|
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. |
Don't be dramatic. This pick is only important due when it comes bringing the party together and even your boy Ellison is willing to accept whatever results are.
|
On February 25 2017 18:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:There is always something missing in the equation when I listen to american right wingers. The whole empathy thing. "Meh, let's put all those people in camps in Jordan, that's cheaper". Well. Let say I hope you'll never be in a situation of extreme vulnerability and need with people like you in front of you.
If I were in an impossible circumstance, in that state I might personally wish I could hit some kind of lottery, yes.
But if you take one minute and look at it rationally, and knew you were going to be in that situation, you would:
-if resources were insufficient, want everyone to be equally off because you don't know which lot you'll draw going into it
-if resources were sufficient, want to ensure that you would be satisfied being in the worst-off subset. The priority would be catching everyone in the net.
|
read the new republican healthcare ideas. its basically taking price/ryan's old plans and adding some extra dollars so poor people get screwed over slightly less, maybe? it's funny because this really looks like an even more watered down of romneycare.
and oh god, it lets insurers charge old people as much as they want. that's an idiotic provision, and tax credits are a joke of a buffer.
i can't help but wonder if "millenials" will decide its okay with this version because it keeps their protections intact, but really screws over the groups hat actually need coverage that the ACA was meant to help, like the aforementioned elderly as well as poor people/ people with chronic illness.
|
On February 26 2017 00:53 Plansix wrote:Don't be dramatic. This pick is only important due when it comes bringing the party together and even your boy Ellison is willing to accept whatever results are.
eh, he compared dems not handing over power to berniecrats to police murdering a kid yesterday b/c they didn't want to seem like a sissy.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
sanders killed the aca support from the left by supporting single-payer, said obama earlier in a moment of being salty
unfortunate
|
On February 26 2017 01:00 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 00:53 Plansix wrote:Don't be dramatic. This pick is only important due when it comes bringing the party together and even your boy Ellison is willing to accept whatever results are. eh, he compared dems not handing over power to berniecrats to police murdering a kid yesterday b/c they didn't want to seem like a sissy.
He didn't murder the kid, he just tried to. The point being that there's no reason for them to pick this fight other than to show they are dominant.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I have seen little to suggest that the Democrats believe that their losses were anything more than a Comey-Putin conspiracy to undermine their credibility. The personal charm of Obama does not reside within any notable party figures as of late; now all their stink is on full display.
Not that Ellison is the savior - frankly I don't see him as that great - but the general disdain for party "outsiders" permeates all their actions, and the denialism of the strongest loyalists (including here) suggests that the lesson they learned was to blame boogeymen for their own failures.
|
On February 26 2017 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 01:00 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2017 00:53 Plansix wrote:Don't be dramatic. This pick is only important due when it comes bringing the party together and even your boy Ellison is willing to accept whatever results are. eh, he compared dems not handing over power to berniecrats to police murdering a kid yesterday b/c they didn't want to seem like a sissy. He didn't murder the kid, he just tried to. The point being that there's no reason for them to pick this fight other than to show they are dominant. The converse is just as true.
|
Norway28665 Posts
I understand the argument that it's better to help people in areas close to the war than to let them in wealthy western countries. The same amount of money spent on helping Syrian refugees in Turkey or Syrian refugees in Norway ends up helping far more refugees in Turkey than if the money was spent in Norway or similar country. And to my knowledge, the UNHCR has fallen short of reaching the monetary goals they deem necessary to maintain the very baseline of humanitarian standards for the refugee camps in Turkey and Lebanon (according to amnesty, they only had 56% of the money they needed in december 2016), thus obviously, money is an issue. In addition, the problems Ghostcom talked about are real - while there's nearly universal agreement that Syrian refugees need help, 'economic migrants' have significantly less public support, and it's certainly problematic that people embark upon a long, dangerous journey just to be turned away upon reaching their destination.
That said, there are problems with the 'help them over there or here' dichotomy. People who also want (more) Syrian refugees in Norway, or the US, or other western country, they generally don't want to take the money spent on Syrian refugees in Norway from the money that would be spent on Syrian refugees in Lebanon or Turkey. They'd actually genuinely prefer increasing taxes or reducing some other expenditure. Obviously, you can't just always increase taxes or reduce other spending either - but I have a hard time seeing how Norway accepting 10000 refugees, or the US accepting 40k, is gonna be so costly that the life of the average Norwegian or American is impacted in any significant manner by this additional expenditure, or that it will make us unable to supply the UN with an amount of money in line with the size of our country and strength of our economy (relative to other countries that also help). If talking about Germany or Sweden, it's a different equation - but then you can argue that if other countries had been more generous, Germany and Sweden could have been less generous.
