EPTLike China?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2034
| 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 | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
Like China? | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On January 16 2020 14:07 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: On the impeachment case there is some news, yesterday a lot of files were released by one of the Giuliani goons, Lev Parnas. Among it was a letter Giulani sent to the Ukrainian president where he asks for a meeting representing Trump and specifically adds he represents Trump as a person not a president but still has Trumps full knowledge and consent. Letter + Show Spoiler + And today Parnas gave a extensive interview to Maddow where he says out loud Trump knew everything. He also says Devin Nunes was involved in it all. Given Nunes position in this whole investigation, it's all getting complicated. Remember we already knew Nunes was called by Parnas by the phone records released earlier but then Nunes ' didn't recall' this ' random person' Parnas at all. + Show Spoiler + Trump knew and consented to everything: + Show Spoiler + Pence and Bolton: + Show Spoiler + Barr: + Show Spoiler + The whole fued between Bernie and Warren is so fucking stupid, while shit like this gets buried by others in this thread. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13738 Posts
On January 16 2020 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote: Pretty sure they were digging on democracy (probably not so much the women and they needed to be incentivized) then there was a coup/lost battle/some other stuff, about a year under the "30 Tyrants" then struggled to rebuild their democracy (that excluded ~50% of the population based on gender). Then some notable figures came through and conquered the land/subjugated the people a couple times over the next 100 or so years (presuming the kings you're referring to are Philip and Alexander). The Wiki sums it up this way: en.wikipedia.org I think we've reached the end of constructive dialogue between us on this though. We didn't have a dialogue. You said I was wrong, refused to elaborate on the why. then made arguments on my behalf why I was right. Then tried to have a "I'm taking my ball and going home" moment. This is not how normal people have discussions GH. I hope for your sake you realize that. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9234 Posts
 More like adequate staffing for the bureaucratic institutions whose duty it is to ensure that laws are adhered to. Like carrying out unannounced inspections, in depth analysis of documentation and resilience against loopholes that undermine the intent of the law. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On January 16 2020 15:40 Sermokala wrote: We didn't have a dialogue. You said I was wrong, refused to elaborate on the why. then made arguments on my behalf why I was right. Then tried to have a "I'm taking my ball and going home" moment. This is not how normal people have discussions GH. I hope for your sake you realize that. Your argument presumed a bunch of unsourced facts that didn't match up with my interpretation/recollection supplemented with some sourcing. Your argument veered wildly away from my question for someone else and in hopes I may still get a response that pertains to those issues/questions I raised and seeing little-nothing further to be gained in our exchange I'm not going to argue things indefinitely. I'd agree that it's not a great way to interact, but dragging this out any further is assuredly less desirable for everyone. On January 16 2020 15:46 Artisreal wrote: More like adequate staffing for the bureaucratic institutions whose duty it is to ensure that laws are adhered to. Like carrying out unannounced inspections, in depth analysis of documentation and resilience against loopholes that undermine the intent of the law. Sounds like we've slipped into the realm of fantasy where we aren't (after decades) still fighting just to get cops to stop turning off the few working cameras they have and prisons not to "misplace" critical evidence in even the most absurd circumstances (Epstein video outside his cell was "accidentally lost" despite multiple protocols and calls to preserve them) | ||
|
Yurie
11686 Posts
On January 16 2020 14:19 Belisarius wrote: I realise this was a while ago now, capitalism is slightly more effective at incentivising my employment than it is neb's. This isn't the question, though. The question we currently face is: which is more likely, successfully pressuring the current group of CEOs to give a shit, or attempting to rebuild the entire structure of society in an impossibly short window, in the vague hope that the new group of owners will give more of a shit. Our national public broadcaster ran a huge survey last year. Climate change was the #1 issue selected out of a list of “immediate person concerns”. 72% of respondents said it concerned them. This was before the country became an infernal hellscape. Immediately afterwards, they asked the same people how much they would be willing to spend to address it. The answers were: That is less than 10% of people who say they are willing to pay anything like the amount it might actually cost, and this is in a response-biased group that already skews educated and left. I can’t find the original article but here is a fancy interactographic thing they did afterwards. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-17/what-youd-spend-to-halt-climate-change-and-what-you-could-get/11784704 Everyone agrees climate change is a problem. Nobody will ever agree to do anything meaningful about it unless they are forced to. This problem is not solved by socialism because it is not due to power structures, it is due to people - and not just rich people - being ignorant and selfish and short-sighted. I recognise myself in that. I vote for the green party every single election since I want carbon taxes implemented. I don't have the morale on a day to day basis to do it myself and don't think most others do either. Simple stuff like paying for renewable electricity instead of the normal mix and taking the train when possible are easy stuff I do since they have minimal impact on living and cost. On the other side I don't have the will to stop buying meat as a clear example. If they tripled the cost of it I would likely eat much less though because it no longer is the cheapest food source in the store. To expand a bit on the meat thing. Vegetables and the basis (rice, pasta, potatoes) are cheaper but you need more to balance out a meal. Beans for example is more expensive than meat most times here. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13738 Posts
