|
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 March 05 2019 18:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2019 19:38 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2019 19:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I don’t think it has to do with liberalism and I think the segment was great. What it was saying is that no, we won’t lose 50% of our jobs and end up with half the population unemployed, that we might not lose any job as a whole in fact, but that the problem really lies in reconversion. And that this is what politicians should work on. Do you often watch John Oliver? Notice how this segment is built, and compare it to segments where he makes actual good points, like the one on psychics last week. Usually he presents the issue in a structured way that is compelling, with a presentation of his thesis in the beginning; everything is designed to get the point across. This time, talking about the issues that come with automation, he doesn't even genuinely bring up what these issues are until 10 minutes into the conversation, when he's already made all the points in favour of automation that he wants to make. For the first 10 minutes of the presentation, the theme is "automation is not as bad as they said, look!", and there is some misdirection involved (for example, talking about banking jobs being replaced before you mention truckers allows you to sidestep the fact that there is a 0% chance that enough jobs related to automatic driving will be created to replace all those truckers; and talking about how we used to have a bunch of farmers, but then we needed more workers so now we don't have all these farmers anymore ignores that the driving force that caused people to become something else than farmers, namely capitalists, is now the driving force that will drive the decrease in available jobs). Then after 10 minutes, the real issues with automation are finally brought up, and this part of the presentation is way less optimistic, as it should be. Then we end up with some Trump bashing to lift our spirits up because, well, Trump is doing bad things as usual, it's something that we can always feel reassured about isn't it. This way of structuring the presentation is designed not for clarity, but to keep you from realizing that in this piece where he supposedly defends automation to some extent, the only solution that he has brought up for the actual problem of automation, reconversion, is kind of nonsense, as shown by the trucker that he quoted in his own segment talking about how that's just not going to happen for most of them. Not to mention that this ignores all of the second hand jobs, truck stop restaurants and the like, that are built around the trucking industry and are also doomed to disappear. The reason why I'm bringing liberalism into this is because liberalism wants you to reach the conclusion that you have reached: "It sucks that some people and communities will have their life damaged badly by automation. But that’s the world changing, liberalism or not." This is sad, but there's nothing that we can do. It's actually not true that there's nothing that we can do, what's true is that liberalism can't do anything. If you don't worship the free market, there are lots of possible solutions that you can work towards, and lots of bandaids that you can apply in the meantime. You mentioned increasing the social security net, and that's an idea. Basic income is another. Also we could ditch capitalism but that's just you and me =) Anyway, none of these are liberal ideas, as they involve the government taking precedence over the free market, and as such, none of them made their way to John Oliver's segment. I will grant you that I wouldn't expect ditching capitalism to make it to the segment; but basic income should definitely be mentioned in any serious and unbiased analysis of automation made in today's situation. But Nebuchad, at no point Oliver said we shouldn’t help those people. What he said is that automation is not going to do what newspapers say it will (wipe out jobs without creating new ones) and that it is absolutely inevitable. I am not against basic income, but it’s not necessarily related. Precisely, the point is that automation probavly won’t create mass unemployement. The talks about how we are all going to be jobless because of technologies and machines have occured every single time a paradigm changed in the means of production. You have discussions like that dating back ghe XVIIIth century. What I understood from that segment is that Oliver was not giving all the solutions: just saying the problem is complex, and can’t be solved by « saving » all those jobs as Trump pretends to do.
Should also add that John's show is and has never been about finding solutions to anything. It's about shedding lights on subjects, often from new angles, while providing a humoristic take to get people interested in topics that often are anything but.
His job isn't to fix anything, but to get us talking about it.
|
Fair enough, but his job isn't done well with those parameters either. He very clearly downplayed the issue as you can see from Biff's description, and he didn't offer any interesting angle on what we should be saying or doing about it.
In all honesty I'm not sure I agree that Oliver's show tends to look at things from new angles. The perspective is very defined much of the time (all the time?) Usually it works fine, it's probably my favourite liberal show. But it also means that when it doesn't work, it stands out.
|
I do enjoy that Trump is so unpopular that Republicans have been forced to break out “Democrats smother live babies” because they have literally nothing else.
|
As pretty much expected, Hillary Clinton is officially not running for president this time around.
Hillary Clinton rules out 2020 presidential run
Hillary Clinton has ruled out a second US presidential run in 2020.
