Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
timschochet

timschochet’s political thoughts and commentary- back in here until the election is done

Recommended Posts

Good to back, I was suspended for over a month. Let me address that first: I was suspended because the moderators thought I accused @John Blutarsky of being a racist. I disagreed, I didn’t think I did that, but it’s their call. In any case, @John Blutarsky I have no idea if you’re still hanging around the forum, but if you are I had no intention of calling you a racist, I don’t think you are one and I apologize if I gave off that impression. 

That being said, my post in question was pretty aggressive and these things keep happening to me, especially in recent months, because I break my own rules, the main one being: post about the issue, not the person. If I could just stick to that very wise adage I would never get in trouble, but time and again I forget it. 
 

The solution, as it was for me a few years ago, is at least for the time being to limit my thoughts and commentary to a single thread. What I figure is that only those truly interested in engaging in discussion will respond to me here, and those are the folks I want to talk to anyhow. Everyone is welcome to discuss stuff in here with me, but I won’t be posting in any other political threads until after the election. Then we’ll see. I hope to stay out of trouble this way. 

Edited by timschochet
  • Like 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta lot of thoughts about the last month, the conventions and everything else, and I will offer them tomorrow. But this first: when I left, I had just predicted that Biden would win rather easily. Nothing has happened in the last month to make me think any differently. In fact, I’m convinced more than ever. 
 

More tomorrow.

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to have you back tim.  I would love a PM with a link to the post that got you suspended.  Your ability to interact in a civil manner is legendary around here and I’m blown away that you were suspended. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always admired your optimism Tim,  but you're delusional if you think the trolls won't be in here at it again. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, timschochet said:

but I won’t be posting in any other political threads until after the election. 

Can whoever's running the pool please put me down for September 13?  TIA.

  • Like 6
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Takes a special kinda fella to make an entire thread about himself.   

It's the kind of thing Donald Trump would do.  

  • Like 4
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 4
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Takes a special kinda fella to make an entire thread about himself.   

Tim cannot be stopped. You can only hope to contain him.

Edited by Juxtatarot
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Commish said:

I have always admired your optimism Tim,  but you're delusional if you think the trolls won't be in here at it again. 

Good morning. My strategy is that if they do I’ll be less inclined to be aggressive with them. We’ll see if it works. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Good morning. My strategy is that if they do I’ll be less inclined to be aggressive with them. We’ll see if it works. 

I had noticed your more aggressive stances.   I actually  appreciated it.    Sorry u got a month off.   Glad ur back.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So at the Democratic Convention, President Obama stated that this is the most important election ever and that American democracy is at stake. 
At the Republican Convention, President Trump stated that this is the most important election ever and that American freedom is at stake. 

Coming from Trump, such extreme rhetoric is to be expected. Everything with him is always the “greatest” or “worst”, as befits a life long salesperson. Of course nearly all the rest of the Republicans on screen at the Convention mimicked his thought as they tried to paint Biden as a pawn of the radical left. It’s probably their best strategy, but it’s awful IMO to run an election on fear. Of course that’s one of the main reasons I’ve been so anti Trump since 2015;  @The Commish is right; I am an optimist, and I don’t like people who want me to be terrified. 

Which is why President Obama’s assertion bothered me so much. He seemed genuine about it, but I don’t think he truly believes it: if Trump wins again is he moving to Canada? The argument that a second Trump term would permanently damage our democratic system really underestimates our democratic system. If Trump wins, he’ll do a lot of dumb and awful stuff which I will detest, but he won’t do anything to the nation that can’t be undone. We will muddle through. Actually, as I’ve noted before, Trump is mostly an inactive President, too terrified and lazy and incompetent to do much of anything significant one way or another. Basically he has allowed Mitch McConnell to be President; all of Trump’s achievements during his first term are really McConnell’s. If a McConnell Presidency worries you (and if you’re at all liberal it should), that was neutralized in January of 2019, and it shouldn’t be any different for the next 4 years if Trump is re-elected. (Excepting of course judgeships.) 

Trump’s biggest disaster has been the pandemic, of course. The one time in the last 4 years that we needed a leader as President we didn’t have one. But the damage is done, and it’s difficult to think that Biden would improve things by a lot- it’s already too late. No matter which guy wins, we will overcome this when there’s a vaccine and in the meantime a lot of people are going to get sick and some will die. And I doubt there will be another catastrophe like this one in the next 4 years. 
 

