|
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 |
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On January 30 2020 17:22 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2020 14:33 xM(Z wrote: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.
Yeah I’ve found it’s a rotating ‘grass is always greener’ thing, but I think some place might actually be a bit more green.
Even if working hours don’t drop, I think we should societally at least be trying to move away from 24/7 always-on economy.
It’s not just how much you work, it’s when as well. People who work night shifts or irregular shift work can end up with little social life at all because they’re out of sync with everyone. Found that myself in the past.
|
On January 30 2020 17:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2020 17:11 Biff The Understudy wrote: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:
[quote]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.[quote]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?
it's not capitalists who broke down the unions, but politicians often partly by workers themselves. Capitalists are playing their part of the game, which is to make money, workers are playing theirs which is defending their right and bargain better conditions through their unions and the state enforces regulations to keep the balance right. It's just that since Reagan and Tatcher, that balance has been totally broken in the anglo saxon world. In many european countries, it's not, and the system remains quite healthy.
|
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.
I don't understand, what do you mean by advertising?
|
On January 30 2020 23:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2020 17:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 30 2020 17:11 Biff The Understudy wrote: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:[quote] 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? it's not capitalists who broke down the unions, but politicians often partly by workers themselves. Capitalists are playing their part of the game, which is to make money, workers are playing theirs which is defending their right and bargain better conditions through their unions and the state enforces regulations to keep the balance right. It's just that since Reagan and Tatcher, that balance has been totally broken in the anglo saxon world. In many european countries, it's not, and the system remains quite healthy. And why did the politicians do it? Because the people who bought them asked them to.
|
On January 30 2020 23:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2020 17:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 30 2020 17:11 Biff The Understudy wrote: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:[quote] 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? it's not capitalists who broke down the unions, but politicians often partly by workers themselves. Capitalists are playing their part of the game, which is to make money, workers are playing theirs which is defending their right and bargain better conditions through their unions and the state enforces regulations to keep the balance right. It's just that since Reagan and Tatcher, that balance has been totally broken in the anglo saxon world. In many european countries, it's not, and the system remains quite healthy.
I interpret that as "Yes" to my question. Which was simply whether you believe capitalists see/saw a mutual interest in keeping wages low and unions weak.
I reject your argument outright, in part, because I view it as ahistorical based largely on both a very violent past regarding corporate resistance to unionization while they were growing, and the significant declines in their membership/bargaining power predating Reagan.
|
On January 30 2020 17:22 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2020 14:33 xM(Z wrote: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. "was able to live comfortably and play games for hours" vs "because it makes you feel needed and it is a social circle to engage with". why didn't you have a social circle to engage with when living comfortably during parental leave?.
that, and "now that I work again, I want to have more free time" puts your whole argument into novelty seeking behavior(deviant or otherwise).
you can't use that as a foundation for anything, let alone for encouraging societal moves, because chances are that when you'll get your 20-25h weekly, you'll want something else.
while within the constrains of our society a re-negotiation between what's working and what's living is required, in this here case, i'd start with changing the way parental leave is done(the whole child-rearing actually) and how it's perceived.
that alone will shift your argument and then, maybe, we could have a less biased/tainted dialogue.
|
On January 30 2020 23:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2020 23:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 30 2020 17:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 30 2020 17:11 Biff The Understudy wrote: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:
[quote]
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? it's not capitalists who broke down the unions, but politicians often partly by workers themselves. Capitalists are playing their part of the game, which is to make money, workers are playing theirs which is defending their right and bargain better conditions through their unions and the state enforces regulations to keep the balance right. It's just that since Reagan and Tatcher, that balance has been totally broken in the anglo saxon world. In many european countries, it's not, and the system remains quite healthy. And why did the politicians do it? Because the people who bought them asked them to.
No. Because they believed it was a great idea (so did many economists) and convinced the country, and got elected time and time again. Also because for all their awfulness Reagan economics have also upsides. In short, the consumer fucked the worker, even though most of the time it's the same person.
Frankly this pseudo marxist conspiracy mindset doesn't help one to think at all. Reality is a bit more complex than that.
|
On January 31 2020 00:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2020 23:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 30 2020 17:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 30 2020 17:11 Biff The Understudy wrote: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:
[quote]
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? it's not capitalists who broke down the unions, but politicians often partly by workers themselves. Capitalists are playing their part of the game, which is to make money, workers are playing theirs which is defending their right and bargain better conditions through their unions and the state enforces regulations to keep the balance right. It's just that since Reagan and Tatcher, that balance has been totally broken in the anglo saxon world. In many european countries, it's not, and the system remains quite healthy. I interpret that as "Yes" to my question. Which was simply whether you believe capitalists see/saw a mutual interest in keeping wages low and unions weak. I reject your argument outright, in part, because I view it as ahistorical based largely on both a very violent past regarding corporate resistance to unionization while they were growing, and the significant declines in their membership/bargaining power predating Reagan.
