|
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 |
United States44270 Posts
On October 08 2019 18:33 Simberto wrote:
There really isn't any difference, except for the name. (If we are talking about an absolute monarchy, and not something like GB nowadays, where the monarchy is basically a figurehead)
The only thing that makes a monarchy sound better is the nostalgia of a lot of time having passed since real powerful monarchies existed.
Yes and no. Nerds have a tendency to get really into the rules of monarchy and succession and put people into lines and so forth but monarchy was, in practice, way more shady than that. The legal heir became the next monarch less often than not. Obviously monarchy didn’t represent the interests of the people but it’s wrong to class it as autocracy because it was propped up by the nobility and there was a lot of kingmaking going on. And kingunmaking. That doesn’t fit with our idea of how monarchy should work, as nerds, but the world is messy and monarchy is intrinsically illegitimate (or rather self legitimizing) so the rules don’t need to be followed.
|
From what I have learned, a lot of the “rules” of both monarchy and feudalism were more ex post facto justifications rather than live guidelines. There’s an author named Bullock, can’t remember her first name, who did some really good research to support her hypothesis that feudalism was not really a thing in its time and was instead a historiographical framework for understanding what happened.
|
So the White House forbade the EU ambassador to testify in the impeachment enquiry. Doesn't look at all like they have stuff to hide.
|
One thing I want to emphasize is that while I’m casting some skepticism on democracy, I’m certainly not suggesting a dictatorship would be a preferable system, as that could lead to centralized tyranny. However, we’ve also seen that democracy has resulted in “rule of the mob”, and subsequent “decentralized tyranny”.
I wonder if given the data collection capabilities today, a society could create a constitution based on achieving certain KPIs (GDP per capita, HDI, health / life expectancy, crime rates), and assign experts to set policy to meet these targets. If they fail to do so (repeatedly), they are replaced. Of course, I know it won’t be a flawless system (as KPIs can be gamed and create perverse incentives), but it could be interesting.
|
On October 08 2019 23:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So the White House forbade the EU ambassador to testify in the impeachment enquiry. Doesn't look at all like they have stuff to hide.
For reference, this particular ambassador is the one whose text messages looked best for Trump-specifically the one who said "no quid pro quo" the day after the administration learned of the whistleblower, and the one who desperately wanted to move the conversation away from texts there would be records of at all costs. The fact that he wasn't allowed to testify is...interesting, and I wonder if it was a consequence of the blanket ban on testimony or they really believe he would be damaging even behind closed doors.
|
|
|
On October 08 2019 17:18 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2019 16:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 08 2019 14:29 evilfatsh1t wrote:
democracy has never made much sense in my opinion. i dont think anyone would be deluded enough to think that democracy is the perfect system. the flaws of democracy have been around since forever, its only becoming more evident now because the "masses" are no longer getting their information from one source.
youre quite right that most people in any given democracy dont have the education or the wisdom to make a reasonable call on what policies should be implemented and who should be elected to represent them. unfortunately any debate about changing the political system always includes a discussion about human rights, and democracy is the best answer to that. the only solution therefore to making sure democracy at least does its job is to make sure your population is as well educated as possible, but that is a pretty damn tall order to begin with.
this statement is probably going to be pretty controversial but im of the opinion a dictatorship is the ideal system over democracy. the only problem with a dictatorship is youre never gonna find that perfect leader who does everything right for your country and its people. youre looking for the kind of person that can only exist in fairy tales or in movies like the dark knight. not only that, but now people generally arent as submissive to authority and order as they were back in the days. My mother grew up in a dictatorship. So I heard all about how much fun it is when there is no separation of power, no rule of law and no freedom of speech. When decisions are only taken in the interest of the ones in power, when you can get arrested, tortured and killed when you say something that the power dislikes. The problem with dictatorship is not that it's hard to find a really good dictator, it that it's a dictatorship. It's a system built on force without legitimacy with nothing to stop power abuse. Democracy is not just a way to chose a leader it's a way to ensure the state serve the citizens and not the other way round. And it works amazingly well. Which is why Canada, Norway, Australia, Germany and other functional democracies are probably the best and fairest place to live not only today but in human history. The only problem with democracy is that it's fragile and requires its citizens to defend it. If our generation starts to say that it sucks and dictatorship is better, it won't last long. So your statement is not controversial, it's false and dangerous. Did you edit your post? Anyway, I just wanted to point out that SK and Spain prospered economically under dictatorships.
