|
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 30 2020 04:54 Nouar wrote:
Man.... Dershowitz just asserted that a quid pro quo, even if it is only partially in the public interest, is legal.
He also asserted that Trump believes his own reelection is in the public interest. Ergo : it was not illegal.
I mean... WHAT ?
That video is just... Unbelievable. It's not funny, it's sad.
Quoting for those who can't see the video for some reason : "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
(Unsurprisingly, this quote does NOT appear in Fox's live coverage :-))
This would mean Trump can cancel elections if he decides it is bad for national security, right?
|
On January 30 2020 05:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2020 04:54 Nouar wrote:Man.... Dershowitz just asserted that a quid pro quo, even if it is only partially in the public interest, is legal. He also asserted that Trump believes his own reelection is in the public interest. Ergo : it was not illegal. I mean... WHAT ? That video is just... Unbelievable. It's not funny, it's sad. Quoting for those who can't see the video for some reason : "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1222600255369359362(Unsurprisingly, this quote does NOT appear in Fox's live coverage :-)) This would mean Trump can cancel elections if he decides it is bad for national security, right?
Or jail political opponents since he believes it's in the national interest.
I mean, it's not so far-fetched. A lot of cops get away with killing defenseless people because they believed this grappling clamp/smartphone/whatever was a weapon and they felt threatened.
|
Dershowitz also argued a few days earlier that he may have said the complete opposite of what he pleads for now during the Clinton impeachment but that new insights led him to this and that he is very impartial. The guy is so desperate. I'm kind of interested in why he hangs his coat on this particular branch.
If Trump and co did this whole thing for the public good than they could've easily used official channels, and not suppress a whistleblower report about it, and not block witnesses for it, and comply with subpoenas for it.
It's basically the legal speak version of Kellyanne's 'Don't listen to his words, think what's in his heart'. He may say or do bad things but if his intentions in his heart were good it's all fine.
|
On January 30 2020 05:26 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Dershowitz also argued a few days earlier that he may have said the complete opposite of what he pleads for now during the Clinton impeachment but that new insights led him to this and that he is very impartial. The guy is so desperate.
If Trump and co did this whole thing for the public good than they could've easily used official channels, and not suppress a whistleblower report about it, and not block witnesses for it, and comply with subpoenas for it.
Kenneth Starr also argued that it was a very bad habit to target presidents and that impeachment would become a bad habit, by going on fishing expeditions. Starr.
Yes, the guy that got a president impeached for lying about a mistress when he was investigating him for Whitewater.
White House also asserted today that :
Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin made the dubious claim that Mick Mulvaney’s comments at his October press conference, at which he infamously confirmed a quid pro quo in the freeze on Ukraine’s military assistance, were “garbled or misunderstood.”
Yes. Garbled, misunderstood. That quote, for the record, when asked about the quid pro quo, was :
I have news for everybody. Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.
|
Northern Ireland23839 Posts
On January 30 2020 04:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 12:38 Gahlo wrote:On January 29 2020 12:12 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 29 2020 12:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 11:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 29 2020 11:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 11:32 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 03:47 farvacola wrote:On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"? I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind. Your immigration and schooling views render you a far-right reactionary, not a radical. The two terms have distinctive meanings relative to the policy area they are used to describe. I wouldn't have guessed that about the schooling. Always thought it was more libertarian/hippie/anarchist or something like that. Chomsky and Gatto, among others, convinced me to be highly skeptical of the education system and envision something better. On January 29 2020 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Not sure if you missed it or deemed it in bad faith but my question: On January 29 2020 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:
