EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4126
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22711 Posts
On June 25 2016 04:05 Rebs wrote: Im sorry, at no point have I suggested that the right shouldn't support their party's pick. Please dont ascribe me to said left leaning folks. Thank you The way I see your point is you are basically saying I didnt get things my way so fuck it based on this ill conceived notion that someone who couldnt even win his parties nomination would win a general election. And its everyones fault for not doing things the way you wanted them to. Again that is petulance not principal. We get it, you can stop it now I apologize for raising the subject I was not aware that had been beaten to death. because practically speaking, it is. Yeah, so we can agree to disagree then. I mean history is full of "losers" who changed things because their supporters didn't just acquiesce to the "winner" but if people want to perpetuate the "do nothing" myth I'm going to refute it every time, it doesn't have to drag out though. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 25 2016 02:10 Rebs wrote: The UK is the one thats going to get stung hard. Whatever, with all due respect to my former colonial masters, this will atleast serve as a good example of why nationalistic blowhards are actually full of shit. Yeah, fuck sovereignty! Everyone should just remain in their rightful place and obey the whims of a foreign government because change hurts the financial markets. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
voting -> just another deontology vs consequentialist argument, yawn. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On June 25 2016 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, so we can agree to disagree then. I mean history is full of "losers" who changed things because their supporters didn't just acquiesce to the "winner" but if people want to perpetuate the "do nothing" myth I'm going to refute it every time, but it doesn't have to drag out. The problem is you see it as a zero sum game with winners and losers when you are on the same side. You dont have to be the one on the podium to be a winner. You are a winner through getting the reform you want or atleast some of the reform you want if not everything + Show Spoiler + (because that is impractical) But you dont want to do that, you want all the toys and you want to pick the toys too and buy them with someone elses money, rather than share the toys and pay for them together while accepting that the other person paid more so they will own more of the toys. Otherwise you are going throw them all out the pram. + Show Spoiler [ Personal anecdote] + Bernie is typical of so many political "revolutionaries" in the third world that I have witnessed who over reached the popularity of their message and then instead of working toward using that popularity to reform even if it was just a few things. Instead of picking a few battles you can win and work toward winning the war, you want to win a war you cant now and end up whine about the battlefield being loaded with booby trapped only on your side instead of accepting that you just werent that strong. Its so disappointing really. | ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
| ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On June 25 2016 04:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Don't worry Rebs I'll vote for Drumpf, you can vote for Hillary, Green can vote for whoever he wants to, and the world will keep spinning. Im not voting for anyone, I cant vote. So im not that worried honestly, Im Canadian, naturalized anyway. I already said he can vote for who he wants but if he is going to refute something it had better make sense. And honestly if it is as you say, you should feel comfortable leaving this thread and not voicing your opinion on anything related to the election. Just vote for Drumpf and let the world spin. Follow your own advice before you recommend it to me  | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 25 2016 04:21 Rebs wrote: Im not voting for anyone, I cant vote. So im not that worried honestly, Im Canadian, naturalized anyway. I already said he can vote for who he wants but if he is going to refute something it had better make sense. And honestly if it is as you say, you should feel comfortable leaving this thread and not voicing your opinion on anything related to the election. The world will keep spinning after all. LOL you edited my Trump into a Drumf that's gold. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On June 25 2016 04:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote: LOL you edited my Drumpf into a Drumf that's gold. Its an addon in the browser. I dont do anything. I actually just type T R U M P. I almost forgot I had it. It just picks up anything trump (its smart doesnt change lower case) and changes it I just thought it was funny at the time, now I dont care. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5294 Posts
On June 25 2016 03:49 zlefin wrote: I disagree; while the Republican party may change considerably as it realigns its base, platform, and goals somewhat; the Democrats always had a progressive wing, and Sanders views really aren't that different from say Warren's; so I think the Dems won't change that much. on voting: I say just let people vote as they deem best; there's plenty of reasonable arguments to support all sorts of votes. I agree with this, the lasting effect of the election on the Republican side will probably be much bigger given that their shake-up candidate is the one who won the nomination and the majority of Democrats polled have a satisfactory view of the party. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19573 Posts
