|
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 |
@DMCD
1) I’ll concede that historically humanity as a species has been communal, and you probably know more than me about different modern societies having flat vs tiered hierarchies (although I’d be interested in a source on your statements about American hierarchical structures, seems fascinating). But it seems you agree something happened 12000 years ago that changed that, presumably what you call “civilization” which you’ve also established is artificial in a later post. Is this the point in time where you draw the line and say “all behaviors before this are natural and immutable, all after are constructs and able to change”? If so, why?
@Gahlo
Fine, scrap alpha males, but the point still stands. You’re going to have a hard time convincing me that coveting what others have (again not objects but also mates, social status, etc.) has only existed for 12000 years. Democracy and voting as we know it didn’t exist in hunter/gatherer tribes, the only way it could have worked would be the most experienced/strongest individual led the group, likely had his pick of the best food/shelter/mate, and everyone followed because doing so kept them alive. I doubt the younger men simply went “you know what, I can tell leading is hard and I’m quite content following until the leader passes away peacefully”. That’s what point 1 is.
That being said, if you can find sources to throw in my face proving otherwise I look forward to them eagerly.
EDIT
@Drone
I basically agree with your post, including that "natural" behavior is superseded by "cultural" behavior, hence why I find the distinction between the two meaningless since the way "natural" behavior is used implies that whatever behavior its referencing is immutable.
|
On November 14 2019 00:21 KwarK wrote:
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.
They're still chasing and referencing conspiracies their own top people confirmed were already looked into by the US government. Not only that, now they're trying to "But Obama and Hillary" their way through this thing too while basically throwing around unproven allegations as a distraction ("Obama only gave the Ukrainians blankets").
This is going to be as bad as I was expecting.
|
Well if you really want to know, I visted USA a few times because I have cousins there. From what I can tell people who serve you like waiters, cashiers are extraordinary deferential, which was very unexpected, though apparently it is because waiters rely on your tips to make money. I don't know what the deal with cashiers are. But in both cases, they are normally seen to be humans deserving of basic respect in my country. On the other hand, I've visted Netherlands for business reasons, which apparently have a very similar culture to what Drone was alluding to in Norway. On the day I arrived, my work laptop had some sort of security problem that I need to access another computer to get the code, I can't remember what the program that caused the problem was some sort of windows security feature that I've never heard of, it this was a long time ago. What I didn't expect was someone who was nominally my superior to offer the use of his office and desk and computer. You cannot tell me that these two cultures from the perspective of someone in the middle of either that they share similar heirachial structures, so different they both are from each other and my own cultural perspective. It is easy to assume that what your own culture that you are immersed in is entirely natural, and never know what is cultural and what is not, if you never experienced the suprise of the strange differences of another culture.
Where would I draw the line between nature and nuture? There is no line to be drawn through time. That is looking through the wrong glass. Human society is cultural. In prehistory or otherwise. Human society and human civilisation is built on the transmitted knowledge of their forebearers and so is entirely cultural. Anything that is learned is cultural. From the moment we are born, we learn, and we learn our surrounding culture.
On November 14 2019 00:35 Ryzel wrote:
Fine, scrap alpha males, but the point still stands. You’re going to have a hard time convincing me that coveting what others have (again not objects but also mates, social status, etc.) has only existed for 12000 years. Democracy and voting as we know it didn’t exist in hunter/gatherer tribes, the only way it could have worked would be the most experienced/strongest individual led the group, likely had his pick of the best food/shelter/mate, and everyone followed because doing so kept them alive. I doubt the younger men simply went “you know what, I can tell leading is hard and I’m quite content following until the leader passes away peacefully”. That’s what point 1 is.
Also I want to interject that what you have written is almost entirely mythological, made up by hollywood with a dash of your own fantasy. From what we know of unpressured "uncivilised" tribes, is that the leaders of these tribes are not the strongest but a group of the oldest.
|
As Warrens support continues to dissipate, it seems Hillary is positioning herself to inherit Warren's voting base if/when she chooses to enter the election. She won the 2016 election by millions of votes and everybody thought she going to win, so makes sensefor her to want to run again.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/11/13/hillary-clinton-2020-presidential-run-speculation/4176641002/
Hillary Clinton on Tuesday declined to rule out launching a future presidential campaign after her two failed bids, saying “many, many, many people” were pressuring her to enter the race.
