|
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 July 23 2019 04:00 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 01:00 Grumbels wrote:On July 23 2019 00:53 KwarK wrote:
It can be a conservative hit and still be an area where democrats can do better. If anything I welcome the attempts by conservatives to attack democrats who aren’t living up to the highest standards of public conduct. An active opposition is the lifeblood of democracy. Let them work hard to keep democrats honest and let democrats do the same to them. Yeah, I personally support the resignation. There's no real reason to be particularly concerned about the downfall of a replaceable Senator in order to make an important political point of supporting the #MeToo movement. The regret I have is that his case is cited among those trying to create a #MeToo backlash, accusing it of witch-hunting and having gone too far and so on. Tweeden seems to have lied about almost all of the important details. I think in the case of Al Franken he clearly behaved inappropriately, while also having the bad luck to be caught at the height of the #MeToo era. Had the case been brought forward at another time he would have probably gotten away with it. But such is politics. Turning him into a martyr would be a horrible mistake and only feed further backlash. Please cite to me what he did to deserve losing his senate seat (by this I mean describe the exact action for which he was persecuted)? Franken was not a replaceable senator, he was only one of a few that appeared to have any backbone in the party, which showed in his lines of questioning in congressional hearings. I haven't heard anything of his replacement which either means nobody cares about their voice or they aren't speaking up. By your logic Biden should then resign from office? Again, what would he have "gotten away with?"
Al Franken's resignation came at the height of the MeToo movement. Given how heavily that movement comes from the left, it shouldn't be hard to join the dots to see why he had to be forced out. I didn't look too much into the allegations against him but it sounded like he had done the thing in question, even though the woman didn't mind.
|
On July 22 2019 22:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 14:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 14:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 14:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 13:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 13:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 13:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 12:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
It's really weird for me to be perceived as having moderation biased toward me lately. fwiw I'll try to reiterate in brief my framing that bothers a few of you so much.
There's a pattern I'm tired of and I'm trying to do what little I can to remedy it. Follow me for a moment, sorry if this sounds familiar.
1. X sucks
2. Yeah it does, we should do something about it
3. Can't, Congress
4. Gotta vote for better people
5. Gotta beat the the other party more
6. That sucks
7. Go back to 1
I can run you through any issue you want to demonstrate it, depending on what you pick I might be able to link you specific examples in posts. It's bipartisan too, so I can demonstrate it with Republican stuff if that makes people more comfortable.
Z2C has added, paraphrasing:
"6.5 I dunno what to do, I have some ideas, not sure how to make them happen without a magic wand (but I have some ideas on that too [I think?].)"
That was me a few years ago tbh (I mean no shade with that). Then I read/listened to/thought about/talked through a ton of shit for the last few years while everyone was focused on Trump and Mueller and stuff (not bragging). That's what we're seeing right now.
Some posters due to circumstances had a reasonable amount of preexisting knowledge (or developed it recently as well) about the (at least European roots) stuff I've recently really delved into. That's not the likes of yourself (I'm making a presumption here that may not be entirely fair because I don't have the same familiarity with your posting), JC, z2c, and some others. Now some people have recognized that and chosen to listen or tune us out. A handful of people have taken to a rather unbecoming display of what I would describe as entitlement largely wrapped around what was recently articulated by Kwark quite well as "white club"imo.
Rather than go my old route of returning venom with venom I've chosen (partly encouraged by moderation) to ignore them (to the best of my ability) instead. There was a presumption that at some point it would resolve itself more or less, but alas, it drags on.
If people are okay with me engaging with whatever your response is I will, but otherwise I suggest we take it to PM's if you have further inquires/arguments you'd like me to address. I'll live forever in quotes. Never thought that would be the way my legacy would endure, but hey, I'll take it. It's hard to articulate what we know or agree on when what we ask doesn't get answered. Maybe I'm for your (r)evolution, but not the methods or outcomes. Maybe I'm secretly building a knowledge base of your ideas and plan to dish it out to the local Chicago (r)evolution clubs. I'm definitely going to demand they call me GreenHorizons though. Such a dream-like name. Funny story, one of my first requests ever (iirc) of mods was to change it (slightly), never happened, so I guess that worked out. Since I'm in "I'm here so I don't get fined mode" for a bit until I get some feedback from moderation, can we address some of your concerns, or at least give it a good faith effort? Why are you asking? I got a slightly chilling PM from moderation. I've already given you permission to speak however you see fit that gets your ideas across. Moderation be damned Easy for you to say lol. if this gets a lot of confusion/frustration cleared up. Just bring the substance. And then, we can cook with Crisco. I desperately hope it does. So let's take into consideration IgnE's previous point. On July 22 2019 06:35 IgnE wrote:
Is this the trial of GreenHorizons? What is the point of this?
Maybe stop asking GH to do what libraries of books have been written to do, and maybe GH limit yourself to particular analyses rather than some vague call to revolution for people who’ve never read a socialist thinker in their life. Let's start carefully, and agree on a way to close this gap (presuming I've underestimated your familiarity with the subject matter and/or done a poor job communicating my position because of my misestimation it). Ask me a question that's narrow in scope that we can build from. You had a top 5 things you would do and I pointed out #1 has a lot in common with my perspective. I think that may be a good place to start. EDIT At your leisure, just request you afford me the same consideration. If you ever feel like I'm unreasonably dodging going forward, please try PM'ing me before going to the mods because as has been mentioned before my posting is being closely monitored and will not be granted the same leniencies as others as far as I understand (this isn't an objection to that, merely a statement). I'll start with a quote. We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community. I'll assume you mean titans of industry when you say "capitalist class" and therefore wish to strip them of their influence and power. I can agree to an extent. Now, how do you go about it and who is the recipient? How does that not get abused by the new? In keeping with the quote, do you "segregate" any class? How do you build that community that is onboard? Edit: this goes to point...3? Of my top 5? I didn't check before replying. Feel free to add it to one of create a new point. Why the random quote from someone I don't think has even been brought up here before? I think we should start with point 1 and try not to presume too much at once. If you insist you believe the disagreements around point 3 is the best place to start, you're in charge and that's what we'll do. Just let me know. 5 Point Plan To a Successful Revolution by Z2C
1. Immediate re-education of the society and climate that we live in, exposing children from middle school onward about the dangers of xenophobia, unchecked climate change and capitalism, as well as basic understanding of politics.
