|
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 December 13 2019 06:01 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 05:56 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2019 05:50 JimmiC wrote:On December 13 2019 05:43 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2019 05:37 JimmiC wrote:On December 13 2019 05:26 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2019 05:07 JimmiC wrote:
Edit to your edit: Since you can't, do you then understand why people are apprehensive to completely change their system when every time they have seen other countries do it the perceived benefits still just end up with elites, the environment is still abused, and the quality of life for the poor is a bad or worse than they currently enjoy?
You could get way more people on board if you talked about solutions, and how you would deal with the problems that have happened in socialist nations. The tact of smugly constantly talking about "both sides" when you don't have a working example is what frustrates people.
I don't believe you, I think you want me to bring up solutions because it would be much easier to attack any type of solution that I could be offering than it is to defend against the attacks that I bring up against the current system. And that is your right to believe, but the reality is you are going to face opposition no matter what change you try to make on anything you are going to face opposition. You need to learn how to turn that opposition, well meaning or not, into an ally or nothing will change. People can't follow or grasp a plan if it does not exist. If you can't explain how your version of socialism is better than the USSR's then that is what people will think. Outside of the people at the very top most people are very frustrated with the system they just don't believe that yours is better and you are unwilling to say how it is, because either it is hard or because you don't know. In my job when people don't like the policy we enact I ask them how they would do it better, I then bring up why we didn't do that or what problems that would create. Other times they bring up things we didn't think of and that are well reasoned, we then enact those changes. That is why engagement is so important. What is super frustrating though is those that can point out problems in everything but have no solutions, those people are just complainers and seem to enjoy the act of complaining rather than actually wanting things to be better. Do you remember what I answered the last three or four times you asked this? I don't want to implement my version of socialism. I want to convince people that what we have now is, in technical terms, bad, and then once I've done that I want the people that I convinced to work with me so that we find a better solution together.You are demanding that I do the work for you and give you the future, and you'd just have to say "Yes I'll take it" or "No I won't take it". Just look at the present and decide if you think it's good or bad. If you think it's bad, work with me on the future. If you think it's good, don't. Most people agree that it is bad, and want to get to discussing about how to make it better, but guess what you are going to run into some opposition so deal with it, not everyone is going to agree with exactly how to get there. You and GH seem stuck in this loop of proving to everyone that the current system is broke, most people agree, stop beating everyones head with it. Were all waiting for you guys to get to the part where you start talking about making it better. And it has to be more than the word "socialism", get into the guts, be prepared to make mistakes and have people disagree. But as long as you are just going to keep ruining every discussion with "that won't work only socialism will", oh how will work? "no you don't get it, its bad", "ok, well what would be better" " no you don't get its bad" "Ok so what would you do different, whats better" "if your asking that you don't get how bad it is" . We will be in the same frustrating loop over and over again. Take a risk, put it out there with how you want it to work, get criticized, find answers this is how complex problems get solved, and its hard and its not easy. But enough with the non stop negativity and putting all the blame on a scapegoat it won't ever fix anything. I No I'm not going to take a risk, thanks for the proposition though. The amount of people who will vote for Sanders will be the amount of people who agree with it. If it's true that most people agree then we'll be fine. I would vote for sanders, I vote left of him Canada. If that is your bar I've already met it, so have many of the people you and GH keep "both sidesing".
Good. Keep that up.
|
|
|
|
|
It would be really easy to convince people of it, though. Simply make the carbon tax cost neutral by spending all of that money on a flat sum that every citizen gets paid out, every month. Sure, stuff might cost a few cent more, but you also get 200$ each month. It is a very simple idea which is effective and instantly gets a lot of the population behind it. Instead, at least in Germany, they do random shit like increasing the tax deductions for a car you use for driving to work. Which kills the whole idea behind it, is very invisible to most people, AND mostly profits the people in the highest tax brackets.
