EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6607
| 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
| ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
On January 21 2017 04:22 Gorsameth wrote: What? You are aware that Obama did appoint a new Supreme Justice and then the Republicans in Congress told him to go F*** himself right? Congress has to approve the nomination. They refused to even get started on the process. There is nothing Obama could have done more then what he did without setting fire to the constitution. And what did Obama do? "Ok fine" and let them win the next election. What will the democrats do now? What do the democrats do next time they have a president, if that ever were to happen again, and the republicans block a supreme court appointment 1 year into the 4 year term? Will a democratic president never appoint a supreme court judge again? After republicans managed to so easily block the Obama nomination, probably to their own huge surprise, they actually went so far as to say they were going to block a Clinton nominee for the next 4 years as well. Hey why, not, the democrats let them the first time. Look, the system works a certain way. Obama could just have shot like 20 candidates and could have forced the republicans to reject them all. He didn't.It is as if he was happy they blocked his appointment. And Obama had the constitutional task to appoint one. Even nominating Garland was already a compromise. Obama hoped to appease the republicans into not blocking by nominating a pro-Citizens United judge. And they still blocked. Absurdly weak. If republicans block something, you take revenge somewhere else. The democrats should block the republican nominee for the next 4 years, or change the constitution so only republicans can appoint supreme court judges. | ||
|
Powerpill
United States1692 Posts
On January 21 2017 06:25 Atreides wrote: The ACA is extremely bad for certain parts of the population. People have said a lot of stupid things in this thread about it for years, but it's becoming more of an acknowledged thing. For this enrollment period the absolute cheapest bronze level plan available to me (single 29 y/o male) was 680$ month. This is an extremely crappy 5k deductible (7.5 total out of pocket) plan. I could have gotten a significantly better plan for <200$ pre ACA. The only reason for this being so bad is the state I live in. That's it. As for subsidies. It is possible that I could get som tax credits. However I am self employed and my income can vary a good bit. On avg I'd qualify for about 200$ a month tax credit. However I couldn't take them up front because there is a chance I could make enough to qualify for no assistance. This only requires making 60k. At that point this insurance is only beneficial if I have over 15k$ in qualified expenses (premiums + out of pocket) or 25% of my income. Considering that in 30 years of life I haven't had that (I was born in a hospital and I broke my arm once) I didn't sign up. I don't even care what happens. Something has to change. $680 a month!? Geez, that's insane. Mine is less than that quarterly and I'm in my mid thirties, plus a really low deductible. (am self employed as well, no dental sadly). What state do you live in? I figured my state of Maryland would be up there in prices, but $2040 quarterly for a mediocre plan sounds like lunacy. Hope you can get something better, I feel for you. =[ | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Sounds like blackmail more than anything else when you put it that way. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 21 2017 07:01 Euphorbus wrote: And what did Obama do? "Ok fine" and let them win the next election. What will the democrats do now? What do the democrats do next time they have a president, if that ever were to happen again, and the republicans block a supreme court appointment 1 year into the 4 year term? Will a democratic president never appoint a supreme court judge again? After republicans managed to so easily block the Obama nomination, probably to their own huge surprise, they actually went so far as to say they were going to block a Clinton nominee for the next 4 years as well. Hey why, not, the democrats let them the first time. Look, the system works a certain way. Obama could just have shot like 20 candidates and could have forced the republicans to reject them all. He didn't.It is as if he was happy they blocked his appointment. And Obama had the constitutional task to appoint one. If republicans block something, you take revenge somewhere else. The democrats should block the republican nominee for the next 4 years, or change the constitution so only republicans can appoint supreme court judges. so you wanted obama to rescind his nomination and nominate someone else they'll ignore? republicans didn't formally REJECT his candidate, they REFUSED to hold a vote at all, or even hold hearings on him. That wouldn't change if you nominate different people instead, they just refuse to hold a vote period. Obama, and the Dems, talked a lot about how that was fundamentally bad/unconstitutional etc, but they didn't convince enoug hpeople to force the issue. A lot of Republicans voters backed their party on this, so they damaged the fabric of the democracy. Partisanship is a powerful force. