Democrats Confirm Torturer As Director Of CIA

[Emily Lake]

I don't know what this means. What campaign promise?

Well, you can waffle about whether or not he supported torture, with his waterboarding comments, but he claimed that the US should assassinate the family members of terrorists, which would definitely be a war crime.

Ah, thank you.

 

[ronburgundy]

Here is a more accurate take:

The two major parties demonstrate their extreme differences when 87% of Democratic Senators oppose Haspel as head of CIA, in contrast to only 6% of Republicans.

Yet many self-destructively stupid leftists (many of whom put Trump in office by not voting in 2016) proclaim that the 6 Dems in contested swing states who sided with the 94% of Republicans somehow proves a moral equivalence between the parties and justifies not voting for the Democrats in the future. This reaction of a petulant child is guaranteed to further win the GOP more power, more bad policies these idiots claim to be against, and ensure that even more Dems will have to occasionally side with the GOP just to be able to win in swing states.

Rational liberals who grasp the long-term political realities take another gulp of beer hoping to drown the sadness of knowing how these leftist reactionary morons are helping to reverse the modest progress that has been made over the last half century.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here is a more accurate take:

The two major parties demonstrate their extreme differences when 87% of Democratic Senators oppose Haspel as head of CIA, in contrast to only 6% of Republicans.

Yet many self-destructively stupid leftists (many of whom put Trump in office by not voting in 2016) proclaim that the 6 Dems in contested swing states who sided with the 94% of Republicans somehow proves a moral equivalence between the parties and justifies not voting for the Democrats in the future. This reaction of a petulant child is guaranteed to further win the GOP more power, more bad policies these idiots claim to be against, and ensure that even more Dems will have to occasionally side with the GOP just to be able to win in swing states.

Rational liberals who grasp the long-term political realities take another gulp of beer hoping to drown the sadness of knowing how these leftist reactionary morons are helping to reverse the modest progress that has been made over the last half century.

I can at least understand their frustration. Compromise, compromise, compromise...just to pass a god damn budget under Obama, no new spending. Obama doesn't put anyone in jail for Iraq... or the crash. And nothing but obstruction against, an at best, moderate.

Yes, the members on the left that want to go down a Sanders trail fail to understand there are several Americas... and while most of those Americas support what Sanders wants... many have been made to believe they are against it.

But honestly, political pragmatism is just starting to make some people like myself feel numb. Waited, waited, didn't rock the boat... got majorities in '06. Grew them in '08, and then the Democrats make health insurance a bit better... America has a hissy fit and creates a massive wave of Republicans into power, not just in the House and Senate, but in legislatures across America... the year of the damn Census... meaning the Gerrymandering that would be a result and then consolidate their power (even suggesting gerrymandering the Electoral College!). THAT wasn't the fault of the "leftist reactionary morons", that was the fault of middle America who allowed themselves to be lied to by the GOP.

 

[ronburgundy]

Here is a more accurate take:

The two major parties demonstrate their extreme differences when 87% of Democratic Senators oppose Haspel as head of CIA, in contrast to only 6% of Republicans.

Yet many self-destructively stupid leftists (many of whom put Trump in office by not voting in 2016) proclaim that the 6 Dems in contested swing states who sided with the 94% of Republicans somehow proves a moral equivalence between the parties and justifies not voting for the Democrats in the future. This reaction of a petulant child is guaranteed to further win the GOP more power, more bad policies these idiots claim to be against, and ensure that even more Dems will have to occasionally side with the GOP just to be able to win in swing states.

Rational liberals who grasp the long-term political realities take another gulp of beer hoping to drown the sadness of knowing how these leftist reactionary morons are helping to reverse the modest progress that has been made over the last half century.

I can at least understand their frustration. Compromise, compromise, compromise...just to pass a god damn budget under Obama, no new spending. Obama doesn't put anyone in jail for Iraq... or the crash. And nothing but obstruction against, an at best, moderate.