“I, as I say, never, never, never say never,” the former secretary of State said on BBC Radio 5 Live. “I will certainly tell you, I’m under enormous pressure from many, many, many people to think about it.”
“But as of this moment, sitting here in this studio talking to you, that is absolutely not in my plans,” Clinton added.
Whereas in previous election cycles the field narrowed as the primaries approached, 2020 is different: Democrats continue to join, indicating an unsettled and broadening race less than three months before the Iowa caucuses and as polls reflect shifting support for top-tier candidates.
Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York, filed for the Alabama primary a day before the deadline last week — possibly in preparation for a full-blown presidential bid. Former Gov. Deval Patrick Massachusetts has expressed interest in announcing his candidacy as early as this week.
Could Clinton be next?
Reporters have doggedly asked Clinton that question on nearly every media appearance she’s made promoting a book, “The Book of Gutsy Women,” which she wrote with her daughter, Chelsea Clinton.
She has alluded to the possibility multiple times, including in a Twitter exchange in which she quipped back at President Donald Trump, who had urged “Crooked Hillary” to enter the race to edge out “Uber Left” Elizabeth Warren.
“Don’t tempt me,” she responded. “Do your job.”
|
On November 14 2019 01:16 redlightdistrict wrote:As Warrens support continues to dissipate, it seems Hillary is positioning herself to inherit Warren's voting base if/when she chooses to enter the election. She won the 2016 election by millions of votes and everybody thought she going to win, so makes sensefor her to want to run again. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/11/13/hillary-clinton-2020-presidential-run-speculation/4176641002/Show nested quote +Hillary Clinton on Tuesday declined to rule out launching a future presidential campaign after her two failed bids, saying “many, many, many people” were pressuring her to enter the race.
“I, as I say, never, never, never say never,” the former secretary of State said on BBC Radio 5 Live. “I will certainly tell you, I’m under enormous pressure from many, many, many people to think about it.”
“But as of this moment, sitting here in this studio talking to you, that is absolutely not in my plans,” Clinton added.
Whereas in previous election cycles the field narrowed as the primaries approached, 2020 is different: Democrats continue to join, indicating an unsettled and broadening race less than three months before the Iowa caucuses and as polls reflect shifting support for top-tier candidates.
Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York, filed for the Alabama primary a day before the deadline last week — possibly in preparation for a full-blown presidential bid. Former Gov. Deval Patrick Massachusetts has expressed interest in announcing his candidacy as early as this week.
Could Clinton be next?
Reporters have doggedly asked Clinton that question on nearly every media appearance she’s made promoting a book, “The Book of Gutsy Women,” which she wrote with her daughter, Chelsea Clinton.
She has alluded to the possibility multiple times, including in a Twitter exchange in which she quipped back at President Donald Trump, who had urged “Crooked Hillary” to enter the race to edge out “Uber Left” Elizabeth Warren.
“Don’t tempt me,” she responded. “Do your job.”
She isn't going to run, all these articles are just a republican wet dream that will never happen
|
Alabama and Arkansas filling dates have already passed. New Hampshire is in 2 days.
Clinton
Isn't
Running
|
No matter how this whole thing goes, it is great all around. Anything that hurts Biden is a slam dunk and anything that hurts Trump is a slam dunk. Republicans, dunk all over Biden. Democrats, keep yanking on Trump's nuts.
|
I wonder if the Republicans understand the silliness of accusing Democrats of not having enough witnesses favorable to Trump when there are outstanding subpoeanas to multiple members of the administration that are being ignored...it's a bold move, Cotton.
(there's also the fact that if a crime actually did occur there would naturally be more hostile than sympathetic witnesses to the criminal, but they live in a world where no one can be justified in hostility towards Trump so I suppose that's impossible)
|
It's the "both sides" logic. You must always present "both sides" of an issue with equal representation and as having equal value, even if one side is really, really crazy.
|
This hearing is just as bad as I imagined. The Republicans have boomer memes printed on giant cardboard signs standing behind them, they're quoting pre-president Obama, and referencing conspiracies their own people have said are untrue. This is just embarrassing.
|
My god I can't bear the hypocrisy of these lines of questioning...
"But now Ukrainians have got their lethal aid ! With THIS administration while you were begging Obama to give it ! Ah Ah ! So you're wrong in what you've heard, gotcha !!!"