this was basically the reason why i said a dictatorship is "ideal". im not for one second inferring that we should replicate the dictatorships that are found throughout our history. a dictatorship that could actually work would only exist in a utopian society like someone pointed out. the issue with democracy is that for all its advantages to control "power", it is still a system that is a representation of the common people, and if the common people dont know wtf theyre doing then the country is fucked. this was the point that was brought up by the op in relation to this topic.
on the contrary you look at south korea. park chung hee was widely known to be a dictator that repeatedly infringed on human rights. yet his daughter park geun hye was elected president years ago on the sole basis that she was the daughter of the man who was directly responsible for making the country an economic powerhouse in the span of a few decades, from what was literally a shithole comparable to the poorest south east asian countries. the older generations of korea voted heavily in favour of park geun hye because for all the shit her father did, they appreciated that the country was better off after it. this is kinda what i referred to with my dark knight reference. i hardly doubt that park chung hee violated human rights just for shits and giggles and because he got a hard on every time he exerted his power over people. if we assume that he did what he thought was necessary to build up a country, then you can questions his methods all you want but you cant deny the results.
a dictator theoretically allows for a better person to make the necessary order despite popular yet incorrect opinions. this aspect shouldnt be undervalued in todays society imo. the very fact that trump was elected president, or that brexit commenced proceedings by a vote difference of approx 4%? are clear examples of where democracy fails.
in my opinion the idea that the government should be looking to satisfy and fulfill the wishes of every single citizen is not only ludicrous, but dangerous. at some point someone has to take control, draw a line and say "for the good of the country, some people are going to have to make a sacrifice". it might seem cynical and maybe even uncivilised but thats life.
the biggest question would be who could be qualified for such a job in any country; someone whos well educated enough to know whats needed, ruthless enough to act on it, and has the mental fortitude to perservere even when all the "victims" of his actions go against him. id compare the role to be not that different to a ceo of a private company. one guy who makes all the final decisions and has the highest authority, but uses his employees as required. just because he has authority and power doesnt mean he has to overrule everything. finding someone to do it on a large scale like a country is the impossible part.
|
On October 08 2019 23:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2019 23:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So the White House forbade the EU ambassador to testify in the impeachment enquiry. Doesn't look at all like they have stuff to hide. For reference, this particular ambassador is the one whose text messages looked best for Trump-specifically the one who said "no quid pro quo" the day after the administration learned of the whistleblower, and the one who desperately wanted to move the conversation away from texts there would be records of at all costs. The fact that he wasn't allowed to testify is...interesting, and I wonder if it was a consequence of the blanket ban on testimony or they really believe he would be damaging even behind closed doors. Does the House have any real ability to get around the President 'banning' testimony?
Can they hold people in contempt and jail them until they agree to be heard?
|
On October 08 2019 23:11 Bagration wrote:
One thing I want to emphasize is that while I’m casting some skepticism on democracy, I’m certainly not suggesting a dictatorship would be a preferable system, as that could lead to centralized tyranny. However, we’ve also seen that democracy has resulted in “rule of the mob”, and subsequent “decentralized tyranny”.
I wonder if given the data collection capabilities today, a society could create a constitution based on achieving certain KPIs (GDP per capita, HDI, health / life expectancy, crime rates), and assign experts to set policy to meet these targets. If they fail to do so (repeatedly), they are replaced. Of course, I know it won’t be a flawless system (as KPIs can be gamed and create perverse incentives), but it could be interesting.
Yeah and who choses what the goals are, and then who choses the experts?
There are no "optimal" goals. Take inequalities. I like it scandinavian way. Some prefer bigger inequality gap. Here, already, you have a problem. Also, I want even someone who doesn't work and doesn't look for work to have a minimum income to live with and his cancer treated with tax money, no matter how lazy and useless he is. Some people don't. That's why we have elections and platforms. Because we don't all share the same worldview. And therefore not the same goals.
And then, who choses the experts? Cause you know, if you take, for example, economists, well, you have right wings and left wing economists; economics is not a perfect science and is rooted in moral and political problems. So, hey, I'd like Krugman to be the expert on economy. And Piketty. I think some people won't be happy with that though. So what do we do?
