Does The Left Know How To Make An Argument Not Based On Racism? The Trouble With the Left's Critique of Trump
As I predicted in my letter to the Princeton University President last year, two decades of living in university monocultures and political echo chambers, combined with a one-track focus on social justice, seems to have left the political Left with no ability to engage in rational opposition politics.
The Golden Globe Awards were a magnificent example. I presume that many of these actors are reasonably intelligent people. And they are obviously upset and worried about Donald Trump's election to President. But they can't express anything beyond their fear and loathing. They can't articulate what specifically worries them, and when they do articulate something specific - e.g "this may be the last Golden Globes Awards" - it is silly and illogical.
Perhaps worse, these critiques of Trump are, IMO, focusing on all the wrong things and sucking the oxygen out of the room for more relevant criticism. The Hollywood types all seemed terrified that they and their industry are going to somehow fall victims to government authoritarianism. At some level I guess this makes sense -- when the Left was in power, they used their power to hammer industries they did not like (eg energy) and thus expect that the Right will do the same once they are in power. But Trump is a New York social liberal who is a part of the entertainment industry. While I confess that one of the problems with Trump is that he is wildly unpredictable, Hollywood is an unlikely target, at least until they just went on TV and begged to be one.
An even better example of focusing on all the wrong problems is the confirmation hearings for Jeff Sessions. If you read pretty much any of the media, you will be left with the impression that the main issue with Sessions is whether he is a racist, or at least whether he is sufficiently sensitive to race issues. But this is a complete diversion of attention from Sessions' true issues. I am not sure what is in his heart on race, but his track record on race seems to be pretty clean. His problems are in other directions -- he is an aggressive drug warrior, a fan of asset forfeiture, and a proponent of Federal over local power. As just one example of problems we may face with an AG Sessions, states that have legalized marijuana may find the Feds pursuing drug enforcement actions on Federal marijuana charges.
Why haven't we heard any of these concerns? Because the freaking Left is no longer capable of making any public argument that is not based on race or gender. Or more accurately, the folks on the Left who see every single issue as a race and gender issue are getting all the air time and taking it away from more important (in this case) issues. The SJW's are going to scream race, race, race at the Sessions nomination, and since there does not seem to be any smoking gun there, they are going to fail. And Sessions will be confirmed without any of his real illiberal issues coming out in the public discussion about him.
I have said this before about Left and Right and their different approaches to politics. The Left is great at getting attention on an issue. Think of BLM and their protests and disruption tactics -- they had everyone's attention. But they went nowhere on policy. I challenge you to list the 5 or 10 policy goals of BLM (they actually had a good set once, but abandoned them). The Left is great at expressing anger and dismay and frustration and outrage, but terrible about thoughtfully taking steps to fix it. The Right on the other hand is great at working (plodding, really) in the background on policy issues, often at the local level. ALEC is a great example, building a body of model legislation, working in groups around the country to try to implement these models. But they absolutely suck at generating emotion and excitement around key issues (except maybe for wars and in abortion protests). The only example I can really think of is the Tea Party, and (despite how the media tried to portray it) the Tea Party was extraordinarily well-behaved and moderate when compared to protest movements on the Left.
Trump has an enormous number of problems in his policy goals, not the least of which is his wealth-destroying, job-destroying ideas on trade nationalism. But all we get on trade are a few lone voices who have the patience to keep refuting the same bad arguments (thanks Don Boudreaux and Mark Perry) and instead we get a women's march to protest the Republican who, among the last season's Presidential candidates, has historically been the furthest to the Left on women's issues. It is going to be a long four years, even longer if the Left can't figure out how to mount a reasonable opposition.
Postscript: All of this is without even mentioning how the Left's over-the-top disruption tactics seem to just feed Trump's energy. At some point, Hercules figured out that cutting heads off the hydra was only making things worse and switched tactics. If only I could be so confident about the Left.
TruthisaPeskyThing: The argument that Republicans do not have a plan would appeal only to extremely low information voters or those who want to participate in such deception.
The President Elect says they'll have a plan soon.
Minimal. It does not contain moron (missing or simple password) protection.
No they were not.
Incorrect.
mesaeconoguy: Minimal.