Yes, the members on the left that want to go down a Sanders trail fail to understand there are several Americas... and while most of those Americas support what Sanders wants... many have been made to believe they are against it.

Most Americans may resonate with Sanders' abstract values, but they don't think his actual policies to get there are viable or even a good idea, and they are correct about that.

But honestly, political pragmatism is just starting to make some people like myself feel numb. Waited, waited, didn't rock the boat... got majorities in '06. Grew them in '08, and then the Democrats make health insurance a bit better... America has a hissy fit and creates a massive wave of Republicans into power, not just in the House and Senate, but in legislatures across America... the year of the damn Census... meaning the Gerrymandering that would be a result and then consolidate their power (even suggesting gerrymandering the Electoral College!). THAT wasn't the fault of the "leftist reactionary morons", that was the fault of middle America who allowed themselves to be lied to by the GOP.

Those on the left that didn't show up to vote for Hillary also didn't vote for Dems for any other office, and thus did greatly help the republicans gain that control across the board.

Yes, poor and middle class white America is being duped into supporting the GOP by fear mongering about the cultural threats from various groups. But they are made more psychologically vulnerable to such messages by the growing vocal segment of the left that eschews the most noble values of liberalism like free speech and treating people like individuals with equal rights, and tells these whites that they are not welcome and have nothing to complain about because their skin color makes them "privileged" regardless of their actual personal circumstances.

In addition, many "moderate" democrats are not actually moderate liberals, they just are not extreme leftists. They are actually the defenders of liberalism against both the right and the anti-liberal left whose agenda is a neo-Marxist immediate forcing of equal group-level outcomes by any means neccessary, which requires a trampling of individual rights and procedural fairness that defines actual liberalism.

These liberals share the desire for an end to those group inequalities caused by past and present injustices against individuals for their group membership. But want to achieve this by reducing all injustices to individuals and reaffirming procedural fairness, which takes much longer than the leftist tactic of committing more injustices against individuals in "privileged" groups and devaluing basic rights in order to forcibly balance the group-level aggregate tally sheet.

Sure, compromise does not feel ideal, but it feels a lot better than completely losing the battle and going backwards. IF the leftists want to advance their own causes rather than ensure any progress already made is lost, they have to recognize that their preferred approach is not going to happen in any kind of democracy. Progress in democracy inherently means that no one gets everything they want. But if rational compromises are made among those who share some values, at at least things can move in the net direction that most people agree is better than the current situation, and even that requires taking the long-term view to see it because their will be setbacks.

 

[southernhybrid]

Almost everything in life requires compromise. You can't always get what you want. Why don't some people seem to understand that?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Most Americans may resonate with Sanders' abstract values, but they don't think his actual policies to get there are viable or even a good idea, and they are correct about that.

That can't be true because Sanders doesn't really have a plan for enactment of the policies.

But honestly, political pragmatism is just starting to make some people like myself feel numb. Waited, waited, didn't rock the boat... got majorities in '06. Grew them in '08, and then the Democrats make health insurance a bit better... America has a hissy fit and creates a massive wave of Republicans into power, not just in the House and Senate, but in legislatures across America... the year of the damn Census... meaning the Gerrymandering that would be a result and then consolidate their power (even suggesting gerrymandering the Electoral College!). THAT wasn't the fault of the "leftist reactionary morons", that was the fault of middle America who allowed themselves to be lied to by the GOP.

Those on the left that didn't show up to vote for Hillary also didn't vote for Dems for any other office, and thus did greatly help the republicans gain that control across the board.

This ignores 2010, which is largely responsible for what we are dealing with. The Gerrymandering made huge changes in the House, giving the GOP an almost indestructible majority. States like Ohio and Pennsylvania saw Dems drop several seats. And then the GOP was able to do whatever they wanted in Congress. Obstruction politically unviable? Not really, not with the gerrymandering.

Yes, poor and middle class white America is being duped into supporting the GOP by fear mongering about the cultural threats from various groups. But they are made more psychologically vulnerable to such messages by the growing vocal segment of the left that eschews the most noble values of liberalism like free speech and treating people like individuals with equal rights, and tells these whites that they are not welcome and have nothing to complain about because their skin color makes them "privileged" regardless of their actual personal circumstances.