On June 25 2016 04:15 zlefin wrote: Legallord -> it's not a foreign government; the EU was created by its member states, and has representatives from all of them involved in its decision-making processes. voting -> just another deontology vs consequentialist argument, yawn. The extra layer of governance is another reason people don't like the EU. Just like the Federal Government in America, there are a lot of people who prefer decisions to be more local. Also, the EU, quite frankly, doesn't provide the civil rights guarantees that the US Federal government does, nor the national defense so its existence (as opposed to a simple free-trade, freedom of movement treaty zone) is of dubious value to any country. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 25 2016 04:27 cLutZ wrote: The extra layer of governance is another reason people don't like the EU. Just like the Federal Government in America, there are a lot of people who prefer decisions to be more local. Also, the EU, quite frankly, doesn't provide the civil rights guarantees that the US Federal government does, nor the national defense so its existence (as opposed to a simple free-trade, freedom of movement treaty zone) is of dubious value to any country. I can certainly understand that; I only objected to him calling it "foreign" I know EU-level there are some human/civil rights laws, which member states are supposed to adopt; it certainly doesn't have much power to actually enforce it though; not sure what the effects on the ground have been. I agree there's no national defense need for it, as NATO does that already. As to locality: a very understandable position; there's value to doing some thing locally, especially when there's more regional variation in ethics/viewpoints. There are also certain advantages to doing some things at a larger level; finding the right level for everything is hard. Though I do find that the quality of small jurisdictions (i.e. towns <100k people) is often quite spotty. Local politics often seems to feature poor quality, perhaps simply because the number of candidates is small, especially in a democracy. (whereas in a technocratic hiring system you'd be able to draw on a larger pool of talent to fill positions in a town). Also, I suspect that it's often better to have multiple levels involved all at once, in ways that let them each spot/deal with problems that may arise from other levels. i.e. having multiple levels serve a checks & balances purpose. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22711 Posts
On June 25 2016 04:19 TMagpie wrote: There was a time when voting meant being part of the government building process. Now it seems to be about being able to prove you're more extremist than your peers. It's sad that sandernistas has tainted things so bad. Some of us don't want to be a part of ClintonCorp even if she pretends she'll accomplish more "moderate" versions of what we want. She represents a relationship between politician and voter that we fundamentally disagree with, most recently demonstrated in the "vote for her or else you're doing nothing" arguments. The demographics are not in either party's favor. The younger demo is overwhelmingly supportive of what Bernie was saying and not just the stuff they may age out of believing, but deeper fundamental aspects of how we do things as a country and on the left within the Dem party. ClintonCorp can ignore us, belittle us, call us "extreme", or kick us out, but none of those end with us supporting ClintonCorp. Clinton spent her whole life building this moment and Trump may or may not be able to take it away, but we (or our ideals) won't be pawns to be sacrificed on the altar of Moo's Goddess so she can win an election. I get that most people's political imagination was killed in it's crib, but not all of us are consigned to things as they are. | ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9489 Posts
On June 25 2016 04:19 TMagpie wrote: There was a time when voting meant being part of the government building process. Now it seems to be about being able to prove you're more extremist than your peers. It's sad that sandernistas has tainted things so bad. the last guy to use that word as well as taking a shot at sanders supporters got banned 90 days. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
On June 25 2016 04:59 CorsairHero wrote: the last guy to use that word as well as taking a shot at sanders supporters got banned 90 days. With good reason; the notion that Sanders supporters have somehow poisoned the political well is utter nonsense. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
On June 25 2016 05:12 farvacola wrote: With good reason; the notion that Sanders supporters have somehow poisoned the political well is utter nonsense. I think it is, however, fair to say that anger has poisoned the political well. Not all the anger this year is from Trump. We can be impassioned, committed voters without anger and stubbornness. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
| ||
|
pmh
1351 Posts
On June 25 2016 05:16 Mohdoo wrote: I think it is, however, fair to say that anger has poisoned the political well. Not all the anger this year is from Trump. We can be impassioned, committed voters without anger and stubbornness. Its the policys who created all this anger,the policys and acting of the politicians themselves that have poisoned the political well. This needs to be realized before there is any chance of bridging the gap between Washington and the man in the street. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
On June 25 2016 05:43 SolaR- wrote: Don't shit on Bernie, at least he is a good guy with good intentions. I agree with a lot with him on his social issues. Hillary is despicable to me. Hell, i might even have considered voting for bernie if i think he had any shot. I don't really know if he's a good guy. In fact I'd argue against it. Just because he's been consistent doesn't mean he's good. It's easy to take a position that sounds moral and just keep repeating it. I'm not saying he doesn't have any points though. | ||
| ||
