, regardless of your politics or pigmentation.

2) You think calling out someone else for poor behavior is the same as asserting control over their lives?

It is when you are a politician arguing "There oughtta be a Law". Or, for that matter a horrified grandma who doesn't like the new neighbors...… You know how Grandma has to be obeyed......

Totalitarian authority has always been the most efficient and effective discipline, I suppose. Trying to organize ourselves on principles like human rights, equality, and understanding differences that are not necessarily evil..... that takes a determined principle...…





History says otherwise.

sad, if true. And I know I'd have to scramble to find a contrary example. But I was referring the principle we can and should choose, not our history.



I agree that any utopia, if possible, is so far off that I would probably not recognize it if I were to see it.

I find your last sentence ironic, since by your standard, here you are imposing your belief on me.

In regard to that last sentence, in the context of my otherwise throwing out all kinds of comments about how intractable you are and how hopeless it seems to divert you from your course, you could at least laugh at it all, and accept that I have recognized the futility of imposing my beliefs.

The difference between us, I think, might be my more complete rejection of "government" and "law" as means for imposing anything on other humans.

That would leave my arguments pretty much out there as free gifts anyone can chose to think about, or not. But in my mind, I would be horrified if anyone just took what I write as "scripture" and stopped there with all further effort to move the discussion forward somehow.

 

[Red]

This Twitter thread is for those Trump supporters, Trump apologists, and Trump rationalizers who believe Never Trumpers somehow owe them an apology....



Hmm. Funny, I had the same experience, from the moment he rode down that escalator:

 

[One Brow]

Naturally, since it's not a problem for you. I've seen people make similar comments about sexism, homophobia, ablism, etc. People often feel that when they are not affected by a problem, it's not a real problem.

The problem is in your head, not his.

Actually, the problem is how people get treated. The identification of this problem as "racism" is in certain heads, including mine.

please.... focus on your words here....."your opinion on what is racist is not particularly reliable or authoritative".....

please, apply the logic to yourself.

I agree. I am not a good authority on which actions are racist or not. Mostly, I read and consider the opinions of people who are affected by those actions, or similar actions, on a regular basis.

However, in this particular discussion, JazzyFresh was complaining about what "the left" does. I was not identifying any particular act as racist.

Can there be racist actions without racist intent?

Since "racist" is only a word people use negatively or positively, and the meaning exists variably in the heads of the people using the word, it fails as an objective standard relating either religious, moral, scientific or legal "fact" in any discussion.

Make up some other damn word people can use any way they want, and make of crime of it, too. Your logic would be the same, and the political use of the word would be the same.

Here's one: "Socialist".

Can there be criminal actions without criminal intent?

I'm pretty sure the answer, legally, is "yes".

Can there be socialist actions without socialist intent?

I'm not sure what "socialist intent" means.

Can there be virtuous actions without virtuous intent?

That's a great philosophical question. Do actions in and of themselves have a property of virtue? If so, then yes.

You say people often feel that when they are not affected by a problem, it's not a real problem. A problem for who? A "problem" in the abstract, is pretty much a useless discussion.

You seem to want to infer that people who are not even thinking of "race" or skin color as morbidly preoccupied with its relevance. I'd say that if you have to start any discussion of any human interaction as necessarily influenced negatively by "race" or skin color, you've got a problem with imposing your imagination on the subject.

How about if you only start some discussions as influenced by race?

I'd also say we are all "racist" in various ways, some positive and some negative, and that it's nobody's business unless we are objectively damaging another person's rights or being very unfair or hurtful intentionally. Beyond that, we all have the right to love what we love, to be comfortable with who and what we are, and to choose our friends accordingly. Most people hurt themselves most in their bigotry, in their prejudices, and in their ignorance of all kinds.

Agreed, with the understanding that even though they hurt themselves most, people with negative feelings/action based on race still hurt others as well.

Learning to appreciate others who are in some superficial way "different" is a high human accomplishment, and an advantage in the business of life and the joy of life. Learning to appreciate others who are substantiatively different in belief, in culture, or values, is an even higher accomplishment. When you can get along with people whatever they are, you are doing yourself a great favor.

Agreed.

And, OB, this little sermonette is just to say, I really hate the political use of people's problems to push a false political agenda like Progressivism, where the intent is to legislate, regulate, and totally dominate human beings for the express power of the little ruler class.

OK.

 

[One Brow]

In regard to that last sentence, in the context of my otherwise throwing out all kinds of comments about how intractable you are and how hopeless it seems to divert you from your course, you could at least laugh at it all, and accept that I have recognized the futility of imposing my beliefs.

The difference between us, I think, might be my more complete rejection of "government" and "law" as means for imposing anything on other humans.

That would leave my arguments pretty much out there as free gifts anyone can chose to think about, or not. But in my mind, I would be horrified if anyone just took what I write as "scripture" and stopped there with all further effort to move the discussion forward somehow.

You may have a more elevated opinion of humans than I. Without law, I see humanity as descending into force-based hierarchical structures where the few on the top answer to nothing at all except more force.

 

[PJF]

 

[Deleted member 365]

Actually, Donald is the one calling it the “New Hoax.” It appears that he’s the one politicizing this because he knows that the markets that he took full credit for are tanking. In this video he brags about how no American has died and downplays how dangerous the virus is. Information that is already laughably outdated.


If Donald wasn’t trying to politicize this, why would he brag about how no American had died? Seems odd. Wouldn’t he say it’s a dangerous disease and we’re taking precautions? Why brag about how no American had died?

Funny to me that Russia investigation was a hoax and the impeachment was a hoax. Both seemed to have actually happened. Russia absolutely tipped the scale in his favor and his own chief of staff told us to get over their quid pro quo. Those weren’t hoaxes. And now with Americans dying, it’ll be hard for Donald to claim that their deaths are hoaxes and not real. I’m sure their cold bodies and caskets will feel quite real to many Americans quite soon.

Somethinh tells me @Heathme that this “hoax” ain’t going anywhere no matter what your boy Barr or Donald say

 

[JazzyFresh]

This poor thread is all but dead but I didn't know where to put this. Good question for some of you here...

 

[JazzGal]

This poor thread is all but dead but I didn't know where to put this. Good question for some of you here...

Since I hadn't heard about this yet, it is hard to condemn it already. But if this is what he said in this context, it seems quite out of line.

 

[JazzGal]

Chief Justice John Roberts' statement, with which I agree:

Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare statement rebuking Chuck Schumer for comments the Senate minority leader made about Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Schumer, speaking at a rally of abortion rights supporters, appeared to threaten Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's two Supreme Court nominees who were confirmed after bruising nomination fights.

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions," Schumer said.

In a statement Wednesday afternoon, Roberts said: "This morning, Senator Schumer spoke at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while a case was being argued inside. Senator Schumer referred to two Members of the Court by name and said he wanted to tell them that 'You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.' Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...naugh-and-gorsuch/ar-BB10KY6n?ocid=spartanntp

We get the government we deserve.