|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 29 2020 09:56 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2020 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2020 06:59 JimmiC wrote:On July 29 2020 06:42 meiji_emperor wrote:On July 29 2020 06:36 JimmiC wrote:On July 29 2020 06:25 KwarK wrote:
I’ll happily concede I’m probably not as smart as I think I am, if only because nobody is as smart as I think I am. The problem we’re running into here is that you’re also not as smart as I think you are. The problem is that I'm not what you assume me to be and no matter how hard you try I won't be. The bigger problem is that you are a moderator who constantly breaks sites rules and now you are insulting me here and in PM. Please grow up and stop trying to bully it is not going to work no matter how insulting and nasty you get. You're a radlib who finds it more productive to disparage the accomplishments of actually existing socialism than to advocate for an alternative to liberalism and capitalism. Which btw, is leading us towards human extinction. You are an apologist for the status quo. Thank you for your perspective one of accounts with low posts very flattering. You would have to define radlib for me to comment. But I am a unapologetic social Democrat who thinks LM socialism in every form it has taken in the real world is terrible. I hold these "socialists" to a higher standard because their misdeeds. Lm socialism and democratic socialism are very different. I find it shocking that someone could be a fan of both. I'm not sure what is difficult about me being a fan of one and not the other. I think they are pretty dead-on myself. I know your repeated use of "LM socialism" instead of "ML socialism" is not intentional, but you know "Social democracy" and "Democratic Socialism" aren't interchangeable terms though right? My apologies ill try to remember to swap them in the future. Yes.
Then surely you see the difficulty of you claiming to be an "unapologetic social democrat" that is also a fan of Democratic socialism?
|
|
|
On July 29 2020 10:13 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2020 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2020 09:56 JimmiC wrote:On July 29 2020 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2020 06:59 JimmiC wrote:On July 29 2020 06:42 meiji_emperor wrote:On July 29 2020 06:36 JimmiC wrote:On July 29 2020 06:25 KwarK wrote:
I’ll happily concede I’m probably not as smart as I think I am, if only because nobody is as smart as I think I am. The problem we’re running into here is that you’re also not as smart as I think you are. The problem is that I'm not what you assume me to be and no matter how hard you try I won't be. The bigger problem is that you are a moderator who constantly breaks sites rules and now you are insulting me here and in PM. Please grow up and stop trying to bully it is not going to work no matter how insulting and nasty you get. You're a radlib who finds it more productive to disparage the accomplishments of actually existing socialism than to advocate for an alternative to liberalism and capitalism. Which btw, is leading us towards human extinction. You are an apologist for the status quo. Thank you for your perspective one of accounts with low posts very flattering. You would have to define radlib for me to comment. But I am a unapologetic social Democrat who thinks LM socialism in every form it has taken in the real world is terrible. I hold these "socialists" to a higher standard because their misdeeds. Lm socialism and democratic socialism are very different. I find it shocking that someone could be a fan of both. I'm not sure what is difficult about me being a fan of one and not the other. I think they are pretty dead-on myself. I know your repeated use of "LM socialism" instead of "ML socialism" is not intentional, but you know "Social democracy" and "Democratic Socialism" aren't interchangeable terms though right? My apologies ill try to remember to swap them in the future. Yes. Then surely you see the difficulty of you claiming to be an "unapologetic social democrat" that is also a fan of Democratic socialism? I see why you would see it that way. But you should also understand why I do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy#:~:text=Today, European social-democratic parties,Party of the European Left.&text=Socialism became a catch-all,of capitalism and industrial society.
nope?
