Skip to main content

View Diary: Forget Boxing, the 2012 Election is More Like Professional Wrestling (62 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  i am an empiricist. the facts are the facts (0+ / 0-)

    there is also a difference between mere opinion and folks who spend a good amount of time thinking, writing, lecturing, and if lucky, getting paid for their thoughts on these issues. i know this is a facebook culture where all opinions are created equal; in the real world that simply is not true.

    like i said, use the Google and your library. or track the money. alternatively, make a list of all the things you want, and how most of them are off the table.

    there are differences; there are also whole areas of convergence, out of bounds areas that neither party--because they are part of an institutional system of corporate capitalist governance/market democracy--that neither will touch.

    they depend on your support for legitimacy, even while the Common Good is not served. smile, grin, and go along if you like.

    •  oh you want to make this about experise? (0+ / 0-)

      okay I'm a chemist with training in numerical methods, statistics a couple computer lanuages and a number of other things that likely are further and further not relevant here so what are your formal qualifications?

      I recognize that on politics I'm not the best writer but to call this a 'facebook culture' is a slap in everyone's face. Just who do you think you are? Becuase you'd better be some world famous politcal analyist with all that arrogance.

      You made a claim, I cited a plethora of counter examples to show that no what you're saying really isn't true becuase Obama and Biden do talk about wealth imbalance and inequality. Granted they might not always talk about it but with everything to cover really? I mean that sounds really insecure to me that you need them to constantly mention it.

      And we've not even gotten into the thing that really bothers me, you're constant and false equviocation between Democrats and Republicans. I get that you're probably left enough on the specturm that you're disappointed that there's not really a party that speaks for you but then neither party is a perfect fit for me. That doesn't  mean I pretend there's no difference

      •  relax, chill out, inhale, exhale it is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban

        good for you.

        "becuase Obama and Biden do talk about wealth imbalance and inequality. Granted they might not always talk about it but with everything to cover really? I mean that sounds really insecure to me that you need them to constantly mention it."

        if you don't see that as one of the preeminent issues of the day, you are really an amateur. just being real.

        we do live in a facebook culture where opinion trumps facts--i.e. the all sides do it meme. social networking, blogging, and other mediums where anyone can hang a shingle regardless of expertise is a sign of that problematic.

        great. you have expertise in the natural sciences. i have expertise similar to your own assuming you are  all degreed up in the social sciences.

        you offered no substantive counter-examples. yes, there are policy differences. but, we are not talking about grand changes in the game or in distribution of power relationships. i think you are missing the meta game at work here that i am alluding to.

        again, the Google is your friend.

        there is a difference between the lifestyle politics and war of maneuver vs. position that is the reality today--see Gramsci for example, a classic I am sure you read at some point--and the struggles over power and access that were the civil rights or even women's rights movements (and there are smart folks who would say the "radical" nature of those movements and elite surrender is much over-rated).

        I will test your politics chops for a second for fun--have the democrats and the republicans converged with one another since the 1980s--or even late 1960s?

        your answer will reveal much. you are fun. keep swinging. i mean that nicely.

        •  a pet peeve of mine (0+ / 0-)

          don't tell me to chill because you don't know me and frankly I could be typing 'calmly' while screaming my head off or vice versa. If I want to convey emotion I'll use italics, bold, caps or something else. The point is I'll make it utterly crystal clear that I am trying to convey emotion. Until I do frankly if you're going to make any assumption you're better off assuming a cold montone 'tone'.

          Let's be clear here sure it's important but it seems like to me you're saying that unless Obama mentions it every chance he gets he's not 'really' for it, which well to me is strange.

          As to opinions, opinions are equal without facts. Your opinion isn't any more surperior then mine the equalizer is facts and evidence. You keep saying 'google it', I've pointed out specific things Obama and Biden have said and did. You tell me who is providing more convincing truth?

