| 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 | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11927 Posts
On June 27 2019 23:44 farvacola wrote: The gerrymandering case is why Roberts allowed Auer to survive, so he could slam this door in exchange. This is welcome news. Bunch of answers to the tweet say the headline is wrong/incomplete, however Edit: meh, not really a bunch anymore, but several. When I opened the tweet earlier most answers said that | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11335 Posts
On June 27 2019 23:28 IyMoon wrote: Are you fucking kidding me.... well it just means when dems win its time to stack the shit out of every district they can The whole thing is so disgusting. People don't see democracy as a way to get the opinion of the people on things, they see it as a system that you game to win. Granted, the US system does involve a lot of very weird and gamey mechanics. But still. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
On June 27 2019 23:48 Nebuchad wrote: Bunch of answers to the tweet say the headline is wrong/incomplete, however Yeah, the SC punted the issue back down to see if the executive can substantiate its claims of non-pretextual reasons for including the questions. Based on what we’ve seen so far, it’s still anybody’s game. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17851 Posts
On June 27 2019 23:08 Mohdoo wrote: What do you get with private that you don't get with public? Generally speaking? Less waiting for non-urgent stuff. The medics aren't better, nor do they have more resources (generally speaking). They just offer you an alternative waiting line for the same stuff (tests, surgery, etc). It also covers more sessions in revalidation (physiotherapy, etc.). The state generally only cares that you are functioning (and can return to work). Private, in theory, pays for sessions until you are "fully recovered". I don't know what % of the people have private healthcare. For job-related accidents all employers are obliged to have separate coverage. Some jobs also offer private healthcare to their employees. But I have so far had no issues with the public healthcare. Yes, things take a long time if they aren't urgent, but... well.. they aren't urgent. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22718 Posts
On June 27 2019 23:54 Acrofales wrote: Generally speaking? Less waiting for non-urgent stuff. The medics aren't better, nor do they have more resources (generally speaking). They just offer you an alternative waiting line for the same stuff (tests, surgery, etc). It also covers more sessions in revalidation (physiotherapy, etc.). The state generally only cares that you are functioning (and can return to work). Private, in theory, pays for sessions until you are "fully recovered". I don't know what % of the people have private healthcare. For job-related accidents all employers are obliged to have separate coverage. Some jobs also offer private healthcare to their employees. But I have so far had no issues with the public healthcare. Yes, things take a long time if they aren't urgent, but... well.. they aren't urgent. What's a "long time" in that context? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43797 Posts
On June 27 2019 12:16 xDaunt wrote: Yeah, we need to get the main contenders on one stage. Bernie, Biden, Harris, Warren, and Booker should not be broken up anymore. I agree, and I also think that having a smaller group of candidates on stage at the same time will be more useful; last night it felt very diluted. My thoughts on last night's Democratic Primary Debate Night #1a (#1b is tonight with the other candidates): TL;DR Results (in my humble opinion): 1st place: Julian Castro (4.5/5). He's the only low-polling candidate who piqued my curiosity and got me Googling him and his policies. He clearly won in the showdown vs. Beto, and other candidates went out of their way to agree with him and align themselves with him, which makes him look very strong. I don't see him suddenly surging into the Top 3 Democratic primary candidates, but if any of tonight's zero-polling candidates were to receive a bump, I would expect it to be him. 2nd Tier: Booker (4/5), Warren (3.5/5), Klobuchar (3.5/5). 3rd Tier: de Blasio (3/5), Delaney (3/5), Gabbard (2.5/5). 4th Tier: O'Rourke (2/5), Ryan (2/5), Inslee (2/5). Various thoughts and stream-of-consciousness as I'm watching the debate: General/Miscellaneous: a. I wish every candidate had a minute to give their own opening statement, instead of half-answering the first question or being confined to specific and different questions. (Closing statements were okay.) b. There's zero chance that the Republicans will watch this debate (too much Spanish speaking). c. Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd coming on stage and transitioning into mic issues. What the hell? Seriously? This is a presidential debate. I wouldn't be surprised if the debate lost a lot of viewers during this period of technical difficulties. d. One-word answers as responses to huge, important questions (like geopolitical threats) are lazy, stupid, and devoid of substance. There's a time and place for one-word answers, but debates beg for actual nuance and contextualization. Elizabeth Warren: a. 4/5 on the power and substance of opening statement; reasonably covered all the points I was hoping she'd hit. b. The instant hand raise in favor of government healthcare; well done, putting your money where your mouth is. c. Aligns herself with Bernie in many places, which is a very good idea (especially since Bernie isn't on stage with her). d. Managed to take back the mic a second or third time over the other candidates, which was impressive. e. Caught off guard by the "abortion term limit" question; didn't really answer it. f. Dammit, Warren, say "Fight like hell", not "Fight like heck". g. I'm not sure what to make of her initial gun answer, in that she gave a strong, emotional appeal to us handling guns in better ways, but didn't directly answer the question about what the federal government's role should be. My guess is that her non-answer is an appeal to the general election, not an appeal to the Democratic primary. h. Chuck Todd throwing Liz Warren a softball about how she has plans for everything (she hasn't really talked too much about her specific plans in the first half of the debate), but her response about Mitch McConnell was just meh. i. Final thoughts about Liz Warren: As the only frontrunner in this debate, she was in a uniquely risky position, but I don't think she gained or lost a ton of support here. I was hoping to see her feature more of her specific plans in this debate, and I don't really think she did that. She also didn't really exist in the second half of the debate. Maybe, as a Liz Warren supporter, my expectations were a little too high for what I wanted her to show in a debate format featuring nine other candidates. (I wonder if I'll feel the same way about Bernie Sanders tomorrow.) She got out relatively unscathed, and I really, really want to see her up against the other frontrunners. Beto O’Rourke: a. 3/5 on the power and substance of opening statement (he didn't answer the question but what he said likely came off as powerful, plus the Spanish will resonate). b. Very smart to be the first one to reference women's reproductive rights and overpopulation in prison. c. Beto is getting out-immigrant'ed by Castro, then mostly faded away into the background except for the occasional anecdote. Cory Booker: a. 2/5 on the power and substance of opening statement (he didn't answer the question and didn't even speak Spanish). b. Good answer about holding pharmaceutical companies accountable and dealing with opioid addiction. c. Nice Spanish answer to the ICE/ immigration question, and also discussing DACA. d. I appreciate the criticism of "thoughts and prayers" as a response to gun violence, although he didn't answer with much substance on what to do about it. e. Ignored a question to go back to guns. Meh. f. Did you know that Cory Booker is an African-American man in an African-American community!?!?!? g. I think, overall, Booker did a reasonably good job at appealing to a variety of people, interjecting at the right times, and commanding presence. Amy Klobuchar: a. 3/5 on the power and substance of opening statement, but pretty basic. b. "All foam and no beer" hit home for half, and came across as cringeworthy for the other half. c. Wrecked Jay Inslee's assertion about how he was the only one to fight for women's rights. d. Reasonable (not amazing, not awful) answers across the board, but really wasn't assertive or memorable. John Delaney: a. 4/5 on the power and substance of opening statement; he did a pretty good job of trying to outline why he's unique. b. Within 40 minutes, he's essentially become irrelevant. c. Shouting out of turn and getting shut down. Kewl. d. Response about Mitch McConnell was even worse than Warren's. Tulsi Gabbard: a. 3/5 on the power and substance of opening statement. b. Didn't contribute anything substantive to the healthcare discussion, and she had the opportunity to. c. I appreciate her anti-war and de-escalation stance, but I feel like this is the only thing I know about her and it's not enough. d. Good recovery from the LGBT support question. Julian Castro: a. 4/5 on the power and substance of opening statement (the cheers and clapping for the Equal Rights Act might tip it to 4.5/5). b. Strong pro-woman (and pro-trans) point about reproductive rights and Roe v. Wade. c. Good immigration plan and he's the first one to use raw language ("it should piss us all off"), which I really like. d. Took back the mic for immigration a second time, which was very impressive. e. Both Ryan and Booker are trying hard to align themselves with Castro, which shows Castro's strength. f. Good answer about police accountability and racial prejudice. g. Best closing statement. Tim Ryan: a. 2/5 on the power and substance of opening statement; I just found his answer (and stare) really boring. b. Dude, you know you can talk during this debate, right? (Some heavy irony later on in his closing statement, when he talks about the importance of being heard.) c. Good reference to emotional and mental health, although bullied kids aren't necessarily the ones who are shooting up schools. d. Got some cheers with appealing to blue collar workers. e. Did you just try to go up against Tulsi Gabbard on literally her only strength? The military? Really? Bill de Blasio: a. 4/5 on the power and substance of opening statement. b. Going out for blood against Beto, but I don't think it really landed. c. Good monologue about Democrats needing to be the party of immigrants. d. His interjections are coming