|
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 February 10 2019 03:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2019 05:39 Nebuchad wrote: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. Thanks for your thoughts on political theory. Not really a useful definition to define conservative as political thought that is not socialist, or capitalist, or authoritarian, or anarchist, or liberal. Some of which could be said not to be different positions on the same axis. And leaves a lot of room elsewhere. Probably more useful to define it as reactionary, but then you'll have to define reactionary, which changes from time to time, from place to place, or simply doesn't exist at all.
That's true, they aren't positions on the same axis. That's why there is an axis that goes from left to right, one that goes from up to down, and one that goes from backward to forward. When it comes to conservatives we're concerned with the backward and forward axis, that's the one that deals with social issues. I'm not sure how useful you want your definitions to be, I find clarity to be pretty useful, and I find those axes pretty clear.
On February 10 2019 02:17 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2019 13:24 Nebuchad wrote:On February 09 2019 11:17 JimmiC wrote:On February 09 2019 08:44 Nebuchad wrote:On February 09 2019 07:51 JimmiC wrote:On February 09 2019 07:11 Nebuchad wrote:On February 09 2019 06:30 JimmiC wrote:On February 09 2019 06:20 Nebuchad wrote:On February 09 2019 06:10 JimmiC wrote:On February 09 2019 06:01 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
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? 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). Unless you are a authoritarian government or control all the different phases. Yes I think two people or groups who hate each other lack the ability to get things done that they need each other to do. I'm going to mainly argue that this view is extremely exploitable. If your opponent realizes that you feel their approval (or let's say, lack of disapproval) is necessary in order to get things done, they can simply choose to... not compromise. That way, instead of a normal compromise where you would meet halfway with your opponent because both of you are searching for the other's approval, instead you start from your halfway point, and they start from their standard position... and the compromise position becomes three quarters of what your opponent wants. But nothing stops the opponent from starting the cycle again after that compromise is reached, and each time they can get you even closer to their position. Not only are you only "getting things done" that are very close to what your opponent wants, but it also resets the window of possible outcomes. If you get so close to your opponent's position on a subject that your view becomes undistinguishable, they can just adopt a more extreme position and continue to pull you over there. One of the main things that Republicans have understood about politics, and that has allowed them to win so much more than they deserve based on their bankrupt ideology, is that politics is about winning, and crushing your opponent. You do not give ground. You fight, and then when that fight is done, you fight some more. They will never let you get away with a compromise, nor should they, as not doing it is more beneficial to them. This is like the game show where you make some amount of money and then the two contestants have to either share or steal. If they both share, they both win. If one shares and one steals, the stealer wins. If they both steal, they win nothing. The correct strategy is always to steal. The second issue with that is that you're displaying a lot of weakness to your base. Notice the optics of the situation. Your opponent does nothing, they stand their ground, and you give way. Your audience sees you capitulating and their audience sees them fighting. It looks like they're winning (because they are). It looks like you're not even fighting for your side. Why would we feel motivated to follow you? The Audacity of Hoping for Some Small Incremental Change That the Republicans Will Still Fight Against in Two Years Anyway Because They Can... So what should you do instead? Well, you should win. This is the point where the clash of different realities comes into play, and we can see that with realities that are less popular. The Flat Earth reality, for example, has lost. It hasn't lost because we have compromised with flat earthers enough until they gave us ground, it has lost because it was an incorrect vision of reality. The better way to "get things done" is to be right, and show that we are right. How it is working now is close to what you are arguing for. How it should work is a fight on the campaign trail and thrn a mutual respect and willingness to get things done for the betterment of the people. You cant respect someone you hate you can respect someone you disagree with. There is winning from no side for the people on your end. I mean sttickly talking sbout america the whole about half like each party, wouldnt that mean that the people actually want some of what both offer. And you dont have to compromise on everything. There are times to draw a line in tge sand. It just isnt all thr timr on everything. Of course there is winning on my end. Sometimes Roosevelt makes no compromise and you get The New Deal. Sometimes MLK makes no compromise and you get the Civil Rights Act. You say that how it's working now is close to what I'm arguing for, but it depends on the subject, does it. And we can compare the efficiency of both methods. Let's say same-sex marriage on one side and Obamacare on the other. There was many compromises and sacrifices to make those deals. Lydon Johnson has a complicated legacy. As a person who works in both public and private. I can tell you just as much deal making maybe more happens in the public world. The players are just different and if anything it is less transparent. What did we give? I think part of your problem is you think this is us vs them. Its everyone. Lyndon Johnson had to even compromise with himself. He was a open big time racist, it wasn't like his party was all for it either. There was lots of compromises. And there were somethings that he wouldn't compromise on. But simply hating the other side and not willing to work with each other is pointless.
