|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 18 2016 04:22 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Man I find it mind boggling that someone with a 75% unfavorable ratings with white men will become president.
I'm one of the people that think feminism in its current form is absolute cancer, and from the dozens and dozens of people I've talked to personally, nobody likes Elizabeth Warren minus the fact that many can agree with her that Trump is awful. Really unfortunate that the Republican Party didn't have a better flag bearer, because I'd personally rather have a heavy drug addict become president than have Clinton plus Warren. I think they are evil people with evil morals, and I'd rather have the government shut down for four years than have them in power.
Ugh, just really disappointing all around, I no longer support Trump, since he's just acting insane, but I think if someone else was supporting a similar message, they would have a strong chance of winning. If Obama was running, then I'd have no problem voting for them, there's a lot I can agree with when it comes to the DNC, but Hillary man, she's so bad. Truly the downfall of America, and am excited for our new overlords from the east in the coming decades, as I associate myself with their viewpoints much more than the current US.
Don't jump off the trump train man, embrace it.
The last several posts above have been about the different trump "racist" groups. Oh how far we have come.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i thought the downfall of america happened in 08
|
On June 18 2016 04:31 oneofthem wrote:
i thought the downfall of america happened in 08
I think it's a decline every election. So maybe down fall isn't the right word, but even what's seen as a relative successful 2nd Obama term, I don't think it's a step in the right direction.
Much easier to be on the side of the rhetoric of lets all just be friendly with each other and treat everyone nicely.
edit: I suppose the best I can hope for now is that this election gives a good showing to Gary Johnson, though I don't know how many years it will take to attempt to dismantle the current system.
|
On June 18 2016 04:22 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Man I find it mind boggling that someone with a 75% unfavorable ratings with white men will become president.
I'm one of the people that think feminism in its current form is absolute cancer, and from the dozens and dozens of people I've talked to personally, nobody likes Elizabeth Warren minus the fact that many can agree with her that Trump is awful. Really unfortunate that the Republican Party didn't have a better flag bearer, because I'd personally rather have a heavy drug addict become president than have Clinton plus Warren. I think they are evil people with evil morals, and I'd rather have the government shut down for four years than have them in power.
Ugh, just really disappointing all around, I no longer support Trump, since he's just acting insane, but I think if someone else was supporting a similar message, they would have a strong chance of winning. If Obama was running, then I'd have no problem voting for them, there's a lot I can agree with when it comes to the DNC, but Hillary man, she's so bad. Truly the downfall of America, and am excited for our new overlords from the east in the coming decades, as I associate myself with their viewpoints much more than the current US.
Do you think Clinton and Trump are worse than Bush?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
easy to offer criticism without proposing solutions or even accurately assess reality
|
On June 18 2016 04:37 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 04:22 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Man I find it mind boggling that someone with a 75% unfavorable ratings with white men will become president.
I'm one of the people that think feminism in its current form is absolute cancer, and from the dozens and dozens of people I've talked to personally, nobody likes Elizabeth Warren minus the fact that many can agree with her that Trump is awful. Really unfortunate that the Republican Party didn't have a better flag bearer, because I'd personally rather have a heavy drug addict become president than have Clinton plus Warren. I think they are evil people with evil morals, and I'd rather have the government shut down for four years than have them in power.
Ugh, just really disappointing all around, I no longer support Trump, since he's just acting insane, but I think if someone else was supporting a similar message, they would have a strong chance of winning. If Obama was running, then I'd have no problem voting for them, there's a lot I can agree with when it comes to the DNC, but Hillary man, she's so bad. Truly the downfall of America, and am excited for our new overlords from the east in the coming decades, as I associate myself with their viewpoints much more than the current US. Do you think Clinton and Trump are worse than Bush?
In retrospect, I think they are on similar levels, though before knowing what Bush did, if I had to vote in a contest between Bush and Hillary, I'd gladly vote him (though I preferred Al Gore, however I was too young for the election process back then, and just going off my research).
Again, I think a lot of the Trump message is good to me (I think a stronger sense of nationalism is important, and I also think promoting an environment where we try to make the world equal while most other countries focus on making themselves better is not a good strategy), its simply the presentation that's very bad. For a while I thought he'd come around a bit, but he's been acting so illogical in the last 3 weeks or so, that I really start to question whether he even knows what he's doing.