off pretty coarsely now. e. Ignored a question to go back to guns. Meh. f. "I'm raising a black son" came off like a political stunt, somehow. Jay Inslee: a. 2/5 on the power and substance of opening statement; it's too early and easy to reference Trump. b. Repeatedly trying to come off as the "first" or "only" person to do something, and it's not really working. c. Climate change is "everything" to him... and he didn't really lay out specifics. VOD of the debate is attached, starting at the 2-hour mark and running for about 2 hours: | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21364 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On June 27 2019 23:52 farvacola wrote: Yeah, the SC punted the issue back down to see if the executive can substantiate its claims of non-pretextual reasons for including the questions. Based on what we’ve seen so far, it’s still anybody’s game. Yeah, seems like the media's headline is a gross oversimplification. Nothing new there. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On June 28 2019 00:25 Doodsmack wrote: Yeah, seems like the media's headline is a gross oversimplification. Nothing new there. But wont the administration now have to deal with the fallout of the dead GOP operatives files? It clearly states that this is to suppress the vote of non white people. It seems like they wont be able to reasonably justify it anymore. Someone explain why I am wrong please | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13750 Posts
On June 27 2019 14:46 Mohdoo wrote: Super stoked for this debate. This is like 10x as progressive as 2016. It feels like our only actual bad choices are Beto, Delaney, Ryan, Biden and Klobuchar. Why don't you like Klobuchar? Electability and being able to fight against trump seems like great qualities. On June 28 2019 00:47 IyMoon wrote: But wont the administration now have to deal with the fallout of the dead GOP operatives files? It clearly states that this is to suppress the vote of non white people. It seems like they wont be able to reasonably justify it anymore. Someone explain why I am wrong please Beacuse hes trump and his presidency hasn't had to justify anything reasonably. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
On June 28 2019 01:12 Sermokala wrote: Why don't you like Klobuchar? Electability and being able to fight against trump seems like great qualities. This whole "electability" thing isn't real anymore, IMO. What we have seen in the past 3 elections is that people don't want middle of the road, whether right or left. A ton of people are really angry and blame a significant number of the country's problems on the other side. Candidates who are willing to say "all this shit is fucked and we need a new system" are becoming more and more popular. Trump was not an "electable" candidate, yet still did very well with the republican base. Bernie performed extremely well against Clinton in the typical "centrist" states. I happen to work somewhere with a lot of old democrats and it has been interesting seeing how many are totally fine with Bernie's stuff, especially after Trump. Every old democrat I know has said they would have voted for Bernie over Trump. The mistake you are making is you are thinking a centrist needs an absolute centrist to vote for them. They don't. Lots of middle'ish people voted for Trump because they thought Clinton was corrupt or "more of the same". If they didn't, he wouldn't have won. I've met plenty of hesitant Trump supporters who ultimately voted for Trump. Simply put, I believe we are past the point of a general election candidate needing to appeal to people who wobble between the two sides. Additionally, numerous studies have shown people in the middle have been choosing a side and we are getting increasingly polarized. Obama popped the "fuck this shit" bubble in a very mild way, then Trump kicked the door open and we are now at a point where it is totally acceptable to say "all this shit sucks". Lots of people love to hear it. Wayyyy more than previously. Edit: I also believe social media has been a big part of this. On the internet, it is very easy to find some very non-mainstream ideas. Everything has a voice, not just the stuff the TV news decides to show us. Stuff like "DEPORT LITERALLY ALL OF THEM" is not something you'd see on TV, but it managed to get all over Twitter and Facebook. When people see far out ideas legitimized on the internet, it is less weird to them. I would say that the country as a whole is significantly more open to wild solutions to problems now because of the internet. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
And in other news, the Supreme Court does not suddenly change 200 years of gerrymandering. Eldridge Gerry, the namesake, still kicking since 1812. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17851 Posts
