|
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 January 10 2020 00:24 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 23:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It's probably more that every now and then GH and mini GH would explode together in massive amounts of volume of posting against one guy. Rather uncomfortable to see. Just witness the conversation with SC2Ren a few pages back. At some point there was "the enemy" and "did you not udnerstand the point of the excercise?". It's not opinions but how it is done. I read the economist. Now label me as right winger for all the good that'll do. I always thought of The Economist as left wing, neoliberal. Breitbart, Gatestone, Zero Hedge, Spectator are right wing, imo. Fox is neocon (but Tucker isn't). AP and Reuters are center. Curious where everyone else would place outlets on the spectrum. At this point you have to ask and answer what is left wing and what is right wing. I don't consider them useful labels at all, but are currently used as calls to evoke tribalism both as a rallying call and as an other to rise against. Most of what you listed isn't isn't right wing media, as they peddle in lies and conspiracies, they are not a media outlet.
|
On January 10 2020 12:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 11:44 farvacola wrote:On January 10 2020 11:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 10 2020 11:21 farvacola wrote:On January 10 2020 09:52 JimmiC wrote:
@farvacola, or someone else with good understanding of the legal system in the US.
If (and I get this is super unrealistic, just wondering the process) Sanders got elected and the senate and congress became all Dem's, and progressive enough Dem's that they all agreed and voted for a universal healthcare that was the same as Canada/Europe owned and operated by the government funded through taxes because the government was paying just about as much as the other countries and not getting universal. How would they go about it, I'm guessing they couldn't just seize all the hospitals and staff. Would they have to buy out the shares? Would the supreme court just not allow it?
Basically how would the US actually go about making health care public instead of private? Or is the only option the government working with the private and insurance system? And then could they regulate certain cost control's and fairness requirements? There is a fair bit of differentiation among leftist plans for universal healthcare in the US, but the one I think makes the most sense goes through public option, universal insurance that works somewhat like Medicare but with beefed up cost coverage and a wider range of general applicability/simplicity (think consolidate and streamline Medicare Parts A, B, C, D into one or two comprehensive schemes). Paying for it is not an issue for two reasons, the first is the savings that results from reduction in bloat on the part of both insurers and providers, the second is a more radical economic notion that derives from what I think is the correct view of how deficit spending works, namely that the battle over when and where "how are you gonna pay for that" gets invoked deals far more in the fluid rules of political conflict than hard economic facts a la inflation when dealing with a monetary sovereign. What would you think the supreme court decisions would be if something like that got implemented? I see lawsuits filling up the court systems already should that come to pass. Is there a way to structure it so that the lawsuits and subsequent SC hearing isn't going to make it ACA 2.0? One of the fundamental flaws with the ACA was that it intermingled state and federal administration together in a way that tracks more closely with Medicaid, which creates a host of unnecessary constitutional problems that quickly became the fodder that has served as the numerous challenges to the law. Take-it-or-leave-it Medicaid conditions were struck down in NFIB v. Sebelius, for example, whereas there is no doubt whatsoever that the federal government can levy a uniform program of insurance like Medicare or Social Security. The half-baked cooperative state and federal managed markets scheme underlying the ACA doomed it from the start. But isn't going to be the issue going forward? That the feds are encroaching on state's rights? That the states should be left to decide what to do with their population/voter blocs and not the feds? Medicaid is only accepted because it's been around forever. Same with SS. But even though politicians tell people that UHC is on par with those as social programs, they'll still fight it. I guess I'm looking for a way to ensure it isn't knee-capped again.
Impossible. The Republicans will never support socialised healthcare because by definition it messes with privatised corporate healthcare. The only chance for Democrats to even think of doing this is if the Republicans lose the Presidency and both houses of congress by such a margin that they have literally no power in government.
|
On January 10 2020 21:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 00:24 Xxio wrote:On January 09 2020 23:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It's probably more that every now and then GH and mini GH would explode together in massive amounts of volume of posting against one guy. Rather uncomfortable to see. Just witness the conversation with SC2Ren a few pages back. At some point there was "the enemy" and "did you not udnerstand the point of the excercise?". It's not opinions but how it is done. I read the economist. Now label me as right winger for all the good that'll do. I always thought of The Economist as left wing, neoliberal. Breitbart, Gatestone, Zero Hedge, Spectator are right wing, imo. Fox is neocon (but Tucker isn't). AP and Reuters are center. Curious where everyone else would place outlets on the spectrum. At this point you have to ask and answer what is left wing and what is right wing. I don't consider them useful labels at all, but are currently used as calls to evoke tribalism both as a rallying call and as an other to rise against. Most of what you listed isn't isn't right wing media, as they peddle in lies and conspiracies, they are not a media outlet.
