|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 27 2019 08:04 JimmiC wrote:
I agree with Jocks last sentence, and have said as much earlier. If he holds fair elections that both sides will agree are fair before. Who ever wins so be it and then the rest of the world should butt out. We should also offer to pay for them since the country is already a humanitarian crisis.
Edit: also I wish there was a source everyone could trust.
Not to comment on the Venezuela situation or the actual fairness of the elections, but given the assumptions...
A) Most arbitrators in a conflict between you and your opponent are favoring you,
B) Most arbitrators state that they will support whoever wins an election that both you and your opponent deem fair,
C) You’re not confident you can win an election,
...wouldn’t the most logical course of action be to never acknowledge a fair election?
|
On January 28 2019 00:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2019 18:46 raga4ka wrote:On January 27 2019 13:10 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2019 11:26 Nebuchad wrote:On January 27 2019 11:09 youngjiddle wrote:On January 27 2019 10:29 JimmiC wrote:
Some people are arguing the opposite. That is sanctions and so on that is why Venezuela is in the mess they are. I agree with you because they have never sanctioned oil. That is just not what some people here and the blog seem to believe. Venezuela was in a mess before any outside pressure. I recommend you do some research. The argument would then go that it was in a mess before Chavez and there was some outside pressure at this time already... But I'm sure you have researched that already. The whole idea of whining about outside influence is so infantile. Yeah, global dynamics have advanced to a point where some players are huge. This isn't some stupid ass elementary school little league softball tournament. Outside influence isn't cheating. Venezuelan only exists because the US, China and Russia allow it to exist. To me, the idea of whining about major countries influencing minor countries is no different than asking for special considerations. Eat or be eaten. There is no divine intervention allowing all countries to be <3. How exactly is it infantile, when the world's largest economy is hostile to your nation and it's putting crippling sanctions to an already struggling to reform economy...? I'll copy paste my response to gh reading my post and asking if I feel the same about Russian influence, where I elaborated: I don't see it as against the nature of competition, but I do see it as something worth fighting against, as a member of a competing country. There's a big difference between fighting something as a fundamentally bad practice and fighting something because you want to win. Another thing for me is I see power consolidation as not only inevitable but positive. North America, China, Russia and the EU are the players who I see as contenders for becoming the eventual single world government. Among those, EU would be my first choice, then USA, then China, then Russia. In the free for all we currently have, I see Russia as having a very low chance if eventual dominance and they would be bad at it anyway. They are really only delaying their own fall. But I don't see their actions as unethical. I just don't like it because I am rooting against them. The two major needs for humanity are continuity of the consciousness (eliminate aging or transfer consciousness) and colonize other planets. Competing militaries drain humanity's resources and delay those goals. If I had a magic wand, the EU would take full control of the entire planet tomorrow so we can move on to a post-war single state. In that way, Russia is only really a distraction right now, so thinking about the next hundreds of years when we hopefully eventually achieve global unity, Russia is just making it take longer. But I don't see Russia as violating my personal ethics regarding world domination. They have a shot and they must try their best. But I am not only rooting against them, I also think they have very poor chances. They are like a Terran floating a cc around the map instead of gg'ing out. Ultimately, my main concern is world wide demilitarization so we can move on to the next stage of humanity. It won't be for a very long time, but it is important to remember it is what we are working towards. And I want that to conclude as soon as possible, ideally with european victory. Modern ideas of nation states are all temporary and meaningless. This stage of human development is just a tournament to see who leads us into the next stage. Edit: fixed some typos
Hmm... there's some elements of this I like. Quite a lot, actually. But...
Do you not think it's a little unrealistic?
The problem with this is that the reason we're where we are is that the necessary conflict that would be required to make one of these blocs fall would likely end all human life as we know it. Without a means to consolidate power under one omni-bloc, doesn't the focus then shift to preventing those blocs destabilising things severely enough to make that conflict an inevitability?
|
|
|
On January 28 2019 02:01 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 01:42 Ryzel wrote:On January 27 2019 08:04 JimmiC wrote:
I agree with Jocks last sentence, and have said as much earlier. If he holds fair elections that both sides will agree are fair before. Who ever wins so be it and then the rest of the world should butt out. We should also offer to pay for them since the country is already a humanitarian crisis.
Edit: also I wish there was a source everyone could trust. Not to comment on the Venezuela situation or the actual fairness of the elections, but given the assumptions... A) Most arbitrators in a conflict between you and your opponent are favoring you, B) Most arbitrators state that they will support whoever wins an election that both you and your opponent deem fair, C) You’re not confident you can win an election, ...wouldn’t the most logical course of action be to never acknowledge a fair election? Yes this is why without mass international pressure or some sort of intervention Authoritarians never give up power. It is also why no matter Left or Right the other authoritarians of the world unite to defend one of their own (syria, iran, russia, china, cuba) last thing they want is fair elections in their country either.
From an international standpoint it looks like people are favoring Juan more so than Maduro though, so according to this logic he’s incentivized to never acknowledge a fair election regardless of what Maduro does.
