|
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 06 2019 08:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 08:02 Nouar wrote:On March 06 2019 07:42 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 07:30 Nouar wrote:On March 06 2019 07:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 07:03 Ryzel wrote:On March 06 2019 05:02 Simberto wrote:On March 06 2019 03:38 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 03:09 IyMoon wrote:On March 06 2019 03:04 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Yes, curious that I left the “why” out. Why might that be? Could it possibly be because that I find it irrelevant to then forward-looking point that I made?
Regardless, accusing me of “revisionist history” when there is no history is yet another example of why I rag on most posters in the thread for failing to read my posts and opting instead to relentlessly strawman me. We already have two good examples of this today, and it is not even noon yet where I am. Why do you think the cause of strife is irreverent? The first way to mend a broken relationship is to figure out what broke it in the first place. That and having will to fix it American treatment of the Palestinians fundamentally doesn't matter to my forward-looking prescription because the Palestinians and, to a lesser extent, the Israelis, will not accept peaceful coexistence. This means we have to choose a side. Throw in Palestinian incompatibility with and rejection of Western values as well as the deep-rooted hatred that Palestinians now have for Americans (regardless of whether it's deserved), and it becomes apparent that the only rational position for the US to take is to support Israel. Also, probably a less dickish way to get your point across As usual, I didn't throw the first punch. Feel free to call out the offending parties who started this. It is amazing that you cannot see just how scary this is. "There are two groups of people, one of which likes us, which are in a conflict. We should support the ones who like us in utterly eradicating their enemies, who do not like us." No ethics, no morals, no attempt at actually bettering the situation. Just pure psychopathic pragmatism. And not even well thought-out one. Because even if you are utterly pragmatic and do not care about ethics at all, it still sounds like a bad move to make a group of completely desperate people and everyone who likes them completely hate you. At some point in the future, some of them might have some power over you, or a way to influence you. Your logic only works if you are always on top. You use the logic of an abusive empire. And no empire is eternal. Just to save you some trouble, xDaunt’s elaborated on his foreign policy views in the other thread, and (please correct me if I’m wrong) can be neatly summed up with the phrase “America First”. More generally, nations should act in their own amoral rational self-interest. Yeah, as if any country could be self sufficient in today's world. If everything crashes and burns around you, where/who are you going to sell/manufacture/buy/harvest your products to/from in order to grow ? There have to be winners and losers, but be careful they don't lose TOO bad. It's a very fine line to walk. America alone is not going to work, America against all others neither, only up to a point. The US military is pushing that point further, but again, it can't last forever. If at some point, the US regime of sanctions is no longer followed, since countries feel they could make do without America contracts, then the US is going to go downhill, very fast. So upholding the world order, being involved in the world (diplomatically, economically, aid to developing countries), anything able to further the US's standing is going to have benefits down the line. It's money well invested. Trump does not get that. The most recent examples are the SK/US joint exercises, or leaving UNESCO (to save Israel's face), etc etc. Consider the following: my position as stated above is not only a prescription for America, but also an empirical observation as to how virtually every nation on the planet de facto operates. Understanding this, do you care to amend your post? No, all nations don't operate like that, at least openly. There is at least a facade of cooperation, and most countries try to improve while not necessarily dumping the others in the gutter. So you could amend your statement by removing the "amoral" bit. I like your hedging. Have you considered the possibility that this "facade of cooperation" exists for self-interested reasons? And no, I'm not removing the "amoral" bit. No nation acts purely on charity. Every nation that has acted in a meaningful way on the global stage has and continues to do things that are "bad" morally (ironically, the US is by far the most benevolent superpower that has existed on the global stage), whether it be outright military intervention or unfair trade deals. Regardless of stated intentions, nations clearly are operating without regards to morality when it comes to their own national self-interest. Hence, the "amoral" adjective is useful and accurate. Show nested quote +Do I care to amend mine ? No I don't, as to my mind, that's how you go back to the era of countless open wars and bloodshed we had in the past centuries. So while when I turn on my analytical, scientific mind, I don't believe there is a clean exit from the way the world is going (overpopulation, destroying earth as we know it, 6th mass extinction etc) save from a massive war shaving a good chunk of humanity (just look at what 70years of peace brought : everybody already forgot everything and is starting the hate train again...), I still find as a human, that we should try not to be selfish assholes only interested in our own country's interest, at the expense of everyone else. That's how invasive critters (that the earth should consider we are if it had a mind) behave. While this kind of idealism is admirable, it must be combined with some pragmatism to actually see it realized. For example, why gut the West economically in pursuit of green policies when China, India, and developing nations are the largest polluters who simply will not abide by whatever pact that the West enters into? What happens after the West commits economic suicide, and the third world becomes ascendant and more influential on the world stage?