On June 28 2019 00:24 Gorsameth wrote: Depends on what procedure and what country but several months possibly. Pretty much. My wife had to wait 6 months to have a very minor operation to remove a chalazion. I had to wait a similar time for some scan of my shoulder when I tore a ligament (not x-ray or ultrasound... not sure what other scans they do on shoulders). By the time I could go, it was mostly better and I completely forgot about the appointment. Similarly, when they took a stool sample after I had a bout of traveller's diarrhea that persisted for (too) long after returning home, my doctor's appointment to discuss it was weeks later, so I just called and said that unless there was something abnormal, it was all solved. More threatening matters are obviously treated with higher priority and take shorter (you jump the queue on lab tests). That said, a friend has private insurance and had a chalazion-like thing on his eyelid that was really bothering him. So much that he couldn't work, because he couldn't see through that eye and it hurt like hell. They still couldn't give him an appointment fast (neither the public hospital nor the private clinic). Lucky for him, his wife is a nurse at the hospital and a friendly opthalmologist called him in when someone missed their appointment. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11335 Posts
On June 28 2019 01:40 Danglars wrote: And in other news, the Supreme Court does not suddenly change 200 years of gerrymandering. Eldridge Gerry, the namesake, still kicking since 1812. And you think this is good because? Just because something has been going on for a long period of time, and constantly been getting worse during this time, doesn't mean that it should keep going on forever. Also, you neatly dodged the fact that the only justices who didn't want to stop gerrymandering were the republicans. So, i guess good job for stealing those justices, that allows you to win now. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8928 Posts
On June 28 2019 01:40 Danglars wrote: The citizenship question decision “splits the baby.” Throws out challenge based on enumerations and Census act. Demands for poor explanation anyways. More in lawyer tritter thread. Only passing reference was made to the salacious claim that it’s all founded in racism. That’s what a country counting the citizens of the country is now reduced to in partisan times. https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1144260345629986819 And in other news, the Supreme Court does not suddenly change 200 years of gerrymandering. Eldridge Gerry, the namesake, still kicking since 1812. It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. | ||
KwarK
United States41989 Posts
This isn’t a new issue, it’s actually the oldest issue. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 28 2019 01:50 Simberto wrote: And you think this is good because? Just because something has been going on for a long period of time, and constantly been getting worse during this time, doesn't mean that it should keep going on forever. Also, you neatly dodged the fact that the only justices who didn't want to stop gerrymandering were the republicans. So, i guess good job for stealing those justices, that allows you to win now. For once, the Supreme Court said that the constitution left it to political decision making, out of reach of the courts. I didn’t expect such an endorsement of the limited power of the third branch of government, but there we have it. Congress or the states may draft a constitutional amendment to put the Supreme Court in charge as arbiters, but faulting that, it’s the citizens legislatures that must decide. Good cal. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21364 Posts
On June 28 2019 01:40 Danglars wrote: Right, its called racist because 'partisan' and totally not related to the documents that clearly outline how the Republicans can use the question to maximise gerrymandering impact against minorities.The citizenship question decision “splits the baby.” Throws out challenge based on enumerations and Census act. Demands for poor explanation anyways. More in lawyer tritter thread. Only passing reference was made to the salacious claim that it’s all founded in racism. That’s what a country counting the citizens of the country is now reduced to in partisan times. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. And nine justices hardly bothered to even hypothetically support that theory. The one that did reamed it. Maybe you should write an amicus brief to the Supreme Court to explain something so “not hard to understand” to them. On June 28 2019 01:57 Gorsameth wrote: Right, its called racist because 'partisan' and totally not related to the documents that clearly outline how the Republicans can use the question to maximise gerrymandering impact against minorities. Not every claim that something’s done do maximize impact against minorities actually is true. I’m still reading it and at work now, but reporting says the dissenting justices/concurring in part didn’t see fit to mention this racist uhh conspiracy theory I guess. I wouldn’t think such strange claims deserved notice either, but maybe the case returns and Ginsburg makes a big deal about it. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11279 Posts
On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity. This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Jumy vs Zoun
Clem vs Jumy
ByuN vs Zoun
Clem vs Zoun
ByuN vs Jumy
ByuN vs Clem
Korean StarCraft League
The PondCast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
SKillous vs MaNa
MaNa vs Cure
Cure vs SKillous
Fjant vs MaNa
Fjant vs SKillous
Fjant vs Cure
PiG Sty Festival
TLO vs Scarlett
qxc vs CatZ
Replay Cast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
PiG Sty Festival
Lambo vs TBD
SC Evo Complete
Classic vs uThermal
SOOP StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
