|
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 |
More hearings have been announced:
I imagine the Republicans are going to be quite concerned about Fiona Hill's testimony. She was the top person on Ukraine and Russia at the NSC, and she did not mince words when asked about the conspiracy theories the Republicans have been trying to use as a distraction. If she is anything like she was in the closed door hearing, it's going to be a bad day for the Republicans when she testifies. She already made Jim Jordan likely regret questioning her personally, so I imagine many of the others will avoid doing so and instead allow their legal representatives do so instead.
Sondland will be amusing. He's a guy who is very clearly in over his head and is heavily regretting his past choices right now.
|
On one hand its good these hearings are going to be out in the open, on the other I'm worried they are going to turn into complete shitshows like previous open hearings and that it takes away from the actual process.
But hey, the entire process is kind of a sham anyway so long as Republicans will stand by their fearless leader no matter what he does, so one can argue that no real damage can be done.
|
On November 13 2019 00:44 plated.rawr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2019 00:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2019 23:53 plated.rawr wrote:On November 12 2019 20:43 iamthedave wrote:On November 11 2019 22:47 plated.rawr wrote:On November 11 2019 09:39 Nouar wrote:On November 11 2019 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 09:15 Nouar wrote:On November 11 2019 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:37 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
It's still pretty hard to believe... but in the hypothetical case where that happened, I reckon Democrats would probably still try to sink Trump with it (after all, the potential for blowback on them goes down considerably if the Bidens aren't in the picture). Perhaps less enthusiastically... but they'd probably be getting more help from the Republicans, too.
An actually believable chain of events would be Trump looking for dirt on the family of a hypothetical primary challenger. Which I think would probably also get him impeached (again with less enthusiasm from the Democrats, but probably a lot more from Republicans).
[quote]
I can't even engage with this without buying into your worldview so I think I'm just gonna not. Other than the quotations around national interest, that has nothing to do with my worldview and is merely a summary of the positions I've seen articulated here and supported by the rest of your post. If Trump had done the extortion/bribe for something more traditionally bipartisan but definitively more horrific there would be no impeachment attempt for it. ... Ok put all rich people on administration boards and their families in jail. Now you're speaking my language As much as I'd like to sometimes, it's not realistic, you shouldn't arrest people who have not broken the Law. Even if you wish it, you cannot expect the Dems to do it and call them hypocritical if they don't (in this specific case). Change the Law first. You expect any law to be upheld against those who facilitates and funds its upholders? In general, law works well to moderate undesirable behaviour, but it is entirely impotent when it comes to dealing with the wealthy and connected. To fix the law, you first need to fix the potential for individual power and the leverage it allows. So do something that's literally impossible. Gotcha. The greatest source of individual power is wealth - the greatest lack of individual power also the lack of wealth. Kill two birds with one stone by redistributing wealth from the obscenely wealthy to the desperate. Less wealth at the top is less centralized power around a single person, less desperate people at the bottom means less people willing to perform desperate acts for little money. Neoliberal redistribution of their wealth would require fixing the law which can't be done without redistributing their wealth. Do you not see how you're argument is impracticable and nihilistic (or oblivious to it's nihilism)? It's an argument for a neoconservative status quo poorly masked as left leaning pragmatic realism. I havent made any statement as to how the wealth should be redistributed, only that itd be a required fix to the impotency of law against the power of wealth. Now, as some obscenely rich people have come to realise, an increase of living standard for the desperate through available education, livable income and an illusion of self-determination, also brings with it calm and stability, which again brings prosperity to all. These breadcrumbs extend the lives of the obscenely wealthy. If more adopted this approach, redistribution would occur naturally, which is what liberalists are arguing for. Yet, those embracing such an approach are only small pockets of the wealth-leeching elite. When law fail us, and those with the means to change do not, they invite unrest not only in society, but also death on themselves. Edit: it's all moot anyhow, as the migratorial chaos when the food-producing, highly populated eqatorial part of the world becomes unlivable due to rising sea levels and increased temperatures, would undo any reforms meant to support the needing. Pitting the foreigner against the working class works every time.
You're taking too narrow a view.
Power is more than just money. You're making the strange assumption that if you redistribute the wealth you'll somehow reduce power, when there's more to power than wealth, and society always has those with more power than others who have advantages in the law. Humans are naturally hierarchical beings.
