| 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 | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On May 24 2019 12:08 Mohdoo wrote: There was once a time where the last few pages would have never looked anything like this. This thread is in a very bad place right now. Got anything on your mind, politics-wise? | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9234 Posts
On May 24 2019 08:29 Velr wrote: Yeah, because you like to bash everything, glory to the revolution whiteout a solution. Gogogo. Seriously, your the worst of the lot.There is a reason most grown ups don't spout the revolution bullshit, i'm sure you will one day arrive at that point. Gh points to many unsolved problems. the nature of them being unsolved involves thinking out of the box. the lightbulb wasnt invented through continuous development of the candle. Without a radical overhaul of how many of us think, we won't solve the problems we face. Climate change and the Conservative positions in the US regarding it are a clear sign for that. It's delusional to think we can continue the trodden paths | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On May 24 2019 11:06 Sermokala wrote: The people who doubt the legitimacy of the US's elections aren't legitimate people. They're either willfully ignorant, ignorant, or just rabble rousers. I can't think of a single important person you are referring to here, but Trump. But that would mean that you have finally opened your eyes to the dangers of Trump to American Democracy. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On May 24 2019 10:44 Doodsmack wrote: Just the presidents son in law facilitating quid pro quo bribery. Nothing to be concerned about here. To be fair, I don't think there is any issue with Jared considering people for positions during the transition, as long as he didn't know that Manafort requested a loan with a quid pro quo. It's like... the job of the transition. | ||
|
Reivax
Sweden214 Posts
On May 24 2019 10:08 xDaunt wrote: Trump just announced on twitter the order to declassify all of the Russiagate stuff. Specifically, he is delegating full declassification authority to Barr. This is going to be fun. My speculation would be that Barr will selectively declassify documents to maximise political harm to the other side. Your bold prediction about Obama being one of the most abusive presidents in the history of the US I think is quite far-fetched, but there's probably enough material that he will certainly look like that (the same could probably be done to just about every president since you got real intelligence agencies). If the executive keeps on denying any type of oversight, this will be a quite one-sided battle since the subpoena's for complementary information will just be denied. Is there any real recourse beyond that? Could the House in theory instruct their master of arms to arrest anyone part of the executive, up to the president himself eventually (consensus seems to be that the House could arrest the AG, but wouldn't do it for the current reasons). I don't know which chinese fella you offended, but you surely live in the most interesting of times in the US currently. The intense grievance politics practiced seems to be an self-sustaining downward spiral for all sides, at least online. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On May 24 2019 14:56 Artisreal wrote: Gh points to many unsolved problems. the nature of them being unsolved involves thinking out of the box. the lightbulb wasnt invented through continuous development of the candle. Without a radical overhaul of how many of us think, we won't solve the problems we face. Climate change and the Conservative positions in the US regarding it are a clear sign for that. It's delusional to think we can continue the trodden paths The problem is that He has no solutions. Just Rev rev rev revolution! Abolish the police. Reeee! He uses words to make himself sound clever with no idea of what they mean, and refuses to explain those words because he has no idea what he means either. Having no solutions, a sense of disatisfaction comes with honestly engaging with him, as he doesn't engage sincerely with you. I actually agree with many of GH central tenants, but the way he puts them about just looks terrible. Climate change is a problem. Police brutality in USA is a problem. Chanting about revolution without writing what this revolution entails or why you think it is the only, or best option is just a single meaningless word, chanted ad nauseum, devoid of meaning, without interaction. It's just a one sided interaction, like when iplaynettles come down here with his empty one-liners he thinks is so clever and leaves. Also there's something rather Orwellian about xdaunt's continued focus on Hillary/Obama. He is obviously being fed information from a media source. It's like 2 minutes hate. You have to spend two minutes reading on who you have to hate. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On May 24 2019 12:21 GreenHorizons wrote: Chavez's election is a good example of a revolution leading to a world renown democratic election. I have no interest in arguing beyond Venezuela's 1998 election as one the world should follow when it comes to running legitimate elections (notably more legitimate than the most recent US presidential election). However you want to characterize the ensuing ruling by said leader is irrelevant to the point I was making. As far as your quote from another thread (not this discussion) you raise a valid point. Without revolution we don't have a democracy to save. Would you agree that power corrupts, thus we can reasonably expect a revolution, with its new influx of clean people, to hold fair and free elections (not surprising) at first, and then after a few years, corruption starts and it goes downhill ? (not necessarily the election itself, but everything leading to it, political opponents, parties, advertisement, government controlled propaganda, leader cult etc). A good example is most african countries. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17915 Posts
