Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I think Kant got more nuance later on. Wrong is wrong, it doesn't matter how you justify it. So even if a POTUS did a horrible thing (assassinate someone), for the right reasons (it was a mass-murdering terrorist), the stain sticks no matter what.
Could be this was a later interpretation.
edited 1st Dec '16 8:06:54 AM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleWell, a President must also be willing and able to face repercussions for morally questionable decisions made out of necessity. "I'm President, bitch, I get to decide what to do," doesn't fly any more than, "We must not kill the suicide bomber because killing is morally wrong."
edited 1st Dec '16 8:08:45 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Mc Rory trying to steal a governor seat really ought to be covered more in MSM. Especially if he succeeds.
Disgusted, but not surprisedBrief off-topic segue. Kant got the idea for the philosophical exercise from this Jesuit philosophy called Mental reservation and equivocation
, which had taken the opposite view earlier. Equivocation has a negative connotation because of criticism of that belief/anti-Catholic sentiment. Compare the similar rap that the Islamic idea of Taqiya
has gotten. In both cases, the idea is that it is appropriate/praiseworthy to use misleading statements (and possibly outright lies) to prevent harm to others and sometimes, yourself.
@Terminus Est- I do think that was the general idea (that a wrong act is always wrong; although I think the idea of a right act being always right was also in there). But Kant himself did use that ax murderer example which doesn't do him any favors. Nor does the obvious comparison to situations where friends/neighbors have hid people from persecutors (i.e. Anne Frank and her family).
edited 1st Dec '16 8:15:28 AM by Hodor2
I will lie to a person if said lie helps protect my immediate well-being, and if Kant's ghost wants to lecture me about morality, I'll give him the finger.
The Kantian Ax-Murderer dilemma can be somewhat bypassed if the moral imperative there is not framed as "don't lie" but as "save people"
A less awful way to phrase Kantian philosophy would be:
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."
Yeah, in practice Kant and John Stuart Mill were driving for the same idea, just that Kant did it from a more spiritual, absolutist perspective that considers the whole of an action rather than just its outcome (and Utilitarianism gets a bad rep for being purely ends-based when they consider doing bad things for a good purpose to not be a net good, because doing badness is a degradation of your moral character and is net harm for you even if the system as a whole prospers).
I just like Kant because, ironic to his religious affiliation, he provides a good basis for godless morality, that inherent categorical goodness exists without needing to rely on the fiat of a higher power.
Tieback to US politics, Republicans aren't inherently bad, they're bad because they tend to do bad things much more often than not. I would vote for a "good" Republican, but experience has taught me that even the good ones go bad (like Susan Collins or John Mccain).
So if the NC state legislature really does invalidate the votes in favor of Mc Rory, does this mean the GOP doesn't get to whine if the EC does end up denying Trump the electoral votes?
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
Sorry. Sometimes I kant stop myself.
Edit- On topic, Bernie Sanders op-ed on the Carrier deal
. Well argued overall and there should be a lot more talk along these lines. I do think though that he gives a bit too much credence to the premise of Trump as the candidate representing or even purporting to represent the working class.
edited 1st Dec '16 8:37:05 AM by Hodor2
I find it epically ironic that Bernie Sanders, "populist", is now pulling the "give Trump a chance" line most visibly on the left.
Oh, that was the message. Fair enough.
edited 1st Dec '16 8:42:52 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I might not agree with Sanders on some things...a lot of things...but he's right. Trump just told corporate America that he's willing to make American taxpayers pay shitloads of money to keep some jobs in America. Even corporations that weren't originally planning to outsource might threaten to do it now hoping to get in on this.
Once again the so-called "strongman" proves himself to be a Boisterous Weakling.
edited 1st Dec '16 8:42:19 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedSo, to tack the philosophy back down to earth re: presidential use of force....
One thing I've noticed in this thread is that people seem to knee jerk assume that anything other than supporting the status quo = isolationism. Which strikes me as just the kind of extremist black or white attitude that feeds into actual isolationist sentiments. The Sanders campaign was clearly out of its element on military matters, but the general message of having a serious reevaluation of America's role as 'world police' and re-emphasizing the necessity of controlling irrational rogue nations like North Korea over containing rival empires is easy to see appeal in. Think about how much good we could do in the world if we spent what we spend on our military right now on climate change control or welfare.
And yeah, messaging. Messaging has ALWAYS been the left's problem. This isn't just the internet in effect. How many years of Fox News have we had with no real counterbalance in mainstream media? We need to start realizing as a culture that freedom of speech, when abused to spread misinformation for profit, can be just as destructive as censorship.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
The problem is that whenever people try to scream out "this is all bullshit", they get shouted down with accusations of censorship.
Yes, that technically isn't censorship at all. But a lot of people persist in misunderstanding what censorship actually is.
edited 1st Dec '16 8:54:37 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedBernie is in a weird position. He managed to walk away from the election without looking like Ralph Nader which is an achievement in and of itself, commendable. My great fear all through the election was that he would discredit that particular kind of politics the way Nader did with his Fifth Column campaign in 2000.
Not that I am blaming Bernie mind you, obviously other factors mattered more towards the end.
But the thing is, Sanders is now facing the fact that the constituency he thought he was campaigning for, now voted for Trump. He's stuck in a dilemma. All along he's been saying that economic Inequality matters and precedes social and gender inequality and contains with itself means of remedying both. The Election proved him wrong since his electorate voted for race and against someone who is not for their interests but the narrative that has played so far and with others is that "Bernie would have won" which is 1) Touching to him, 2) Flattering, 3) A good opportunity to advance himself...please note that I am not saying Sanders is corrupt or hypocrite. I don't subscribe to Ambition Is Evil at all, and I think having a sense of opportunity to advance yourself is fine as long as its legal.
So now Bernie basically has to position himself as a non-Clinton, non-Elite, non-Trump candidate.
![]()
Yeah, Bernie is in a strange position-while he himself emerged largely unscathed, He also got a significant portion of his platform cut out from under him. Many of the rural working class white voters, flat out stated the racial message and bigotry was a deciding factor voting for Trump-and followed it up in interviews saying that they would continue to vote alongside those factors in the future regardless of the message. The ones that voted for Obama then Trump did not magically become racist last year; Obama had a better message that outweighed their open racism.
edited 1st Dec '16 9:06:13 AM by ViperMagnum357

edited 1st Dec '16 8:07:11 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"