EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4693
| 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
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On August 10 2016 11:14 LegalLord wrote: Like it or not, there is now going to be a "Trump Party" within the Republican Party. If they disown him then they lose his supporters too. In a sense they're accomplishing the opposite of what they want though, they're driving the rest of society to consolidate around a moderate government. Every election in the Western World will essentially turn into "stop national populist movement x". They'd be better off just embracing mainstream conservative positions. This is kind of the point though, they're not just an arbitrary wing within an established movement. They've completely gone off the deep end and they'll never do it. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 10 2016 11:50 Nyxisto wrote: In a sense they're accomplishing the opposite of what they want though, they're driving the rest of society to consolidate around a moderate government. Every election in the Western World will essentially turn into "stop national populist movement x". They'd be better off just embracing mainstream conservative positions. Not really a bad thing. Though if the circumstances that led to the rise of populist movements remains, they will very quickly return in some new form. Hopefully in the form of candidates that address those issues, but aren't going to leave a path of destruction in their midst. Populist movements generally only survive as long as their main issue matters. Once it's addressed, it's back to politics as usual. Few populist movements have the leadership to really present a new viable alternative to the mainstream. | ||
KwarK
United States42954 Posts
On August 10 2016 11:54 LegalLord wrote: Not really a bad thing. Though if the circumstances that led to the rise of populist movements remains, they will very quickly return in some new form. Hopefully in the form of candidates that address those issues, but aren't going to leave a path of destruction in their midst. Populist movements generally only survive as long as their main issue matters. Once it's addressed, it's back to politics as usual. Few populist movements have the leadership to really present a new viable alternative to the mainstream. Hell, the Brexit populist movement imploded within hours of the vote, so quickly that they never actually got to Brexit. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 10 2016 12:09 KwarK wrote: Hell, the Brexit populist movement imploded within hours of the vote, so quickly that they never actually got to Brexit. The populist part of the movement anyways. The idea of Brexit itself seems to be mostly intact from what I've seen. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 10 2016 11:54 LegalLord wrote: Not really a bad thing. Though if the circumstances that led to the rise of populist movements remains, they will very quickly return in some new form. Hopefully in the form of candidates that address those issues, but aren't going to leave a path of destruction in their midst. Populist movements generally only survive as long as their main issue matters. Once it's addressed, it's back to politics as usual. Few populist movements have the leadership to really present a new viable alternative to the mainstream. I'm mostly of this opinion too. It may even force mainstream parties to address voters they've intentionally alienated in coalition-building and campaign fundraising. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On August 10 2016 10:49 m4ini wrote: To me this reads a bit more like they're being disciplined because they're trying to challenge the law. And then there's this part: Sidenote: the state's lawyers asked Yeakel already to throw out the lawsuit. I mean, commonly in Europe etc, Texas gets referred to as the most idiotic state in regards to weapons, but if you can't even teach without fear that the next shooter brought his gun legally into the school (and lets be honest, is anyone doubting that?), or worse, can't even try and shut that law down, then something is seriously wrong with that. edit: amazing wording btw. "Excuse to ban guns in the classrooms". Like as if it's a bad thing, somehow, to not want to teach virtually at gunpoint. 1: From the article, the plaintiffs claim that the ability of CCW holders to carry guns into the classroom infringes on the plaintiff's right to free speech and equal protection. Or, in plain English, the professors believe they will get nervous around armed students, and guns should be banned in classrooms because of this. Fortunately, the professors' feels about their students have nothing to do with the First Amendment, the right to free speech, and government restrictions of said right. The Equal Protection infringement claim is bizarre. The lawsuit is plainly frivolous. 2: Is it legal for Texan universities to punish professors who challenge laws in court? Texas has anti-SLAPP laws, but I don't know if they apply in cases such as this. 3: If Texan professors feel they'll be "teaching virtually at gunpoint", I can only assume they don't venture outside of campus. Shopping at grocery stores must be like getting mugged in the street, and every bus ride must feel like an armed carjacking. 