Conclusion: both parties are using fear as their means to win. I get it but I hate it. I hate what our politics are becoming. Give me the Barack Obama of 2008 or the Ronald Reagan of 1980. I want to feel good. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, quick-hands said:

I had noticed your more aggressive stances.   I actually  appreciated it.    Sorry u got a month off.   Glad ur back.

Cheers

I will continue to be aggressive, but on issues, hopefully not on people. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Conclusion: both parties are using fear as their means to win. I get it but I hate it. I hate what our politics are becoming. Give me the Barack Obama of 2008 or the Ronald Reagan of 1980. I want to feel good. 

I couldn't agree more with this section. I'm obviously not a Biden fan and sure as heck not a Trump fan but it would be nice if they campaigned on things that they would do instead of how terrible the other guy is. At least it might give me a little hope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most damning part of the Atlantic story was, of course, Trump supposedly calling those who Serve in the military “losers” and “suckers”. But there was another part that also seem to outrage some military types yesterday: when Trump questioned our whole involvement in World War I in the first place. 
This has long been a neo-isolationist argument. Pat Buchanan, who effectively created what would become Trump’s foreign policy, wrote an entire book theorizing that we should either have remained neutral or been on the side of Germany: Germany was no more anti-democratic than England or France, and those two were allied with Tsarist Russia, so how could they argue that they were on the Democratic side? And how could we argue it either, when Woodrow Wilson was invading Mexico and Central America, ignoring local elections and installing thugs who served American interests? It’s a fair point. I despise Buchanan, and even here I detest his ultimate conclusions, but his arguments about World War I were fair, particularly as regards our hypocrisy surrounding the use of the word “democracy.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, timschochet said:


 

Conclusion: both parties are using fear as their means to win. I get it but I hate it. I hate what our politics are becoming. Give me the Barack Obama of 2008 or the Ronald Reagan of 1980. I want to feel good. 

 

We won’t move forward until we quit vilifying the other side and painting them as crooks, rapists, pedos, etc. There is no integrity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Which is why President Obama’s assertion bothered me so much. He seemed genuine about it, but I don’t think he truly believes it: if Trump wins again is he moving to Canada? The argument that a second Trump term would permanently damage our democratic system really underestimates our democratic system. If Trump wins, he’ll do a lot of dumb and awful stuff which I will detest, but he won’t do anything to the nation that can’t be undone. We will muddle through. Actually, as I’ve noted before, Trump is mostly an inactive President, too terrified and lazy and incompetent to do much of anything significant one way or another.

I’ll bet the Germans felt this way too before they gave Hitler ultimate power. 
 

And Trump has a family line that would love nothing more than to maintain that power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tom Skerritt said:

I’ll bet the Germans felt this way too before they gave Hitler ultimate power. 
 

And Trump has a family line that would love nothing more than to maintain that power. 

Trump is not Hitler. 
 

I could stop there but let me add that IMO Trump is not a wannabe dictator. He clearly admires dictators, and his lack of being one is not due to any moral concerns. It’s due, I believe, to the fact that he’s terrified of the responsibility such a role would demand of him. He doesn’t want to be blamed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tom Skerritt said:

I’ll bet the Germans felt this way too before they gave Hitler ultimate power. 
 

Also to this point: they did not. 
The German public of the 1930s generally hated democracy. They adopted It in the 20s to please the winners of the World War and they blamed it for economic collapse. They viewed it as weak and anti-German. They wanted a strong man to take charge and were delighted when one appeared. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Tim, what are your thoughts on this interview?

https://youtu.be/_g0Z_PKv89M?t=360

The clip is 24 minutes, but if you start at the 6:00 minute mark (where the interview begins), you'll get the gist in a few minutes.

Maurile, I’d be interested in your thoughts on this too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Tim, what are your thoughts on this interview?

https://youtu.be/_g0Z_PKv89M

The clip is 24 minutes, but if you start at the 6:00 minute mark (where the interview begins), you'll get the gist in a few minutes.