"I'm not running, but I'm going to keep on working and speaking and standing up for what I believe," Mrs Clinton told New York's News 12 TV channel.
As the Democratic candidate in 2016, Mrs Clinton was widely expected to become the first female US president, before a shock defeat by Mr Trump.
Asked by News 12 if she would run again for any public office in future, she said: "I don't think so."
The interview is the first time Mrs Clinton has definitively rebutted speculation that she might take on Mr Trump again in 2020.
She said she had spoken to some of the declared 2020 Democratic candidates. "I've told every one of them, don't take anything for granted," she said.
Mrs Clinton was the first female presidential nominee for a major US party in the nation's history. Her ascension to the top office was widely seen as all but guaranteed, but she was dogged by accusations of being overly reliant on wealthy donors, too close to Wall Street and out of touch with younger voters.
She was relentlessly pilloried by Mr Trump, who goaded crowds on the campaign trail to chant "Lock her up".
Her defeat prompted a period of soul-searching for the Democratic Party, which is now gearing up for a wide-open primary contest that has already seen more than 10 contenders announce a run. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47453302
|
It’s funny to me that she says things like, “don’t take anything for granted.” Is she referring to Midwestern voters, a single candidate party apparatus, both, or something else?
|
Maybe all the widespread media support and assurances that she’ll win.
|
|
|
On March 05 2019 15:31 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2019 15:11 Nebuchad wrote:On March 05 2019 14:54 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2019 14:33 Nebuchad wrote:On March 05 2019 14:23 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2019 14:07 Nebuchad wrote:On March 05 2019 13:45 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2019 12:02 Nebuchad wrote:On March 05 2019 11:22 ThaddeusK wrote:
Honestly theres no point in engaging with Danglars about what democrats should do to win, his stance has always been and will always be they should become republicans to win. Generally speaking you want to look at what Danglars advocates here and do the exact opposite; Danglars doesn't just want the democrats to become republicans, he also wants them to keep losing to republicans even as they become republicans and republicans move further right. It's not exactly rocket science to deduce all Democrats need is a moderate to win back the White House. Trump's approval ratings are still low. I detailed two policies and xDaunt detailed one that put candidates on the extremes. You and ThaddeusK can insist that I want Democrats to become Republicans and to lose to Republicans even as they become Republicans, but the reality is far more mundane. I suggest you not let your partisanship cloud your judgment. You're right that a moderate is also supposed to beat Trump based on the numbers. If you look at it purely strategically, the polling indicates that the perfect candidate is probably someone who is very leftwing on economic issues and kind of mild/centrist on social issues. So basically the opposite of what the democrats call a moderate, which is someone very liberal on social issues and centrist to center right on economic issues. Note that I'm not advocating for a candidate that is centrist on social issues; I think any and all of these candidates have an excellent chance of beating Trump, and as such I think it's more important to stand for what's right. Even though I'm not advocating for the strongest strategical choice in terms of political position alone, the strategy that you offer is exactly the opposite of a sound strategy, and it should be pointed out. I also struggle to think that it's a coincidence that opponents of the democratic party are giving them the exact opposite of sound strategical advice. I guess that makes it a very good thing that I mentioned two social issues when introducing the topic. You should take your own advice even when it aligns with mine. So the advice you were trying to give was that a brocialist was a better choice than a Clinton-type candidate? Cause that's definitely not how it came out. You’re quite capable of staying on topic when you choose to. So if you’d be so kind as to agree with me on the two social issues I raised that you just generally considered to be strategically advisable for candidates, maybe I’ll be inclined to join in on Clinton-types, brocialists, and whatever related topics come to your mind. It’s just so difficult to follow you through to neighboring topics if I never heard you resolve the former ones. Are we talking "infanticide" and "Ilhan Omar's antisemitism"? Both are complete nonsense charges. You are right that a winning candidate isn't pro-infanticide, congratulations. People generally aren't in favor of killing children, which is probably why the republicans are pretending that the democrats are in favor of doing that in order to score political points. And if we pretend that the accusations against Ilhan Omar aren't baseless crap, which they are, in order to be "less liberal on social issues" when it comes to that subject, one would have to be... more accepting of antisemitism? That's presumably the opposite of the advice that you were giving? So no, as usual, you didn't raise sound advice. I'd still like to hear you on brocialist vs Clinton though, considering that xDaunt has very much been saying that the Democrats need someone who is very much not a socialist, it's "weird" that you never disagreed with him if we both agree on the right path. They arn't nonsense charges. Ilhan omar comes from a somali immigrant community...
