US Politics

[Mike Smalling]

Dumb as a rock.

She is most likely the dumbest member of congress, yes. This is an old one though (or at least she's said it before).

 

[4bars]

Dumb as a rock.

If this is the best representative of her constituents, so I assume at least she is above average, must be insane the level of stupidity around there

 

[MrMarcello]

If this is the best representative of her constituents, so I assume at least she is above average, must be insane the level of stupidity around there

Upper Northwest Georgia is basically Deliverance minus the forced sodomy.

 

[4bars]

Upper Northwest Georgia is basically Deliverance minus the forced sodomy.

At least they play a mean banjo

 

[Cloud7]

Dumb as a rock.

I get the vibe from some of these high profile repubs that they aren't as dumb as they come across, but rather they adjust what they say to what their base at the time wants to hear.

MTG on the other hand, I genuinely believe she is as dumb as she comes across. There is no acting here

 

[Idxomer]

 

[Red in STL]

Probably the best thread to post this in, George Mitchell is the most articulate 91 year old I think I've ever heard, it covers a bit obout his early life and roots then mostly focuses on his role in the Northern Ireland peace process and some insights in to the Middle East, it also covers a bit about US politics and why and how it's changed it's 70 mins of your time that will be well worth spending

 

[Sweet Square]

 

[Sweet Square]

 

[Carolina Red]

Well this is fun…

 

[Raoul]

Well this is fun…

Always drama between TYT and their alums.

 

[berbatrick]

for hochul's replacement:

 

[MarylandMUFan]

They should show the average age of a first-time home buyer. I have bought 4 different homes over the course of my life due to job moves, scaling down etc...and many people getting close to retirement move to a smaller home.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Well this is fun…

It seems like Kasparian has turned full grifter. She always had dumb takes, but now she seems malicious as well.

 

[Raoul]

It seems like Kasparian has turned full grifter. She always had dumb takes, but now she seems malicious as well.

She's always been like this. See her previous, accurate takes on Dave Rubin and Tulsi Gabbard.

 

[Mike Smalling]

She's always been like this. See her previous, accurate takes on Dave Rubin and Tulsi Gabbard.

I'm not necessarily talking about her feuds, but more so this "leaving the left" schtick. Using wokeism as an excuse for a broader move to the right.

 

[Raoul]

I'm not necessarily talking about her feuds, but more so this "leaving the left" schtick. Using wokeism as an excuse for a broader move to the right.

Has she actually moved to the right or is she simply critiquing problems she sees with the rigidly inflexible orthodoxy on the left ?

 

[Mike Smalling]

Has she actually moved to the right or is she simply critiquing problems she sees with the rigidly inflexible orthodoxy on the left ?

Her Substack is called "Unaligned", so she is pretty explicit about not associating herself directly with a party or a wing anymore, which she definitely used to do. So that's the whole "leaving the left" part. Looking through that Substack briefly (admittedly not reading full articles), some of it seems pretty right-wing coded, in my opinion. Articles railing against homelessness non-profits, scaremongering about Venezuelan gangs taking over Aurora, etc., criticizing an obviously tongue-in-cheek Salon piece about women rejecting MAGA men, etc.

And she suddenly seems strangely interested in defending Donald Trump, which is a bit odd.



Trump Is Right About Liz Cheney

I'm sure we could go back and forth on this, dissecting each piece and Tweet until the cows come home, but from my experience people that suddenly start raging against "wokeism" usually just use it as a pretext to move right. It's not substantive in any way. Focusing on that over real issues is a choice.

 

[Raoul]

Her Substack is called "Unaligned", so she is pretty explicit about not associating herself directly with a party or a wing anymore, which she definitely used to do. So that's the whole "leaving the left" part. Looking through that Substack briefly (admittedly not reading full articles), some of it seems pretty right-wing coded, in my opinion. Articles railing against homelessness non-profits, scaremongering about Venezuelan gangs taking over Aurora, etc., criticizing an obviously tongue-in-cheek Salon piece about women rejecting MAGA men, etc.

And she suddenly seems strangely interested in defending Donald Trump, which is a bit odd.



