4 ms·

> Do you see me as one of "the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop"? Unfortunately, yes. > What would capitulation look like to you? To acknowledge the good/

> Do you see me as one of "the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop"? Unfortunately, yes. > What would capitulation look like to you? To acknowledge the good/bad of each player based upon a reasonable understanding of their behavior. > (re hate/spite): Not sure what you mean by that. How many? How do you know? * I mean that people will act on emotion rather than rationale in a significant number of cases, and that hate can trump love. * How many? That's a silly question. Enough to matter. > But sure, walk me through. Ok, first try (true/false): a. Do you think Biden/Obama were materially moved by Hunter's participation with Burisma b. Do you think that the kerfluffle about Hillary's emails aided in her losing the election? c. Do you think that even that the laptop controversy itself hurt the Biden campaign? d. Are you aware of the concept of an "October Surprise"? e. If so, do you think they are real? f. If so, do you think they work? Essay question: This write-up about the affair aligns with my understandings; do you see any truth in this: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-make-johnson-grassley-report-biden-and-burisma https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-make-johnson-grassley-repor... Bonus points: are you religious?

rendall 4y ago
Where I am it's getting quite late, so I'll continue this a bit tomorrow. >> Do you see me as one of "the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop"? > Unfortunately, yes. Confused about that. I haven't discussed it at all. > That's a silly question. If we're going to have a conversation, that kind of thing is right out. Deal? You still haven't really answered the question I've been asking repeatedly. A little bit, but not to the depth you're asking of me.
- pstuart 4y ago
  First and foremost, I appreciate the civil dialog and will do my best to maintain it; I'm doing this because of a desperate desire to find some commonality, not to score points. >> That's a silly question. You asked for numbers of a population that has no census, I stated that it was significant, which is the point in question. I can prove that those people exist and then it's a matter of threshold. E.g, "how many atoms in that falling piano" -- "enough to kill you if it hits you". > You still haven't really answered the question I've been asking repeatedly I don't follow, will review the thread(s) again to see what that is (would have helped to reiterate btw). The irony is that I'm feeling the same way (do you care about the corruption of the Trump administration as well?) Let's return when time allows? My intentions are honorable and maybe something positive could come of it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - rendall 4y ago
    > You asked for numbers of a population that has no census, I stated that it was significant, which is the point in question. I can prove that those people exist and then it's a matter of threshold. E.g, "how many atoms in that falling piano" -- "enough to kill you if it hits you". You could have stated all of that without insult. I probably travel in different circles than you do, but Americans voting from the motivation of "hate" is not in my experience. Short-sighted self-interest, definitely. Way too influenced by partisan propaganda, absolutely. Hate per se, not so much. Whether your experience is truer than mine, dunno. But asking what you meant isn't silly, and if you do it again, I'll end the conversation. What is in my experience, though, the accusation of hate is often used in one-word partisan dismissal of valid concerns. For instance, rural voters have suffered economic devastation from government policies. They tend to perceive coastal elites as ignoring their concerns. True or not, coastal voters, including nearly all journalists and pundits, all agree with each other that this is definitely not actually true. And let's just say the quiet part out loud: rural people are Jesus obsessed, homophobic, uneducated, gullible, AM-radio-addicted racists. Their voting for Trump is therefore entirely due to white fragility and other irrationality, and there is zero - absolutely zero - valid reason to vote for him. Clinton was clearly the better choice, and any concerns about her were entirely due to sexism and lies. This is all so clear, that any disagreement at all is silly, am I right?
    - pstuart 4y ago