Yeah, aid voted by congress, released after the scandal broke out and a lot of pushback from his own admin. No problem there.
"But President Zelensky did not say he felt pressured, to the contrary !!!"
Yeah, as if Zelensky would publicly accuse Trump, risking his country to favor democrats.
What a bunch of ********* (insert insult)
|
Adam Schiff's opening statement was very very good. He clearly describes what the President did wrong and how are they going to prove it.
|
The argument of the Republicans regarding Ukraine still getting their aid and no investigation being started basically amounts to someone arguing that because they didn't successfully rob the bank they held up, they should not be charged with a crime. This completely ignores intent, which is abundantly clear here, but they won't let that stop them from arguing it anyway. It's all they have at this point. There's a reason one can get charged with "attempted robbery" or "attempted murder" or similar for many other crimes. It's not just the crime itself, but the intent of the person committing the crime.
Their argument is complete garbage and anyone with a quarter of a brain can see that. If you attempt to extort someone but are too inept to get it done, that doesn't make you any less guilty of attempting to extort someone.
|
Indeed, that’s foundational mens rea criminal act stuff.
|
On November 14 2019 04:37 farvacola wrote:
Indeed, that’s foundational mens rea criminal act stuff.
It's high school law class-level stuff and they're all pretending it doesn't exist despite many of them supposedly being actual lawyers. I mean, I'm not surprised in the least but it's still quite depressing to see.
edit: Hahaha Castro used the same argument I did. I can assure you all that I am not Rep. Castro.
Ratcliffe is so exhausting to listen to. A thing to keep in mind is that he has been targeting a position within the WH for a while now so he's extra on team Trump, even more so than others.
|
The tactic of 'all you have is hearsay and second hand knowledge' while simultaneously blocking testimony and subpoena compliance from people that could have first hand knowledge is quite bold.
|
Well they are banking on regular americans not knowing that or not caring. But that's among the reasons I had to cut the stream, I was cringing too much on the idiocies they were spouting.
"You heard it wrong ! You were wrong ! BUT, we are definitely not going to bring those people you talked to to testify under oach, because... hmmm... because..."
(I guess, except Sondland, since he will be there. I am waiting to see that one !)
|
On November 14 2019 05:17 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
The tactic of 'all you have is hearsay and second hand knowledge' while simultaneously blocking testimony and subpoena compliance from people that could have first hand knowledge is quite bold.
Also most things would theoretically be hearsay in a court if you did not have an expert to explain why it's not hearsay, this includes things like DNA evidence.
Most things in criminal courts are 2nd hand accounts. That's fine, the point is to have enough supporting evidence.
At least for the US of A this is true
I'd also note that their insurance on the character of the whistleblower is highly unusual in a criminal court. Going after the character of a person is usually not allowed as its often irrelevant in terms of if they are guilty or not. This is especially true that most of what the whistleblower has claimed has been corroborated.
|
Canada11509 Posts
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.
I would hold fairly loosely what humans were like pre-10,000 because it's part of our history we know almost jack-all. Even the knowledge of what we know of the Old Kingdom of Egypt vs New Kingdom is pretty appalling when you start digging down- and they at least had the decency to write things down and leave giant structures.
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.
I don't really agree- what is, is not the same thing as ought. There might be some default settings that we have as humans. If we do, they'd be good to know because maybe we'd have to actively resist them. And the difficulty of change is not the same thing as ought not to change. It doesn't really give you a direction at all, unless one assumes is-ought is the same thing.
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
I don't think you need all people wanting to exert power over others to tend towards hierarchy- actually, if you did, you'd be more likely to produce not cooperative enterprises at all. Some people would never want to be the boss of others, nor simply of themselves. They want to be led- to be able to be told what to do and work hard. This, too, will create hierarchies. Even when we attempt to level the hierarchies, people can be just as fast to cry "Give us a king" (metaphorically). Charismatic leaders arise anyways, creating new orders.
|
On November 14 2019 05:17 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
The tactic of 'all you have is hearsay and second hand knowledge' while simultaneously blocking testimony and subpoena compliance from people that could have first hand knowledge is quite bold. The Republican performance is tuned to look good when correctly cut and shown on Fox to 'really the troops'.
Contradictions don't matter when you make sure your viewers never see the contradictory stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
