Brett Kavanaugh...

[rataylor22]

Oh Rataylor I don't think you care if the person is left, right, blue, green or purple you're always going to pick a fight. I would classify you as neither far left nor far right, rather just an a$$hole from what I have seen on these forums. Some of the previous posts were way more left then eyemissgilmour provided which was more neutral than anything but of course if it's not firmly in the burn the witch camp then you're a right bigot.

Oh no! But I care about your opinion of me so much!

Man you must have quite a low opinion of Mr. Gilmour. Not anywhere did I call him a bigot. You must be projecting your own feelings on the words I said. I said he's further right than most people on this forum are left. Which he is. You seem to be taking that as a criticism. Again, must be projecting. As for the neutral part, the specific link in question was not neutral, and also all I said is it was woefully incomplete and tone deaf, which it was. Also that spelling is atrocious. I've fixed it for you to help you out.

As I have pointed out before I agree with the right on certain issues and the left on certain issues. However, I find the left to be far more overbearing, opinionated and judgmental. If you don't agree with their point of view they will tear you down and label you immediately. The conservatives that I have had discussions with, will argue but afterwards be able to switch to a topic like hockey and have no ill will.

I think we should be doing more about climate change and finding ways to use sustainable renewable energy. However I also believe that sometimes people need to help themselves and not look for so many government hand outs. I consider myself not left or right but just a guy who likes to look at things objectively. However, you can't be that in today's day in age, you must die on the sword for one side or another.

Cool I don't care, as you said you already pointed it out so you don't need to keep repeating it. Least of all in a post where you're targeting me and weakly attempting to insult me. Nothing you said here is relevant to my post you're quoting.

[mounD]

I've found in my travels that most people who are conservative are inherently reactionary or base their political identity on some personal grievance, whereas people who can sincerely identify as leftists (socialists, communists, demsoc, I'm not talking about libdems) have a broader view of the way society ought to be structured and organized human life sustained. Conservatives in the United States are currently perpetrating the greatest crime against humanity in human history with climate change denial, quite literally ensuring the death of billions of people in horrible agony. Everything else is secondary to this, if we want to survive as a species.

This isn't about making friends. If you identify with the party who just jammed a sex offender on the Supreme Court to uphold corporate supremacy above all else, you probably need to get your head checked because you're cheering on your own demise. It's really fascinating watching the greatest empire in the history of the world crumble before our very eyes.

For the record, I'm not a Democrat. They're just Republican-lite. All the same crap behind the scenes, they just try to talk a better game in public. It's all garbage. I would encourage all of you to involve yourselves with real left-wing movements in your community. DSA could always use more dues-paying members and volunteers.

Maybe conservatives who identify with the party who is supporting and perpetrating genocide across the globe shouldn't get their undies in a twist about being called a piece of trash. If you sincerely support the politics of joking about sexual assault, imprisoning children for misdemeanors, belligerently threatening allies and rivals on a whim, then you don't deserve the courtesy of my basic respect. This isn't a damn game.

[Canucks_fan18]

I've found in my travels that most people who are conservative are inherently reactionary or base their political identity on some personal grievance, whereas people who can sincerely identify as leftists (socialists, communists, demsoc, I'm not talking about libdems) have a broader view of the way society ought to be structured and organized human life sustained. Conservatives in the United States are currently perpetrating the greatest crime against humanity in human history with climate change denial, quite literally ensuring the death of billions of people in horrible agony. Everything else is secondary to this, if we want to survive as a species.

This isn't about making friends. If you identify with the party who just jammed a sex offender on the Supreme Court to uphold corporate supremacy above all else, you probably need to get your head checked because you're cheering on your own demise. It's really fascinating watching the greatest empire in the history of the world crumble before our very eyes.

For the record, I'm not a Democrat. They're just Republican-lite. All the same crap behind the scenes, they just try to talk a better game in public. It's all garbage. I would encourage all of you to involve yourselves with real left-wing movements in your community. DSA could always use more dues-paying members and volunteers.

Maybe conservatives who identify with the party who is supporting and perpetrating genocide across the globe shouldn't get their undies in a twist about being called a piece of trash. If you sincerely support the politics of joking about sexual assault, imprisoning children for misdemeanors, belligerently threatening allies and rivals on a whim, then you don't deserve the courtesy of my basic respect. This isn't a damn game.