|
|
|
On July 29 2020 10:21 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2020 10:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2020 10:13 JimmiC wrote:On July 29 2020 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2020 09:56 JimmiC wrote:On July 29 2020 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2020 06:59 JimmiC wrote:On July 29 2020 06:42 meiji_emperor wrote:On July 29 2020 06:36 JimmiC wrote:On July 29 2020 06:25 KwarK wrote:
I’ll happily concede I’m probably not as smart as I think I am, if only because nobody is as smart as I think I am. The problem we’re running into here is that you’re also not as smart as I think you are. The problem is that I'm not what you assume me to be and no matter how hard you try I won't be. The bigger problem is that you are a moderator who constantly breaks sites rules and now you are insulting me here and in PM. Please grow up and stop trying to bully it is not going to work no matter how insulting and nasty you get. You're a radlib who finds it more productive to disparage the accomplishments of actually existing socialism than to advocate for an alternative to liberalism and capitalism. Which btw, is leading us towards human extinction. You are an apologist for the status quo. Thank you for your perspective one of accounts with low posts very flattering. You would have to define radlib for me to comment. But I am a unapologetic social Democrat who thinks LM socialism in every form it has taken in the real world is terrible. I hold these "socialists" to a higher standard because their misdeeds. Lm socialism and democratic socialism are very different. I find it shocking that someone could be a fan of both. I'm not sure what is difficult about me being a fan of one and not the other. I think they are pretty dead-on myself. I know your repeated use of "LM socialism" instead of "ML socialism" is not intentional, but you know "Social democracy" and "Democratic Socialism" aren't interchangeable terms though right? My apologies ill try to remember to swap them in the future. Yes. Then surely you see the difficulty of you claiming to be an "unapologetic social democrat" that is also a fan of Democratic socialism? I see why you would see it that way. But you should also understand why I do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy#:~:text=Today, European social-democratic parties,Party of the European Left.&text=Socialism became a catch-all,of capitalism and industrial society. nope? That is too bad, I thought you would. At least I understand where you are coming from and that is half the battle.
I don't think you do. Social democracy and democratic socialism are fundamentally opposed in their goals. Namely the implementation of Marxist–Leninist communism
|
|
|
On July 29 2020 10:48 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2020 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2020 10:21 JimmiC wrote:On July 29 2020 10:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2020 10:13 JimmiC wrote:On July 29 2020 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2020 09:56 JimmiC wrote:On July 29 2020 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2020 06:59 JimmiC wrote:On July 29 2020 06:42 meiji_emperor wrote:
[quote]
You're a radlib who finds it more productive to disparage the accomplishments of actually existing socialism than to advocate for an alternative to liberalism and capitalism. Which btw, is leading us towards human extinction. You are an apologist for the status quo. Thank you for your perspective one of accounts with low posts very flattering. You would have to define radlib for me to comment. But I am a unapologetic social Democrat who thinks LM socialism in every form it has taken in the real world is terrible. I hold these "socialists" to a higher standard because their misdeeds. Lm socialism and democratic socialism are very different. I find it shocking that someone could be a fan of both. I'm not sure what is difficult about me being a fan of one and not the other. I think they are pretty dead-on myself. I know your repeated use of "LM socialism" instead of "ML socialism" is not intentional, but you know "Social democracy" and "Democratic Socialism" aren't interchangeable terms though right? My apologies ill try to remember to swap them in the future. Yes. Then surely you see the difficulty of you claiming to be an "unapologetic social democrat" that is also a fan of Democratic socialism? I see why you would see it that way. But you should also understand why I do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy#:~:text=Today, European social-democratic parties,Party of the European Left.&text=Socialism became a catch-all,of capitalism and industrial society. nope? That is too bad, I thought you would. At least I understand where you are coming from and that is half the battle. I don't think you do. Social democracy and democratic socialism are fundamentally opposed in their goals. Namely the implementation of Marxist–Leninist communism As I said, I understand why you have that view. Perhaps this quote from the above source will you help you understand mine. Show nested quote +Social democracy is defined as one of many socialist traditions.[1] As a political movement, it aims to achieve socialism through gradual and democratic means.[21] This definition goes back to the influence of both the reformist socialism of Ferdinand Lassalle as well as the internationalist revolutionary socialism advanced by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, from whom social democracy was influenced.[41] As an international political movement and ideology, social democracy has undergone various major forms throughout its history.[42] Whereas in the 19th century it was "organized Marxism", social democracy became "organized reformism" by the 20th century.[43] In contemporary usage, social democracy as a policy regime[44] generally means support for a mixed economy and ameliorative measures to benefit the working class within the framework of capitalism.[45]
In political science, democratic socialism and social democracy are largely seen as synonyms[46] while they are distinguished in journalistic use.[47] Under this democratic socialist definition,[nb 1] social democracy is an ideology seeking to gradually build an alternative socialist economy through the institutions of liberal democracy.[48] Starting in the post-war period, social democracy was defined as a policy regime[nb 2] advocating reformation of capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice.[52] In the 19th century, it encompassed a wide variety of non-revolutionary and revolutionary currents of socialism which excluded anarchism.[53] In the early 20th century, social democracy came to refer to support for a gradual process of developing socialism through existing political structures and an opposition to revolutionary means of achieving socialism in favor of reformism.[48]
I have no idea how familiar you are with the history there beyond the wiki so I'll just keep this brief.