Why do I never feel this disinvitation because I'm white from the Democrats? It is so pervasive, according to some people, that I would have sworn I would have noticed it.

In addition, many "moderate" democrats are not actually moderate liberals, they just are not extreme leftists. They are actually the defenders of liberalism against both the right and the anti-liberal left whose agenda is a neo-Marxist immediate forcing of equal group-level outcomes by any means neccessary, which requires a trampling of individual rights and procedural fairness that defines actual liberalism.

These liberals share the desire for an end to those group inequalities caused by past and present injustices against individuals for their group membership. But want to achieve this by reducing all injustices to individuals and reaffirming procedural fairness, which takes much longer than the leftist tactic of committing more injustices against individuals in "privileged" groups and devaluing basic rights in order to forcibly balance the group-level aggregate tally sheet.

What in the hell are you talking about? I'd swear, all blacks should be driving in government funded Cadillacs due to this liberal inequity. Whites collect the majority of Government assistance. There are oodles of retraining programs. There are so many things for white people to take (and do take) advantage of. This whole 'burden of white men' in America is just so fucking ignorant.

Sure, compromise does not feel ideal but it feels a lot better than completely losing the battle and going backwards.

You don't seem to be getting the point. The GOP fixed the system for Congress after the 2010 election.

IF the leftists want to advance their own causes rather than ensure any progress already made is lost, they have to recognize that their preferred approach is not going to happen in any kind of democracy. Progress in democracy inherently means that no one gets everything they want. But if rational compromises are made among those who share some values, at at least things can move in the net direction that most people agree is better than the current situation, and even that requires taking the long-term view to see it because their will be setbacks.

Yeah, that is pragmatic side of it. And like I said, 2010 showed how fucked up this all is. Don't rock the boat with illegal war in Iraq to gain majorities. Finally manage to pass a little health care legislation despite unprecedented obstruction from the Republicans... and then America loses its mind and gives huge majorities to the party that was fired in '06 for the whole war thing, among other problems.

Change takes time, but it seems whenever the Democrats get a shot, they need to get the nation back above the water surface.

 

[bilby]

Almost everything in life requires compromise. You can't always get what you want. Why don't some people seem to understand that?

Because they've spent their whole lives being told that it is noble and respectable to stand by your principles, even if (indeed, especially if) that means sacrificing things you hold dear; And that compromising your principles for personal gain is cowardly and vile.

This belief is at the core of almost everything in our culture - movies, TV shows, books, etc.

Heroes almost never compromise. If they do, it's usually a disaster, and they come to realise that taking an uncompromising stand based on pure application of their principles is the only path to success, by the final reel.

 

[RVonse]

And yet again, you read and post a link to the crackpot PCRs...

PCR gets labeled a crackpot because he is one of the few remaining people not bought and paid for by corporate America.... and willing to tell the truth even if you and most others would rather not hear it.

And the democrats need to hear the truth. They have completely abandoned the middle class voter who actually works for a living. Looks like they have abandoned moral principles now. A whole lot of voters went straight to Trump because they knew they were getting no where with the democrats.

So if you hate Trump (like I know that you do), then you should place all your blame to the democratic party for putting Trump in office. And rather than beat up on PCR, you should also thank him for being the messenger of truth. The same truth that the democrats need to hear right now.

 

[laughing dog]

And yet again, you read and post a link to the crackpot PCRs...

PCR gets labeled a crackpot because he is one of the few remaining people not bought and paid for by corporate America.... and willing to tell the truth even if you and most others would rather not hear it.

And the democrats need to hear the truth. They have completely abandoned the middle class voter who actually works for a living. Looks like they have abandoned moral principles now. A whole lot of voters went straight to Trump because they knew they were getting no where with the democrats.

So if you hate Trump (like I know that you do), then you should place all your blame to the democratic party for putting Trump in office. And rather than beat up on PCR, you should also thank him for being the messenger of truth. The same truth that the democrats need to hear right now.