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On January 21 2017 06:34 LegalLord wrote: What is definitely true is that the original promises of Obamacare seem to have generally failed. "You can keep your original provider" turned out to be untrue, quality didn't really go up, and costs certainly didn't go down. People who didn't have healthcare now have it, and that's a big success. But the people who had healthcare are worse off now, and it failed to reduce prices. Republicans managed to gain a lot of local seats as a result of Obamacare bashing. This is because it was not a well-considered policy. I get there's a lot of problems with the policy and it certainly didn't fix a lot of things it had a chance to... but basically a whole bunch of people got health care, a lot of people get the same care they got before, and a small set of people are now worse off. Like when people affected by ACA talk about it it's always a bunch of "Well I won't die, and I can work now because I get meds" vs "I pay more than I'd like". It seems like the #1 reason the ACA is a 'failure' is because Republicans spent 4 years screaming that it was a failure while Democrats were busy talking about a whole bunch of different issues and didn't spend all their time promoting the successes. | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
On January 21 2017 07:18 zlefin wrote: so you wanted obama to rescind his nomination and nominate someone else they'll ignore? republicans didn't formally REJECT his candidate, they REFUSED to hold a vote at all, or even hold hearings on him. That wouldn't change if you nominate different people instead, they just refuse to hold a vote period. Obama, and the Dems, talked a lot about how that was fundamentally bad/unconstitutional etc, but they didn't convince enoug hpeople to force the issue. A lot of Republicans voters backed their party on this, so they damaged the fabric of the democracy. Partisanship is a powerful force. Just shut down everything in congress and the senate and go onto news channels 24/7 complaining about republicans obstruction. It was Obama's turn to nominate. Their argument was bogus, and the democrats let them get away with it. Now Trump will nominate someone, some democrats will want to block, but they won't be united, and the republicans will have stolen the nomination, giving the US the most conservative supreme court in history, in 2017. No, they welcomed the republicans tricks. If they go low, you go lower. Why would I as a left wing person ever vote for a democrat? They are middle of the road at best and they can't stop the far right wing, even if the far right wing is in the minority. What's the point? No surprise republicans now are in control of everything. At least republicans give their voters what they think they want. Obstructionism of the republicans wasn't a election topic at all. It wasn't mentioned in a single debate. | ||
|
Mysticesper
United States1183 Posts
ACA is also county-locked (zip-code determines your plans), which is retarded beyond reason. It's cheaper somewhere else 30 mins in the same state, not to include the fact that some states are definitely cheaper than others, but i can't get that cheaper insurance either, cause we like artificial monopolies apparently. besides, what good is the insurance if one cannot afford 5k deductibles anyway. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 21 2017 07:23 Euphorbus wrote: Just shut down everything in congress and the senate and go onto news channels 24/7 complaining about republicans obstruction. No, they welcomed the republicans tricks. If they go low, you go lower. Why would I as a left wing person ever vote for a democrat? They are middle of the road at best and they can't stop the far right wing. What's the point? so, because republicans refused to do one part of government, you want to shut down the ENTIRE government? that's irresponsible. you want people to go lower? I prefer to make the world a better place. not encourage unethical behavior. encouraging ever more unethical behavior leads to a terrible situation. It's that kind of attitude which leads to the problems in the first place, and you have to fix it in ways that let people be better, not encourage people to be worse people. I'm willing to agree that the dems are someewhat spineless and ineffectual. and your vote is yours to cast as you choose. I think you'd want to vote for whoever will improve the country the most. | ||
|
Atreides
United States2393 Posts
On January 21 2017 07:10 LegalLord wrote: I saw an ad on Twitch for Obamacare - "register now to avoid $675 penalty." Sounds like blackmail more than anything else when you put it that way. Ya I've seen those adds a lot they uhh.... Make me angry. But they are careful to pick rates close to the penalty they list which incidentally is also variable. Mine was over 900$ last March but I was exempted due to cost. Incidentally marketplace cost last year was roughly half this years. There was a huge price jump. I would have enrolled this year at ~300/month if I could have for some life reasons. Instead I'm probably going to have to lie, claim I attend church, and go the medishare route like many of my friends. I live in Alaska, the real issue is that there is literally one provider offering insurance. Non marketplace insurance rates have also gone up. (Not as much) that said there were many providers available pre ACA. The whole healthcare and insurance industry is a giant pile of shit. We'll see what/if anything changes. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8982 Posts
