|
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 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea.
I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans.
|
On September 15 2020 11:40 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2020 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 15 2020 09:25 RenSC2 wrote:
If the allegations are true, I bet there’s some lawyers lining up to file a class action suit against this doctor. I would guess that there is no official policy of sterilization and he has gone rogue. He’ll get hit with a huge medical malpractice suit and lose his license and potentially go to jail depending on who the criminal prosecutor is for the correct jurisdiction. If it’s federal jurisdiction, I’m guessing a Biden appointed Attorney General would love to make an example of this guy. Barr, not so much.
There is a difference between the two, despite what radical leftists would have you believe. We have a legal system that does hold this type of person civilly and criminally liable. We aren’t China.
Of course this is all presuming that the accusations are accurate and not completely exaggerated as is often the case with articles like this one. You have more faith in Biden and the criminal justice system than I think is rational, but are you suggesting this nurse (besides proposing that she's exaggerating) would be the person responsible for identifying this issue and that the lack of accountability for (at minimum) the gross neglect of management in identifying this issue isn't extremely problematic? EDIT: Besides the sterilizations there's also the whole covid-19 issue which has been absolutely atrocious in US prisons and detention facilities. Including recently exploiting a loophole for transporting detainees (which preceded an outbreak) so ICE agents could help with the authoritarian crackdown on protesters in DC . At the peak of the protests following the death of George Floyd, ICE special response teams were brought in on June 2 on a charter aircraft used to transport detainees because of ICE regulations that prohibit the use of those charter flights for employee travel. The agency transported detainees from Arizona and Florida, and those same detainees were placed in the Farmville Detention Center and appeared to have triggered a huge outbreak that infected more than 300 people wjla.comNot the first instance of ICE transfers spreading covid-19 though On Covid, yeah, all of the US federal government has handled it terribly. Shouldn't be surprising that an area that's already notoriously bad (prisons and ICE) has handled it particularly bad. My faith in Biden and the criminal justice system is certainly smaller than my faith in lawyers wanting to make money. There's gotta be an ambulance chaser out there who reads that article and starts seeing dollar signs. I could certainly see the doctor getting away with it criminally. I can't see him getting away with it civilly if the article is remotely true. On the lack of accountability, yeah, the government is a huge organization where about half the lawmakers are purposely trying to hamstring oversight, including the president, and the other half isn't always the most competent. Shit is going to sneak through and it takes whistleblowers to call things out. The key is having people in power who will support whistleblowers rather than guys like Trump.
What fantasy world do you live in where Democrats are just incompetent. Obama was the #1 President of all time who went after whistleblowers with most prosecutions. He wanted to totally destroy Julian Assange and Ed Snowden. Don't get me wrong, the Republicans aren't better, but this lie you partisans tell yourselves is a joke.
|
On September 16 2020 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
Thread detailing how the FBI broke surveillance laws 15,993 out of 16,000 times or 99.9% of the time (I've mentioned many times how illegal domestic surveillance is the norm at the FBI). Also how there is no accountability.
A group of kindergartners with a youtube tutorial could do better than that at following procedure/the law.
The FBI is a cesspool and should have been abolished a long time ago - FISA is disastrous as well. Good luck though when partisans keep using the alphabet agencies for political football. Democrats love the FBI when they're after Republicans and vice versa. It's absurd. Meanwhile somewhere Madison cries and slowly turns over.
|
I love how we're like "you can't trust science because the scientists expressed a political opinion" and not "we personally don't trust science because the president politicized it and told us to ignore it". Seriously?
|
On September 16 2020 04:27 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Thread detailing how the FBI broke surveillance laws 15,993 out of 16,000 times or 99.9% of the time (I've mentioned many times how illegal domestic surveillance is the norm at the FBI). Also how there is no accountability. https://twitter.com/LizaGoitein/status/1301970811981574144A group of kindergartners with a youtube tutorial could do better than that at following procedure/the law. The FBI is a cesspool and should have been abolished a long time ago - FISA is disastrous as well. Good luck though when partisans keep using the alphabet agencies for political football. Democrats love the FBI when they're after Republicans and vice versa. It's absurd. Meanwhile somewhere Madison cries and slowly turns over.
So damn ridiculous watching them wait on every fart out of Mueller/the FBI like they weren't known to be terrible. Corporate media and politicians fed them a line of bull about his credibility and how every new conspiracy from Maddow would be the turning point and they ate it up uncritically like pigs at a trough.
|
On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea.
I’m getting big time 2016 vibes. This kind of unprecedented shit, and all the celebrity-studded outreach.
Biden is in a much better position than Clinton. Trump has to run with a record this time. I don’t really think Biden can blow it hard enough to matter, but I was wrong about Pennsylvania in 2016.
|
|
|
|
|
On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject.
I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions.
|
On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions.
Because your talks about both Clinton and Trump being equally "terminal threats to our ecological future" are not puerile.
