EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2419
| 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 | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
| ||
|
StalkerTL
212 Posts
Instead of costly and lengthy investigative journalism that often brings zero results, you can get instant results by having a charismatic talking head give his hot take on the situation like he’s Skip Bayless. Who is also a piece of shit that helped spread the Troy Aikman is secretly gay rumours during the heyday of the Dallas Cowboys. Is it any surprise that no one can compromise when the media they consume is intended to not inform but to elicit base emotional responses? There’s not really any point suggesting better media sources because they are either dead, merged with another shittier entity or adopted the same editorial heavy content to fuel the majority of their pages. You can’t have a functional society when the information they’re getting is factually incorrect and the most factually incorrect content are people who never admit they’re wrong, publish nothing but their (poorly researched) opinions on everything and specifically aim for a specific audience with a specific political affiliation. One way or another, Rupert Murdoch really did a number on English speaking countries. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 14 2020 05:44 StalkerTL wrote: I think the general problem with democracy is the media’s adoption of Fox News’ editorial talking head heavy, pundit fuelled content. It was spun out of control when Bill O’Riley had so much success with the format that everyone started copying it. Instead of costly and lengthy investigative journalism that often brings zero results, you can get instant results by having a charismatic talking head give his hot take on the situation like he’s Skip Bayless. Who is also a piece of shit that helped spread the Troy Aikman is secretly gay rumours during the heyday of the Dallas Cowboys. Is it any surprise that no one can compromise when the media they consume is intended to not inform but to elicit base emotional responses? There’s not really any point suggesting better media sources because they are either dead, merged with another shittier entity or adopted the same editorial heavy content to fuel the majority of their pages. You can’t have a functional society when the information they’re getting is factually incorrect. One way or another, Rupert Murdoch really did a number on English speaking countries. https://www.theringer.com/2016/9/6/16041924/what-skip-bayless-really-wrote-about-troy-aikman-8aade8f5a612 That article suggests that Skip Bayless may not be such a "piece of shit." Do we really need to take a stand on whether Skip Bayless is a piece of shit? Why are you telling us that he is? If we are going to condemn sports pundits for being entertaining rather than just-the-facts maybe we should condemn all stupid entertainment: Wake up sheeple, stop consuming frivolous media. Take a serious interest in the world. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 14 2020 05:34 Erasme wrote: At the same point, if you're willing to endure 4 more years of trump just to fuck with people like mohdoo, then more power to you. You'll reap what you sow. And people like me will continue on watching the US burn. For the simple case that 4 more years of Trump is better for the country, and actually country unity, than the alternative of insulting Americans and then demanding their conformity. At least he’s not saying people hate him because they’ve also hate black people and don’t want women to vote. Trump can only dream to cause that kind of division. You’ll notice there’s very little pushback from the left at Mohdoo’s depraved rants on social cons and how they’re dehumanizing blacks and disenfranchising women. So actually, if this is the alternative, Trump is clearly the better option. And for the rest, advance your political theory to account for people that disagree with you that aren’t also evil. It’s a fucked up political dialogue that makes Trump the more uniting option. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
Also, in now way you can look at your country right now, and say that trump is the better uniting option than a turd. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On June 14 2020 06:16 Danglars wrote: For the simple case that 4 more years of Trump is better for the country, and actually country unity, than the alternative of insulting Americans and then demanding their conformity. At least he’s not saying people hate him because they’ve also hate black people and don’t want women to vote. Trump can only dream to cause that kind of division. You’ll notice there’s very little pushback from the left at Mohdoo’s depraved rants on social cons and how they’re dehumanizing blacks and disenfranchising women. So actually, if this is the alternative, Trump is clearly the better option. And for the rest, advance your political theory to account for people that disagree with you that aren’t also evil. It’s a fucked up political dialogue that makes Trump the more uniting option. It's funny you say that. I don't see the left wanting to take away liberties from people. Barring that second amendment that