What you're/the wiki is describing is how social democrats went from "advocating reformation of capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice."To replacing the "reformation of capitalism" with "developing socialism" and changing the definition of "socialism" to "a mixed economy and ameliorative measures to benefit the working class within the framework of capitalism."
EDIT: The critiques from the wiki are essentially what I think meiji meant by 'radlib' and 'apologist for the status quo' also generally what's being referenced with 'enabling'.
Social democracy is criticized by other socialists because it serves to devise new means to strengthen the capitalist system which conflicts with the socialist goal of replacing capitalism with a socialist system.[498] + Show Spoiler +According to this view, social democracy fails to address the systemic issues inherent in capitalism. The American democratic socialist philosopher David Schweickart contrasts social democracy with democratic socialism by defining the former as an attempt to strengthen the welfare state and the latter as an alternative economic system to capitalism. According to Schweickart, the democratic socialist critique of social democracy is that capitalism can never be sufficiently humanised and that any attempt to suppress its economic contradictions will only cause them to emerge elsewhere. He gives the example that attempts to reduce unemployment too much would result in inflation and too much job security would erode labour discipline.[499] In contrast to social democracy's mixed economy, democratic socialists advocate a post-capitalist economic system based on either a market economy combined with workers' self-management, or on some form of participatory, decentralized planning of the economy.[96]
Marxian socialists argue that social-democratic welfare policies cannot resolve the fundamental structural issues of capitalism such as cyclical fluctuations, exploitation and alienation. Accordingly, social democratic programs intended to ameliorate living conditions in capitalism—such as unemployment benefits and taxation on profits—creates further contradictions by further limiting the efficiency of the capitalist system by reducing incentives for capitalists to invest in further production.[500] The welfare state only serves to legitimize and prolong the exploitative and contradiction-laden system of capitalism to society's detriment. Critics of contemporary social democracy such as Jonas Hinnfors argue that when social democracy abandoned Marxism, it also abandoned socialism and became a liberal capitalist movement, effectively making social democrats similar to non-socialist parties like the Democratic Party in the United States.[501]
I can't speak for Neb, but I think this is more aligned with his particular perspective Market socialism is also critical of social-democratic welfare states. While one common goal of both concepts is to achieve greater social and economic equality, market socialism does so by changes in enterprise ownership and management whereas social democracy attempts to do so by subsidies and taxes on privately owned enterprises to finance welfare programs. Franklin Delano Roosevelt III (grandson of United States president Franklin D. Roosevelt) and David Belkin criticize social democracy for maintaining a property-owning capitalist class which has an active interest in reversing social-democratic welfare policies and a disproportionate amount of power as a class to influence government policy.[502]
|
I've been a little harsh on Biden, so I want to balance this out. By harsh, I mean critical of his non-appearances, his basement lair addresses, his very sparse statements on critical issues, and all the rest. He did manage to deliver a good one on the mobs topping statues, a little late but also just in time.
