EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 632
| 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. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
Scorpion77
98 Posts
On November 17 2013 06:02 farvacola wrote: Nice try, but you're tangling with the best when it comes to being smug in all the wrong ways, and your silly link to something that is not what I asked is quite telling. I'm well acquainted with Whiggism and the likes of those addressed in Edmund Burke's "An Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs" in a historical sense, but neither has anything to do with the legitimacy of the movement you call New British Whiggism, which seems backed up by nothing more than a youtube interview with a conservative MEP. Perhaps there is some fledgling conservative movement which calls itself New Whiggism, but in making vague suggestions that American conservatives take notes out of the book of a movement which you yourself can do nothing but youtube-ify, it seems pretty clear that you have no idea what you are talking about or are simply looking to make yourself feel better about your fringe political identification. All right, lemme respond to all this Nice try, but you're tangling with the best when it comes to being smug in all the wrong ways Well I'll concede that point, you're good at being smug & wrong. You know when I talked about this new British Whig movement, I meant that it was a new, fledgling political movement: just like what's sometimes called 'Thatcherism' was part of the New Right in the UK... which came after the rise of Reagan and was influenced by it. No-one tried to claim that Thatcher invented classical liberal reforms, so I'm not sure why you misinterpreted me so extravagantly? What we have here is a misunderstanding. The point is that the American Republic was founded on these values, and those were the values that made it great in the first place... nowadays it seems more like a dysfunctional, Corporate Mafia Banana Republic than the mighty United States of America that we used to know and love. Maybe if I called it Libertarianism you'd be more acquainted with it - however the difference between 'Whig' and simply 'Libertarian' is; let's call it 'British Whiggism', is that British Whiggism is more specific to the culture of the United Kingdom. That is to it is an ideology that respects things like the Royal Family, the Established Church, national languages of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom... obviously not all countries are the same. For instance the notion of a King of the USA would be bizarre.. but having a gun control debate in the UK is almost impossible to imagine. You know, forgive me if I'm mistaken, but you give me the awful impression; I hate to say it, of someone who thinks I'm an anti-American fanatic. Far from it, I admire the United States... however not in its current ruddy, dilapidated condition... Regarding your point about Daniel Hannan being just 'a conservative MEP', Daniel Hannan is one of the most influential figures on the British right-wing: focusing on the grassroots and building an internet presence and amassing a following using his great skill in oratory and writing, which he happily uses to beat down the Eurosocialists in the European Parliament. This guy could easily receive a cabinet position in the next reshuffle. Here's the video that started it all: Here's a longer, in depth video since you implied you weren't satisfied with short clips, rightfully so I say. Here's an article extolling the virtues of America: Old—nay—Real America. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100234551/americas-greatest-days-lie-ahead/ Finally, here's a fun video from the campaign trail that I'd almost forgotten about; Feels relevant somehow  | ||
|
Introvert
United States5009 Posts
"This program is going to be great, you can keep your plan!" to "Well, he lied, but those plans were bad anyway!" I'm having a hard time predicting the next one. Will the loud cries of single payer start yet, or are there still some steps that go in between? Interestingly enough.... this is a Chicago editorial! But in this country we don't change bad laws by presidential fiat. ... What we don't understand is their reluctance to give that failure more than lip service. Many of the Americans who heard their president say Thursday that "we fumbled the rollout of this health care law" would have been pleased to hear him add: So we're admitting it. This law is a bust. We're starting over. Source | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 17 2013 13:38 heliusx wrote: 500 billion? Is that an error or do you really think that? It's more like half a billion. Yes, that was an error. They spent roughly 500 million or half a billion. The website has been pounded to shreds now, and so has everybody that expected a more expert, more technocratic government. | ||
|
Scorpion77
98 Posts
On November 17 2013 16:56 Introvert wrote: It's rather amusing to see people tripping over themselves to justify everything that's going on. I wonder where it will stop? "This program is going to be great, you can keep your plan!" to "Well, he lied, but those plans were bad anyway!" I'm having a hard time predicting the next one. Will the loud cries of single payer start yet, or are there still some steps that go in between? Interestingly enough.... this is a Chicago editorial! Yeah, you'd think they'd realize that the best thing to do was to argue facts rather than spewing out propaganda If the 1st 10 "Obama is a Communist" soundbites didn't do it then I'm not sure more of the same will work either, somehow. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5009 Posts
On November 17 2013 17:14 Scorpion77 wrote: Yeah, you'd think they'd realize that the best thing to do was to argue facts rather than spewing out propaganda If the 1st 10 "Obama is a Communist" soundbites didn't do it then I'm not sure more of the same will work either, somehow. Where did the communist part come from? My main piont was the editorial, lol. | ||
|
Scorpion77
98 Posts
On November 17 2013 17:19 Introvert wrote: Where did the communist part come from? My main piont was the editorial, lol. Ah lol, I thought you were making a general point about the quality of the healthcare/gov shutdown debate. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5009 Posts