2. Term limits of congressmen/women who are there to serve the will of the collective people, and not just the wealthy donors who pay them. Those who abdicate responsibility or fail to actualize the will of the people, are removed immediately and replaced.
3. Healthcare for all, at a rate that is conducive to their lifestyle. If you're at or below the poverty line, you're covered. Anyone above, married or single, you can choose government backed healthcare or private.
4. Foreign relations must be upheld and maintained in accordance with the sovereignty of the nation we are dealing with. No unilateral punitive measures are to be taken without at least a majority vote of the G7.
5. Education must be continuously improved and enhanced to face the challenges of the world, while also looking to the future of what humanity needs. STEaM and trades get equal coverage and pay must be at or above "middle class" status. For reference. Is there anything you would do different? The random quote (from someone I don't think anyone's ever mentioned prior?) ; + Show Spoiler + On July 22 2019 14:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:I'll start with a quote. Show nested quote +We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community. . was for reference, are you asking if I would do anything different than the quote or what? This isn't a promising start but I'll take the blame for that so far. I think it's important to stay focused so there's less room for miscommunication but yes I have disagreement s with the rest, my issues with 1 are minimal and I think we can clear them up so here goes: I mostly agree with 1. I've mentioned a lot about how I think that should happen referring to the scholars/activists/revolutionaries that articulated the ideas before me, namely, Freire as of late. He had both a literacy program and a political philosophy based around the concept of Critical consciousness, conscientization, or conscientização. Which, I take to mean the lifting of consciousness to a place where we recognize and act on our ability to make the world around us, not in some XMen kinda way, in a "being more fully human" and treating each other that way kinda way. The rub is how we make that happen (presuming you agree with Freire's conception of education).My position is that everything short of direct action is failing. I don't know if revolution is possible or probable or direct action will be enough, but I think the evidence demonstrates clearly that everything short of direct action is leading to certain climate catastrophe according to the best available information, even under the most optimistic scientific estimates. I don't mean to dodge the rest and if you want we'll get there, I just sincerely believe this makes the most sense as a starting point to establish good faith Okay. So. To answer your post. The quote is from Haile Selassie. I assume you've heard of him. He hasn't been mentioned but is still a good read. I agree with the raising consciousness of as many people as possible to where being critical of their surroundings is almost second nature. Where I find my issue is your second part. When you say direct action, I feel you're beingi intentionally misleading by not picking which arm of that you prefer. From what I gather, you prefer the violent direct action and not the nonviolent as you believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that has not worked and anything short of destroying the capitalist class through violence, is doomed from the outset.
I've repeatedly argued in favor of non-violent direct action. To be clear once again. I prefer nonviolent direct action.
What I've mentioned is that when workers decided they wanted weekends and less deadly working conditions the capitalist class beat, shot, and bombed them (to name a few).
I'm not sure what you're suggesting those workers are to do when it happens again? My concern is that there's no reason to believe the capitalists won't/aren't doing again.
For instance, in Brazil the president has vowed to destroy and purge that very type of education we agree is critically needed with the support of the US government. Like basically he said he wanted to burn the books.
He has also said he wanted to “enter the education ministry with a flamethrower to remove Paulo Freire”, one of Brazil’s most famous educators whose ideas have had worldwide influence.
Mr Bolsonaro and other conservatives have said Freire’s legacy in schools turns students into “political militants”. Conservatives believe the late socialist intellectual's teaching methods encourage students to challenge traditional values such as family and the church.
www.independent.co.uk
|
|
|
On July 23 2019 04:21 JimmiC wrote:
What has the "socialist class" done in countries when the people don't agree with the decisions made by those in control?
I'm being forced to respond to you until a public statement is made otherwise.
I don't know what you mean by "socialist class"?
Also maybe if someone defines the "capitalist class" it will be easier to understand this. Are they just the general rich people? Business owners? A group of powerful people pulling the strings behind the scenes?
Couple guys named Marx and Engels did that about 160 years ago. Here's a brief summary, with a more in depth explanation I suggest people should read (should read Marx himself too) before replacing "capitalist" with "socialist" in a term and presuming it has meaning.
Each country has its own ruling class. In capitalist countries, the rulers own the means of production and employ workers. The capitalist class is also called the bourgeoisie. Means of production are what it takes to produce goods. Raw materials, satellite networks, machinery, ships and factories are examples. Workers own nothing but their ability to sell their labor for a wage.
Because they privately own the means of production, capitalists keep profits. They make higher profits by cutting workers’ wages and introducing new technology to speed up production.
liberationschool.org
If all you read is that small summary you'll continue to ask questions that have already been addressed.
|
On July 22 2019 16:05 Neneu wrote:
It is also interesting to read all the posts claiming it was self-defense and therefore not illegal, considering there is nothing called self-defense if you can run away in the swedish law (similar to how it is in Norway). Scandinavian laws tends to value the risk of any serious consequences from inflicting violence on others, higher than pride. If you can run, you run. If you stand and fight, you break the law.
I would like to point out that this is not how the swedish law regarding self defense works.
In Sweden, as a basis you are allowed to meet violence with equal violence. Meaning you are not allowed to shoot someone for hitting you, or stabbing someone for shoving you. What might be causing the misunderstanding is that due to a supreme court decision regarding self defense, the location and the ability to escape the scene has to be taken into account when deciding whether violence was warranted or not. This does not mean that you are not allowed to wield force to defend yourself, but only that it is one of many factors that are taken into consideration.