Even if you redistribute all the wealth there'll be the Epsteins of the world who have the power to mostly avoid trouble that less powerful men could not. Maybe it'd be more social cache - like the preachers who are forgiven everything because they claim to be sorry - but it'd have the same effect.
|
On November 13 2019 20:03 Gorsameth wrote:
On one hand its good these hearings are going to be out in the open, on the other I'm worried they are going to turn into complete shitshows like previous open hearings and that it takes away from the actual process.
But hey, the entire process is kind of a sham anyway so long as Republicans will stand by their fearless leader no matter what he does, so one can argue that no real damage can be done.
Democrats could be talking about a real agenda instead of dead end political theater would be the damage I mentioned when this all was first breaking.
|
Norway28904 Posts
On November 13 2019 20:52 iamthedave wrote:
Humans are naturally hierarchical beings.
Are we? Or are we culturally predominantly hierarchical beings?
|
are these impeachment hearings the same as the closed door testimonies? i mean is anything new going to be revealed?
|
On November 13 2019 20:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2019 20:03 Gorsameth wrote:
On one hand its good these hearings are going to be out in the open, on the other I'm worried they are going to turn into complete shitshows like previous open hearings and that it takes away from the actual process.
But hey, the entire process is kind of a sham anyway so long as Republicans will stand by their fearless leader no matter what he does, so one can argue that no real damage can be done. Democrats could be talking about a real agenda instead of dead end political theater would be the damage I mentioned when this all was first breaking. Talking about a real agenda doesn't do much when a majority of voters apparently doesn't care about agenda's and policy.
Focusing on that is, imo, more likely to lead to another 4 years of Trump then 'dead end political theater'.
|
On November 13 2019 21:18 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:
are these impeachment hearings the same as the closed door testimonies? i mean is anything new going to be revealed? Some cases like Sonderland where he later 'revised' his statements can probably expect a hard grilling and maybe some more new facts. They initially lied and tried to cover up what happened only to have to backtrack because someone else spilled the beans.
|
On November 13 2019 21:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2019 20:52 iamthedave wrote:
Humans are naturally hierarchical beings.
Are we? Or are we culturally predominantly hierarchical beings?
Both? Not to split physiological hairs but those are the same things.
We have monkeys we can take our base motivational cues from, evolutionarily speaking were not that far away from them.
|
They are not the same things at all. Not even close. They are diametrically opposed.
|
On November 13 2019 21:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2019 20:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2019 20:03 Gorsameth wrote:
On one hand its good these hearings are going to be out in the open, on the other I'm worried they are going to turn into complete shitshows like previous open hearings and that it takes away from the actual process.
But hey, the entire process is kind of a sham anyway so long as Republicans will stand by their fearless leader no matter what he does, so one can argue that no real damage can be done. Democrats could be talking about a real agenda instead of dead end political theater would be the damage I mentioned when this all was first breaking. Talking about a real agenda doesn't do much when a majority of voters apparently doesn't care about agenda's and policy. Focusing on that is, imo, more likely to lead to another 4 years of Trump then 'dead end political theater'.
Anyone that can't see Trump is terrible and unacceptable by now isn't worth appealing to electorally. Doing so is clearly a terrible and failing strategy in my view.
A far superior strategy is one that focuses it's appeals to the 100,000,000+ people that didn't vote for Clinton or Trump.
|
Norway28904 Posts
On November 13 2019 21:47 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2019 21:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 13 2019 20:52 iamthedave wrote:
Humans are naturally hierarchical beings.
Are we? Or are we culturally predominantly hierarchical beings? Both? Not to split physiological hairs but those are the same things. We have monkeys we can take our base motivational cues from, evolutionarily speaking were not that far away from them.
No they really aren't the same. I mean, I think it is often the case that we are both influenced by 'nature' and by 'culture' at the same time (I think that is the case for most aspects of human behavior), but it is an important distinction from a political point of view, because what is natural can be assumed to be unchangeable / very difficult to change / not something we should aim to change, whereas behavior rooted in culture can be altered by changing the culture we are part of.
