EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1945
| 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 | ||
|
PoulsenB
Poland7735 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On December 12 2019 23:36 PoulsenB wrote: Bombing countries on other continents puts the money into pockets of military contractors, who hold the government by the balls with "donations" and threats of cutting jobs (which would result in angry unemployed voters). So basically, like with most other problems, it's because the rich want to get richer. It's frustrating when Democrats go on about how foolish Republicans are for voting against their interest, meanwhile they'll shame anyone not voting for the dirtbags funding bombing kids at school if they have a D next to their name. Voting for someone that wants to provide education to everyone is more absurd than voting for someone who wants to arm an absolute monarchy that murders children intentionally, and that's in a Democratic primary. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
12084 Posts
On December 13 2019 00:20 JimmiC wrote: It is more frustrating that you keep playing the both sides cards on this thread it is hard for any discussion to happen without you doing this, and then in other threads defend to the hilt the evil that say Maduro does with an excuse that the US made him do it sometimes simultaneously. You at times are the most partisan person on the site just your team isn't Dems or Reps it is people who claim to be "socialists" regardless of their actions. The reality of the US is there is only 2 parties to pick from, and for most of the people on this thread they think the Dems are better. That does not mean they agree with everything they say, just that voting for them is better than voting for the others. And the more progressive members of the thread and the US are also trying to push more progressive candidates. Working within the bounds of the system sucks, but you deal with what you have and try to push for change. At the municipal level there are a lot of very progressive cities (Portland, Austin, Boulder come to mind) that are making big changes and as more of them do they will start to normalize that behavior. Already cities like Philadelphia, Chicago and others are starting to follow suit along with the entire state of California. You have a better chance of changing the system from within it because then you will understand better why and how it works. Perhaps you should join the campaign team as a volunteer of a local candidate who share some of your progressive values. Why not run instead? On a local level the requirements drop massively compared to national level. If there is a big support of his ideas in his local area he would get a seat as something. Then can use that to effect positive changes locally and follow that up with climbing the ladder. Overall he would not be a poor candidate if he does not express his revolution ideas. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9054 Posts
On December 13 2019 00:46 Yurie wrote: Why not run instead? On a local level the requirements drop massively compared to national level. If there is a big support of his ideas in his local area he would get a seat as something. Then can use that to effect positive changes locally and follow that up with climbing the ladder. Overall he would not be a poor candidate if he does not express his revolution ideas. The soap box requires less effort? | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
A familiar refrain from conservatives. It's been a slog, but we've made a lot of progress here despite the persistence of this objection. More to the point, the electoral system is designed to maintain an infeasibility of viability outside of the two parties. Not based on the popularity of ideas or policy, but as a system. This isn't usually a controversial point. On December 13 2019 01:06 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Greenhorizons may not meet requirements to run, and even if he does, given his interactions here, he is unlikely to have support. That's ok, not everyone can become paid politicians. Sometimes fitting into a system reflects poorly on oneself. It seems some people will follow rules, regardless of who writes them, who ignores them or for what reason, into oblivion. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On December 12 2019 23:10 PoulsenB wrote: Aren't all currently possible space weapons totally ineffective and/or horribly inefficient anyway? No. Any spaceborne weapon would be devastating to the ground. There are also anti-satellite missiles being developed/already developed which sparked this militarisation of space. Unless you meant spaceborne shooting at spaceborne. Then maybe. It depends. Inefficient, yes. Ineffective, no. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9054 Posts
On December 13 2019 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote: A familiar refrain from conservatives. It's been a slog, but we've made a lot of progress here despite the persistence of this objection. More to the point, the electoral system is designed to maintain an infeasibility of viability outside of the two parties. Not based on the popularity of ideas or policy, but as a system. This isn't usually a controversial point. Sometimes fitting into a system reflects poorly on oneself. It seems some people will follow rules, regardless of who writes them, who ignores them or for what reason, into oblivion. That's all you do. Preach and derail topics to suit your narrative. You can come here and say what you like because the mods won't action you for consistent derailing of threads. Not that that isn't an actionable offense, but the veracity with which you pursue it should be. And to immediately deflect to "a familiar refrain from cohservatives." when I've demonstrated the exact opposite over many occasions and discussion here, furthers the point that if the narrative isn't in your favor, you turn tail and try to score snide remark points. In other news, seems like the support in the black community in Evanston is liking the proposed "reparations bill." Still need to see specifics and how they won't be sued because of it. If they succeed in getting it started, I'm interested in the metrics in 5-10 years. An African American