On January 21 2017 07:23 Euphorbus wrote: Just shut down everything in congress and the senate and go onto news channels 24/7 complaining about republicans obstruction. It was Obama's turn to nominate. Their argument was bogus, and the democrats let them get away with it. Now Trump will nominate someone, some democrats will want to block, but they won't be united, and the republicans will have stolen the nomination, giving the US the most conservative supreme court in history, in 2017. No, they welcomed the republicans tricks. If they go low, you go lower. Why would I as a left wing person ever vote for a democrat? They are middle of the road at best and they can't stop the far right wing, even if the far right wing is in the minority. What's the point? No surprise republicans now are in control of everything. At least republicans give their voters what they think they want. Obstructionism of the republicans wasn't a election topic at all. It wasn't mentioned in a single debate. There is something fundamentally wrong with your political opinions. I'm not quite sure what, but something isn't clicking in your posts (or mind). User was warned for this post | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
On January 21 2017 07:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: There is something fundamentally wrong with your political opinions. I'm not quite sure what, but something isn't clicking in your posts (or mind). Or yours? User was warned for this post | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 21 2017 07:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: There is something fundamentally wrong with your political opinions. I'm not quite sure what, but something isn't clicking in your posts (or mind). I'd say the issue is a lack of ethical standards. He wants to act no better than, or worse than, those who are misbehaving. While on occasion such tactics may be necessary, they usually end up making things terrible in the long run. complaining that the other side acts poorly than acting the same way doesn't work well. also that he's factually wrong on some points, or at least pushing an interpretation that simply does not reliably hold. | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
When I vote for a politician, I want him/her to fight tooth and nail for my ideals. Not to roll over and play dead the first confrontation with a right winger. Unless you think the constitution says only republicans can nominate SC judges, I am right. Anyway, this was just an example of Obama weakness. And you know why it happened? Or rather, why they let it happen? Because they thought Clinton would win anyway, so it didn't matter. Why did they think Clinton would win? Because all their friends in the NY and Silicon Valley elite loved Clinton. Which is the same reason Obama was so weak on Obamacare, and many other things. In other cases, he was happy. "Oh my voters, I tried, but couldn't. Now that I tried, I don't care anymore." Obama is why we have a proto-fascist like Trump. Let the military parades and the wars begin. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 21 2017 07:18 Logo wrote: I get there's a lot of problems with the policy and it certainly didn't fix a lot of things it had a chance to... but basically a whole bunch of people got health care, a lot of people get the same care they got before, and a small set of people are now worse off. Like when people affected by ACA talk about it it's always a bunch of "Well I won't die, and I can work now because I get meds" vs "I pay more than I'd like". It seems like the #1 reason the ACA is a 'failure' is because Republicans spent 4 years screaming that it was a failure while Democrats were busy talking about a whole bunch of different issues and didn't spend all their time promoting the successes. Republicans may have bashed on the ACA - but there were absolutely a lot of people who weren't happy about it because they genuinely were worse off from it. Policy-wise, I would have to say it was a net positive. It saved a lot of people from very bad things. But it wasn't a solution. Politically, it was a complete and utter failure and helped lead to a truly impressive failure of the Democrats at all levels of government. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 21 2017 07:46 Euphorbus wrote: Lack of ethical standards? That's absurd. If someone violates the constitution, you just let them as you want to be 'polite' because of ethical standards? Pretty sure I am one of the most ethical persons on TL. I am obsessed with my personal responsibility and how it relates to ethics. When I vote for a politician, I want him/her to fight tooth and nail for my ideals. Not to roll over and play dead the first confrontation with a right winger. Unless you think the constitution says only republicans can nominate SC judges, I am right. Anyway, this was just an example of Obama weakness. And you know why it happened. Because they thought Clinton would win anyway, so it didn't matter. Why did they think Clinton would win? Because all their friends in the NY and Silicon Valley elite loved Clinton. Which is the same reason Obama was so weak on Obamacare, and many other things. In other cases, he was happy. "Oh my voters, I tried, but couldn't. Now that I tried, I don't care anymore." it's a hypothesis. when faced with an atypical situation, we try to make sense of it as best we can. and it is consistent with the statements you made, which do not evince high moral standards. they don't look like what we'd imagine MLK or Gandhi would do. You may claim to be one of the most ethical, as would I, as would perhaps a grea tmany other people, but it is hard to measure such things, and many people have inaccurate opinions. one can also know a lot about a subject and not apply it well. I class myself as trending towards being so obnoxiously ethical that it puts other people off, at least i'm that way sometimes. If you'd like to elaborate ont he ethical standards you're using, by all means. sometimes people act badly, but there is insufficient support to take action, then we must make hard choices on how to deal with such things. sometimes fighting is necessary, sometimes it can be avoided. sometimes time, and other efforts cna