On May 24 2019 12:21 GreenHorizons wrote: Chavez's election is a good example of a revolution leading to a world renown democratic election. I have no interest in arguing beyond Venezuela's 1998 election as one the world should follow when it comes to running legitimate elections (notably more legitimate than the most recent US presidential election). However you want to characterize the ensuing ruling by said leader is irrelevant to the point I was making. As far as your quote from another thread (not this discussion) you raise a valid point. Without revolution we don't have a democracy to save. In all fairness, it's pretty damn easy to organize fair elections if you're hailed as a hero and loved by the people. Democracy isn't under pressure when the ruling party has majority support. The real test is whether that party builds institutions that are capable of guarding the democracy when the party in charge *loses* majority support. Clearly Venezuela is a very bad example of that. Plenty of tin pot dictators started their rule with a majority of the people supporting them. The question isn't how their rule starts, it's how it deals with a transition of power when they face opposition. From Maduro to Lenin, and from Kim Il Sung to Robert Mugabe, the response has been a systematic program of state propaganda, violent suppression of dissenters and other anti-democratic acts aimed at maintaining power. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11405 Posts
On May 24 2019 17:58 Nouar wrote: To be fair, I don't think there is any issue with Jared considering people for positions during the transition, as long as he didn't know that Manafort requested a loan with a quid pro quo. It's like... the job of the transition. Dunno, in my opinion the way it is supposed to go is "We have this job position that we need to fill, who would be good candidates for it?" as opposed to "We have this guy that needs a job, where can we put him?" The latter already moves pretty close to corruption on its own. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22988 Posts
On May 24 2019 14:56 Artisreal wrote: Gh points to many unsolved problems. the nature of them being unsolved involves thinking out of the box. the lightbulb wasnt invented through continuous development of the candle. Without a radical overhaul of how many of us think, we won't solve the problems we face. Climate change and the Conservative positions in the US regarding it are a clear sign for that. It's delusional to think we can continue the trodden paths I have to say that this thread doesn't make me very optimistic folks are ready for even a fraction of the changes necessary. I'm not giving up on em yet though Kwark  On May 24 2019 18:11 Acrofales wrote: In all fairness, it's pretty damn easy to organize fair elections if you're hailed as a hero and loved by the people. Democracy isn't under pressure when the ruling party has majority support. The real test is whether that party builds institutions that are capable of guarding the democracy when the party in charge *loses* majority support. Clearly Venezuela is a very bad example of that. Plenty of tin pot dictators started their rule with a majority of the people supporting them. The question isn't how their rule starts, it's how it deals with a transition of power when they face opposition. From Maduro to Lenin, and from Kim Il Sung to Robert Mugabe, the response has been a systematic program of state propaganda, violent suppression of dissenters and other anti-democratic acts aimed at maintaining power. Isn't the bold easily said of the US? I mean that describes the war on drugs (spanning many presidents of both parties) to a T does it not? In case people aren't familiar with why the war on drugs exists: "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday. "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." www.cnn.com | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On May 24 2019 12:08 Mohdoo wrote: There was once a time where the last few pages would have never looked anything like this. This thread is in a very bad place right now. What in particular looks so out of place to your eyes? On May 24 2019 18:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote: The problem is that He has no solutions. Just Rev rev rev revolution! Abolish the police. Reeee! He uses words to make himself sound clever with no idea of what they mean, and refuses to explain those words because he has no idea what he means either. Having no solutions, a sense of disatisfaction comes with honestly engaging with him, as he doesn't engage sincerely with you. I actually agree with many of GH central tenants, but the way he puts them about just looks terrible. Climate