For me I mostly only accept 'natural' as an explanation for sets of behaviors that can be observed in virtually every culture across virtually every time period. And going by that, I think there are aspects of hierarchy (for example kids in certain age groups listening to adults) that are natural, but that most hierarchical structures found in society are not. (To clarify, it could be that 'desire to have power over others' is a natural trait within a certain % of humans, but that the social structures enabling them to wield that power is not.)
|
On November 13 2019 22:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
They are not the same things at all. Not even close. They are diametrically opposed.
Can you elaborate on this? I always thought one of the definitions of “naturally human” traits are those traits that are shared across many different cultures (particularly if they don’t have access to each other).
EDIT
On November 13 2019 22:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2019 21:47 Sermokala wrote:On November 13 2019 21:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 13 2019 20:52 iamthedave wrote:
Humans are naturally hierarchical beings.
Are we? Or are we culturally predominantly hierarchical beings? Both? Not to split physiological hairs but those are the same things. We have monkeys we can take our base motivational cues from, evolutionarily speaking were not that far away from them. No they really aren't the same. I mean, I think it is often the case that we are both influenced by 'nature' and by 'culture' at the same time (I think that is the case for most aspects of human behavior), but it is an important distinction from a political point of view, because what is natural can be assumed to be unchangeable / very difficult to change / not something we should aim to change, whereas behavior rooted in culture can be altered by changing the culture we are part of. For me I mostly only accept 'natural' as an explanation for sets of behaviors that can be observed in virtually every culture across virtually every time period. And going by that, I think there are aspects of hierarchy (for example kids in certain age groups listening to adults) that are natural, but that most hierarchical structures found in society are not.
I have a hard time believing that hierarchical structures are a purely cultural construct. The reason why they exist are pretty immutable...
1) There will always be an individual that “has more of” something valuable than others (whether it be objects, strength, or desired personality traits, i.e. “alpha males”, “pack leaders” in nature).
2) There will be individuals who seek to become the individual that “has more of”.
How that is manifested I suppose can differ from culture to culture, but I’d argue the root of the problem is natural.
|
hierarchy found in civilisation is 100% natural. how is that even debatable?
and this discussion about "wealth redistribution" is ridiculous. for one, its never going to happen. secondly, its impossible to implement and would never be received well by the population. youre asking for socialism yet completely ignoring the reasons that are the same as why humans favour hierarchies in the first place. wanting to be different, wanting to have more (greed) etc are things that make us inherently human. good luck implementing convincing a lot of people that they should join the rest of the pack.
you want wealth redistribution so much, go cheer for the billionaire philanthropists that are out there trying to do a good deed. its the best youre gonna get outside of government budget changes.
|
On November 13 2019 22:12 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2019 22:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
They are not the same things at all. Not even close. They are diametrically opposed. Can you elaborate on this? I always thought one of the definitions of “naturally human” traits are those traits that are shared across many different cultures (particularly if they don’t have access to each other).
You are talking from the standpoint that humans naturally form hierarchical structures. But from what we know of modern human society that isn't true. Many modern human groups and cultures produce flat hierarchical structures. And many produce very hierarchical structures. American culture is a bit strange in that, it can be very hierachical, but they think they are not, because of a few isolated tech style businesses which produce a flat heirarchical structure. From what we know from what anthropologists study, for much of humanity's existence, we operated under hunter gatherer societies and their culture is very flat. Most objects are shared, all food is shared, and decisions are made communally. What is made in excess is simply given. Only after 10 000 bc or whenever humans gathered together in large numbers does evidence of a hierachical structure occur. Whatever this "alpha males" and "pack leader" you wrote is not how modern humans nor prehistorical humans behave. Humans are not chickens .
There simply is no "naturally hierarchical" trait that is shared across many different cultures.
|
I think it's of note that we got rid of thiefdoms for the most part in the 20th century. That can in itself be seen as a downgrade of hierarchical structures.
|
On November 13 2019 22:12 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2019 22:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
They are not the same things at all. Not even close. They are diametrically opposed. Can you elaborate on this? I always thought one of the definitions of “naturally human” traits are those traits that are shared across many different cultures (particularly if they don’t have access to each other). EDIT Show nested quote +On November 13 2019 22:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 13 2019 21:47 Sermokala wrote:On November 13 2019 21:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 13 2019 20:52 iamthedave wrote:
Humans are naturally hierarchical beings.