I see that this is your position. I don't see a ton of reasons why I should believe that.
(Oh, and, of course it's us vs them ~~)
|
On February 10 2019 03:33 Doodsmack wrote:
So this green new deal thing actually looks pretty radical. I am surprised all the presidential candidates are signing on to it. That actually makes it look like the party is radicalizing. I hope a candidate comes out against it as a differentiator.
What exactly about it is radical? I read through it (you can read it here: ocasio-cortez.house.gov), and none of it seems particularly crazy or pie-in-the-sky impossible. In fact, a lot of it is targeted at helping out rural and otherwise disadvantaged people get out the economic rut they're in rather than promising them the impossible like the Republicans are (those coal jobs aren't coming back. Sorry coal miners).
For example, one of the goals is this:
(E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;
This is directly targeting folks feeling left behind in former resource-based communities.
Otherwise, a fairly substantial proportion of the goals of the deal are focused on income inequality and worker rights. Honestly, as a non-American, most it reads to me like a plan to bring the US up to the standards of the rest of the developed western nations and bring US environmental and economic policy into the 21st century.
|
On February 10 2019 04:47 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2019 03:33 Doodsmack wrote:
So this green new deal thing actually looks pretty radical. I am surprised all the presidential candidates are signing on to it. That actually makes it look like the party is radicalizing. I hope a candidate comes out against it as a differentiator. What exactly about it is radical? I read through it (you can read it here: ocasio-cortez.house.gov), and none of it seems particularly crazy or pie-in-the-sky impossible. In fact, a lot of it is targeted at helping out rural and otherwise disadvantaged people get out the economic rut they're in rather than promising them the impossible like the Republicans are (those coal jobs aren't coming back. Sorry coal miners). For example, one of the goals is this: Show nested quote +(E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries; This is directly targeting folks feeling left behind in former resource-based communities. Otherwise, a fairly substantial proportion of the goals of the deal are focused on income inequality and worker rights. Honestly, as a non-American, most it reads to me like a plan to bring the US up to the standards of the rest of the developed western nations and bring US environmental and economic policy into the 21st century.
Answered your own question there.
|
On February 10 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:
for some reason they don't find any of those arguments persuasive
or rather, they might find some persuasive and disagree about how to achieve them
this is the best part of the current lefty talking points and shows why having some sort of conservatism around the culture would be helpful. These people don't know anything about those they are trashing. those that do go ahead with it anyways.
And of course they are skipping out on a number of very important reasons. Those "bitter clingers" (hint hint) vote on more than just the minimum wage.
|
On February 10 2019 03:44 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2019 03:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 09 2019 05:39 Nebuchad wrote: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. Thanks for your thoughts on political theory. Not really a useful definition to define conservative as political thought that is not socialist, or capitalist, or authoritarian, or anarchist, or liberal. Some of which could be said not to be different positions on the same axis. And leaves a lot of room elsewhere. Probably more useful to define it as reactionary, but then you'll have to define reactionary, which changes from time to time, from place to place, or simply doesn't exist at all. That's true, they aren't positions on the same axis. That's why there is an axis that goes from left to right, one that goes from up to down, and one that goes from backward to forward. When it comes to conservatives we're concerned with the backward and forward axis, that's the one that deals with social issues. I'm not sure how useful you want your definitions to be, I find clarity to be pretty useful, and I find those axes pretty clear.
What I am saying is that your 3 axis doesn't at any point explain how or what you consider a conservative is. In fact one can just as easily claim that the last axis can be consumed into 2 other axis, or rendered irrelevant by adding more political axis.
|
On February 10 2019 02:22 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:
for some reason they don't find any of those arguments persuasive
or rather, they might find some persuasive and disagree about how to achieve them Do you think they're fully aware and active political participants, given the huge number of studies that suggest the bulk of voters (of both persuasions) legitimately have no idea what is going on? A lot of Americans blindly believe what CNN and Fox tells them, and you know full well that both are full of shit (to differing degrees, perhaps, but hardly a saving grace).
Are you aware of the huge number of studies which suggest that when the bulk of voters are exposed to contrary evidence it only ends up reconfirming their own views?
