|
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 September 06 2020 05:46 IgnE wrote:
Ah, right. Hypotheticals about magic and police whose legs don’t work. Look at your first line, man. I didn’t say anything about risking the lives of dozens of people. It’s pure projection. If your obsessive point of focus is the relative danger to protesters of blowing up the washington monument vs. burning down a police station in Minnesota or a Portland federal building then you haven’t got much to stand on here. Maybe it would help you to imagine a structure that can burn, like the White House. If a protest shows up at the White House and some among them start lobbing molotov cocktails on the surrounding area (the White House being behind a large fence) are the federal agents there justified in dispersing them? Perhaps the details there are too distracting for you. You’ve obstinately avoided the more interesting kernel of these hypotheticals that I’ve been insisting is a hard problem that deserves thinking through.
That would seem to bring us back to my initial response to you: “why don’t we just ask why the police aren’t arresting the violent ones and leaving the peaceful ones?” Why didn’t the police set up a perimeter on their midwestern police station and arrest anyone who tried to burn it down? Why can’t we perfectly target those who want to do violence and leave those who don’t? Yes indeed.
It's true that you didn't say anything about risking the lives of dozens of people, but it -is- a logical following from 'blowing up' a 500 foot tall stone structure. I don't know if a logical following of blowing up a pillar of stone qualifies as 'projection' and the harm of the people is a relevant factor in whether or not you teargas a group of people, imo.
To be honest, I don't understand this hard kernel that you're referring to, and fully accept that it might just be because I'm fucking stupid. Spell it out for me! All I'm reading is you trying to draw parallels between people using explosives to blow up the washington monument and people setting fire to an abandoned building. Those aren't the same thing.
Also I know I come across condescending, but that's a failing on my part. I definitely don't think you're stupid, and the condescension isn't intentional.
|
On September 06 2020 06:03 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2020 05:46 IgnE wrote:
Ah, right. Hypotheticals about magic and police whose legs don’t work. Look at your first line, man. I didn’t say anything about risking the lives of dozens of people. It’s pure projection. If your obsessive point of focus is the relative danger to protesters of blowing up the washington monument vs. burning down a police station in Minnesota or a Portland federal building then you haven’t got much to stand on here. Maybe it would help you to imagine a structure that can burn, like the White House. If a protest shows up at the White House and some among them start lobbing molotov cocktails on the surrounding area (the White House being behind a large fence) are the federal agents there justified in dispersing them? Perhaps the details there are too distracting for you. You’ve obstinately avoided the more interesting kernel of these hypotheticals that I’ve been insisting is a hard problem that deserves thinking through.
That would seem to bring us back to my initial response to you: “why don’t we just ask why the police aren’t arresting the violent ones and leaving the peaceful ones?” Why didn’t the police set up a perimeter on their midwestern police station and arrest anyone who tried to burn it down? Why can’t we perfectly target those who want to do violence and leave those who don’t? Yes indeed. It's true that you didn't say anything about risking the lives of dozens of people, but it -is- a logical following from 'blowing up' a 500 foot tall stone structure. I don't know if a logical following of blowing up a pillar of stone qualifies as 'projection' and the harm of the people is a relevant factor in whether or not you teargas a group of people, imo. To be honest, I don't understand this hard kernel that you're referring to, and fully accept that it might just be because I'm fucking stupid. Spell it out for me! All I'm reading is you trying to draw parallels between people using explosives to blow up the washington monument and people setting fire to an abandoned building. Those aren't the same thing.
Pretend the fire that burned Notre Dame (or something like Notre Dame if you prefer) was started during a protest in the streets against a state with a police force that occasionally kills its citizens. Imagine that the protest formed as protests often do, without notice to the authorities about how many people would be there and what their names were. Imagine that the police chief in charge there soon gets overwhelmed because the protestors outnumber the cops. Some people are trying various ad-hoc methods of burning the cathedral because of its associations with the state or for no reason at all. The police chief must consider between two options: let them burn it up or use tear gas and potentially rubber bullets to disperse the whole crowd so that they can secure the cathedral. What should he do?
|
Arrest the people trying to burn shit down. Call in aid if you require aid, nonviolently attempt to establish a perimeter around this important building that people are trying to burn down. In failing to do that, gather evidence against potential arsonists as much as possible that they might be held accountable for their actions at a time where it is safer for the officer(s) to pursue justice. Serve the people, and also protect them.
If the arson gets to the point where it represents a real danger to the people near it, intervene with tear gas etc to protect the people. Like in blowing up the Washington Monument, the reason I find teargas acceptable there is because it is 'harming' the people to protect the people. It isn't harming the people to protect a piece of rock.
It might be that the disconnect we have is that I see a concerted effort by a mass of people to burn down a state structure to have some impetus behind it, and I see the -people- as the representation of the state, not the building. It's similar to the understanding I have regarding gun culture in the US, where the general understanding I have is that the constitution endorses the right to an armed militia marching on the white house to challenge the enstatement of a fascist government, or what have you. Ultimately, the -people- have the power, not the buildings. While I obviously have some issue with the violent nature suggested by an armed militia, I do respect the idea that, ultimately, the -people- have the power, if they agree and unite.
