Monday, September 17, 2018
the idea that i would vent my frustration using violence is comedic.
i actually have a black belt in karate, which is something i picked up as a kid because i was being picked on. well, it was fairly coerced, but it came out of that necessity - i was a scrawny little kid that was unable to defend myself, so i got sent to self-defence classes.
the funny thing is that my dad was actually a semi-pro boxer at one point. he was drafted by the 67s, too. yet, i never learned to skate, and i never learned to fight. my mother would not allow it.
no, instead, i went to self-defence classes - where i was taught concepts of proportional force, as much as i was taught how to spar. i was just a kid; my black belt was more about self-confidence than skill in martial arts. as an adult, what i remember about it is more in the philosophical realm than the realm of actual fighting.
it is always a better idea to avoid a fight than start one because even if you are the greater fighter, you do not know what weapons your opponent has. you can't win by bringing fists to a knife fight.
intimidation is a key component of any conflict; if one can outsmart their opponent, they need not actually fight them.
and etc.
i think a part of the purpose of sending me to the classes was to bulk me up, as a part of the problem was that i was a little scrawny kid; it didn't seem to have the intended effect, and i ended up as a scrawny teenager, too. but, i learned those lessons well, and was mostly able to avoid conflict through those years, by consistently head faking my opponents.
i'm going to beat you down with words and lawsuits. and, i'm going to enjoy it, too.
but, i'm not a violent person, i never have been one and i couldn't imagine becoming one.
i actually have a black belt in karate, which is something i picked up as a kid because i was being picked on. well, it was fairly coerced, but it came out of that necessity - i was a scrawny little kid that was unable to defend myself, so i got sent to self-defence classes.
the funny thing is that my dad was actually a semi-pro boxer at one point. he was drafted by the 67s, too. yet, i never learned to skate, and i never learned to fight. my mother would not allow it.
no, instead, i went to self-defence classes - where i was taught concepts of proportional force, as much as i was taught how to spar. i was just a kid; my black belt was more about self-confidence than skill in martial arts. as an adult, what i remember about it is more in the philosophical realm than the realm of actual fighting.
it is always a better idea to avoid a fight than start one because even if you are the greater fighter, you do not know what weapons your opponent has. you can't win by bringing fists to a knife fight.
intimidation is a key component of any conflict; if one can outsmart their opponent, they need not actually fight them.
and etc.
i think a part of the purpose of sending me to the classes was to bulk me up, as a part of the problem was that i was a little scrawny kid; it didn't seem to have the intended effect, and i ended up as a scrawny teenager, too. but, i learned those lessons well, and was mostly able to avoid conflict through those years, by consistently head faking my opponents.
i'm going to beat you down with words and lawsuits. and, i'm going to enjoy it, too.
but, i'm not a violent person, i never have been one and i couldn't imagine becoming one.
at
20:22
i grew up as an opposition leftist in the 90s.
the core of my political identity is in alter-globalization, in opposition to "free trade".
if trump was a little more specific, such that i could take him seriously, as opposed to saying vague things like "it's the worst deal" and "we'll get a better deal", i might have endorsed him.
it's the most important thing. and, by a good margin.
and again: it's not like this new deal is perfect or anything. but, it's aiming for the goal of raising workers' standards in mexico, which is at the crux of the original problem. that is the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed, and it seems like it's being addressed...so, if i were an american, i would have to support that, even if i have qualms in other points.
the core of my political identity is in alter-globalization, in opposition to "free trade".
if trump was a little more specific, such that i could take him seriously, as opposed to saying vague things like "it's the worst deal" and "we'll get a better deal", i might have endorsed him.
it's the most important thing. and, by a good margin.
and again: it's not like this new deal is perfect or anything. but, it's aiming for the goal of raising workers' standards in mexico, which is at the crux of the original problem. that is the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed, and it seems like it's being addressed...so, if i were an american, i would have to support that, even if i have qualms in other points.
at
17:48
a big part of the initial calculus was that i simply didn't believe what he was saying on trade, because i'd heard it so many times.
clinton was going to pull out of nafta. & obama was, too. so, why would i believe either of them?
so, i never thought he'd pull out of the tpp.
& i never thought he'd take the lines he's taken on nafta - which aren't perfect, either. but preferable. definitely.
clinton was going to pull out of nafta. & obama was, too. so, why would i believe either of them?
so, i never thought he'd pull out of the tpp.