      I said silly, not stupid. No insult implied -- we all sometimes ask "wrong" questions. Clinton actually was the better choice; in fact, technically one of the most qualified candidates in history (trained lawyer, 8 years in the white house next to the president, a stint as US senator and then as secretary of state). Versus a reality teevee "billionaire" with a long track record of (likely) criminal behavior and clear narcissistic tendencies. It was a popularity contest and Mrs. Clinton, whilst intelligent and experienced, lacks the charisma of her husband and has had decades of coordinated conditioning of hate. Hell, I voted for her and resented her for being the only choice (but could safely assume she'd at least hold to the status quo). I felt like she thought she was entitled to the office.... > rural voters have suffered economic devastation from government policies I challenge that -- re: the government. They have been decimated but by big business that moved their jobs offshore. Anything the government did to allow that was influenced by same big business that effectively controls the government. And that quiet part out loud? I see plenty of evidence to support that as a theme (and why I asked about your faith). We are not rational actors, we are emotional responders (yes, there are exceptions but it still holds). Gods, Guns, and Gays are mainstays of political messaging to instill fear and anger. Just look at the anti-trans stuff happening now: fear baiting. The party of small government wants to pass laws against people having control over their own bodies. As a nod to the concerns in that realm, I recognize and agree that athletic competition should be able to decide if/how they want to allow competition with transitioned people. One last thought for this pass: I encountered a Trump supporter who declared she hoped Trump would "burn Washington to the ground". I assume she's not alone in that, and that frustration is understandable. But.... then you're left with nothing and need to rebuild and no thought is given to what should rise up to replace it. Hating government is stupid, as "government" is inevitable in society and as bad as it is today there's plenty of ways to make it worse (e.g., a Kleptocratic Mafia State like Russia (whose head Mr. Trump appears to be unduly devoted to)).
rendall 4y ago
a. If by "materially moved" you mean were their policies influenced by Hunter Biden, probably not. b. Yes. I don't think the "kerfuffle" did it, but what actually happened with the emails. c. I think it would have hurt his campaign badly if the story were not suppressed. d. Yes. e. Yes. f. Yes. Ok, I read the essay. It's an opinion / explainer that Hunter's laptop did not contain any actionable proof of Joe's corruption. As for "seeing truth in it", I honestly don't know enough about the topic. Again, let's grant it as true in all respects. I am not religious. I think I might be understanding where your Socratic method is attempting to lead me. Is it your contention that the suppression of the laptop scandal is far less important than keeping an actually corrupt President out of the White House? That while Hunter Biden may have traded on his father's position, Joe Biden is not corrupt and so, we should let the suppression slide? As a partisan, you might have an idea that all people who criticize "your side" are necessarily on "their side". Not true in my case. In my opinion, both parties are deeply corrupt, and worse, they have legalized their corruption. As a duopoly, they get away with it. We voters only have the option to switch back and forth between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. I liked Sanders, not because of his policies, but because of his incorruptibility, but that was not allowed. Worse, whenever we bring up corruption of anyone, there's a peanut gallery primed to talk about the corruption of "the other side". Questions of Hunter's acquiring millions of dollars with no apparent qualification other than "son of US VP"? "You know, Ivana Trump worked out a copyright deal in China". Questions about foreign diplomats staying in Trump's hotel while working out trade treaties with the President? "You know, Hillary Clinton made millions in speaking fees while Secretary of State". Questions of Hillary's emails? "Trump also took classified documents." But worse than any of that... yes, even worse... the fourth estate has entirely abdicated its function as a non-partisan release valve to all this nonsense (if it ever actually did that at all anyway). So, honestly, I'm less upset about Biden's laptop than I am about official attempts to suppress it. You should be upset about that, too, even though it helped "your side". Next time, it won't be your side. Next time, it might be somebody really dangerous. So, I ask yet again, and please take time with your answer: given that your news sources have demonstrably lied to you, what are the specific principles that enable you to evaluate what is important and what can be dismissed as unimportant?
- pstuart 4y ago

