EPTIt's fun to point out the hypocrysy from time to time and I'm sure I've done the same a few times in the past. But it doesn't matter. The issue isn't that people haven't figured out that there is hypocrysy there, the issue is that not everyone agrees hypocrysy is bad if it favors their team.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1103
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12377 Posts
It's fun to point out the hypocrysy from time to time and I'm sure I've done the same a few times in the past. But it doesn't matter. The issue isn't that people haven't figured out that there is hypocrysy there, the issue is that not everyone agrees hypocrysy is bad if it favors their team. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14056 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45176 Posts
On February 09 2019 03:37 Sermokala wrote: Do your recognize that the "fun" you're having is derived from your hate or that you are enjoying hate against a group of people? I'm honestly curious as I see this type of thing come up a lot from more liberal posters in this thread but mostly from posters that don't stay around much. What group of people is this, exactly? Racists? Misogynists? White supremacists? Trump supporters? Republican politicians? | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12377 Posts
On February 09 2019 03:37 Sermokala wrote: Do your recognize that the "fun" you're having is derived from your hate or that you are enjoying hate against a group of people? I'm honestly curious as I see this type of thing come up a lot from more liberal posters in this thread but mostly from posters that don't stay around much. I mean no, the fun isn't derived from my hate, but I definitely do hate conservatives if that's what you wanted to point out. I'm also not a fan of (true) liberals for similar reasons. You could call that "prejudice", but then again every time I meet conservatives they confirm that I'm right to feel that way about them, so... whatever. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Personally, I don’t hate conservatives or care what they do. My issue with conservatives is that they are constantly trying to screw me over through their policies and political goals. Which would be fine on its own. Politics is a game of winners and losers. But part of their tactic is to adopt this faux grievance and oppression by the “The Left”, while also attacking any grievance that people have with conservative policies. And that fucking sucks. So sometimes it is enjoyable to watch them twist in the wind trying to square being all about “Law and Order” while attacking the FBI. Or wanting freedom of association while also arguing that unions have to represent non-union employees. It’s a small comfort. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12377 Posts
On February 09 2019 04:49 JimmiC wrote: I think that is fine as long as you understand and are OK with conservatives hating you. I think this attitude leads to nothing getting done. But to each their own. Well, let's explore that. Why do you think that attitude leads to nothing getting done? | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9633 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12377 Posts
On February 09 2019 05:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote: This is the part where we also try to define conservatives and conservatism. The main definition is just the opposite of liberal on an axis that goes like this: Left: socialism Right: capitalism Up: authoritarian Down: anarchist Forward: liberal Backward: conservative Mostly a politically correct term for reactionary. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22005 Posts
On February 09 2019 05:50 JimmiC wrote: Yeah, I would say we got there a while ago, and not because one side pointed out the hypocrisy of another.Because people won't work with those that they hate and it leads to the current state of politics which is oppositionalism mixed with tribalism. Saying "this leads to nothing getting done' kinda rings hollow when we arrived at "nothing will get done" 10 years ago. A black man was voted into office and had to be stopped at any and all cost. Party over Country, victory at any price. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12377 Posts
On February 09 2019 05:50 JimmiC wrote: Because people won't work with those that they hate and it leads to the current state of politics which is oppositionalism mixed with tribalism. Oppositionalism is probably caused by the fact that we have opposite views about how reality functions, rather than a question of strategy. Would you agree that the argument you offer contains the assumption that you need the opposition to agree with your plan in order to get things done? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12377 Posts
On February 09 2019 06:10 JimmiC wrote: Nope I think you can agree to disagree or compromise. I think that is fairly impossible to do with someone you hate. I think you first statement brings up another of the current problem where people can't even agree on facts. And the farther you go out in either direction the more people are willing to believe things that are just hard to prove 100% wrong. This leads to a lot of assumptions being treated like fact. Yeah that's what I meant by "agree" I guess. Be sufficiently civil or make enough of a compromise so that they think your plan is acceptable and they let it be. Would you agree that your argument carries the assumption that you need that in order to get things done? Cause I would like to challenge that assumption (I'll be using the second part of what you wrote in my challenge). | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Take entitlements. For a lot time the concept of reducing or ending social security, Medicare and Medicaid was just off limits. It wasn’t an option. Because both parties knew it would lead to