Trump Is Right About Liz Cheney

I'm sure we could go back and forth on this, dissecting each piece and Tweet until the cows come home, but from my experience people that suddenly start raging against "wokeism" usually just use it as a pretext to move right. It's not substantive in any way. Focusing on that over real issues is a choice.

Fair points. From what I've seen, she is still fundamentally a leftie on a vast majority of positions, so unless she does a full on Dave Rubin, most will continue to view her as a progressive.

 

[crappycraperson]

Her Substack is called "Unaligned", so she is pretty explicit about not associating herself directly with a party or a wing anymore, which she definitely used to do. So that's the whole "leaving the left" part. Looking through that Substack briefly (admittedly not reading full articles), some of it seems pretty right-wing coded, in my opinion. Articles railing against homelessness non-profits, scaremongering about Venezuelan gangs taking over Aurora, etc., criticizing an obviously tongue-in-cheek Salon piece about women rejecting MAGA men, etc.

And she suddenly seems strangely interested in defending Donald Trump, which is a bit odd.



Trump Is Right About Liz Cheney

I'm sure we could go back and forth on this, dissecting each piece and Tweet until the cows come home, but from my experience people that suddenly start raging against "wokeism" usually just use it as a pretext to move right. It's not substantive in any way. Focusing on that over real issues is a choice.

I didn't think so earlier but her going on Glen Beck does indicate that she is prepping to soft launch into the right wing ecosystem as an ex-leftie. She also said that she voted for neither party in the recent GE but reason for that was Gaza.

 

[Raoul]

I didn't think so earlier but her going on Glen Beck does indicate that she is prepping to soft launch into the right wing ecosystem as an ex-leftie. She also said that she voted for neither party in the recent GE but reason for that was Gaza.

Apparently all of this came from an incident when a homeless man sexually assaulted her while she was walking her dog and the online leftie community sympathized more with the homeless guy, which caused her to reassess her association with the hard left.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Apparently all of this came from an incident when a homeless man sexually assaulted her while she was walking her dog and the online leftie community sympathized more with the homeless guy, which caused her to reassess her association with the hard left.

Her political positions must have been pretty flimsy, if she is moved by whatever terminally online people Tweet at her. The whole notion that some kind of Twitter mob is equal to "the left" seems to me to be a right-wing construct to begin with.

 

[Raoul]

Her political positions must have been pretty flimsy, if she is moved by whatever terminally online people Tweet at her. The whole notion that some kind of Twitter mob is equal to "the left" seems to me to be a right-wing construct to begin with.

Its not so irrational when you look at it from a tribal perspective. If one believes their tribe have rejected them because of a lived experience in which they are clearly a victim of a violent crime, then they are likely to question whether they are in the correct camp. That doesn't mean they are necessarily going to switch camps, but they certainly will question whether they are affiliated with the right people. I have another lefty friend in LA who went through nearly a identical situation and almost overnight began to question her own politics.

 

[crappycraperson]

Fair points. From what I've seen, she is still fundamentally a leftie on a vast majority of positions, so unless she does a full on Dave Rubin, most will continue to view her as a progressive.

Her political positions must have been pretty flimsy, if she is moved by whatever terminally online people Tweet at her. The whole notion that some kind of Twitter mob is equal to "the left" seems to me to be a right-wing construct to begin with.

I would say most if not all of her current positions are still progressive, they just don't pass the litmus test for some which is an age old story for the far left. Crime is definitely the main issue where she breaks hard to the right though her remedies are not the same.

 

[Raoul]

I would say most if not all of her current positions are still progressive, they just don't pass the litmus test for some which is an age old story for the far left. Crime is definitely the main issue where she breaks hard to the right though her remedies are not the same.

Agreed.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Its not so irrational when you look at it from a tribal perspective. If one believes their tribe have rejected them because of a lived experience in which they are clearly a victim of a violent crime, then they are likely to question their affiliation and whether they are in the right camp. That doesn't mean they are necessarily going to switch camps, but they certainly whether they are affiliated with the right people. I have another lefty friend in LA who went through nearly a identical situation and almost overnight began to question her own politics.