I watched the whole thing. Thanks for linking it. I could literally write about this interview for hours but let me offer a few thoughts:

Before we get to the professor I need to discuss the interviewer: Amy Goodman is a woman of great integrity, a radical socialist, completely humorless in her approach. The great irony about her conducting an interview in which belief in conspiracy theories is offered as one reason (of several) for encroaching fascism is that for decades Democracy Now has pushed its own conspiracy theories of a left wing variety, with their core idea that society is controlled by corporations and shadowy figures on the right (including Zionists). Ms Goodman has attacked trade deals for years, promoted populism (of a left wing variety) and many of her ideas are mirror images of Trump’s. This is an important context for trying to understand an interview in which we are told that fascism is coming. 
 

Now on to the professor: I don’t know him; he seems like a smart guy (though a self-promoter) but in his attempts to offer parallels to the Nazis he got a lot of history wrong. For instance he claimed that the Nazis refused to condemn the actions of right wing thugs in the street and compared it to Trump refusing to condemn the white kid in Kenosha. This is highly misleading. The right wing thugs were part of the Nazi party; Hitler didn’t refuse to condemn, he ENDORSED their actions. He didn’t offer excuses of self-defense like Trump does; Hitler said that what the thugs did were good things. There was no pretense. And this is a very important distinction and goes to my main point- Hitler controlled his mobs. Trump is a scared onlooker who is as suprised as anyone by events. 

The Professor offers comparisons between Hitler’s comments about Jews and Trump’s about immigrants and how dirty New York is, etc. He neglects to mention that Theodore Roosevelt made the same racist comments about immigrants and so did Woodrow Wilson. So did Winston Churchill, the greatest defender of liberty and western values in the 20th century. This is no connection between this sort of talk and fascism. In fact, the man who first introduced us to fascism, Benito Mussolini, was not a racist at all (at least not until the Germans pressured him into it.) There is also no connection between fascism and “the cult of personality”- left wing socialist dictatorships engage in that same cult, which is something groups like Democracy Now always seem to ignore. 
 

So obviously I disagree with the professor’s conclusions. But one thing he said that goes back to my previous point: he pointed out, correctly, that the Republicans under Trump are demonizing their opponents, making the Democrats out to be evil rather than just simply wrong. And he’s absolutely right about this. But I have to ask, what exactly is the professor and Amy Goodman saying about the Republicans? By warning of fascism, aren’t they doing the exact same thing that they’re correctly accusing the Republicans of doing? It’s so much easier to fight against Communists or Fascists than against conservatives or liberals isn’t it? We never have to question who the bad guys truly are...

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

Trump is not Hitler. 
 

I could stop there but let me add that IMO Trump is not a wannabe dictator. He clearly admires dictators, and his lack of being one is not due to any moral concerns. It’s due, I believe, to the fact that he’s terrified of the responsibility such a role would demand of him. He doesn’t want to be blamed. 

I hope you’re right Tim. But a good percentage of Germans were not happy about the end of democracy, yet it happened anyway.
 

From the National WWII Museum:

 

Hitler had supreme authority as führer (leader or guide), but could not have risen to power or committed such atrocities on his own. He had the active support of the powerful German officer class and of millions of everyday citizens who voted for the National Socialist German Workers’ (Nazi) Party and hailed him as a national savior in gigantic stadium rallies.

 

The ultimate aim of the Nazi Party was to seize power through Germany’s parliamentary system, install Hitler as dictator, and create a community of racially pure Germans loyal to their führer,

 

This doesn’t sound familiar to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn’t really. 
 

First off when Hitler rose to power the Democratic institutions set up in Weimar were barely ten years old. Germany had no history of democracy. If George Washington or John Adams had wanted to set up a dictatorship they could perhaps have done so. 250 years later it’s not so easy. 
 

But more importantly: Americans have a libertarian streak Germans have never had. It’s both our blessing and our curse. (Our curse because it causes some people to ignore public health advise- vaccines, masks, etc- simply because people don’t like to be told what to do.) As it happens, most of Trump’s supporters have this streak in them. They like Trump- some of them love him- but they’re not looking for a Fuhrer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome back Tim. You should post in whatever thread you like.  I hereby sanction it.  

Just ignore/don’t respond to people that cause problems.  The constant pleading for mods to swoop in and ban has gotten way out of control.  

I’d hate to lose your contributions where they belong because a handful of people still haven’t figured out how to get along.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, timschochet said:

First off when Hitler rose to power the Democratic institutions set up in Weimar were barely ten years old. Germany had no history of democracy. If George Washington or John Adams had wanted to set up a dictatorship they could perhaps have done so. 250 years later it’s not so easy. 
 