pure gridlock and do a lot of damage. So entitlements were managed. But neither party tried to cut or end them. But enter the Paul Ryan Republicans and their push to “reformed entitlements” by cutting or ending them. They convincing the Republican party that it must happen, mostly on the backs of big money donors pushing to lower their tax burden. And shockingly, this movement to kill entitlements has been one of the many things that has lead to gridlock. Because the Republicans are pushing for something that will not only be harmful, but that they know the Democrats will never back down on. I’ve been saying this for a couple years own, the conservative wing of the Republican party has been pushing these wedge issues to kill compromise and assure government fails. Because that is the goal, either through policy or dysfunction. There is no compromise while that plan dominates the leadership of the Republican party. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43352 Posts
On February 08 2019 02:24 Plansix wrote: Let me put it to you another way. If they don’t get power in the government because they don’t have the population your state does, why should you be able to drive across them? They occupy more landmass in the US and they upkeep and police those roads, so maybe you should be required to pay a “travel tax” for visiting? That they get to set, maybe based on the state you are from?(All of this is not allowed by the constitution because stated did this in the past, FYI) You are arguing that population equals political power because we are a democracy and all people should be equal. But collectively you are saying that where you live should be more powerful and have the ability to dictate to less populated areas, because more votes means more power. But the rural states are not going to find that argument compelling. They are going to say(and have said in the past) that land mass matters. That they are the caretakers of large parts of the country that you are able to travel through because of their labor. That you are able to trade and travel across the country in relative safety because they choose to live in these rural states. And because of that, they deserve 2 senators and a greater say in who is president of the country. And if you try to take that away, they will find other ways to exert power. That land mass argument was dumb and you should feel bad. Not least because the Federal government pays for the roads that you are somehow arguing principally benefit people who don’t live in the state but sometimes drive through it (over residents). | ||
|
RubickPicker
United States332 Posts
On February 09 2019 02:52 JimmiC wrote: It is more for my interest. I have always thought he was not as rich as he said or a good businessman. I mean how to do you fail at Casino's? These are basically licences to print money. All sorts of guys have "failed" at casinos, if failure is defined as running out of money and selling the company, which is what Trump did. Steve Wynn is the innovator of the modern Las Vegas, but he failed at casinos twice: his original company because he couldn't stop buying fine art and treating himself to peak luxury on the company budget while building casinos at enormous budgets, and then his second company a year ago because he was found to be molesting his employees and paying settlements to them out of the company's funds. George Maloof, who build Palms Las Vegas, also 'failed' largely by building a condo tower just before the property market got hammered in the recession, which was just really bad timing. Maloof also was faulty as a sports team owner and a liquor producer so he's really screwed up a lot of can't-miss businesses. The thing about all these casino failures is they made money selling the place, admittedly for a fraction of what they could have had, to their competitors. Trump's casinos were essentially not built to be profitable because the money they made were wasted on his company's other endeavors (including his personal pampering), but he sold them to someone else and made a contract where they could keep using his name on the place. So Trump Marina, Trump Taj Mahal etc kept the name after he stopped having any deed to them. Those people couldn't keep them running, and that has a lot to do with the Atlantic City market and how it's a shadow of what Vegas is and how so many of these smaller 1980s resorts were unprepared for newer hotels modeled after Vegas like Borgata. This is why Trump actually calls his casinos a success: Yes, you had these hotels with TRUMP emblazoned on the door being chained shut, but they weren't actually his places. The people who went out of business were the people he sold it to. He minimized his risk. You can also fail in other ways. MGM owns half of Vegas and a casino in China and they almost broke apart because banks during the recession wouldn't loan them any money to finish a casino being built that was going into the billions. It took Senator Reid calling banks and asking them to loan to MGM to keep the company intact. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 09 2019 06:31 KwarK wrote: That land mass argument was dumb and you should feel bad. Not least because the Federal government pays for the roads that you are somehow arguing principally benefit people who don’t live in the state but sometimes drive through it (over residents). It’s not my fucking argument, ya god damn goon. And you know it. This is the argument of every rural state in the history of the US. Why do people keep using logic and reason to make arguments about political power and why it should exist? Of course there is no reason for rural states to have the power they do in a democratic system. But they have it and ya might have to go to war to get them to give it up. Most of them were states long before they joined the Union and they are not giving up that status any time soon. | ||
| ||