Hopefully that sufficiently answers your question. I'm not trying to dodge anything or be dishonest, so do let me know if you think I'm doing that. My view is that the police should be servants of the people and can serve as a guiding force to that, and in the event that people burn down a building, the PEOPLE are liable for that damage, not the police for failing to protect it at all costs.
|
Protestors, not to mention a small minority of protestors, don't always represent "the people," though. I have no problems with calling a referendum where the people vote to take down statues for example. Voting to bull doze irreplaceable landmarks like Notre Dame give me more pause, but democracy is democracy. The majority of Americans don't like looting for example.
|
It's irrelevant. If his remarks about John McCain before and after his death have no impact on his support, these won't either.
|
On September 06 2020 09:07 iamthedave wrote:It's irrelevant. If his remarks about John McCain before and after his death have no impact on his support, these won't either.
The only difference is they could say additional shit about John McCain in particular to rationalize it. It's slightly different to talk about war veterans in a general sense. But I agree it won't change much to Trump's base. He said it, so that's now the new definition of patriotism.
|
On September 06 2020 09:16 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2020 09:07 iamthedave wrote:It's irrelevant. If his remarks about John McCain before and after his death have no impact on his support, these won't either. The only difference is they could say additional shit about John McCain in particular to rationalize it. It's slightly different to talk about war veterans in a general sense. But I agree it won't change much to Trump's base. He said it, so that's now the new definition of patriotism. How about that time he said he would donate to a veterans charity but didn't.
Or that time he had a fight with the parents of a dead soldier.
Or that time he ignored Putin putting a bounty on US soldiers.
Or that time....
|
On September 06 2020 09:16 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2020 09:07 iamthedave wrote:It's irrelevant. If his remarks about John McCain before and after his death have no impact on his support, these won't either. The only difference is they could say additional shit about John McCain in particular to rationalize it. It's slightly different to talk about war veterans in a general sense. But I agree it won't change much to Trump's base. He said it, so that's now the new definition of patriotism.
Hardly. McCain was one of the most universally respected figures in the Republican Party. He even enjoyed cross-party respect which isn't something many politicians can enjoy these days. And unlike most phony tough guy politicians he was a legit war veteran who definitely unquestionably served his country.
I would never have voted for him, but I still remember him shutting down that woman at one of his debates who laid into Barack Obama. Far from a perfect man, but he struck me as a principled one.
|
Oh absolutely. That was their problem with him. Anyone under the R banner who doesn't move in perfect lockstep with the group is a fake Republican now.
|
Hope folks are ready for Republicans to care about deficit and debt again if Biden manages to win. Austerity is one of the few things Biden will happily work with Republicans on.
|
On September 06 2020 09:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2020 09:16 NewSunshine wrote:On September 06 2020 09:07 iamthedave wrote:It's irrelevant. If his remarks about John McCain before and after his death have no impact on his support, these won't either. The only difference is they could say additional shit about John McCain in particular to rationalize it. It's slightly different to talk about war veterans in a general sense. But I agree it won't change much to Trump's base. He said it, so that's now the new definition of patriotism. How about that time he said he would donate to a veterans charity but didn't. Or that time he had a fight with the parents of a dead soldier. Or that time he ignored Putin putting a bounty on US soldiers. Or that time....
The big difference is that most of the people did something against Trump first. McCain occasionally spoke out against Trump or went against the party, so Trumpkins looked at it as okay to hit him back, even on his military service.
The gold star families from 2016 spoke out against Trump’s immigration policies, so it was okay for Trump to hit them back.
The Putin bounties is a newer thing that still seems to be in dispute. I don’t think he has ever admitted to knowing about it.
However, it’s hard for even a Trumpkin to justify denigrating the dead who have said nothing. It’s definitely a terrible look for Trump to part of his base. I assume he’ll deny deny deny and call everyone a liar who claims it. Perhaps we’ll get a recording of it and he can’t deny anymore. Then he’ll do the “who cares” and move on to his next distracting scandal.
Will it matter? Maybe a little. I don’t think too many switch to Biden, but perhaps a few right leaning vets stay home rather than vote. That could be the difference in a few key states.
|
On September 06 2020 10:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
Hope folks are ready for Republicans to care about deficit and debt again if Biden manages to win. Austerity is one of the few things Biden will happily work with Republicans on.
I expect all of their principles to come flooding back in the moment they're no longer calling all the shots.
|
On September 06 2020 10:11 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2020 10:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
Hope folks are ready for Republicans to care about deficit and debt again if Biden manages to win. Austerity is one of the few things Biden will happily work with Republicans on. I expect all of their principles to come flooding back in the moment they're no longer calling all the shots.