...so antisemitic until proven otherwise?
|
I too need further explanation why we are supposed to believe that folks from Somalia are predisposed to anti-Semitic beliefs.
|
On March 05 2019 15:31 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2019 15:11 Nebuchad wrote:On March 05 2019 14:54 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2019 14:33 Nebuchad wrote:On March 05 2019 14:23 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2019 14:07 Nebuchad wrote:On March 05 2019 13:45 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2019 12:02 Nebuchad wrote:On March 05 2019 11:22 ThaddeusK wrote:
Honestly theres no point in engaging with Danglars about what democrats should do to win, his stance has always been and will always be they should become republicans to win. Generally speaking you want to look at what Danglars advocates here and do the exact opposite; Danglars doesn't just want the democrats to become republicans, he also wants them to keep losing to republicans even as they become republicans and republicans move further right. It's not exactly rocket science to deduce all Democrats need is a moderate to win back the White House. Trump's approval ratings are still low. I detailed two policies and xDaunt detailed one that put candidates on the extremes. You and ThaddeusK can insist that I want Democrats to become Republicans and to lose to Republicans even as they become Republicans, but the reality is far more mundane. I suggest you not let your partisanship cloud your judgment. You're right that a moderate is also supposed to beat Trump based on the numbers. If you look at it purely strategically, the polling indicates that the perfect candidate is probably someone who is very leftwing on economic issues and kind of mild/centrist on social issues. So basically the opposite of what the democrats call a moderate, which is someone very liberal on social issues and centrist to center right on economic issues. Note that I'm not advocating for a candidate that is centrist on social issues; I think any and all of these candidates have an excellent chance of beating Trump, and as such I think it's more important to stand for what's right. Even though I'm not advocating for the strongest strategical choice in terms of political position alone, the strategy that you offer is exactly the opposite of a sound strategy, and it should be pointed out. I also struggle to think that it's a coincidence that opponents of the democratic party are giving them the exact opposite of sound strategical advice. I guess that makes it a very good thing that I mentioned two social issues when introducing the topic. You should take your own advice even when it aligns with mine. So the advice you were trying to give was that a brocialist was a better choice than a Clinton-type candidate? Cause that's definitely not how it came out. You’re quite capable of staying on topic when you choose to. So if you’d be so kind as to agree with me on the two social issues I raised that you just generally considered to be strategically advisable for candidates, maybe I’ll be inclined to join in on Clinton-types, brocialists, and whatever related topics come to your mind. It’s just so difficult to follow you through to neighboring topics if I never heard you resolve the former ones. Are we talking "infanticide" and "Ilhan Omar's antisemitism"? Both are complete nonsense charges. You are right that a winning candidate isn't pro-infanticide, congratulations. People generally aren't in favor of killing children, which is probably why the republicans are pretending that the democrats are in favor of doing that in order to score political points. And if we pretend that the accusations against Ilhan Omar aren't baseless crap, which they are, in order to be "less liberal on social issues" when it comes to that subject, one would have to be... more accepting of antisemitism? That's presumably the opposite of the advice that you were giving? So no, as usual, you didn't raise sound advice. I'd still like to hear you on brocialist vs Clinton though, considering that xDaunt has very much been saying that the Democrats need someone who is very much not a socialist, it's "weird" that you never disagreed with him if we both agree on the right path. They arn't nonsense charges. Ilhan omar comes from a somali immigrant community and killing a child after its been born is infanticide. Stretching these charges to include politicians is the same basic shit politics has been about from the time of Rome. Stop making not responding to every little part of your post as a "weird" thing that people don't disagree with. You can't make up random arguments like "brocialist vs Clinton" and assume that everyone knows exactly what you mean by that without even the hint of explaining yourself.
I don't really know how ingrained anti-semitic tropes are in Somali immigrant communities. The start of all this was her tweet about how Israel had "hypnotized the world" and may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.+ Show Spoiler +. Nefarious, supernatural power and global subterfuge is a very old Jewish trope. She invokes that image of occult Jewish power It also was a very common anti-Semitic trope among white supremacists of history.
