USA Politics (redux)

[SimonNZ]

Sorry if I have misunderstood your posts here, but for me it has been quite clear you don't value independent commentators and think corporate mainstream media are the real professionals.

And again:

Another artless an dishonest dodge. Please address the actual criticisms I've made in my actual posts.

If you want to know why you're treated as unserious this dodge is another reason why.

Any of your "+1" defenders who think you are being unjustly maligned please speak up now.

[71 dB]

look again. I edited my post while you were posting. this is ridiculous. what do you want me to say?

I am not here to say what you want. I am here to say what I want.

[SimonNZ]

Your criticism seems to be that the like of Kyle Kulinski are amateurish morons. Well, these people work from morning to the evening earning their living doing it. That makes it professional, doesn't it?

Fuck no.

[71 dB]

Fuck no.

That doesn't help me understand what you think. You not agreeing with someone who works his ass off doesn't make it amateurish. Someone earning millions in the MSM doesn't make anyone much more than a bought propagandist (because you are supposed to uphold certain narratives), a mouthpiece for the rich. These MSM people laughed at the idea of Trump becoming president before Rep primary early on in 2016, while Kyle Kulinski WARNED about the possibility that Trump may win.  How is that for "fuck no"? Sure Kyle is wrong from time to time* (because predicting the future always correctly is near impossible, chaos theory and alll), but at least he admits it and corrects himself. unlike MSM.

* Kyle was wrong for example about the progressives. He thought they would fight harder, but it turns out having correct political views doesn't mean you are a leader or fighter. He has admitted this very openly. That is honesty.

[SimonNZ]

I've raised a half dozen issues with you in my previous posts. Answer them or deflect. Either way the "+1s" will be with you for reasons I simply cannot fucking fathom.

Answer my previous posts.

[71 dB]

I've raised a half dozen issues with you in my previous posts. Answer them or deflect. Either way the "+1s" will be with you for reasons I simply cannot fucking fathom.

Answer my previous posts.

Can you at least list the numbers of those posts of yours? You must have made hundreds over the years. Are you expecting me to spend hours looking for your old posts for unanswered questions I didn't know I HAVE TO answer?

I'm sorry, if you feel jealous for me getting +1 from a few kind members. I'm not here for popularity contest. I just wish everybody can say what they want to say. That's all.

[SimonNZ]

Can you at least list the numbers of those posts of yours? You must have made hundreds over the years. Are you expecting me to spend hours looking for your old post for unanswered questions I didn't know I HAVE TO answer?

Liar. The last pages since your last iteration of woe-is-me-everybody-is-mean-to-me..start there. Engage with my replies rather than deflecting because you've feel emboldened by some "+1" posts.

[71 dB]

Liar. The last pages since your last iteration of woe-is-me-everybody-is-mean-to-me..start there. Engage with my replies rather than deflecting because you've feel emboldened by some "+1" posts.

Okay, but now I have to go. I look at your post later and try to answer them.

[SimonNZ]

Oh the irony.

Because my replies have been about how you don't actually read and take in the replies to your posts.

Plus one, baby, plus one.

[milk]

And again:

Any of your "+1" defenders who think you are being unjustly maligned please speak up now.

No one needs to be maligned here. It's a mistake. I don't agree with any particular person's content all of the time and some none of the time.

[milk]

I just wish everybody can say what they want to say. That's all.

It's more interesting and fun when people disagree. I like hearing views I disagree with if they are honestly derived. I even miss Todd, although he was a bit belligerent at times and I rarely agreed with him.

[Fëanor]

...

The most obvious reason why American institutions generate policy complexity is our system's numerous veto points. The separation of powers means that any proposal must generate agreement at three different stages — each house of Congress and the president. ... Most legislation has to pass through separate subcommittee and committee stages, each of which presents opportunities for legislators to stymie action. Many ambitious proposals are considered by Congress under "multiple referrals," in which more than one single committee is given jurisdiction. ... Finally, the super-majority requirement for breaking a filibuster in the Senate, combined with the intense partisanship that accompanies most major policy reforms, means that any single member can stall the progress of a piece of legislation, and a cohesive minority can kill it.
...