is unique in the world and brings so many issues, including the population getting killed (you know ? children playing with plastic weapons getting shot at by cops, people reaching for their papers in their pockets AS ASKED and getting shot by cops, mass shootings in schools, etc). Contrarily, I see conservatives wanting to restrict or deny others' rights. For example, getting a cake, attending a public service, having an abortion (agree about a cutoff date except in case of health risk though), after a rape or not, marrying, getting treated when ill, voting after serving a sentence, voting at all... How ? By allowing people to deny services to anyone they don't like, or just forbidding people to do things others have a right to. Freedom of religion and beliefs is conveniently used to deny other freedoms. What would stop me from creating a religion whose belief is that I cannot be in contact with straight white people, open a shop and refuse to serve them ? Nothing. (in fact there are already recognised "joke" religions made for the purpose of laughing about stupid laws, see Pastafarianism and their headgear). However, have you seen anything of the sort happening from the left ? No. They are also usually very restrictive in their reading of the constitution. They are all for unborn life, but ONLY for citizens. The lives of foreigners, who fucking cares ? They are afraid of losing their power, of being less important. Thus denying any change and keeping the privilege (like the Senate not being representative of the population, or the electoral college, meaning that their vote is more important, worth more, than others') The regulation of businesses that is so loathed by conservatives and libertarians are mostly because of those with money using that money to bend perceptions. Setting regulations so that the country or its inhabitants health is not destroyed (additives in food, sugar in drinks or food, addictive substances, fracking polluting drinking water), or just plainly swindling people (forbidding farmers to (re)use seeds or just use custom ones, planned obsolescence, monopolies, price fixing...), is needed to protect the rights of people over those of companies. You cannot say in good faith that Trump is better for country unity when literally all he does is designating other people/ethnic groups/immigrants/the libs! as scapegoats and hate targets and feigning ignorance. It's his whole life ! You also can't believe things would get better for country unity, even with Trump gone, if the Senate stays republican, as McConnell already said that he would not bring any law to a democratic president's desk. That's country unity for you ? The liberals actually just want the right to live their little lives without actively denying things to others. But they rightfully complain when they are denied it. Is it so hard to understand ? Nobody would annoy religious people, or bar them from leading their lives. The right is usually talking about snowflakes, while having their feelings hurt because "omg I cannot for the life of me make a cake for a gay wedding !!". Only exception being maybe 2A for other reasons since it has an impact on other people's life. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11824 Posts
On June 14 2020 07:14 Nouar wrote: It's funny you say that. I don't see the left wanting to take away liberties from people. Barring that second amendment that is unique in the world and brings so many issues, including the population getting killed (you know ? children playing with plastic weapons getting shot at by cops, people reaching for their papers in their pockets AS ASKED and getting shot by cops, mass shootings in schools, etc). Contrarily, I see conservatives wanting to restrict or deny others' rights. For example, getting a cake, attending a public service, having an abortion (agree about a cutoff date except in case of health risk though), after a rape or not, marrying, getting treated when ill, voting after serving a sentence, voting at all... How ? By allowing people to deny services to anyone they don't like, or just forbidding people to do things others have a right to. Freedom of religion and beliefs is conveniently used to deny other freedoms. What would stop me from creating a religion whose belief is that I cannot be in contact with straight white people, open a shop and refuse to serve them ? Nothing. (in fact there are already recognised "joke" religions made for the purpose of laughing about stupid laws, see Pastafarianism and their headgear) They are also usually very restrictive in their reading of the constitution. They are all for unborn life, but ONLY for citizens. The lives of foreigners, who fucking cares ? You are falling into a trap here. The US conservatives don't actually care about the stuff they claim to care about. They don't care about religious freedom, they don't care about states rights, they don't care about small government. This has been made abundantly clear throughout the Trump presidency. All of those are just smoke screens. By arguing about this kind of stuff you fall into their trap. The matter of the fact is that the stuff they really want is so unpalatable to society that they hide it behind those smoke screen, and