Very distressing Democrats are electing someone who genuinely believes they actually hold those principles. It seems like a catastrophic disadvantage in negotiations.
|
On September 06 2020 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2020 10:11 NewSunshine wrote:On September 06 2020 10:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
Hope folks are ready for Republicans to care about deficit and debt again if Biden manages to win. Austerity is one of the few things Biden will happily work with Republicans on. I expect all of their principles to come flooding back in the moment they're no longer calling all the shots. Very distressing Democrats are electing someone who genuinely believes they actually hold those principles. It seems like a catastrophic disadvantage in negotiations.
Are we thinking Biden's going to win now? I don't see it.
|
The White House banning government agencies from doing training on institutional racism, and getting celebrated for doing so by conservatives is a bit of a mask off moment as to where the focal point of their 'principles' is.
|
On September 06 2020 11:43 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2020 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2020 10:11 NewSunshine wrote:On September 06 2020 10:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
Hope folks are ready for Republicans to care about deficit and debt again if Biden manages to win. Austerity is one of the few things Biden will happily work with Republicans on. I expect all of their principles to come flooding back in the moment they're no longer calling all the shots. Very distressing Democrats are electing someone who genuinely believes they actually hold those principles. It seems like a catastrophic disadvantage in negotiations. Are we thinking Biden's going to win now? I don't see it.
Just looking at Trump, Democrats should have an ez win. I'm with you leaning toward Biden/Dems blowing it (if he/they haven't already) though.
|
On September 06 2020 12:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2020 11:43 iamthedave wrote:On September 06 2020 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2020 10:11 NewSunshine wrote:On September 06 2020 10:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
Hope folks are ready for Republicans to care about deficit and debt again if Biden manages to win. Austerity is one of the few things Biden will happily work with Republicans on. I expect all of their principles to come flooding back in the moment they're no longer calling all the shots. Very distressing Democrats are electing someone who genuinely believes they actually hold those principles. It seems like a catastrophic disadvantage in negotiations. Are we thinking Biden's going to win now? I don't see it. Just looking at Trump, Democrats should have an ez win. I'm with you leaning toward Biden/Dems blowing it (if he/they haven't already) though.
Really? Other than we've had four years of him, does Trump really look more awful than he did in 2016?
The problem as I see it is the same one that screwed Hilary; principled Dems don't like Biden much because he's dodgy and there's a host of reasons not to vote for him, while the Republicans will come together and vote for Trump.
Everything looks set to go the same as it did in 2016, unless the black vote gets out in force not because they like Biden but because they're sick of the current administration and just want to sock it to them. Otherwise... I don't see where Biden gets the votes he needs. Moderates probably do like him more, so there's that I suppose.
|
On September 06 2020 11:43 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2020 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2020 10:11 NewSunshine wrote:On September 06 2020 10:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
Hope folks are ready for Republicans to care about deficit and debt again if Biden manages to win. Austerity is one of the few things Biden will happily work with Republicans on. I expect all of their principles to come flooding back in the moment they're no longer calling all the shots. Very distressing Democrats are electing someone who genuinely believes they actually hold those principles. It seems like a catastrophic disadvantage in negotiations. Are we thinking Biden's going to win now? I don't see it.
Democrats could win, just not with Biden.
Zogby did a poll back in June 2020 finding 60% of young voters thinking he had an early form of dementia.
https://zogbyanalytics.com/news/943-the-zogby-poll-a-majority-of-voters-believe-biden-is-in-the-early-stages-of-dementia-60-of-younger-voters-think-so-swing-voters-less-likely-to-think-biden-has-dementia
I'd be shocked if the Trump-Biden TV debates (in front of 65+ million viewers) actually go ahead.
|
|
|
On September 06 2020 12:34 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2020 12:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2020 11:43 iamthedave wrote:On September 06 2020 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2020 10:11 NewSunshine wrote:On September 06 2020 10:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
Hope folks are ready for Republicans to care about deficit and debt again if Biden manages to win. Austerity is one of the few things Biden will happily work with Republicans on. I expect all of their principles to come flooding back in the moment they're no longer calling all the shots. Very distressing Democrats are electing someone who genuinely believes they actually hold those principles. It seems like a catastrophic disadvantage in negotiations. Are we thinking Biden's going to win now? I don't see it. Just looking at Trump, Democrats should have an ez win. I'm with you leaning toward Biden/Dems blowing it (if he/they haven't already) though. Really? Other than we've had four years of him, does Trump really look more awful than he did in 2016? The problem as I see it is the same one that screwed Hilary; principled Dems don't like Biden much because he's dodgy and there's a host of reasons not to vote for him, while the Republicans will come together and vote for Trump. Everything looks set to go the same as it did in 2016, unless the black vote gets out in force not because they like Biden but because they're sick of the current administration and just want to sock it to them. Otherwise... I don't see where Biden gets the votes he needs. Moderates probably do like him more, so there's that I suppose.
The irony being Democrats are simultaneously grilling Republicans for abandoning their principles while acting indignant at people on the left that refuse to abandon theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