As I've said before on other forum and possibly this one, the USA has too many checks & balances.

President <-> Senate <-> House of Reps <-> Supreme Court.

It was a formulation designed designed under that naïve assumption that there would be no political parties, an assumption that was effectively trashed while Washington was still President.

In fact I would say that the excessive checks & balances not only didn't prevent political parties but necessitated a rigid two-party system in order to allow simpler, binary choices to get things past those checks & balances.

Yes, obviously the Senate filibuster thing is another huge and ridiculous obstacle to getting anything done.

[71 dB]

So I suppose this is one of the post You wanted answers to?

See, this has been explained, and the fact that you have to ask it again is part of the problem. You hear people disagreeing but don't take in their reasons, just that there is pushback,.

I am not a child to whom things are "explained" (force fed). I have to find the answers to problems myself.

You think things are black and white and solutions easy, when every topic you address is in fact massively complicated and understand and knowing all the moving parts and theories and the nature of past attempts at solutions any one of the - to say nothing of navigating a way through them - requires a full library's worth of reading to have the certainty and knowledge you believe it is your right to be recognised as having.

On the contrary! I oppose the kind of populistic politics where answers are "easy", because most of the time answers are complex. That's what competent politicians are for: Doing the complex solutions. However, particularly in the case of US politics the problems is that the politicians are competent in enriching themselves rather than serving their constituents and they don't even want to find solutions. They are happy with the status quo.

If I acted like I knew any political topic completely (let alone based only on just a smattering of punditry) I'd deserve whatever "condescension" came my way. I've deserved ot for even less than that.

Kyle Kulinski says people who listen to him are super-educated politically.  That explains my arrogant style. Seriously, many problems in the US politics are quite simple because of the utter corruption. It is kind of black and white because of that. Especially for people living outside the US it is quite easy to see in what direction the country should go (to left toward social democracy. How much is up to debate). Even if the solutions can be politically near impossible and extremely difficult to achieve, it is often easy to see, what should be done.

Nobody is saying you cant communicate , but the answer to this "Why?" is that you need a better sense of just how much you still have to learn.

I have a lot to learn, but so has everybody else. However, some answers are very clear even if we don't know everything. In fact, we need to be able to find solutions without knowing everything, because knowing everything is impossible. As an INTJ/P I am willing to change my my mind, but it takes very convincing and logical evidence. That is the difference from being stubborn. Being right is very important for me so I will change my mind when needed to be more right.

Will you take this on board this time, or yet again deflect to suggest its about something other than what I'm trying to tell you as directly as possible?

Well, now I am addressing your questions.

Why do I keep scratching at this? Because it worries me that this is the way many now get their so-called ?news": via amateur Youtube bobbleheads with their uncomplicated faith in their own certainty and easily acquired absolute truths, and I'm looking for some sign of hope - and I'm not seeing it, here or elsewhere.

I addressed this part already. Operating via Youtube doesn't make anyone an amateur bobblehead. As an INTJ/P I don't look how someone looks or how much they make money. I don't care about ranks. I listen to people what they say and I analyse how much they make sense, how sincere they are, what are their biases and agendas etc. Saying that only big media corporations can do quality reporting is like saying the bigger budget a movie has the better movie. It doesn't work like that. Small budget movies can be really good. So can independent Youtube "bobblehead."

[71 dB]

As I've said before on other forum and possibly this one, the USA has too many checks & balances.

President <-> Senate <-> House of Reps <-> Supreme Court.

It was a formulation designed designed under that naïve assumption that there would be no political parties, an assumption that was effectively trashed while Washington was still President.

In fact I would say that the excessive checks & balances not only didn't prevent political parties but necessitated a rigid two-party system in order to allow simpler, binary choices to get things past those checks & balances.