4: Texas is not the first state to allow students to carry guns on campus. It's not even the second, third, fourth, or fifth. I don't know exactly how many states before Texas passed such laws, but I believe it's over ten. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On August 10 2016 12:14 LegalLord wrote: The populist part of the movement anyways. The idea of Brexit itself seems to be mostly intact from what I've seen. They'll probably do a semi-Brexit which makes them not really part of the EU in name. Kind of like how Matt Bevin "killed Obamacare" in Kentucky by shutting down Kynect and having people buy insurance through healthcare.gov (and still take Medicare expansion bucks). | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23293 Posts
On August 10 2016 11:43 pmh wrote: Why take with grain of salt,it makes sence what he says and I do not think he is making things up. This is very disturbing tbh, but it does not seem to bother any of the americans here. Wonder what is needed to open the eyes of some people. Or maybe they just don't care because its in favor of the candidate they support. It bothers some of us plenty, it used to bother Hillary supporters too, now it's best to ignore it until after the election. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On August 10 2016 11:50 Nyxisto wrote: In a sense they're accomplishing the opposite of what they want though, they're driving the rest of society to consolidate around a moderate government. Every election in the Western World will essentially turn into "stop national populist movement x". They'd be better off just embracing mainstream conservative positions. This is kind of the point though, they're not just an arbitrary wing within an established movement. They've completely gone off the deep end and they'll never do it. Extremism breeds extremism, so it's hardly surprising. What's worrying is that once every non-populist party are together to stop said populist movement, it only makes it stronger, because it proves its claims that "the system is rigged", "the establishment is uniting against us", "left = right", "if they compromise, that means they're led by weak leaders", etc. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On August 10 2016 15:23 OtherWorld wrote: Extremism breeds extremism, so it's hardly surprising. What's worrying is that once every non-populist party are together to stop said populist movement, it only makes it stronger, because it proves its claims that "the system is rigged", "the establishment is uniting against us", "left = right", "if they compromise, that means they're led by weak leaders", etc. Yes, because populist movements are mostly right about their claims and diagnostic. The problem is that their solution as, more often that not, ideologically extreme - and more right than left which is something to think about. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10761 Posts
Yes, because populist movements are mostly right about their claims and diagnostic. Not really or not necessarily. They mainly grow on topics that people are scared off and blow them out of porportion, if there is actually something to be scared off is a whole diffrent story. See the Minaret-Ban in Switzerland, we got like 2-3 Minarets in the whole country and yet baseless fear and a populist campaign made this into an "issue". | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On August 10 2016 17:49 Velr wrote: Not really or not necessarily. They mainly grow on topics that people are scared off and blow them out of porportion, if there is actually something to be scared off is a whole diffrent story. See the Minaret-Ban in Switzerland, we got like 2-3 Minarets in the whole country and yet baseless fear and a populist campaign made this into an "issue". Switzerland is a different topic - no real economic crisis, good overall management, etc. The only "problem" is related to the heavy use of foreign workers but, considering you have full employment it's no problem. Look in France, the overwhelming majority of the population agrees that europe is a mess, the euro is a mess, immigration is not well managed. But people do not agree to leave europe, leave the euro, and kick out all migrant - which is more or less the FN program. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On August 10 2016 17:49 Velr wrote: Not really or not necessarily. They mainly grow on topics that people are scared off and blow them out of porportion, if there is actually something to be scared off is a whole diffrent story. See the Minaret-Ban in Switzerland, we got like 2-3 Minarets in the whole country and yet baseless fear and a populist campaign made this into an "issue". Agreed. Yes, populist movements sometimes have legit concerns - like, it's not hard to realize that there's an employment problem in France -, but sometimes they also "create" issues, or blow them out of proportion. And yes, their solutions are usually shit. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10761 Posts