Biden today spoke on the arsonists and anarchists that number among the Portland protesters when it gets to be late at night. He had a big job to do on his first major statement. First, he had to blend with his party on primarily criticizing Trump's division and chaos. To the extent that chaos means an unplanned response involving DHS(incl CBP) rental vans and camo uniforms, he's darn right. Secondly, he had to go beyond some of the more woke members in the party by calling attention to the "response" to the Trump administration's deployment of additional federal personnel in defense of the courthouse. The videos of rioters using lasers and missile fireworks and fires are too widespread to avoid a response, but many Democratic politicians (as seen in Barr's House Hearing today) will avoid mentioning the violent contingent. + Show Spoiler [reference] +
Biden signals exactly what he should: He's more moderate than Democratic members that only make reference to "mostly peaceful" and "it was fine before add'l federal deployments were added." Say what you will about whether or not this is just cheap talk out of Biden, but it's important for him to persuade others that he's a friend of peaceful protesters, but won't turn a blind eye to actual threats to federally-owned buildings under that direct responsibility of the Executive branch.
I give Biden & his team kudos for making a calculated political move. I'm sure some advisers were against it, because it's very easy to only mention the greater peaceful contingent that are present in Portland.
I present a kind of a compare/contrast with federal officers in Portland. These are New York City Police Department + Show Spoiler +under the control of Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio.
My question is whether people justly critical of the DHS response from Chad Wolf are similarly outraged at the actions of the NYPD under de Blasio.
Please, everyone that demands the performance of outrage give me an example of what qualifies to demonstrate outrage if this does not meet the qualifications for an arrest/detention. I was informed that my own posts regarding Federal actions in Portland weren't good enough, so I leave this open to those who posted that opinion to demonstrate their adherence to their own standards.
|
your entire worldview revolves around sticking it to the libs!!!! get a new shtick already
|
On July 29 2020 15:25 kidleaderr wrote:
your entire worldview revolves around sticking it to the libs!!!! get a new shtick already
That's what american politics has devolved into unfortunately.
|
On July 29 2020 15:03 Danglars wrote:I've been a little harsh on Biden, so I want to balance this out. By harsh, I mean critical of his non-appearances, his basement lair addresses, his very sparse statements on critical issues, and all the rest. He did manage to deliver a good one on the mobs topping statues, a little late but also just in time. Biden today spoke on the arsonists and anarchists that number among the Portland protesters when it gets to be late at night. He had a big job to do on his first major statement. First, he had to blend with his party on primarily criticizing Trump's division and chaos. To the extent that chaos means an unplanned response involving DHS(incl CBP) rental vans and camo uniforms, he's darn right. Secondly, he had to go beyond some of the more woke members in the party by calling attention to the "response" to the Trump administration's deployment of additional federal personnel in defense of the courthouse. The videos of rioters using lasers and missile fireworks and fires are too widespread to avoid a response, but many Democratic politicians (as seen in Barr's House Hearing today) will avoid mentioning the violent contingent. + Show Spoiler [reference] +https://twitter.com/aaronsibarium/status/1288242480111063040Biden signals exactly what he should: He's more moderate than Democratic members that only make reference to "mostly peaceful" and "it was fine before add'l federal deployments were added." Say what you will about whether or not this is just cheap talk out of Biden, but it's important for him to persuade others that he's a friend of peaceful protesters, but won't turn a blind eye to actual threats to federally-owned buildings under that direct responsibility of the Executive branch. I give Biden & his team kudos for making a calculated political move. I'm sure some advisers were against it, because it's very easy to only mention the greater peaceful contingent that are present in Portland.
I present a kind of a compare/contrast with federal officers in Portland. These are New York City Police Department + Show Spoiler +under the control of Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio. https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1288261543633866755My question is whether people justly critical of the DHS response from Chad Wolf are similarly outraged at the actions of the NYPD under de Blasio. Please, everyone that demands the performance of outrage give me an example of what qualifies to demonstrate outrage if this does not meet the qualifications for an arrest/detention. I was informed that my own posts regarding Federal actions in Portland weren't good enough, so I leave this open to those who posted that opinion to demonstrate their adherence to their own standards.
Biden's campaign is either doing too little, or things too late (maybe both)
Regarding NYC - it's important to note that it's been a complete shitshow here for the last several months. I've lived here for 29 years and I've never seen the city like this. The NYPD is probably in complete revolt against the mayor. Who knows what the NYPD would be doing (or not be doing) if de Blasio had his way.