She left the tweet about Jewish hypnosis up through the election and into Congress. It wasn't until Pelosi lowered the gavel that she pleaded ignorance of the connections and deleted it. Then she went from supernatural Jewish power to the even more common Jewish monetary power over the world. It's all "about the Benjamins, baby." AIPAC also figured into the role. + Show Spoiler + Even as her Congressional colleague Tlaib did the dual loyalties trope, Ilhan Omar tweeted that she was being expected to have "allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country." + Show Spoiler +
The fourth or fifth time you give her the benefit of the doubt is around when it's just stupid keep presuming that they're just mistakes from someone opposed to Israel's actions. + Show Spoiler +
Sermo, I think she'd have been cleared by now if she had listened and learned from Jews about the history of anti-semitism. Maybe it started out as true ignorance. I think she would've climbed out of the anti-Semitic hole by now if not earlier if she approached the issue forthrightly. Thoughts?
|
The narrative of any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism has returned. Using the word “hypnotized” is now a reference to super natural powers, rather than a figure of speech. Conservatives frantically googling anti-Semitic tropes and trying to link them to old tweets like internet sharks that smell blood in the water.
|
|
|
Let's be serious though, I don't think her complaining about pledges of allegiance to Israel is inappropriate when you have government employees being forced to sign pledges to not boycott Israel as part of their employment contracts. Or when states are passing laws to make it illegal to boycott Israel. How is that constitutional?
|
I want Israel to be taken down a notch, but having someone from Somalia as our party's messenger is absolute madness. The optics are terrible. I don't think being from Somalia makes you racist, but it does make it easy for other people to disregard it as antisemitism
|
On March 06 2019 00:33 Saryph wrote:
Let's be serious though, I don't think her complaining about pledges of allegiance to Israel is inappropriate when you have government employees being forced to sign pledges to not boycott Israel as part of their employment contracts. Or when states are passing laws to make it illegal to boycott Israel. How is that constitutional?
She's actually a member of the movement that spawned the counter-reaction (and a pretty dumb counter-reaction at that). She supports BDS, the boycott, divest, and sanction movement. It's pretty common to get mad at such discriminatory practices towards a foreign ally of the US. Popular opinion of Israel is high, after all.
She was also never required to pledge her allegiance to a foreign power, and furthermore intentionally mischaracterizes political influence lobbying as dual loyalty requirements.
"Rep. Omar has argued that these statements reflect good faith disagreements about US policy toward Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the relationship between the two. This could not be further from the truth," read a letter from Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
"Accusing Jews of having allegiance to a foreign government has long been a vile anti-Semitic slur that has been used to harass, marginalize, and persecute the Jewish people for centuries," it continued. quoted in Haaretz
On Friday, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, demanded that Omar apologize for her “vile, anti-Semitic slur,” which, he added, has “no place in the Foreign Affairs Committee or the House of Representatives.”
quoted in NYP
I'm with the Anti-Defamation League in this. I'm also glad that Congresswoman Nita Lowey called her out and urged a retraction. I'm glad Eliot Engel demanded an apology. At least some Democrats can separate in their minds "push for allegiance to a foreign country" from being pro-Israel. (I can only imagine the fireworks if someone fired back to say Omar's pledges her allegiance to Somalia.)
The generic resolution the House passed condemning anti-Semitism is a little less encouraging. Omar says the disgusting tripe and still occupies a chair in the Foreign Affairs Committee.
|
By this squares and rectangles logic with Isreal/Jewish nonsense, I wonder if we can label Trump anti-white considering how much he's rails against and pisses off Europeans.
|
On March 06 2019 00:01 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2019 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
The fact of the matter is that Trump will be the moderate candidate if the Democrats run a socialist or something close to one. The fact of the matter is that Trump’s conservative base is not going to abandon him. The fact of the matter is that Trump is going to be far less scary to moderates in 2020 than in 2016 because he is a known quantity.
But, hey, tell yourselves whatever fairy tales you want to comfort yourselves. It worked in 2016 until election night, right? None of your facts are facts, but I guess we know where you get that from. None of the Dem candidates are Socialists. Things like universal health care, the right to choose, sex education in school's and so on are not considered left wing in most of the developed world, they are considered basic human rights. The only reason you are calling people who are maybe slightly left of center socialists is because you are so far to the right you can't even see the center. Also sweet "burn" but as usual you have mixed up the facts. I'm not a democrat.