Psychologically it does make sense, yes, and it's hard to put myself in her place, but I'd question the wisdom of considering people you've never met as your "tribe". I seriously doubt that any of the well-known online leftist content creators that she may have considered her peers would be anything but supportive, for instance. And using one traumatic personal experience to redefine your politics on certain topics, while understandable, is still not great - especially for someone that is a political commentator.

Anyway, let's see where she goes. I guess maybe there is also a tendency to pre-emptively call people out for moving to the right, because the examples are numerous and the financial incentives are so well-known.

 

[Raoul]

Psychologically it does make sense, yes, and it's hard to put myself in her place, but I'd question the wisdom of considering people you've never met as your "tribe". I seriously doubt that any of the well-known online leftist content creators that she may have considered her peers would be anything but supportive, for instance. And using one traumatic personal experience to redefine your politics on certain topics, while understandable, is still not great - especially for someone that is a political commentator.

Anyway, let's see where she goes. I guess maybe there is also a tendency to pre-emptively call people out for moving to the right, because the examples are numerous and the financial incentives are so well-known.

When I say her tribe, I mean the people she affiliates with at a political level online. She has clearly built a career brand as a progressive lefty commentator, so spare a few odd right wing trolls, a vast majority of those she interacts with are probably TYT followers and other followers within the progressive podcast ecosystem. As for changing ones mind based on a traumatic event, it makes perfect sense to do so irrespective of one's profession.

 

[Mike Smalling]

When I say her tribe, I mean the people she affiliates with at a political level online. She has clearly built a career brand as a progressive lefty commentator, so spare a few odd right wing trolls, a vast majority of those she interacts with are probably TYT followers and other followers within the progressive podcast ecosystem. As for changing ones mind based on a traumatic event, it makes perfect sense to do so irrespective of one's profession.

It makes sense from an emotional and psychological perspective, but not much else really. Isolated occurrences should not be used to form policy perspectives over ideology and broader trends no matter who it happens to, and someone wanting to be a political commentator should recognize that. At a superficial level, it seems like homelessness non-profits have become a favorite punching bag of hers after she was attacked by a homeless person. I'd suggest she's letting her trauma steer her away from the root of the problem, especially if she also provides cover for people like Trump.

 

[Raoul]

It makes sense from an emotional and psychological perspective, but not much else really. Isolated occurrences should not be used to form policy perspectives over ideology and broader trends no matter who it happens to, and someone wanting to be a political commentator should recognize that. At a superficial level, it seems like homelessness non-profits have become a favorite punching bag of hers after she was attacked by a homeless person. I'd suggest she's letting her trauma steer her away from the root of the problem, especially if she also provides cover for people like Trump.

I haven’t seen any evidence of what you’re suggesting. Seems more of a reaction to a real life event and subsequent vilification by an online mob struggling to grapple with the idea that sexuality assaulting someone is bad thing, even when the assailant is homeless or illegally in the country.

 

[Mike Smalling]

I haven’t seen any evidence of what you’re suggesting. Seems more of a reaction to a real life event and subsequent vilification by an online mob struggling to grapple with the idea that sexuality assaulting someone is bad thing, even when the assailant is homeless or illegally in the country.

And you have seen this vilification by the online mob then?

 

[FortunaUtd]

Well this is fun…

I don't know the woman, but one should fundamentally question the seriousness of someone with Armenian roots working for a media outlet named after a political movement centrally implicated in the Armenian genocide.

 

[Raoul]

I don't know the woman, but one should fundamentally question the seriousness of someone with Armenian roots working for a media outlet named after a political movement centrally implicated in the Armenian genocide.

She and the owner of the outlet have done quite a few videos to address the issue. He admits the genocide happened and attributes the Turkish narrative to domestic propaganda.

 

[Raoul]

Not particularly surprising given her "no balls in stalls" anti-trans campaign.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Worth pointing out that the head of this supposed left-wing network worked hard to oppose their own workers unionizing.

Politico: Inside the union campaign that roiled left-wing network The Young Turks

 

[pierrethesnack]

It makes sense from an emotional and psychological perspective, but not much else really. Isolated occurrences should not be used to form policy perspectives over ideology

Isolated occurences which resonate on an emotional and psychological level should definitely inform policy over ideology. Only ideologues, which most people aren't, disagree with that.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Isolated occurences which resonate on an emotional and psychological level should definitely inform policy over ideology. Only ideologues, which most people aren't, disagree with that.

