Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - The Marginally Palatable Gary Johnson

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The Marginally Palatable Gary Johnson
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 9:29 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

A demographic regularly attacked? So are African americans. I'd say they've been demonized a lot more than us white dudes.

This is exactly about what I am speaking, Bucheon Bum. The modern American left is so reflexive in its attacks on the "bad guy" that, when confronted with those attacks, it doubles down on them. First, "White dudes" is an intentionally disparaging meme, which is why the people who say it would never say "Black dudes" or "Latino dudes," or so forth in a similar fashion; it is mild, but the more vicious for it, because it allows one to disparage with no basis or clear rationale. Beyond that, no, in modern times African Americans are not attacked in the same fashion. Attacking African Americans can cost people their jobs and reputations; the American media is frequently even hesitant to report demonstrable facts about African Americans in clear, unambiguous terms, using euphemisms like "youths" when reporting crimes, and suggesting that motives are unclear even when they were declared openly. It is the exact opposite in terms of treatment.

bucheon bum wrote:

If us whites seem to get it more, it's because we're a) the biggest % of this country b) been at the top for the entire history of this country. In other words, we're bound to be a "target".

"You are wrong, but even if you are right, here is a justification." Exactly the approach many "conservatives" take in the face of global warming. Is that not telling?

bucheon bum wrote:

Who exactly is pushing identity politics? Hillary? The Democrats? Well when the opposition is saying, "Deport Mexicans!" and you think, "Well shit, I'm Mexican" or "____ is Mexican, what the hell did they do wrong?" you're going to be more attracted to someone who says, "That's just racist and stupid."

I do not believe "the opposition" has called for deporting Mexicans. Rather, it has called for deporting illegal immigrants. Framing a call for the deportation of illegal immigrants as a call for the deportation of Mexicans in general and without qualification is another example of identity politics: it takes a matter of citizenship and law, and reframes it as a matter of race.

bucheon bum wrote:

No offense, but you are the one that seems so focused on identity politics.

Of course I am focused on the topic in question: I see it as a real social proble harming my homeland. It disappoints me that you would feel inclined to defend this practice, but the psychological effects of partisanship are difficult to resist.

Plain Meaning

Joined: 18 Oct 2014

Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 9:35 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

If I make (another) thread about this, can you discuss it there? I promise to be nice to you there, too.

Quote:

bucheon bum wrote:

No offense, but you are the one that seems so focused on identity politics.

Of course I am focused on the topic in question:I see it as a real social proble harming my homeland. It disappoints me that you would feel inclined to defend this practice, but the psychological effects of partisanship are difficult to resist.

The topic is Gary Johnson or libertarianism, maybe. Posole recipes are also accepted.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 9:42 pm Post subject:

I'll just drop it, Kuros. My intention was never to make you and Bucheon Bum feel defensive, and that is all that has been achieved in talking about it.

mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency

Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 9:49 pm Post subject:

Plain Meaning wrote:

mithridates wrote:

Weld is definitely my favourite of all the people running for president / VP this year. If I could magic wand one person into president next year it would be him.

Really? Is it because Strom Thurmond (or was it someone else?) killed his nomination to ambassador to Mexico for heterodox positions?

You know, I often see George H W Bush's decision to acquiesce to raising taxes as the pivotal turn in the Republican Party. Reagan won over Democrats and then worked with Democratic politicians. When Bush Sr. tried to do the same, Grover Norquist and others sacrificed him on the altar of "Amercians hate tax increases." Basically, ideology over governance. Ever since, the Republican Party has been unable to govern well.

Do you see Weld as a throwback to moderate Republican competence?

I think it's more his breadth of knowledge and personality and just an overall feeling of comfort at the thought of him as president for four years. Also as a Canadian that the LP is the only party that is willing to let the market do what it does best, including projects between the two countries. The Democrats have opposed a single pipeline while simultaneously being okay with all the new build in the US during the same time, and Trump has the retarded notion that he's going to waltz in and renegotiate the whole thing. A LP president would just give the project the permit to build and forget about it.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:40 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

I'll just drop it, Kuros. My intention was never to make you and Bucheon Bum feel defensive, and that is all that has been achieved in talking about it.

I don't feel defensive about it. I wasn't defending the practice that much, I was primarily explaining it. You don't seem so interested in that though.

And for the record, I have said black dudes and Hispanic dudes plenty. Smile

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:44 am Post subject:

mithridates wrote:

Plain Meaning wrote:

mithridates wrote:

Weld is definitely my favourite of all the people running for president / VP this year. If I could magic wand one person into president next year it would be him.