change is a problem. Police brutality in USA is a problem. Chanting about revolution without writing what this revolution entails or why you think it is the only, or best option is just a single meaningless word, chanted ad nauseum, devoid of meaning, without interaction. It's just a one sided interaction, like when iplaynettles come down here with his empty one-liners he thinks is so clever and leaves. Also there's something rather Orwellian about xdaunt's continued focus on Hillary/Obama. He is obviously being fed information from a media source. It's like 2 minutes hate. You have to spend two minutes reading on who you have to hate. I'm not really sure why this is the bar for entry. GH isn't the President, and if he was he wouldn't be in this thread (though admittedly Trump's lowered the bar so far I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Trump had an account on The_Donald and future Presidents engage in twitter wars with randoms on the internet and then arrange predator drone strikes on their houses when they get embarrassed). He also doesn't just say those things. GH's position has ALWAYS been clearly elucidated; he feels the structural corruption is so severe that the institutions he calls for revolution on cannot be fixed by reform. The fact that any time people talk about reforming the police the discussion just kind of meanders off into silence reveals that he has a point, too. He knows exactly what the words mean, and he generally communicates at a fairly 'low' level (by which I mean he doesn't elevate his language to the level he probably could to make it easier to understand; compare to Igne, who always uses the most elevated language he has available for the difference in approach) to make sure we can all follow him to the spring. The fact people continuously mis-characterise his stance on things (mocking the conclusions and ignoring the clearly explained steps that got him there) is one of the more annoying facets of how the thread's always dealt with him. He's also gone into detail about how he thinks such a revolution could play out with the police. Sure it was flawed to hell and back, but to make the claim GH 'doesn't know what the word means' or 'hasn't thought it through' is just plain lying. The posts are in this very thread. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with his stance, but don't pretend he doesn't have one. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17915 Posts
On May 24 2019 19:07 GreenHorizons wrote: I have to say that this thread doesn't make me very optimistic folks are ready for even a fraction of the changes necessary. I'm not giving up on em yet though Kwark Isn't the bold easily said of the US? I mean that describes the war on drugs (spanning many presidents of both parties) to a T does it not? In case people aren't familiar with why the war on drugs exists: www.cnn.com You won't hear me say anything good about the war on drugs. If you want to argue that the US is not democratic, that is also fine and we can have that discussion. I definitely think it has its flaws. I think most of them are probably not top-down, though. My main objection in your earlier post wasn't about whether or not the US is currently a democracy, it's the idea of pointing to Venezuela as an example of a revolution leading to democracy. The revolution in Venezuela led to a democracy in about the same sense as the Arabic Spring led to a democracy in Egypt. I know that you proffered this as an example to counter that the idea of a revolution was necessarily anti-democratic. But I think you misconstrued the point made there, which was that a revolution is almost necessarily chaotic, and that implies a loss of control on the part of the revolutionaries (who are definitely not a monolithic group), and the ideals of the revolution may very well get lost in the process and in the worst case lead to a bloody civil war (e.g. the Arabic Spring in Libya or Syria, or for that matter, what is currently happening in Venezuela). It can also be peaceful and lead to an amazing democracy (e.g. the Carnation Revolution in Portugal). But the loss of control and the threat of violence create a situation that can go very wrong very quickly, even with the best intentions of the leaders of the revolution. As a counterpoint I would say that the whole point of a democracy is that you do not need a revolution to start a transition of power. In fact, that is *exactly* why democracy is a strong form of government, because it is meant to allow for a peaceful transition of power according to the will of the people. Which I guess is as good a lead in as any to discuss whether the US is a successful democracy that allows this, or a revolution is the *only* way in which your ideals can be realized? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22988 Posts