|
On December 13 2019 04:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 04:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On December 13 2019 04:05 Gorsameth wrote:On December 13 2019 03:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. I think there are plenty of idea's what should have been done 10 years ago but (almost) no politician is willing to go that far because it would suicide to try to sell it to the electorate. Its easy to think little of the impact of climate change because your not seeing 'The day after tomorrow' outside. Over here a politician said that we should aim to half our livestock and people threw a collective fit. Farmers are staging mass protests because we're trying to limit our excessive Nitrogen output. When the people don't want to change the politicians they elect to represent them don't want to change either, even if they know we should. What I am saying is that something should have been a long time ago but corporate interests and general citizenry carelessness of potential consequences of their lifestyles nipped it in the bud. Now, with everything the scientists are saying, there isn't an immediate solution to the issue and there won't be any measurable affect for a long time after we're all dead. But we can start now and try to get it to a point where we can manage it better and if things go right, reverse it. That isn't the argument being made by the people screaming capitalism and democratic institutions are the core of the issues we face. There are a lot of factors to be taken into account and those factors need to be worked on with thought, about not only the affects that it will have on global ecosystems, but the people inhabiting those places. The biggest thing is the constant refrain of "democrats are the same as republicans and the whole system needs to be torn down and transitioned to (insert preferred government) immediately." is only turning off people from wanting to discuss anything. Because it inevitably leads to that. We were talking about fucking space and someone had to bring up that democrats are the biggest hypocrites and worst offenders of all time." What does that add to the topic at hand? Anyway, I've said my piece. I'm gonna P6 this thread. I have repeatedly told GH that his attitude turns allies into enemies. He doesn't listen.
Your mistake is insisting they are allies. There's an irony here as well when one looks at how neoliberals engage Republicans and Independents (and people to their left for that matter) that disagree with them.
|
Your boy Mike is bringing up some worrisome ideas
|
I think people need to see the numbers and see the effects in the markets they frequent. A year or two would be sufficient to convince people that some ways are better than others. When I lived in San Diego, any time I went to the store, I brought old bags because it was a 5 cent tax to get new ones. I'd also use those same bags as trash bags for the bathroom and bedroom. It wasn't much but it saved something.
The people aren't as dumb as we make them out to be here generally. They just don't see the benefits. All they see are the taxes. They need to see the results of those taxes. Here in Chicago, we don't see the benefits of all the taxes so people are understandably incensed about things.
And KwarK, you're pushing this out to 15 years? That long for ROI?
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On December 13 2019 05:01 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 04:49 Nebuchad wrote:
Is there a reasoning that you have used to deduce that the problem isn't the capitalist class? They are certainly part of the problem, they are just not the only problem, it is not just the capitalist class that is destroying the planet. The capitalist class are not the only ones who have greed and selfishness. Can you give me some real life examples of socialist systems in practice that have removed these problems? So far to me the best ones are democracies, with lots of regulations on the capitalism.
Hence why I continually talk about a cultural shift rather than any abstract capitalist class.
There is no capitalist class, everyone is a capitalist, even those who fundamentally disagree with it still have to live within that world.
As long as people still want frivolous stuff, and all the modern accoutrements you can impose whatever system on people you want you’re still going to have these issues when it comes to climate change.
If we societally untethered a bit from the pursuit of wealth and material things it would aid climate action far more than the odd carbon tax or whatever. We could probably be mentally healthier as a society too if we retooled a bit.
But yeah I do agree, people on my Facebook feed share all the climate activism stuff and then complain any time any kind of tax is imposed that might disadvantage their lifestyles.
|
22nd amendment is pretty explicit with no room for interpretation
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress
But hey if the far right argues that amendments can be changed, just argue they're correct and that the 2nd amendment needs to be changed.
Fun fact, Trump, George W and Bill are all the same age
|
And in that twatter thread, they bring up a perfect counter. Obama 2024!
|
On December 13 2019 07:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
And in that twatter thread, they bring up a perfect counter. Obama 2024!
I feel that's a fine counterpoint but i prefer the 2nd amendment because the argument against gun control by the right often relies on 2nd amendment being part of the constitution and the constitution is why you can't do anything. Admitting that the constitution is a living document instead of sacrosanct points out that hypocrisy.
The obama 2020/2024 you'll get arguments that obama wasn't obstructed like trump was, then you'd have to break that down. It's simply not as clean, imo.
|
On December 13 2019 07:35 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 07:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
And in that twatter thread, they bring up a perfect counter. Obama 2024! I feel that's a fine counterpoint but i prefer the 2nd amendment because the argument against gun control by the right often relies on 2nd amendment being part of the constitution and the constitution is why you can't do anything. Admitting that the constitution is a living document instead of sacrosanct points out that hypocrisy. The obama 2020/2024 you'll get arguments that obama wasn't obstructed like trump was, then you'd have to break that down. It's simply not as clean, imo.