          And frankly I think you're confusing the forest for a tree here, there is no 'meta game' no conspiracy amongst democrats and republicans. Yes there is a lot of self interest in the money aspect but there's no grand conpsiracy on that either just greedy sad sobs that are consumed with making money. That's no conspiracy just the worst aspects of humanity.

          As to your question, you'll have to be more specific here, converged to what? I'd posit you're refering to the 'Reagan Democrats' and though really those Southren Democrats had been leaving the party for a while

          •  You just don't get how power works son (0+ / 0-)

            as the expression goes.

            "And frankly I think you're confusing the forest for a tree here, there is no 'meta game' no conspiracy amongst democrats and republicans. Yes there is a lot of self interest in the money aspect but there's no grand conpsiracy on that either just greedy sad sobs that are consumed with making money. That's no conspiracy just the worst aspects of humanity."

            Meditate on that comment. The last sentence especially.

            "don't tell me to chill because you don't know me and frankly I could be typing 'calmly' while screaming my head off or vice versa"

            You try to make an appeal to bonafides. There you are outclassed. When folks go there I say they are "upset." Feel free to disagree. You are the math stats guy. Do either party offer up any policies that will substantially move the issues outside of a very narrow part of the distribution, i.e. the approved part of the discourse and issue positions that are considered "fair game" for discussion?

            I am not talking about southern dems--although that is part of the story. I am talking about a rightward shift in the issue space such that democrats are taking the positions of republicans from not even ten years ago and being branded "socialists" because of it. and even then the most conservative democrats are to the left of the most liberal tea party gop types.

            If you are such a flag waiver that you can't take off the blinders to see the con game I don't know what to tell you.  I am giving you stuff to read in the spirit of collegiality; I am not going to process it all for you.

            That is my standard line. Look back at my many earlier posts. Search your heart; close your eyes, ask yourself hard questions if you feel that the dems and republicans are that fundamentally different then you have your answer. there is nothing i can tell you otherwise.

            if obama wins check those gini coefficients and see what is up in a few years; if romney wins check them; i bet you the numbers won't be that hugely different. the state is most responsive to the interests and lobbying of rich people, monied interest groups--in all narrow interests.

            that is not a revelation for any student of history.

            am i wrong? the kool aid is good. i like it too. in private, we need to be sober so we can play the game to win.

            •  I have been remarkably honest about my background (0+ / 0-)

              both in terms of formal education and not so formal, you have so far been remarkably not honest about yours. As such I'm going to conclude your formal background is even less relevant here and you're just deflecting.

              Also I appealed to nothing, I stated my background (well in broad strokes) while inquiring about yours because you were being rather arrogant and frankly if you are going to act as if you are an expert you'd better be prepared for that to be questioned. That's not 'emotional' that's just logical.

              I should also point out being condescending isn't going to help your case and emotional appeals matter not to me. Logic, reasoning, statistics, facts that's what matters. Insults while I am sure amusing are ineffective and silly.

              You're right, the nation has been moving right for decades really since civil rights was passed and yes people that aren't even close to actually being socialists have been called socialists and worse. The nation also looks to be finally in the process of another realignment, but if you think you're going to wake up tomorrow to see a colossal shift in ideology you've not nearly studied as much history as you should have. It's going to take time and yes Obama is not a raging populist but then he never really presented himself as one. That said Obama has still accomplished  a hell of a lot given everything and so far has a good legacy. Yes I get that you don't particularly like him on certain choices he's made on fighting the terrorists but I don't agree with you there.

              You know what else I know about  history? That  history has been a cage match between the unprincipled, sociopathic  and moneyed interests and just about everyone else. That while often slow history has not been kind to those interests and if you don't believe me review your history of even a hundred years ago. Never mind what conditions were like 1,000 years ago. Sure sometimes the moneyed interests win but it's always temporary because people generally don't like them. Ayn Rand and her zealots might think that the 1% is irreplacable but that's a lie and always has been.