[quote]I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind. So school aged children (orphans especially) just shouldn't be allowed to immigrate in your view then? was sincere. I don't see how allowing orphans (or any children/young adults dependent on public education) into the country wouldn't necessarily contradict your view (as articulated thus far) of acceptable immigration? Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like you want to ask me questions until you find a perceived inconsistency and 'gotcha' moment -- similar to the bomb question you asked before. It is like the bomb question in that I see a contradiction which I seek to resolve. When you chose not to address the contradiction in the bomb example, Drone and explained Neb explained the nature of the argument and that politics is a lot about deciding the acceptable targets of violence. There's no "gotcha" moment. If the contradiction is real then it should be confronted, if it is a misconception on my part and there is no contradiction then I'd appreciate an explanation to that effect. If that seems unreasonable, then at least a firm claim that it isn't a contradiction that can then reasonably be denied based on comparable support. Do we in this thread really even need a ‘gotcha’ question to nail Xxio on any of his views that he’s been hypothetically obfuscating? They are pretty apparent, for what anyone may think of them or whatever. Typically I'd psychically tag in my anger translator Kwark here but everyone has been picking on him for it so I dunno. I just like to distill the issue when we have to deal with positions like Xxio that trigger the dogpiles. Otherwise it gets unwieldy pretty quick. I think some of this would be beneficial for society, but how do you get there? The borderline economic unviability of the one parent stay at home to raise the child(ten) ideal isn’t particularly a champion cause of the wider left after all. I wouldn’t at all describe myself as a social conservative but some of those structures have some value, just it’s rampant capitalism that’s dismantling them and nothing else. I blame the women for working in the first place(HARD sarcasm). Both parents work now because in the overwhelming majority of cases they have to. If it was possible for the middle class to get by on one salary in 2020, why not have both work and just have a super high standard of living as compared to single worker families in the same fields? You'd end up with well off people basically sending their kids to private/charter schools as they hire the unemployed teachers, but don't want to pay enough to them to do a full person's job. Doing this would then gut the public schooling system for the poor as teachers flee for much better paying gigs with the rich kids with the exception of nurse servitude again. Also, good luck going into an apprenticeship as a young teen and actually wanting to do that for your life. Last I heard somebody switches their major in college an average of 3 times. I don't think it has anything to do with rampant capitalism. Gender equality and feminist struggle have made possible a world in which women can dream of more than cooking for their husband, be at home with the kids and socialize over tea with their girlfriends. As far as I can tell, most women work because they want to be financially independent and be more than spouses and mothers. I work in a symphony orchestra. In 1960 there were not and had never been a woman in the band. Now they are two thirds. It's not absolute necessity because life is too hard nor rampant capitalism that pushed those women to become violinists. It's that a life at home is supremely uninspiring for most people and you can't blame them. I would shoot myself rather than spend my life depending on my partner's income and have no other function in life whatsoever than be a dad. I can also testify that when people come back to work after their year long (yes its norway) parental leave, they are absolutely ecstatic because of how horribly boring most of them find the temporary housewife life.
That also does dovetail with my experiences and the people I know.
Granted most women I know are firmly entrenched in the middle class and have aspirations in career advancement. What working class women I know they have jobs not careers.
I find both groups don’t want to be full-time housewives almost to the woman. Outside of getting a break, the workplace is a social environment too, which is underrated in importance in this respect I think (the long term unemployed would probably agree there.
However I do find they want more time with their kids too, be it working part time hours or whatever. The middle class types would prefer this but think they’ll be passed over for advancement if they do, the working class ones can’t afford to.
|
United States41988 Posts
A question for philosophers for the ages. Is it really abuse of power if you believe you’re doing it for the greater good? Let’s go one further, is any act evil if the perpetrator believes themselves to be justified in doing it?
Truly there is no way of knowing.
|
Northern Ireland23839 Posts
On January 30 2020 06:17 KwarK wrote:
A question for philosophers for the ages. Is it really abuse of power if you believe you’re doing it for the greater good? Let’s go one further, is any act evil if the perpetrator believes themselves to be justified in doing it?
Truly there is no way of knowing.
If it’s Trump it’s not a particularly difficult question to answer.
In other instances though yeah, can be tricky.
|
On January 30 2020 06:17 KwarK wrote:
A question for philosophers for the ages. Is it really abuse of power if you believe you’re doing it for the greater good? Let’s go one further, is any act evil if the perpetrator believes themselves to be justified in doing it?
Truly there is no way of knowing.
If it's me then it's not abuse of power. If it's any of you then I'm not so sure
|
On January 30 2020 06:17 KwarK wrote:
A question for philosophers for the ages. Is it really abuse of power if you believe you’re doing it for the greater good? Let’s go one further, is any act evil if the perpetrator believes themselves to be justified in doing it?
Truly there is no way of knowing.
