|
|
Post by badwolf on Dec 8, 2018 19:25:24 GMT -5
Peterson is actually a classical liberal. If he seems conservative, it's only because the spectrum has shifted so much in the last few years. (Well, that and misrepresentation of him by the media.) You must be f- ing kidding. He’s an apologist for Hitler, whose premise is that Hitler was just a neat-freak and Zyklon-B was just a way to kill insects. That “classical liberal” stuff is an alt-right disguise. I...don't even know where that comes from. Please listen to him directly, rather than get information from extreme leftist blogs. That description couldn't be further from the truth. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,210 
|
Post by Confessor on Dec 8, 2018 21:06:48 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I'm a Socialist and very left-wing in my views, and I find I like an awful lot of what I've heard Jordan Peterson say too. I think he talks a lot of sense and he does it in a very eloquent, measured way.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Dec 8, 2018 21:53:13 GMT -5
The left-leaning media are having a field day heralding yet another fall of Trump.
Cohen and/or Manafort could hand Mueller videotape evidence of Trump handing Putin and Kim Jong Un the launch codes for inter-continental ballistic missiles in exchange for a comically large bag with a "$" on the side. The incoming Democratic representatives would draw up articles of impeachment and the Republican senators would yawn. McConnell would do nothing and we'll all move on the the next day's outrage starring Don Lemonhead and the rest of the Cretin News Nework. I welcome evidence that the Senate would act differently.
Bring it on lefties.
But isn't this the problem? Aren't the Republicans supposed to be the party of "law and order" and the ones always talking about the "rule of law", yet, according to you, they would yawn even if presented with irrefutable evidence of Trump committing treason? Putting party before principle and before the good of the country is reprehensible, especially if they do so in a hypocritical manner after crying about all of Hillary Clinton's supposed crimes. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2018 22:41:11 GMT -5
^ yep, exactly.
the "left leaning media" - which translates as : real reporters who are reporting facts on criminal wrongdoing by a sitting President.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 8, 2018 22:50:53 GMT -5
^ yep, exactly. the "left leaning media" - which translates as : real reporters who are reporting facts on criminal wrongdoing by a sitting President. Crimes don’t matter. All that matters is “winning” and “triggering the libs.” Actual crimes? Who cares? |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Dec 8, 2018 22:53:26 GMT -5
Once again, the left-leaning media are having a field day heralding yet another "fall" of Trump. Cohen and/or Manafort could hand Mueller videotape evidence of Trump handing Putin and Kim Jong Un the launch codes for inter-continental ballistic missiles in exchange for a comically large bag with a "$" on the side. The incoming Democratic representatives would draw up articles of impeachment and the Republican senators would yawn. McConnell would do nothing and we'll all move on the the next day's outrage starring Don Lemonhead and the rest of the Cretin News Nework. I welcome evidence that the Senate would act differently.Bring it on lefties. Literally no one believes they would act differently. Using your example, the Senate Republicans would most likely choose to be complicit rather than prosecute and indisputable felon. By your own admission, the Senate Republicans are partisan hacks who would put party over country even in the face of overwhelming evidence of the president's crimes. This would be the height of hypocrisy and corruption, and you don't think they would hesitate to do it. ...I can't really argue with you there. The time we can finally agree on something is the time I wish you were wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 8, 2018 22:53:32 GMT -5
yet, according to you, they would yawn even if presented with irrefutable evidence of Trump committing treason?
They would in ridiculous scenarios where the so-called irrefutable evidence is questionable given the sources.
Which, of course, isn’t what you said. But keep moving those goal-posts. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Dec 8, 2018 23:06:06 GMT -5
They would in ridiculous scenarios where the so-called irrefutable evidence is questionable given the sources.
