USA Politics

[drogulus]

A McGuffin?

     It's the name of something also called the "fallacy of purity", like so:

     A: No Scotsman would equate Zionism with Nazism

     B: I know a Scotsman who did that

     C: Yes, but No True Scotsman would

     

[71 dB]

A McGuffin?

People are becoming witty around here... 

[milk]

Pretty much the same fascist philosophy (ethnostate, blood & soil, reclaiming lost land that really belongs to them, etc)

Loath as I am to respond to neo-Nazis, I would say that all sides are in conflict over those things in the parentheses. It's also true that the largest demographic group in Israel identifies as being from the region. Ashkenazis are a slightly smaller grouping. I have an old friend on Facebook that is extreme left - the kind of people who hate the Democrats worse than republicans. Not just them, but a lot of people I come across decry, in principle, the idea of a state based on religion and oppose a two-state solution. This is the choice of the perfect over the good and a recipe for never ending strife.
Speaking of my far left FB friends: is anybody noticing the extradition hearing of Julian Assange and the concomitant legislation proposed by Gabbard?

[Todd]

Kind of weak sauce hearings yesterday, judging by some of the highlights that made it to nightly propaganda broadcasts.  More color is available on the interwebs, of course.  I enjoy how some Dems get all pissy when a nominee explicitly invokes the Ginsburg Rule.  I also did not believe, until I watched myself, the opening questions from Senator Hirono.  No doubt she has her supporters, and no doubt some/many/most/all of her supporters might say she behaved in a principled manner, but her opening two questions were daffy by any reasonable standard.  Ah, Dems!

[Todd]

Support for Barrett nomination ticks up to 48 percent: poll

I forgot, are poll numbers meaningful measures when appointing SCOTUS judges? 

[Florestan]

Support for Barrett nomination ticks up to 48 percent: poll

I forgot, are poll numbers meaningful measures when appointing SCOTUS judges?

According to my understanding of the US system, appointing SCOTUS judges is the prerogative of the POTUS who is not legally bound in any way to take into account polls in thsi respect.

Am I wrong?

[Todd]

According to my understanding of the US system, appointing SCOTUS judges is the prerogative of the POTUS who is not legally bound in any way to take into account polls in thsi respect.

Am I wrong?

The president nominates and the Senate confirms.  Of course, the point is that some people want to pretend as though polls mean something.  Some people appear to confuse polls with democratic processes and outcomes, or with the Constitution itself.  A Biden campaign spokeswoman attempted to conflate constitutionality and polling just this past weekend, for instance.

[Florestan]

The president nominates and the Senate confirms.  Of course, the point is that some people want to pretend as though polls mean something.  Some people appear to confuse polls with democratic processes and outcomes, or with the Constitution itself. A Biden campaign spokeswoman attempted to conflate constitutionality and polling just this past weekend, for instance.

I see.

Let's suppose the reverse situation: a Democratic incumbent-but-most-probably-already-ex-POTUS having a Senate majority and facing a vacancy in the SCOTUS only two month prior to the elections. I do wonder: would s/he not nominate their favorite for the position, letting instead their Republican successor to do that?

[Todd]

Let's suppose the reverse situation: a Democratic incumbent-but-most-probably-already-ex-POTUS having a Senate majority and facing a vacancy in the SCOTUS only two month prior to the elections. I do wonder: would s/he not nominate their favorite for the position, letting instead their Republican successor to do that?

Of course not. 

As you know, the situation was sort of reversed in the last year of Obama's term.  Obama nominated poor, poor Merrick, but McConnell had the power to prevent the nomination from going through, so he did so.  Dems have been butthurt ever since.  Now, very surprisingly, Dems have adopted some of the very same arguments that Republicans used during the Garland fiasco.  And vice versa.

Democrats, though, being both more intelligent and more moral people than anyone else on earth, are quick to point out how the situations are very, very different.  They will even use such powerful logician's tricks as "moral equivalence" and "both-siderism", and so forth.  It is super-complicated.

[Florestan]

"both-siderism"

This term keep popping up in this thread. Can anyone please explain it to me in no uncertain terms?

[JBS]

Loath as I am to respond to neo-Nazis, I would say that all sides are in conflict over those things in the parenthesis. It's also true that the largest demographic group in Israel identifies as being from the region. Ashkenazis are a slightly smaller grouping. I have an old friend on Facebook that is extreme left - the kind of people who hate the Democrats worse than republicans. Not just them, but a lot of people I come across decry, in principle, the idea of a state based on religion and oppose a two-state solution. This is the choice of the perfect over the good and a recipe for never ending strife.
Speaking of my far left FB friends: is anybody noticing the extradition hearing of Julian Assange and the concomitant legislation proposed by Gabbard?

I will only interject that one of the false narratives is what I bolded: that Israel is a state based on religion. It is not.
Jews are a people. Which is why there are Jews who are Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, or atheists. But they are still Jews.
Israel is the country of the Jewish people, in which nonJews have full civil rights.
This falsification of history is one of the structural features of antizionism that are inherently antisemitic.