Trump administration strong on virtue ethics.
|
Because why not ? "You should have waited for 3 years of litigation on our part. You did not want to do it, it's definitely not our fault that we had a blanket refusal to comply with subpoenas as we deemed them illegal and null !!"
Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, two of the Republican senators considered most likely to support witness testimony, have asked a question about whether Trump raised any concerns about Hunter Biden’s business activities in Ukraine before Joe Biden launched his presidential bid.
Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin responded by blaming House Democrats for not waiting to hear from senior administration officials who could shed more light on that question. (Of course, many of those officials were subpoenaed by the House but refused to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry.)
If it was a judge in front of them, they would get fire and fury with this kind of argument.
On a sidenote, Mitt Romney published his questions, and I believe them to be somewhat fair and balanced.
|
On January 30 2020 06:17 KwarK wrote:
A question for philosophers for the ages. Is it really abuse of power if you believe you’re doing it for the greater good? Let’s go one further, is any act evil if the perpetrator believes themselves to be justified in doing it?
Truly there is no way of knowing.
Are we in the year 40k yet?
|
United States41988 Posts
The questions are dumb. A few have them have already been answered in great detail by the inquiry so far. He’s playing both sides here. I can go “yeah, but do you have any hard evidence, not mere speculation, not hearsay, evidence dammit, that grass is green”. I’ll sound tough, I’ll sound like I’m dismantling the green grass fanatics, but the reality is that the evidence does exist and I’d have to be willfully ignorant to be unaware of it.
|
On January 30 2020 04:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 12:38 Gahlo wrote:On January 29 2020 12:12 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 29 2020 12:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 11:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 29 2020 11:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 11:32 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 03:47 farvacola wrote:On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"? I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind. Your immigration and schooling views render you a far-right reactionary, not a radical. The two terms have distinctive meanings relative to the policy area they are used to describe. I wouldn't have guessed that about the schooling. Always thought it was more libertarian/hippie/anarchist or something like that. Chomsky and Gatto, among others, convinced me to be highly skeptical of the education system and envision something better. On January 29 2020 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Not sure if you missed it or deemed it in bad faith but my question: On January 29 2020 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:
[quote]I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind. So school aged children (orphans especially) just shouldn't be allowed to immigrate in your view then? was sincere. I don't see how allowing orphans (or any children/young adults dependent on public education) into the country wouldn't necessarily contradict your view (as articulated thus far) of acceptable immigration? Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like you want to ask me questions until you find a perceived inconsistency and 'gotcha' moment -- similar to the bomb question you asked before. It is like the bomb question in that I see a contradiction which I seek to resolve. When you chose not to address the contradiction in the bomb example, Drone and explained Neb explained the nature of the argument and that politics is a lot about deciding the acceptable targets of violence. There's no "gotcha" moment. If the contradiction is real then it should be confronted, if it is a misconception on my part and there is no contradiction then I'd appreciate an explanation to that effect. If that seems unreasonable, then at least a firm claim that it isn't a contradiction that can then reasonably be denied based on comparable support. Do we in this thread really even need a ‘gotcha’ question to nail Xxio on any of his views that he’s been hypothetically obfuscating? They are pretty apparent, for what anyone may think of them or whatever. Typically I'd psychically tag in my anger translator Kwark here but everyone has been picking on him for it so I dunno. I just like to distill the issue when we have to deal with positions like Xxio that trigger the dogpiles. Otherwise it gets unwieldy pretty quick. I think some of this would be beneficial for society, but how do you get there? The borderline economic unviability of the one parent stay at home to raise the child(ten) ideal isn’t particularly a champion cause of the wider left after all. I wouldn’t at all describe myself as a social conservative but some of those structures have some value, just it’s rampant capitalism that’s dismantling them and nothing else. I blame the women for working in the first place(HARD sarcasm). Both parents work now because in the overwhelming majority of cases they have to. If it was possible for the middle class to get by on one salary in 2020, why not have both work and just have a super high standard of living as compared to single worker families in the same fields? You'd end up with well off people basically sending their kids to private/charter schools as they hire the unemployed teachers, but don't want to pay enough to them to do a full person's job. Doing this would then gut the public schooling system for the poor as teachers flee for much better paying gigs with the rich kids with the exception of nurse servitude again. Also, good luck going into an apprenticeship as a young teen and actually wanting to do that for your life. Last I heard somebody switches their major in college an average of 3 times. I don't think it has anything to do with rampant capitalism. Gender equality and feminist struggle have made possible a world in which women can dream of more than cooking for their husband, be at home with the kids and socialize over tea with their girlfriends. As far as I can tell, most women work because they want to be financially independent and be more than spouses and mothers. I work in a symphony orchestra. In 1960 there were not and had never been a woman in the band. Now they are two thirds. It's not absolute necessity because life is too hard nor rampant capitalism that pushed those women to become violinists. It's that a life at home is supremely uninspiring for most people and you can't blame them. I would shoot myself rather than spend my life depending on my partner's income and have no other function in life whatsoever than be a dad. I can also testify that when people come back to work after their year long (yes its norway) parental leave, they are absolutely ecstatic because of how horribly boring most of them find the temporary housewife life.