That is delusional. The democrats did not vote Trump into office.

PCR's screed was idiotic. He equated genocide and ethnic cleansing (Milosevec's crimes) with torture. PCR and his dupes ignore the basic fact that Trump approves of torture. PCR ignores the reality that those Senators have a tough re-election ahead of them and they realized that a meaningless vote against this person will hurt their party's chances of retaking the Senate. And for some reason, PCR is unaware of whatever moral high ground the US had, we have long since lost it since Trump became POTUS.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

PCR isn't a crackpot, but a propagandist. He knew 9/11 troof movement was bs but propagandized it anyway. He knew there were not FEMA camps for Muslims but he said it anyway. I believed him because he seemed to be a Republican whistleblower, but I was mistaken. After a long list of lies, half-truths and other crazy talk for decades, he is now making out the Dem Party to be the bad guys when it's few dems (bought and paid by corporations), Trump, and 90% of Republicans. If propaganda could torture words, PCR would be hanged at a tribunal.

 

[funinspace]

And yet again, you read and post a link to the crackpot PCRs...

PCR gets labeled a crackpot because he is one of the few remaining people not bought and paid for by corporate America.... and willing to tell the truth even if you and most others would rather not hear it.

Ditto to what laughing dog already said. PCR's is called a crackpot, because he is one. Even crackpots, like broken clocks, can be 'correct' on occasion.

PCR is a crackpot: Beyond his 9/11 conspiracy notions...
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/01/20/ron-paul-is-just-asking-questions-of-course/

Last week, one of Ron Paul’s websites published a column by 9/11 truther and unhinged wingnut Paul Craig Roberts claiming that the attack on Charlie Hebdo was a false flag operation carried out by the American government to punish France for not agreeing with much of our foreign policy. Ron Paul says it’s okay because they’re “just asking questions” and searching for truth.

And the democrats need to hear the truth. They have completely abandoned the middle class voter who actually works for a living.

Sure, the Dums are the lesser Corporate party, but I still wouldn't say they have 'completely abandoned the middle class voter', that would be the Repugs.

Looks like they have abandoned moral principles now. A whole lot of voters went straight to Trump because they knew they were getting no where with the democrats.

So if you hate Trump (like I know that you do), then you should place all your blame to the democratic party for putting Trump in office. And rather than beat up on PCR, you should also thank him for being the messenger of truth. The same truth that the democrats need to hear right now.

I didn't 'beat up on PCR', I pointed out that he really is a crackpot, and if you actually have anything intelligent to say, quoting this loon does not help you make a point. You defending this loon does not help any point you want to make. I really am not sure how in the hell you have not noticed this point before...

The Dums just like the Repugs are not monolithic. I don't agree with many of the things the Dums have done, but the Repugs are far worse. Even in this silly example you tried to raise regarding the new head of the CIA, you go running with the loon PCR to blame the Dums who by far apposed her nomination and give FFvC and the Repugs a free pass even though he nominated her. WTF WHY???

Yes, I hate FFvC as he operates as a xenophobic sexist pig. El Cheato has expanded the US war machine and its operations beyond what was already horrible. No one thing put Don the Con into office and is a topic unto itself. FFvC and the Repugs are further damaging this country with their tax cut for the rich game, which will really make for a shitty show in the next recession as they have abandoned any pretense about actually caring about fiscal responsibility.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And yet again, you read and post a link to the crackpot PCRs...

PCR gets labeled a crackpot because he is one of the few remaining people not bought and paid for by corporate America.... and willing to tell the truth even if you and most others would rather not hear it.

Such a compelling claim.

And the democrats need to hear the truth. They have completely abandoned the middle class voter who actually works for a living.

In what way have they abandoned the "middle class voter"?

Looks like they have abandoned moral principles now.

It was a vote of pragmatism. Moral votes get you fired from Congress.

A whole lot of voters went straight to Trump because they knew they were getting no where with the democrats.