It's not "a bit flawed", it totally misses the point; and it's not interesting, it's just a one way ticket to tyranny under the pretense of technocracy.
|
This Chinese stuff with Blizzard and the NBA is extremely spooky. I am wildly uncomfortable with it and it needs to boil over. There needs to be a massive response to this. The CCP can NOT be allowed to have this level of influence.
|
Schiff will count not allowing people to testify as obstruction of justice
|
On October 09 2019 00:44 Mohdoo wrote:
This Chinese stuff with Blizzard and the NBA is extremely spooky. I am wildly uncomfortable with it and it needs to boil over. There needs to be a massive response to this. The CCP can NOT be allowed to have this level of influence.
For a long time everyone assumed Western capitalism would overwhelm Chinese restrictions on free speech, when it turns out Chinese restrictions on free speech are using capitalism to silence speech everywhere; from the NBA’s bowing and scraping, to this Blizzard BS, to TikTok's censoring of "sensitive" subjects. It’s only going to get worse.
|
On October 09 2019 00:45 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Schiff will count not allowing people to testify as obstruction of justice
But will they subpoena the people he's disallowing from testifying? What legal protections are created by a president saying no? Is there anything actually keeping them from testifying, or is it just that Trump said so?
|
On October 09 2019 00:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2019 23:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 08 2019 23:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So the White House forbade the EU ambassador to testify in the impeachment enquiry. Doesn't look at all like they have stuff to hide. For reference, this particular ambassador is the one whose text messages looked best for Trump-specifically the one who said "no quid pro quo" the day after the administration learned of the whistleblower, and the one who desperately wanted to move the conversation away from texts there would be records of at all costs. The fact that he wasn't allowed to testify is...interesting, and I wonder if it was a consequence of the blanket ban on testimony or they really believe he would be damaging even behind closed doors. Does the House have any real ability to get around the President 'banning' testimony? Can they hold people in contempt and jail them until they agree to be heard?
We will see what will happen when subpoenas start being defied (this testimony wasn't subpoenaed, he volunteered to testify before State commanded all their employees not to). As of now it's not the people refusing to testify's fault, so they shouldn't be held in contempt at all, and I don't think there's any real grounds for calling State's decision illegal (just unreasonable and outside political norms, but that's kind of standard operating procedure these days).
Sondland is going to be subpoena'd ASAP, so we'll see what happens. In a twist that should shock no one Trump quoted his message about no quid pro quo that was sent after the whistleblower report and called it a tweet because he's a dumb-dumb.
|
On October 09 2019 00:44 Mohdoo wrote:
This Chinese stuff with Blizzard and the NBA is extremely spooky. I am wildly uncomfortable with it and it needs to boil over. There needs to be a massive response to this. The CCP can NOT be allowed to have this level of influence.
I would be tempted to say that it's the problem with dictatorships, but the point has been made.
The only thing to do is for citizens in the west to punish harder apologies like the one from the NBA than anything China threatens to do in the first place. It's our job as citizens to incentivize companies to not bow down to stuff like that.
|
|
|
Huge weakness of capitalism being showcased. The Chinese market is so gigantic that every single company will make the same choice if they are put in the same situation. This needs to be addressed somehow. So long as companies are offered the prospect of more than doubling their revenue, they are going to drool over it and do anything to get it.
The US needs to impose some sort of regulations around something specifically described as "violating human rights by appeasing foreign governments". Make it a new law. Laws are man-made and we are seeing a clear need.
|
Norway decided a while back that no fuck would be given when the nobel peace prize was awarded to Liu Xiaobo and the relationship between the two countries basically stopped for six years. Then again, it's easy to be virtuous when you are small, at the opposite side of the globe and drowning in oil money.
That being said, if the US really took a stance, there is not much China could do; they need the US as much as the US need them.
|
The Chinese have a right to say that their inner politics aren't anyone's concern. They never complained about other democracies either. After helping the US grow for decades by financing their deficit, here comes Trump when that effect isn't as huge as it used to be and growth starts slowing down globally and stabs them in the back.
I wouldn't want to live in China, but neither meddle in their affairs or just drop them and attack them when they've run out of usefulness.
I don't think Trump is evil, I just think he could probably have achieved what needed to be achieved more diplomatically. He had a point, but that was just the Chinese being better at competing over the years with mutual support at the expense of Russia.
While I was a bit more understanding of what he was doing initially, the longer this drags on the more the USA loses face and gets a rep for being unreliable.
|
stuff like this always makes me wonder just how much it will take for skeptics to realize there is a cabal that decides everything that happens, or if they will just never believe it
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
