EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2414
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9064 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On June 12 2020 06:28 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: You guys are talking old testament. New testament was totally chill. Sodom and Gamora was just a phase. That’s correct  | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10950 Posts
He still is voting for the party that now is just a Trump supporting agency but hey... He doesn't like Trump. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11977 Posts
Which i think is pretty weird, considering he violates basically all of the ethics you usually claim to care about. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10950 Posts
Fuck your talk about political ideology, you got no decency and, by STILL supporting the party of trump, obviously also no dignity. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
If you want a Democrat I might vote for in preference to Trump, it would have to be a Krysten Sinema or Joe Manchin. People overrate the Dems in terms of ethics, and that’s something I simply can’t help. Also, I don’t take my cues on what’s right from the personal lives of politicians, whether presidents or not. There’s been honest men that tanked the country, and dishonorable men that did quite well. Also, you can give me half of the 2016 Republican presidential primary candidates, and I’d willing swap them out for the current office holder, no questions asked. But enough of indulging binary system smears that are just the death of political thought. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27346 Posts
On June 12 2020 07:05 Danglars wrote: Structural limits on power, number one, and it’s a two party system without some placeholder agendaless alternative for the next legislative session. The dumbest argument about a binary choice is that it means you must be enthused by the side you’re closer to. I thought the whole Biden vs Bernie & voting for eventual winner argument that went down meant that people recognized binaries didn’t represent everybody’s full political ideology. It’s like the personal lessons gained from that discussion got burnt in the recent arson, too. Well it is dumb, absolutely. Equally within this thread even those who would reluctantly vote Biden here aren’t exactly reticent in slamming the guy for transgressing when it comes to their ostensible values. | ||
|
MWY
Germany284 Posts
On June 12 2020 07:26 JimmiC wrote: I also think we might have missed the boat, its not that Danglar's was saying that Adultery is so bad it compares to genocide. He was saying genocide is not that bad its only like being an adulterer. I think that the point was that if you go down the route of supporting destroying statues for flaws or errors a historical figure had/made from a modern point of view, you might end up having difficulties on where to stop/draw the line eventually. In general, I think (almost) anything that can give people an incentive to educate themself about historical locations/figures/events is valuable, and statues clearly are that. Not only can they teach about a historical figure, but can also give more context (through the statues style, it's construction material, etc.) to a location and it's past. That said, in those mentioned cases where the builders clearly had bad intentions, I can see why taking them down makes sense. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 12 2020 07:49 Wombat_NI wrote: Well it is dumb, absolutely. Equally within this thread even those who would reluctantly vote Biden here aren’t exactly reticent in slamming the guy for transgressing when it comes to their ostensible values. I'm not gonna charge each reluctant Biden voter that endorsed Bernie earlier for being slightly responsible for the '94 crime bill and mass incarcerations, or big time supporters of the Iraq war, or loving China's imprisonment of over a million Uyghurs and dozens of journalists with his verbal support of dovish policies towards China. I understand they're hoping for this and that on health insurance or foreign policy or whatnot. Every candidate is a mixed bag, and any sufficiently non-hyper-partisan supporter is going to compromise on some issues--or so many issues that one ends up with 51% support 49% oppose. The same thing goes for people verbally abusing people that stay home instead of voting. It's your own damn choice and you have the absolute right to say nobody in the field has earned your vote, or everyone has lost it. Write in your pet dog. Spend the day playing SC2. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
I so remember a story Fox ran about big government and its wasteful spending spree during the Obama years, in particular the '09 stimulus bill and how despite subsidies Solyndra( a solar panel company iirc) went bankrupt. which cost US taxpayers like 500m. a shitton of money back then, some might say even today lol. and it actually is totally worthy of reporting. where tax payer money goes is not supposed to be a secret. then you read about something like this ... Trump administration won’t say who got $511 billion in taxpayer-backed coronavirus loans The Small Business Administration has previously released detailed loan information dating back to 1991 for the federal 7(a) program, a long-standing small-business loan program on which the larger Paycheck Protection Program is based. The SBA initially intended to publish similar information for the new coronavirus loans: an SBA spokesman told The Washington Post in an April 16 email that the agency “intend(s) to post individual loan data in accordance with the information presently on the SBA.gov website after the loan process has been completed,” and it made a similar commitment in response to an April 17 open records request. But the administration appeared to change course at a Wednesday hearing before the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, as Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and SBA Administrator Jovita Carranza declined to discuss specific borrowers. “As it relates to the names and amounts of specific PPP loans, we believe that that’s proprietary information, and in many cases for sole proprietors and small businesses, it is confidential information,” Mnuchin said in the hearing. “The reason why we’re not disclosing the names and amounts, unlike in the 7(a) program, is because of that issue.” and not a peep from the same people. interestingly the story was published rather prominently on the Drudge report. let's hope watchdogs and proper oversight boards will give this administration hell. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27346 Posts
On June 12 2020 08:18 Danglars wrote: I'm not gonna charge each reluctant Biden voter that endorsed Bernie earlier for being slightly responsible for the '94 crime bill and mass incarcerations, or big time supporters of the Iraq war, or loving China's imprisonment of over a million Uyghurs and dozens of journalists with his verbal support of dovish policies towards China. I understand they're hoping for this and that on health insurance or foreign policy or whatnot. Every candidate is a mixed bag, and any sufficiently non-hyper-partisan supporter is going to compromise on some issues--or so many issues that one ends up with 51% support 49% oppose. The same thing goes for people verbally abusing people that stay home instead of voting. It's your own damn choice and you have the absolute right to say nobody in the field has earned your vote, or everyone has lost it. Write in your pet dog. Spend the day playing SC2. Which is fine, my point if it wasn’t clear enough was the left leaning people here who are left with Biden as an option still skewer him routinely. He’s the option left but they’ll slam him. Donald Trump is the option left to you currently. Pretty shit choice and I don’t particularly envy you there to say the least. Based on what you post Trump routinely tramples on your own stated principles, in egregious ways. Why’s it so difficult to be a Republican or general conservative and hold the Commander in Chief to some consistent standards? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46402 Posts