This is an interesting point of view. You're looking at it like our life depends on it and it's life or death. I guess if that's truly the persons belief when being so critical or abrasive when discussing these issues then I respect their opinion. However, I know a lot of people who express these views then drive off in a large SUV, to a large house or estate. Then leave in a couple of weeks on a jet to an all inclusive vacation in a poor 3rd world country. If it's truly life or death then the individual fighting tooth and nail should be willing to make the sacrifices themselves.

[Locke]

https://tribunecontentagency.com/art...supreme-court/

This article makes a reasonably strong case for Kavanaugh to be appointed in a vacuum. In other words, if the circus wasn't in town the issue ought to be Kavanaugh's record as a judge. It utterly fails to address the issue of Kavanaugh's unfitness for the position as evidenced not by the allegations themselves, but by his response to them. Given the political shitstorm that this was, it's ludicrous to suggest that Kavanaugh will help to lessen the partisan divide (last sentence of the article).

https://splinternews.com/the-democra...-us-1829532490

This article is clickbait. It contains nothing of substance. It tries to make the point that Democrats didn't do enough to stop the nomination, without actually providing information about things that Democratic senators did. The point that Democrats gambled on an FBI investigation that was curtailed and that that gamble was a 'bluff' presumes there was a legitimate way this appointment could have been stopped. Hard to see that given the Senate make up.

https://www.the-american-interest.co...n-of-credence/

This article suggests that the case against Kavanaugh relied on the statistical likelihood that accusers are telling the truth. It correctly points out that this is a political nightmare. Thing is, its already been a political nightmare. The Dems decided not to bring these accusations to light until such a time that an alternative nominee couldn't be put forward. Had this been an issue beforehand, a thorough investigation could (theoretically) have been done. The other thing is, the case against Kavanaugh wasn't, from what I read, based in any material way on statistics. It was about particular, specific allegations. In responding to those allegations Kavanaugh was vague, evasive, combative, and seems to have lied under oath about a number of things. In any he said she said legal proceeding, credibility is central. Not only did Ford appear far more credible than Kavanaugh, but his disdain for the process and perjury raised serious questions about whether he was fit for the office.

Accusations themselves must not be political ammunition (they will be). Credible accusations ought to be investigated and decided impartially (that certainly wasn't the case). Both sides of the isle failed the American people here (again). It's a bummer.

[Wonko]

Good synopsis Locke.

[mounD]

I think the takeaway from Kavanaugh is that everything is politicized. Politics have embraced tribalism so much in this country that one party is willing to completely disregard credible, corroborated evidence of sexual assault in order to be able to dictate policy. We know for a fact that the Republican party in the US either (1) simply doesn't believe women, or (2) they don't care about sexual violence against women. Either situation is horrifying. But that's the reality. As long as they can uphold white, male, corporate supremacy in a dying empire nothing else matters.

The Democrats aren't even any better. Just another corporate party whose only interest is getting elected and entering into the power structure. It's a dying party because it has no compelling vision. At least the conservative movement has bogeymen to blame for the ills of society. They say it's immigrants stealing jobs, radical Islamic terrorism, identity politics gone too far, etc. Democrats are basically just saying "we aren't full blown fascists, vote for us!" and that's not doing it for me.

This is a very scary time to be alive.

[rataylor22]

To be clear, ideological right is less government.

Republican party in US/Conservative party in Canada isn't "less government", it's just government involvement in different issues.

[Wonko]

I don't really identify with either party either.
Sure, if someone put a gun to my head and said "pick one"... I'd pick right.
Because, at least at their very core, they stand for less government. Less government is good.
It doesn't mean I have to like all the candidates and leaders. I hated Stephen Harper, for example. I can't stand that guy.
But putting aside my emotions (which is something many on the left just cannot seem to do) Harper is undeniably a smarter person than Trudeau, even if the latter might be a better person.
Do I want a smart ahole running things or an incompetent nice guy? Well, that seems like an obvious choice to me.

I'm just not a partisan - unlike some in here.
The problem with the left is they always get lost in their own ideology and they try to brainwash the electorate with those ideologies. And then they get mad as hell when people disagree with them.
They're also incredibly condescending and smug. I love Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, for example... they are both funny and sharp, excellent communicators, excellent hosts, kudos to them for doing what they've done so well. But they are also so smug. Everything they do is belittling people who see things differently than they do.
And that's fine. They just helped create an environment where intolerance is the new norm.