church seemed a fitting place to hold a meeting in Evanston on Wednesday night to celebrate the suburb's recent actions on reparations. Hundreds of people packed First Church of God to hear more about Evanston's historic decision to fund a reparations program for its black residents. At times, the crowd of more than 700 broke into song. When actor and reparations activist Danny Glover spoke, they leapt to their feet. But at other times, the room fell silent as people reflected on the prejudices and obstacles their ancestors had endured. Moderator Ron Daniels said Evanston is one town that could start a reparations movement across America. "You don't understand — this is reverberating all over the country," he said. "Indeed, perhaps all over the world." The meeting was organized by Evanston Ald. Robin Simmons, who has led the effort to create and fund a local reparations program to compensate black residents for generations of discrimination in jobs, housing and other areas. Last month, the Evanston City Council approved a plan to direct all revenue from new taxes on recreational marijuana — expected to generate thousands of dollars in the first two years — to the reparations fund. The goal is to grow the fund to $10 million by 2030. "It was time to do something as radical as the oppression and discrimination, as the impact from Jim Crow and redlining. Something as radical as enslavement and torture and crimes against humanity," Simmons said of the reparations program. "It was time to be unapologetic and uncompromising and bold." Supporters of using cannabis taxes to fund reparations argue that black Evanstonians have been disproportionately punished for marijuana-related crimes, and they should directly benefit from pot sales. In the last three years, 71% of people arrested for weed possession in Evanston were black, officials said. Recreational pot sales will become legal in Illinois on Jan. 1, and three current medical marijuana dispensaries in Evanston have been cleared to sell recreational pot. Source | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On December 13 2019 01:17 JimmiC wrote: I'm sure you could work on Bernie's Campaign fund raising for him I bet he is actively looking for volunteers. Or if you wanted more control at the municipal level where the party support isn't needed but lots of change can still be made. I can't blame you for not knowing but I've been doing that since prior to 2016. Made thousands of calls and knocked countless doors for Sanders in 2016. Despite people here telling me how foolish it was pretty much the whole time. I've moved to his left since in part due to my longstanding opposition to his support/acquiescence to the same MIC Poul was talking about in a variety of ways, namely his support for the F-35* which manages to cram a lot of the worst aspects of all of this into a tight package. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26762 Posts
Plus revolutionary talk is more fun. Especially when it comes to the climate change issue specifically, look how glacial going through the official channels has been over the years. Capitalism as a root system incentivises consumption and there is a great cultural buy in to that as well, you can’t square a circle and perpetual growth and demand and cutting emissions are such uneasy bedfellows they are in separate bedrooms. There are ways to mitigate this that don’t involve destroying all of capitalism, but some sort of radical cultural shift is required. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On December 13 2019 02:02 JimmiC wrote: Then I think as much of a grind as it will be Yurie's suggestion of running yourself is the best course of action even if it is a tough grind. To have any of the policies you want enacted you need public support, probably the only way to do this is to start on the municipal level and get some base of support, the other option is the AOC approach of trying to knock out a less progressive Dem but you need a bunch to go right for that to happen including living in the right spot. Municipally you don't really need a parties support and depending on where you live will determine how much money you need to raise and how much competition there is. In a town size you need almost no money other then maybe to make some signs but people tend to vote who they know. At a small city it is again pretty obtainable and often council is considered a part time job, still tons of leg work before the election but doable there is lots of turnover. A big thing to remember would be that even though seniors would not be a easy group for you to court they would still be worth the effort because they vote in much higher percentages. If you take the time to talk to them some of them will even vote for you even if they don't necessarily agree but if they like that you took the time to come talk to them and listen to their concerns, that listening part is going to be huge, no one votes for some one you who has all the answers and does not listen. Bigger cities are a lot more work and a lot more money. However from a voting perspective there is a lot less "I'm going to vote for him or her because I know them". You can also probably grab on to one hot button issue and run on it. If you pick a area with a University or College you will likely find more like minded people and people willing to vote young. But again tons of leg work. The other option, depending on your education is working for the government and trying to make change from the inside. There are a lot of sustainability and so on positions starting to exist and depending on education that would be a route. Another big part you are going to have work on is what you are going to do to fix the problem and it is going to have to be more tangible and more specific than "socialism". It is not enough to just speak about whats wrong, people want to know how you are going to fix it. You are also going to have to answer a lot of questions about what you mean by socialism, are you meaning USSR style, or Norway style or something different. If it is something different you are going to need to be able to explain it super well because otherwise people won't believe that you have any answers. Anyway you choose it will obviously be super hard, but at least it will have a chance