The capitalist class will never allow one salary to sustain a home consistently in a society where it's normal and expected for both parents to work. That was the entire point. One parent, regardless of gender as in the given discussion, is going to be the stay at home to teach the children. It just flat out won't work unless the government forces it.
I feel you also missed the point of my noting hard sarcasm that I don't really care whether a woman wants to work or chooses to take care of the home. I'm about a weeks removed from a 2 month surgery leave and after the 3rd week my skin was crawling whenever I was inside the house - I can't imagine looking after a home for a "living".
|
I can also testify that when people come back to work after their year long (yes its norway) parental leave, they are absolutely ecstatic because of how horribly boring most of them find the temporary housewife life. that has everything to do with advertising and nothing to do with the actual job/work being done; that, and with peer pressure.
|
On March 20 2018 12:23 Shiragaku wrote:
Yay! I can finally join without feeling lost again.
Hi!!!
|
Bot edit.
User was banned for this post.
|
On January 30 2020 09:39 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2020 04:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 29 2020 12:38 Gahlo wrote:On January 29 2020 12:12 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 29 2020 12:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 11:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 29 2020 11:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 11:32 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 03:47 farvacola wrote:On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:
[quote]I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind. Your immigration and schooling views render you a far-right reactionary, not a radical. The two terms have distinctive meanings relative to the policy area they are used to describe. I wouldn't have guessed that about the schooling. Always thought it was more libertarian/hippie/anarchist or something like that. Chomsky and Gatto, among others, convinced me to be highly skeptical of the education system and envision something better. On January 29 2020 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Not sure if you missed it or deemed it in bad faith but my question: On January 29 2020 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
So school aged children (orphans especially) just shouldn't be allowed to immigrate in your view then? was sincere. I don't see how allowing orphans (or any children/young adults dependent on public education) into the country wouldn't necessarily contradict your view (as articulated thus far) of acceptable immigration? Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like you want to ask me questions until you find a perceived inconsistency and 'gotcha' moment -- similar to the bomb question you asked before. It is like the bomb question in that I see a contradiction which I seek to resolve. When you chose not to address the contradiction in the bomb example, Drone and explained Neb explained the nature of the argument and that politics is a lot about deciding the acceptable targets of violence. There's no "gotcha" moment. If the contradiction is real then it should be confronted, if it is a misconception on my part and there is no contradiction then I'd appreciate an explanation to that effect. If that seems unreasonable, then at least a firm claim that it isn't a contradiction that can then reasonably be denied based on comparable support. Do we in this thread really even need a ‘gotcha’ question to nail Xxio on any of his views that he’s been hypothetically obfuscating? They are pretty apparent, for what anyone may think of them or whatever. Typically I'd psychically tag in my anger translator Kwark here but everyone has been picking on him for it so I dunno. I just like to distill the issue when we have to deal with positions like Xxio that trigger the dogpiles. Otherwise it gets unwieldy pretty quick. I think some of this would be beneficial for society, but how do you get there? The borderline economic unviability of the one parent stay at home to raise the child(ten) ideal isn’t particularly a champion cause of the wider left after all. I wouldn’t at all describe myself as a social conservative but some of those structures have some value, just it’s rampant capitalism that’s dismantling them and nothing else. I blame the women for working in the first place(HARD sarcasm). Both parents work now because in the overwhelming majority of cases they have to. If it was possible for the middle class to get by on one salary in 2020, why not have both work and just have a super high standard of living as compared to single worker families in the same fields? You'd end up with well off people basically sending their kids to private/charter schools as they hire the unemployed teachers, but don't want to pay enough to them to do a full person's job. Doing this would then gut the public schooling system for the poor as teachers