claim they have all these principles. What they really want is to discriminate against gay people, non-white people and women as hard as possible. They want white male america above all else, without any thought or rights for anyone who is not a white male american citizen. They want healthcare only for the rich, and are willing to let people die on the streets for it. And then they are sad when people call them evil bigots. We should stop humoring them and engaging their smoke screens. Trump has proved very clearly that none of them matter, except as a means to their ultimate ends. We should probably thank Trump for showing us the true face of conservative america. I find that a very good predictor of what american conservatives will do about any given issue is simply asking yourself "What is the most evil asshole way one could react to this? What would Darth Vader do?". Use this method, and you will be highly accurate in guessing their position. It sucks that it is this way, it is kind of inexplicable to me. But simply judge them by what they do, not what they claim to care about. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2710 Posts
On June 14 2020 06:16 Danglars wrote: For the simple case that 4 more years of Trump is better for the country, and actually country unity, than the alternative of insulting Americans and then demanding their conformity. At least he’s not saying people hate him because they’ve also hate black people and don’t want women to vote. Trump can only dream to cause that kind of division. You’ll notice there’s very little pushback from the left at Mohdoo’s depraved rants on social cons and how they’re dehumanizing blacks and disenfranchising women. So actually, if this is the alternative, Trump is clearly the better option. And for the rest, advance your political theory to account for people that disagree with you that aren’t also evil. It’s a fucked up political dialogue that makes Trump the more uniting option. Can you elaborate on "better for... country unity"? I certainly don't see Trump as a uniting force in the US. If anything, I see his lack of clear leadership and self-absorbed nature as a thing that groups have taken advantage of to either try leverage his support (Literally, stroke his ego and he's probably on your side) or feel confident speaking up because the POTUS is too hung up on defending his own image to silence you through normal channels. America is -loud- right now. I don't think that's bad, and I think it's part of a path to what I'd consider positive change for the US, but I wouldn't describe it as unity, and certainly not something I'd credit to Trump. (-e-) To address the "better than the alternative" - I believe that systemic racism is a part of the US atm, and is something that DOES deserve to be shamed and insulted and presented an alternate path that doesn't discriminate against people based on colour or gender or pronouns. I recognize that insulting people isn't pleasant and there's a super peaceful ideal where you can just calmly and peacefully talk to someone to solve the problem. I think that path is just that - an ideal, and not wholly realistic. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 14 2020 07:14 Nouar wrote: It's funny you say that. I don't see the left wanting to take away liberties from people. Barring that second amendment that is unique in the world and brings so many issues, including the population getting killed (you know ? children playing with plastic weapons getting shot at by cops, people reaching for their papers in their pockets AS ASKED and getting shot by cops, mass shootings in schools, etc). Contrarily, I see conservatives wanting to restrict or deny others' rights. For example, getting a cake, attending a public service, having an abortion (agree about a cutoff date except in case of health risk though), after a rape or not, marrying, getting treated when ill, voting after serving a sentence, voting at all... How ? By allowing people to deny services to anyone they don't like, or just forbidding people to do things others have a right to. Freedom of religion and beliefs is conveniently used to deny other freedoms. What would stop me from creating a religion whose belief is that I cannot be in contact with straight white people, open a shop and refuse to serve them ? Nothing. (in fact there are already recognised "joke" religions made for the purpose of laughing about stupid laws, see Pastafarianism and their headgear) They are also usually very restrictive in their reading of the constitution. They are all for unborn life, but ONLY for citizens. The lives of foreigners, who fucking cares ? The regulation of businesses that is so loathed by conservatives and libertarians are mostly because of those with money using that money to bend perceptions. Setting regulations so that the country or its inhabitants health is not destroyed (additives in food, sugar in drinks or food, addictive substances, fracking polluting drinking water), or just plainly swindling people (forbidding farmers to (re)use seeds or just use custom ones, planned obsolescence), is needed to protect the rights of people over those of companies. You cannot say in good faith that Trump is better for country