Not a chance of the bolded having occurred.  

The events of the period from 1770-1790 in America were principals and laws first, and then seek out the individuals that embraced them to guide their launch.    It was an experiment, but not an experiment based around the cult of personality of a single individual, a family or even a small group of individuals.     The distinctions in philosophical differences between individuals such as Thomas Jefferson vs John Adams; Alexander Hamilton vs James Madison were massive, yet all of these individuals rallied around common principals that they could agree upon. 

This is a major difference between what is going on now vs then.     There are massive amounts of individuals who express hate and venom for someone, (they are anti-Trump, they hate Hillary Clinton, etc) but most of them have a very difficult time articulating what the principles are that are at the root of their hate.    They don't like the personality, they don't like the style, they don't like the observable actions or statements, but they don't step back and think about principles frequently enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Welcome back Tim. You should post in whatever thread you like.  I hereby sanction it.  

Just ignore/don’t respond to people that cause problems.  The constant pleading for mods to swoop in and ban has gotten way out of control.  

I’d hate to lose your contributions where they belong because a handful of people still haven’t figured out how to get along.

Thanks ren. But I’ll stay here for now for my own sanity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, spodog said:

Not a chance of the bolded having occurred.  

The events of the period from 1770-1790 in America were principals and laws first, and then seek out the individuals that embraced them to guide their launch.    It was an experiment, but not an experiment based around the cult of personality of a single individual, a family or even a small group of individuals.     The distinctions in philosophical differences between individuals such as Thomas Jefferson vs John Adams; Alexander Hamilton vs James Madison were massive, yet all of these individuals rallied around common principals that they could agree upon. 

This is a major difference between what is going on now vs then.     There are massive amounts of individuals who express hate and venom for someone, (they are anti-Trump, they hate Hillary Clinton, etc) but most of them have a very difficult time articulating what the principles are that are at the root of their hate.    They don't like the personality, they don't like the style, they don't like the observable actions or statements, but they don't step back and think about principles frequently enough. 

You don’t think that if George Washington had wanted to be President for life he could have? I certainly do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I approve of this thread on many, many levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

You don’t think that if George Washington had wanted to be President for life he could have? I certainly do. 

We owe a lot to him for his insistence that an electoral process proceed and his successor be chosen, so that he could return to the life of a statesman and planter.    God knows he earned the right to walk away when he did.     Yes, there have been a multitude of writers who have focused on the hero worship in the population towards him and the halo effect that was present, but . . . ultimately, no, I don't think even he would have been able to suggest that his Presidency would last the rest of his life or until he decided it should end.    Had he suggested that occur, history obviously would have take a very different course, and none of us know exactly what would have happened. 

My money is on an outcome that would have simply turned the ire felt towards King George III towards a different George had Washington suggested he was now President for life. 

Note that Thomas Jefferson used State Department funds to pay a newspaper editor to write disparaging pieces about Washington.     Several papers at the time labeled him a "dupe of King George" and a "betrayer of the Revolution".     He most definitely played the role of a somewhat neutral ground between the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans, but was certainly more aligned in most matters with the Federalists.    He was a staunch opponent of much of the State's rights issues at the time, even up to his death, for example. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, spodog said:

We owe a lot to him for his insistence that an electoral process proceed and his successor be chosen, so that he could return to the life of a statesman and planter.    God knows he earned the right to walk away when he did.     Yes, there have been a multitude of writers who have focused on the hero worship in the population towards him and the halo effect that was present, but . . . ultimately, no, I don't think even he would have been able to suggest that his Presidency would last the rest of his life or until he decided it should end.    Had he suggested that occur, history obviously would have take a very different course, and none of us know exactly what would have happened. 

My money is on an outcome that would have simply turned the ire felt towards King George III towards a different George had Washington suggested he was now President for life. 

 

 

I don’t agree. I’m not the greatest expert on this but it seems to me that we have numerous examples in Latin America to tell us exactly what would have happened. From Simon Bolivar to Emilio Zapata to Fidel Castro...

And even if your last assumption is correct, the result, based on those other examples, would be civil war followed by a new dictatorship followed by more civil war, etc. 