Either way, while I do give validity to the argument that it's better to spend money more efficiently, when looking at the amnesty link from earlier, Lebanon has already taken 1 million, which is about 20% of the Lebanese population. Turkey 2.7. Jordan 560k. The EU, excluding Germany (27 countries), has pledged to accept 51k. With the exception of Germany and Sweden, we're not exactly pulling our weight here. I realize that there are also gulf states refusing to accept any - but I don't think this is a valid excuse to not do everything we're able to do, anyway.
Additionally, it's not like helping people is a binary 'either you help them or you don't'. I'd argue that sure, the syrian refugee in a Lebanese underfunded camp, he's better off than if still in Aleppo. But he's much better off in Norway than in Lebanon. Sure, it costs 20 times more - but it also (ideally) gives the real opportunity of creating a new life, which, while hard to quantify as a monetary sum, is certainly 'worth more' than mere continued existence. Sure, it's a lottery - but it's better to have 10000 lottery winners than 0.
At one point, the discussion, even when acknowledging the validity of 'it's significantly wiser to help them there than here from an economic point of view', becomes about selfishness vs selflessness, and to what degree you want to prioritize the welfare of your own countrymen over the welfare of people from other regions of the world. Personally, I've never understood why being born in Norway should entitle me to wealth and riches far out of reach for mostly everyone else. At the same time, I myself am so selfish that I don't want to distribute all excess Norwegian wealth to the rest of the world so we'd be a median income country. But I do want to share as much as I can without being significantly impacted. It's even fine if I am slightly impacted. And issues with human trafficking, to my knowledge, could actually have been solved quite easily with airplanes?
In the end, it's a massively difficult and complex situation. How to handle refugees is one of the scenarios that demands overnational institutions, yet, it's the kind of crisis that creates backlash against overnational institutions.
|
On February 26 2017 01:12 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2017 01:00 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2017 00:53 Plansix wrote:Don't be dramatic. This pick is only important due when it comes bringing the party together and even your boy Ellison is willing to accept whatever results are. eh, he compared dems not handing over power to berniecrats to police murdering a kid yesterday b/c they didn't want to seem like a sissy. He didn't murder the kid, he just tried to. The point being that there's no reason for them to pick this fight other than to show they are dominant. The converse is just as true.
There's a LOT of reasons. But if for no other reason than for political optics this is a smart fight for progressives (the ones who know Keith's campaign and Perez's campaign have been hardly distinguishable).
All those Millennials that didn't vote for Hillary in the primary or the general aren't coming to the Democratic party with Perez as chair, they at least might come with Ellison.
Again it doesn't matter much if it's a sensible position or not, it's the reality. Nothing to be gained from picking Perez, absolutely nothing. The inverse is not true.
|
I am going to be so incredibly disappointed if Ellison doesn't get it.
|
I'm more interested in hearing a plan and direction, rather than seeing of the anointed one receives the title.
|
On February 26 2017 01:31 Plansix wrote:
I'm more interested in hearing a plan and direction, rather than seeing of the anointed one receives the title.
Dude, could you just not with the "anointed one" stuff? That's the position of ~0 people here. It looks more stupid than it did when Republicans did it with Obama (it was far more apt then).
|
On February 26 2017 01:31 Plansix wrote:
I'm more interested in hearing a plan and direction, rather than seeing of the anointed one receives the title.
Perception is massively important to younger voters, though. Lots of people will lose hope in a party that doesn't see the writing on the wall. I consider myself pretty tolerant of less-than-ideal party stuff. But even I will feel very hopeless to see the democratic party pay so little attention to image and perception. Populism'ish concepts are important and Ellison is strong there.
|
On February 26 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 01:31 Plansix wrote:
I'm more interested in hearing a plan and direction, rather than seeing of the anointed one receives the title. Perception is massively important to younger voters, though. Lots of people will lose hope in a party that doesn't see the writing on the wall. I consider myself pretty tolerant of less-than-ideal party stuff. But even I will feel very hopeless to see the democratic party pay so little attention to image and perception. Populism'ish concepts are important and Ellison is strong there.
Yes, but the continued argument of "we will lose our shit if we don't get what we want" is tiresome. Parties are collections of different groups and getting along is critical. Ellison has to earn the confidence of the DNC members just like everyone else. If he can't pull that off, then he needs to fight another way to accomplish his goals within the DNC and bring his supporters with him.
|
On February 26 2017 01:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2017 01:31 Plansix wrote:
I'm more interested in hearing a plan and direction, rather than seeing of the anointed one receives the title. Perception is massively important to younger voters, though. Lots of people will lose hope in a party that doesn't see the writing on the wall. I consider myself pretty tolerant of less-than-ideal party stuff. But even I will feel very hopeless to see the democratic party pay so little attention to image and perception. Populism'ish concepts are important and Ellison is strong there. Yes, but the continued argument of "we will lose our shit if we don't get what we want" is tiresome. Parties are collections of different groups and getting along is critical. Ellison has to earn the confidence of the DNC members just like everyone else. If he can't pull that off, then he needs to fight another way to accomplish his goals within the DNC and bring his supporters with him.