All of this is available in swedish at https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K24
Now as far as I know this is not in any way relevant to the A$AP Rocky case, but I thought it was worth noting that there may be differences in swedish and norwegian law.
|
On July 23 2019 04:00 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 01:00 Grumbels wrote:On July 23 2019 00:53 KwarK wrote:
It can be a conservative hit and still be an area where democrats can do better. If anything I welcome the attempts by conservatives to attack democrats who aren’t living up to the highest standards of public conduct. An active opposition is the lifeblood of democracy. Let them work hard to keep democrats honest and let democrats do the same to them. Yeah, I personally support the resignation. There's no real reason to be particularly concerned about the downfall of a replaceable Senator in order to make an important political point of supporting the #MeToo movement. The regret I have is that his case is cited among those trying to create a #MeToo backlash, accusing it of witch-hunting and having gone too far and so on. Tweeden seems to have lied about almost all of the important details. I think in the case of Al Franken he clearly behaved inappropriately, while also having the bad luck to be caught at the height of the #MeToo era. Had the case been brought forward at another time he would have probably gotten away with it. But such is politics. Turning him into a martyr would be a horrible mistake and only feed further backlash. Please cite to me what he did to deserve losing his senate seat (by this I mean describe the exact action for which he was persecuted)? Franken was not a replaceable senator, he was only one of a few that appeared to have any backbone in the party, which showed in his lines of questioning in congressional hearings. I haven't heard anything of his replacement which either means nobody cares about their voice or they aren't speaking up. By your logic Biden should then resign from office? Again, what would he have "gotten away with?"
He's replaceable because he was literally replaced by a Democrat with very similar policies. The existence of one popular senator who is marred by a sexual misconduct scandal can be weighed against an anonymous replacement senator without scandal. Maybe one is better, maybe the other, but certainly it's not catastrophically worse. I think given the time and place it was admirable, if politically expedient, for the Democratic Party to sacrifice Franken in order to maintain its strong support of the #MeToo movement. That Franken himself personally suffered by any aspersions and misleading gossip is unfortunate, but unavoidable. He chose to resign and no politician should feel like they're irreplaceable. I also think Biden was replaceable and he should have been pressured to retire as a politician one or two years ago. It's possibly different now given the stakes of the Presidential election, but it's certainly not an ideal situation for the Democratic Party to have a frontrunner who is a creep. There might come a time where you'll wish he had resigned when he first had the chance when the GOP runs ad after ad of Biden groping underage girls.
I do think there is a conversation to be had about the accessibility of Congress for people from different backgrounds. There is a strong preference in Congress for politicians educated in a select number of Ivy League universities who were part of well connected fraternities. These people are often well behaved and coached in saying the right things. But people from other backgrounds are often haunted by accusations of past misbehavior. I've seen a lot of examples of former radicals or activists who were criticized for their association with this or that movement, or working class candidates criticized for being slightly ill-at-ease in DC. In the case of Franken, most of his accusations came from his days as a traveling comedian who was cultivating an overbearing persona. But in many other cases it might be actors or athletes who have prominent national profiles and are inevitably haunted by scandals or some sort of misconduct. I don't think it's too much to ask for Congress not to be peopled by sex offenders, and of course this is a particularly sensitive topic these days. But there should be some leniency afforded to those with "rowdy" pasts who are new to the mores of civility demanded by the political and media establishment, because otherwise this risks filtering out anyone who was not molded by a Harvard education.
Obvious examples of the latter are AOC and Ilhan Omar.
|
On July 23 2019 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 22:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 14:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 14:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 14:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 13:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 13:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 13:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
I'll live forever in quotes. Never thought that would be the way my legacy would endure, but hey, I'll take it.
It's hard to articulate what we know or agree on when what we ask doesn't get answered. Maybe I'm for your (r)evolution, but not the methods or outcomes. Maybe I'm secretly building a knowledge base of your ideas and plan to dish it out to the local Chicago (r)evolution clubs. I'm definitely going to demand they call me GreenHorizons though. Such a dream-like name. Funny story, one of my first requests ever (iirc) of mods was to change it (slightly), never happened, so I guess that worked out. Since I'm in "I'm here so I don't get fined mode" for a bit until I get some feedback from moderation, can we address some of your concerns, or at least give it a good faith effort? Why are you asking? I got a slightly chilling PM from moderation. I've already given you permission to speak however you see fit that gets your ideas across. Moderation be damned Easy for you to say lol. if this gets a lot of confusion/frustration cleared up. Just bring the substance. And then, we can cook with Crisco. I desperately hope it does. So let's take into consideration IgnE's previous point. On July 22 2019 06:35 IgnE wrote:
Is this the trial of GreenHorizons? What is the point of this?
Maybe stop asking GH to do what libraries of books have been written to do, and maybe GH limit yourself to particular analyses rather than some vague call to revolution for people who’ve never read a socialist thinker in their life. Let's start carefully, and agree on a way to close this gap (presuming I've underestimated your familiarity with the subject matter and/or done a poor job communicating my position because of my misestimation it). Ask me a question that's narrow in scope that we can build from. You had a top 5 things you would do and I pointed out #1 has a lot in common with my perspective. I think that may be a good place to start. EDIT At your leisure, just request you afford me the same consideration. If you ever feel like I'm unreasonably dodging going forward, please try PM'ing me before going to the mods because as has been mentioned before my posting is being closely monitored and will not be granted the same leniencies as others as far as I understand (this isn't an objection to that, merely a statement). I'll start with a quote. We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community. I'll assume you mean titans of industry when you say "capitalist class" and therefore wish to strip them of their influence and power. I can agree to an extent. Now, how do you go about it and who is the recipient? How does that not get abused by the new? In keeping with the quote, do you "segregate" any class? How do you build that community that is onboard? Edit: this goes to point...3? Of my top 5? I didn't check before replying. Feel free to add it to one of create a new point. Why the random quote from someone I don't think has even been brought up here before? I think we should start with point 1 and try not to presume too much at once. If you insist you believe the disagreements around point 3 is the best place to start, you're in charge and that's what we'll do. Just let me know. 5 Point Plan To a Successful Revolution by Z2C
1. Immediate re-education of the society and climate that we live in, exposing children from middle school onward about the dangers of xenophobia, unchecked climate change and capitalism, as well as basic understanding of politics.
2. Term limits of congressmen/women who are there to serve the will of the collective people, and not just the wealthy donors who pay them. Those who abdicate responsibility or fail to actualize the will of the people, are removed immediately and replaced.
3. Healthcare for all, at a rate that is conducive to their lifestyle. If you're at or below the poverty line, you're covered. Anyone above, married or single, you can choose government backed healthcare or private.
4. Foreign relations must be upheld and maintained in accordance with the sovereignty of the nation we are dealing with. No unilateral punitive measures are to be taken without at least a majority vote of the G7.
