EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1727
| 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 | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24752 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
to Introvert #34513 | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35165 Posts
On July 31 2019 23:27 JimmiC wrote: I think the for profit has to be taken out of it. With the US prisons they have those sorts of rules so they just try to cram as many people in as possible as cheap as possible. Now I get with uni's there is more competition so that should help. But I think a lot will just become diploma factories that don't give a ton of value. I think mandatory type things like school, prisons, residential waste hauling, landfills, power, healthcare, so on should all be publicly owned and operated. Reminds me about that story that get reposted often on r/latestagecapitalism about a for profit prison that threatened to close down if its beds weren't filled. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4884 Posts
On August 01 2019 05:26 micronesia wrote: I think the confusion was that it seemed like you were going a step further than you were. You weren't saying the quote from Reagan by itself is no big deal. You are just saying it alone does not significantly detract from Reagan's legacy, and as such Reagan's supporters can continue to point to his policies and successes while simply acknowledging that that one comment was completely unacceptable. Personally, I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, you can't really judge someone by the dumbest thing they ever said. When Obama was early in his first term, he made an inappropriate "Special Olympics" comment on Leno, even by 2009 standards: I'm not going to claim Obama's legacy is ruined by that comment. Certainly, it reflected an imperfect man who had much to learn, and I think he's taken the lesson to heart since then. Compare that to referring to formal representatives of Africa as "monkeys". In principle, the same rules apply where someone can and should learn to change their ways. Perhaps folks brought the issue up with Reagan, and he realized why what he said was wrong, and how it reflected a very poor mindset. That could possibly explain why we didn't see repeat behavior. However, these two situations are just on different levels. One statement reveals a person who didn't realize he was being unnecessarily insulting due to being privileged and insensitive, another reveals a person who knows damn well he's saying something horribly racist and doesn't care. It's much harder to come back from the second, but I'll admit it's possible. Given Reagan's professional history prior to politics, it's not really that surprising to me he could cover up character flaws... he never necessarily recovered from this one. Well this was a private conversation (presumably one that was assumed would never be heard, and wasnt for 50 years), so it's not really like there was an opportunity for any of that other stuff. We don't know anything more about this really. What we can look at, and what I do look at, is the totality of his public life, and in particular his presidency. Look back at the article. The author uses this whole story as a way to bash Trump, who I dont think has ever said anything like this. To the contrary, for years people have been throwing Reagan back at Trump. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24752 Posts
On August 01 2019 08:28 Introvert wrote: Agreed, but this doesn't really help the case that Reagan was a good guy. In fact, what people say in private is more revealing of what they really think than the vetted speeches they give, and the like.Well this was a private conversation (presumably one that was assumed would never be heard, and wasnt for 50 years), so it's not really like there was an opportunity for any of that other stuff. We don't know anything more about this really. What we can look at, and what I do look at, is the totality of his public life, and in particular his presidency. I think, what is missing from your statement here, is that we look at his presidency when judging the success of his presidency. We look at his presidency, the totality of his public life, and everything else available when determining what type of person he was. Your general detachment of what type of person he was from the type of president he was is, in my opinion valid, but if we could go back to when he was elected, the type of person he was, if revealed sooner, still strongly influences electability. However, the 2016 election showed that there are limits... hot mics of candidates bragging about grabbing women "by the pussy" does not make them truly unelectable.Look back at the article. The author uses this whole story as a way to bash Trump, who I dont think has ever said anything like this. To the contrary, for years people have been throwing Reagan back at Trump. No comment. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4884 Posts
On August 01 2019 09:27 micronesia wrote: Agreed, but this doesn't really help the case that Reagan was a good guy. In fact, what people say in private is more revealing of what they really think than the vetted speeches they give, and the like. I think, what is missing from your statement here, is that we look at his presidency when judging the success of his presidency. We look at his presidency, the totality of his public life, and everything else available when determining what type of person he was. Your general detachment of what type of person he was from the type of president he was is, in my opinion valid, but if we could go back to when he was elected, the type of person he was, if revealed sooner, still strongly influences electability. However, the 2016 election showed that there are limits... hot mics of candidates bragging about grabbing women "by the pussy" does not make them truly unelectable. No comment. maybe it's because I'm also listening to the debate, but I might be reading you wrong. I'm arguing that this one event is, when viewed with everything else you mentioned, is bad but not determinative. I think we agree (for the most part) on criteria but maybe not in conclusion. Moreover, given the ideological component of the cold war, moral leadership in a president is important. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On August 01 2019 09:55 Introvert wrote: maybe it's because I'm also listening to the debate, but I might be reading you wrong. I'm arguing that this one event is, when viewed with everything else you mentioned, is bad but not determinative. I think we agree (for the most part) on criteria but maybe not in conclusion. Moreover, given the ideological component of the cold war, moral leadership in a president is important. The failed war on drugs and mass incarceration certainly seems to correlate with the private quote. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9019 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35165 Posts