flee for much better paying gigs with the rich kids with the exception of nurse servitude again. Also, good luck going into an apprenticeship as a young teen and actually wanting to do that for your life. Last I heard somebody switches their major in college an average of 3 times. I don't think it has anything to do with rampant capitalism. Gender equality and feminist struggle have made possible a world in which women can dream of more than cooking for their husband, be at home with the kids and socialize over tea with their girlfriends. As far as I can tell, most women work because they want to be financially independent and be more than spouses and mothers. I work in a symphony orchestra. In 1960 there were not and had never been a woman in the band. Now they are two thirds. It's not absolute necessity because life is too hard nor rampant capitalism that pushed those women to become violinists. It's that a life at home is supremely uninspiring for most people and you can't blame them. I would shoot myself rather than spend my life depending on my partner's income and have no other function in life whatsoever than be a dad. I can also testify that when people come back to work after their year long (yes its norway) parental leave, they are absolutely ecstatic because of how horribly boring most of them find the temporary housewife life. The capitalist class will never allow one salary to sustain a home consistently in a society where it's normal and expected for both parents to work. That was the entire point. One parent, regardless of gender as in the given discussion, is going to be the stay at home to teach the children. It just flat out won't work unless the government forces it. I feel you also missed the point of my noting hard sarcasm that I don't really care whether a woman wants to work or chooses to take care of the home. I'm about a weeks removed from a 2 month surgery leave and after the 3rd week my skin was crawling whenever I was inside the house - I can't imagine looking after a home for a "living".
I think you overestimate how people were living when households lived on one income. I think you can live better on one salary than you could back then. It's just that people expect a level of comfort that was unthinkable for a working class family, most of which lived in what we would now call abject misery.
I don't think there is any conspiracy from the capitalist class to keep the salaries low. Salaries are low because the workers have lost their bargaining power - the unions. And the good old family with one parent working and another one at home has disappeared because the one parent at home always happened to be women, and they earned the right to work and more generally to be autonomous human beings.
|
On January 30 2020 14:33 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +I can also testify that when people come back to work after their year long (yes its norway) parental leave, they are absolutely ecstatic because of how horribly boring most of them find the temporary housewife life. that has everything to do with advertising and nothing to do with the actual job/work being done; that, and with peer pressure.
As someone that took a break from working for a year, I can tell you that your experience does not align with mine. While I was able to live comfortably and play games for hours, in the end I wanted to work again. Mostly because it makes you feel needed and it is a social circle to engage with. Now that I work again, I want to have more free time. I hope society moves to 20 - 25 hour weeks, then most people will be most happy.
|
On January 30 2020 17:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2020 09:39 Gahlo wrote:On January 30 2020 04:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 29 2020 12:38 Gahlo wrote:On January 29 2020 12:12 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 29 2020 12:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 11:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 29 2020 11:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 11:32 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 03:47 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
Your immigration and schooling views render you a far-right reactionary, not a radical. The two terms have distinctive meanings relative to the policy area they are used to describe. I wouldn't have guessed that about the schooling. Always thought it was more libertarian/hippie/anarchist or something like that. Chomsky and Gatto, among others, convinced me to be highly skeptical of the education system and envision something better. On January 29 2020 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
Not sure if you missed it or deemed it in bad faith but my question:
[quote]