No, I don't think they "fully aware and active political participants," but neither do I think you are "fully aware," and I'm not quite sure what such a thing would mean anyway. Should we take your formulation to be hendiadic or are you setting forth two independent criteria (i.e. both fully aware and an active political participant)? And criteria for what? Validity of opinion?
Gorsameth's list is just a series of floating assertions that make very different sense depending on who is interpreting them. This isn't logic.
|
On February 10 2019 08:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2019 03:44 Nebuchad wrote:On February 10 2019 03:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 09 2019 05:39 Nebuchad wrote: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. Thanks for your thoughts on political theory. Not really a useful definition to define conservative as political thought that is not socialist, or capitalist, or authoritarian, or anarchist, or liberal. Some of which could be said not to be different positions on the same axis. And leaves a lot of room elsewhere. Probably more useful to define it as reactionary, but then you'll have to define reactionary, which changes from time to time, from place to place, or simply doesn't exist at all. That's true, they aren't positions on the same axis. That's why there is an axis that goes from left to right, one that goes from up to down, and one that goes from backward to forward. When it comes to conservatives we're concerned with the backward and forward axis, that's the one that deals with social issues. I'm not sure how useful you want your definitions to be, I find clarity to be pretty useful, and I find those axes pretty clear. What I am saying is that your 3 axis doesn't at any point explain how or what you consider a conservative is. In fact one can just as easily claim that the last axis can be consumed into 2 other axis, or rendered irrelevant by adding more political axis.
There's a spectrum of ideas that you can have on social issues. If you go in one direction on the spectrum, you end up in liberal territory. If you go in the other, you end up in conservative territory. Seems a pretty straightforward explanation.
Of course you can create other axes if you want. I'm not sure they're going to be super relevant tho. You can already fit most mainstream political positions on those axes pretty effectively.
|
|
|
Odds that trump isn't trying to refer to the trail of tears here? Odds that Megyn Kelly's blood was coming out of her ears or nose?
|
United States42685 Posts
In Trump's defence it's unlikely he really has a solid grasp on what the Trail of Tears was or why people might not think it was funny. He probably just thinks it'll somehow own the libs.
|
Trump also might just be referring to generic trails and their association with Native Americans (which is bad in and of itself but not AS bad). The man's grasp on the names of large-scale historical events is tenuous at best.
|
United States42685 Posts
The only real place to go from here in American political culture is for Warren to reply saying that "9 times out of 11 arrogant Americans like Trump get the comeuppance they deserve", only to doggedly deny that she was aware of any possible significance to those numbers while the media insist that it's just another example of classic American conservative outrage culture trying to distract from the real message and that even if she did mean it it doesn't really matter.
|
AOC's new deal was so radical and crazy (replace all existing buildings in the US, replace all automobile + planes in the US in 10 years, economic security for those not wanting to work, something about "cow farts") that they took it down from their own website, and now she claims most were "doctored".
Including the one she sent to NPR? :thinking:
"There are multiple doctored GND resolutions and FAQs floating around"...
|
On February 10 2019 15:48 youngjiddle wrote:AOC's new deal was so radical and crazy (replace all existing buildings in the US, replace all automobile + planes in the US in 10 years, economic security for those not wanting to work, something about "cow farts") that they took it down from their own website, and now she claims most were "doctored". Including the one she sent to NPR? :thinking: "There are multiple doctored GND resolutions and FAQs floating around"...
Right in your link it says upgrade or construct to improve energy/water efficiency.
Doesn't have to be a whole lot, could be as little as subsidies on low water use toilets for example, or on a more energy efficient dishwashers.
|
On February 10 2019 15:48 youngjiddle wrote:AOC's new deal was so radical and crazy (replace all existing buildings in the US, replace all automobile + planes in the US in 10 years, economic security for those not wanting to work, something about "cow farts") that they took it down from their own website, and now she claims most were "doctored". Including the one she sent to NPR? :thinking: "There are multiple doctored GND resolutions and FAQs floating around"...
How about the actual bill, any insight on that?
|
On February 10 2019 16:07 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2019 15:48 youngjiddle wrote:AOC's new deal was so radical and crazy (replace all existing buildings in the US, replace all automobile + planes in the US in 10 years, economic security for those not wanting to work, something about "cow farts") that they took it down from their own website, and now she claims most were "doctored". Including the one she sent to NPR? :thinking: "There are multiple doctored GND resolutions and FAQs floating around"... Right in your link it says upgrade or construct to improve energy/water efficiency. Doesn't have to be a whole lot, could be as little as subsidies on low water use toilets for example, or on a more energy efficient dishwashers.