I agree with all of this pretty much.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:29 am Post subject:

To elaborate further...

Fox wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

If us whites seem to get it more, it's because we're a) the biggest % of this country b) been at the top for the entire history of this country. In other words, we're bound to be a "target".

"You are wrong, but even if you are right, here is a justification." Exactly the approach many "conservatives" take in the face of global warming. Is that not telling?

I wasn't saying you were wrong. I was saying, "You might be right, and here is one explanation for why it is." There is a difference between justification and explanation.

Fox wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

Lazy explanation on my part, I admit. You bring up framing. The GOP makes it so easy to frame it like that with some of the incendiary remarks many of them make (such as Stephen King in Iowa). Like I keep on saying, framing it like I did is just an easy way to win votes for Democrats.

And if I sound like I'm defending it, OK. If that is the case, than I don't know how one can explain something without sounding like he or she is defending that subject.

Swartz

Joined: 19 Dec 2014

Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:39 am Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

the incendiary remarks many of them make (such as Stephen King in Iowa).

The truth only becomes “incendiary” when your lingua franca is doublespeak.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 3:45 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

I don't think libertarianism is possible except through the barrel of a gun.

Can you explain what you mean here? After all, American governance itself is through the barrel of a gun: you comply with the laws passed by the government, or you are arrested, and if you resist arrest, you will likely be shot to death. What is "governance" except a monopoly on coercive force? Given that, you must mean something I am not seeing here.

Leon wrote:

I don't think the libertarian party is a good protest vote, despite how reasonable JOHNSON/weld are

What would be a "good" protest vote in your estimation?

I don't consider American governance through the barrel of a gun. Sure, a gun is used by police, but that is for criminal violations, not political ones. I consider libertarianism incompatible with democracy, and cannot see how it would sustain itself without coercive political force.

To the second question, it is easier to say what isn't than what is (a cop out I know). Johnson and Weld seem fine to me, but the underlying philosophy of the libertarian party is not something that I think deserves support, or should be normalized. I know some countries (Australia I think) have an option where you can vote none of the above. I wish that we had that.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 3:53 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

Leon wrote:

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

It's funny I see libertarianism as a form of authoritarianism. From my interactions, at least with the more fervent, democracy is seen as an impediment to liberty, and free markets are seen as more important than free political choice.

I see your logic here. I'm not sure authoritarianism is exactly the right choice of words here, since it invokes images of an authority figure imparting concrete commands which individual citizens must obey, but there is certainly a sense in which libertarianism -- or at least a not uncommonly articulated version of it -- inclines towards restricting the "freedom" of the populace to pursue collective political solutions to shared problems. To concede Kuros' point, it's fair to accept that there are other understandings of libertarianism which might be less noxious in this fashion; versions which might prefer individual action to local governance, prefer local governance to state governance, and prefer state governance to federal governance, all the while accepting that each level of governance is legitimate and, more importantly, that sometimes it really is in everyone's interest to pursue a matter through the lens of a higher governmental authority. It's largely a question of to what degree a given libertarian is willing to let his image of the perfect obstruct his contribution to furthering his conception of the good, to borrow a cliche.

Leon wrote:

Johnson and Weld are probably weak tea when it comes to strident libertarianism, so it might be a reasonable choice.

Right, more moderate Republican than anything. And that's the thing about libertarianism: if one tries to embrace its more reasonable and appealing elements while rejecting the more extreme ideas, it quickly stops resembling "libertarianism" and starts looking like "moderate conservatism" instead. Of course, as Kuros implied, if the Libertarian Party is to grow, it would need to expand, which means moderating, which means less "utopian free market fundamentalism" and more compromise with reality as it stands. Nominating Johnson over the George Washington gun fellow (I forgot his name, sorry) is something of a "commitment to seriousness," yes, and it came at the right historic moment for the party. If someone put a gun to the heads of my family and forced me to vote, and the vote could not be a write-in, it would probably be cast for Gary Johnson as things stand.

There is a deeply paranoid conspiratorial minded aspect to libertarianism that leads to things like hoarding gold and 9/11 trutherism. I don't think it's salvageable. It was Friedmans u of chicago students and ideas that supported liberalization of Latin America through dictators and ignored/quietly approved of the killings, disappearances and torture. I don't think libertarianism is possible except through the barrel of a gun. I don't think the libertarian party is a good protest vote, despite how reasonable JOHNSON/weld are

Huh? You lost me here. What does the liberalization of Latin America have to do with libertarianism? I mean I understand the connection to Chile, but beyond that, not really. Where did liberalization of Latin America take place beyond Chile and perhaps Colombia (which doesn't have a figure like Pinochet or Peron)? Peru maybe? And in Argentina, liberalization of the economy is, I'm guessing, more tied to Menem and its current president, and not to any dictator. I'm not very knowledgable about Latin America though.