was sincere. I don't see how allowing orphans (or any children/young adults dependent on public education) into the country wouldn't necessarily contradict your view (as articulated thus far) of acceptable immigration? Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like you want to ask me questions until you find a perceived inconsistency and 'gotcha' moment -- similar to the bomb question you asked before. It is like the bomb question in that I see a contradiction which I seek to resolve. When you chose not to address the contradiction in the bomb example, Drone and explained Neb explained the nature of the argument and that politics is a lot about deciding the acceptable targets of violence. There's no "gotcha" moment. If the contradiction is real then it should be confronted, if it is a misconception on my part and there is no contradiction then I'd appreciate an explanation to that effect. If that seems unreasonable, then at least a firm claim that it isn't a contradiction that can then reasonably be denied based on comparable support. Do we in this thread really even need a ‘gotcha’ question to nail Xxio on any of his views that he’s been hypothetically obfuscating? They are pretty apparent, for what anyone may think of them or whatever. Typically I'd psychically tag in my anger translator Kwark here but everyone has been picking on him for it so I dunno. I just like to distill the issue when we have to deal with positions like Xxio that trigger the dogpiles. Otherwise it gets unwieldy pretty quick. I think some of this would be beneficial for society, but how do you get there? The borderline economic unviability of the one parent stay at home to raise the child(ten) ideal isn’t particularly a champion cause of the wider left after all. I wouldn’t at all describe myself as a social conservative but some of those structures have some value, just it’s rampant capitalism that’s dismantling them and nothing else. I blame the women for working in the first place(HARD sarcasm). Both parents work now because in the overwhelming majority of cases they have to. If it was possible for the middle class to get by on one salary in 2020, why not have both work and just have a super high standard of living as compared to single worker families in the same fields? You'd end up with well off people basically sending their kids to private/charter schools as they hire the unemployed teachers, but don't want to pay enough to them to do a full person's job. Doing this would then gut the public schooling system for the poor as teachers flee for much better paying gigs with the rich kids with the exception of nurse servitude again. Also, good luck going into an apprenticeship as a young teen and actually wanting to do that for your life. Last I heard somebody switches their major in college an average of 3 times. I don't think it has anything to do with rampant capitalism. Gender equality and feminist struggle have made possible a world in which women can dream of more than cooking for their husband, be at home with the kids and socialize over tea with their girlfriends. As far as I can tell, most women work because they want to be financially independent and be more than spouses and mothers. I work in a symphony orchestra. In 1960 there were not and had never been a woman in the band. Now they are two thirds. It's not absolute necessity because life is too hard nor rampant capitalism that pushed those women to become violinists. It's that a life at home is supremely uninspiring for most people and you can't blame them. I would shoot myself rather than spend my life depending on my partner's income and have no other function in life whatsoever than be a dad. I can also testify that when people come back to work after their year long (yes its norway) parental leave, they are absolutely ecstatic because of how horribly boring most of them find the temporary housewife life. The capitalist class will never allow one salary to sustain a home consistently in a society where it's normal and expected for both parents to work. That was the entire point. One parent, regardless of gender as in the given discussion, is going to be the stay at home to teach the children. It just flat out won't work unless the government forces it. I feel you also missed the point of my noting hard sarcasm that I don't really care whether a woman wants to work or chooses to take care of the home. I'm about a weeks removed from a 2 month surgery leave and after the 3rd week my skin was crawling whenever I was inside the house - I can't imagine looking after a home for a "living". I think you overestimate how people were living when households lived on one income. I think you can live better on one salary than you could back then. It's just that people expect a level of comfort that was unthinkable for a working class family, most of which lived in what we would now call abject misery. I don't think there is any conspiracy from the capitalist class to keep the salaries low. Salaries are low because the workers have lost their bargaining power - the unions. And the good old family with one parent working and another one at home has disappeared because the one parent at home always happened to be women, and they earned the right to work and more generally to be autonomous human beings.
Do you think powerful capitalists saw a mutual interest in suppressing the bargaining power of workers and the development of high-quality unions?