find solutions thta are better. sometimes it's better to take a chance on ways to defuse the situation. We may assert they violated the constitution, and they certainly violate the spirit, but what would the supreme court say? did they violate the letter? How can you force them to hold a vote? Shutting down the entire government is an awfully extreme step. hoping to try to resolve things by letting the voters punish your opponents for their actions is not entirely unreasonable. your behavior feels very rant-ish. and it stil feels like you assert things as fact that do not hold up; they didn't just roll over and play dead to right-wingers. they may not have fougth quite as much as they should have, but rolling over is not an accurate description either. And there come costs to escalation, behavior like yours in a president is the kidn of thing that escalates disputes into wars and nuclear wars. your descriptions of fighting tooth and nail is the same thing republicans are donig. for government and society to work when people have fundamental disagreements, a measure of compromise is necessary, and sometimes it's better to comprommise than to force the issue. it remidns me of the old game Balance of Power, and how some people would go all the way far too easily on cases which just aren't worth it, or on which they don't have enough support. it's important to temper ideology and morality with a level of pragmatism. perhaps others will have insight/input which can clarify this situation better. | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
When you run into some difficulties, like republicans stealing the SC nominee, you can just accept it, laugh, and collect your paycheck, living your leisurely life. Or you can fight and sacrifice yourself for the greater good. Your comment is rant-ish. Give your posts some more thought please. Behavior like mine in a president? And the US president now is Trump. He goes onto twitter at 3 AM to insult someone who insulted him. Really? That's so ironic. It is better to compromise. I guess that's why the Republicans now have control of both houses, when approval rating overall was 9%! And a complete narcissistic lunatic as president. Yeah, let's take the 'moral high ground' and compromise. You don't want to be caught red-handed fighting tooth and nail for what is right, do you? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 21 2017 07:28 Atreides wrote: Ya I've seen those adds a lot they uhh.... Make me angry. But they are careful to pick rates close to the penalty they list which incidentally is also variable. Mine was over 900$ last March but I was exempted due to cost. Incidentally marketplace cost last year was roughly half this years. There was a huge price jump. I would have enrolled this year at ~300/month if I could have for some life reasons. Instead I'm probably going to have to lie, claim I attend church, and go the medishare route like many of my friends. I live in Alaska, the real issue is that there is literally one provider offering insurance. Non marketplace insurance rates have also gone up. (Not as much) that said there were many providers available pre ACA. The whole healthcare and insurance industry is a giant pile of shit. We'll see what/if anything changes. Stories like this all around the country go a long way in explaining why people are just not that enamored by the ACA. It was a badly considered policy and universal healthcare is simply the better choice. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: It's fostering deeper ties where it can. Russia's attention is also in Asia thanks to massive sanctions. Partially true, but that's an incomplete description of what's happening. The "pivot" to Asia has been in the works for a long time, and it's not really as a result of "desperation because Russia has no allies" but because this has been the goal for a while. The deals that Russia made with China after sanctions? Those were being negotiated for many years before. And the goals of a more Asia-centric policy aren't likely to subside because the will for sanctions is fading - Russia has said before that even if there is a thaw with the US, the current ties with China are non-negotiable. To put it quite simply, Russia has much more to gain from an Asia focus than an East Europe focus. Though it would certainly welcome closer ties with certain European nations who want to be closer to Russia - Moldova and Bulgaria are probably the most recent examples - they are ultimately simply not as important right now as developing Siberia and the ties with nations around it. Yes, in the aftermath of a country doing something other countries don't like, people tend to have a sharply negative opinion of them. You might notice that this entire poll is quite largely biased to Western-friendly nations, where it goes without saying that in 2015 people would view Russia unfavorably. In the aftermath of Iraq, people weren't fond of the US, and in the aftermath of Syria, people saw the US as the biggest threat to world peace. The perception that Russia hacked the election in the US has had a net positive effect on its favorability in the US, for that matter. And I'd say that polled now, those numbers would be rather different. Surprise surprise, people tend to be unhappy when nations do something controversial. On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: and a suddenly protectionist US There is nothing sudden about the US becoming protectionist. The US has become more and more protectionist ever since Iraq. In fact, Obama was elected largely because of his support for withdrawing from Iraq and for "not being the world's policemen." Yes, Obama sort of went back on that and returned to a