Originally leftwing is what fights against the power structures and the social hierarchies of a society, rightwing is what maintains and/or reinforces those.
|
On January 10 2020 22:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Originally leftwing is what fights against the power structures and the social hierarchies of a society, rightwing is what maintains and/or reinforces those.
That's a super simplistic view that doesn't make sense depending on what country you are in and leads into exactly what I was saying; that it is used as a meaningless tribal rallying cry. Especially here.
|
On January 10 2020 22:59 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 22:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Originally leftwing is what fights against the power structures and the social hierarchies of a society, rightwing is what maintains and/or reinforces those. That's a super simplistic view that doesn't make sense depending on what country you are in and leads into exactly what I was saying; that it is used as a meaningless tribal rallying cry. Especially here.
I think it's used differently by different people and of varying usefulness, but I've been on your bad side for calling people neoliberals too so I guess what would be helpful is if you could provide some examples of what you think should be used instead.
For instance, I have a similar understanding as Neb for the historical usage, so the "simplistic view" is clearly communicated imo. What words would you use instead of left/right wing there?
Another post that used the terms in a way you disapprove could be used as an example as well.
|
On January 10 2020 22:59 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 22:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Originally leftwing is what fights against the power structures and the social hierarchies of a society, rightwing is what maintains and/or reinforces those. That's a super simplistic view that doesn't make sense depending on what country you are in and leads into exactly what I was saying; that it is used as a meaningless tribal rallying cry. Especially here.
I realize that I believe politics is simple but even I am not surprised that restricting politics to two words would create a simplistic view. I just gave you the original meaning of left/right, you can do what you want with it.
|
About 3/4's of the voting public can't identify Iran on a map according to a new morning consult poll.
Twenty-eight percent of registered voters were able to accurately label Iran on a map of the Middle East region, according to new Morning Consult/Politico polling conducted Jan. 4-5, before the Iranian military fired missiles at two bases in Iraq housing U.S. troops. Twenty-three percent could identify the country on a larger, also unlabeled, global map. Eight percent of voters thought Iran was Iraq on the smaller map.
We really need to pass a law that says we can't drop a bomb anywhere a super-majority of voters can't find on a map. I don't think it'll actually stop the US bombing people around the world, but at least we won't look so unforgivably stupid about it.
The map is both sad and terrifying.
+ Show Spoiler +
morningconsult.com
|
Norway28876 Posts
I'm assuming mexico and canada would object to that, as the military industrial complex would have to keep rolling 
|
|
|
I mean is there another country on the planet where invading/bombing/overthrowing governments of countries your people can't find on a map is such a constant refrain?
The US is a uniquely bad actor in that way no?
On January 10 2020 23:56 JimmiC wrote:
How many of those were people purposefully getting it wrong, I can't imagine people actually thought it was in the US or Canada let alone many of the other stupid guesses.
I doubt that they purposefully got it wrong, but simply didn't know and made a silly guess/troll answer. Limiting the map didn't help much.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On January 10 2020 23:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
I mean is there another country on the planet where invading/bombing/overthrowing governments of countries your people can't find on a map is such a constant refrain?
The US is a uniquely bad actor in that way no?
I suspect that has as much or more to do with the United States tending to invade/bomb/overthrow more geographically distant countries than other major powers. (Due to a combination of the US having relatively few direct neighbours, greater capability for force projection, etc.) There's probably an argument that meddling in countries halfway across the world is worse (or at least differently bad) to meddling in countries on your doorstep, but plenty of other countries do or have gone in for the invading/bombing/overthrowing itself.
I'd probably have struggled with that question myself, I certainly wouldn't have known offhand just how far east Iran extends.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
Map questions are just stupid gotchas, I’m pretty terrible on map questions in my beloved pub quizzes, even European countries.
I don’t think it’s a particularly useful question to be asking, stuff like ‘why are we enemies?’ and ‘what sect of Islam do Iranians follow?’ or ‘who was the Shah?’ etc are far more relevant.
|
Canada5565 Posts
"A federal appeals court ruled that President Donald Trump’s border wall project can proceed while using up to $3.6 billion earmarked for military construction projects funds as his administration continues to challenge a lower federal court’s injunction against diversion of the funds...A final ruling on the legality of the use of the military funds for the planned border wall with Mexico will come later."