Stuff like this sounds good, but is actually worse for the environment. Because it is inefficient people tend to flush multiple times ironically, using more water than a normal toilet. This is not uncommon with "environmentally" designed schlock. AOC's Green "Red" ND is a joke. Using AGW as a cover for every little piece of control socialists have wanted for more than a century, but haven't yet been able to get their paws on.
|
On February 10 2019 16:07 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2019 15:48 youngjiddle wrote:AOC's new deal was so radical and crazy (replace all existing buildings in the US, replace all automobile + planes in the US in 10 years, economic security for those not wanting to work, something about "cow farts") that they took it down from their own website, and now she claims most were "doctored". Including the one she sent to NPR? :thinking: "There are multiple doctored GND resolutions and FAQs floating around"... Right in your link it says upgrade or construct to improve energy/water efficiency. Doesn't have to be a whole lot, could be as little as subsidies on low water use toilets for example, or on a more energy efficient dishwashers.
In Germany and the EU we are actually doing that. There is state aid for making your buildings more energy efficient, new houses need to be insulated very well, regulations on electronics products and energy labels and so on. We even outlawed the classic lightbulb!
China mandates that car manufacturers have high fuel efficiency across their fleet. It's not impossible and by no means stupid. Unless you are making your money selling oil and electricity...
|
On February 10 2019 19:49 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2019 16:07 Amui wrote:On February 10 2019 15:48 youngjiddle wrote:AOC's new deal was so radical and crazy (replace all existing buildings in the US, replace all automobile + planes in the US in 10 years, economic security for those not wanting to work, something about "cow farts") that they took it down from their own website, and now she claims most were "doctored". Including the one she sent to NPR? :thinking: "There are multiple doctored GND resolutions and FAQs floating around"... Right in your link it says upgrade or construct to improve energy/water efficiency. Doesn't have to be a whole lot, could be as little as subsidies on low water use toilets for example, or on a more energy efficient dishwashers. Stuff like this sounds good, but is actually worse for the environment. Because it is inefficient people tend to flush multiple times ironically, using more water than a normal toilet. This is not uncommon with "environmentally" designed schlock. AOC's Green "Red" ND is a joke. Using AGW as a cover for every little piece of control socialists have wanted for more than a century, but haven't yet been able to get their paws on.
You know that some toilets have 2 button flushes, where you can press a small button to flush liquidy stuff, and a big button for more solid stuff. It's not just low flow toilets which I agree are probably less than ideal at times. Maybe you save 2 liters every time you take a piss, that's a very significant amount if you take a piss on it's own 2-3 times each day.
Just because user error is there, doesn't mean that the intent is wrong either.
AGW isn't used as cover for anything. Just because you don't believe it's an issue(or don't believe it's happening at all which is just plain idiotic and ignorant) doesn't change the facts of what happens in the next 50-100 years. You simply can't add that much heat energy to our planet so quickly and expect everything to be fine.
|
United States42685 Posts
On February 10 2019 19:49 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2019 16:07 Amui wrote:On February 10 2019 15:48 youngjiddle wrote:AOC's new deal was so radical and crazy (replace all existing buildings in the US, replace all automobile + planes in the US in 10 years, economic security for those not wanting to work, something about "cow farts") that they took it down from their own website, and now she claims most were "doctored". Including the one she sent to NPR? :thinking: "There are multiple doctored GND resolutions and FAQs floating around"... Right in your link it says upgrade or construct to improve energy/water efficiency. Doesn't have to be a whole lot, could be as little as subsidies on low water use toilets for example, or on a more energy efficient dishwashers. Stuff like this sounds good, but is actually worse for the environment. Because it is inefficient people tend to flush multiple times ironically, using more water than a normal toilet. This is not uncommon with "environmentally" designed schlock. AOC's Green "Red" ND is a joke. Using AGW as a cover for every little piece of control socialists have wanted for more than a century, but haven't yet been able to get their paws on.
Doesn't the idea that socialists have always secretly wanted to impose low flush toilets upon the global population but never had political cover until they invented global warming sound a little silly to you when you say it out loud? Because it did to me when I just typed it. Have you not considered that maybe they just believe that water conservation is important?
|
That’s ridiculous, KwarK, socialists clearly endorse an evil low flush toilet scheme as a component of their global warming conspiracy. It all fits!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