of making a difference which just constantly bring up the "both sides" argument on every topic on this thread won't do. Some points and I'll go back to leaving you to your devices. I've long considered all those things, including a great deal of research into socialism (which most who insist on providing commentary like yours admittedly haven't) and arrived where I am because of my consideration of what you are talking about, not because I'm unfamiliar with your argument. It's fairly old, hegemonic, and generally wrong/bad based on my reading of history/theory, doing much of what you mention, and general experience with those who have/do, and so on. I'm under no illusions of what reminding Democrats/neoliberals of their complacency (a better grasp of that and no more often than those who make this complaint do to Republicans) is able to accomplish. I don't care if you keep doing what you're doing when it pertains to my arguments, but telling me stuff I'm well familiar with about basic civics as if it's some sort of revelation or assistance to me is a waste of your time. On December 13 2019 02:52 Wombat_NI wrote: You have to start the conversations, while much maligned the soap box serves a useful purpose too. Plus revolutionary talk is more fun. Especially when it comes to the climate change issue specifically, look how glacial going through the official channels has been over the years. Capitalism as a root system incentivises consumption and there is a great cultural buy in to that as well, you can’t square a circle and perpetual growth and demand and cutting emissions are such uneasy bedfellows they are in separate bedrooms. There are ways to mitigate this that don’t involve destroying all of capitalism, but some sort of radical cultural shift is required. I agree, the best available science literally says we bring near certain global ecological catastrophe if people listen to the advice he presents and I'm supposed to be the unreasonable one. I'd put forward that a lot of people's aversion to destroying capitalism (besides the usual suspects) also lay in a misunderstanding/conflation of capitalism and markets. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9054 Posts
On December 13 2019 02:52 Wombat_NI wrote: You have to start the conversations, while much maligned the soap box serves a useful purpose too. Plus revolutionary talk is more fun. Especially when it comes to the climate change issue specifically, look how glacial going through the official channels has been over the years. Capitalism as a root system incentivises consumption and there is a great cultural buy in to that as well, you can’t square a circle and perpetual growth and demand and cutting emissions are such uneasy bedfellows they are in separate bedrooms. There are ways to mitigate this that don’t involve destroying all of capitalism, but some sort of radical cultural shift is required. The conversation can be started. It has been started. And instead of actually talking about things, it falls back to "dems are shit because they're not forcing revolution and giving into trump/gop demands!!11!" a million fucking times. You can't demand an overnight solution to perhaps the biggest issue/threat we've faced as a species since the ice age by yelling "capitalism is da debil! socialism herp derp!!11" a million fucking times. And lastly, the cultural shift has been talked about to death with, I'd wager, 80% of those who frequent this thread, agree on. Derailing discussions to constantly bring this up and flaunt how socialist and revolutionary you are is childish and selfish. We. Get. It. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12451 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On December 13 2019 03:27 Nebuchad wrote: At some point you're going to have to realize that it's not overnight anymore, and that these people just don't have the long term solution you seek. It's weird to me they are so insistent but they haven't even tried to confront that contradiction in particular | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9054 Posts
On December 13 2019 03:27 Nebuchad wrote: At some point you're going to have to realize that it's not overnight anymore, and that these people just don't have the long term solution you seek. If this is in response to me, then I agree. It isn't overnight. It isn't even possible if the scientists are correct. Every single day, there are new studies and recommendations that the shit is too far progressed and that pretty much nothing can be done to stop it in time. No immediate transition to renewable energy will slow what has begun. I will be the first to admit I have no idea how to even begin addressing this issue. Smarter people than all of us have been trying to figure it out and they still don't have consensus. Best we can do is prepare for the storm because it is coming. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12451 Posts
You want change (in this case with regard to climate but it's the same argument every time), however we need to advance slowly, this will work better than immediate change which is impossible, that's why my way is better even though we want the same thing. That argument can be made in good faith, no question. And truly, if you discuss a political topic and your opponent is mad the next morning that it isn't fixed, then they're being ridiculous, hence the expression "change overnight". Now if you discuss the same topic for 25 years and every day you tell them that they're ridiculous for wanting change overnight, and in those 25 years nothing has changed (or things are worse, since it's pretty obvious that fascism gains traction every time the left goes nowhere and fascism is obviously worse than liberalism for the type of change we seek), then suddenly it's no so clear cut that you're the one being reasonable. I think a lot of the capitalist class, specifically, is perfectly satisfied with the ecofascist solution to climate change, and when/if it happens, they're going to say that it's terrible and that fascism is very awful and bad, but they did everything they could to find another solution and unfortunately they didn't manage to do enough. And those people have a lot of influence on what the democratic party thinks is practical change and impractical change. | ||
| ||