Of course if you are a shareholder you want a great return on your investment, and so you will try to get your work as cheap as possible. I mean, that's kinda obvious.
Does that mean you have a bunch of capitalists plotting against the workers in the highest floor of a tower while caressing cats? No. It just means that society is always in tension between different interests and that's totally normal. What sucks in America is that the public is convinced that the interests of the workers don't need to be defended by the state and the law. The people who fuck the workers are and have been politicians largely elected by the workers themselves. Start with Donald fucking Trump.
So mentalities need to change. There is hope with the new generations.
|
On January 31 2020 02:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2020 23:54 Gorsameth wrote:On January 30 2020 23:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 30 2020 17:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 30 2020 17:11 Biff The Understudy wrote: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:
[quote]
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? it's not capitalists who broke down the unions, but politicians often partly by workers themselves. Capitalists are playing their part of the game, which is to make money, workers are playing theirs which is defending their right and bargain better conditions through their unions and the state enforces regulations to keep the balance right. It's just that since Reagan and Tatcher, that balance has been totally broken in the anglo saxon world. In many european countries, it's not, and the system remains quite healthy. And why did the politicians do it? Because the people who bought them asked them to. No. Because they believed it was a great idea (so did many economists) and convinced the country, and got elected time and time again. Also because for all their awfulness Reagan economics have also upsides. In short, the consumer fucked the worker, even though most of the time it's the same person. Frankly this pseudo marxist conspiracy mindset doesn't help one to think at all. Reality is a bit more complex than that.
You can amplify the economic theories you want if you have enough money and influence to do so. "Convinced the country" is a process, it doesn't just happen like that. You can't just say "the country was convinced" and ignore who and what was doing the convincing.
|
On January 31 2020 02:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2020 00:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 30 2020 23:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 30 2020 17:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 30 2020 17:11 Biff The Understudy wrote: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:
[quote]
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? it's not capitalists who broke down the unions, but politicians often partly by workers themselves. Capitalists are playing their part of the game, which is to make money, workers are playing theirs which is defending their right and bargain better conditions through their unions and the state enforces regulations to keep the balance right. It's just that since Reagan and Tatcher, that balance has been totally broken in the anglo saxon world. In many european countries, it's not, and the system remains quite healthy. I interpret that as "Yes" to my question. Which was simply whether you believe capitalists see/saw a mutual interest in keeping wages low and unions weak. I reject your argument outright, in part, because I view it as ahistorical based largely on both a very violent past regarding corporate resistance to unionization while they were growing, and the significant declines in their membership/bargaining power predating Reagan. Of course if you are a shareholder you want a great return on your investment, and so you will try to get your work as cheap as possible. I mean, that's kinda obvious. Does that mean you have a bunch of capitalists plotting against the workers in the highest floor of a tower while caressing cats? No. It just means that society is always in tension between different interests and that's totally normal. What sucks in America is that the public is convinced that the interests of the workers don't need to be defended by the state and the law. The people who fuck the workers are and have been politicians largely elected by the workers themselves. Start with Donald fucking Trump. So mentalities need to change. There is hope with the new generations.
I would be surprised if there isn't a board of director's somewhere (looking at you walmart) in the highest floor of their tower plotting on how to weaken the efforts of employees to unionize. (I assumed the cats were optional hope i wasn't off base there)
|
On January 31 2020 02:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2020 00:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 30 2020 23:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 30 2020 17:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 30 2020 17:11 Biff The Understudy wrote: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:
[quote]
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? it's not capitalists who broke down the unions, but politicians often partly by workers themselves. Capitalists are playing their part of the game, which is to make money, workers are playing theirs which is defending their right and bargain better conditions through their unions and the state enforces regulations to keep the balance right. It's just that since Reagan and Tatcher, that balance has been totally broken in the anglo saxon world. In many european countries, it's not, and the system remains quite healthy. I interpret that as "Yes" to my question. Which was simply whether you believe capitalists see/saw a mutual interest in keeping wages low and unions weak. I reject your argument outright, in part, because I view it as ahistorical based largely on both a very violent past regarding corporate resistance to unionization while they were growing, and the significant declines in their membership/bargaining power predating Reagan. Of course if you are a shareholder you want a great return on your investment, and so you will try to get your work as cheap as possible. I mean, that's kinda obvious. Does that mean you have a bunch of capitalists plotting against the workers in the highest floor of a tower while caressing cats?
You know when people (at least myself) refer to capitalists class interests we're talking about the thing you think is "kinda obvious" not the cat strokers right? The cat stroking conspirators is a strawman to deflect from the point, which you don't dispute.
As Neb points out, it serves to skip over the part about the role capitalists played in influencing workers/politicians and why they did it. your argument is essentially victim blaming.