The numbers don't indicate that is true.

So if you hate Trump (like I know that you do), then you should place all your blame to the democratic party for putting Trump in office. And rather than beat up on PCR, you should also thank him for being the messenger of truth. The same truth that the democrats need to hear right now.

And the DNC has shifted their tone for the Mid-Terms, as a result of the '16 election. What do you want them to do?

 

[laughing dog]

Anyone else see the irony in a Trump voter and supporter indicting anyone for abandoning moral principles?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Almost everything in life requires compromise. You can't always get what you want. Why don't some people seem to understand that?

Because they've spent their whole lives being told that it is noble and respectable to stand by your principles, even if (indeed, especially if) that means sacrificing things you hold dear; And that compromising your principles for personal gain is cowardly and vile.

This belief is at the core of almost everything in our culture - movies, TV shows, books, etc.

Heroes almost never compromise. If they do, it's usually a disaster, and they come to realise that taking an uncompromising stand based on pure application of their principles is the only path to success, by the final reel.

And the irony of this is, of course, that such movies/TV shows/books are almost all made by people who know nothing other than compromise. Indeed, the only way they got to the position of being able to produce such things is through an endless and painful series of compromises (typically).

Thus, the reality is that compromise is the only way to achieve; the fantasy is never compromise.

 

[Emily Lake]

Meh. It's in the definition of "hero" The archetype, the idealized version, are those that place principles above their own selfish agendas. Those that are willing to sacrifice their own gain in the interest of the greater good represent an incredibly powerful symbol of what we would most like to see ourselves.

Compromise of desires in the interest of collaborative progress isn't the same as compromise of ones values for personal gain.

 

[bilby]

Meh. It's in the definition of "hero" The archetype, the idealized version, are those that place principles above their own selfish agendas. Those that are willing to sacrifice their own gain in the interest of the greater good represent an incredibly powerful symbol of what we would most like to see ourselves.

Compromise of desires in the interest of collaborative progress isn't the same as compromise of ones values for personal gain.

But the hero only appears to compromise his desires. He always gets the girl in the end.

That's why 'incels' are a thing. They grew up with the certainty that the hero is entitled to marry the princess. They are the hero of their own narrative (as are we all); So their failure to attract a princess must indicate a problem with the world, and not a problem with themselves. And as any action hero can show you, obstacles to obtaining your inevitable and justly deserved rewards are best overcome with extreme violence.

 

[Emily Lake]

Meh. It's in the definition of "hero" The archetype, the idealized version, are those that place principles above their own selfish agendas. Those that are willing to sacrifice their own gain in the interest of the greater good represent an incredibly powerful symbol of what we would most like to see ourselves.

Compromise of desires in the interest of collaborative progress isn't the same as compromise of ones values for personal gain.

But the hero only appears to compromise his desires. He always gets the girl in the end.

That's why 'incels' are a thing. They grew up with the certainty that the hero is entitled to marry the princess. They are the hero of their own narrative (as are we all); So their failure to attract a princess must indicate a problem with the world, and not a problem with themselves. And as any action hero can show you, obstacles to obtaining your inevitable and justly deserved rewards are best overcome with extreme violence.

I think you might be using your own personal definition of the hero archetype, rather then the literary or psychological one.

The hero gets the girl, because those who are willing to sacrifice petty wants for the greater good are more valued, and hence are rewarded. The girl loves the hero because he was willing to sacrifice his own desires for the safety and protection of others - and he is genuinely willing to do so, it isn't a ruse. Incels aren't sacrificing their petty wants, they're venerating their petty wants.

Also, "Action Heroes" are frequently more akin to Warrior or Adventurer archetypes than the classical Hero archetype. Being willing to fight for what is right is a common theme, and definitely is part of the Hero archetype... but mythological heroes are just as likely to overcome challenges through the application of intelligence or cleverness than by violence. Superman is a good synthesis of the two - he is willing to fight when it's necessary to do so in order to protect others and uphold the common good... but not as a first resort.