I agree Harper is more intelligent that Trudeau. Trudeau couldn't think his way out of a paper bag. Nice enough chap likely. I would much prefer grabbing a beer with him than Harper, but unfortunately, you can't fix stupid.
Less government is good. To a point. Where that point is is the real question.
I think the same amount of people on the left can put aside their political emotions as can be found on the right. That is just a silly statement IMO. Both sides have equal amount of crazy.
The problem with the left is..... Again silly right out of the gate. The next guys can just start off with: The problem with the right is... And both sides of the spectrum get mad as hell. Saying that is solely left problem is ridiculous.
John Stuart and Bill Maher are smug. They are comedians. Jerry Seinfeld is smug. It is a great comedic trait. Belittling is a great comedic trait. Being able to laugh at oneself is the heart of comedy. I agree there are many more Left leaning comedians than right leaning comedians, because lets be honest, most folks on the right just ain't funny. Maybe it is the me first others last attitude. I am not sure. Just seems to be the way it is
As for creating an environment were intolerance is the new norm, I don't think I would be putting the blame on comedians. The President is likely the worst offender (though he is really just a reality tv celebrity himself). Trump fans the flames of intolerance everyday in his every word, action and tweet. It is his prefered method of campaigning. By dividing the country and increasing the partisanship and hate he is helping himself to remain in power.

[mounD]

To be clear, ideological right is less government.

Republican party in US/Conservative party in Canada isn't "less government", it's just government involvement in different issues.

Also, to say that the "left" created an environment of intolerance is just laughable. Ah yes, the party who blames immigrants and brown people for everything, they're the REAL victims of intolerance.

But that's basically the core of conservatism in the modern Western world: formerly privileged individuals misconstruing the implementation of equality as some kind of attack against them. This is where you get ridiculous concepts like "white genocide" and assorted dumb crap that the alt-right latches on to as some kind of rallying cry for white nationalism. Mediocre white dudes thinking the world belongs to them or something. It's wild. But it's not incredibly complex. Lost privilege leads to aggrieved status, leads to political fervor, leads to tea party, leads to Palin, leads to trump, leads to global cataclysm.

[dejeanneret]

Right and left both routinely display complete intolerance for those who disagree with them. Intelligent discourse is dwindling. Shouting, mocking, inciting and overgeneralizing is the norm of the day. True open-mindedness -- that is, listening to and really considering the strengths and weaknesses of what someone else has to say in forming one's own views, rather than (at best) sitting somewhat silently as one waits their turn to excitedly tell the other person they're wrong and biased for whatever reason -- is virtually non-existent. I frankly don't see one side routinely do better on this than the other. And it's not limited to the U.S.

It is, I agree, quite a sad state of affairs.

[Locke]

Right and left both routinely display complete intolerance for those who disagree with them. Intelligent discourse is dwindling. Shouting, mocking, inciting and overgeneralizing is the norm of the day. True open-mindedness -- that is, listening to and really considering the strengths and weaknesses of what someone else has to say in forming one's own views, rather than (at best) sitting somewhat silently as one waits their turn to excitedly tell the other person they're wrong and biased for whatever reason -- is virtually non-existent. I frankly don't see one side routinely do better on this than the other. And it's not limited to the U.S.

It is, I agree, quite a sad state of affairs.

Maybe we should start a subreddit called practicing tolerance. Or bridging the divide. Or something clever. I mean, it's kind of hilarious that a solid part of this thread is bemoaning the tribalization of political discourse while a bunch of posts are labeling others extreme right/left or other stupid shit.

[rataylor22]

We know for a fact that the Republican party in the US either (1) simply doesn't believe women, or (2) they don't care about sexual violence against women.

For completeness, this is an opinion not a fact. However it also has more supporting evidence than claiming "William Nylander has no leverage" as fact.

[rataylor22]

I should also point out that my mistake (in stating an opinion about Nylander's leverage, but calling it a fact) was within the context of a hockey debate! And there is plenty of evidence of RFAs having zero leverage. But whatever, the point is that it's a hockey debate and ultimately meaningless anyway.

The mistake cited above is claiming that it's a FACT that the Republican party doesn't care about sexual violence against women or they don't believe women.
I mean, seriously, the difference should be obvious here.

Yes, that there's so much supporting evidence to mounD's claim is incredibly concerning. We agree.