|
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 October 09 2019 02:24 Gorsameth wrote:
To bring this a bit back on topic of US politics, what is the chance Trump jumps on this to appeal to gamers by saying he is trying to fight China?
Pretty sure the reporting that he personally promised the US government would stay silent on Hong Kong during the trade talks in a call is reliable, so going back on that would be unfathomably dumb (admittedly, any world leader believing anything he says is already taking a big risk). That's never stopped him before, though.
|
On October 09 2019 00:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I’m not saying it’s a perfect system (a lot of oversight and rules would need to be put into place), but it’s at least a goal-oriented system. I think we need to be open to new ideas, and be willing to accept potential risks.
Right now here in America, it feels like we’re moving nowhere, and the two parties are actively obstructing one another (but the Republicans are much worse). Meanwhile, the division in this country gets worse and worse as people become fragmented politically and socially.
|
Also, not to play oppression Olympics and compare tragedies, but it is interesting (though not surprising) that the West’s attention is on HK, whereas a much more egregious situation is likely occurring in Xinjiang.
That would seem like a much stronger point to raise against China IMO
|
On October 09 2019 03:05 Bagration wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2019 00:42 Biff The Understudy wrote: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. I’m not saying it’s a perfect system (a lot of oversight and rules would need to be put into place), but it’s at least a goal-oriented system. I think we need to be open to new ideas, and be willing to accept potential risks. Right now here in America, it feels like we’re moving nowhere, and the two parties are actively obstructing one another (but the Republicans are much worse). Meanwhile, the division in this country gets worse and worse as people become fragmented politically and socially.
It's not a good goal because it's based on utterly shitty premises (that there is such thing as objectively good goals and such thing as objectively competent experts to get there - there are neither). It's not that it's not a perfect system it's that it's not a system at all.
America is fucked because its democracy is shit and broken. And there are 150 ways to improve it drastically. It's not democracy that is a problem, it's that particular democracy.
|
On October 08 2019 13:52 Bagration wrote:
Here's thought for the thread: I wonder if democracy will continue to make sense as we move into the 21st century and see greater changes and disruptions at faster rates. I feel like the masses just are not equipped to make educated, rational decisions, and its been reflected starkly over the past few years:
1. Debacles in some of the most prominent democracies, with Brexit and Trump in UK and USA
2. More hard-liners, right-wing, anti-science leaders being elected worldwide
3. Heck, some people even argue that China would be more aggressive if it was a democracy, and that the CCP actually restrains some of the nationalist fervor (e.g., 2012 anti-Japanese protests)
For me personally, I'm college educated (which is a privilege that not everyone gets), and I'll be the first to admit that there's tons of policy areas where I have no expertise on, nor could I tell you which candidate has the best policy. Do we really want societies where increasingly fragmented and polarized people are just making "gut decisions"?
Wanted to come back to this post because you assign blame improperly. The reason why the far right is on the rise isn't that we have democracies and that's what happens in democracies. There are examples of periods in time in just about every one of our democracies where the far right was very weak. There is a specific context that causes the far right to rise, and by identifying that context, we can find a more accurate culprit: as usual, neoliberalism (and capitalism by extension).
The most basic question that you can ask yourself about politics is whether what we're doing right now is mostly okay, or whether we need to change stuff. Then you get into details on what those changes are, but this is already past the first divide. Capitalists benefit a lot from having the group that wants change on the right rather than on the left, because the changes that the right demands do not question their position of power in the system. When the left demands change, the hierarchy is questioned, when the right demands change, it's mostly about having different people at different places. This is why the far right is propped up and this is why it does better than it should based on the merit of its ideas.
The neoliberals also benefit from framing themselves as the party of rationality, which is another reason why they'd much rather face a far right opposition than a leftist opposition, and another reason why the far right is propped up. The advantages in terms of argumentation are easy to see. Are you rational? Well of course you need to support Hillary, what else are you going to do? Unity!!!
It is really important that you understand that you not knowing enough to make educated decisions about some stuff is actually not a problem at all. The very large majority of political decisions contain some moral questions. It is impossible to be educated about morality, there is no correct morality. The rational decision maker that you posit as an excellent leader would have to arbitrarily choose a morality that they follow in their decisions, and it would reflect their moral bias (or those of its creators if we're talking AI)
If you're interested in improving democracy, go left. A more educated population makes better decisions, and that happens on the left. Less power imbalance leads to less propaganda in favor of maintaining the power imbalances, and that happens on the left as well.
|
On October 09 2019 00:53 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2019 00:47 Neneu wrote: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. I agree, as their economic growth increases the likelihood of any sanction, or even if the world was willing to sanction such a big market, making them change course is unlikely. I'm not sure that if they marched their military into Hong Kong and said "One China, our Rules now" the rest of the world could do anything about it. I think people are just unaware of how awful the Chinese government is to its people and are just too impressed with how it has done economically and their big projects. The human cost is incredibly high.