@Mohdoo I agree with dave. The tournament to lead scenario doesn’t work out when each competitor has a “destroy the world” button. You’d have to either find a way to remove that capability from your competitors (in a 100% guaranteed way, as the consequences are too dire for anything less), or you would have to remove the competitive aspect and find ways to compromise with all players.
|
On January 27 2019 23:02 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2019 16:51 RvB wrote:On January 27 2019 11:26 Nebuchad wrote:On January 27 2019 11:09 youngjiddle wrote:On January 27 2019 10:29 JimmiC wrote:
Some people are arguing the opposite. That is sanctions and so on that is why Venezuela is in the mess they are. I agree with you because they have never sanctioned oil. That is just not what some people here and the blog seem to believe. Venezuela was in a mess before any outside pressure. I recommend you do some research. The argument would then go that it was in a mess before Chavez and there was some outside pressure at this time already... But I'm sure you have researched that already. It wasn't a paradise before Chavez but his insane economic policy which could only be sustained by record oil revenue directly led to this humanitarian disaster. Chavez started out well and made some big gains for the people. I dont think his economic policy was nessecarly the problem but more the mass corruption that took place through things like their currency exchange. Also his decisions to fire people on live tv and replace them with loyalist with no experience lead to huge missmanagement and further corruption. Chavez people can argue about because he was a mix of good and bad. Maduro tgere is no arguement he is all bad. About the only you could argue is if this was the path Chabez was going down anyway or not.
Venezuela has been a petro economy for over a century. It has been through multiple boom and bust phases but has never collapsed to this extent. Chavez and Maduro’s economic mismanagement is what has caused the economy to collapse this much.
The oil gains were largely used to increase welfare spending, expropriate industries and idle factories in the private sector. Price controls caused the private sector to cut production and investment.
In addition the exchange rate regime was fixed and exchange controls were introduced. The currency was pegged to the dollar. The strength of the currency and subsequent shortage of foreign exchange further decreased competitiveness of the non oil private sector. When the price of oil fell the exchange rate couldn’t function as a shock absorber by making the non oil sector more competitive.
Basically what happened is a massive currency overvaluation, coupled with a massive increase in government spending and imports combined with a suppression of foreign assets. This led to the shortage of foreign exchange, money printing to fund the deficit and the hyperinflation we see now.
|
|
|
|
|
On January 28 2019 03:23 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 02:31 Ryzel wrote:On January 28 2019 02:01 JimmiC wrote:On January 28 2019 01:42 Ryzel wrote:On January 27 2019 08:04 JimmiC wrote:
I agree with Jocks last sentence, and have said as much earlier. If he holds fair elections that both sides will agree are fair before. Who ever wins so be it and then the rest of the world should butt out. We should also offer to pay for them since the country is already a humanitarian crisis.
Edit: also I wish there was a source everyone could trust. Not to comment on the Venezuela situation or the actual fairness of the elections, but given the assumptions... A) Most arbitrators in a conflict between you and your opponent are favoring you, B) Most arbitrators state that they will support whoever wins an election that both you and your opponent deem fair, C) You’re not confident you can win an election, ...wouldn’t the most logical course of action be to never acknowledge a fair election? Yes this is why without mass international pressure or some sort of intervention Authoritarians never give up power. It is also why no matter Left or Right the other authoritarians of the world unite to defend one of their own (syria, iran, russia, china, cuba) last thing they want is fair elections in their country either. From an international standpoint it looks like people are favoring Juan more so than Maduro though, so according to this logic he’s incentivized to never acknowledge a fair election regardless of what Maduro does. @Mohdoo I agree with dave. The tournament to lead scenario doesn’t work out when each competitor has a “destroy the world” button. You’d have to either find a way to remove that capability from your competitors (in a 100% guaranteed way, as the consequences are too dire for anything less), or you would have to remove the competitive aspect and find ways to compromise with all players. His incentive is without the pressure from the international community he will never unseat Maduro who has control of the military. And if he doesn't have the elections he will lose that pressure.But the reality is rarely do people like Maduro give up power without a fight. Hell one of his supporters (the Syrian government) gassed his own people to keep power. This has as much a chance of turning into a civil war as having any sort of decent resolution.
Is this actually true? The international community seems eager to support anyone other than Maduro, and Maduro takes the blame if Juan declares rigged elections. If Juan continuously invalidates elections and declines third-party assistance, will the international community begin supporting Maduro/the status quo?
|
|
|
In happier news, Senator Kamela Harris is now the solid frontrunner for the 2020 Dem Primary and has rendered the rest of the declared and undeclared candidates superfluous. The other wannabes can't fill a coffee shop in Iowa. Kamela brings out 20k. Biden is a joke-tier meme candidate that only gets to go on the stages because he knows a lot of old people. Bernie will face instantaneous and massive resistance in every state and won't go above his current polling of 15%. Warren has no base outside of the college soft-socialist set. Gillibrand is just weaker Kamela and loses in any contest with the better candidate. Brown and Beto seems to sitting it out and have let Kamela get ahead of them. Kamela has the donor class, white libs, and black women at her back already. That is the big triangle of the Democratic party and other candidates need to explain how they peel one of those three off her.