On July 29 2020 15:25 kidleaderr wrote:
your entire worldview revolves around sticking it to the libs!!!! get a new shtick already
Nobody has to "stick it to the libs!!!!"
They seem to be doing it to themselves. You probably already know that, though, since you could only respond to his well thought out post with a personal attack.
|
On July 29 2020 15:25 kidleaderr wrote:
your entire worldview revolves around sticking it to the libs!!!! get a new shtick already
This is what I get for complimenting Biden. Go back to wherever this comment gets you upvotes or gif cheers or whatever.
|
On July 29 2020 17:37 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2020 15:03 Danglars wrote:I've been a little harsh on Biden, so I want to balance this out. By harsh, I mean critical of his non-appearances, his basement lair addresses, his very sparse statements on critical issues, and all the rest. He did manage to deliver a good one on the mobs topping statues, a little late but also just in time. Biden today spoke on the arsonists and anarchists that number among the Portland protesters when it gets to be late at night. He had a big job to do on his first major statement. First, he had to blend with his party on primarily criticizing Trump's division and chaos. To the extent that chaos means an unplanned response involving DHS(incl CBP) rental vans and camo uniforms, he's darn right. Secondly, he had to go beyond some of the more woke members in the party by calling attention to the "response" to the Trump administration's deployment of additional federal personnel in defense of the courthouse. The videos of rioters using lasers and missile fireworks and fires are too widespread to avoid a response, but many Democratic politicians (as seen in Barr's House Hearing today) will avoid mentioning the violent contingent. + Show Spoiler [reference] +https://twitter.com/aaronsibarium/status/1288242480111063040Biden signals exactly what he should: He's more moderate than Democratic members that only make reference to "mostly peaceful" and "it was fine before add'l federal deployments were added." Say what you will about whether or not this is just cheap talk out of Biden, but it's important for him to persuade others that he's a friend of peaceful protesters, but won't turn a blind eye to actual threats to federally-owned buildings under that direct responsibility of the Executive branch. I give Biden & his team kudos for making a calculated political move. I'm sure some advisers were against it, because it's very easy to only mention the greater peaceful contingent that are present in Portland.
I present a kind of a compare/contrast with federal officers in Portland. These are New York City Police Department + Show Spoiler +under the control of Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio. https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1288261543633866755My question is whether people justly critical of the DHS response from Chad Wolf are similarly outraged at the actions of the NYPD under de Blasio. Please, everyone that demands the performance of outrage give me an example of what qualifies to demonstrate outrage if this does not meet the qualifications for an arrest/detention. I was informed that my own posts regarding Federal actions in Portland weren't good enough, so I leave this open to those who posted that opinion to demonstrate their adherence to their own standards. Biden's campaign is either doing too little, or things too late (maybe both) Regarding NYC - it's important to note that it's been a complete shitshow here for the last several months. I've lived here for 29 years and I've never seen the city like this. The NYPD is probably in complete revolt against the mayor. Who knows what the NYPD would be doing (or not be doing) if de Blasio had his way..
The country is tired of Trump’s stream of consciousness on twitter, and Biden’s been trying to fly under the radar (somehow) as a presidential candidate. He wants to be a whiteboard for others to write their nice moderate hopes and dreams on. His campaign wants him to surface just often enough to head off accusations that he’s silent on important issues. It looks like Biden’s favored to win, with Trump not far enough behind to be out of the running.
And yeah, New Yorkers, get somebody else in there. The crime and the intra-governmental war with the cops is being mismanaged. I did want to post that to get insight into the crowd of the “outrages and optics” types. I don’t know if they have anything firm they’ve thought out or believe in that the NYPD rental van + plains clothes officers would also transgress.
|
Socialism by no means excludes capitalism. Communism does exclude capitalism but socialists are no communists.
But yes this is just another pointless discussion about semantics and definitions as usual.
Biden's campaign is either doing too little, or things too late (maybe both)
Biden is waiting for as long as he can which i think is the correct strategy. Let trump defeat himself while giving him as few openings as possible to attack biden.