I never said you were a Democrat, so I really have no idea what you're talking about. And I really don't care about your international perspective on American politics. It is irrelevant. What people do in Canada, Denmark, or Saudi Arabia has no direct relation to American policy preferences. If you are unable to think outside of your own little political bubble and grasp that your Canadian perspective is truly neither here nor there as it pertains to American politics, then this might not be the thread for you. You would be better off discussing how Trudeau is a political boob and laughably going down in flames in the Canadian Politics Thread.
The fact of the matter is that the US is a center-right country, and the current crop of Democrat candidates are mostly on the far left of the American political spectrum. Bernie is a socialist. All of the candidates who have openly supported the Green New Deal effectively are as well. The only true moderate democrat in the race so far is Hickenlooper. I think he might actually beat Trump if he gets the nomination, but I have doubts as to whether he's going to make it out of the primaries. It doesn't take a genius to see that Trump is going to have some structural advantages in the general election if the Democrats nominate a far leftist.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
On March 06 2019 01:01 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 00:53 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 00:01 JimmiC wrote:On March 05 2019 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
The fact of the matter is that Trump will be the moderate candidate if the Democrats run a socialist or something close to one. The fact of the matter is that Trump’s conservative base is not going to abandon him. The fact of the matter is that Trump is going to be far less scary to moderates in 2020 than in 2016 because he is a known quantity.
But, hey, tell yourselves whatever fairy tales you want to comfort yourselves. It worked in 2016 until election night, right? None of your facts are facts, but I guess we know where you get that from. None of the Dem candidates are Socialists. Things like universal health care, the right to choose, sex education in school's and so on are not considered left wing in most of the developed world, they are considered basic human rights. The only reason you are calling people who are maybe slightly left of center socialists is because you are so far to the right you can't even see the center. Also sweet "burn" but as usual you have mixed up the facts. I'm not a democrat. I never said you were a Democrat, so I really have no idea what you're talking about. And I really don't care about your international perspective on American politics. It is irrelevant. What people do in Canada, Denmark, or Saudi Arabia has no direct relation to American policy preferences. If you are unable to think outside of your own little political bubble and grasp that your Canadian perspective is truly neither here nor there as it pertains to American politics, then this might not be the thread for you. You would be better off discussing how Trudeau is a political boob and laughably going down in flames in the Canadian Politics Thread. The fact of the matter is that the US is a center-right country, and the current crop of Democrat candidates are mostly on the far left of the American political spectrum. Bernie is a socialist. All of the candidates who have openly supported the Green New Deal effectively are as well. The only true moderate democrat in the race so far is Hickenlooper. I think he might actually beat Trump if he gets the nomination, but I have doubts as to whether he's going to make it out of the primaries. It doesn't take a genius to see that Trump is going to have some structural advantages in the general election if the Democrats nominate a far leftist. So to the first part I bolded. The irony and lack of self awareness is absolutely mind boggling!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To Trudeau, I didn't vote for him, don't like him, and am hoping if he did what he is accused of he gets the boot. Us is not a center-right country anymore. It is a right country. Trump in the 90's was center right, now he is far right. His Moves like trying to declare emergencies to get things he wants that the people don't is straight out of the trying to move to authoritarian playbook. Lets hope your republic is strong enough to fight that. I think anyone with a pulse is going to win the popular vote for the Dems. And baring a huge misstep likely the election. That being said it is a long time away and I'm sure we have a bunch more vicious, lie filled tweets to deal with until then from your boy. I would have though him declaring victory after each loss would get tiresome for you but I guess not. Like why is he still bringing up that he had the most people ever to his inauguration? Like who actually believes that, there are photos. If you didn't think I was a democrat why did you bring up 2016 and my thoughts? I never posted here, and I don't support Hillary? Or is this your learning from Trump how to make random attacks with no facts and treat them like harsh burns. Sweet moves.
Great, you just argued my point even harder than I did. If the US is a "right" country, then none of these Democrats has a chance against Trump.
As for the rest of your post, let me cue you in on something. I'm not GH. I'm more disciplined in my posts and lines of argument. I'm not really interested in responding to your narcissistic constructions of my posts. Despite your delusions to the contrary, my posts aren't really about you unless I directly address you. Once you figure that out, maybe we can try again. I'm not really interested in shitting up the thread.
|
USA has a long history of ignoring the atrocities committed by their allies, them turning a blind eye to what Israel is doing in Palestinian territory is not surprising at all. Bastards, but our bastards, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/LM4yfiR.jpg)