Ah yes, the 'we must lead the rush to destroy the environment, because it would be terrible if someone else got there first' argument.
Hopefully the third world shows better sense than we have. It's not inconceivable, unless you take an utterly fatalistic view of the human capacity to self-improve.
|
On March 06 2019 08:29 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 07:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 07:03 Ryzel wrote:On March 06 2019 05:02 Simberto wrote:On March 06 2019 03:38 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 03:09 IyMoon wrote:On March 06 2019 03:04 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 02:50 IyMoon wrote:On March 06 2019 02:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 02:44 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
This is quite some revisionist history. If you hadn't treated them like trash for the last 20 years and been all buddy buddy with Bibi, they might not hate you.
Although I do agree with you that given that you're the bully that keeps punching them in the face and stealing their lunch money, even if you stop punching them, they won't suddenly like you. So might as well go on punching. Amirite? I find it hilarious that you think that my post is "revisionist history" when there's no history in it at all. In fact, every sentence is in present or future tense. I think he is pointing out how you left out WHY Palestine might not like the US, as it is just born in them and not something we contributed too Yes, curious that I left the “why” out. Why might that be? Could it possibly be because that I find it irrelevant to then forward-looking point that I made? Regardless, accusing me of “revisionist history” when there is no history is yet another example of why I rag on most posters in the thread for failing to read my posts and opting instead to relentlessly strawman me. We already have two good examples of this today, and it is not even noon yet where I am. Why do you think the cause of strife is irreverent? The first way to mend a broken relationship is to figure out what broke it in the first place. That and having will to fix it American treatment of the Palestinians fundamentally doesn't matter to my forward-looking prescription because the Palestinians and, to a lesser extent, the Israelis, will not accept peaceful coexistence. This means we have to choose a side. Throw in Palestinian incompatibility with and rejection of Western values as well as the deep-rooted hatred that Palestinians now have for Americans (regardless of whether it's deserved), and it becomes apparent that the only rational position for the US to take is to support Israel. Also, probably a less dickish way to get your point across As usual, I didn't throw the first punch. Feel free to call out the offending parties who started this. It is amazing that you cannot see just how scary this is. "There are two groups of people, one of which likes us, which are in a conflict. We should support the ones who like us in utterly eradicating their enemies, who do not like us." No ethics, no morals, no attempt at actually bettering the situation. Just pure psychopathic pragmatism. And not even well thought-out one. Because even if you are utterly pragmatic and do not care about ethics at all, it still sounds like a bad move to make a group of completely desperate people and everyone who likes them completely hate you. At some point in the future, some of them might have some power over you, or a way to influence you. Your logic only works if you are always on top. You use the logic of an abusive empire. And no empire is eternal. Just to save you some trouble, xDaunt’s elaborated on his foreign policy views in the other thread, and (please correct me if I’m wrong) can be neatly summed up with the phrase “America First”. More generally, nations should act in their own amoral rational self-interest. Does this advice apply to individuals as well, or only nations? I ask because if your claim is that people, too, should act in their own amoral rational self-interest, then it's pretty easy to just simply say we'll agree to disagree and move on... no amount of discussion on that topic would change anything.
No, I'm not willing to go full Randian. Different rules and considerations apply at the national level when compared to the individual level.
|
United States24701 Posts
Okay, I feel better about that. I would be willing to say moral considerations are somewhat different when dealing with nations than with individuals, but I wouldn't go so far as to say nations should act in an amoral way, even if rational self-interest is still emphasized. Nations are just large groups of people, and decisions are made by people. Morals, at some level, should still apply. The perspective is just different because the decision is being made on behalf of more than one person.
|
|
|
You may remember that a Colorado baker won a case before the Supreme Court arguing that he had the right to not bake a cake that would violate his religious beliefs. The day the Supreme Court decided to hear the case, he was approached by a transgender lawyer that wanted a custom cake. He refused, and she lodged a similar complaint before the same Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission agreed today to dismiss the transgender attorney's complaint in exchange for Jack Phillips dropping the lawsuit. This marks the first time since 2012 that the small business owner has not been in legal jeopardy for his religious beliefs. I'm very glad that justice has finally been served.
Another cake stand-off in Colorado—this time about a transgender celebration cake—appears to be coming to an end, with both sides agreeing to walk away.
Masterpiece Bakeshop of Lakewood, Colo., became a household name when owner Jack Phillips scrapped with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission after he refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple due to religious objections to same-sex marriage.
The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where the justices dodged the larger issue of whether the act of making a cake is a form or free expression protected by the First Amendment. Instead, the justices ruled in a 7-2 decision that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had not been a neutral arbiter examining the rights of all parties involved, and had, in fact, expressed hostility toward Phillips' religious rights in its decision.
While that case was making its way up the courts, a transgender attorney contacted Phillips claiming she wanted to have a custom cake made to celebrate her identity, saying she wanted one with a blue exterior and pink interior.
Phillips also has religious objections to recognizing transgender identities, and so he declined to make the cake. The lawyer, Autumn Scardina, filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, who went after Phillips again. Phillips responded with a lawsuit of his own, arguing that the state was targeting him because of his religious beliefs.
Today, both the State of Colorado and Phillips have agreed to drop litigation in the case after the Commission said it would dismiss the complaint if Phillips dropped his lawsuit. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser seemed to realize this wasn't a test case that was going to lead to a different outcome:
"After careful consideration of the facts, both sides agreed it was not in anyone's best interest to move forward with these cases. The larger constitutional issues might well be decided down the road, but these cases will not be the vehicle for resolving them. Equal justice for all will continue to be a core value that we will uphold as we enforce our state's and nation's civil rights laws."
This was most certainly the right call by Colorado. As I noted when this case began winding through the courts, it seemed pretty clear that this was an attempt to require Phillips to create a cake that expressed a particular belief. Central to the wedding cake fight was whether a wedding cake inherently sent a message and whether the baker was being forced to express support for same-sex marriage if he was required to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Is a wedding cake truly a message of support for same-sex marriage, or is it just a shape?
In this case, the color of the cake requested by the lawyer was clearly intended to serve as a message. There are a number of Supreme Court precedents establishing that businesses typically cannot be forced by the government to transmit or include messages with which they disagree. Bakers cannot be forced to make cakes that support transgender identities. This is a necessary component of free speech, one that also protects bakers who do not wish to make cakes that celebrate white nationalism, or transmit other kinds of messages they find offensive. It should come as no surprise that the law protects the rights of vendors. If white nationalists—or literally anyone else—wants to message with marzipan, they are free to make their own cakes.
Reason
|
On March 06 2019 03:30 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2019 23:03 Plansix wrote:
I too need further explanation why we are supposed to believe that folks from Somalia are predisposed to anti-Semitic beliefs. Do I really need to explain why poor people from a third world country in chaos in an arab world that has built up isreal to be the scapegoat of all their problems blame the jews living in said isreal for their problems? Is Muslims hating jews really such a foreign concept to people? I'm not saying that ilhan omar is anti semenic. I'm saying the stain of anti-Semitism is on her from parts of her community being anti semetic. Half the responses to my post the other day were either nebs incoherent ramblings or wildly confusing misunderstandings of my post that I didn't have the patience to clarify every part of at the time. So I guess that gives me the stink of "ignoring the questions" even though we were told to ignore posts we didn't feel the need to respond to.
Not sure how it's confusing or incoherent that I asked you how you know she's the candidate of Somalis in a district that's 70% white. She was the candidate that the DFL told people to vote for in the primary, and people voted for her. Do you have some stats from the primary that show that she was mainly elected by the somali community? Seems like something that is quite important in order to support the point you were making at the time.
Also, Sermo, you seem under the impression that you are incredibly clear in what you're saying, and people are wilfully mischaracterizing you. I can't speak for others but I regularly have no idea what you are saying in some of your posts. In this case I thought I had a clear picture of what you were saying but apparently you're now saying that you meant something else, which... historically, is not unlikely.
|
I’m still trying to figure out why what Omar said is necessarily anti-Semitic.
|
On March 06 2019 09:58 xDaunt wrote:
I’m still trying to figure out why what Omar said is necessarily anti-Semitic.
It's a square and rectangle problem. Squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Isreal is Jewish, but not everything Jewish is Isreali. Omar is talking about squares and people are interpreting it, or misrepresenting it, as her talking about rectangles.
|
On March 06 2019 09:58 xDaunt wrote:
I’m still trying to figure out why what Omar said is necessarily anti-Semitic.
The short answer is: it's a political attack, not a factual one.
The long answer involves a discussion of tropes. She could have been more careful with her language, and she apologized for that (in the correct way: by restating that she believes the content of her argument, but regretting that she wasn't as careful as she should have been in the way she expressed it). There is some racism involved there too, because white people consistently use more questionable language than she does in a way that is much more targeted at Jews rather than Israel without raising any mainstream talk of antisemitism.
The history of shielding Israel from discussions of its behavior by talking about antisemitism is well documented, and that also plays a role. When Gym Jordan talks about "$teyer" on Twitter, it couldn't be clearer that he's using an antisemitic trope. But that has no direct relation to Israel and therefore, it doesn't create the need for a discussion in the House...
+ Show Spoiler +
|
It has been a long time since there has been anyone this openly critical of Israel in congress. I don’t think either party’s leadership is prepared for how outspoken these Social media empowered freshmen democrats were going to be.
|
On March 06 2019 09:58 xDaunt wrote:
I’m still trying to figure out why what Omar said is necessarily anti-Semitic.
I think a lot of people are trying to figure that out. If you read what she actually said versus how the media and government leadership (both Democrat and Republican) are portraying it, it seems like they're quite heavily misconstruing what she said (a lot of the concern is about this sentence: "I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country."). I interpreted what she said as her more calling out how willingly it seems a lot of politicians are to turn a blind eye on bad things Israel is doing because of how much lobbying money AIPAC has paid many senior officials and how much influence AIPAC has. Was it slightly ambiguous in wording? Yes. But for some reason people are automatically assuming the worst and reading far way too far into basically everything she says.
A lot of prominent Jewish leaders and other folks have come out in support of her in the last day or two and have pointed out that her not toeing the line and supporting the actions of the Israeli government does not make her anti-Semitic. She has made it clear many times that she is quite concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people, and now others are trying to use it against her.
Edit: to the above mention of Jim Jordan's openly anti-Semitic tweet: yeah it's getting completely nuts how insane the double standard is. Multiple Republicans have done that type of stuff and nobody has even blinked yet one visible minority Muslim freshman Democrat says something slightly ambiguous and suddenly it's the end of the world and resolutions are required. These insane double standards need to stop.
|
|
|
Trump has apparently reversed course on the decision to withdraw from Syria. And to think...this is why we lost Mattis. Glad to see that trumps cabinet was still able to check him though. They wont allow trumps gut instinct based decision making to impact national security.
|
Frankly speaking, I think that USA's rather one sided military, monetary and diplomatic support of Isreal is detrimental to USA. If USA wanted a military bases and allies in the region, they already have several, and many would be better if closer relationships were developed instead. If USA wanted an ally that is closer to their values, USA can choose any country with just as bad or better human rights record in the region like Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and unilaterally support them instead, with the added bonus that they wouldn't be constantly feeding US military technology to China.
|
Hot take: an Iran not constantly vilified and not forced into an oppositional posture via the US’s slavish love affair with SA and Israel would soon wind up a reliable US ally looking to liberalize itself.
|
See, I can understand why USA slavishly supports SA, because in essence USA loves the cheap oil SA pumps out. SA is even willing to reduce potential oil profits for the sake of US oil price stability and reducing Russian and venuzuelan oil revenues. What does USA get out of Isreal? For the sake of Isreal, USA has become the boogeyman of the Middle East and is seen to be an imperialist hypocrite, with all of the consequences of terrorist attacks and expensive military action in money and lives, just to remove threats to its own "ally".
|
The oil thing is definitely an important concern, but from my vantage, is all the more reason for the US to back away from fossil-fuel dependence. Putting a national emphasis on renewables has a ton of benefits, and allowing us to finally distance ourselves from the Saudis is one of the big ones imo.
|
Ironically USA has one of the biggest easily accessable shale oil reserves in the world, having both the technology and poor environmental regulation. USA can distance themselves from Saudi Arabia, they just have to accept that oil prices will rise about 20% if they do. There's also the problem of well, free trade.
|
Given that states like Ohio and Michigan are on the verge of passing large gas taxes to pay for roads because their inept state legislatures (and executives, don’t get me wrong) totally refuse to specifically tax businesses and the wealthy, I don’t see any kind of true energy independence developing soon, at least not without dramatic emphasis on renewable sources.
A related issue is that, because of how energy regulation works here in the Midwest (deregulated free market nonsense), our few nuclear power plants are closing due to them being unable to compete with natural gas.
|
On March 06 2019 22:23 farvacola wrote:
A related issue is that, because of how energy regulation works here in the Midwest (deregulated free market nonsense), our few nuclear power plants are closing due to them being unable to compete with natural gas.
Nuclear can barely compete with coal cost wise, let alone gas/solar/wind. There was a time when investing and upgrading nuclear was a viable energy strategy and that time past about ten years ago.
You can make an argument for retrofitting existing plants to maintain energy diversity, but there's no reason we should be building new ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