How would you know that if you haven't lived in China? As far as I know the overwhelming majority of Chinese are happy with their government, because having a safe home and jobs that earn them something to eat is far more important then a political view. You must read and understand the sad history of China before the CCP came to power and even though Mao's reign was terrible, after him the CCP did what is described as a miracle by it's people.
On October 09 2019 02:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2019 01:29 Nouar wrote:On October 09 2019 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:
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. You seem to be surprised. The rest of the world has already suffered this exact kind of thing for the last xx years coming from the US. One cannot ignore what the US does or says as if it imposes sanctions on you, you do not get to trade at all with the rest of the world or barely. All that while the US does not recognize most of the international courts, conveniently enough :-) Some kind of bully, that thinks itself benevolent but still a bully usually. The fact that there are now two powers doing that is new, but that's about all. This is quite the leap. When has someone been ejected from a tournament for opposing the war in Iraq? The idea that the US is deeply involved in other people's business is a huge leap from "speaking against US atrocities literally ends your career". There is no comparison to be made between mentioning Hong Kong and the ways the US imposes itself. There are varying degrees of intervention. What China is demanding is complete and total submission for even minor disagreements. This is a different level of what you are right to say are the same thing. But we can appreciate the differences and don't need to label them as the same.
US just like China would sanction any foreign company or people if it infringes it's interests resulting in hundreds to thousands of lost jobs and careers ending. To the chinese the topic of any form of Hong Kong separatism views is a taboo. It's not like Hong Kong is severely oppressed by the CCP, like it's some middle east dictatorship... Young Honkongers just seem to hate mainlander's political system and mainlanders themselves, maybe like Catalonian people in Spain. That won't change much, since Hong Kong is part of China, and violence will only discredit their efforts. Supporting violence in Honk Kong will undoubtedly be sanctioned by both China and it's people.
|
On October 09 2019 04:36 raga4ka wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2019 00:53 JimmiC wrote:On October 09 2019 00:47 Neneu wrote: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. I agree, as their economic growth increases the likelihood of any sanction, or even if the world was willing to sanction such a big market, making them change course is unlikely. I'm not sure that if they marched their military into Hong Kong and said "One China, our Rules now" the rest of the world could do anything about it. I think people are just unaware of how awful the Chinese government is to its people and are just too impressed with how it has done economically and their big projects. The human cost is incredibly high. How would you know that if you haven't lived in China? As far as I know the overwhelming majority of Chinese are happy with their government, because having a safe home and jobs that earn them something to eat is far more important then a political view. You must read and understand the sad history of China before the CCP came to power and even though Mao's reign was terrible, after him the CCP did what is described as a miracle by it's people.
Until you look at everything under the surface. The 1 child policy was a disaster and now they're gonna age faster than the salad I just bought and unlike me, they can't throw it out. You have 34mil more men than women and a population that will be old and need caring for.
|
Hardcore capitalist and self enterpreneurs love china... Because they let them do business like mad.. Disregard all the giant faults, inhumanities and any kind of decenciy. It's where the world grows!
I'd like to say fuck you to all these people, may the social score fuck them into oblivion.
|
|
|
I think this can be easily laid to rest.
The Constitution does not specify how impeachment proceedings are to be initiated.
So they can do whatever the fuck they want.
|
Nah, this issue has been thoroughly litigated and the White House has literally nothing other than contempt to hang their hat on. Expect this to go to the Supreme Court, where the House will win handily.
|
On October 09 2019 07:22 farvacola wrote:
Nah, this issue has been thoroughly litigated and the White House has literally nothing other than contempt to hang their hat on. Expect this to go to the Supreme Court, where the House will win handily.
I honestly fear that the supreme court can't be trusted to uphold the constitution anymore.
|
On October 09 2019 06:37 Velr wrote:
Hardcore capitalist and self enterpreneurs love china... Because they let them do business like mad.. Disregard all the giant faults, inhumanities and any kind of decenciy. It's where the world grows!