On June 18 2016 04:41 oneofthem wrote:
easy to offer criticism without proposing solutions or even accurately assess reality
I've had many post of 5-10 paragraphs in this thread where I offered up solutions. Yes, my current responses are being emotionally charged as I'm very unhappy with the current situation - and I don't even live in the US.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
what are your prescriptions for the economy
|
fiwi -> I feel quite sure Trump does not know what he's doing; and he doesn't seem to have picked it up/learned it (sometimes as candidates get closer, advisors help bring them up to speed on things)
disagree on nationalism being important. People can do just fine without it; and tribalism leads to a lot of the world's ills. and all candidates do plenty of focus on their own nation anyways;
|
On June 18 2016 03:59 oneofthem wrote:
nah, people just want a decent job and live life. there is not much of this capitalist conspiracy stuff except in the far left.
it's not a fucking "conspiracy" dude. are you serious? it's a systems-level decription of a logic that deeply penetrates the subjectivities it creates, operating at the individual level.
edit: besides the fact that the "decent job" part is the core of the whole criticism. do you know what "precarity" even means in this context?
|
you know now that i think about it this "conspiracy" logic bin that you love to use is something sam was interested in before his last ban.
|
On June 18 2016 05:12 IgnE wrote:
you know now that i think about it this "conspiracy" logic bin that you love to use is something sam was interested in before his last ban.
He still is. He might be onto something...
|
On June 18 2016 04:52 oneofthem wrote:
what are your prescriptions for the economy
Just to quickly sum up some of my points without explanation
- 67-68 retirement age
- Public healthcare (current system is such garbage since pharmaceutical's still bringing in all the profit). Canada pays 10.5% for healthcare, US pays 17.1% as a percentage of GDP, and yet Canada has a 3 year longer life expectancy, and our costs have been greatly going up in the last few years (compared to most of Europe, you guys are completely abysmal). This would be one of the big wealth equalizers in my proposed policy.
- Protectionism, tariffs on imports
- Not to sound like Trump, but get better trade deals with the east. There are dozens of impoverished countries in east to do business with, while the US makes up at least 1/3rd of the high value exports to developed countries, so bargain with the advantage.
- Progressively increase corporate tax rate brackets by 5-10%
- Remove estate tax, or lower it significantly. I'd rather deal with with very rich families by letting them do business in a more costly way, than just take away their money and then the government allocating it poorly.
- Increase education spending to 5% of budget (also greatly increase focus on trades, move away from pure service industry)... Move that budget to states and less to government
- Larger mandatory contributions by employers to employee retirement, decrease social security spending accordingly
- Conservative approach to the environment, ie. bring the changes about slowly. I think the current approach is far too aggressive, especially places like California where they want 50% Solar in a few years and whatnot. Yes, global warming exists, some/most of it is caused by humans, it's not a crisis.
- Lower federal income tax rates, increase state rates accordingly
- Approve keystone XL pipeline, and strengthen ties with Canada. Canada has a lot of natural resources that the US could utilize to improve the trades industry, and both countries could profit equally. Multilateral and open business with developed countries like Germany and France is fine, don't do that with developing countries.
These are a lot of the economic positions I stand for.
|
He is not incorrect that people want government to address wage stagnation and the lack of buying power. The expression of that frustration is different for different groups, but people are not happy about where their buying power is right now. Surveys across the country talk say that middle class people do not feel secure in any way. And its only getting worse with rising rents and cost of living. And after 15 years of garbage, people want some action on these issues.
|
On June 18 2016 05:06 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 03:59 oneofthem wrote:
nah, people just want a decent job and live life. there is not much of this capitalist conspiracy stuff except in the far left. it's not a fucking "conspiracy" dude. are you serious? it's a systems-level decription of a logic that deeply penetrates the subjectivities it creates, operating at the individual level. edit: besides the fact that the "decent job" part is the core of the whole criticism. do you know what "precarity" even means in this context?