Yes, obviously the Senate filibuster thing is another huge and ridiculous obstacle to getting anything done.

Interesting theory. 

I believe filibuster was originally introduced to protect white priviledge, but has since become a wall to block all kind of progressive legistlation.

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

Interesting theory. 

I believe filibuster was originally introduced to protect white priviledge, but has since become a wall to block all kind of progressive legistlation.

Not really. It began accidentally and evolved gradually. The cloture rule, originally 2/3 of Senate, emerged in the last century, and currently it requires 60/100.

[greg]

Saying that only big media corporations can do quality reporting is like saying the bigger budget a movie has the better movie. It doesn't work like that. Small budget movies can be really good. So can independent Youtube "bobblehead."

Yep, truth and artistic quality are independent of big budgets or established corporations. They are good for helping mass-production of those things, but not those things themselves. Those things are both very much originating from individuals, and can clash hard if they are part of an organization which has certain expectations.

There also may be a sort of shift in power over time with news commentary. This is a good thing. We don't want the same legacy news media organizations forever, you have to make changes over time, and gradually the most popular news commentators may end up having more institutional power (I think they get more overall viewers nowadays, but don't have the money/connections quite yet).  And once they get stale, way in the future, then bring in the new people.

[Fëanor]

Not really. It began accidentally and evolved gradually. The cloture rule, originally 2/3 of Senate, emerged in the last century, and currently it requires 60/100.

So as I understand 60 votes is necessary to bring closure on a bill.  What is grotesque is that now the Senate minority leader must only announce the intention to filibuster in order to filibuster -- no need to actually stand and talk for hours & hours. What utter nonsense.

(In Canada an MP must actually stand and talk.  Also, closure can be enforced by a simple majority vote.)

[SimonNZ]

Operating via Youtube doesn't make anyone an amateur bobblehead. As an INTJ/P I don't look how someone looks or how much they make money. I don't care about ranks. I listen to people what they say and I analyse how much they make sense, how sincere they are, what are their biases and agendas etc. Saying that only big media corporations can do quality reporting is like saying the bigger budget a movie has the better movie. It doesn't work like that. Small budget movies can be really good. So can independent Youtube "bobblehead."

This will be my last post to you, hopefully ever, because you are  simply not hearing what I or others are saying, but misinterpreting it to fit your own narrative.

Its not a matter of small budget vs big budget and I've never once said it is, and to say I have is a lie. There are plenty of small privately owned newspapers that have done amazing investigative journalism and exposées and been rewarded with Pulitzers and are praised by their much larger peers. But what you are talking about is mere punditry, opinion on the journalism not ther journalism itself. You're comparing apples with oranges and its not because of budget. Its mistaking punditry as journalism that is the problem here, as I've tried to get through to you so very many times, and if you let go of the safety and black and white certainty of the punditry and sought out more actual journalism, you'd be better informed and you wouldn't make the silly mistake of thinking the two are the same. It isn't News, its just the guy at the end of the bar.

Kyle Kulinski says people who listen to him are super-educated politically.  That explains my arrogant style.

Yes.

[Karl Henning]

Kyle Kulinski says people who listen to him are super-educated politically.  That explains my arrogant style.

Yes.

That really says it all about Poju's participation on this thread.

The good thing, I suppose is: that the +6-or-so who were missing something as to why the adults in the room condescend to our Poju, cannot miss it now.

[greg]

That really says it all about Poju's participation on this thread.

The good thing, I suppose is: that the +6-or-so who were missing something as to why the adults in the room condescend to our Poju, cannot miss it now.

Even if there is arrogance (I see glimpses of it but am not so familiar with the discussions so probably don't see it all maybe?), there is also self-criticism and self-reflection, which I find entirely lacking in many people's posts in the Politics thread. Not sure why- either a  lack of self-awareness or just complete unwillingness to play defense (only willing to play offense), or maybe something else? It is interesting, though, to see the contrast in approaches.