But considering Bernie's strength in states that Trump won, such as Wisconsin, it is difficult to not pay attention plain and simple results. A lot of people agreed with Bernie's vision and still chose not to vote for the current democratic party. That's a big problem. Telling them to get over it doesn't seem to be working. The goal of the party should be to be as inclusive as possible, not to stick to their guns. Just look at the current level of influence of the party. It is pretty fucking powerless right now. Not getting enough votes has some serious consequences and the current "establishment" has not done well.
|
On February 26 2017 01:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 01:46 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2017 01:31 Plansix wrote:
I'm more interested in hearing a plan and direction, rather than seeing of the anointed one receives the title. Perception is massively important to younger voters, though. Lots of people will lose hope in a party that doesn't see the writing on the wall. I consider myself pretty tolerant of less-than-ideal party stuff. But even I will feel very hopeless to see the democratic party pay so little attention to image and perception. Populism'ish concepts are important and Ellison is strong there. Yes, but the continued argument of "we will lose our shit if we don't get what we want" is tiresome. Parties are collections of different groups and getting along is critical. Ellison has to earn the confidence of the DNC members just like everyone else. If he can't pull that off, then he needs to fight another way to accomplish his goals within the DNC and bring his supporters with him. But considering Bernie's strength in states that Trump won, such as Wisconsin, it is difficult to not pay attention plain and simple results. A lot of people agreed with Bernie's vision and still chose not to vote for the current democratic party. That's a big problem. Telling them to get over it doesn't seem to be working. The goal of the party should be to be as inclusive as possible, not to stick to their guns. Just look at the current level of influence of the party. It is pretty fucking powerless right now. Not getting enough votes has some serious consequences and the current "establishment" has not done well.
I completely agreed. If they pick Ellison I think it would be great. But he might not have convinced enough members of the DNC to pick him.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The Democrats alienated much of their base, lost their chance to retake Congress under favorable conditions, lost the advantage of Scalia dying, lost pitifully at the local level, lost to a goddamn clown, and have a hilarious fixation on finding people to blame for their own faults.
But they can take pride in that they stuck to their guns, they didn't cave to the Sandernistas, and they let the Democratic Party be controlled by loyal Democrats.
|
On February 26 2017 00:57 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2017 18:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:There is always something missing in the equation when I listen to american right wingers. The whole empathy thing. "Meh, let's put all those people in camps in Jordan, that's cheaper". Well. Let say I hope you'll never be in a situation of extreme vulnerability and need with people like you in front of you. If I were in an impossible circumstance, in that state I might personally wish I could hit some kind of lottery, yes. But if you take one minute and look at it rationally, and knew you were going to be in that situation, you would: -if resources were insufficient, want everyone to be equally off because you don't know which lot you'll draw going into it -if resources were sufficient, want to ensure that you would be satisfied being in the worst-off subset. The priority would be catching everyone in the net.
Mate, the US is the richest country in the world, and actually, in history of humankind. It's not hitting some kind of lottery. It's human beings knocking at your door for protection and help when they flee war, death and persecutions and you guys demonizing them and telling them to fuck off in some camp in the desert.
And don't tell me the US can't absorb a few thousand of refugees or doesn't have the means to. It's ridiculous.
So again, what strikes me is the complete lack of empathy and humanity of the right. You see people in need and danger and all you think about is that you don't want to share any of your priviledges.
The gop is seen around the world as a party of mean, egoistic people. Maybe it would be time to reflect on that. Not the leaders, who actually are horrible people, but from you, voters and supporters. Thinking like a nice, decent and compassionate guy does not cause any harm.
|
On February 26 2017 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 01:12 farvacola wrote:On February 26 2017 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2017 01:00 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2017 00:53 Plansix wrote:Don't be dramatic. This pick is only important due when it comes bringing the party together and even your boy Ellison is willing to accept whatever results are. eh, he compared dems not handing over power to berniecrats to police murdering a kid yesterday b/c they didn't want to seem like a sissy. He didn't murder the kid, he just tried to. The point being that there's no reason for them to pick this fight other than to show they are dominant. The converse is just as true. There's a LOT of reasons. But if for no other reason than for political optics this is a smart fight for progressives (the ones who know Keith's campaign and Perez's campaign have been hardly distinguishable). All those Millennials that didn't vote for Hillary in the primary or the general aren't coming to the Democratic party with Perez as chair, they at least might come with Ellison. Again it doesn't matter much if it's a sensible position or not, it's the reality. Nothing to be gained from picking Perez, absolutely nothing. The inverse is not true.
I know a lot of people who supported Bernie and were annoyed at the Democratic party and skeptical about Clinton. I don't know a single one of them who gives a fuck about the DNC right now.
You house is in flame and you are still stuck arguing about when your flatemate didn't clean the dishes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