bit more active a role in FP - but the trend has been there and Trump is merely a continuation. By no means is it "suddenly" protectionist - it has been a trend for a while. Trump is just a manifestation. On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: could change that opinion. Cool! People having better opinions about Russia wouldn't be so bad. I don't think there's any tragedy here. On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: Europe is one of the few regions calling them out on their actions, so weakening them would be a benefit in and of itself. This much is true, in a way. This is a US thread rather than a Russia thread, so I will not debate who is right or wrong and simply say that it is true that Europe (not all of Europe but certainly the EU as a bloc consensus) is opposed to what Russia is doing and is willing (albeit reluctantly) to have sanctions. In such a situation, it would make sense for Russia to support movements that oppose the current status quo in favor of a more pro-Russian group. Though why you think it's a bad thing to want a more friendly government, or for your opposition to be in a weaker position, is a mystery. On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: Eastern Ukraine is not currently occupied out of strategic concerns but much rather to weaken the position of Ukraine. Eastern Ukraine isn't occupied. It's in the middle of a civil war that started in the aftermath of an unpopular, but democratically elected leader, being forcefully removed from office. Whether or not Russia helped out there, the core of the rebellion is indeed Ukrainians. The reason that it's not under the Ukrainian government's control is because they were defeated in battle, something which should not be surprising given how incompetent the Ukrainian military is and was. And for that matter, Western Ukrainians are none too happy with their government as well. Maybe it's just a bad government? On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: The very idea of an empire is not that of gaining economically, but expanding power, while reducing the power of others. Think of the Red Line scenario in Syria (The NATO treaty), except now in regards to Europe, and Trump backing out. Massive gain, right there. Reversing that would take decades, during which Russia could blackmail Central Asia at will. Kind of a baseless assertion, I don't think there's anything I need to say. You are prescribing motive without justification. On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: As for the consensus, that's a rather dubious claim, especially unsourced Hard to provide a source, given that it's not exactly a very simple thing to show. But nevertheless, it is true that rebuilding the USSR exactly as it was would be kind of a massive waste of money. There simply isn't that much gain to be had from doing that because while it was better to have the USSR than not, once you've moved past it. This is part of why Putin's United Russia won out over the Communist Party - they had a plan for the future that was more feasible than just "go back to what used to be there." There are absolutely nationalists who want to focus on Europe, but that's a minority. On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: considering the massive military exercise right next to my border in 2017 Simple rule of thumb: you piss off the massive military power right next to your border, and they will respond unkindly. Bring foreign troops into your country that are hostile to that military, and expect that they will respond in kind. Build a missile base in your country, and don't be surprised if said country puts a stash of nukes on your border. Attempt to foster better relations, and you will have less of that. Hell, even Georgia has realized, a decade later, that trying to solve shit with Russia by trying to force the issue will only end in getting smacked. They gave up on that and things have mostly taken a turn for the better in that relationship. Perhaps Estonia should do the same and learn to realize that if you have a neighbor that could destroy you if they so desire without batting an eye, that you should be nice to them. On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: military parades with pictures of Stalin Nothing wrong with military parades - and Stalin is an important (if not uncontroversial) part of Russian history. What's the problem here? On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: the change of the national anthem to include the soviet melody in it Why is that a problem? On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: Putin claiming the dissolution of the USSR being the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century... Oh, this tired old quote. We all could do with a bit of context. I'm going to just link his entire speech here. Also, this Politifact article is actually pretty decent for describing the statement - and a few things I was talking about regarding Ukraine and a European empire. On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: Oh, and of course this, from your own RT: "Your own RT" It's not mine, I don't read it. I am aware of its existence and think it has its purpose. Certainly not "my RT" though. On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: https://www.rt.com/politics/340158-most-russians-regret-ussr-has/ From the source: When researchers asked the public if they would like the Soviet Union to be restored, 58 percent replied in the affirmative, with 14 percent saying they considered such project quite realistic at the moment. Forty-four percent view the restoration of the USSR as unfeasible, even though preferable. Thirty-one percent said they would not