On June 12 2020 06:28 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: You guys are talking old testament. New testament was totally chill. Sodom and Gamora was just a phase. OT God was way more interesting and entertaining than NT God too. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 12 2020 09:30 Wombat_NI wrote: Which is fine, my point if it wasn’t clear enough was the left leaning people here who are left with Biden as an option still skewer him routinely. He’s the option left but they’ll slam him. Donald Trump is the option left to you currently. Pretty shit choice and I don’t particularly envy you there to say the least. Based on what you post Trump routinely tramples on your own stated principles, in egregious ways. Why’s it so difficult to be a Republican or general conservative and hold the Commander in Chief to some consistent standards? There's no real short answer. Trump got too much free media attention in 2016, so the "standards and principles" crowd vote got split too many ways, and fell. He's also been consistent on immigration, where the Republican party sold out their base in terms of business interest. Many past Republicans have nominated more centrist judges that veer left, and Trump will unapologetically nominate judges that preserve freedoms and leave the legislating to the elected branch. So I mean ... only in a very screwed up party could Trump succeed, and only in a very screwed up political system could he be better than "the other guy." Incumbents possess too many natural advantages, so tell me if you saw somebody beating Obama for the 2012 primary or Clinton for the 1996 primary. Even Trump's flaws, which include the tweets and lack of leadership and failure to understand civics or the civil society, do not override that fact. I kind of think you know all this stuff already, so maybe there's a question behind the question on holding the CiC "to some consistent standards." (and you have your own example: Is Boris Johnson really in danger of being rejected by his own party, unless the conservatives are dealt a monumental defeat in the next election?) | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10950 Posts
On June 12 2020 09:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: OT God was way more interesting and entertaining than NT God too. Atleast you knew what he wanted... OBEY HIM... None of that wishiwashy newschool shit. How any self proclaimed christian can vote for someone like Trump is still.. Well... Mysterious, like the ways of god  | ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
The MLK comparison is not so crazy as you all demonstrated. It's almost like there's generational differences in what people care about. One part of one's life will get you lauded and another part seems no big deal and you get a statue from one generation. Then later generations see the second part as a really big deal and down goes the statue. Facetious interpretations of Christianity included. Could MLK get the double barrels of the patriarchy oppression of women/ toxic masculinity and down he tumbles? Judge him by the standards of today- more than likely. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On June 12 2020 09:52 Danglars wrote: There's no real short answer. Trump got too much free media attention in 2016, so the "standards and principles" crowd vote got split too many ways, and fell. He's also been consistent on immigration, where the Republican party sold out their base in terms of business interest. Many past Republicans have nominated more centrist judges that veer left, and Trump will unapologetically nominate judges that preserve freedoms and leave the legislating to the elected branch. So I mean ... only in a very screwed up party could Trump succeed, and only in a very screwed up political system could he be better than "the other guy." Incumbents possess too many natural advantages, so tell me if you saw somebody beating Obama for the 2012 primary or Clinton for the 1996 primary. Even Trump's flaws, which include the tweets and lack of leadership and failure to understand civics or the civil society, do not override that fact. I kind of think you know all this stuff already, so maybe there's a question behind the question on holding the CiC "to some consistent standards." (and you have your own example: Is Boris Johnson really in danger of being rejected by his own party, unless the conservatives are dealt a monumental defeat in the next election?) I guess the part of this that interests me is conservatism’s complete abandonment of trying to act as a moral authority. Trump’s been pretty “good” for stated conservative policy positions, e.g. cracking down on illegal immigration, but absolutely atrocious on conservative principles, e.g. limited government or rule of law. Problem is, those principles were supposed to be *why* conservatives embrace those policy positions. If you wanted a crackdown on illegal immigration because you’re anti-immigrant, Trump’s great! If you wanted him to enforce immigration law because you think rule of law is important, he’s terrible! His whole term has been hunting for any pretext possible to prevent as much immigration as possible. He’s completely rewriting asylum law by executive order. He’s setting standards for asylum that make it borderline impossible and completely inconsistent with due process, not to mention quite possibly in violation of statute. Oh, and remember when Congress wouldn’t give him money for a border wall? He decided power of the purse is the executive’s after all, and just did it anyway! There’s been asylum seekers who won their asylum case but were refused entrance anyway, in some cases with fake court documents telling them to come back for a non-existent court date. Isn’t that precisely the kind of malevolent bureaucracy conservatism is supposed to despise? Where’s the rule of law? The due process? Let alone good old-fashioned human decency. My point is not that stuff like that should have you voting Biden. I know, lesser of two evils, etc. My point is that conservatism as an ideology has more or less completely lost its voice for calling out the exact evils it was born to oppose, until eventually it’s hard not to conclude that the conservative movement has been stripped of those ideals. It’s not resigned acceptance of a lesser evil at this point; most self-described conservatives cheer this stuff without a hint of cognitive dissonance. The more principled conservatives might quietly regret the abuse, but don’t speak up because opposing Trump might damage their tactical prospects of getting the policies they want; fear of losing rendwrs them unable to express a sincere opinion. The few that do actually say what they believe (Jeff Flake comes to mind) are ostracized and destroyed. What hope could conservatives possibly have of regaining governance in line with their principles on this course? | ||
| ||
