EPTedit: pesky ninjas putting in better answers while I was slowly doing mine.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4588
| 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. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
edit: pesky ninjas putting in better answers while I was slowly doing mine. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4349 Posts
On July 30 2016 23:01 m4ini wrote: Populism by definition is negative. Regardless of who disagrees or not. I said it yesterday, a politician needs to make unpopular choices. Because as is blatantly obvious for the last 12 months, the public majority is retarded if it comes to political decisions. Literally mentally not able to think something through to the end. And they actually don't need to, as long as a politician does. IF he does. Which he wouldn't if he constantly flipflops and chases whatever the public opinion is at the moment. It's like telling parents that the kid should totally be able to tell them where to go on holiday (the moon), what to eat (pizza every day), and generally how to spend time (not working but playing). It's idiotic. The public can not be trusted with political decisions, as is shown over and over again. A populist that constantly does what the public wants, would be exactly that. I'd rather vote for a person who sticks to whatever he's promising, even though it's not the popular decision. You know, someone with a spine. edit: makes voting actually mean something on top, if you just have a dude doing whatever the public wants, you just have a "presidential lottery". Pull a number, congratulation, you're the next person who.. well doesn't decide anything. You really just announce. Personally i think if the public is not willing to research history then they deserve what they get. Politicians should always respect the view of the majority, if the majority is uniformed then they (the people) will receive a wake up call, and hopefully learn from those mistakes in the future. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Yet I also don't care that deeply about it, and it's not something I'd class as inherently immoral (and hence would have to oppose on principle), to some extent government is about keeping people happy, so accepting something that I believe is a dumb idea because a lot of people like and enjoy it has some merit (as long as I've informed them that I don't think it's good policy). | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On July 30 2016 23:59 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Personally i think if the public is not willing to research history then they deserve what they get. Politicians should always respect the view of the majority, if the majority is uniformed then they (the people) will receive a wake up call, and hopefully learn from those mistakes in the future. The public is not a single person or monolithic entity, and is thus astoundingly bad at learning from mistakes in aggregate. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On July 30 2016 18:46 Toadesstern wrote: I always wondered. Why is that considered a bad thing? I'd rather have a politician who does what the public wants even if she herself disagrees with it on a personal level than someone who ended up in a position to make those decisions due to the whole "package" of her being popular and then forcing one particular aspect that's really, really unpopular onto people just because it's part of what she stands for It basically means you have no conviction on issues and no solid judgment of your own. It's a favorable quality if every single other candidate in the race sucks ass (e.g. in this one), but it fails horribly if there is even one candidate who has even the slightest bit of initiative and conviction on issues that the public cares about. Bernie Sanders is in general a terrible mainstream candidate - he is too stubborn on some issues to the point of failing to acknowledge political realities. Yet he has conviction and managed to develop a very powerful core of supporters off of it, enough to challenge Hillary despite many obvious disadvantages. Had he been someone more moderate like Obama with the same set of policies he would have gained widespread support. Hillary's voters include a very tiny sliver of true supporters and many others who are just afraid of dramatic change and who are voting for the status quo. On July 30 2016 19:43 silynxer wrote: + Show Spoiler + One cannot help but marvel at the rhetorical strategy employed by LegalLord. As a basis there are two claims that are pretty solid even if you disagree with them: 1. Hacking (and leaking) is not a big deal everybody does it and it is just to be expected. Nothing to see here. 2. There is too little proof of Russian involvement, let's wait for more information. But from this basis, he tries to establish 3. Poor Russia, scapegoated again. Look at these crazy conspiracies. This is of course incongruent because if 1. was true, Russian involvement would be unsurprising (especially since it is obvious even to him that Putin would prefer Trump) and if he truly believed 2., he would not push aggressively a narrative where Russia explicitedly isn't involved. But the issue is now obfuscated by 3. and if attacked a fallback to 1. or 2. is always possible. The true genius is, how hermitic the argument is. If in a couple of weeks or after the election there is an exhaustive report showing Russian involvement, we are back at 1. without having to admit to anything (of course the report itself will also be attacked but that's just secondary). If there is not, then that will be seen as conclusive proof that Russia wasn't involved, which can be used by way of 3. in the next argument. While I should continue where I left last night, I have to admit defeat. It is just too exhausting for me without offering any reward. Chapo! In general this election has left some of my more optimistic beliefs in ruins (and this has nothing to do with whether Trump wins or not, he is just symptom) and it is time to take a step back and reflect a bit... All I can say is that that's probably the most accurate portrayal of a Yahoo News troll post I've seen in this entire thread. You've solidly earned yourself a place among this thread's shitposters. Congrats. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump tweeted his opposition late Friday to the general election debate schedule against Democrat Hillary Clinton, calling the current lineup “unacceptable.” Trump frequently took exception to the handling of the GOP primary debates, going so far as to skip the final event before the Iowa caucus amid a feud with Fox News. Clinton’s Democratic rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) also voiced dissatisfaction with their primary debate schedule, accusing Democrats of banishing the forums to time slots doomed to low viewership. This year’s general election is set to include three presidential and one vice presidential debates, all announced on Sept. 23 of last year by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates. Two of the presidential debates do indeed coincide with NFL games: The first, on Monday, Sept. 26, falls the same evening as a matchup between the Atlanta Falcons and New Orleans Saints. And the second, set for Sunday, Oct. 9, will air opposite a game between the New York Giants and Green Bay Packers. Source | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21924 Posts
Got to side with Trump on this one (the horror) but the debates should not coincide with anything else notable if at all possible. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
Not sure how it is Hillary's fault though. | ||
|
CobaltBlu
United States919 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On July 31 2016 01:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No and the debate schedule has been agreed upon by both parties for over a year. Indeed, it's actually a retarded criticism. Hint: when you put the debates on prime time, they are obviously going to conflict with SOMETHING. Heaven forbid the debate coincides with the season finale of "Big Bang Theory" or some random NBA game. Plus by all accounts, the NFL games are the ones which will be hit massively in ratings in comparison to the debates. Debates get many times more viewers than NFL games except iirc the Super Bowl. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21924 Posts
On July 31 2016 01:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No and the debate schedule has been agreed upon by both parties for over a year. Ah well in that case yeah... Trump is being dumb. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On July 31 2016 01:54 Gorsameth wrote: Ah well in that case yeah... Trump is being dumb. He's going to try using it as an excuse to duck out of the debates. Just watch. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On July 31 2016 01:55 Lord Tolkien wrote: He's going to try using it as an excuse to duck out of the debates. Just watch. He's complaining because there won't be as many viewers to see him probe HRC with an onslaught of questions regarding emails. I don't know how you reached that conclusion lmao, if anyone will be ducking these debates, it's HRC. As evidenced by her last press conference being like 200 plus days ago. Trump will be 10 times more savage than any news reporter asking questions at a press conference btw. HRC's strategy at this point should not be offense, it should be to play the victim card and gather sympathy and make Trump seem like a bully. If I learned anything from the DNC it's that their target audience loves victims. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Skipping the Fox debate was petty on Trump's part, but the last debate he skipped was... perhaps for the best. He was right that there was really nothing more to be had from yet another debate of just 75% grilling Trump on his policies. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On July 31 2016 02:01 biology]major wrote: He's complaining because there won't be as many viewers to see him probe HRC with an onslaught of questions regarding emails. I don't know how you reached that conclusion lmao, if anyone will be ducking these debates, it's HRC. As evidenced by her last press conference being like 200 plus days ago. Trump will be 10 times more savage than any news reporter asking questions at a press conference btw. In which case he gets told by the moderator to stay on topic and answer the goddamn policy questions, because what does her emails have to do with ISIL exactly? I'm perfectly content to see Trump flounder in the first 1 on 1 debate he'll ever have. And besides, unlike Clinton, Trump actually has a record of dodging debates if you've already forgotten. So yes, all evidence points to Trump wanting to bail and using weak criticism to deflect on a debate that's already been planned a year in advance by bipartisan committee. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 31 2016 02:01 biology]major wrote: He's complaining because there won't be as many viewers to see him probe HRC with an onslaught of questions regarding emails. I don't know how you reached that conclusion lmao, if anyone will be ducking these debates, it's HRC. As evidenced by her last press conference being like 200 plus days ago. Trump will be 10 times more savage than any news reporter asking questions at a press conference btw. HRC's strategy at this point should not be offense, it should be to play the victim card and gather sympathy and make Trump seem like a bully. If I learned anything from the DNC it's that their target audience loves victims. Hillary has faced far worse questioners than Trump, so I don't think it'll faze her. I imagine it'll mostly be the normal wash, with Trump supporters thinking the questoins were devastating and trump opponents thinking they were nothing; since it's mostly going to amoutn to repeating standard attack lines which most people have already either agreed or disagreed with. Legallord -> re flip-flopping what about someone who has no convictions, but excellent judgment? I note that your definition would not include such people. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On July 31 2016 02:26 zlefin wrote: Legallord -> re flip-flopping what about someone who has no convictions, but excellent judgment? I note that your definition would not include such people. I generally think that good judgment requires a degree of conviction in what you think is right. Sure, there is a bit of, "when the facts change I change my mind" that is perfectly valid, but there is more to good judgment than just tracking popular opinion. The kind of flip-flopping that Hillary is accused of is not that of a person with good judgment, but just someone who takes the path of least resistance by tracking popular opinion. Good judgment involves analyzing the facts and coming to a conclusion that may or may not be the most popular choice, but is the right choice. And that necessarily requires conviction, even if the converse is not always true. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The U.S. Navy plans to honor slain gay rights activist and former San Francisco supervisor Harvey Milk by naming a ship after him. The USNS Harvey Milk, which hasn't been built yet, is the latest in a series of Navy vessels named for civil rights icons. The news came in a report published by the U.S. Naval Institute, citing a notification sent to Congress earlier this month by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, signaling his intention to name a Military Sealift Command fleet oiler after Milk. The Navy has not officially confirmed the plan. According to the USNI News, the ship will be built by General Dynamics NASSCO in San Diego. Milk was the first openly gay elected official in California. As a young man, he served in the Navy as a diving officer during the Korean War. He was honorably discharged from the service with the rank of lieutenant in 1955. Milk was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977. A year later, he was assassinated, along with Mayor George Moscone, by another former Supervisor Dan White, over a dispute about White's resignation from the Board. When White changed his mind and tried to get his job back, Milk and Moscone opposed his reinstatement. In a rage, White killed them both. The news of the Navy's plans to honor Milk was met with cheers and some mixed reactions by local leaders and activists who knew him. Source | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 31 2016 02:41 LegalLord wrote: I generally think that good judgment requires a degree of conviction in what you think is right. Sure, there is a bit of, "when the facts change I change my mind" that is perfectly valid, but there is more to good judgment than just tracking popular opinion. The kind of flip-flopping that Hillary is accused of is not that of a person with good judgment, but just someone who takes the path of least resistance by tracking popular opinion. Good judgment involves analyzing the facts and coming to a conclusion that may or may not be the most popular choice, but is the right choice. And that necessarily requires conviction, even if the converse is not always true. well, I guess then we're having a differences on the shades of word meaning; I believe a person could have no moral convictions; but be excellent at determining the outcomes of actions. To my meanings, such a person would have no convictions, but excellent judgment. When I say convictions, I generally feel it refers to moral/ethical stances. What makes a choice the "right" choice? Since in a democracy part of the point is consent of the governed and making people feel involved, can it not be the case that it's better to make a choice that people want, even though it will not accomplish what they hope it will? How do we balance the need for buy-in for policies to work vs how well the policies themselves would work in a vacuum? so mostly it seems like we're using slightly different shades of meaning, hence our differences. PS This reminded me of a quotation, I think from some famous supreme court ruling about neither leading too far ahead of hte nation, nor being too far behind it, something about tracking the evolving standards, but I can't remember the quote well enough to find it with google. it's not part of the argument. | ||
| ||