5. Education must be continuously improved and enhanced to face the challenges of the world, while also looking to the future of what humanity needs. STEaM and trades get equal coverage and pay must be at or above "middle class" status. For reference. Is there anything you would do different? The random quote (from someone I don't think anyone's ever mentioned prior?) ; + Show Spoiler + On July 22 2019 14:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:I'll start with a quote. Show nested quote +We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community. . was for reference, are you asking if I would do anything different than the quote or what? This isn't a promising start but I'll take the blame for that so far. I think it's important to stay focused so there's less room for miscommunication but yes I have disagreement s with the rest, my issues with 1 are minimal and I think we can clear them up so here goes: I mostly agree with 1. I've mentioned a lot about how I think that should happen referring to the scholars/activists/revolutionaries that articulated the ideas before me, namely, Freire as of late. He had both a literacy program and a political philosophy based around the concept of Critical consciousness, conscientization, or conscientização. Which, I take to mean the lifting of consciousness to a place where we recognize and act on our ability to make the world around us, not in some XMen kinda way, in a "being more fully human" and treating each other that way kinda way. The rub is how we make that happen (presuming you agree with Freire's conception of education).My position is that everything short of direct action is failing. I don't know if revolution is possible or probable or direct action will be enough, but I think the evidence demonstrates clearly that everything short of direct action is leading to certain climate catastrophe according to the best available information, even under the most optimistic scientific estimates. I don't mean to dodge the rest and if you want we'll get there, I just sincerely believe this makes the most sense as a starting point to establish good faith Okay. So. To answer your post. The quote is from Haile Selassie. I assume you've heard of him. He hasn't been mentioned but is still a good read. I agree with the raising consciousness of as many people as possible to where being critical of their surroundings is almost second nature. Where I find my issue is your second part. When you say direct action, I feel you're beingi intentionally misleading by not picking which arm of that you prefer. From what I gather, you prefer the violent direct action and not the nonviolent as you believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that has not worked and anything short of destroying the capitalist class through violence, is doomed from the outset. I've repeatedly argued in favor of non-violent direct action. To be clear once again. I prefer nonviolent direct action. What I've mentioned is that when workers decided they wanted weekends and less deadly working conditions the capitalist class beat, shot, and bombed them (to name a few). I'm not sure what you're suggesting those workers are to do when it happens again? My concern is that there's no reason to believe the capitalists won't/aren't doing again. For instance, in Brazil the president has vowed to destroy and purge that very type of education we agree is critically needed with the support of the US government. Like basically he said he wanted to burn the books. Show nested quote +He has also said he wanted to “enter the education ministry with a flamethrower to remove Paulo Freire”, one of Brazil’s most famous educators whose ideas have had worldwide influence.
Mr Bolsonaro and other conservatives have said Freire’s legacy in schools turns students into “political militants”. Conservatives believe the late socialist intellectual's teaching methods encourage students to challenge traditional values such as family and the church. www.independent.co.uk
We'll say you did, but with the views you hold on the outlook of anything meaningful happening as a result of it, you are now changing your stance to violent direct action if necessary. Correct?
Want to take a shot at the other points? Thank you for replying in good faith.
|
On July 23 2019 04:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 22:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 14:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 14:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 14:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 13:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 13:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Funny story, one of my first requests ever (iirc) of mods was to change it (slightly), never happened, so I guess that worked out.
Since I'm in "I'm here so I don't get fined mode" for a bit until I get some feedback from moderation, can we address some of your concerns, or at least give it a good faith effort?
Why are you asking? I got a slightly chilling PM from moderation. I've already given you permission to speak however you see fit that gets your ideas across. Moderation be damned Easy for you to say lol. if this gets a lot of confusion/frustration cleared up. Just bring the substance. And then, we can cook with Crisco. I desperately hope it does. So let's take into consideration IgnE's previous point. On July 22 2019 06:35 IgnE wrote:
Is this the trial of GreenHorizons? What is the point of this?
Maybe stop asking GH to do what libraries of books have been written to do, and maybe GH limit yourself to particular analyses rather than some vague call to revolution for people who’ve never read a socialist thinker in their life. Let's start carefully, and agree on a way to close this gap (presuming I've underestimated your familiarity with the subject matter and/or done a poor job communicating my position because of my misestimation it). Ask me a question that's narrow in scope that we can build from. You had a top 5 things you would do and I pointed out #1 has a lot in common with my perspective. I think that may be a good place to start. EDIT At your leisure, just request you afford me the same consideration. If you ever feel like I'm unreasonably dodging going forward, please try PM'ing me before going to the mods because as has been mentioned before my posting is being closely monitored and will not be granted the same leniencies as others as far as I understand (this isn't an objection to that, merely a statement). I'll start with a quote. We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community. I'll assume you mean titans of industry when you say "capitalist class" and therefore wish to strip them of their influence and power. I can agree to an extent. Now, how do you go about it and who is the recipient? How does that not get abused by the new? In keeping with the quote, do you "segregate" any class? How do you build that community that is onboard? Edit: this goes to point...3? Of my top 5? I didn't check before replying. Feel free to add it to one of create a new point. Why the random quote from someone I don't think has even been brought up here before? I think we should start with point 1 and try not to presume too much at once. If you insist you believe the disagreements around point 3 is the best place to start, you're in charge and that's what we'll do. Just let me know. 5 Point Plan To a Successful Revolution by Z2C
1. Immediate re-education of the society and climate that we live in, exposing children from middle school onward about the dangers of xenophobia, unchecked climate change and capitalism, as well as basic understanding of politics.
2. Term limits of congressmen/women who are there to serve the will of the collective people, and not just the wealthy donors who pay them. Those who abdicate responsibility or fail to actualize the will of the people, are removed immediately and replaced.
3. Healthcare for all, at a rate that is conducive to their lifestyle. If you're at or below the poverty line, you're covered. Anyone above, married or single, you can choose government backed healthcare or private.
4. Foreign relations must be upheld and maintained in accordance with the sovereignty of the nation we are dealing with. No unilateral punitive measures are to be taken without at least a majority vote of the G7.