On May 24 2019 20:32 Acrofales wrote: You won't hear me say anything good about the war on drugs. If you want to argue that the US is not democratic, that is also fine and we can have that discussion. I definitely think it has its flaws. I think most of them are probably not top-down, though. "Flawed" or "not a democracy" it's heading for extinction (of our species) is my overarching point. My main objection in your earlier post wasn't about whether or not the US is currently a democracy, it's the idea of pointing to Venezuela as an example of a revolution leading to democracy. The revolution in Venezuela led to a democracy in about the same sense as the Arabic Spring led to a democracy in Egypt. There's a lot of reasons it went from a world renown democratic election to where it is now, this probably isn't the appropriate venue to discuss but I don't think it's important to the point that revolution is the mother of democracy, not it's antithesis. I know that you proffered this as an example to counter that the idea of a revolution was necessarily anti-democratic. But I think you misconstrued the point made there, which was that a revolution is almost necessarily chaotic, and that implies a loss of control on the part of the revolutionaries (who are definitely not a monolithic group), and the ideals of the revolution may very well get lost in the process and in the worst case lead to a bloody civil war (e.g. the Arabic Spring in Libya or Syria, or for that matter, what is currently happening in Venezuela). It can also be peaceful and lead to an amazing democracy (e.g. the Carnation Revolution in Portugal). But the loss of control and the threat of violence create a situation that can go very wrong very quickly, even with the best intentions of the leaders of the revolution. There are strategies to address these concerns, but you're right that we can't be sure we'll succeed in liberation and preservation of the species, but I balance those concerns against locking in catastrophic climate change in the next decade (which leads to our extinction in the foreseeable future according to the latest science). There are literally children in the streets pleading for their lives to the chagrin of politicians like Dianne Feinstein (D) and yet we're stuck. As a counterpoint I would say that the whole point of a democracy is that you do not need a revolution to start a transition of power. In fact, that is *exactly* why democracy is a strong form of government, because it is meant to allow for a peaceful transition of power according to the will of the people. Which I guess is as good a lead in as any to discuss whether the US is a successful democracy that allows this, or a revolution is the *only* way in which your ideals can be realized? I agree. One issue is what do we mean when we say "democracy"? I'd say what we have resembles more closely an oligarchy, the campaign finance system/"accountability" system allows absurd levels of corruption, the hopelessness of replacing most of our oligarchs and their minions is a popular refrain, and it's pretty ubiquitously agreed that we're beholden to a two party system incapable of the reforms (just the ones we agree on more or less) in the allotted time. I'd add that the ease with which we "transition power" from one party to the opposition has a lot more to do with their hegemonic commonalities and their corporate owners than the reliability of democracy to transition from opposing powers/interests imo. EDIT: I'd add this (revolution and violent resistance is intrinsic to democracy/liberty) is part of the fabric of the US, exemplified in it's founding days by the quote “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” To put a point on it, even our founders knew a day would come when voting wouldn't be enough (Jefferson argues every ~20 years). I'm arguing the science says that's today (~40 years ago really, but spilled milk and all) EDIT2: Did some napkin math, and at scale, Shays' Rebellion would be equivalent to an armed uprising of ~300,000 people today. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12044 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17915 Posts
On May 24 2019 21:18 Nebuchad wrote: Are we asserting that an increase in democracy is not a revolutionary idea? I'm inclined to say that an increase in democracy is not a revolutionary idea at all. That doesn't mean you might not need a revolution to bring it about. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12044 Posts
On May 24 2019 22:11 Acrofales wrote: I'm inclined to say that an increase in democracy is not a revolutionary idea at all. That doesn't mean you might not need a revolution to bring it about. I think I disagree and I find that interesting. Could you show how you would make that argument? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17915 Posts
On May 24 2019 21:04 GreenHorizons wrote: "Flawed" or "not a democracy" it's heading for extinction (of our species) is my overarching point. There's a lot of reasons it went from a world renown democratic election to where it is now, this probably isn't the appropriate venue to discuss but I don't think it's important to the point that revolution is the mother of democracy, not it's antithesis. There are strategies to address these concerns, but you're right that we can't be sure we'll succeed in liberation and preservation of the species, but I balance those concerns against locking in catastrophic climate change in the next decade (which leads to our extinction in the foreseeable future according to the latest science). There are literally children in the streets pleading for their lives to the chagrin of politicians like Dianne Feinstein (D) and yet we're stuck. I agree. One issue is what do we mean when we say "democracy"? I'd say what we have resembles more closely an oligarchy, the campaign finance system/"accountability" system allows absurd levels of corruption, the hopelessness of replacing most of our oligarchs and