Ok.
|
|
|
On September 16 2020 04:55 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 04:27 Wegandi wrote:On September 16 2020 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Thread detailing how the FBI broke surveillance laws 15,993 out of 16,000 times or 99.9% of the time (I've mentioned many times how illegal domestic surveillance is the norm at the FBI). Also how there is no accountability. https://twitter.com/LizaGoitein/status/1301970811981574144A group of kindergartners with a youtube tutorial could do better than that at following procedure/the law. The FBI is a cesspool and should have been abolished a long time ago - FISA is disastrous as well. Good luck though when partisans keep using the alphabet agencies for political football. Democrats love the FBI when they're after Republicans and vice versa. It's absurd. Meanwhile somewhere Madison cries and slowly turns over. Can easily add "antifa" and various far right groups. However, if they did it to a couple of nuns, you would have some people right upset about the Christians being attacked and religious freedom!
From anything i have seen on here, that wouldn't happen. They would just figure out why the nuns are so bad that they deserve it, especially if Trump ordered the attack on the nuns.
It is important to remember that US conservatives don't care about anything they claim to care about. They care about winning and sticking it to the libs. Also discriminating against gay people and others they don't like. And for some reasons they seem to care about Trump.
All of the principles and ideas they claim to care for are utterly irrelevant the second they stop helping with the real goals. This was very obviously seen over the last four years. So people should really, really stop trying to believe what they say about why they care about stuff, because it is all a giant lie.
|
On September 16 2020 05:41 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 04:50 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2020 03:52 LegalLord wrote:
There was a lot of "unprecedented endorsement" stuff going around in Clinton vs Trump, and some people made a big deal out of it. Evidently it didn't help enough.
The Twitter traffic rightly calls this out as a dumb idea. I thought it was a stupid story/thing too but mostly because they can both be rightfully considered a terminal threat to our ecological future and it's meaningless grandstanding meant to distract the partisans. One is WAY WAY worse than the other and this matters. They are not the same risk and pretending that they are to support your agenda is so disingenuous. It shows an extreme bias or a incredibly large gap in knowledge on the subject. I'm not pretending they are the same and fabricating that strawman is emblematic of your habitually puerile contributions. It is not meaningless grandstanding to distract partisans. There is a large difference between the two. Which is why Climate SCIENTISTS support Biden over Trump. And why it is not shocking nor partisan, except for the issue of science. The way you and danglars throw around partisan is incorrect use of the word. And your use of strawman was incorrect since you have often said that the Dems are just in bad on climate. Which is again simply wrong not partisan. If a break of 175 years of tradition is not because of petty partisanship they might have to evaluate why Trump is different and that 'they' might be on the 'wrong' side. And that is unacceptable, therefor it is because of partisan, and not Trump being uniquely anti-science, not just in a dumb way but purposefully malicious.
|
Claims that Scientific American endorsing Biden is a partisan act is just another aspect of the overarching "us vs them", team style politics problem we're facing here. We're tasked with choosing the candidate we think is best suited to represent us and the policies we wish to see enacted. Silence is not neutrality anymore, it's apathy, and that's a big part of why the USA is where it is right now.
If breaking a 175 year old tradition is part of combating the anti science nonsense perpetuated by those who ignore science (right leaning climate, COVID deniers), then let's see more of it. Almost 200k dead with impending climate disaster and people want to be worried about whether a journal supporting the sane candidate is partisan or not -_-
|
On September 09 2020 23:43 WarSame wrote:
Here's a proposal to help fix the US democratic system that I think is simple and effective:
Constitutional Amendment(or just a law, but I don't think that would have the power) that for any vote involved in a federal election (such as President, Senator or Representative) there must be 3 ranked preference options, or as many options as there are candidates, whichever is lower.
I think this could work because it's such a simple change that doesn't really effect the overall system, so people won't be worried about power grabs, but makes every single election in the country competitive, and changes each race from the 2 party duopoly shitting on the other party, to them having to actually prove they're a better option than other potential parties that emerge.
I'm aware it would be hard to implement since those in power are the same who would not like to see it implemented, but it's possible there would be a lot of popular support for it. As a primary candidate you would be able to pick up a lot of the policy wonk votes and probably a lot of disgruntled Bernie supporters as well as the non-automatic voters. In the general you would be able to pick up a lot of swing voters and stretch a bit farther left at the same time.
Getting the amendment actually passed would probably be very difficult because the people who hold power would need to approve of giving it away, which seems difficult. Maybe you could combine intimidation, threats and blackmail to force them to vote for the amendment? Though that seems like it would be hard to get to work for so many Representatives and Senators.
What are your thoughts on this?
I would like all of your feedback on whether you think this would help fix issues in America.
I recognize the fact that it was so easily moved past is not a great sign for its ability to win an election in America, so we're already off to a bad start...
|
On September 16 2020 06:14 pajoondies wrote:
Claims that Scientific American endorsing Biden is a partisan act is just another aspect of the overarching "us vs them", team style politics problem we're facing here. We're tasked with choosing the candidate we think is best suited to represent us and the policies we wish to see enacted. Silence is not neutrality anymore, it's apathy, and that's a big part of why the USA is where it is right now.