              So we're going to have to disagree on the validity on your conclusion because it's not factually supported. You can insult me, call me emotional and do anything you want in response but unless you actual facts you've got nothing

              •  google me and see if i am a pretender (0+ / 0-)

                listen to my interviews, etc. etc.; read what i have written elsewhere, go to my own site.

                I don't impugn people's expertise. if we were talking about the natural sciences and you seemed to know your stuff i am not going to ask for a cv. not interested in that game because 1) you can't prove it and 2) i know many "dumb" folks who have taught at harvard and stanford.

                your pettiness and hardheadness is likely a function of projection, you are 1) exaggerating your expertise or 2) can't accept that because you are an expert in basket weaving 101 that you know something about painting 101. that is a very common problem with folks who have an advanced degree in one field--taking you at face value, but who knows?--and everyone around them gives them all sorts of shine for stuff they don't know about.i laugh when i see how laypeople treat a few letters after a name.

                as i said, it is self-evident that i know what i am talking about. are there folks who know more? absolutely. can one reasonably disagree with my claims? absolutely. are you doing so? no.

                am i making some amazingly nuanced and deep argument that requires you to go through the annals of apsr or the ajps to follow? no.

                do i know more about these matters than you? absolutely. no biggie. just relax. there are areas i am sure you know more about then me.

                •  there is nothing petty or hardhead about my (0+ / 0-)

                  response. You have been generally insulting me since the begining by calling me son, saying I am emotional and need to calm down, accusing me of projection and now you are not so subtly calling me a liar.

                  Now if I was truly petty I'd return barb for barb; I have not. I have pointed out what you are doing simply because I am not a door mat. If you expected differently well too bad.

                  I have never presented myself as an expert on this topic becuase I am not one. I am however very well informed both in general on this in specific. I have given you far more in support of my view on this then you have. Your responses have ranged from 'google it' which is frankly a really poor response when you are trying to persuade to 'well because I say so' which is an even poorer response still.

                  I actually have had te privilege of interacting with experts in a multitude of fields ranging from Political Science to Ethics to 'harder' sciences like Physics and Chemistry. And every single one of them not only never hestitated to instantly support their conclusions with copicious amounts of proof and evidence but they never had to resort to the insults and chicanery that you have so far. In point of the fact the professor of Political Science I had the absolute luck to talk to was not only highly respected in his field but able to quote so much that it was utterly obvious I was swimming in deep waters.

                  You've not convinced me you have this expertise you purport nor have you converyed it. I may eventually go spend my own time doing your work for you but a curosry search shows that you write for Salon and that is one of the  sites I can not currently access. Then again you've not really done much to make me curious, if anything you've pushed me away.

                  •  dude, this is a comment section on the daily kos (0+ / 0-)

                    do your own work, look up some of those concepts, and let it go. this is not a seminar or a conference.

                    you have demonstrated that because you have expertise in one area that you ought to be catered to in another. i gave you some info, some big ideas, and concepts.  you can choose to proceed or not.

                    if you feel that both parties are not institutional parts of the gov't as opposed to being change agents, and there are not broad areas of overlap regarding consensus on the big questions regarding the economy, foreign policy, and corporate power in this country, i don't know what to tell you. yes, there is party polarization--very much if voting scores in congress are examined. my point here, is despite the areas of apparent difference how much of this is all smoke and mirrors to distract folks from the bigger game, those settled issues, that are not going to be discussed by either group?

                    that is the whole point of the theme i presented here.

                    "I am however very well informed both in general on this in specific."

                    You prove my point about having expertise in basket weaving 101 and thinking it applies to painting 101 or even 202.

                    Whenever someone says they are well-informed about matters general and specific i get really nervous. Ignorance is salvation; humility can lead to growth. I have expertise on one narrow area. That is it. I am not made insecure by that fact. If you want to write a post about the hard sciences and your narrow area of expertise I will read and learn.

                    What do your comments about being "well-informed" reveal about your own inadequacies? Just a self-reflective thought.