Unfortunately it's more of a fence than Israel's West Bank Barrier. Anyway, this will help his campaign.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/09/trump-border-wall-can-use-military-money-during-legal-challenge.html
|
Nah, Trump benefits the most by having his wall efforts heard, but not realized. The actual process of building the walls and subsequent undermining of them both make Trump look worse.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
Yeah actually building the walls and discovering they do fuck all is much less preferable than claiming their supposed benefits are being obstructed by pesky liberals.
|
|
|
Yes, the eminent domain legal proceedings they’ll need to succeed in will cause a lot of ire.
|
On January 10 2020 22:31 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 21:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 10 2020 00:24 Xxio wrote:On January 09 2020 23:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It's probably more that every now and then GH and mini GH would explode together in massive amounts of volume of posting against one guy. Rather uncomfortable to see. Just witness the conversation with SC2Ren a few pages back. At some point there was "the enemy" and "did you not udnerstand the point of the excercise?". It's not opinions but how it is done. I read the economist. Now label me as right winger for all the good that'll do. I always thought of The Economist as left wing, neoliberal. Breitbart, Gatestone, Zero Hedge, Spectator are right wing, imo. Fox is neocon (but Tucker isn't). AP and Reuters are center. Curious where everyone else would place outlets on the spectrum. At this point you have to ask and answer what is left wing and what is right wing. I don't consider them useful labels at all, but are currently used as calls to evoke tribalism both as a rallying call and as an other to rise against. Most of what you listed isn't isn't right wing media, as they peddle in lies and conspiracies, they are not a media outlet. Originally leftwing is what fights against the power structures and the social hierarchies of a society, rightwing is what maintains and/or reinforces those.
So in a communist country, the communists are rightwing and free market capitalists would be leftwing? I realize that it's not your definitions, but it seems odd and probably another good reason why we should stay away from a left-right poles and talk more about ideologies: socialist, capitalist, liberal, progressive, conservative. And especially try to separate liberal from progressive (which are often mistaken for each other in America).
On January 10 2020 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:About 3/4's of the voting public can't identify Iran on a map according to a new morning consult poll. Show nested quote +Twenty-eight percent of registered voters were able to accurately label Iran on a map of the Middle East region, according to new Morning Consult/Politico polling conducted Jan. 4-5, before the Iranian military fired missiles at two bases in Iraq housing U.S. troops. Twenty-three percent could identify the country on a larger, also unlabeled, global map. Eight percent of voters thought Iran was Iraq on the smaller map. We really need to pass a law that says we can't drop a bomb anywhere a super-majority of voters can't find on a map. I don't think it'll actually stop the US bombing people around the world, but at least we won't look so unforgivably stupid about it. The map is both sad and terrifying. + Show Spoiler +morningconsult.com
So we should make a rule that you shouldn't be able to protest against military action if you can't correctly identify the country on a map?
Yeah, this is one of those weird meaningless "gotchas".
|
Yeah I could probably label at most 40 states on a US map because I can't bring myself to give a shit. I'm a bit weird in that way though and go out of my way to not learn things if I think its meaningless.
|
President Donald Trump on Thursday proposed expanding NATO's membership to include Middle Eastern nations in light of recent U.S. tensions in the region with Iran.
“I think that NATO should be expanded, and we should include the Middle East. Absolutely,” the president told reporters, arguing that North Atlantic military alliance should take over for the U.S. in the region “because this is an international problem.” “And we can come home, or largely come home and use NATO,” he continued, portraying such a move as a trade-off for Washington’s leading role in eliminating the Islamic State’s physical caliphate. “It’s an international problem. We caught ISIS. We did Europe a big favor.” (...) At the White House Thursday, Trump revealed how much thought he’d been putting into the issue, debuting his ideal name for the new initiative. “NATO, right, and then you have M-E, Middle East,” he told reporters excitedly, writing in the air with his fingers. “You call it NATO-ME. What a beautiful name. I'm good at names.” The president, who has often boasted about his branding prowess, suggested that it would catch on like the abbreviation for the renegotiated trade deal with Mexico and Canada, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. “USMCA, like the song “YMCA,’” Trump exclaimed. “No one could remember it, USMCA. I said, think of the song: ‘YMCA.’ Now everybody says it.” Returning to the matter at hand, he explained: “No, uh, if you add the two words, Middle East, at the end of it, because that's a big problem. That’s a big source of problems. And NATO-ME, doesn’t that work beautifully Jon? ‘NATO’ plus ‘ME.’” https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-plus-me-donald-trump-proposes-nato-expansion-into-middle-east/
I had to double-check it wasn't a satirical article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2020-People-Identifying-Iran-on-world-map-scaled.png)
![[image loading]](https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2020-People-Identifying-Iran-on-regional-map-scaled.png)