So it does include some level of protection, contrary to your claim.
mesaeconoguy: It does not contain moron (missing or simple password) protection.
The quality of the password was not an issue in the Podesta hack.
mesaeconoguy: None involved in the actual investigation. [disagreed with Comey]
Comey said investigators unanimously agreed charges were not warranted.
No, it does not contain sufficient protection for the purpose in which it was used. No legitimate organization or business would allow this.
Yes it was.
No he did not.
Many businesses and organizations use Gmail, as did Podesta. You had suggested that there was no protection. That was clearly incorrect.
As for password quality, that was not an issue as the hack was through targeted and customized spear-phishing.
WILL HURD: Was this unanimous opinion within the FBI on your decision? | COMEY: Well the whole F.B.I. wasn't involved but the team of agents, investigators, analysts, technologists — yes.
No, it was entirely correct. Gmail does offer enhanced protections, but those were not used, and off-the-shelf use such as Podesta’s reveals/confirms extreme ignorance and carelessness.
Incorrect. His password was an issue, and was easily hacked by a 14 year old. That’s a specific charge, suggesting that a 14 year old did hack it.
Explanations suggesting spearfishing are inaccurate, and reliant upon Podesta’s own stated careless communication with a staffer. This story is not credible.
Comey is not a credible source. He is lying here, and multiple agents are ready to testify to Congress against him, should the opportunity arise.
Rand Paul already introduced the perfect replacement plan.
mesaeconoguy: No, it was entirely correct.
You're actually claiming that Google doesn't have any degree of protection for their email service. Seriously? Is that your position?
mesaeconoguy: His password was an issue, and was easily hacked by a 14 year old. That’s a specific charge, suggesting that a 14 year old did hack it.
That is incorrect. We know Podesta's email was hacked with a spear-phishing attack, so the quality of the password was irrelevant.
mesaeconoguy: Explanations suggesting spearfishing are inaccurate
That is incorrect. We not only know it was a spear-phishing attack, but we know the exact URL that was used. It's on WikiLeaks.
mesaeconoguy: Comey is not a credible source.
You claimed he didn't say something he did, in fact, say. As this has been pointed out to you, but you divert to a different claim, are you a credible source?
mesaeconoguy: He is lying here, and multiple agents are ready to testify to Congress against him, should the opportunity arise.
If there is evidence that Comey lied to Congress, the "multiple agents" would already be on the record, and we would already know about it from Congress.
Rand just introduced his plan the other day. It allows for much larger HSAs, which is great for people with money, while the federal government would preempt state regulation so people can buy junk plans across state lines. It would also mean millions would lose their health insurance. But it is is a plan, as you say.
Yes. It does not contain protection for the purpose Podesta was using it. No serious high-profile organization uses it the way he did. Hitlary’s server was even worse, and was easily hacked by foreign entities.
Do you seriously believe they were protected?
That is incorrect. The spearfishing story was planted by Podesta to deflect from his total lack of awareness, and possibly another breach. This story depends on his admission of miscommunication with a staffer, extremely unlikely.
In the unlikely event it is true, then Podesta is a moron. If the password story is true, then Podesta is a moron. Those are your choices.
We do? Where?
Edited, see above. You need to source your quote. I do not believe he said this, but if he did, he was extremely stupid.
If there is evidence that Comey lied to Congress, the "multiple agents" would already be on the record, and we would already know about it from Congress.
Incorrect. Congress chose not to pursue additional steps after the election, preferring to leave any follow-up to the new administration.
Joe DiGenova made multiple statements that several FBI agents within the investigation were ready to go public, due to Comey’s misstatements, and his highly questionable conduct, which they viewed as actively criminal.
The DOJ Inspector General is launching an investigation into Comey’s handling of Hillary’s email criminality, and some information may come from that, depending on how AG Sessions steers the investigation. At a minimum, AG Lynch will be included in the investigation.
Here is the takeaway for you: No one believes your leftist narrative anymore, because you have no credibility left. What Wikileaks exposed was the overt collusion and corruption of mainstream media, and Hitlary’s illegal server demonstrated outright contempt of extant law, and the subsequent cover-up confirmed the massive corruption of the last administration.