he's right though that the groups most adversely affected don't care a lot about system level descriptions. They associate state and society with state violence, prison, oppression etc.. They largely want tools to fix their communities themselves and want answers to problems x, y and z and not tear down capitalism. There's a reason why Hillary won these demographics so clearly.
|
On June 18 2016 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 05:06 IgnE wrote:On June 18 2016 03:59 oneofthem wrote:
nah, people just want a decent job and live life. there is not much of this capitalist conspiracy stuff except in the far left. it's not a fucking "conspiracy" dude. are you serious? it's a systems-level decription of a logic that deeply penetrates the subjectivities it creates, operating at the individual level. edit: besides the fact that the "decent job" part is the core of the whole criticism. do you know what "precarity" even means in this context? he's right though that the groups most adversely affected don't care a lot about system level descriptions. They associate state and society with state violence, prison, oppression etc.. They largely want tools to fix their communities themselves and want answers to problems x, y and z and not tear down capitalism. There's a reason why Hillary won these demographics so clearly.
the reason is blackmail. do i need to refer you back to my first post on the topic?
|
fiwi -> why tariffs? Those tend to just make everyone poorer, unless done on very specific goods in specific circumstances. What makes you think the current trade deals with the East are bad? what specifically about the current trade deals is it you don't like?
Higher corporate tax rates seem pointless, better to cut down on the loopholes which cause them to all pay far less than their nominal rate.
On increased Ed spending; while I like it as a principle, more than 5% of what budget are you talking about? the US already spends tons of money on education. I'm just not sure what that 5% of what you're referring to is.
|
On June 18 2016 05:35 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:On June 18 2016 05:06 IgnE wrote:On June 18 2016 03:59 oneofthem wrote:
nah, people just want a decent job and live life. there is not much of this capitalist conspiracy stuff except in the far left. it's not a fucking "conspiracy" dude. are you serious? it's a systems-level decription of a logic that deeply penetrates the subjectivities it creates, operating at the individual level. edit: besides the fact that the "decent job" part is the core of the whole criticism. do you know what "precarity" even means in this context? he's right though that the groups most adversely affected don't care a lot about system level descriptions. They associate state and society with state violence, prison, oppression etc.. They largely want tools to fix their communities themselves and want answers to problems x, y and z and not tear down capitalism. There's a reason why Hillary won these demographics so clearly. the reason is blackmail. do i need to refer you back to my first post on the topic?
How is that blackmail? Why would anyone vote for anyone, if not for the reasons stated above?
|
On June 18 2016 05:00 zlefin wrote:
fiwi -> I feel quite sure Trump does not know what he's doing; and he doesn't seem to have picked it up/learned it (sometimes as candidates get closer, advisors help bring them up to speed on things)
disagree on nationalism being important. People can do just fine without it; and tribalism leads to a lot of the world's ills. and all candidates do plenty of focus on their own nation anyways;
Then we will have to disagree. I think nationalism is essential in uniting peoples values behind one source, and I think that a large reason why I believe the US has been struggling is because they've been doing everything half-assed, which is due to people not being able agree on things. I see it in things like the feminist movement (where I'm really against it in its current form, and I'm sure many others are), but what you see happening is that a 30% minority about something will really beat out a 70% majority about something simply because if the 70% of people is following the status quo, then their voices aren't as loud.
Additionally, I think US politics is really divisive, like they paint the large portion of the US population like some criminal no lives if they support Trump... If I'm a Trump supporter, then it's like man, fuck the country I live in, this government will not accommodate me at all. I feel like Canada deals a lot better with this, where I was a Conservative, and the Liberals won, it seemed like people we a lot more reasonable to consider everyone, and the views just seem closer, because there's a lot of Canadian pride here. In the US, a lot of people kind of just accept that often the US is the laughing stock of the world, because they know what they're doing is so silly so much of the time.
So yes, I think US nationalism is extremely important, but not the "America fuck yeah, eagles, jets, hamburgers" nationalism. And I think you can unite a lot of the country, by making people feel like they are taking their country back (a feeling I'm sure many in Britain, Germany, and France would enjoy), and having a common issue to fight for, which would be the "fight" (doesn't have to be a literal fight) against radical Islam. I think this would have many positive effects, including a reduction of all religion in the United States, and as I've stated in the past, I think that religion cannot play a big part in a society where more than one is present.