But this strategy most likely can not be maintend till the very end,at one point biden has to come out and make his mark. I dont think its to late yet but its difficult to judge. The final 30 days is when i think the election will be decided.
As long as trumps numbers are not improving biden has no reason to step up yet imo.
|
On July 29 2020 23:31 pmh wrote:
Socialism by no means excludes capitalism. Communism does exclude capitalism but socialists are no communists.
But yes this is just another pointless discussion about semantics and definitions as usual.
Biden's campaign is either doing too little, or things too late (maybe both)
Biden is waiting for as long as he can which i think is the correct strategy. Let trump defeat himself while giving him as few openings as possible to attack biden.
But this strategy most likely can not be maintend till the very end,at one point biden has to come out and make his mark. I dont think its to late yet but its difficult to judge. The final 30 days is when i think the election will be decided.
As long as trumps numbers are not improving biden has no reason to step up yet imo.
Yeah the only reason that Biden can do this is because Trump is beating himself every time he opens his mouth.
I suspect the general idea from Biden is to avoid what happened to Clinton where she was attacked so much that it didn't matter that almost none of it stuck, the sheer volume that Republicans piled on meant to many people she seemed fishy. Add in that a lot of what would be said now isn't particularly going to stick in peoples mind anyway so better to save all the ammunition for closer to the election, near when early voting would start and hammer it on from there.
If Biden is still quiet in September I would question what he is doing, but for now it makes sense.
|
On July 29 2020 17:37 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2020 15:03 Danglars wrote:I've been a little harsh on Biden, so I want to balance this out. By harsh, I mean critical of his non-appearances, his basement lair addresses, his very sparse statements on critical issues, and all the rest. He did manage to deliver a good one on the mobs topping statues, a little late but also just in time. Biden today spoke on the arsonists and anarchists that number among the Portland protesters when it gets to be late at night. He had a big job to do on his first major statement. First, he had to blend with his party on primarily criticizing Trump's division and chaos. To the extent that chaos means an unplanned response involving DHS(incl CBP) rental vans and camo uniforms, he's darn right. Secondly, he had to go beyond some of the more woke members in the party by calling attention to the "response" to the Trump administration's deployment of additional federal personnel in defense of the courthouse. The videos of rioters using lasers and missile fireworks and fires are too widespread to avoid a response, but many Democratic politicians (as seen in Barr's House Hearing today) will avoid mentioning the violent contingent. + Show Spoiler [reference] +https://twitter.com/aaronsibarium/status/1288242480111063040Biden signals exactly what he should: He's more moderate than Democratic members that only make reference to "mostly peaceful" and "it was fine before add'l federal deployments were added." Say what you will about whether or not this is just cheap talk out of Biden, but it's important for him to persuade others that he's a friend of peaceful protesters, but won't turn a blind eye to actual threats to federally-owned buildings under that direct responsibility of the Executive branch. I give Biden & his team kudos for making a calculated political move. I'm sure some advisers were against it, because it's very easy to only mention the greater peaceful contingent that are present in Portland.
I present a kind of a compare/contrast with federal officers in Portland. These are New York City Police Department + Show Spoiler +under the control of Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio. https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1288261543633866755My question is whether people justly critical of the DHS response from Chad Wolf are similarly outraged at the actions of the NYPD under de Blasio. Please, everyone that demands the performance of outrage give me an example of what qualifies to demonstrate outrage if this does not meet the qualifications for an arrest/detention. I was informed that my own posts regarding Federal actions in Portland weren't good enough, so I leave this open to those who posted that opinion to demonstrate their adherence to their own standards. Biden's campaign is either doing too little, or things too late (maybe both) Regarding NYC - it's important to note that it's been a complete shitshow here for the last several months. I've lived here for 29 years and I've never seen the city like this. The NYPD is probably in complete revolt against the mayor. Who knows what the NYPD would be doing (or not be doing) if de Blasio had his way. Show nested quote +On July 29 2020 15:25 kidleaderr wrote:
your entire worldview revolves around sticking it to the libs!!!! get a new shtick already Nobody has to "stick it to the libs!!!!" They seem to be doing it to themselves. You probably already know that, though, since you could only respond to his well thought out post with a personal attack.