Hypothetical example at least somewhat based in reality: Someone is murdered by an illegal immigrant. The media focuses heavily on this story, because it resonates and generates a lot of attention, even though illegal immigrants overall commit fewer violent crimes than citizens. Should this isolated occurrence inform policy making?

 

[pierrethesnack]

Hypothetical example at least somewhat based in reality: Someone is murdered by an illegal immigrant. The media focuses heavily on this story, because it resonates and generates a lot of attention, even though illegal immigrants overall commit fewer violent crimes than citizens. Should this isolated occurrence inform policy making?

Yes, it should. It's a critical part of a high trust society, policy and law being in line with the psychological and emotional reponse of the bulk of the population. But ideology isn't the only foundation of morality, you can also make the case for perspective and mercy by appealing to these same reponses.

I agree with what you said about her views being pretty flimsy if they are that shaken by a personal experience like that. To me that shows the power ideology has to override basic emotional reponses as long as you are relatively untouched yourself, but I'm guessing to you it's maybe the other way around - the power emotional reponses have to override human decency as ideologically prescribed. Sorry if that's inaccurate, I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I've just had this fudamental disagreeement with people before, so I'm not blind to the other side of the argument even though I don't agree with it.

 

[WPMUFC]

TYT has these people because it favours ideologues over substance. Their coverage is skin deep, scream at the camera BS. Yeah sometimes they are really good at just giving the left a reason to yell and point out the absolute worst aspects of American capitalism. But there is no substance to it. It's literally "point and look at bad stuff" clickbait.

They are performers that hire people more interested in ideology theatre. When these people get tired of screaming into a YouTube void, you see them wildly swing between ideologies until they start to believe that the "right gets stuff done" or simply know that the right is easier to grift. The online pipeline from "left to right" runs so heavily through TYT at this point that if you work at the daily wire, you'd probably consider TYT talent before looking at small right wing creators.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Yes, it should. It's a critical part of a high trust society, policy and law being in line with the psychological and emotional reponse of the bulk of the population. But ideology isn't the only foundation of morality, you can also make the case for perspective and mercy by appealing to these same reponses.

In this case the emotional response of the population is heavily driven by selective reporting though, so I guess I just disagree with that. We see it so clearly in the US. People are made to be scared of things they have no business being scared of, because they consume dogshit media that have a clear agenda other than reporting reality.

I agree with what you said about her views being pretty flimsy if they are that shaken by a personal experience like that. To me that shows the power ideology has to override basic emotional reponses as long as you are relatively untouched yourself, but I'm guessing to you it's maybe the other way around - the power emotional reponses have to override human decency as ideologically prescribed. Sorry if that's inaccurate, I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I've just had this fudamental disagreeement with people before, so I'm not blind to the other side of the argument even though I don't agree with it.

My point was simply that as a political commentator with a clear viewpoint, you should probably be able to separate an isolated occurrence that happened to you personally from your overall agenda, so that you don't drastically change course because of it. Otherwise I think it's a least fair game to question the motives of that commentator.

 

[FortunaUtd]

Her Substack is called "Unaligned", so she is pretty explicit about not associating herself directly with a party or a wing anymore, which she definitely used to do. So that's the whole "leaving the left" part. Looking through that Substack briefly (admittedly not reading full articles), some of it seems pretty right-wing coded, in my opinion. Articles railing against homelessness non-profits, scaremongering about Venezuelan gangs taking over Aurora, etc., criticizing an obviously tongue-in-cheek Salon piece about women rejecting MAGA men, etc.

And she suddenly seems strangely interested in defending Donald Trump, which is a bit odd.



Trump Is Right About Liz Cheney

I'm sure we could go back and forth on this, dissecting each piece and Tweet until the cows come home, but from my experience people that suddenly start raging against "wokeism" usually just use it as a pretext to move right. It's not substantive in any way. Focusing on that over real issues is a choice.

The idea that calling Trump a fascist is wrong because he "wasn't able to do" the fascist things he proclaimed is obviously laughable, and yes, you would assume she's saying that because she is pining for access to the market.