I'd like to say fuck you to all these people, may the social score fuck them into oblivion.
Well that hurts my feelings. What did we self-starters ever do?
|
On October 09 2019 08:28 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2019 07:22 farvacola wrote:
Nah, this issue has been thoroughly litigated and the White House has literally nothing other than contempt to hang their hat on. Expect this to go to the Supreme Court, where the House will win handily. I honestly fear that the supreme court can't be trusted to uphold the constitution anymore.
None of the conservatives on the court have shown themselves to favor the unitary executive theory, and at a minimum, Roberts is far too prideful to let Trump use the court as his bagman.
|
On October 09 2019 08:41 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2019 08:28 hunts wrote:On October 09 2019 07:22 farvacola wrote:
Nah, this issue has been thoroughly litigated and the White House has literally nothing other than contempt to hang their hat on. Expect this to go to the Supreme Court, where the House will win handily. I honestly fear that the supreme court can't be trusted to uphold the constitution anymore. None of the conservatives on the court have shown themselves to favor the unitary executive theory, and at a minimum, Roberts is far too prideful to let Trump use the court as his bagman.
Since you seem to know law stuff, can you explain in what world someone thinks the unitary executive theory is legit?
Even just taking a few steps back: Our country was formed to escape a monarchy. In what world would we go through all that, get all fired up against executive power, then decide "and we should make sure you can't send the president to jail"???????
|
Northern Ireland27111 Posts
Speaking of the Blizzard move, unaware of the NBA one.
Would the Chinese government have leaned on them if they didn’t punish those individuals, or would the Chinese market itself have reacted badly?
I don’t have much exposure to the Chinese, from what limited interactions I’ve seen (on here mostly) it appears Joe public gets rather angry if things like Tibet or Hong Kong separatism are brought up positively by people. Would that be the common position?
|
On October 09 2019 09:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2019 08:41 farvacola wrote:On October 09 2019 08:28 hunts wrote:On October 09 2019 07:22 farvacola wrote:
Nah, this issue has been thoroughly litigated and the White House has literally nothing other than contempt to hang their hat on. Expect this to go to the Supreme Court, where the House will win handily. I honestly fear that the supreme court can't be trusted to uphold the constitution anymore. None of the conservatives on the court have shown themselves to favor the unitary executive theory, and at a minimum, Roberts is far too prideful to let Trump use the court as his bagman. Since you seem to know law stuff, can you explain in what world someone thinks the unitary executive theory is legit? Even just taking a few steps back: Our country was formed to escape a monarchy. In what world would we go through all that, get all fired up against executive power, then decide "and we should make sure you can't send the president to jail"???????
It’s purely a means to an end, after the fact theory created to facilitate private interest profit off of particular executive policies. It has no basis in anything courts look at in terms of legal theories.
|
On October 09 2019 09:14 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2019 09:08 Mohdoo wrote:On October 09 2019 08:41 farvacola wrote:On October 09 2019 08:28 hunts wrote:On October 09 2019 07:22 farvacola wrote:
Nah, this issue has been thoroughly litigated and the White House has literally nothing other than contempt to hang their hat on. Expect this to go to the Supreme Court, where the House will win handily. I honestly fear that the supreme court can't be trusted to uphold the constitution anymore. None of the conservatives on the court have shown themselves to favor the unitary executive theory, and at a minimum, Roberts is far too prideful to let Trump use the court as his bagman. Since you seem to know law stuff, can you explain in what world someone thinks the unitary executive theory is legit? Even just taking a few steps back: Our country was formed to escape a monarchy. In what world would we go through all that, get all fired up against executive power, then decide "and we should make sure you can't send the president to jail"??????? It’s purely a means to an end, after the fact theory created to facilitate private interest profit off of particular executive policies. It has no basis in anything courts look at in terms of legal theories.
Forgive me for struggling, but you are basically saying that the theory is really only used by people who are hoping the executive branch will do something extremely favorable/wanted by some group or person? Does that mean none of the supreme court justices have expressed support for it?
|
The only context in which unitary executive power has any judicial support is in terms of removal powers of those exercising executive duties; there is a lot of case law on whether Congress can create government bodies headed by individuals that the President cannot remove, and the related question of whether the heads of those bodies must be appointed by the President in order for them to be constitutional.
Any stretching of that narrow context is the “means to an end” dynamic I referenced above, it’s basically grasping at the closest straw in service of some other goal, which is basically always a question of someone making a ton of money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