rendall 4y ago

Where I am it's getting quite late, so I'll continue this a bit tomorrow. >> Do you see me as one of "the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop"? > Unfortunately, yes. Confused about that. I haven't discussed it at all. > That's a silly question. If we're going to have a conversation, that kind of thing is right out. Deal? You still haven't really answered the question I've been asking repeatedly. A little bit, but not to the depth you're asking of me.

pstuart 4y ago
First and foremost, I appreciate the civil dialog and will do my best to maintain it; I'm doing this because of a desperate desire to find some commonality, not to score points. >> That's a silly question. You asked for numbers of a population that has no census, I stated that it was significant, which is the point in question. I can prove that those people exist and then it's a matter of threshold. E.g, "how many atoms in that falling piano" -- "enough to kill you if it hits you". > You still haven't really answered the question I've been asking repeatedly I don't follow, will review the thread(s) again to see what that is (would have helped to reiterate btw). The irony is that I'm feeling the same way (do you care about the corruption of the Trump administration as well?) Let's return when time allows? My intentions are honorable and maybe something positive could come of it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rendall 4y ago
  > You asked for numbers of a population that has no census, I stated that it was significant, which is the point in question. I can prove that those people exist and then it's a matter of threshold. E.g, "how many atoms in that falling piano" -- "enough to kill you if it hits you". You could have stated all of that without insult. I probably travel in different circles than you do, but Americans voting from the motivation of "hate" is not in my experience. Short-sighted self-interest, definitely. Way too influenced by partisan propaganda, absolutely. Hate per se, not so much. Whether your experience is truer than mine, dunno. But asking what you meant isn't silly, and if you do it again, I'll end the conversation. What is in my experience, though, the accusation of hate is often used in one-word partisan dismissal of valid concerns. For instance, rural voters have suffered economic devastation from government policies. They tend to perceive coastal elites as ignoring their concerns. True or not, coastal voters, including nearly all journalists and pundits, all agree with each other that this is definitely not actually true. And let's just say the quiet part out loud: rural people are Jesus obsessed, homophobic, uneducated, gullible, AM-radio-addicted racists. Their voting for Trump is therefore entirely due to white fragility and other irrationality, and there is zero - absolutely zero - valid reason to vote for him. Clinton was clearly the better choice, and any concerns about her were entirely due to sexism and lies. This is all so clear, that any disagreement at all is silly, am I right?
  - pstuart 4y ago
    I said silly, not stupid. No insult implied -- we all sometimes ask "wrong" questions. Clinton actually was the better choice; in fact, technically one of the most qualified candidates in history (trained lawyer, 8 years in the white house next to the president, a stint as US senator and then as secretary of state). Versus a reality teevee "billionaire" with a long track record of (likely) criminal behavior and clear narcissistic tendencies. It was a popularity contest and Mrs. Clinton, whilst intelligent and experienced, lacks the charisma of her husband and has had decades of coordinated conditioning of hate. Hell, I voted for her and resented her for being the only choice (but could safely assume she'd at least hold to the status quo). I felt like she thought she was entitled to the office.... > rural voters have suffered economic devastation from government policies I challenge that -- re: the government. They have been decimated but by big business that moved their jobs offshore. Anything the government did to allow that was influenced by same big business that effectively controls the government. And that quiet part out loud? I see plenty of evidence to support that as a theme (and why I asked about your faith). We are not rational actors, we are emotional responders (yes, there are exceptions but it still holds). Gods, Guns, and Gays are mainstays of political messaging to instill fear and anger. Just look at the anti-trans stuff happening now: fear baiting. The party of small government wants to pass laws against people having control over their own bodies. As a nod to the concerns in that realm, I recognize and agree that athletic competition should be able to decide if/how they want to allow competition with transitioned people. One last thought for this pass: I encountered a Trump supporter who declared she hoped Trump would "burn Washington to the ground". I assume she's not alone in that, and that frustration is understandable. But.... then you're left with nothing and need to rebuild and no thought is given to what should rise up to replace it. Hating government is stupid, as "government" is inevitable in society and as bad as it is today there's plenty of ways to make it worse (e.g., a Kleptocratic Mafia State like Russia (whose head Mr. Trump appears to be unduly devoted to)).

rendall 4y ago

a. If by "materially moved" you mean were their policies influenced by Hunter Biden, probably not. b. Yes. I don't think the "kerfuffle" did it, but what actually happened with the emails. c. I think it would have hurt his campaign badly if the story were not suppressed. d. Yes. e. Yes. f. Yes. Ok, I read the essay. It's an opinion / explainer that Hunter's laptop did not contain any actionable proof of Joe's corruption. As for "seeing truth in it", I honestly don't know enough about the topic. Again, let's grant it as true in all respects. I am not religious. I think I might be understanding where your Socratic method is attempting to lead me. Is it your contention that the suppression of the laptop scandal is far less important than keeping an actually corrupt President out of the White House? That while Hunter Biden may have traded on his father's position, Joe Biden is not corrupt and so, we should let the suppression slide? As a partisan, you might have an idea that all people who criticize "your side" are necessarily on "their side". Not true in my case. In my opinion, both parties are deeply corrupt, and worse, they have legalized their corruption. As a duopoly, they get away with it. We voters only have the option to switch back and forth between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. I liked Sanders, not because of his policies, but because of his incorruptibility, but that was not allowed. Worse, whenever we bring up corruption of anyone, there's a peanut gallery primed to talk about the corruption of "the other side". Questions of Hunter's acquiring millions of dollars with no apparent qualification other than "son of US VP"? "You know, Ivana Trump worked out a copyright deal in China". Questions about foreign diplomats staying in Trump's hotel while working out trade treaties with the President? "You know, Hillary Clinton made millions in speaking fees while Secretary of State". Questions of Hillary's emails? "Trump also took classified documents." But worse than any of that... yes, even worse... the fourth estate has entirely abdicated its function as a non-partisan release valve to all this nonsense (if it ever actually did that at all anyway). So, honestly, I'm less upset about Biden's laptop than I am about official attempts to suppress it. You should be upset about that, too, even though it helped "your side". Next time, it won't be your side. Next time, it might be somebody really dangerous. So, I ask yet again, and please take time with your answer: given that your news sources have demonstrably lied to you, what are the specific principles that enable you to evaluate what is important and what can be dismissed as unimportant?

pstuart 4y ago