On January 16 2020 15:49 GreenHorizons wrote: Your argument presumed a bunch of unsourced facts that didn't match up with my interpretation/recollection supplemented with some sourcing. Your argument veered wildly away from my question for someone else and in hopes I may still get a response that pertains to those issues/questions I raised and seeing little-nothing further to be gained in our exchange I'm not going to argue things indefinitely. I'd agree that it's not a great way to interact, but dragging this out any further is assuredly less desirable for everyone. Sounds like we've slipped into the realm of fantasy where we aren't (after decades) still fighting just to get cops to stop turning off the few working cameras they have and prisons not to "misplace" critical evidence in even the most absurd circumstances (Epstein video outside his cell was "accidentally lost" despite multiple protocols and calls to preserve them) You didn't provide any interpretation or recollection to my response that didn't assert any facts and contained things people call opinions formed into a response, ie dialogue ie debate. . The closest thing to it that you provided was supporting my comment about tyrants replacing the greek democracies before everyone going back to kings. What normal people do to steer a conversation back to where they want it is to reform their question or provide an argument that goes down the track of the argument they prefer. People call this a response or a clarification of what they were trying to say in their vague opening question. What exactly are you expecting from people? | ||
|
BerserkSword
United States2123 Posts
the goods regarding the warren-sanders exchange post-debate | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On January 16 2020 06:50 Mohdoo wrote: The more I think about it, the more I think Warren made the right call for 2020 and the entirely wrong call for 2024 and beyond. Warren, against all odds, somehow found a place in the primary to the right of Sanders and the left of Biden. It was an impressive amount of support that looked capable of winning, but quickly fizzled once people were like "wait, why am I compromising? Give me Bernie" and Biden firmed up his support. Essentially, her only chance of actually winning 2020 primary was to consume either Biden or Bernie's support. Bernie's appeared most vulnerable, I suppose, since she took some of it in the past. She went for the throat the only way she could, by abusing her position as a woman to fabricate impressions that Bernie is a misogynist, choosing to piggy back on Clinton's attack. In the end, Warren went from warmly accepted by a large portion of Bernie supporters to "essentially Biden" with this shameless attempt to smear Bernie. So in the end, she is still in this weird spot where she doesn't have enough support to do anything other than ruin Bernie's campaign. So where does she go from here? Either she rides the Biden train, gives his campaign a liberal woman with lots of support and a worthwhile endorsement or she waits it out. Based on her already going after Bernie, I think she is going to try to be Biden's VP. That would be a extremely stupid mistake... I'm not sure it would be career ending, but might actually get her there if she tried it. I think at the end of the day, her and sanders are friends, and both the campaigns know that to get a progressive in office, one of them will have to step back and support the other... I know Bernie is capable of this, and I'm pretty sure Warren is as well... despite cnn pitting them against each other. I 100% think they should be on the same ticket together, I honestly can't imagine them winning any other way. If she goes Biden, she will piss off so many progressives, I couldn't even tell you what that would look like. If she goes with Sanders, she sets herself up to run at the end of his tenure. I mean, who else is Bernie gonna make his VP pick lol. Maybe Ro Khanna? Def not ANYONE else running for the top seat. AOC would be weird and hurt him, despite her popularity. Maybe Stacy Abrams? | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On January 16 2020 16:26 BerserkSword wrote: I'd bet that this has been posted already, but in case it hasnt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZJjptmdYLg the goods regarding the warren-sanders exchange post-debate This just shows what a trash outlet cnn is. Fucking Fox News for the left. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21362 Posts
On January 16 2020 15:35 ShoCkeyy wrote: I think it more got buried because this isn't really new information. We already know Trump knew and that Nunes was involved up to his eyebrows.The whole fued between Bernie and Warren is so fucking stupid, while shit like this gets buried by others in this thread. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43793 Posts
On January 16 2020 15:35 ShoCkeyy wrote: The whole fued between Bernie and Warren is so fucking stupid, while shit like this gets buried by others in this thread. I think both stories (more Trump-impeachment related facts and testimony coming out + potential drama between Sanders and Warren) are important for our current political climate. Working off your view that the impeachment-related information is important but the Sanders-Warren drama is not, I could absolutely see a counterargument from a practical perspective, saying that no amount of evidence is going to persuade Senate Republicans to impeach Trump anyway, yet a schism between Sanders and Warren could absolutely jeopardize a path to victory for a progressive candidate (both in the primary and in the general election), and we actually have a shot at beating Trump (as opposed to the fact that we don't have a shot at convicting Trump). I think it really just depends on what one's objectives are, but I think hearing more updates about both of these stories are worthwhile. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9234 Posts