Which, of course, isn’t what you said. But keep moving those goal-posts. Of course. They have to. Deflect, distort, deny, twist, avoid, insult, distract. It's right out of the manual, and it's all they have. There is no actual defending this guy at this point that stands up to reality. He is blatantly corrupt and has been for decades. His own justice department has listed him as unindited co-conspirator in a felony, and that is just on campaign finance. That is a drop in the bucket of crap this guy has gotten into. The willful ignorance it takes to still defend him in light of all this is simply astonishing. The only ways not to see how corrupt Trump is by now is to be living under a rock or to not want to see it. I can't say much to the former, but on the latter.. well, you can't reason someone out of a belief they did not reason their way into. |
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Dec 8, 2018 23:14:43 GMT -5
It's not even really politics is it? It's more like you're all in a giant reality tv series.  |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Dec 8, 2018 23:24:23 GMT -5
It's not even really politics is it? It's more like you're all in a giant reality tv series. It feels more like the Twilight Zone. When do old episodes of The Simpsons come on? |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Dec 9, 2018 0:37:12 GMT -5
It's not even really politics is it? It's more like you're all in a giant reality tv series. It feels more like the Twilight Zone. As vile as Trump is, he is in many ways a piker compared with the guy the US had ten years ago. However, imagine having lived through eight years of George W Bush, jumping ahead eight or nines years after the end of his Presidency, and instead of being able to sigh a breath of relief that whoever the new guy is, he can't possibly be as awful as that imbecile, you find out that the new guy is actually making people long for the guy who gave us the invasion of Iraq, The Patriot Act, and Dick Cheney. Makes me wonder if the guy running the show in 2028 will be so disgusting that he'll make us think, "Say what you will about Trump, but at least he wasn't as bad as this guy". |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Dec 9, 2018 2:22:41 GMT -5
Not complicit at all. The White House has distanced itself from both Cohen and Manafort, to the point that it does not find them credible no matter what they present. That is completely absurd. Of course Trump is trying to discredit him now. They raided his office, confiscated his evidence and recorded conversations. Cohen was Trump's go to dirty work guy for YEARS. He was plenty trustworthy enough to do Trump's business until he got arrested. Mueller is one of the most professional, accomplished and respected Americans to have ever lived. He and his team are the best of the best. It is unlikely they don't trust him. Are scared of him, maybe. I highly doubt that. Not unless/until they either think the Senate would actually pass it, and that seems unlikely unless Mueller finds and releases some very damning stuff, possibly to the extent Pence is also indicted if the rumors of his potential involvement end up being true. A bit more at play here than your unadulterated contempt for the man. From a site that discussed legal aspects:-
In order to bring charges, prosecutors would have to prove Trump had criminal intent and "willfully violated the law," according to Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston. He went on to add that something that would be perfectly legal to do as a businessman could take on a different standard as a candidate and campaign finance laws are "very open-ended."
I have contempt for the crimes, corruption, racist, hateful, destructive and anti-science things the guy says and does constantly. I am not sure what point you are trying to make with the Law professor as it sounds more like it hurts your argument. Look, it really sounds like you think Trump is a regular Republican and the Senate Republicans are acting in regular old good faith and people are just trying to smear Trump because he's a Republican, business as usual Left vs. right stuff from the last 30 years. It's so far beyond that now. Really, truly, if you haven't, I urge you to branch out from conservative media like Fox and actually read up on all of this mess going on. I'm not saying to go to some liberal rag like the Huffington Post. There are a ton of centrist and credible news orgs out there covering all of this stuff. None of this is normal. The amount of ties, secrets, coincidences, etc, pertaining to members of this campaign and Russians... the numbers of guilty pleas and indictments for a supposed witch hunt.. it's insane. It's scary sitting over here and seeing how many people can't or won't see what is plainly in front of their eyes. Trump is not a good man, and he and his associates have not been up to good things. It is BIZARRE seeing the party of "law and order and 'Christian values' " fall over themselves to excuse the guy, too. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Dec 9, 2018 10:52:45 GMT -5
I highly doubt that. Not unless/until they either think the Senate would actually pass it, and that seems unlikely unless Mueller finds and releases some very damning stuffFrom CNN's own news Trump and his legal team insist, however, that the President is in the clear.
"When you look at what was revealed today, there's nothing that links the President to collusion with the Russians, so maybe they should fold up their tent, give a report to the Justice Department and go home," Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani told CNN's Pam Brown on Friday.
Giuliani also said the President never told Cohen to pay women who claimed affairs with him, adding that such payments would not count as a campaign contribution.
The depth of the President's legal and political difficulties will only become clear when Mueller files a final report -- and Trump's team will have the chance to challenge his findings and make their defense.
...so... Let's wait on that final report and its outcome which will include Trump's legal team and their submissions. Because really, they want this to be over and done with as well.