their minions is a popular refrain, and it's pretty ubiquitously agreed that we're beholden to a two party system incapable of the reforms (just the ones we agree on more or less) in the allotted time. I'd add that the ease with which we "transition power" from one party to the opposition has a lot more to do with their hegemonic commonalities and their corporate owners than the reliability of democracy to transition from opposing powers/interests imo. EDIT: I'd add this (revolution and violent resistance is intrinsic to democracy/liberty) is part of the fabric of the US, exemplified in it's founding days by the quote To put a point on it, even our founders knew a day would come when voting wouldn't be enough. I'm arguing the science says that's today (~40 years ago really, but spilled milk and all) Okay, for starters, there seems to be some confusion (don't think between us, but apparently with nebuchad at least) about the meaning of "revolution". I try to use it in its broadest sense of an "unconstitutional change of power". This can be violent or peaceful, but is not lawful according to the governing laws (it can be moral, though). So if I get this right, your thesis is that such a revolution is needed, because the current system of government is incapable (as demonstrated by the last 40 years, give or take) of adequately addressing problems that *have* to be addressed if we are to survive as a species (not only as a country, but for the good of all humanity). The principal problem is climate change. I would say that climate change is a huge issue, but not actually one that threatens us as a species. It threatens our *society*, and it's possible that political tensions might lead to nuclear war, which could threaten us as a species, but still, humankind is quite unlikely to go extinct because of climate change. Human society as we know it... I'd say quite probably is though. But insofar as I know your viewpoints, you find our current human society fundamentally unjust. Would it not be better to just muddle along and let whatever violence is the result of climate change happen, rather than precipitate that violence with your own, in order to maintain this fundamentally unjust society? So is it climate change that necessitates a revolution? Or is it the injustices in society? And climate change is just a popular idea that you can piggyback along on (and of course, I don't disagree with you that mitigating (way too late to stop it) climage change is important). The second problem is that you feel there is no transition of power even when it seems superficially that there is. The "democratic government" is a front for the real people with power, and all the members of the US government are beholden to these people with real power. This sounds a lot like a Trumpian deep state, or something straight from a conspiracy theory. Is it possible that, alternatively, the government is actually democratic, but the ideas you have about government are simply in a minority and thus ignored? Either way, I guess there is a problem in that you do not feel represented by your government, and I guess it is a real question how large a portion of the population feels the same way. Do you think that is a majority of the nation? Or do you think that you are a minority. And if so, why is your revolution just? Why would the people of... Tennessee (to name a random state where the majority of people probably disagrees with everything you want) go along with your ideas? Why are your ideas, fueled by your revolution, a more valid way to rule the country than xDaunt's ideas? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17915 Posts
On May 24 2019 22:26 Nebuchad wrote: I think I disagree and I find that interesting. Could you show how you would make that argument? I was going to go into it in my answer to GH, but refrained. I suspect we simply disagree on the use of words. I'd say that women's suffrage was a revolutionary idea. And, at least in the US, did not lead to a revolution. Conversely, the revolution in Portugal was not brought about by any revolutionary ideas. The ideas behind it were rather ordinary by then. An example of where revolution and revolutionary ideas did go hand in hand is of course the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. Or, for that matter, the American Revolution. Now I don't think an increase in democracy is a particularly revolutionary idea. For starters, the very way we talk about it is incremental. And incremental things are seldom revolutionary. Secondly, there are plenty of nations already using systems of government that are more democratic than the US. Switzerland is one of them. And in fact, I'd argue such systems are commonplace. Things that are commonplace are also not revolutionary. Nevertheless, if the US government is indeed as oppressive as GH appears to think, then a revolution might be the only way to bring about the completely non-revolutionary change that is an increase in democracy in the US. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 24 2019 18:02 Reivax wrote: My speculation would be that Barr will selectively declassify documents to maximise political harm to the other side. Barr is going to declassify whatever he needs to have people prosecuted. He can't be politically selective with the declassification because the people he'll be prosecuting will know -- as former insiders -- what he's withholding and be able to get the charges dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct. Your bold prediction about Obama being one of the most abusive presidents in the history of the US I think is quite far-fetched, but there's probably enough material that he will certainly look like that (the same could probably be done to just about every president since you got real intelligence agencies). Have you read the Collyer report? Do you deny that extensive, unlawful spying took place during the Obama administration? These aren't even disputed facts. Unlawful spying happened. The only real questions are 1) how bad was it, and 2) how far up the Obama administration did it go? If the executive keeps on denying any type of oversight, this will be a quite one-sided battle since the subpoena's for complementary information will just be denied. Is there any real recourse beyond that? Could the House in theory instruct their master of arms to arrest anyone part of the executive, up to the president himself eventually (consensus seems to be that the House could arrest the AG, but wouldn't do it for the current reasons). I don't know which chinese fella you offended, but you surely live in the most interesting of times in the US currently. The intense grievance politics practiced seems to be an self-sustaining downward spiral for all sides, at least online. This democrat-peddled narrative that Trump is engaged in a cover up is quite preposterous. Trump just underwent a 2-year rectal exam from a special counsel. Before that, he and his team were the subject of FISA/NSA surveillance. There is simply nothing that he could have done wrong that would not have been exposed by those investigations. And yet we're to believe that Nancy and her band of merry congressmen are going to find something that the most powerful law enforcement and spying agencies in the world could not? I think not. No, I think that as Barr begins declassifying things it's going to become readily apparent to the American public that democrats are the ones who are guilty of engaging in a cover-up. Democrat fingerprints are all over the various unlawful spying elements of the Russia-gate case, whether it be the Carter Page FISA warrant, the FISA/NSA database abuse cited in the Collyer report, or the use of western intelligence sources to entrap poor Papadopoulos. And I wouldn't be surprised if even Mueller and members of his team get sucked up into the coming shitstorm. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12044 Posts
On May 24 2019 22:53 Acrofales wrote: I was going to go into it in my answer to GH, but refrained. I suspect we simply disagree on the use of words. I'd say that women's suffrage was a revolutionary idea. And, at least in the US, did not lead to a revolution. Conversely, the revolution in Portugal was not brought about by any revolutionary ideas. The ideas behind it were rather ordinary by then. An example of where revolution and revolutionary ideas did go hand in hand is of course the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. Or, for that matter, the American Revolution. Now I don't think an increase in democracy is a particularly revolutionary idea. For starters, the very way we talk about it is incremental. And incremental things are seldom revolutionary. Secondly, there are plenty of nations already using systems of government that are more democratic than the US. Switzerland is one of them. And in fact, I'd argue such systems are commonplace. Things that are commonplace are also not revolutionary. Nevertheless, if the US government is indeed as oppressive as GH appears to think, then a revolution might be the only way to bring about the completely non-revolutionary change that is an increase in democracy in the US. Yes it does sound like we aren't using words in the same way. I would definitely say that women's suffrage led to a revolution. It was brought about by popular uprising against the government and it led to quite a few fundamental changes in how society functions. One thing that I could say is that I don't think choosing reform or revolution is necessary, or a good idea. People who try and reform systems benefit from the existence of revolutionary people. They can point to them as the alternative and present their starting position as a compromise. If you're entering the negociation with the idea that a revolution is the worse thing that can happen, your position becomes the extreme, and the compromise position is further down the line. You are also much safer to discard because, if discarded, what are you going to do? I don't think increasing democracy is a commonplace position, and I don't really see what you mean when you say that it's incremental either. Most democracies as we have them right now are stagnating when it comes to what's democratic and what isn't, regardless of how advanced they are on the subject. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Rain Dota 2 10508Calm  7351Hyuk 1175Pusan 955Zeus 755PianO  340Last 181Hyun 163Leta 152TY 121[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations Counter-Strike StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
AllThingsProtoss
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Chat StarLeague
BSL Season 20
MadiNho vs dxtr13
Gypsy vs Dark
Circuito Brasileiro de…
Afreeca Starleague
BeSt vs Light
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