Anyway, plenty of big points without a proper and long enough argument to back them up here, but the take away message is that Americans must have pride in their country if they wish to see themselves rise.
|
The Catholic church in Pennsylvania has been accused of employing “mafia-like” tactics in a campaign to put pressure on individual Catholic lawmakers who support state legislation that would give victims of sexual abuse more time to sue their abusers.
The lobbying campaign against the legislation is being led by Philadelphia archbishop Charles Chaput, a staunch conservative who recently created a stir after inadvertently sending an email to a state representative Jamie Santora, in which he accused the lawmaker of “betraying” the church and said Santora would suffer “consequences” for his support of the legislation. The email was also sent to a senior staff member in Chaput’s office, who was apparently the only intended recipient.
The email has infuriated some Catholic lawmakers, who say they voted their conscience in support of the legislation on behalf of sexual abuse victims. One Republican legislator, Mike Vereb, accused the archbishop of using mafia-style tactics.
“This mob boss approach of having legislators called out, he really went right up to the line,” Vereb told the Guardian. “He is going down a road that is frankly dangerous for the status of the church in terms of it being a non-profit.”
Under US tax laws, organisations like churches that are classified as non-profit groups are not supposed to be engaged in political activity, though they are allowed to publish legislators’ voting records in some cases.
At stake in the contentious fight is a state bill that would allow victims of sexual abuse to file civil claims against their abusers, and those who knew of abuse, until they are 50 years old. Under current law, victims can only file suit until they are 30 years old. The proposal overwhelmingly passed the state lower house in a bipartisan vote in April but appears to have stalled in the state senate, where some believe it might not pass.
Source
|
On June 18 2016 05:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 05:35 IgnE wrote:On June 18 2016 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:On June 18 2016 05:06 IgnE wrote:On June 18 2016 03:59 oneofthem wrote:
nah, people just want a decent job and live life. there is not much of this capitalist conspiracy stuff except in the far left. it's not a fucking "conspiracy" dude. are you serious? it's a systems-level decription of a logic that deeply penetrates the subjectivities it creates, operating at the individual level. edit: besides the fact that the "decent job" part is the core of the whole criticism. do you know what "precarity" even means in this context? he's right though that the groups most adversely affected don't care a lot about system level descriptions. They associate state and society with state violence, prison, oppression etc.. They largely want tools to fix their communities themselves and want answers to problems x, y and z and not tear down capitalism. There's a reason why Hillary won these demographics so clearly. the reason is blackmail. do i need to refer you back to my first post on the topic? How is that blackmail? Why would anyone vote for anyone, if not for the reasons stated above?
the blackmail doesn't even have to be "real" to succeed, it can be entirely virtual. your threats of "complete disaster" are precisely the line of attack i'm talking about. targeted pell grants do nothing to upend a system of debt proliferation that still functions as a device of control and capture by inserting students in the labour market as commodities. the formal freedom to choose between the scylla of high school education and the charybdis of indebted higher education that constrains future action is the double bind of increasing precarity that hangs over the head of the disenfranchised more than the "liberal white" bernie supporters but is not different in kind from the double bind that the bernie supporters may or may not feel more secure in rejecting entirely.
to put it another way: the minorities and poor who "rationally" choose Clinton as pragmatic and targeted are actually choosing what they think will translate their position tomorrow into the one that the bernie bros occupy today. when considering the impossibility of such (ie the disciplining of the labor force always prevents the entire precariat from occupying the "upper class" position of resistance that is both incited by and in opposition to capital) it becomes clear that neoliberal hawks like Clinton ARE CONSTANTLY REPRODUCING the very class of people that they rely upon to get elected. they are the class of people who accept the terms of the (virtual) blackmail: catastrophe for everyone or we can try and help you and maybe you will one day be a member of the precarious cognitariat privileged enough to resist.
or, be careful what you ask for
the focus on identity politics too often tries to reproduce class antagonisms proportionately throughout race/gender/sexuality divisions within society rather than to eliminate such divisions. its about having a "fair share" of black elites, rather than actually upending the structures that require an underclass as a necessary constituent of capital reproduction
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