5. Education must be continuously improved and enhanced to face the challenges of the world, while also looking to the future of what humanity needs. STEaM and trades get equal coverage and pay must be at or above "middle class" status. For reference. Is there anything you would do different? The random quote (from someone I don't think anyone's ever mentioned prior?) ; + Show Spoiler + On July 22 2019 14:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:I'll start with a quote. Show nested quote +We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community. . was for reference, are you asking if I would do anything different than the quote or what? This isn't a promising start but I'll take the blame for that so far. I think it's important to stay focused so there's less room for miscommunication but yes I have disagreement s with the rest, my issues with 1 are minimal and I think we can clear them up so here goes: I mostly agree with 1. I've mentioned a lot about how I think that should happen referring to the scholars/activists/revolutionaries that articulated the ideas before me, namely, Freire as of late. He had both a literacy program and a political philosophy based around the concept of Critical consciousness, conscientization, or conscientização. Which, I take to mean the lifting of consciousness to a place where we recognize and act on our ability to make the world around us, not in some XMen kinda way, in a "being more fully human" and treating each other that way kinda way. The rub is how we make that happen (presuming you agree with Freire's conception of education).My position is that everything short of direct action is failing. I don't know if revolution is possible or probable or direct action will be enough, but I think the evidence demonstrates clearly that everything short of direct action is leading to certain climate catastrophe according to the best available information, even under the most optimistic scientific estimates. I don't mean to dodge the rest and if you want we'll get there, I just sincerely believe this makes the most sense as a starting point to establish good faith Okay. So. To answer your post. The quote is from Haile Selassie. I assume you've heard of him. He hasn't been mentioned but is still a good read. I agree with the raising consciousness of as many people as possible to where being critical of their surroundings is almost second nature. Where I find my issue is your second part. When you say direct action, I feel you're beingi intentionally misleading by not picking which arm of that you prefer. From what I gather, you prefer the violent direct action and not the nonviolent as you believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that has not worked and anything short of destroying the capitalist class through violence, is doomed from the outset. I've repeatedly argued in favor of non-violent direct action. To be clear once again. I prefer nonviolent direct action. What I've mentioned is that when workers decided they wanted weekends and less deadly working conditions the capitalist class beat, shot, and bombed them (to name a few). I'm not sure what you're suggesting those workers are to do when it happens again? My concern is that there's no reason to believe the capitalists won't/aren't doing again. For instance, in Brazil the president has vowed to destroy and purge that very type of education we agree is critically needed with the support of the US government. Like basically he said he wanted to burn the books. He has also said he wanted to “enter the education ministry with a flamethrower to remove Paulo Freire”, one of Brazil’s most famous educators whose ideas have had worldwide influence.
Mr Bolsonaro and other conservatives have said Freire’s legacy in schools turns students into “political militants”. Conservatives believe the late socialist intellectual's teaching methods encourage students to challenge traditional values such as family and the church. www.independent.co.uk We'll say you did,
I have and did again just to be clear.
but with the views you hold on the outlook of anything meaningful happening as a result of it, you are now changing your stance to violent direct action if necessary. Correct?
Are you talking about the characterization (typically by the bourgeoisie) of those workers defending themselves as "violent direct action"? I don't know what you mean "changing [my] stance"?
Want to take a shot at the other points? Thank you for replying in good faith.
Once we've demonstrated we can work through this.
|
|
|
On July 23 2019 04:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 04:21 JimmiC wrote:
What has the "socialist class" done in countries when the people don't agree with the decisions made by those in control? I'm being forced to respond to you until a public statement is made otherwise. I don't know what you mean by "socialist class"? Also maybe if someone defines the "capitalist class" it will be easier to understand this. Are they just the general rich people? Business owners? A group of powerful people pulling the strings behind the scenes? Couple guys named Marx and Engels did that about 160 years ago. Here's a brief summary, with a more in depth explanation I suggest people should read (should read Marx himself too) before replacing "capitalist" with "socialist" in a term and presuming it has meaning. Each country has its own ruling class. In capitalist countries, the rulers own the means of production and employ workers. The capitalist class is also called the bourgeoisie. Means of production are what it takes to produce goods. Raw materials, satellite networks, machinery, ships and factories are examples. Workers own nothing but their ability to sell their labor for a wage.
Because they privately own the means of production, capitalists keep profits. They make higher profits by cutting workers’ wages and introducing new technology to speed up production. liberationschool.orgIf all you read is that small summary you'll continue to ask questions that have already been addressed. I'd be happy to explain what I meant by that right after you define "capitalist class". Including some examples of the people in it.
wut? I just gave that to you?
|
On July 23 2019 04:35 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 04:00 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 23 2019 01:00 Grumbels wrote:On July 23 2019 00:53 KwarK wrote:
It can be a conservative hit and still be an area where democrats can do better. If anything I welcome the attempts by conservatives to attack democrats who aren’t living up to the highest standards of public conduct. An active opposition is the lifeblood of democracy. Let them work hard to keep democrats honest and let democrats do the same to them. Yeah, I personally support the resignation. There's no real reason to be particularly concerned about the downfall of a replaceable Senator in order to make an important political point of supporting the #MeToo movement. The regret I have is that his case is cited among those trying to create a #MeToo backlash, accusing it of witch-hunting and having gone too far and so on. Tweeden seems to have lied about almost all of the important details. I think in the case of Al Franken he clearly behaved inappropriately, while also having the bad luck to be caught at the height of the #MeToo era. Had the case been brought forward at another time he would have probably gotten away with it. But such is politics. Turning him into a martyr would be a horrible mistake and only feed further backlash. Please cite to me what he did to deserve losing his senate seat (by this I mean describe the exact action for which he was persecuted)? Franken was not a replaceable senator, he was only one of a few that appeared to have any backbone in the party, which showed in his lines of questioning in congressional hearings. I haven't heard anything of his replacement which either means nobody cares about their voice or they aren't speaking up. By your logic Biden should then resign from office? Again, what would he have "gotten away with?" He's replaceable because he was literally replaced by a Democrat with very similar policies. The existence of one popular senator who is marred by a sexual misconduct scandal can be weighed against an anonymous replacement senator without scandal. Maybe one is better, maybe the other, but certainly it's not catastrophically worse. I think given the time and place it was admirable, if politically expedient, for the Democratic Party to sacrifice Franken in order to maintain its strong support of the #MeToo movement. That Franken himself personally suffered by any aspersions and misleading gossip is unfortunate, but unavoidable. He chose to resign and no politician should feel like they're irreplaceable. I also think Biden was replaceable and he should have been pressured to retire as a politician one or two years ago. It's possibly different now given the stakes of the Presidential election, but it's certainly not an ideal situation for the Democratic Party to have a frontrunner who is a creep. There might come a time where you'll wish he had resigned when he first had the chance when the GOP runs ad after ad of Biden groping underage girls. I do think there is a conversation to be had about the accessibility of Congress for people from different backgrounds. There is a strong preference in Congress for politicians educated in a select number of Ivy League universities who were part of well connected fraternities. These people are often well behaved and coached in saying the right things. But people from other backgrounds are often haunted by accusations of past misbehavior. I've seen a lot of examples of former radicals or activists who were criticized for their association with this or that movement, or working class candidates criticized for being slightly ill-at-ease in DC. In the case of Franken, most of his accusations came from his days as a traveling comedian who was cultivating an overbearing persona. But in many other cases it might be actors or athletes who have prominent national profiles and are inevitably haunted by scandals or some sort of misconduct. I don't think it's too much to ask for Congress not to be peopled by sex offenders, and of course this is a particularly sensitive topic these days. But there should be some leniency afforded to those with "rowdy" pasts who are new to the mores of civility demanded by the political and media establishment, because otherwise this risks filtering out anyone who was not molded by a Harvard education. Obvious examples of the latter are AOC and Ilhan Omar.