George Washington’s decision to retire after 8 years is very likely the single most important action by any person in American history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Ugh.  No.  Seriously.   I'll give you this tim.  Your utter misunderstanding of politics at least makes you somewhat entertaining.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/02/17/george-washington-unpopular-president/

Again, I’m no expert. But I have heard several historians make this claim. It’s not mine. 
 

The insults are unnecessary. If you disagree with me, make your case. But Washington’s popularity among the general public isn’t really compelling. I’m more interested in his popularity among the military- that would have decided the question, IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Again, I’m no expert. But I have heard several historians make this claim. It’s not mine. 
 

The insults are unnecessary. If you disagree with me, make your case. But Washington’s popularity among the general public isn’t really compelling. I’m more interested in his popularity among the military- that would have decided the question, IMO. 

Its not an insult.  Its an observation. And I said it was entertaining. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random thought of the day: I keep hearing certain conservatives argue that we should imitate Sweden’s approach to COVID. 
 

Putting aside the specific issues involved, am I the only one that finds it amusing that conservatives would seek to use Sweden as a role model for our actions? I can’t think of another country that in the past has been more criticized by the conservative movement as the one place that we DON’T want to be like! I just find that really funny...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

Its not an insult.  Its an observation. And I said it was entertaining. 

“Your utter misunderstanding of politics” isn’t an insult? OK. I’ll have to remember that. I’m happy to entertain you though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Random thought of the day: I keep hearing certain conservatives argue that we should imitate Sweden’s approach to COVID. 
 

Putting aside the specific issues involved, am I the only one that finds it amusing that conservatives would seek to use Sweden as a role model for our actions? I can’t think of another country that in the past has been more criticized by the conservative movement as the one place that we DON’T want to be like! I just find that really funny...

Cuba has a far lower infant mortality rate than the US. Can we want that but not want to be a communist country?  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Cuba has a far lower infant mortality rate than the US. Can we want that but not want to be a communist country?  

 

 

Of course. And I would find it amusing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, supermike80 said:
19 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Random thought of the day: I keep hearing certain conservatives argue that we should imitate Sweden’s approach to COVID. 
 

Putting aside the specific issues involved, am I the only one that finds it amusing that conservatives would seek to use Sweden as a role model for our actions? I can’t think of another country that in the past has been more criticized by the conservative movement as the one place that we DON’T want to be like! I just find that really funny...

Cuba has a far lower infant mortality rate than the US. Can we want that but not want to be a communist country?  

Not to speak for Tim, but it seems like part of his point is that Sweden's approach to COVID was tethered to their socialist system. It's much easier to say "We're not going to shut down the country" when everyone has free access to socialized health care.

Ironically, your comparison to Cuba involves a similar theme. Cuba has lower infant mortality because they have a socialized medical system.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Again, I’m no expert. But I have heard several historians make this claim. It’s not mine. 
 

The insults are unnecessary. If you disagree with me, make your case. But Washington’s popularity among the general public isn’t really compelling. I’m more interested in his popularity among the military- that would have decided the question, IMO. 

By the time Washington took office,  the Continental Army, which is really all there was that equates to what we think of today as the military, was exhausted, out of supplies, with very few remaining true Generals left to serve, and the Continental Congress was flat broke, having to break promises made to continental officers and rank and file alike.    There was no money to pay them, no way to raise funds (yet) and certainly no way that any type of military coup with the Continental Army rallying behind Washington as a new dictator if that is what you are suggesting.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, spodog said:

By the time Washington took office,  the Continental Army, which is really all there was that equates to what we think of today as the military, was exhausted, out of supplies, with very few remaining true Generals left to serve, and the Continental Congress was flat broke, having to break promises made to continental officers and rank and file alike.    There was no money to pay them, no way to raise funds (yet) and certainly no way that any type of military coup with the Continental Army rallying behind Washington as a new dictator if that is what you are suggesting.     

OK. I’m obviously going to have to read more about this subject.

Still, so many historians dwell on Washington’s decision not to seek a dictatorship that there’s clearly something to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, spodog said:

By the time Washington took office,  the Continental Army, which is really all there was that equates to what we think of today as the military, was exhausted, out of supplies, with very few remaining true Generals left to serve, and the Continental Congress was flat broke, having to break promises made to continental officers and rank and file alike.    There was no money to pay them, no way to raise funds (yet) and certainly no way that any type of military coup with the Continental Army rallying behind Washington as a new dictator if that is what you are suggesting.     