                    •  I am going to respond only here (0+ / 0-)

                      and only one last time as you have proven to be uninterested in actual conversation and instead want to cram your ideas down my throat and when I baulk because you've not really shown anything or offered any real proof you really are what you claim.

                      1. I misrepresented nothing, if you choose to assume I was some tenured professor that's on you. What I said applies regardless of your assumptions. Though personally I find it interesting you've chosen to become even more rude, insulting and arrogant now that your assumptions have been corrected. And in point of fact I never called myself an expert at anything partly because I  still have far to go but mostly because it's my opinion that 'expert' is not something you give yourself, it's a title given, a title earned. And you have done absolutely nothing in this exchange to earn being called an expert. I don't know you from a hole in the ground and frankly right now I feel more inclind to be charitable about said hole then you. Just think about that and how badly this exchange has gone because of the choices you have made. I'm always willing to listen to someone that proves themself worth listening to, your failure to do so is on you and you alone.

                      2. As I said and you ignored I've talked to actual experts on Political Science, they make you look like a joke simply because they not only can back up everything they say but they will. Which is something you've refused to do. That you won't, that you ignore when it suits you the fact that the majority of the time the majority of the community is no more or less formally educated on a topic then I am and yet still add their own opinion. Well to me that's utter hypocristy  to then turn around  and act like being honest about my limits is a bad thing. Especially when you've yet to do the same thing.

                      3 Lastly, your pompous attitude is absurd and so far unearned, maybe if you ever understand that  we can talk again but as it is I can say right now we could never interact again and it would be entirely too soon. You have utterly poisoned this exchange and then in feigning that you haven't as if I am stupid you poisoned it further. I've met a few people like you among my interactions in life, older people convinced 'them whipper snappers don't know a single thing' so congrats I suppose. Maybe you should start mixing in a couple 'get off my lawn' quips while you are at it.

                      I willl not be responding to anything you write so please insult me some more if you wish, make some more 'subtle' comments about me lying when I haven't or go ahead and make one more comment that reinforces every single negative perception I have about you in your rather vain attempt to not only be right but to be that 'expert' you seem so desperate to be.

                      And yes I am angry so feel free to throw in emotional a couple more times never mind your behavior or how much of an utter jerk you've been

                      •  you are fun! more than TV! you don't want (0+ / 0-)

                        to play anymore?

                        "And yes I am angry so feel free to throw in emotional a couple more times never mind your behavior or how much of an utter jerk you've been"

                        do you need a hug? i could care less about your feelings or silliness like calling someone a "jerk" because they won't go along with your program.

                        i tried to give you advice. it is normal in one's emotional and intellectual development at your stage, i.e. just graduating college, to overstate your chops. much of growing older and wiser is realizing what you do not know, finding comfort in it, and also realizing when you are dealing with someone who has more expertise than you on a given subject.

                        it ain't personal. there is no shame in it. you can deny that obvious fact at your own peril. there is a definite reality to the Facebook helicopter millennial generation and the particular challenges they face in realizing that their opinions are not substitutes for hard work, research, empirical rigor, and dues paying.

                        as i said, do a little work with your Google friend and you may be surprised.

                        back to listening to the director's commentary on Prometheus. Did you enjoy that movie?

                  •  read your posts and "bio" now i see (0+ / 0-)

                    "First a little background, I recently graduated from a fairly prestigious university with a B.S. in Chemistry(well kinda, I'm having to fight with my philosophy professor), not ivy league but a university that has enough of a name that I was able to get a job within a month of graduating (with a lot of luck too). "

                    was giving you too much credit. you made it sound like you were all degreed up--assuming i am reading your post correctly.

                    if you are a recent undergrad, i can see where the overconfidence is coming from. we all go through that transition period. grow by realizing what you do not know; it is a good life skill. years ago when i graduated college i went through your phase too.

                    ignorance will save you.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (138)
  • Community (67)
  • Elections (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Culture (24)
  • Science (23)
  • Media (23)
  • Law (22)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Memorial Day (18)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Climate Change (17)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Republicans (16)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site