You joke, but this is the bait and switch Democrats fall for every time and then act aghast when Republicans abandon principle for their own/political benefit.
Failed removal by impeachment being (near?) the penultimate imo.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On December 13 2019 09:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 07:06 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 13 2019 05:01 JimmiC wrote:On December 13 2019 04:49 Nebuchad wrote:
Is there a reasoning that you have used to deduce that the problem isn't the capitalist class? They are certainly part of the problem, they are just not the only problem, it is not just the capitalist class that is destroying the planet. The capitalist class are not the only ones who have greed and selfishness. Can you give me some real life examples of socialist systems in practice that have removed these problems? So far to me the best ones are democracies, with lots of regulations on the capitalism. Hence why I continually talk about a cultural shift rather than any abstract capitalist class. There is no capitalist class, everyone is a capitalist, even those who fundamentally disagree with it still have to live within that world. As long as people still want frivolous stuff, and all the modern accoutrements you can impose whatever system on people you want you’re still going to have these issues when it comes to climate change. If we societally untethered a bit from the pursuit of wealth and material things it would aid climate action far more than the odd carbon tax or whatever. We could probably be mentally healthier as a society too if we retooled a bit. But yeah I do agree, people on my Facebook feed share all the climate activism stuff and then complain any time any kind of tax is imposed that might disadvantage their lifestyles. Im totally behind untethering the pursuit of wealth and material things from society. Im not sure how that is done while maintaining personal freedom. Some sort of democratic socialism makes sense, but the strength and weakness of democracy is you need the majority of people (or votes depending how those are organized) to agree on a course of action. And so far we are super far from a consensus on what to do, even environmentalists argue about what sorts of things are better, like recycling for example. It makes change slow because it is hard to convince people to give up convenience and stuff for the greater good, it is easier to find a point of blame or believe that their actions dont matter on the grand scheme of things. You need to find a way to convince a huge group of people that their individual actions do matter, or enforce it and enforcing it has a whole host of issues within democracy and even more in dictatorships.
We’re not far from a consensus on what to do. What needs done is obvious and is overly complicated by people’s and society‘s ‘oh it’s too complicated’
The solution is already there, or at least the mitigation, people don’t want to do it.
|
|
|
I still had hope somewhere that republicans would turn on Trump during this impeachment affair. But seeing McConnell say he's literally a pawn for the white house in the senate, well I guess I was a fool.
Honestly with Boris' big win in the UK it makes me very depressed for the future. Trump will most probably get reelected and then start working on his president for life campaign. The UK with 4 year of Boris and US with another 4 with Trump will empower their affiliates in other European countries.
In a few years deepfake tech will be so advanced that people can make fake videos of any narrative they want, empowering hate politics and blatant bullshitters even more. Combined with pressure from China/Russia, and increasing problems from climate change and refugees, liberal/social democracies are going to have such a hard time.
|
|
|
On December 14 2019 03:37 JimmiC wrote:
That the congress vote was completely partisan is probably a pretty good indicator that the senate vote will also be that way. Ofcourse, but still. McConnel plainly stating that the jury is working with the defence is a level of open admission that appears to have caught some people off guard.
Its one thing to know it, its another to hear them say it.
|
Given that McConnell has already committed to following Trump's lawyers in lockstep, it's a pretty good sign that they have the vote already planned out. The usual Republicans (Collins) will hem and haw, and maybe vote against Trump depending on the demographics in their state, but won't have an impact on the result.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-senators-are-likely-to-vote-for-trumps-removal/
This was a good read on what's required for a successful impeachment. With the public support for impeachment at sub-50% overall, and far less than that with repubs. It'll be essentially a party-line vote. The only thing that might come out of it is the airing of airtight evidence against Trump, and a lot of spin as to how it is, or is not enough to impeach him. No question that he did it, but that doesn't matter when the Senate is not an independent body.
|
Just playing things out a bit (provided the house passes impeachment despite bipartisan opposition) where do we go from there.
The 2020 election doesn't really matter if Democrats are right that Trump rigged the election and was working to rig 2020 and they failed to hold him accountable in both instances.
Why not rig 2020, what is anyone going to do about it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