By the way, what you’re describing is also true of the Russian Army after the February Revolution of 1917. But despite all that, individual soldiers had guns and enough of them decided to support  the dictators Lenin and Trotsky over the Democratic Kerensky and Provisional government. That turned what could have been a democracy into a dictatorship. A similar situation took place in France after their revolution when the military general Napoleon seized control of the democratic council. In both cases, just as you described, the military was exhausted, out of supplies, with no money to pay them. 
Could the same have happened here? Who knows? Certainly many historians think so. But my original point is that it’s far less likely to happen now. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

France, Prussia in 1848, most of Latin America, Russia, Vietnam, much of Africa, Iran: it seems like almost every political revolution I can think of (meaning a takeover of the government by the use of force) has ended badly, with a dictatorship as the result, inevitably worse than the government that was overthrown. 
Except for the United States. 
What were/are  the essential differences that have allowed us to be a success story and why have these been so difficult to repeat elsewhere?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, timschochet said:

Random thought of the day: I keep hearing certain conservatives argue that we should imitate Sweden’s approach to COVID. 
 

Putting aside the specific issues involved, am I the only one that finds it amusing that conservatives would seek to use Sweden as a role model for our actions? I can’t think of another country that in the past has been more criticized by the conservative movement as the one place that we DON’T want to be like! I just find that really funny...

I know literally nothing about how Sweden has done this. But why would you find that funny?

I've always thought one of the marks of maturity was being able to weigh an idea on its merits. I may be critical of how someone does something. But if they have an idea I thought was good, I'd absolutely consider it. That doesn't seem funny at all. 

That kind of tribalism where ideas are dismissed based on who comes up with them is discouraging. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I know literally nothing about how Sweden has done this. But why would you find that funny?

I've always thought one of the marks of maturity was being able to weigh an idea on its merits. I may be critical of how someone does something. But if they have an idea I thought was good, I'd absolutely consider it. That doesn't seem funny at all. 

That kind of tribalism where ideas are dismissed based on who comes up with them is discouraging. 

I find it funny because the people who make this argument are the exact same people who have spent years sharply criticizing Sweden. If they were reconsidering their earlier criticism that would be one thing. But I don’t think they are. They are merely latching onto what Sweden is doing because it agrees with their preheld belief that we shouldn’t respond to COVID by shutting anything down. 
I agree 100% with your comments about new ideas and about tribalism, but I don’t think that is what’s happening here. I think that it’s actually almost the exact opposite: people clinging to old ideas and eagerly grabbing on to any justification that allows them to continue to hold on to those ideas. Which is human nature; I’m certainly not free of it myself. But in this case they have to ignore or put aside previous arguments; THATS what I find amusing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I find it funny because the people who make this argument are the exact same people who have spent years sharply criticizing Sweden. If they were reconsidering their earlier criticism that would be one thing. But I don’t think they are. They are merely latching onto what Sweden is doing because it agrees with their preheld belief that we shouldn’t respond to COVID by shutting anything down. 
I agree 100% with your comments about new ideas and about tribalism, but I don’t think that is what’s happening here. I think that it’s actually almost the exact opposite: people clinging to old ideas and eagerly grabbing on to any justification that allows them to continue to hold on to those ideas. Which is human nature; I’m certainly not free of it myself. But in this case they have to ignore or put aside previous arguments; THATS what I find amusing. 

 

Thanks. I disagree though. I'd rather see anyone weigh an idea on its merits. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think the Sweden issue is so complicated - they started off behind the rest of Europe but then quickly changed policies. They’re now roughly middle of the pack. Regardless like the rest of Europe they’re far ahead of the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, timschochet said:

Random thought of the day: I keep hearing certain conservatives argue that we should imitate Sweden’s approach to COVID. 
 

Putting aside the specific issues involved, am I the only one that finds it amusing that conservatives would seek to use Sweden as a role model for our actions? I can’t think of another country that in the past has been more criticized by the conservative movement as the one place that we DON’T want to be like! I just find that really funny...

Do you also find it funny that people who have historically praised Sweden for its economic policies now turn around and criticize how its handing covid?  

Whenever you're tempted to point your finger at the other tribe and laugh at them for "switching sides" on some issue, ask yourself if the exact same critique couldn't be applied to your tribe.  If it seems like a silly criticism of your tribe, then it's probably a silly criticism of the other tribe too.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   1 member