be happy if events took such a turn, while 10 percent could not give a simple answer to the question. That's a hell of a question though. It didn't ask, "should we get all those nations that used to be in the USSR and take them back" to which you'd probably get a "no." Would Russians prefer the way the world was during the Soviet Union to the way it is now? I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Though "there is no simple answer" is the "correct" response because that is definitely a loaded question. On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: The reaction and how one would see it depends on previous history. It depends on a lot of things. On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: Russia has no right to tell countries what defensive alliances it's formerly occupied people can and cannot form. But it absolutely does have the right to be less friendly to nations that are less friendly to Russia. On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: For the record, I am not having this conversation to convince you, but much rather, to persuade others not to take your positions. No doubt. On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: It being personal for me does not exactly disprove my points. No, but it does make "omg u just dont get us cuz u just don't know" assertions quite stupid. You would do well to acknowledge that not everyone hates Russia as much as you do - and that that isn't a bad thing. On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: Your biases are as less plain than mine, but you are lenient towards Russia with reckless disregard of the concerns of the allies of the United States. These have been voiced at the highest levels of governments, and are partly representative of the concerns of people in your own legislature. There are people in the government who say stuff that I disagree with. It may, perhaps, come as a surprise, that the US has its own perception of which politicians we do and do not agree with. Other politicians, for example, have said that NATO is obsolete, that you lot aren't paying your fair share and we don't have to defend you, and that Russia is a country we should get along with. As for allies, the US has a lot of those. Some are more important than others, and some are friendlier to Russia than others. Some of those allies say Israel is a dangerous threat. That certain politicians (John McCain is probably your biggest "pal" here) say that Russia is a huge threat is often little more than trying to find an enemy to support further spending on military matters. We have 100 Senators and 435 Representatives - that one of them says something isn't really as significant as you make it sound. And they all serve the US first and foremost - not whatever other country is counting on support from the US. Estonians don't elect our government, nor does any other country that isn't the US. On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: Sources, please. Sources for the fact that I've read academic works, some of which came out of Estonia? The source is myself. Sources for what I actually read? There's not much benefit to "give me all the things you ever read" so I will decline. I will simply say that it's idiotic to simply presume that the only reason anyone disagrees with you is because they just don't know - especially when the topic simply wasn't really about those other countries. But I will simply say that the so-called "academic" work coming out of certain nations (most notably the Baltics) have an obsession with hating Russia that borders on farcical. They essentially assume the worst possible interpretations of anything Russia does, ascribe evil, evil motives, and inject their opinion in ways that simply isn't very suitable for the standard of objectivity that is to be expected from academic writing. And hopefully it isn't surprising that people might disagree with you even if they know where you're coming from. So your assertion here is simply laughable. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 21 2017 08:02 Euphorbus wrote: Look, you are one of the elite. You get paid by donors. You have a broker managing a stock portfolio. You have friends and acquaintance in powerful places; you are a democratic member of congress. When you run into some difficulties, like republicans stealing the SC nominee, you can just accept it, laugh, and collect your paycheck, living your leisurely life. Or you can fight and sacrifice yourself for the greater good. Your comment is rant-ish. Give your posts some more thought please. Behavior like mine in a president? And the US president now is Trump. He goes onto twitter at 3 AM to insult someone who insulted him. Really? That's so ironic. I dont' see my comments as being as rant-ish as yours. and I gave it a great of thought. it would be nice to have more self-sacrifice in our political leaders from al sides, but such is not the world we live in. nor do the selection pressures cause such to happen typically. they did fight it, but there's limits to the appopriate amount of fighting to do. not every fight calls for full-on violence. sometimes it's better to try alternate means than extreme violence. and sure, i'll say you're acting like trump. (not really, similarly badly, but in a rather different way). sometimes boths dies believe they are in the right, sometimes they both are, sometimes only one is. forcing the issue when you have insufficient support to do so ends poorly. the actions you propose do not seem likely to lead to a better world. and you still misrepresent what they actually did. But I think we need some other people to add their assessments of things, as we have reached an impasse. | ||
| ||
