EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9825
| 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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On February 02 2018 09:33 LegalLord wrote: Populism comes and goes in waves. Though they make good points, their tendency towards ineptitude in governance keeps them from being a stable entity. The fun part is, i actually agree with some of the points (just not with the "solutions"). More than you'd think if i'd tell you that generally i'm a liberal person. What keeps them from being a stable entity is very simple. Populism inherently runs on emotion, not reason. An entire party full of hotheads eventually will discombobulate itself one way or the other. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Shocked, shocked I say. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
 | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
I apologize if this has been posted here before, but what the actual fuck? There is no justifiable reason for Republicans to be doing this. There is no public good being served by the Dallas GOP filing this lawsuit. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On February 02 2018 09:57 Plansix wrote: Lol, my bad. No more posting while monster hunting. Enjoy, gonna wait for PC release. :D | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
Same here. By the time I get to it, all of my friends will have played it so much on consoles that they'll be thoroughly sick of it. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 02 2018 09:33 LegalLord wrote: Populism comes and goes in waves. Though they make good points, their tendency towards ineptitude in governance keeps them from being a stable entity. Yes, it's important to keep track of it. Just as the far-left parties overstretched the bounds of sane immigration policy and sane representative republicanism/constitutional monarchy, the populist wave will peter out with no guiding philosophy or enduring answers to trade or foreign policy. Ask yourself LegalLord ... did the Democrats and the politics of identity prior to the rise of Trump show such a contrast with aptitude in governance? | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
For people who like to make the comparison, I don't remember stories about Obama making private phone calls with Wolf Blitzer or Rachel Maddow. Also, where the fuck's this memo? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 02 2018 09:31 m4ini wrote: UKIP, the party "britain first" wanted you to vote for. I mean.. I'm not sure if Danglars realises with what kind of caliber he shot his own foot, but man, that was a stupid comparison. Or rather, spot on. Of course, to understand that, you'd need to actually understand what's going on in the UK. Like most racist european parties, they are in complete disarray. AfD in germany is like a mirror image. Why hold a referendum followed by resigning? Cause-Effect, New Cause-Effect. Also known as "Never mind about our latest egg on our face, let's remember that our population is inconsiderate newbs and we must govern on their behalf, as they are too stupid to act in their own best interest." Then when they get called on their elitism, they take solace in the fact that their opponents did not win an enduring victory. That's fine, it's the pendulum of politics. The poor stroke is forgetting the original cause and focusing on the follow-up. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On February 02 2018 09:40 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/thegarance/status/959180268472020993 Shocked, shocked I say. I'm glad someone else posted this. I mean, what was the initial excuse for this? For anything relating to that Oval Office meeting? Insane. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On February 02 2018 10:12 Leporello wrote: https://www.thedailybeast.com/sean-hannity-has-been-advising-donald-trump-on-the-nunes-memo-because-of-course-he-has?__twitter_impression=true For people who like to make the comparison, I don't remember stories about Obama making private phone calls with Wolf Blitzer or Rachel Maddow. Also, where the fuck's this memo? From the sound of it this afternoon the White House's position on the memo went from "we're publishing ASAP" to "we'll heavily redact it and send it back to the House as per Schiff's request." So it probably won't come out until Monday. You have to keep in mind when Trump said it was 100% being published he was 1) being a liar liar who lies and 2) had yet to actually see it. I wonder if Nunes' little edits and the FBI's vocal disagreement really helped them out in the end by buying time (even if it did put egg on the face of Fox "The FBI loves the memo" News). | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Sane immigration policy by people who love America. Just look how much safer we are now that Sessions is in charge of immigration. Have no doubt, the senators that are killing the DACA bill want to deport this man. He is illegal after all. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12381 Posts
On February 02 2018 06:39 TheLordofAwesome wrote: I only really know American politics. Obviously the term liberalism as used in modern American politics (meaning support for a certain set of economic and social policies) does differ a lot from the kind of liberalism that Edmund Burke wrote about. Conservatives in Europe usually are more closely aligned with American liberals than American conservatives. That doesn't mean the terms liberal and conservative are useless or wrong when applied to American politics; they just describe different places on a spectrum than they do when applied to European poltics. Hopefully I'm mostly making sense, can't imagine I didn't say anything dumb. I'm going to start by disagreeing with Plansix on the general complexity of politics. It is true that the left right divide is a simplification, but it’s not a simplification of a reality that is extremely wide in the first place. You’re going to have two general topics, social issues and economic issues, and there are going to be positions on the left, on the right and on the middle when it comes to these topics. The complexity comes from humans, because people don’t have to be consistent (and I don’t mean that as a criticism, I just mean that they may be very liberal on a social issue and then conservative on another, that’s not a contradiction) and don’t even have to be involved (most people, including me, don’t necessarily know what they think of every issue). There are also exterior factors, exterior because they are not determinative. Religion being the biggest example. It serves as a justification, both on individual level and on societal level, but it can be used to justify any position, so