If breaking a 175 year old tradition is part of combating the anti science nonsense perpetuated by those who ignore science (right leaning climate, COVID deniers), then let's see more of it. Almost 200k dead with impending climate disaster and people want to be worried about whether a journal supporting the sane candidate is partisan or not -_-
Yeah, scientists don't owe conservatives the sensitivity to tell them "but you know, maybe evolution isn't real after all!" because that's simply not the job of information gathering. When one candidate openly speaks against scientific consensus, a lot of damage can be done.
Gosh, can you imagine how bad it would be if our government prioritized posturing over accuracy in handling a pandemic? There would be big consequences and a lot of people would die that didn't need to. Science will always be our best attempt at accuracy and as such it is our best option. Fighting that damages society.
On September 16 2020 06:27 WarSame wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2020 23:43 WarSame wrote:
Here's a proposal to help fix the US democratic system that I think is simple and effective:
Constitutional Amendment(or just a law, but I don't think that would have the power) that for any vote involved in a federal election (such as President, Senator or Representative) there must be 3 ranked preference options, or as many options as there are candidates, whichever is lower.
I think this could work because it's such a simple change that doesn't really effect the overall system, so people won't be worried about power grabs, but makes every single election in the country competitive, and changes each race from the 2 party duopoly shitting on the other party, to them having to actually prove they're a better option than other potential parties that emerge.
I'm aware it would be hard to implement since those in power are the same who would not like to see it implemented, but it's possible there would be a lot of popular support for it. As a primary candidate you would be able to pick up a lot of the policy wonk votes and probably a lot of disgruntled Bernie supporters as well as the non-automatic voters. In the general you would be able to pick up a lot of swing voters and stretch a bit farther left at the same time.
Getting the amendment actually passed would probably be very difficult because the people who hold power would need to approve of giving it away, which seems difficult. Maybe you could combine intimidation, threats and blackmail to force them to vote for the amendment? Though that seems like it would be hard to get to work for so many Representatives and Senators.
What are your thoughts on this? I would like all of your feedback on whether you think this would help fix issues in America. I recognize the fact that it was so easily moved past is not a great sign for its ability to win an election in America, so we're already off to a bad start...
Everyone loves ranked choice except for the leaders of the 2 major political parties. The problem isn't whether it is good or not, it is what we can do to achieve it. It would solve a lot of problems but since most Americans don't even know the idea of ranked choice exists, it ain't happening soon.
|
Right, but I'm wondering if a campaign with that as a main defining position would be able to win a primary and get that change enacted. I imagine if the campaign could pick up some success then Americans would become more aware of the option.
Maybe getting it implemented in a state first would help before bringing it federal.
|
The problem with "unprecedented endorsement" is not that science people aren't allowed to have an opinion. They can, and it can be a very strong preference. The real question is, does the value of explicitly putting forward a political position (i.e. an endorsement) outweigh the loss of apparent objectivity associated with no longer presenting oneself as an apolitical organization? It's absolutely a net hit to credibility, so the question is if the upside is worth it. It's hard to see that it would be in light of 2016.
|
On September 16 2020 06:40 LegalLord wrote:
The problem with "unprecedented endorsement" is not that science people aren't allowed to have an opinion. They can, and it can be a very strong preference. The real question is, does the value of explicitly putting forward a political position (i.e. an endorsement) outweigh the loss of apparent objectivity associated with no longer presenting oneself as an apolitical organization? It's absolutely a net hit to credibility, so the question is if the upside is worth it. It's hard to see that it would be in light of 2016.
That's true, the issue isn't people who already understand science, the issue is people who do not. And since they are a large portion of our country, what they think matters. That's a fair point.
Edit: I should explain why I saw/see this as good. Scientists have been shown over the last however many years the issue with being some subtle lab rat publishing and then walking away. Scientists need to be fighting for what they know is right. In an age where misinformation is a bigger and bigger problem, experts need to be willing to put on their battle armor and fight this war. We can't just roll over and not try to make a positive difference.
|
On September 16 2020 06:40 LegalLord wrote:
The problem with "unprecedented endorsement" is not that science people aren't allowed to have an opinion. They can, and it can be a very strong preference. The real question is, does the value of explicitly putting forward a political position (i.e. an endorsement) outweigh the loss of apparent objectivity associated with no longer presenting oneself as an apolitical organization? It's absolutely a net hit to credibility, so the question is if the upside is worth it. It's hard to see that it would be in light of 2016. And at what point does the scientific community need to stop just putting information out for it to be ignored and misrepresented before putting their foot down?
Should they stand by and do nothing as the world descends back into the dark ages because 'its not their place'?
(and yes, that is an obvious hyperbole. You get the point).
Trump is so uniquely terrible in this that I don't see it as a hit to their credibility, proving they go back to being apolitical when one of the candidates isn't Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