unity when literally all he does is designating other people/ethnic groups/immigrants/the libs! as scapegoats and hate targets. It's his whole life ! You also can't believe things would get better for country unity, even with Trump gone, if the Senate stays republican, as McConnell already said that he would not bring any law to a democratic president's desk. That's country unity for you ? The liberals actually just want the right to live their little lives without actively denying things to others. But they rightfully complain when they are denied it. Is it so hard to understand ? Nobody would annoy religious people, or bar them from leading their lives. The right is usually talking about snowflakes, while having their feelings hurt because "omg I cannot for the life of me make a cake for a gay wedding !!". Only exception being maybe 2A for other reasons since it has an impact on other people's life. You said it yourself. You don't see yourself taking away rights, except for second amendment rights. You see others taking away rights to buy a cake, I see the baker freely selling all cakes, just not custom made-to-order cake works of art in defiance of his freedom of religious conscience. You see taking away abortion rights of the mother, I see a second, smaller human whose rights shouldn't be so carelessly disregarded. If you offer a public service, maybe that shouldn't extend to an artist forced to accept commissions for neo-nazi works, pro-ISIS screeds, and the rest. In my opinion, that transgresses on the artist's liberties, and not so much the person soliciting a public service. But these things you've probably heard before if you've spent enough time in politics. I ask you, Nouar, if you have developed opinions on anything socially related. Ok, now I'm going to say if you know of people with slightly different opinions than you, that you also afford being good people. Alright, now you and them think black people are less than human. You're in that rich tradition. Alright, you also wish women couldn't vote. I didn't ask whether or not you think it's valid, but nonetheless it's true about you. You want to accept that about yourself? Can you tell me, yes, I and my buds are ideological descendents of the dehumanization of blacks and disenfranchisement of women? Maybe you even get a little angry at those accusations, eh? That's one aspect of Trump. I picked out those things from Mohdoo's post for criticism, and you didn't even mention them. You never brought them up. You see, when you ignore all the bad things about Trump-alternatives, he looks worse than reality. I'm not at this moment accusing you of deliberately turning a blind eye, just that you demonstrate less empathy towards the messages directed at people unlike you and who have worldviews much different than yours. So, when you patently refuse to look at both sides, you're empowered to call Trump disuniting and saying hurtful things about foreigners or the rest. What's so hard to understand at looking at both sides of that statement? Here we have Trump sending stupid tweets at a man that was pushed over by police, or taking 5+ days to release a statement regarding George Floyd & protests while doing a stupid press op ... and here we have a nice progressive ranting about how social conservatives believe bad things about black people, women, gays, what-have-you. So are you going to accept his religion's statement of original sin? I argue that's an obvious worse alternative ... Trump for all his flaws won't dig into your heart and pronounce you guilty of sin throughout history. So the proof is out there to look into the alternatives and wonder what kind of shitty ideology requires attacking people for the evil in their hearts before asking them to reject Trump and go to the other side. Kinda disunifying to go out there like that, and argue history shows your cultural opinions are shit and stem from a shitty tradition known for shitty things. Later, maybe you'll have the first atom of a thought to why Trump is losing in the polls but not fully out of the race yet. And you won't have to call 60 million Americans racist for voting for him, or be mystified for why he isn't obviously the worse choice. I'm saying this in good faith: The non-Trump has a wing that has to insult people unlike them to make themselves feel better about opposing them, both in unity and in leadership. And people that can't bring themselves to encounter the kind of people that argue like Mohdoo, and examine it faithfully, deserve to be uninformed about this political moment and translate their ignorance into grandiose declarations on denying rights. And Mohdoo doesn't receive a lot of pushback from the left for having to paint the "other" as some kind of moral jackal to oppose them. Yes, yes, you have some opinions on who isn't allowed to live their little lives as bakers, or artists, or preachers, so it's actually your choice as to what "little lives" the state allows to be lived. You pick and choose, and I'm afraid the Little Sisters of the Poor are back in court about their rights, after first being forced to sue for them in the Obama era. Sorry that their rights weren't part of "the right to live their little lives" but too far towards "actively denying things to others." That's the troublesome things about rights; they frequently intersect other ones, and you're actively denying rights to some because you don't like the way they intersect with others. Sometimes that's even denying the freedom to have a vote about the issue that's intractable, like judges are better able to settle societal questions than elected representatives! All this ends with complex interactions. I'm very happy with my defense of rights and liberties for all, and go on--buy the cake in the window or go to the baker down the street, that's freedom too--including times when everyone can't just have it the way they want it. (Note: I was banned from this thread for ~4 months for arguing forcefully in favor of the Colorado baker's religious liberty in custom designed cakes (florists too), so I will not continue in that mode given past adjudication of subjective bans. The moderators are free to elaborate if anything has changed in this regards, to open it up again) | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 14 2020 07:50 Fleetfeet wrote: Can you elaborate on "better for... country unity"? I certainly don't see Trump as a uniting force in the US. If anything, I see his lack of clear leadership and self-absorbed nature as a thing that groups have taken advantage of to either try leverage his support (Literally, stroke his ego and he's probably on your side) or feel confident speaking up because the POTUS is too hung up on defending his own image to silence you through normal channels. America is -loud- right now. I don't think that's bad, and I think it's part of a path to what I'd consider positive change for the US, but I wouldn't describe it as unity, and certainly not something I'd credit to Trump. (-e-) To address the "better than the alternative" - I believe that systemic racism is a part of the US atm, and is something that DOES deserve to be shamed and insulted and presented an alternate path that doesn't discriminate against people based on colour or gender or pronouns. I recognize that insulting people isn't pleasant and there's a super peaceful ideal where you can just calmly and peacefully talk to someone to solve the problem. I think that path is just that - an ideal, and not wholly realistic. If he had just decried systematic racism, or institutional racism, it would be a more peaceful alternative. The fact that he identifies social cons with specific faults like dehumanization of black people and disenfranchisement of women is several steps beyond, and should be defended as such or criticized. If you're abandoning the thought of peacefully talking to someone, without presuming and advocating racial animus and sexism, then I do think that's a more disunifying force in it all, for it goes straight to the heart of people and their moral compass. I don't believe in the moral equality of silence conferring guilt in some manner of being "complicit in the racism," as is well seen in the widespread condemnation of George Floyd and high attendance in all races in peaceful protest. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2710 Posts
As a useless anecdote, when I was growing up (probably around 11 years old?) I stupidly joked something along the lines of "...but that's a Man's Job!" to a husband and a wife while driving somewhere with them. The wife had a verbally violent response, and while there certainly was room for her to be more peaceful, she was 1) irate and 2) the response made me equally violently reconsider my stance on gender roles. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9297 Posts
I detest Trump but can't bring myself to hate Trump supporters. I'd rather bite the bullet and vote for a (not far)left wing president despite the left wing's opinion of people like me, but I understand conservatives who think Trump's flaws don't outweigh the pros of having a president who's not afraid to defend their values. He's our snake now. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45772 Posts
On June 14 2020 09:26 Sent. wrote: If you put yourself in even moderately conservative shoes, seeing Trump as an unifying force doesn't seem that crazy. On the one hand you have Trump being an asshole to individuals you likely don't care about, and on the other hand you have a camp that declares people like you are salty crypto nazis who are totally okay with genociding mintorities. I detest Trump but can't bring myself to hate Trump supporters. I'd rather bite the bullet and vote for a (not far)left wing president despite the left wing's opinion of people like me, but I understand conservatives who think Trump's flaws don't outweigh the pros of having a president who's not afraid to defend their values. He's our snake now. I feel like that assertion can only be true if by "moderately conservative" you mean "someone who is unable to recognize blatant discrimination and dogwhistling, or just doesn't care enough about the various demographics Trump has been hating on for years". You would need to seriously disregard or not understand a lot of what Trump says and tweets. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9297 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