On January 16 2020 15:49 GreenHorizons wrote: Your argument presumed a bunch of unsourced facts that didn't match up with my interpretation/recollection supplemented with some sourcing. Your argument veered wildly away from my question for someone else and in hopes I may still get a response that pertains to those issues/questions I raised and seeing little-nothing further to be gained in our exchange I'm not going to argue things indefinitely. I'd agree that it's not a great way to interact, but dragging this out any further is assuredly less desirable for everyone. Sounds like we've slipped into the realm of fantasy where we aren't (after decades) still fighting just to get cops to stop turning off the few working cameras they have and prisons not to "misplace" critical evidence in even the most absurd circumstances (Epstein video outside his cell was "accidentally lost" despite multiple protocols and calls to preserve them) Well, let's not call it the one solution to end all problems - say it's a piece of the greater puzzle. Add a global and significant carbon tax and deploy the Brazilian military to combat the wideliy illegalized logging. The correct term we're looking for is a revolutionary overhaul of our environmental legislation and enforcement. Law and order. Should also appeal to Conservatives all over the globe. Though Germany definitely has a historic tendency to be blind on the right eye - which comes to light more and more these last years. And evidence disappearing, well it just so happened on the work phone of our new President of the European Commission in her former emplyoment as Minister of Defence. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17848 Posts
On January 16 2020 08:50 Wombat_NI wrote: Why would that help? Within the current framework all such technology is being utilised into more efficiently converting people into being good little consumers. I don't think this is fair at all. Most technology isn't invented to make us consume. Most technology is invented to do something new that people want to do, or to make "labour intensive" tasks less labour intensive (automation). Whether that is watch streaming videos over the internet while on the train, cure an ailment that has so far been uncurable (or at least, improve our treatments), or automate an entire supply chain with computation and robotics. It's not the technology that turns us into good little consumers, it's US. It's people who look at glossy magazines/websites/"influencers" and conclude they need the newest jeans/telephone/game/washing machine RIGHT NOW. Sure, we can blame the existence of these marketing channels on capitalism, but it wouldn't be fair: wanting what your neighbour has is as old as humanity (and probably as old as life itself). We've just gotten better at looking further (we have more neighbours) and highlighting why some new gadget is "absolutely essential". But it's not capitalism that did that. People in communist East Germany were looking longingly at all the shiny things they had in West Germany. That innate desire to have "stuff" doesn't go away just because the system doesn't allow you to have it, and people find other means of procuring it (aka black market). | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
On January 16 2020 18:35 ShambhalaWar wrote: That would be a extremely stupid mistake... I'm not sure it would be career ending, but might actually get her there if she tried it. I think at the end of the day, her and sanders are friends, and both the campaigns know that to get a progressive in office, one of them will have to step back and support the other... I know Bernie is capable of this, and I'm pretty sure Warren is as well... despite cnn pitting them against each other. I 100% think they should be on the same ticket together, I honestly can't imagine them winning any other way. If she goes Biden, she will piss off so many progressives, I couldn't even tell you what that would look like. If she goes with Sanders, she sets herself up to run at the end of his tenure. I mean, who else is Bernie gonna make his VP pick lol. Maybe Ro Khanna? Def not ANYONE else running for the top seat. AOC would be weird and hurt him, despite her popularity. Maybe Stacy Abrams? I would be devastated if he chose Stacy Abrams. She's a terrible speaker, comes across as a sore loser every time she talks and simply has zero charisma. It would be about 5% as bad as Tim Kaine, which still qualifies as "extremely dog shit". | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On January 16 2020 18:35 ShambhalaWar wrote: That would be a extremely stupid mistake... I'm not sure it would be career ending, but might actually get her there if she tried it. I think at the end of the day, her and sanders are friends, and both the campaigns know that to get a progressive in office, one of them will have to step back and support the other... I know Bernie is capable of this, and I'm pretty sure Warren is as well... despite cnn pitting them against each other. I 100% think they should be on the same ticket together, I honestly can't imagine them winning any other way. If she goes Biden, she will piss off so many progressives, I couldn't even tell you what that would look like. If she goes with Sanders, she sets herself up to run at the end of his tenure. I mean, who else is Bernie gonna make his VP pick lol. Maybe Ro Khanna? Def not ANYONE else running for the top seat. AOC would be weird and hurt him, despite her popularity. Maybe Stacy Abrams? My understanding of how VP picks are usually made is that they are intended to shore up a candidate's potential weakness with a particular demographic. I would think that both Sanders and Warren would gain comparatively little from having the other as their VP. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11926 Posts