 

[bilby]

Meh. It's in the definition of "hero" The archetype, the idealized version, are those that place principles above their own selfish agendas. Those that are willing to sacrifice their own gain in the interest of the greater good represent an incredibly powerful symbol of what we would most like to see ourselves.

Compromise of desires in the interest of collaborative progress isn't the same as compromise of ones values for personal gain.

But the hero only appears to compromise his desires. He always gets the girl in the end.

That's why 'incels' are a thing. They grew up with the certainty that the hero is entitled to marry the princess. They are the hero of their own narrative (as are we all); So their failure to attract a princess must indicate a problem with the world, and not a problem with themselves. And as any action hero can show you, obstacles to obtaining your inevitable and justly deserved rewards are best overcome with extreme violence.

I think you might be using your own personal definition of the hero archetype, rather then the literary or psychological one.

I am using the word 'hero' in its conversational sense. That's not my own personal definition, but it's also surely not any particular literary or psychological definition.

This is a brief post on an Internet discussion board, not an academic paper.

The hero gets the girl, because those who are willing to sacrifice petty wants for the greater good are more valued, and hence are rewarded. The girl loves the hero because he was willing to sacrifice his own desires for the safety and protection of others - and he is genuinely willing to do so, it isn't a ruse. Incels aren't sacrificing their petty wants, they're venerating their petty wants.

Absolutely. But they don't understand that, largely because they are fucking morons.

Also, "Action Heroes" are frequently more akin to Warrior or Adventurer archetypes than the classical Hero archetype. Being willing to fight for what is right is a common theme, and definitely is part of the Hero archetype... but mythological heroes are just as likely to overcome challenges through the application of intelligence or cleverness than by violence. Superman is a good synthesis of the two - he is willing to fight when it's necessary to do so in order to protect others and uphold the common good... but not as a first resort.

Again, this is all well and good, but far too complex for most people to bother with.

The question was why don't people understand the need for compromise; And the answer is that they are too dumb to grasp the subtleties in popular culture, and oversimplify the narrative to 'compromise is bad'.

Superman will do anything - even resort to violence - to avoid compromising his commitment to truth, justice, and the American way. His reward is Lois Lane.

Some sad basement dweller tries to emulate this by never ever compromising his commitment to me, me, and me; And is livid that Lois isn't throwing herself at him.

He's an idiot. He doesn't grasp the difference between the two situations. He just sees any compromise of his 'principles' as unacceptable.

Political compromise is essential to any non-totalitarian state. But it is unacceptable to idiots, brought up to believe that there is a sharp line between good and evil, and that you should never under any circumstances allow the bad guys to win.

Indeed, you can spot a shallow thinker a mile off, by his characterisation of people as either 'good guys' or 'bad guys'. Real people are always a mixture of both, but that's far too complex a concept for many people.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The hero gets the girl, because those who are willing to sacrifice petty wants for the greater good are more valued, and hence are rewarded.

Huh? Not to expand on the derail but the Hero archetype has very little about "the girl". A hero has a unique birth history. They need to leave home for a journey. The journey has some things to overcome, but only through help. They return all the better. Skywalker, Siddhartha, Atreyu don't get "the girl" in the end.

 

[Emily Lake]

The hero gets the girl, because those who are willing to sacrifice petty wants for the greater good are more valued, and hence are rewarded.

Huh? Not to expand on the derail but the Hero archetype has very little about "the girl". A hero has a unique birth history. They need to leave home for a journey. The journey has some things to overcome, but only through help. They return all the better. Skywalker, Siddhartha, Atreyu don't get "the girl" in the end.

I was continuing from the scenario that bilby set up. In this case "the girl" is a bit of a catch-all for the hero earning a great reward that fulfills his/her deepest desire... and does so by refusing to compromise his/her values and commitment to others for petty or selfish gain. In contemporary hero stories... that's usually the person that they love. But in mythology, it was sometimes love, sometimes deification and entrance to Olympus, attainment of glory and recognition, etc. The reward for heroism varies by culture and era.