Are we? Or are we culturally predominantly hierarchical beings? Both? Not to split physiological hairs but those are the same things. We have monkeys we can take our base motivational cues from, evolutionarily speaking were not that far away from them. No they really aren't the same. I mean, I think it is often the case that we are both influenced by 'nature' and by 'culture' at the same time (I think that is the case for most aspects of human behavior), but it is an important distinction from a political point of view, because what is natural can be assumed to be unchangeable / very difficult to change / not something we should aim to change, whereas behavior rooted in culture can be altered by changing the culture we are part of. For me I mostly only accept 'natural' as an explanation for sets of behaviors that can be observed in virtually every culture across virtually every time period. And going by that, I think there are aspects of hierarchy (for example kids in certain age groups listening to adults) that are natural, but that most hierarchical structures found in society are not. I have a hard time believing that hierarchical structures are a purely cultural construct. The reason why they exist are pretty immutable... 1) There will always be an individual that “has more of” something valuable than others (whether it be objects, strength, or desired personality traits, i.e. “alpha males”, “pack leaders” in nature). 2) There will be individuals who seek to become the individual that “has more of”. How that is manifested I suppose can differ from culture to culture, but I’d argue the root of the problem is natural.
"Alpha males" as it first was used was based on wolves held in captivity. The scientist that did that research has disavowed it and regrets ever making it public. Unless you're viewing society as a prison, probably best to not laud the existence of "alpha males".
"Pack leaders" in the wild are just the matriarch and patriarch of the unit because a pack is a familial unit.
So no, point 1 is absolutely awful.
|
On November 13 2019 22:54 evilfatsh1t wrote:
hierarchy found in civilisation is 100% natural. how is that even debatable? I also want to point out that not only is this evidently untrue, but civilisation, however you define it, is by definition 100% artificial, and therefore cannot be 100% natural.
|
Norway28904 Posts
Like I added in my first post, I don't have an issue with the idea that there is a natural desire within some people (I don't acknowledge that it applies to all) to exert power over others or have more material wealth than others. But whether and to what degree society is constructed in a way that allows these people to achieve these goals, that, to me, clearly seems like a cultural issue. (Otherwise, going by the 'what is natural reproduces itself across societies without contact', hierarchical structures would be nearly equally hierarchical in nearly all societies and across nearly all periods of time. )
That is not the case. Norway today is less hierarchical than many contemporary societies, and less hierarchical than Norway in certain periods of the past.
At the same time, I do acknowledge that proficiency or perceived proficiency in something will 'naturally' lead to a 'higher tier position' in that particular something. However, whether and to what degree that materializes into advantages outside that field is imo culturally determined.
Going further, you can examine how past hierarchies have been created and enforced, and compare and contrast with how current day hierarchical structures continue to exist. Gender-egalitarianism is a very recent phenomenon, if one examines the entire history of human civilization, one might be tempted to argue that 'men having power over women is natural' based on what you can observe, however I clearly think that less hierarchy is better in this scenario, and also clearly achievable. Whether man's physical prowess makes him naturally dominant in a chaotic and violent society is irrelevant when determining whether we want men to dominate women in the more controlled and non-violent society we currently inhabit.
To be clear, I quite firmly believe that one of the defining traits of humanity is that our culture can supersede our nature. Many hierarchical structures of the past no longer exist, thus I can't accept the idea that our societies are determined to maintain all currently existing hierarchical structures.. I think even today, due to the influence of Norwegian labor unions, a Norwegian boss wields significantly less power over his employees than a boss of an american company wields over his employees. (For example how with regard to difficult it is to fire someone, although I guess there might be some jobs in some regions of the USA where you have similar standards.) Society is full of situations where one person might be expected to defer to another based on title or position - however these are not static and found everywhere, thus they are changeable.
|
United States44361 Posts
Opening statement to the impeachment hearings is breathtaking. There are a dozen high ranking individuals within the Trump administration all testifying to a quid pro quo with contemporaneous written evidence including texts, recorded phone calls, and emails. It really is going to come down to Republicans arguing that the President is allowed to engage in personal quid pro quos with the privileges of the office. And they’ll vote on party lines of course but he’s guilty as sin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