"Junk" plans my ass. It means we can buy plans that do just what we need again, instead of every plan having to include a ton of junk that practically nobody wants or needs, to satisfy a presumptuous nannyist mandate the federal govt had no authority to impose.
jdgalt: "Junk" plans
Let's just say it undercuts federalism, in that it prevents a state from setting insurance standards.
mesaeconomguy: Yes. It does not contain protection for the purpose Podesta was using it.
You are still conflating having no protection with insufficient protection.
mesaeconomguy: The spearfishing story was planted by Podesta to deflect from his total lack of awareness
Spear-phishing is supported by WikiLeaks. That is the determination of the U.S. Intelligence community, as well as independent cybersecurity experts.
mesaeconomguy: We do? Where?
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36355
The bitly URL expands to a much longer bitly address, which goes to a domain that resembles google.com, but which is not google.com.
mesaeconomguy: In the unlikely event it is true, then Podesta is a moron.
Perhaps. It's immaterial, however, cybersecurity experts say even savvy internet users sometimes fall for phishing attacks, especially when they are personally customized.
mesaeconomguy: You need to source your quote.
11:45 AM
https://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-1/fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-hillary-clinton-email-probe
There was undoubtedly signed paperwork involved in the final FBI recommendations against prosecution.
mesaeconomguy: Congress chose not to pursue additional steps after the election, preferring to leave any follow-up to the new administration.
It's conceivable, but more than likely, knowing how government works, a lot more information would already have leaked. It seems more like the usual scandal-mongering, and wishful thinking on your part.
Wrong. You are conflating protection with no protection. Passwords are not protection. They are basic, off-the-shelf features used by every single email provider.
Incorrect. Julian Assange made the direct accusation that a 14 year old could have hacked Podesta. A 14 year old likely did hack Podesta, which is why he made that accusation.
He also definitively stated that Russia was not the source of the hacks.
Now you will attempt to impugn Assange’s credibility, and I will respond by saying all of the leaked emails were accurate and true. Given that fact, and the information revealed in the emails, guess who has more credibility, you/leftist mainstream media, or Assange? Hint: it’s not you.
I will even go so far as to say Hitlary and Podesta (and the DNC and all other left-wing orgs) deserve to get hacked. I want them all destroyed. I also want them to hack right wing orgs, but that will be more difficult.
.
You just said Podesta wasn’t hacked because of his password. This thread shows how his password was hacked.
.
And that will be his undoing, if it goes that far. There was more than ample evidence to indict and try her. I entirely disagree with Trump’s decision not to prosecute. It would be a slam dunk conviction.
That, however, is immaterial, as Comey’s career is finished no matter what happens. And remember there is still an active ongoing investigation by the NY office.
No, definitely, and Podesta’s moronism is conclusively material. Why do you support morons?
Oh, wait, everyone already knows the answer to that.
You clearly have no knowledge of how government works.
Much of the information has leaked, and there are multiple agents willing to testify before Congress about their role and Comey’s flagrant misconduct in this case, and that is what we would have seen had Hitlary won the election: a parade of agents testifying to the widespread corruption of DOJ and the Oblunder Admin., all while implicating a sitting president in criminal actions.
You, as a defender of criminality, are an extremely stupid and likely dangerous person, which is why we are at the place we are currently, openly debating arresting our highest representatives.
I do not believe this election solved anything, but believe we remain on a path to another civil war.
You regressive leftists do not understand the proper role of government, do not understand the role of law in society, and do not have proper respect for individual action as described by the founding documents of this country. You are not my countrymen, and I do not recognize you as peers.
mesaeconoguy: Passwords are not protection.
Of course passwords are a level of protection, nor is that the only protection that Google provides.
mesaeconoguy: You just said Podesta wasn’t hacked because of his password.
No. We said he wasn't hacked because of the quality of his password.
mesaeconoguy: I entirely disagree with Trump’s decision not to prosecute.
It's not his decision (short of a pardon).
mesaeconoguy: Why do you support morons?
Funny story. Heh. Turns out that people you consider morons have as just as much a right to privacy as other people do.
mesaeconoguy: Much of the information has leaked
Comey testified to Congress that the decision not to prosecute was unanimous among those involved in the investigation. Your claim depends on Comey having committed perjury for no advantage whatsoever.
Whatever you say, zippy.
You are clueless.