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
// I am sitting out the Venezuela stuff. Too many dishonest news sources.
|
We'll see how Harris shakes out. She's not going against anyone formidable, so she should easily win. Her weakness will be a black woman married to a white man or whatever 50s stereotypical, racist shit they can bring on her. I'll research her political stance and voting history. She has my vote as of today
|
On January 28 2019 08:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:In happier news, Senator Kamela Harris is now the solid frontrunner for the 2020 Dem Primary and has rendered the rest of the declared and undeclared candidates superfluous. The other wannabes can't fill a coffee shop in Iowa. Kamela brings out 20k. Biden is a joke-tier meme candidate that only gets to go on the stages because he knows a lot of old people. Bernie will face instantaneous and massive resistance in every state and won't go above his current polling of 15%. Warren has no base outside of the college soft-socialist set. Gillibrand is just weaker Kamela and loses in any contest with the better candidate. Brown and Beto seems to sitting it out and have let Kamela get ahead of them. Kamela has the donor class, white libs, and black women at her back already. That is the big triangle of the Democratic party and other candidates need to explain how they peel one of those three off her. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +// I am sitting out the Venezuela stuff. Too many dishonest news sources.
I'm really, really excited to watch the Democratic primary debates, considering there are going to be quite a few names on stage that are recognizable. We might end up seeing an unexpected candidate steal the show, just like how Trump managed to stand out when up against the establishment conservatives.
|
On January 28 2019 08:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
We'll see how Harris shakes out. She's not going against anyone formidable, so she should easily win. Her weakness will be a black woman married to a white man or whatever 50s stereotypical, racist shit they can bring on her. I'll research her political stance and voting history. She has my vote as of today
No, her weakness is being an attorney general who is "tough on crime" and for civil forfeiture. Black and white identity politics are an easy talking point, but it isn't why people oppose Kamala.
If you don't immediately vote for her, you are a misogynist and a racist
|
Some folks in the Democratic Party and the left are opposing her because of her race and gender. The left has its own problems with race and gender, which it refuses to talk about.
Also all those things are also true.
|
On January 28 2019 09:34 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 08:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
We'll see how Harris shakes out. She's not going against anyone formidable, so she should easily win. Her weakness will be a black woman married to a white man or whatever 50s stereotypical, racist shit they can bring on her. I'll research her political stance and voting history. She has my vote as of today No, her weakness is being an attorney general who is "tough on crime" and for civil forfeiture. Black and white identity politics are an easy talking point, but it isn't why people oppose Kamala. If you don't immediately vote for her, you are a misogynist and a racist
I hate how she prosecuted people and secured convictions in accordance with the law and due process! I am voting Trump instead! I like his policy of arbitrary detention of asylum seekers and his elimination of prosecutions in the white collar crime sector. Harris didn't even put people in jail (looking at you (((bankers)))) when the law wouldn't allow her to!
|
On January 28 2019 11:41 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 09:34 mierin wrote:On January 28 2019 08:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
We'll see how Harris shakes out. She's not going against anyone formidable, so she should easily win. Her weakness will be a black woman married to a white man or whatever 50s stereotypical, racist shit they can bring on her. I'll research her political stance and voting history. She has my vote as of today No, her weakness is being an attorney general who is "tough on crime" and for civil forfeiture. Black and white identity politics are an easy talking point, but it isn't why people oppose Kamala. If you don't immediately vote for her, you are a misogynist and a racist I hate how she prosecuted people and secured convictions in accordance with the law and due process! I am voting Trump instead! I like his policy of arbitrary detention of asylum seekers and his elimination of prosecutions in the white collar crime sector. Harris didn't even put people in jail (looking at you (((bankers)))) when the law wouldn't allow her to!
Were you trying to write the worst answer possible?
- This is a primary. We can prefer someone other than Harris without being pro-Trump!
- The massive strawman about being against rule of law if you are judicially progressive.
- Pointing out that the rightwing is terrible while trying to sell a liberal to a crowd of social democrats... Did you lick your lips while you typed that?
- She should have gone after the bankers more and you obviously know that this is something the left is holding against her so I'm not even sure what you're trying to accomplish there.
|
I’ll vote for Harris if forced, but she isn’t my pick for the nomination. I don’t think she is the right person at all, especially on criminal justice reform.
|
i think harris has generally done a good job. there seem to be a lot of complaints about her not fixing the justice system (enough). it's kind of a rome wasn't built in a day situation.
that said, i think she's fine. though i think warren is my favorite right now, though that may not last. i'm pretty okay with gillibrand too.
|
Harris doesn't strike me as the type of person to win the Midwest back from Trump. How would she appeal to the voters that Hillary lost?
|
She'll make a single trip to some airport in Wisconsion and consider the job done. But she'll compete against trump or whoever replaces trump so she can't lose. Obama 2: female boogaloo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