On November 17 2013 17:49 Scorpion77 wrote: Ah lol, I thought you were making a general point about the quality of the healthcare/gov shutdown debate. Well, I was making a mildly sarcastic comment. The excuses I put in quotes are things that I've actually read in this thread. In fact, I've seen the single payer things as well. But I didn't say he was a communist  | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On November 17 2013 04:41 Scorpion77 wrote: what the American Republic needs is New Conservatism, something like the new British Whig movement which is making headwinds in the United Kingdom... perhaps American Conservatives could learn from the Mother Kingdom? Seems to be the only way to defeat this rancid, left-wing cocktail of Statism and Cryptosocialism that the Democrats prescribe. I don't think it's impossible to consider a reconciliation party of Republicans who drop social conservatism with moderate Democrats who are more pragmatic about war and environmental issues. But unfortunately I don't think it will happen. These days, the two parties are too well disciplined and you'd need a series of excellent leaders to make it happen. I don't think you can find that - in the internet age, excellent leaders quickly find themselves forced to poison the bipartisan well and committed to helping their party win elections if they want to stay relevant. Even for special interest groups, they may be unhappy with the party they support but it's often too unpalatable to consider supporting the other side. | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
Of course that all assumes the law will even be in place by 2016. Which is probably only a 50/50 bet at this point. Edit: "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.” | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14161 Posts
| ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On November 18 2013 02:57 Sermokala wrote: Its a horrifying precedent to set if the president can just ignore laws that they dont feel like enforcing. Can you imagine the uproar if a Republican presidency simply repeals obamacare by executive order? No I couldn't because it would be illegal. You post here a lot to not understand how the executive branch works. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On November 18 2013 03:08 heliusx wrote: No I couldn't because it would be illegal. You post here a lot to not understand how the executive branch works. Of course he can't "repeal" it but if a president can just choose not to enforce it then the effect is quite similar. | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On November 18 2013 03:15 farvacola wrote: I expect Hilary will be more about changing the law than scrapping it altogether anyhow, which still seems like an utterly foreign concept to many. If she wins at least it will be a relief to have someone competent in charge again. I guarantee you that if Hillary was president the website would have worked properly from day one. And she wouldn't have promised people they could keep their plans when it was obvious that it wasn't true. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On November 18 2013 03:36 ziggurat wrote: If she wins at least it will be a relief to have someone competent in charge again. I guarantee you that if Hillary was president the website would have worked properly from day one. And she wouldn't have promised people they could keep their plans when it was obvious that it wasn't true. Yes, we all know Hillary is such a great computer wiz | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On November 18 2013 03:31 ziggurat wrote: Of course he can't "repeal" it but if a president can just choose not to enforce it then the effect is quite similar. The president cannot choose not to enforce the ACA. Are you trying to draw parallels between the delays and simply choosing which laws you will enforce? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On November 18 2013 03:36 ziggurat wrote: If she wins at least it will be a relief to have someone competent in charge again. I guarantee you that if Hillary was president the website would have worked properly from day one. And she wouldn't have promised people they could keep their plans when it was obvious that it wasn't true. This is as clear an indication as any that you are drinking the kool-aid. The latter part is certainly an open question; I do think that she would have spoken on the matter more carefully. The former, though, is based on nothing more than the assurances of those who either have no idea what they are talking about, have everything to gain in claiming authority alongside their indignation, or both. It would seem a fairly safe bet to suggest that someone out there could have hired better contractors and gone about the tech side of things more competently, but the notion that even someone like Hilary would have been guaranteed to have no issues with the launching of a massive website is nonsense. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Seattle voters have elected a socialist to city council for the first time in modern history. Kshama Sawant, a member of the populist Occupy Seattle movement, ran on a platform of raising Washington State’s minimum wage to $15 and levying a “millionaire tax” to pay for mass transit and public education. Sawant took 50.3 percent of the vote to incumbent Richard Conlin’s 49.4 percent. Even in this liberal city, Sawant's win has surprised many here because Conlin was backed by the city's political establishment. While city council races are technically non-partisan, Sawant made sure people knew she was running as a socialist – a label that would be politically poisonous in many parts of the country. “In Seattle, living costs have become unaffordable for the vast majority of people working low wage jobs amid skyrocketing living costs,” Sawant told Al Jazeera. “This has created a hunger among people for a political alternative … and the beginning of an understanding that capitalism is not working.” Sawant, a 41-year-old college economics professor, first drew attention as part of local Occupy Wall Street protests that included taking over a downtown park and a junior college campus in late 2011. “I argued during this time that we should not just focus on the Occupy camp, but discuss the larger issues that brought people into the movement," said Sawant. "We talked about the massive cost of education, the lack of funds for public education, and the failure of austerity politics.” This year, though, she pushed a platform that resonated with the city. She backed efforts to raise the minimum wage to $15; called for rent control in the city where rental prices keep climbing; and supported a tax on millionaires to help fund a public transit system. “We want to win $15 an hour to make life easier for Seattle residents, but we will be making a few things clear: This will not be easy," said Sawant. "We will be going up against the might of corporations, big business and the super wealthy who will fight tooth and nail to prevent this from happening.” Source | ||
| ||