As for Assange, I knew about his hearing, but not about Gabbard's proposed bill.

[JBS]

Of course not. 

As you know, the situation was sort of reversed in the last year of Obama's term.  Obama nominated poor, poor Merrick, but McConnell had the power to prevent the nomination from going through, so he did so.  Dems have been butthurt ever since.  Now, very surprisingly, Dems have adopted some of the very same arguments that Republicans used during the Garland fiasco.  And vice versa.

Democrats, though, being both more intelligent and more moral people than anyone else on earth, are quick to point out how the situations are very, very different.  They will even use such powerful logician's tricks as "moral equivalence" and "both-siderism", and so forth.  It is super-complicated.

Not correct. The Democratic position is that the GOP, having declared that a historical pattern is actually a constitutional principle in 2016, are now ignoring that supposed principle and displaying their hypocrisy.

Had McConnell been honest in 2016 and admitted that he refused to let the Garland nomination go forward simply because he had the power to do so, that argument would not be available.

[Florestan]

I will only interject that one of the false narratives is what I bolded: that Israel is a state based on religion. It is not.
Jews are a people. Which is why there are Jews who are Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, or atheists. But they are still Jews.
Israel is the country of the Jewish people, in which nonJews have full civil rights.

I have one simple litmus test in this respect for both Europeans and Americans: if hardpressed to the point of a gun to choose the Middle East state where one would reside for the whole remainder of one's life, what would it be?

My answer is Israel, hands down and with no hesitation whatsoever.

[Daverz]

This term keep popping up in this thread. Can anyone please explain it to me in no uncertain terms?

It's a reflexive need, particularly by the media, to pretend that "both sides do it" in any conflict between the Democratic and Republican party, usually by making false equivalencies and ignoring history and context.  It's a very lazy way to try to appear neutral.   

[The new erato]

I have one simple litmus test in this respect for both Europeans and Americans: if hardpressed to the point of a gun to choose the Middle East state where one would reside for the whole remainder of one's life, what would it be?

My answer is Israel, hands down and with no hesitation whatsoever.

It's always best to be on the winning side. As to right and wrong, that is a completely different matter which I will not discuss here.

[Florestan]

It's a reflexive need, particularly by the media, to pretend that "both sides do it" in any conflict between the Democratic and Republican party, usually by making false equivalencies and ignoring history and context.  It's a very lazy way to try to appear neutral.

Thanks. From the above I infer that both sides don't actually do it and that when Democrats are in conflict with Republicans, if one removes false equivalencies and take history and context into account, they are generally right, or at least less wrong than the Republicans. Is that true?

[Florestan]

It's always best to be on the winning side. As to right and wrong, that is a completely different matter which I will not discuss here.

It's got nothing to do with the winning side, or right or wrong, and everything to do with the lifestyle. In Israel I could safely and freely listen to "classical music", browse the Internet, drink alcohol (even fill my cellar with wine bottles if I so wished) and comment on GMG about international politics. I could even go to an Orthodox church. And if I criticized the government in a bar, I'd eventually walk home undisturbed and without fear. And many, many, many other things --- none of which I could do in any of Israel's neighbors, with the partial exception of Lebanon but the level of violence there is much higher than in Israel and the politics much more unstable and susceptible to Hamas inluence.

It's true I could also die in a terrorist attack, or be killed by a Hamas rocket fired from Lebanon or Syria --- but it's a risk I'd be willing to take if hardpressed.

[Daverz]

Thanks. From the above I infer that both sides don't actually do it and that when Democrats are in conflict with Republicans, if one removes false equivalencies and take history and context into account, they are generally right, or at least less wrong than the Republicans. Is that true?

You're completely missing the point.  Both-siderism isn't about the "sides", it's about the need of the both-siderist to create false equivalencies to avoid engaging in any meaningful way with the conflicts involved.  If you want to pick a side, that's fine.  If you want to avoid picking a side, that's fine.  But don't create a bullshit narrative of equivalency between them.

[Florestan]

You're completely missing the point.  Both-siderism isn't about the "sides", it's about the need of the both-siderist to create false equivalencies to avoid engaging in any meaningful way with the conflicts involved.  If you want to pick a side, that's fine.  If you want to avoid picking a side, that's fine.  But don't create a bullshit narrative of equivalency between them.

I'm really confused. Could you please give me an example or two?

[The new erato]

It's got nothing to do with the winning side, or right or wrong, and everything to do with the lifestyle.

Yes, for you. There are (or used to be) other people there with a historical right to their own lifestyle for better or worse whether it is the lifestyle you and I would choose. In short, I find where you (or I; I wouldn't want to live anywhere in the region as there are too many religious nuts on all sides) would prefer to live totally without relevance to what is happening in the region. Just to explain my comment without inviting to a long and fruitless discussion.