All democrats are not cut from the same cloth, just because someone puts a D in front of the name doesn't mean they will be effective in their jobs or represent the people. Two things which Franken did well. See AOC vs. Joe Crowley.
If you think Joe Biden should be force out of politics, then for what specifically (I'm not a Biden fan at all, but your logic seems like nothing more than opinion)?
You are also sloppy in your language, if Biden was "groping children" he would be prosecuted for it. I'm not sure what to call his actions in that regard (I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly), but I'm sure that phrase isn't the right one for it.
When people throw smearing phrases around like that, which don't accurately describe what is happening, I think it does do disservice/damage to that movement.
With Franken there was no investigation, and he was fed to his party for dinner, with everyone turning on him because they felt if they didn't goble him up, they couldn't do the same thing to trump and the republicans. In other words, if they let ANYONE democratic get away with ANYTHING like in appropriate touching, they would be called hypocrites for leveling similar accusations against republicans.
It was purely political.
Past that, in our systems of laws, discretion/discernment is an essential piece of holding someone accountable. This is why mandatory minimum sentences are largely BS and don't work. There are widely varying degrees of actions. For example, the differences between the actions leveled against someone like trump vs Franken. You could put them both in the category of sexual misconduct, but trump was actually accused of rape, Franken of his hand riding so low it touched someones ass (while the woman was standing right next to her husband), or the accusation was that he grabbed her ass (which to me doesn't make any sense).
Dems were essentially putting these two things in the same category, ironic that their own resigns and the other one laughs in their face for the next year. And from the eyes of the law, Franken's resignation would have had 0% impact on the prosecution of someone for rape, hence the politics of it all.
|
|
|
On July 23 2019 05:55 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 04:58 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 04:21 JimmiC wrote:
What has the "socialist class" done in countries when the people don't agree with the decisions made by those in control? I'm being forced to respond to you until a public statement is made otherwise. I don't know what you mean by "socialist class"? Also maybe if someone defines the "capitalist class" it will be easier to understand this. Are they just the general rich people? Business owners? A group of powerful people pulling the strings behind the scenes? Couple guys named Marx and Engels did that about 160 years ago. Here's a brief summary, with a more in depth explanation I suggest people should read (should read Marx himself too) before replacing "capitalist" with "socialist" in a term and presuming it has meaning. Each country has its own ruling class. In capitalist countries, the rulers own the means of production and employ workers. The capitalist class is also called the bourgeoisie. Means of production are what it takes to produce goods. Raw materials, satellite networks, machinery, ships and factories are examples. Workers own nothing but their ability to sell their labor for a wage.
Because they privately own the means of production, capitalists keep profits. They make higher profits by cutting workers’ wages and introducing new technology to speed up production. liberationschool.orgIf all you read is that small summary you'll continue to ask questions that have already been addressed. I'd be happy to explain what I meant by that right after you define "capitalist class". Including some examples of the people in it. wut? I just gave that to you? That is still quite vague no?
No idea what you've read/comprehended (from what I've just provided) and didn't at this point?
Like the guy in my town who owns a gift shop and has 3 employee's? Or because he doesn't produce anything he doesn't count? Or because he is not wealthy he doesn't count? Is there a cut off? (your article describes them as small capitalists.)
I'm trying to figure out if this is just the Gates of the world or whether it is every business owner that will need to be removed.
There are more in depth resources you should check out if you really want to learn about this stuff (happy to point you toward them), I'm not a professor. But so long as I'm being forced to do this...
Let's look at the answer provided already:
Owners of neighborhood markets and landlords are examples of small capitalists. If owners employ other people, they are capitalists-even if the people they employ are family members. If they don’t employ other people, they hope to. If an owner’s small business does not grow, it fails. The business is taken over by a larger one.
Is a manager in the work place a capitalist? Managers who supervise workers don’t usually own the company. They receive higher pay and better benefits than workers. They are not capitalists, but are paid to act in the interests of the capitalist bosses.
There are many different layers within the ruling class and the working class. There is also a huge middle class in the U.S. Yet, both the capitalist and working class have fewer layers within them than any other class in history. The wealth of the ruling class is constantly being concentrated in to fewer hands. Capitalism is always pushing more people into the working class. The working class is becoming poorer and larger.
I'd say they are a member of/adjacent to white club, a capitalist, and not in the same layer of the capitalist class as Gates.
The individual power they possess is minimal relative to the strata of the capitalist class occupied by the likes of Bezos and Gates. Yes the power derived from white club and their membership in the capitalist class must be removed for a successful society to sustain in my view.
Also, where would you categorize workers who do not wish to be part of the socialist revolution? Are they part of the capital class because they support it or are they still workers? What is the consequences for them for not agreeing?