I can't speak to all your sources, nor do I intend to address your entire argument due to knowing my inexperience, but I thought the consensus reached by almost everyone but you last time was that Andy Ngo was someone who shouldn't be trusted when reporting on these kinds of things. It doesn't justify violence against him at all (at least to me), but he tends to take things out of context almost exclusively to benefit talking points far to the right of anything I've seen you say.
I'd like to provide this article from businessinsider that talks about his article on Islam in the United Kingdom. It seems he took things that were nominally true and distorted them to make false claims about the area, allowing him to point to the truth of his evidence instead of the reasonableness of the claim he made using them.
Additionally, people in this forum from Portland have been saying stuff contrary to Ngo's overarching claims of wide-spread destruction caused by people he paints as thugs. One even painted us a picture on the map and told us that their experience as someone who lived close to the area hadn't been nearly as violent as Ngo was making it out to be. I understand that peaceful protests aren't usually newsworthy or something that a journalist would be itching to cover, but he doesn't mention a single one for a long time down his extremely active twitter page, except to say they're not peaceful at all.
I know it's probably rude to ask, but don't you have any other sources that people here haven't already decried for heavily biased coverage that you could substitute Ngo for?
|
|
|
I can’t quite square musing about how interesting it would be for them to get acute symptoms, with not wishing them harm in any way. It’s a disease whose symptoms include difficulty breathing, so it just comes across as a exulting in the prospect of a political change from personal trauma. I get the same feeling when I see Democrats clowning on something serious, but I have to stop the impulse because it’s all shit the whole way down.
|
I give the US like...12-16 years max before the first state says fuck this shit and leaves. The partisan hysteria is only increasing at an exponential rate with no signs of abating. Our "mainstream" media outlets are no longer thinly veiled arms of either party, but actively reveling in it, stoking ever high tensions (of which we see in societal unrest). Very similar to the 1850s. At this point our bicameral legislature are actively antagonistic against each other and both parties salivate at the prospect of holding complete power to lord it over one another. What a fucking shit show. There's not even a pretense of running on policies outside of the extremes of the parties - living in wackadoo land of the SJW's or the conspiracy nuts of R/TheDonald. No one gives a shit about the hilarious debts. You even have Democrats saying spending trillions and trillions is not enough and still pushing their GOP want you to starve shtick. Blegh. OK, enough ranting.
|
Would you find it similarly "interesting" if they went through the infection like Lukashenko did?
The President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, has said he contracted coronavirus but recovered without suffering any symptoms, state-run news agency Belta reported Tuesday. Lukashenko has repeatedly dismissed the threat posed by Covid-19, touted home remedies and refused to shut down his country, making Belarus an outlier in Europe. + Show Spoiler +"I apologize for my voice, lately I have to talk a lot. But the most surprising thing is that today you are seeing a person who managed to power through coronavirus standing on his feet," he said during a visit to a military base, according to Belta. "Doctors made this conclusion yesterday — it was asymptomatic." "Like I said, 97% of our people go through this illness without symptoms and thank God I've managed to get into this group of asymptomatic people," added Lukashenko, citing an unsubstantiated statistic. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in fact estimates that about 40% of people infected with Covid-19 don't experience any symptoms. The strongman leader has notoriously dismissed coronavirus as mass "psychosis" and recommended that citizens enjoy a traditional sauna or drink vodka "to poison the virus." He has been widely criticized for refusing to impose strict coronavirus restrictions during the pandemic. Lukashenko, who has ruled since 1994, has not limited his own public appearances during the pandemic and went ahead with an annual military parade in May. He has also continued to gather in-person government meetings and played hockey throughout the pandemic. "It's better to die standing than to live on your knees," he said, rinkside in full hockey gear, in an interview with state television in late March. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/28/europe/alexander-lukashenko-coronavirus-infection-intl/index.html
Convincing people that it's not "just a flu" would become a much harder task after that. Maybe it's better to wish Trump or another high-ranking Republican don't get infected, as chances of them getting acute sympots would be quite low.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