& i never thought he'd take the lines he's taken on nafta - which aren't perfect, either. but preferable. definitely.
at
17:37
so, let's say the democrats try to run on the left on immigration and the right on nafta, while trump runs on the left on nafta and the right on immigration.
well, i might agree more with the democrats on immigration - but i agree more with trump on nafta.
and, i care more about nafta than i care about immigration.
so, i'm going to vote for trump instead.
do you understand this?
well, i might agree more with the democrats on immigration - but i agree more with trump on nafta.
and, i care more about nafta than i care about immigration.
so, i'm going to vote for trump instead.
do you understand this?
at
17:35
donald trump could very well see himself facing a militant, pro-war, neo-liberal democrat that wants to ramp up the war(s), strengthen nato, resurrect the tpp, bring back nafta, etc.
and the neo-liberals are sitting there in their business suits and don't understand why i wouldn't want that, or why so many americans wouldn't want that.
there's still some bad sides to trump, no doubt. but, a lot of it is actually more about congress. so, one of the biggest arguments in favour of voting for clinton was the supreme court. but, if the congress can drag the process past the midterms, it may be a democratic majority that gets the final say. what would immigration reform look like with a democratic congress? &etc.
i'd obviously rather see the democrats run a left-wing option that wants to....that wants to carry through what trump has started on a lot of these points, to better conclusions than trump could. a bernie sanders, for example.
but that simply isn't likely.
and, if you made me choose, i'd probably pick trump as a lesser evil over a lot of the party's more likely candidates, on the issues that i actually care about.
and the neo-liberals are sitting there in their business suits and don't understand why i wouldn't want that, or why so many americans wouldn't want that.
there's still some bad sides to trump, no doubt. but, a lot of it is actually more about congress. so, one of the biggest arguments in favour of voting for clinton was the supreme court. but, if the congress can drag the process past the midterms, it may be a democratic majority that gets the final say. what would immigration reform look like with a democratic congress? &etc.
i'd obviously rather see the democrats run a left-wing option that wants to....that wants to carry through what trump has started on a lot of these points, to better conclusions than trump could. a bernie sanders, for example.
but that simply isn't likely.
and, if you made me choose, i'd probably pick trump as a lesser evil over a lot of the party's more likely candidates, on the issues that i actually care about.
at
17:31
what we learned in the 2016 election cycle was that the republican voter suppression tactics are extremely effective.
i'm not going to get into the details of american senate or house races from up here in canada. but, don't be surprised if the democrats have a hard time getting the vote out - or if that is, at least, the official narrative.
it's the people that scream 'fake news' that are pushing fake news. my analysis at the time was that if the vote is fair then hillary will win - but the vote is not fair, so you should expect trump to win. the details of predicting specific seat numbers in the house and senate is a much more complicated problem, and suppression is a much more variable factor. but, the same basic narrative is likely to hold.
the polling isn't wrong.
the vote is being suppressed.
i'm not in a position to make a prediction as to the outcome right now, and will likely not be before november.
but, the methodological pushback i want to present is the following: it's not clear why you'd vote for a democrat in the house or senate if you don't like donald trump, both because it's not causal and because trump may actually have an easier time getting much of his mandate through with a democratic congress. much of the pushback against trump is coming from corporate democrats, who are broadly on the right of the spectrum, and more similar to house republicans than house democrats. trump may be personally unpopular, but i may speak for a number of people when i suggest that i don't like him but am pleasantly surprised by a percentage of his policies. i could easily imagine a scenario where donald trump is the lesser evil in 2020. so, this is far too simplistic a way to understand what's going to happen.
i mean, if you want to fall into the cliche that he's unprecedented, that's more or less what i'm saying. but let's get out head around that. all the way.
i'm not going to get into the details of american senate or house races from up here in canada. but, don't be surprised if the democrats have a hard time getting the vote out - or if that is, at least, the official narrative.
it's the people that scream 'fake news' that are pushing fake news. my analysis at the time was that if the vote is fair then hillary will win - but the vote is not fair, so you should expect trump to win. the details of predicting specific seat numbers in the house and senate is a much more complicated problem, and suppression is a much more variable factor. but, the same basic narrative is likely to hold.
the polling isn't wrong.
the vote is being suppressed.
i'm not in a position to make a prediction as to the outcome right now, and will likely not be before november.
but, the methodological pushback i want to present is the following: it's not clear why you'd vote for a democrat in the house or senate if you don't like donald trump, both because it's not causal and because trump may actually have an easier time getting much of his mandate through with a democratic congress. much of the pushback against trump is coming from corporate democrats, who are broadly on the right of the spectrum, and more similar to house republicans than house democrats. trump may be personally unpopular, but i may speak for a number of people when i suggest that i don't like him but am pleasantly surprised by a percentage of his policies. i could easily imagine a scenario where donald trump is the lesser evil in 2020. so, this is far too simplistic a way to understand what's going to happen.
i mean, if you want to fall into the cliche that he's unprecedented, that's more or less what i'm saying. but let's get out head around that. all the way.
at
12:12
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)