Yeah, no, what they released and have been talking about this week has nothing to do with Russia. This is just an extra side felony he got himself into they uncovered while looking into the Russia stuff. And quoting Gulliani, lol. It’s sad that he has become a total crack pot recently as he used to be legit. Rudy saying something on the news has zero bearing on reality. And that last paragraph about not truly knowing the depths of his legal difficulties is a generic closing statement that says nothing of substance. Of course we won’t know the full extent until the full report is revealed. There are also lots of constitutional questions on how/when/if to charge a sitting president that remain to be seen. Again, I don’t see how this link supports your argument either. It’s clear at this point I’m basically shouting into the wind here. If you want to pull your head out of the sand and read up on everything that’s going on now so you’re not blindsided when the full details come out, that can only be a good thing. That’s up to you I guess. Obviously we all want the USA to do well and succeed, and I truly hope that happens after we get through all of this. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Dec 9, 2018 21:25:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Dec 10, 2018 16:03:25 GMT -5
Roquefort Raider, I think you know how much I respect your opinions, based as they inevitably are on reason and erudition. However, for maybe the first time I can think of, I have to disagree with you re Jordan Peterson. No need to go into chapter and verse here, because there’s enough by and about Peterson (including the video you imbedded, which I had seen) that’s easily available on-line. “Look at the outcome and infer the motivation.” Peterson, apparently by way of Jung, offers this statement as the means to try to understand an individual’s actions. As a teacher, I look at Peterson as someone who uses his position in the front of the classroom as part therapy, part ego trip, the kind of teacher who has let his position go to his head. Anyone who has ever spent time speaking to a group, let alone teaching young people, from the elementary grades to college is, or should be, aware of how easily that position of authority can be abused. He’s well versed in in his version of things, introduces observations with provisos like, “One thing that may have happened, and I don’t know this for sure, but it’s interesting to consider…” You’re an educator; you don’t get to mix fantasy with fact to prove your points or scratch your itch. Imagine saying to your students, “One thing that may have happened is that gods from other more advanced planets landed on Earth in ancient times and helped the Egyptians to build the pyramids. Now I don’t know this for sure, but it’s interesting to consider because it goes a long way to explaining many of those ancient carvings that look like spaceships.” Yeah, it is interesting to consider when you’re reading The Eternals by Jack Kirby, but not when given equal weight with actual science by a science teacher. That’s just how Peterson interjects an uncited study that demonstrates that “since women have been taking the Pill, their preference for less masculine men is more pronounced, and that (not sure what exactly “that’s antecedent is) and that could easily be one of the things that’s fuelling at least some of the tension that exists now, politically, between men and women.” I’m no scientist, but even I know these terms are at best squishy. (I’m being kind. (“Less masculine men?” “Since women have started using the pill?” “Political tension”? Yeah, those are easily described, precise parameters…). And forget the weasel words (“At least some;” “that could easily be;” “may have happened;”), which have no place in a classroom. At worst -- and Peterson lives here; it’s where he makes all of his big cannonball-style splashes into pop culture – they’re just another part of Peterson’s tired rant about the male threatened by all Jung’s devouring mother in this god-awful culturally Marxist world that the left has given us, full of transgendered people who demand that we refer to them with bizarre pronouns that we just don’t like, dammit, and littered with the damaged psyches of all those Iron Johns who never have been able to fulfill the destinies genetically and culturally pre-ordained to them in primitive times. This is a man who just happens to be a darling “scholar” of the alt-right, happy to have his picture taken with angry young white men and their Pepe the frog mascot; happy to salt his inane self-help philosophy and political ramblings with the kinds of words that get the alt-right neo-Nazi types in an erotic dither: “cultural Marxists;” “leftists;” “fifth columnists;” happy to repeat the tired saw that academia is uninspiring and conformist, because it is the domain of progressives; happy to rage against political correctness. Like Trump, whom he resembles in so many ways, Peterson always pleads culpable deniability about his cultlike following. He claims to be unaware of the code words, and the dog-whistles he emits. He says Hitler was evil; yeah, he does sometimes, but he also says that Hitler was only giving the people what they wanted, that he was in following what the German people in their collective unconscious were expressing t him. Yeah, Hitler was bad, but he had this thing about cleanliness that he just took too far. And he was lying – bad Hitler! -- because he really didn’t want to win the war but kill Jews. And he was stupid, because if he had only been a little smarter, he could have done both! I’ve gone on way too long. Couldn't help going all chapter and verse on this after all. We’ll have to agree to disagree, mon ami. À chacun son goût, I guess. But I return to his own suggested criterion: “Look at the outcome and infer the motivation.” The outcome of Peterson’s half-baked Randian anti-feminine, just this side of anti-Semitic “wisdom?” Division, discord, and the enabling of hate. I’m inferring a far darker motivation, I guess.
|
|