On January 16 2020 14:19 Belisarius wrote: This isn't the question, though. The question we currently face is: which is more likely, successfully pressuring the current group of CEOs to give a shit, or attempting to rebuild the entire structure of society in an impossibly short window, in the vague hope that the new group of owners will give more of a shit. I was not aware that this was the question. It's pretty obvious to me that social democracy is the first step we need to implement and I said as much in my first answer to you (and numerous other times before). | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4583 Posts
On January 16 2020 21:14 Acrofales wrote: I don't think this is fair at all. Most technology isn't invented to make us consume. Most technology is invented to do something new that people want to do, or to make "labour intensive" tasks less labour intensive (automation). Whether that is watch streaming videos over the internet while on the train, cure an ailment that has so far been uncurable (or at least, improve our treatments), or automate an entire supply chain with computation and robotics. It's not the technology that turns us into good little consumers, it's US. It's people who look at glossy magazines/websites/"influencers" and conclude they need the newest jeans/telephone/game/washing machine RIGHT NOW. Sure, we can blame the existence of these marketing channels on capitalism, but it wouldn't be fair: wanting what your neighbour has is as old as humanity (and probably as old as life itself). We've just gotten better at looking further (we have more neighbours) and highlighting why some new gadget is "absolutely essential". But it's not capitalism that did that. People in communist East Germany were looking longingly at all the shiny things they had in West Germany. That innate desire to have "stuff" doesn't go away just because the system doesn't allow you to have it, and people find other means of procuring it (aka black market). Sure, wanting stuff is a thing, but people realizing they want stuff because of commercials because they didn't know that kind of thing or brand existsted also is a thing. You can't deny the absolute lengths the marketing industry will go to just to abuse people's mental state so they will want it even more. It's beyond despicable to prey on these people that don't necessarly need things, but are subtly convinced they do definitely absolutely do need it because it's the best thing ever. This happens mostly when certain brands get big enough that they can constantly bombard tv/radio/.. with their ads. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11330 Posts
And we know that it does exactly that is because companies spend a lot of money on marketing. If it didn't convince people to buy stuff they wouldn't buy otherwise, companies wouldn't spend that much money on it. And as such, marketing is bad for everyone except the people selling the stuff people wouldn't want without marketing. It is bad for the consumers, because it makes them make bad purchasing decisions by convincing them they want stuff they wouldn't want without the marketing, and by turning their decisions from informed decisions based on facts, into decisions based on image and marketing. It is bad for the environment, because it makes people buy stuff they don't want, AND it wastes a lot of material and energy on marketing material to convince people they want stuff they don't want. People also need to realize that entertainment which finances itself through ads is not "free". Someone is paying money for that ad. And that person expects a net profit of more than the ad costs by showing it to you. And they are probably correct, too, otherwise this wouldn't be such a prevailing model. So instead of paying for the entertainment you are actually consuming, you are paying for random shit you don't want. I would be really interested in a system where i can just skip ads and pay the amount of money the ads would generate for the content to the creator directly. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23821 Posts
On January 16 2020 21:14 Acrofales wrote: I don't think this is fair at all. Most technology isn't invented to make us consume. Most technology is invented to do something new that people want to do, or to make "labour intensive" tasks less labour intensive (automation). Whether that is watch streaming videos over the internet while on the train, cure an ailment that has so far been uncurable (or at least, improve our treatments), or automate an entire supply chain with computation and robotics. It's not the technology that turns us into good little consumers, it's US. It's people who look at glossy magazines/websites/"influencers" and conclude they need the newest jeans/telephone/game/washing machine RIGHT NOW. Sure, we can blame the existence of these marketing channels on capitalism, but it wouldn't be fair: wanting what your neighbour has is as old as humanity (and probably as old as life itself). We've just gotten better at looking further (we have more neighbours) and highlighting why some new gadget is "absolutely essential". But it's not capitalism that did that. People in communist East Germany were looking longingly at all the shiny things they had in West Germany. That innate desire to have "stuff" doesn't go away just because the system doesn't allow you to have it, and people find other means of procuring it (aka black market). Well all that is mostly true yeah, but that’s what I meant by ‘within the current framework’. I’m simultaneously optimistic on AI and automation and extremely pessimistic on it at the same time. There’s a lot of potential there, equally look what kind of companies are pumping money into it. Marketing of some kind has existed since forever, it’s just simultaneously matured and become more pervasive in the current era. Personally I would really like to opt out of some but alas. Anyway yeah, people do want things and stuff, to some degree anyway. Plus new experiences as you said, as well as the social component. | ||
| ||