EDIT: Though I agree with Train, we know illegal conspiracies are common enough to even suck in newer companies like Google, Apple, and Intel
|
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.
perhaps a philosophical question, but the question in impeachment is a legal one. i dont find dershowitz’s reasoning so outlandish, even if it is a change of course with whatever imputed motives you might find. we elect a president to make executive decisions on behalf of public interest that are always based on partial information. whether they are ultimately good or bad or justified has little bearing on the legal question of whether they are legally able to act. we need them to make decisions, and those decisions will not always turn out to be good. the legal question is whether they were acting within the power granted to them.
and you know, we can all sit here and make fun of them for defending this president while indicting clinton, but if we ourselves think clinton shouldnt have been impeached for lying about his mistress or whatever then we should apply that logic to the present circumstances around trump. which is not to say that you might not still find impeachment appropriate, but which is to say that you probably (at least partially) agree with either the past dershowitz or the present dershowitz
|
On January 31 2020 03:13 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +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. perhaps a philosophical question, but the question in impeachment is a legal one. i dont find dershowitz’s reasoning so outlandish, even if it is a change of course with whatever imputed motives you might find. we elect a president to make executive decisions on behalf of public interest that are always based on partial information. whether they are ultimately good or bad or justified has little bearing on the legal question of whether they are legally able to act. we need them to make decisions, and those decisions will not always turn out to be good. the legal question is whether they were acting within the power granted to them. and you know, we can all sit here and make fun of them for defending this president while indicting clinton, but if we ourselves think clinton shouldnt have been impeached for lying about his mistress or whatever then we should apply that logic to the present circumstances around trump. which is not to say that you might not still find impeachment appropriate, but which is to say that you probably (at least partially) agree with either the past dershowitz or the present dershowitz
I think it should be very easy to impeach a president, a congressman or any incredibly powerful official. Clinton should have been extremely impeached.
|
United States44245 Posts
On January 31 2020 03:13 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +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. perhaps a philosophical question, but the question in impeachment is a legal one. i dont find dershowitz’s reasoning so outlandish, even if it is a change of course with whatever imputed motives you might find. we elect a president to make executive decisions on behalf of public interest that are always based on partial information. whether they are ultimately good or bad or justified has little bearing on the legal question of whether they are legally able to act. we need them to make decisions, and those decisions will not always turn out to be good. the legal question is whether they were acting within the power granted to them. and you know, we can all sit here and make fun of them for defending this president while indicting clinton, but if we ourselves think clinton shouldnt have been impeached for lying about his mistress or whatever then we should apply that logic to the present circumstances around trump. which is not to say that you might not still find impeachment appropriate, but which is to say that you probably (at least partially) agree with either the past dershowitz or the present dershowitz
It’s an idiotic defence by Dershowitz that requires that the guilty party first must agree that he is guilty to be found legally guilty. It can be reduced to “I believed what I was doing was right” as an absolute and universal defence that trumps all charges, and everyone always believes what they were doing was right. Also even if they didn’t there’s a pretty good reason to claim that they did if it guarantees immunity.
Courts have always been able to judge the actions of others based on their substance. Dershowitz is charting completely new territory here with his “who can really say what it means to abuse power? Only God can judge what was in our hearts” angle. The answer has always been that courts can really judge that, that’s why we have them, that’s what they’re for.
|
On January 31 2020 03:13 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +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. perhaps a philosophical question, but the question in impeachment is a legal one. i dont find dershowitz’s reasoning so outlandish, even if it is a change of course with whatever imputed motives you might find. we elect a president to make executive decisions on behalf of public interest that are always based on partial information. whether they are ultimately good or bad or justified has little bearing on the legal question of whether they are legally able to act. we need them to make decisions, and those decisions will not always turn out to be good. the legal question is whether they were acting within the power granted to them. and you know, we can all sit here and make fun of them for defending this president while indicting clinton, but if we ourselves think clinton shouldnt have been impeached for lying about his mistress or whatever then we should apply that logic to the present circumstances around trump. which is not to say that you might not still find impeachment appropriate, but which is to say that you probably (at least partially) agree with either the past dershowitz or the present dershowitz If the President believes someone might be involved in corruption there are procedures that are normally followed. Procedures designed to remove/minimise abuse of power.