Sure, France has diffrent/bigger problems (as do most countries) but that doesn't mean that the populist parties are getting popular because they work on real issues, they get popular because they work on stuff people fear and blow it out of porportion. Yes, there are real issues underneath, but most of the times these are much smaller than these parties make them out to be. I mean, the whole Pegida/AFD-Antimuslim ordeal in Germany got big in Dresen, a place with at the time iirc <1% Muslims... | ||
|
zf
231 Posts
On August 10 2016 12:55 acker wrote: 2: Is it legal for Texan universities to punish professors who challenge laws in court? Texas has anti-SLAPP laws, but I don't know if they apply in cases such as this. Texas couldn't punish the professors directly for challenging the law. But it could for other, purportedly unrelated reasons. Of course, that would likely result in another lawsuit, and Texas probably isn't eager for that outcome. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7902 Posts
On August 10 2016 16:31 WhiteDog wrote: Yes, because populist movements are mostly right about their claims and diagnostic. The problem is that their solution as, more often that not, ideologically extreme - and more right than left which is something to think about. That, or populist arguments are bullshit but still appeal to people who would not vote for the extreme solutions that logically follow. I know many, many people who find the whole poujadist idea that the "system is broken" or that the "elites are cut from the people", or that "we don't live in a democracy" etc etc... appealing even though they are neither far right or left. My diagnosis is that the world and the west are in a crisis we don't really know how to solve, and that populist discourse simply translate the frustration accumulated into simplistic narratives that are extremely appealing because no one has a solution. People prefer a simple narrative that offers a simple answer than extremely complicated answers (because the problems are extremely complex) with no clear cut solutions. I would go further, and take the example of France. Le Pen has won big by giving super simple answers, or rather, by transforming super complex questions into very simple ones. Europe? It's the bureaucrats of Brussels that are evil! Unemployment? It's the immigrants that are responsible! Social crisis? It's the bad bad globalization! etc... The problem is that for electoral gain, the traditional right and the left have indulged in those narrative, because when someone says something very simple, it's not convincing to say that the issue is terribly complicated, that we are not certain what to do and that you have to accept that it's gonna get better very progressively and all we can offer is incremental change. In those American elections, it's exactly the problem. America needs fixing, but that fixing can only be done slowly, incrementally because the challenges it faces are huge and its system is very slow to move at all. So you have people like Trump and Sanders (and believe me, I agree with Sanders vision, simply not with the method), who come with an easy fix for everything, who are gonna change the system and bash all day long the "elite" and the "establishment" that "wants the statu quo". Personally I await from a politician to function, to have the guts to admit that they can't change it all overnight, to have the guts to explain that issues are terribly complex, and more than anything, to leave the country a bit better when they leave than when they arrive. That's why I believe Obama has been a great president. He has tackled one issue at the time, and has achieved a lot, and yes, he is leaving for his successors a number of stuff he hasn't time to fix. If Clinton is elected and solves, or even starts to solve one of America's major issues, for example affordable education, it will have been a great success. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4338 Posts
On August 10 2016 12:09 KwarK wrote: Hell, the Brexit populist movement imploded within hours of the vote, so quickly that they never actually got to Brexit. I suppose if you only read the BBC and the Guardian you might have that view. People outside London that have been screwed over by the establishment, neo-liberal economics and globalisation never 'imploded' a day after. Johnson never wanted or expected to win, total controlled opposition.The 'implosion' was from the establishment. Too much pork-barreling in the EU for the establishment to actually want to leave.You must understand this surely? Populist movements generally only survive as long as their main issue matters. Once it's addressed, it's back to politics as usual. I would argue that the reasons for the growing rise in populism are growing more extreme by the year, in the USA. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28683 Posts
That does not mean that I think populist movements are entirely without merit - much like whitedog I think they often correctly highlight a societal problem, they just fail to deliver on the solution end of things, which makes sense because politics and the world are both immensely complicated and populist solutions are basically by definition simple. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18832 Posts
| ||
| ||