it doesn’t help us put people on a specific place of the graph, no matter how many people it has the power to influence – this is your reminder that historical Jesus sounds a lot like Bernie Sanders. Europe and the US look different in terms of their political spectrum because we have disagreed on what is the most basic divide of the population. In Europe we’ve decided that the population should primarily be divided based on their economic views, and in the US you’ve decided that it should be divided based on social views. Because of that choice, it is more or less assumed that the other question is solved. In Europe we have solved that it is correct to be liberal socially, and in the US you have decided that it is correct to be fiscally conservative. Of course, it doesn’t mean that the other groups don’t exist, but when we mention them we have to distanciate, since they are outside of what we have decided was the great divide. That’s how we got our far right, and that’s how you get your far left. It’s not logical to say that if you’re very economically rightwing, ‘far right’, there is some specific point where you start to become a racist / sexist / social conservative, or if you’re very socially liberal, ‘far left’, then suddenly you become a socialist. The two are much more intertwined; I had a discussion with a socialist who is a former colleague of my dad who was defending Harvey Weinstein the other day (cause you know, the women, they’re taking over it’s dangerous), and if you remember the Berniebro nonsense it is fairly easy to see that the most socially liberal people were most likely for Clinton rather than Sanders, so not necessarily at the far left. What we describe with the label ‘far’ is the idea that the ‘far’ group isn’t quite as established as the others, that it would be ‘extreme’ of you to want them in power. It’s a deterrent. I’m going to argue that Europe is, in my view, correct to describe their far right as extreme, while the US is incorrect to view their far left as extreme. 1. The actual number of views available. There are about two levels from the rightwing of the republican party to fascism, the authoritarian rightwing position. Meanwhile, on the left of liberalism, you get social democracy, then you have what social democracy was a few years ago before they moved toward the center (Corbyn and Sanders are somewhere around there), then you move outside of capitalism and wander into mixed models territory, then you get democratic socialism, and then finally the authoritarian left, communism. The path to get to the end of the graph is much longer on one side than on the other. Now I did have to move outside of capitalism to get to the extreme left, that’s true, and perhaps you criticize that move, perhaps the extreme left should be the most leftwing you can be while still a capitalist; but then you’d have a huge double standard, cause fascism is still capitalist, and I’m pretty sure you’d rather live on the far left than on the far right if that’s what I was going to argue. 2. Historically speaking. It is well documented that the US has shifted to the right economically. First, it probably wasn’t quite easy to identify as any kind of leftist during the Cold War, so that can’t have helped. Then you got Reagan and his nonsense economic theories. In terms of social issues the Southern Strategy and the Tea Party more recently also pushed the party further right. If your center keeps moving away in one direction because the party on the right becomes more and more extreme, what qualifies as extreme is necessarily impacted. Every time the right moves away, the left takes its place, cause it’s trying to appeal to the voters that aren’t quite happy with how rightwing the other party has become (that strategy may sound intuitive but it’s actually dumb, for the record). At some point, it becomes the moderate right in terms of economics, and then the parties become undistinguishable (to think that your leftwing party is viewed by a pretty large number of people as the party of the economical elite, even if that’s a misconception, is disheartening); but the parties still represent different values, and since that’s the only thing differentiating them now, they are put at the forefront. In short, there is a clear historical shift that would explain why the US ends up with the „wrong“ priority as their first divide. 3. When social issues are put at the forefront, it’s always in terms of an imbalance, perceived or real. Minorities don’t vote on the left because they are inherently so much more progressive than white people, they do so cause they perceive that the parties on the right are against them. We have the privilege to choose whichever economic policy we favor because none include policies that hurt us based on who we are. And when they don’t have to worry about something specific, most people will care about economics first, because that’s what impacts them directly. It’s difficult to imagine a fiscally conservative homophobe who, faced with the absence of a fiscally conservative homophobic party, would vote for a socialist homophobic party over a fabulous fiscally conservative party. 4. It is inconvenient to solve social issues if you’re running on them. If you solve racism in America, why would we elect you again? You’ve served your purpose. If racism is still there, you still have something to fight, and you still have a reason for people to elect you. That was the leftwing example but the rightwing is rife with those, the biggest being security. If society is ever safe, we have no reason to vote for law & order candidates anymore, no reason to donate zillions to the military to protect ourselves, and the people who run on these ideas lose money and influence. An economic platform is expected to be fulfilled. You’re running for something, not against something, so if you don’t do what you say, people are gonna know. This capacity and incentive to achieve goals brings a lot more stability than something that can easily function the same as a superstition. 5. [just thought of a 5, I'll write it later] | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
But first we got to liberate Carter Page by rejecting the entire Department of Justice. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On February 02 2018 11:54 Leporello wrote: If the GOP gave a crap about government-oversight of abusive law-enforcement, half of ICE's enforcers would be in prison. They destroy vital water-supplies, arrest legal citizens for being the "wrong" skin-color. Unethical to the point of inhumanity. But first we got to liberate Carter Page by rejecting the entire Department of Justice. The GOP is about making the country more white and corporate friendly. It's peak Boomer. | ||
| ||