https://pix11.com/2019/07/31/u-s-citizen-from-queens-who-was-held-by-ice-for-2-years-speaks-out/amp/ | ||
|
Introvert
United States4884 Posts
On August 01 2019 10:00 Doodsmack wrote: The failed war on drugs and mass incarceration certainly seems to correlate with the private quote. taht goes back to policy as I mentioned earlier. Needless to say I think that's absurd. On August 01 2019 10:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: And you can't really give him "moral leadership" either. In the Cold War? Absolutely. I think in other ways as well. But those both move into policy. I should prob stop now, as Reagan is a...controversial subject now, seeing how he's hated by the left. My short conversation with micro I think sums up my thoughts on this matter. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4884 Posts
Biden helped himself, although he still seems like he's struggling to actually do what he's trying to do. I still think his strategy is correct. Amazing that in 2019 Biden is a "moderate." but not wanting to take away everyone's private healthcare and wanting to keep illegal immigration illegal is all you need nowadays. Harris always sounds like she's lying to you with false empathy and comes off as power-hungry, both in her demeanor and her proposals. Tulsi and yang did well for themselves, and Gillibrand and de Blasio are awful. New York, please come take your politicians. Rest were zzzzzzzzzzzz edit: also special shout to the hour one "Republican talking points" line, for use whenever someone asks you a hard question. I think Booker even used it when questioned about something an Obama official said, lol. And special shutout to Obama, who was simultaneously a great president and a really sucky one, by tonight's reckoning. | ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
| ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
I also really liked Yang's closing statement. But obviously I'm biased. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On August 01 2019 11:27 IgnE wrote: It is a bit ironic that a guy who appears to have been, on the whole, less racist than his peers of whatever political party, is now being targeted for heinous remarks in a private conversation in 1971, largely because of his political significance in a deepening political schism. He put a goodly portion of the black population in prison so this question of whether he was less racist is not exactly clear. | ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
On August 01 2019 11:53 Introvert wrote: Back to almost meaningless debate stuff (I think this is more like trying to suss out how things will go then actually having an effect on how things will go, if that makes sense): Biden helped himself, although he still seems like he's struggling to actually do what he's trying to do. I still think his strategy is correct. Amazing that in 2019 Biden is a "moderate." but not wanting to take away everyone's private healthcare and wanting to keep illegal immigration illegal is all you need nowadays. I think Biden got massacred. He looked so old, said so much stupid stuff (2 big mistakes in his closing statement alone - "we can't handle 8 more years of Trump" and "go to Joe 3 0 ...3, 3 0 and .... It's not a site, he was trying to ask people to text Joe to 30330 to sign up for his propaganda.) The whole "abolish private healthcare" is just another stupid purity test from the left. It's funny, I think you and I have the same reaction, but for very different reasons; I think that most of the candidates running talk a big game re:healthcare, but aren't actually gonna do anything and have no real intention to. Joe is just one of the many who won't actually do anything. Harris always sounds like she's lying to you with false empathy and comes off as power-hungry, both in her demeanor and her proposals. Tulsi and yang did well for themselves, and Gillibrand and de Blasio are awful. New York, please come take your politicians. Agree completely. Yang got the least time, but I think he used it pretty well. His answers weren't perfect, but were pretty good I think. Hopefully they resonated. Tulsi is just so wholesome, I love her. edit: also special shout to the hour one "Republican talking points" line, for use whenever someone asks you a hard question. I think Booker even used it when questioned about something an Obama official said, lol. And special shutout to Obama, who was simultaneously a great president and a really sucky one, by tonight's reckoning. You know how a lot of the left calls republicans racist to smear/disqualify them rather than addressing substance? "Republican talking points" is the left vs left version of that. It's a sure-fire way to lose to Trump - by not actually offering anything to help the American people, and instead going ad hominem. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
| ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
On August 01 2019 12:40 Dromar wrote: I can't believe in 3 hours they barely talked about the economy Because unemployment is at an all time low. Anyone who owns any equity (in 401k or elsewhere) has been killing it since 2008/2009. I don't think its a winning point for the democrats at to go after Trump on that even if it's carry over from Obama. | ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
On August 01 2019 14:05 CorsairHero wrote: Because unemployment is at an all time low. Anyone who owns any equity (in 401k or elsewhere) has been killing it since 2008/2009. I don't think its a winning point for the democrats at to go after Trump on that even if it's carry over from Obama. People who own equity is like, less than 20% of Americans. And of those, most own a pittance compared to the big players. Meanwhile more than half of Americans can't afford a $500 expense. I would argue that ideas like free college and medicare for all are gaining traction partly because the economy is NOT working for most Americans. The unemployment rate is a lie meant to convince people that everything is fine when it's not. It doesn't include people who are out of the workforce on disability, or people who are underemployed (having a degree doing non-degree work, or having only a part-time job). The economy is a topic that resonates with voters. That's one of the reasons Trump won in 2016. | ||
| ||