Mainly Chile. I can't remember my Latin American history well enough to describe the other countries experiences. If I can remember, find it again, I'll post it. Russia also had a team of American economists, this time from Harvard, try to impose similar types of market reforms in the 90s to disastrous results (but lots of other issues there as well.)

Plain Meaning

Joined: 18 Oct 2014

Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:40 pm Post subject:

mithridates wrote:

Plain Meaning wrote:

mithridates wrote:

Weld is definitely my favourite of all the people running for president / VP this year. If I could magic wand one person into president next year it would be him.

Wow, so the pipeline is important to Canadians, huh?

Its become a symbol for environmentalism. It hits every point: multinationals overcoming community and local landowner rights and interests, opposition to fracking, and resistance to exporting precious oil out of North America.

On balance I am against the pipeline. But I do not know why it is so important to citizen Canadians.

TorontoToronto

Joined: 20 Jun 2016

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 4:40 am Post subject:

In Toronto, I have to live no where near the pipeline. But I do think of it as good for the Canadian economy and jobs. Right now we have a bizarre system where you can't get oil easily from the west to the east. Even though we're a net energy exporter, we still buy foreign oil to supply Eastern Canada because of the infrastructure. When we do move oil, it goes by rail cars. That's not without its dangers. But of course right now the 42 dead from the Lac-Megantic disaster are not the 42 dead in my backyard. And since someone else has to take the risk, well, why change anything?

mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:04 am Post subject:

Plain Meaning wrote:

mithridates wrote:

Plain Meaning wrote:

mithridates wrote:

Weld is definitely my favourite of all the people running for president / VP this year. If I could magic wand one person into president next year it would be him.

Wow, so the pipeline is important to Canadians, huh?

It's not the pipeline, it's a lot of them. There are many other proposed projects that aren't being approved because they need to cross the border. Sometimes it's most efficient to dip into the US or vice versa, or send LNG to the US instead of building something new in Canada but that isn't being considered anymore after XL's rejection.

Quote:

Its become a symbol for environmentalism. It hits every point: multinationals overcoming community and local landowner rights and interests, opposition to fracking, and resistance to exporting precious oil out of North America.

I would expect no less from a movement that also opposes nuclear. It's par for the course: oppose a high-profile and scary-looking energy source, block it, then wail as the world still relies heavily on coal and ships its oil by wobbly train car.

Anyhow, Johnson and Weld are unfortunately the only adults in the room this year when it comes to cross-border trade.

Plain Meaning

Joined: 18 Oct 2014

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:10 pm Post subject:

http://ontheissues.org/2016/Gary_Johnson_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Quote:

Supports nuclear power
Q: Do you favor nuclear power?

A: Yes.

Quote:

I accept global warming but not cap-and-trade
Q: What about climate?

A: I accept the fact that there is global warming and I accept the fact that it's man caused. That said, I am opposed to cap and trade. I'm a free market guy when it comes to the clean environment the number-one factor when it comes to the clean environment is a good economy.

Q: You don't think there's a policy response? It's making people richer that would help?

A: Good economies results in cleaner environment. That's been the history of the planet till this point.
Source: Tim Dickinson in Rolling Stone Magazine , Jun 15, 2011

Support for nuclear power is good. Recognition of global warming is positive. No plan whatsoever for climate is bad.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Gary_Johnson_Free_Trade.htm

Quote:

No tariffs, no restrictions; but no corporatism
On trade, Johnson "generally supports NAFTA and other free-trade agreements," In a June 9 segment on John Stossel's program on Fox Business, Johnson "debated" Obama impersonator Reggie Brown and said he wanted "no tariffs, no restrictions" on trade. He did sound a little squishy on trade in a March 2011 interview when he said that "So much of the legislation that we pass isn't really free market at all. It's touted as free market, when the reality ends up to be very corporate. The reality ends up to be corporatism. I was always looking at business legislation from the standpoint of having it affect everyone equally as opposed to big business being further advantaged. So many of these treaties--NAFTA being one--the criticism of NAFTA should be rooted in the fact that big business became even bigger business."

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 2:55 am Post subject:

The fact that the libertarian candidate debated an Obama impersonator about how wonderful free trade eases none of my prejudices about libertarianism.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe