EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1382
| 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 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24156 Posts
On April 25 2019 04:53 Plansix wrote: Although I agree that Clinton would not have been great and we would not see the political involvement we see now if she was elected. Many of the problems we currently have would be left unaddressed or ingored. But I find the argument that Trump is better to be far from compelling. Like over 10K transgender members of the military are likely going to be discharged without much recourse. And that is just one of many groups that are being negatively impacted by this administration. So I have a hard time justifying the harm being done to people as in the long term. I don't think it justifies voting for Trump if that's what your suggesting. But 10k transgender people being kicked out of the military is hardly something I consider horrible. Obviously discrimination is bad, but not serving the US's imperialist agenda killing brown people half way around the world is good. Destroying their livelihood is bad, but that the military was their livelihood was bad. The hero worship of US military service people "fighting for our freedom" is a myth. The military fights to secure profit for US oligarchs form my perspective. There's no reason to "justify" the harm (it's simply reality), but I think it's clear that the long term consequences of a Clinton presidency would be worse than Trump. Clinton takes us another 4 years (presuming she doesn't lose to a not-Trump Republican) closer to climate catastrophe while arguing for more centrist positions. Basically Hillary would be running to move Democrats closer to Trump rather than Closer to Bernie's politics. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And I agree with you that the hero worship of the military is bad. But it is also fact. The military are considered role models by the vast majority of the country. They are given preferential treatment and more opportunities in many ways. And who is considered “fit to serve” sets a standard for the rest of the country, even if we do not like it. The government is effectively saying it is ok for them to discriminate against transgender service members. They are not longer fit to serve. And it was the ability to serve that gave many of the arguments around civil rights in the past footing. It is why bad people fought so hard to keep Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in place. So I think you may be under estimating how badly the transgender ban will impact people. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24156 Posts
On April 25 2019 05:25 Plansix wrote: It is difficult to talk about this because this presupposes that Trump hasn’t put into place long standing roadblocks to the to the left’s agenda through stacking the court. The amount of effort it will take to limit the amount of money flowing into elections, for instance, it far greater than ever before. Before the conservative court, we may have been able to do it through new laws. Now, it is unlikely that anything short of an amendment to the constitution will get the job done. And I agree with you that the hero worship of the military is bad. But it is also fact. The military are considered role models by the vast majority of the country. They are given preferential treatment and more opportunities in many ways. And who is considered “fit to serve” sets a standard for the rest of the country, even if we do not like it. The government is effectively saying it is ok for them to discriminate against transgender service members. They are not longer fit to serve. And it was the ability to serve that gave many of the arguments around civil rights in the past footing. It is why bad people fought so hard to keep Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in place. So I think you may be under estimating how badly the transgender ban will impact people. I think we just have different priorities and views of the consequences. I'm well aware of how this impacts transgender people, and I think promoting the idea that military service makes those that do it more worthy of dignity and humanity problematic in itself. Mainly because as I said, it's just joining US oligarchs' plundering imo. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
And yes the transgender ban is pretty transparent in some of its motivation, it’s small fry in the wider scheme of things and will surely be reversed by any Dem come 2020 if they win the Presidency. I’m no real fan of the military myself, luckily I’m not eligible for it I suppose. I don’t like the blanket nature of this ban and the rhetoric around it at all, not all discrimination is entirely unreasonable | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
tl;dr Trump winning following the Republican blockade of Obama court nominees has had an impact on the federal court system that is going to last until around 2060. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24156 Posts
On April 25 2019 05:54 Kyadytim wrote: The problem I have with the argument that Trump works out for the left because he energized the left and that's better than the status quo under Clinton is that to get anything done, the left is going to need to address the fact that Trump has filled one Supreme Court seat and something like 100 lower court seats that were all left open because Republicans blocked Obama's appointments in one fashion or another, and many are lifetime seats filled by Heritage Foundation candidates in their 40s or early 50s, all of whom can probably be expected to live for at least 40 years. tl;dr Trump winning following the Republican blockade of Obama court nominees has had an impact on the federal court system that is going to last until around 2060. My counter to that is: In order to do what we need to do we were going to need to change the supreme court and justice system at-large significantly anyway. Clinton wouldn't even entertain the dialogue and would be advocating for relatively useless centrist judges anyway. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 25 2019 05:40 Wombat_NI wrote: Assuming that Trump era precipitated a more sustained dissatisfaction and pulled people towards actually left wing policies, vs Clinton being some kind of moderate sluice valve that dissipated it to some degree, I’d take that trade. Assuming that is actually the case. And yes the transgender ban is pretty transparent in some of its motivation, it’s small fry in the wider scheme of things and will surely be reversed by any Dem come 2020 if they win the Presidency. I’m no real fan of the military myself, luckily I’m not eligible for it I suppose. I don’t like the blanket nature of this ban and the rhetoric around it at all, not all discrimination is entirely unreasonable I’m not fan of the military either. But service in the military has always been a vector for margilized people to advocate for better treatment. This has been true across all societies and periods of history when we have had organized militaries. It isn’t great, but it is a fact of the world we live in. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