Again, there's a bunch of literature on this I advise people look at to see what they think make sense themselves. Again let's look at the answer provided:
The ruling class uses the military to protect their private property and oppress workers.
But what class is the military? There are different classes in the military. Generals often come from the ruling class. The majority of soldiers come from the working class, so their loyalty to the ruling class is never a sure bet. Many workers have no way to survive other than taking a job with the military. Due to racism the poorest workers are disproportionately Black, Latino, Asian, Arab and Native American. This is reflected in the military.
The ruling class uses racism to keep the workers divided. They use laws and prisons, schools and the corporate media to spread racism. Fighting racism is integral to fighting capitalism.
In this example it's the military and racism but the same general concepts apply to other gray areas.
If we return to z2c and my discussion on this topic, it's our step one that is meant to address this conflict. In the answer I provided you it's articulated as:
their loyalty to the ruling class is never a sure bet.
Edit: also if you hold stock are you considered a owner? What if the company pays a portion of the salary in stock options?
This line of questioning is of little value imo but it's respond to you or get banned as best I understand it at this point.
Worker ownership is a thing that's been discussed at length before so I don't even know what you're trying to ask here?
Capitalism and Socialism at their core are organizing principles of ownership?
|
|
|
On July 23 2019 06:42 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 05:55 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 04:58 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 04:21 JimmiC wrote:
What has the "socialist class" done in countries when the people don't agree with the decisions made by those in control? I'm being forced to respond to you until a public statement is made otherwise. I don't know what you mean by "socialist class"? Also maybe if someone defines the "capitalist class" it will be easier to understand this. Are they just the general rich people? Business owners? A group of powerful people pulling the strings behind the scenes? Couple guys named Marx and Engels did that about 160 years ago. Here's a brief summary, with a more in depth explanation I suggest people should read (should read Marx himself too) before replacing "capitalist" with "socialist" in a term and presuming it has meaning. Each country has its own ruling class. In capitalist countries, the rulers own the means of production and employ workers. The capitalist class is also called the bourgeoisie. Means of production are what it takes to produce goods. Raw materials, satellite networks, machinery, ships and factories are examples. Workers own nothing but their ability to sell their labor for a wage.
Because they privately own the means of production, capitalists keep profits. They make higher profits by cutting workers’ wages and introducing new technology to speed up production. liberationschool.orgIf all you read is that small summary you'll continue to ask questions that have already been addressed. I'd be happy to explain what I meant by that right after you define "capitalist class". Including some examples of the people in it. wut? I just gave that to you? That is still quite vague no? No idea what you've read/comprehended (from what I've just provided) and didn't at this point? Like the guy in my town who owns a gift shop and has 3 employee's? Or because he doesn't produce anything he doesn't count? Or because he is not wealthy he doesn't count? Is there a cut off? (your article describes them as small capitalists.)
I'm trying to figure out if this is just the Gates of the world or whether it is every business owner that will need to be removed. There are more in depth resources you should check out if you really want to learn about this stuff (happy to point you toward them), I'm not a professor. But so long as I'm being forced to do this... Let's look at the answer provided already: Owners of neighborhood markets and landlords are examples of small capitalists. If owners employ other people, they are capitalists-even if the people they employ are family members. If they don’t employ other people, they hope to. If an owner’s small business does not grow, it fails. The business is taken over by a larger one.
Is a manager in the work place a capitalist? Managers who supervise workers don’t usually own the company. They receive higher pay and better benefits than workers. They are not capitalists, but are paid to act in the interests of the capitalist bosses.
There are many different layers within the ruling class and the working class. There is also a huge middle class in the U.S. Yet, both the capitalist and working class have fewer layers within them than any other class in history. The wealth of the ruling class is constantly being concentrated in to fewer hands. Capitalism is always pushing more people into the working class. The working class is becoming poorer and larger. I'd say they are a member of/adjacent to white club, a capitalist, and not in the same layer of the capitalist class as Gates. The individual power they possess is minimal relative to the strata of the capitalist class occupied by the likes of Bezos and Gates. Yes the power derived from white club and their membership in the capitalist class must be removed for a successful society to sustain in my view. Also, where would you categorize workers who do not wish to be part of the socialist revolution? Are they part of the capital class because they support it or are they still workers? What is the consequences for them for not agreeing? Again, there's a bunch of literature on this I advise people look at to see what they think make sense themselves. Again let's look at the answer provided: The ruling class uses the military to protect their private property and oppress workers. But what class is the military? There are different classes in the military. Generals often come from the ruling class. The majority of soldiers come from the working class, so their loyalty to the ruling class is never a sure bet. Many workers have no way to survive other than taking a job with the military. Due to racism the poorest workers are disproportionately Black, Latino, Asian, Arab and Native American. This is reflected in the military.
The ruling class uses racism to keep the workers divided. They use laws and prisons, schools and the corporate media to spread racism. Fighting racism is integral to fighting capitalism. In this example it's the military and racism but the same general concepts apply to other gray areas. If we return to z2c and my discussion on this topic, it's our step one that is meant to address this conflict. In the answer I provided you it's articulated as: their loyalty to the ruling class is never a sure bet. Edit: also if you hold stock are you considered a owner? What if the company pays a portion of the salary in stock options? This line of questioning is of little value imo but it's respond to you or get banned as best I understand it at this point. Worker ownership is a thing that's been discussed at length before so I don't even know what you're trying to ask here? Capitalism and Socialism at their core are organizing principles of ownership? No I understand the theory, and it is very odd that you keep telling me to go read things. I am fully capable of doing that myself. What I'm interested in is your interpenetration. I find it very strange that you are so protective of it. I'm asking what these things mean to you.
I haven't seen you demonstrate the type of understanding you're claiming which is why I find this process frustrating. I'm not protective of it, it's just if you had a familiarity with the theory I would have to explain much less of it in layman terms for someone I don't believe is entering dialogue in good faith.
I'm a person who is interested in both the practical and the theoretical. You seem fairly well versed in the the theoretical but completely unwilling to address the practical applications of your theory. This is also why I and so many others have asked things like your work history and education to try to better understand where you are coming from.
I don't know how you can claim to have familiarity with the theory and then make this assertion. I've discussed my jobs before but I've had many. Ranging from labor ready type shit to selling real estate. As a matter of basic self-preservation and personal security it's not in my interest to provide more detailed information than that.