Edit: I should clarify, I'm simply saying there are good reasons to discount the significance of 2016 election results in terms of understand why people *still* support Trump. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45772 Posts
On June 14 2020 09:57 Sent. wrote: You would need to seriously disregard a lot of what the majoirty of 46,1% of American voters thought in 2016 to come to this conclusion. Doesn't the fact that Trump has split apart Republicans - to say nothing of the country as a whole - invalidate the idea that he's somehow unifying everyone? We see Republican leaders, Cabinet members, and even Fox News hosts calling out Trump as being a divisive moron. The only thing he seems to be able to unify are a string of 3 K's. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On June 14 2020 09:26 Sent. wrote: If you put yourself in even moderately conservative shoes, seeing Trump as an unifying force doesn't seem that crazy. On the one hand you have Trump being an asshole to individuals you likely don't care about, and on the other hand you have a camp that declares people like you are salty crypto nazis who are totally okay with genociding mintorities. I detest Trump but can't bring myself to hate Trump supporters. I'd rather bite the bullet and vote for a (not far)left wing president despite the left wing's opinion of people like me, but I understand conservatives who think Trump's flaws don't outweigh the pros of having a president who's not afraid to defend their values. He's our snake now. I've seen some fox news reports with tucker and hannity so I understand where the fear mongering comes from, and i am not hating on the trump supporters, merely the GOP for enabling him and people abusing the situation. On June 14 2020 09:57 Sent. wrote: You would need to seriously disregard a lot of what the majoirty of 46,1% of American voters thought in 2016 to come to this conclusion. I assume the majority of those people thought, like me, that the President didn't have any real power. But here we are. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On June 14 2020 09:59 farvacola wrote: We're not talking about 2016 though, now is not then in a way that now rarely is. The election this year is fairly unique, in other words. Edit: I should clarify, I'm simply saying there are good reasons to discount the significance of 2016 election results in terms of understand why people *still* support Trump. Another way to look at the uniqueness: Look at all the republicans we are used to talking to on this forum or otherwise. Remember how they felt about McCain and Romney during their presidential runs? Remember all the things they said about Trump as the primary got started? Look at the current situation. Trump cursing McCain's grave and saying he's in hell didn't matter very much. I think people have a hard time remembering how honored McCain was to Republicans. Mattis? Same deal. The sociology can change drastically. It is super creepy. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9297 Posts
On June 14 2020 09:59 farvacola wrote: We're not talking about 2016 though, now is not then in a way that now rarely is. The election this year is fairly unique, in other words. This year's Trump is the same as 2016 Trump. If he loses, it will be because the voters will finally realize he's a shitty person, not because they'll somehow decide holding conservative opinions is morally wrong. On June 14 2020 10:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Doesn't the fact that Trump has split apart Republicans - to say nothing of the country as a whole - invalidate the idea that he's somehow unifying everyone? We see Republican leaders, Cabinet members, and even Fox News hosts calling out Trump as being a divisive moron. The only thing he seems to be able to unify are a string of 3 K's. First things first, I said that I'd rather vote for the left's candidate than Trump. What I meant is that I find the reasoning of Trump supporters understandable despite disagreeing with it. I do think he's more divisive. The idea is that you have two camps and people in between: leftists think right-wingers are evil and right-wingers think leftists are evil. The "third camp" is people in between, who (I assume) are mostly people who are at least moderately socially conservative and (somehow) didn't make their minds up yet. From their perspective, it's a choice between Trump, who's being a dick mainly to his personal enemies, and a candidate presented by a camp that considers them bad people (or at least stupid, uneducated people). With this assumption in mind, you can claim that Trump is more unifying because his rhetoric tries to appeal to both his camp and people in between, while the other camp is less unifying because it's relying on the binary rhetoric of "you're with us or against us". Yes, Republican leaders consider Trump divisive, but they consider pretty much everyone but themselves to be divisive, so it doesn't really mean anything. Both the right and the left consider full unity to be impossible, so in this context being "unifying" should be interpreted as something as close to full unity as it's possible, that is being able to convince the undecideds to support you instead of your opponents. | ||
| ||