On April 25 2019 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote: My counter to that is: In order to do what we need to do we were going to need to change the supreme court and justice system at-large significantly anyway. Clinton wouldn't even entertain the dialogue and would be advocating for relatively useless centrist judges anyway. It's easier to come off to the American public on wanting meaningful systemic change when things are more "even" or weighted towards you than when they're slanted heavily against. Otherwise you're just opening yourself to being branded as doing it for entirely partisan reason and people who don't pay too much attention to politics will be dumb enough to believe it. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On April 25 2019 06:09 Gahlo wrote: It's easier to come off to the American public on wanting meaningful systemic change when things are more "even" or weighted towards you than when they're slanted heavily against. Otherwise you're just opening yourself to being branded as doing it for entirely partisan reason and people who don't pay too much attention to politics will be dumb enough to believe it. I think I agree with the sentiment that you need things to be 'alright' to inspire systemic change, but I don't think your point here is true. Look at Bernie and his tax returns. "He is a millionaire" is being used as if it undercuts his political stance of 6 decades. He's more than even (his proposals will hurt himself) but the insult is still basically the same. The point being... they're going to attack you for the same stuff regardless. You really shouldn't let that factor into your decision about what works and what doesn't. You're going to be attacked regardless along any dimension deemed effective even if people have to make things up to do it. That's the nature of things right now. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24156 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
On April 25 2019 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote: My counter to that is: In order to do what we need to do we were going to need to change the supreme court and justice system at-large significantly anyway. Clinton wouldn't even entertain the dialogue and would be advocating for relatively useless centrist judges anyway. Change the system by ceding control over the system? You need a revolution at that point, and you’re not going to get one. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On April 25 2019 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote: Both of you seem to not appreciate the situation we're in regarding climate change and how middling reform is as good as a death sentence for humanity according to the current science. That's being very overly jumpy. Believing that downtrodden people aren't able to effectively participate in the machinery for large systemic change is a long way away from advocating for middling reform. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
On April 25 2019 06:04 Plansix wrote: I’m not fan of the military either. But service in the military has always been a vector for margilized people to advocate for better treatment. This has been true across all societies and periods of history when we have had organized militaries. It isn’t great, but it is a fact of the world we live in. While that is true, there are certain other factors at play that probably are worth looking at, much of the discussion has been total ban vs no discrimination at all for any reason being appropriate ever. Neither of which I agree with personally, granted it gets very dicey to dance around it because people generally recoil with any trans/mental illness conflation, even if it’s not a direct one. There’s a difference between someone who’s fully transitioned and someone in their late teens/early 20s who are at peak dysphoria stages or whatever. Sure they’re both covered under the trans umbrella but they’re in different circumstances in other ways. I mean to reiterate I despise discrimination against trans people and ignorance on the issue, and this whole ban smacks of blatant scaremongering pandering bollocks, as basically any laws restricting trans people tend to be based on. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24156 Posts
On April 25 2019 06:19 KwarK wrote: Change the system by ceding control over the system? You need a revolution at that point, and you’re not going to get one. I think you're misinterpreting my point? The mistake was supporting Clinton in the first place, there's the alternative of recognizing the problematic nature of the DNC real time and rallying to Bernie in 2016 instead of 2020. But since people did go with Clinton effectively ceding power to Trump I don't disagree with the necessity of revolution. The comedy of being assured by a Brit of the futility of revolution is also not lost on me. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
On April 25 2019 06:19 KwarK wrote: Change the system by ceding control over the system? You need a revolution at that point, and you’re not going to get one. I mean it does on occasion kind of work that way though, largely it’s worked against the vague left in recent years. I think if a bone of some kind had been thrown to the segments of society who’ve consistently had issues with immigration, or the EU, you perhaps don’t have people voting for a wall or to leave the EU. I think on occasion it’s probably good for mobilising on certain issues to run up against a brick wall for a while, then realise the wall is scaleable. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 25 2019 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote: Both of you seem to not appreciate the situation we're in regarding climate change and how middling reform is as good as a death sentence for humanity according to the current science. How do you imagine the impending climate apocalypse? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24156 Posts
On April 25 2019 07:26 IgnE wrote: How do you imagine the impending climate apocalypse? That seems too open-ended a question but essentially we have ~10 years to fundamentally transform society to minimize the global impact of climate change and the chain reaction of mass migration and such, that as of now, is inevitable. If you're looking for more of a mad max style flushing out of the concept I'd like to hear your 2-line summary to estimate what needs reconciling. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
It’s unconstitutional, but maybe it isn’t?!?!?!? Who knows how the Republican Supreme Court will rule? | ||
|
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
On April 25 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote: I think you're misinterpreting my point? The mistake was supporting Clinton in the first place, there's the alternative of recognizing the problematic nature of the DNC real time and rallying to Bernie in 2016 instead of 2020. But since people did go with Clinton effectively ceding power to Trump I don't disagree with the necessity of revolution. The comedy of being assured by a Brit of the futility of revolution is also not lost on me. I suspect I’m rather more closely related to the last successful revolutionaries in America than you are. The comedy of being assured of successful revolution by the descendent of a slave whose forefathers were freed by the struggles of white men is apparently lost on you. Have you heard the saying about people in glass houses? Perhaps we shouldn’t condescendingly dismiss each other based on shots about ancestry. You’re hoping for a revolution that transfers power to the powerless. Those don’t generally happen because the powerless have no power. The US revolution transferred power from distant elites to local elites. | ||
| ||