|
Northern Ireland23839 Posts
On January 30 2020 17:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2020 09:39 Gahlo wrote:On January 30 2020 04:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 29 2020 12:38 Gahlo wrote:On January 29 2020 12:12 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 29 2020 12:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 11:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 29 2020 11:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 11:32 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 03:47 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
Your immigration and schooling views render you a far-right reactionary, not a radical. The two terms have distinctive meanings relative to the policy area they are used to describe. I wouldn't have guessed that about the schooling. Always thought it was more libertarian/hippie/anarchist or something like that. Chomsky and Gatto, among others, convinced me to be highly skeptical of the education system and envision something better. On January 29 2020 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
Not sure if you missed it or deemed it in bad faith but my question:
[quote]
was sincere. I don't see how allowing orphans (or any children/young adults dependent on public education) into the country wouldn't necessarily contradict your view (as articulated thus far) of acceptable immigration? Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like you want to ask me questions until you find a perceived inconsistency and 'gotcha' moment -- similar to the bomb question you asked before. It is like the bomb question in that I see a contradiction which I seek to resolve. When you chose not to address the contradiction in the bomb example, Drone and explained Neb explained the nature of the argument and that politics is a lot about deciding the acceptable targets of violence. There's no "gotcha" moment. If the contradiction is real then it should be confronted, if it is a misconception on my part and there is no contradiction then I'd appreciate an explanation to that effect. If that seems unreasonable, then at least a firm claim that it isn't a contradiction that can then reasonably be denied based on comparable support. Do we in this thread really even need a ‘gotcha’ question to nail Xxio on any of his views that he’s been hypothetically obfuscating? They are pretty apparent, for what anyone may think of them or whatever. Typically I'd psychically tag in my anger translator Kwark here but everyone has been picking on him for it so I dunno. I just like to distill the issue when we have to deal with positions like Xxio that trigger the dogpiles. Otherwise it gets unwieldy pretty quick. I think some of this would be beneficial for society, but how do you get there? The borderline economic unviability of the one parent stay at home to raise the child(ten) ideal isn’t particularly a champion cause of the wider left after all. I wouldn’t at all describe myself as a social conservative but some of those structures have some value, just it’s rampant capitalism that’s dismantling them and nothing else. I blame the women for working in the first place(HARD sarcasm). Both parents work now because in the overwhelming majority of cases they have to. If it was possible for the middle class to get by on one salary in 2020, why not have both work and just have a super high standard of living as compared to single worker families in the same fields? You'd end up with well off people basically sending their kids to private/charter schools as they hire the unemployed teachers, but don't want to pay enough to them to do a full person's job. Doing this would then gut the public schooling system for the poor as teachers flee for much better paying gigs with the rich kids with the exception of nurse servitude again. Also, good luck going into an apprenticeship as a young teen and actually wanting to do that for your life. Last I heard somebody switches their major in college an average of 3 times. I don't think it has anything to do with rampant capitalism. Gender equality and feminist struggle have made possible a world in which women can dream of more than cooking for their husband, be at home with the kids and socialize over tea with their girlfriends. As far as I can tell, most women work because they want to be financially independent and be more than spouses and mothers. I work in a symphony orchestra. In 1960 there were not and had never been a woman in the band. Now they are two thirds. It's not absolute necessity because life is too hard nor rampant capitalism that pushed those women to become violinists. It's that a life at home is supremely uninspiring for most people and you can't blame them. I would shoot myself rather than spend my life depending on my partner's income and have no other function in life whatsoever than be a dad. I can also testify that when people come back to work after their year long (yes its norway) parental leave, they are absolutely ecstatic because of how horribly boring most of them find the temporary housewife life. The capitalist class will never allow one salary to sustain a home consistently in a society where it's normal and expected for both parents to work. That was the entire point. One parent, regardless of gender as in the given discussion, is going to be the stay at home to teach the children. It just flat out won't work unless the government forces it. I feel you also missed the point of my noting hard sarcasm that I don't really care whether a woman wants to work or chooses to take care of the home. I'm about a weeks removed from a 2 month surgery leave and after the 3rd week my skin was crawling whenever I was inside the house - I can't imagine looking after a home for a "living". I think you overestimate how people were living when households lived on one income. I think you can live better on one salary than you could back then. It's just that people expect a level of comfort that was unthinkable for a working class family, most of which lived in what we would now call abject misery. I don't think there is any conspiracy from the capitalist class to keep the salaries low. Salaries are low because the workers have lost their bargaining power - the unions. And the good old family with one parent working and another one at home has disappeared because the one parent at home always happened to be women, and they earned the right to work and more generally to be autonomous human beings.
Can you afford a house/renting a (decent) place though?
Many of these comforts are available now to folks, but that’s due to many of these actually being cheaper vs wages, whereas the above has spiked sharply in the other direction.
Salaries could be higher, would be nice! When I factor out the pesky question of a place to live, my just above minimum wage monies are sufficient for most things really. Granted I’m not especially materialistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