If you don't want to discuss the practical part that is fine
I'm fine discussing it? I'd rather not with you for reasons I mentioned. But I want to be able to engage with everyone else, so here we are.
but then I would suggest stop bringing up the revolution or solving climate change.
No, and I'd appreciate if you stop telling me what to do.
It is like you keep putting the teaser out of a amazing solution but than are unwilling to discuss how it actually would work.
You gotta watch the movie if you want to know how it ends bro. In all seriousness it both our jobs (as well as everyone else) to answer that question (to the degree that we can predict the future).
Also, I'm sure you wouldn't get banned for not responding to me. You probably just miss read and are being over dramatic.
I've asked for clarification from the person that gave me that impression and you're free to ask in feedback as well for that clarification rather than accuse me of being dramatic and having "miss read" it.
I mean I don't care if you don't respond to me
I'm perfectly content to go back to ignoring you (more or less), but I need your help clearing that up with moderation.
I'm a believer in choice and free will, I'm sure they don't. But they are probably not big fans of your passive aggressive responses where you are responding to me clearly but don't say my name or loosely veil it.
Occasionally you raise arguments that are popularly believed or expressed and should be addressed, there's just little value in engaging with you directly from my experience/imo.
And while your paying attention.
?
I'm not sure why you are so confused on my position regarding South America.
I'm not?
I don't support right wing Authoritarians anymore than I support Maduro. Posting about them is no dig to me, and I'm well aware that the US supports some dictatorships and not others and that their motives are not altruistic.
I don't think you recognize the defining features of the delineations between the ones they support and the ones they don't. Or if you recognize them, you don't appreciate their significance. I'm referencing their subservience to US interests.
But that does not mean I automatically am against everything that they do. Sometimes they do the right thing, even if it may be for the wrong reasons.
Okay?
On Israel, feel free to clarify because people have been saying I have your position wrong.
you do.
But I believe it to be "go back to their own countries" or be destroyed.
That's a poor interpretation as several people have told you.
And considering we both know they are not leaving this means you would like to see them destroyed.
Again a poor interpretation as you've been told several times by several people.
I find it odd that you find it so offensive when people in America tell people to go back to their own countries
I don't find it offensive when indigenous people do?
, but you do not see the parallel.
It's a preposterous one?
I'm pretty sure someone would be banned if they told a group (religion, race nationality or whatever) to go back to their countries or be destroyed.
Maybe? But you're the only one saying that, soo... I guess we'll see?
And I'm also talking about telling the white people from white club to go back to their countries as well.
Why?
As a general rule I think if you added a lot more of the "how" your preferred policies would be implemented instead of just sticking to the theoretical "why's". You would have a much more well rounded approach.
Thanks for the tip?
It would either further your belief as you would feel like it is much more obtainable or it might alter your belief as you find out why things happen the way they do now. And perhaps even better, how things that failed before, or at least didn't succeed completely can be done better.
Thanks for the advice?
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 23 2019 02:44 KwarK wrote:
I wasn’t aware Al Franken had been executed. Which channel was it broadcast on?
Politicians' careers are disposable in a democracy. That’s the whole point. That’s how it works. If they stop being disposable at the will of the electorate then that’s called dictatorship.
A) You're not talking about a democracy. You're talking about a republic.
B) Politicians' careers are not disposable in a representative democracy. Terms are limited, but the players are usually committed to it as a lifelong profession and that's not including the entrenched bureaucracy. Don't be deliberately glib.
C) The electorate didn't get rid of him. The pressure for expulsion came from within the Democratic party, who were understandably unnerved at the prospect of entertaining a harassment scandal during a low point in their fortunes. There was no ethics committee hearing, no further investigation to vet the claims. The New Yorker article discusses the minutiae in detail.
D) Franklin is now radioactive regardless of whether he is actually guilty of the charges. He will never have a public career again. This is also true of people accused of sexual harassment in other fields whether or not the claims were fair. The stigma alone can ruin their careers and relationships.
On July 23 2019 02:46 NewSunshine wrote:
Except holding public servants to basic moral standards isn't saying their lives are disposable. It's saying we won't put up with that kind of behavior.
I feel like some folks forget that we employ these people.
I feel like some folks are massive hypocrites for eliding due process and using a lack of propriety as a moral soapbox. This sanctimonious attitude is especially egregious when it's conspicuously absent in actual life-or-death matters backed by Democrats. Where was this justified outrage when Obama massively expanded the drone program during his administration, which ended up killing hundreds of innocent civilians without accountability or transparency? Does anyone remember the humanitarian crisis that consumed Libya after the U.S. covertly supported the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow Gaddafi? I don't remember the electorate screaming for Clinton's resignation as Secretary of State.
Or is it this another tedious example of near-group offense trumping out-group suffering?
On July 23 2019 02:54 Gorsameth wrote:
Ehm, then they shouldn't have become a politician, who's whole point is that someone else (the people) decides on their career.
Do you seriously believe the people decide the course of a politician's career? In-group bargaining and alliances decide most of it before the voting even begins. Most of the listlessness surrounding the youth vote is how they believe politicians aren't representing the will of the electorate.
|
On July 23 2019 07:17 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Do you seriously believe the people decide the course of a politician's career? In-group bargaining and alliances decide most of it before the voting even begins. Most of the listlessness surrounding the youth vote is how they believe politicians aren't representing the will of the electorate.
That's why a certain 4 US representatives are so important.
|
|
|
This whole ordeal about Puerto Rico miss-managing relief funds is pretty spicy atm. We all bashed Trump over attacking the governor for being a corrupt shitbag misusing funds. Now it turns out it was all true and people are protesting. Yikes
|
United States41984 Posts
On July 23 2019 07:59 Mohdoo wrote:
This whole ordeal about Puerto Rico miss-managing relief funds is pretty spicy atm. We all bashed Trump over attacking the governor for being a corrupt shitbag misusing funds. Now it turns out it was all true and people are protesting. Yikes
Trump didn’t attack the governor. Trump attacked the mayor of San Juan, a strong critic of the corrupt governor, and praised the governor. I’m not sure where you get your news from but it seems to be heavily curated in Trump’s favour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