The issue isn't whether or not Hunter Biden is guilty, the issue is that Trump ignored the procedures designed to protect the President from accusations of abuse and, surprise surprise, he is now being accused of abuse of power.
|
On January 31 2020 03:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2020 03:13 IgnE wrote: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. perhaps a philosophical question, but the question in impeachment is a legal one. i dont find dershowitz’s reasoning so outlandish, even if it is a change of course with whatever imputed motives you might find. we elect a president to make executive decisions on behalf of public interest that are always based on partial information. whether they are ultimately good or bad or justified has little bearing on the legal question of whether they are legally able to act. we need them to make decisions, and those decisions will not always turn out to be good. the legal question is whether they were acting within the power granted to them. and you know, we can all sit here and make fun of them for defending this president while indicting clinton, but if we ourselves think clinton shouldnt have been impeached for lying about his mistress or whatever then we should apply that logic to the present circumstances around trump. which is not to say that you might not still find impeachment appropriate, but which is to say that you probably (at least partially) agree with either the past dershowitz or the present dershowitz It’s an idiotic defence by Dershowitz that requires that the guilty party first must agree that he is guilty to be found legally guilty. It can be reduced to “I believed what I was doing was right” as an absolute and universal defence that trumps all charges, and everyone always believes what they were doing was right. Also even if they didn’t there’s a pretty good reason to claim that they did if it guarantees immunity. Courts have always been able to judge the actions of others based on their substance. Dershowitz is charting completely new territory here with his “who can really say what it means to abuse power? Only God can judge what was in our hearts” angle. The answer has always been that courts can really judge that, that’s why we have them, that’s what they’re for.
this is just entirely wrong. many a court has decided in favor of a defendant who did something “wrong” but did not break the law. courts decide legal questions not moral ones. your whole argument hinges on slippage in the word “guilty,” and prompts the question “guilty of what?”
in other words, dershowitz has provided some motivation that could be in the national interest. his argument is that this is enough. for the (congressional) court to find against trump they would have to decide either 1) that as a matter of law intention is not enough, which may be hard to do or 2) that as a matter of fact the proffered motivation is actually not in the national interest, also something that may be difficult.
to the extent that you are characterizing dershowitz’s argument as “courts cant judge a president” you are missing the real legal issue
|
On January 31 2020 04:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2020 03:13 IgnE wrote: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. perhaps a philosophical question, but the question in impeachment is a legal one. i dont find dershowitz’s reasoning so outlandish, even if it is a change of course with whatever imputed motives you might find. we elect a president to make executive decisions on behalf of public interest that are always based on partial information. whether they are ultimately good or bad or justified has little bearing on the legal question of whether they are legally able to act. we need them to make decisions, and those decisions will not always turn out to be good. the legal question is whether they were acting within the power granted to them. and you know, we can all sit here and make fun of them for defending this president while indicting clinton, but if we ourselves think clinton shouldnt have been impeached for lying about his mistress or whatever then we should apply that logic to the present circumstances around trump. which is not to say that you might not still find impeachment appropriate, but which is to say that you probably (at least partially) agree with either the past dershowitz or the present dershowitz If the President believes someone might be involved in corruption there are procedures that are normally followed. Procedures designed to remove/minimise abuse of power. The issue isn't whether or not Hunter Biden is guilty, the issue is that Trump ignored the procedures designed to protect the President from accusations of abuse and, surprise surprise, he is now being accused of abuse of power.
yeah he is. and his defense is that its within the presidents power to do what he did. thats the whole legal question
dershowitz isnt really saying that we can never judge an abuse of power, he is saying that there is an extremely high bar and that has not been met. you can disagree but that is the issue
consider an easier case: a president embezzles money and ships it out of the country to a personal bank account. he argues that its in the national interest for some inane reason that you can make up. the court decides that the reason is simply not, as a matter of fact, in the national interest and he is impeached
|
Except it isn't a legal question, not really. It is a political question. Impeachment procedures may look like a trial, but they really aren't.
This is not about guilty or not or any legal technicalities. It is only about whether or one can either convince enough republican voters to vote not Trump that the republican senators decide that they are better off removing Trump from office (very unlikely to happen), or to convince enough voters to vote democrat in the presidential election this year to remove Trump from office in that way.
It is a bit shitty, but your system does not seem to actually have checks and balances on the president, as long as his party doesn't drop him. And with the zealous cult that Trump has somehow managed to acquire, his party and his voters simply don't care.
If this were a fair situation or a trial, then Trump should have been removed from office ages ago. But it isn't. It is a political theater, and the republicans believe that they will get more votes with Trump, which is 100% of their ethical compass.
|
yeah sure. but its lawyers running the show and they play by legal rules. hiring dershowitz makes sense only in a context where impeachment is treated like a trial and we have the chief justice presiding etc
plus the limits of presidential power involve deep constitutional questions that go to the heart of the legal system
what would happen if a president were impeached by a congress that decided they simply didnt like him? would he have a court case against congress for unlawful removal? would the supreme court decide it? who would enforce the decision? the whole thing starts to collapse very quickly if you dont abide by legal norms
|
But then the real question is not whether they were breaking the law, but whether they felt like they were. Even if they irrefutably did. That's the basis of this defense. Why would anyone ever not say "yeah, I thought I was doing the right thing" if that was admissible in court? If we're going to go by legal standards, then ignorance of the law isn't an excuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
