EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2657
| 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 | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24201 Posts
| ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On September 22 2020 03:55 IgnE wrote: None of them are superpowers though. Was Russia's invasion of Ukraine a civil war? Do you have civilians taking arms shooting at the military/police ? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11943 Posts
On September 22 2020 03:27 Gorsameth wrote: The usual argument is the tyranny of the majority. Without the filibuster the majority would do whatever they want with no regard for the minority. (I don't believe in it, just stating what people bring up as the reason when they defend the filibuster) Which is why you have some things requiring a supermajority (like any constitutional change), and then have a constitutional court that is actually worth that name and not just another chamber with a strange appointment process. A majority in the legislative should be able to make normal laws. On September 22 2020 04:01 Erasme wrote: Do you have civilians taking arms shooting at the military/police ? This is strange. A civil war does involve a lot more killing. Whatever the US is currently in, it is not a civil war. And calling it one just diminishes that term. If there aren't massive amounts of killing going on, it isn't a civil war. Just people being angry at each other and mostly writing stuff on the internet isn't. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1094 Posts
All of what I just said is relevant to the old style filibuster where someone actually stands on the floor and makes his case. It is not nearly as relevant to someone standing on the floor and reading an unrelated book and it’s barely relevant at all when someone can just declare a filibuster and indefinitely delay a bill without standing on the floor at all. I’m in favor of the classic filibuster, but the current iteration needs to go away. Its only purpose is to gum up the system and make Congress dysfunctional. I can appreciate being in favor of small government, but I cannot in any way support dysfunctional government. On Civil War, it’ll be a civil war when American military regiments actually fight each other or a large militia. Small gun battles between antifa and right wing groups are not a civil war. When we drop a nuke on our own country, then we are in a civil war. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 22 2020 04:26 IgnE wrote: My preference would be for communities like the catholics and evangelicals, who base say 80% of their political alignment on the single issue of abortion, just renounce government and turn inward to their own communities. That seems more Biblical to me anyway. Given that catholic clerics have a serious reproduction problem (no one wants to be a priest anymore), maybe they will just die out anyway in another generation or so. The evangelical megachurches on the other hand seem less likely to disappear. Figuring God as the protagonist in an Ayn Rand novel might seem like a chimera, but it appears to have a vigorous hybrid potency. You see the relevance of my nun example, being how government dictates how they must function, no matter how much they’d like to turn inward to their own communities and be left alone. You can see civil war brewing in the ways more secular Americans (and Europeans participating in this thread) want to dictate terms to religious communities in how they shall share society with them, and (possibly) the religious communities firing back with the ways in which secular communities must compromise to share society with them. My discussions here, which I won’t repeat, have led me to believe the secular side is unwilling to compromise and is in the process of dictating terms. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11943 Posts
On September 22 2020 04:26 IgnE wrote: My preference would be for communities like the catholics and evangelicals, who base say 80% of their political alignment on the single issue of abortion, just renounce government and turn inward to their own communities. That seems more Biblical to me anyway. Given that catholic clerics have a serious reproduction problem (no one wants to be a priest anymore), maybe they will just die out anyway in another generation or so. The evangelical megachurches on the other hand seem less likely to disappear. Figuring God as the protagonist in an Ayn Rand novel presents an odd, chimerical image, but it appears to have a vigorous hybrid potency. The problem is that they cannot turn inward. They aren't happy just living the way they want people to live. If they were, no problem would exist. Just chill somewhere, pray, give all your money to your priest and don't abort any babies. No one has a problem with that. But they want everyone else to live their way, too. That is the main problem of the issue. The only way you get everyone else to do what you want is through government. On September 22 2020 04:31 Danglars wrote: You see the relevance of my nun example, being how government dictates how they must function, no matter how much they’d like to turn inward to their own communities and be left alone. You can see civil war brewing in the ways more secular Americans (and Europeans participating in this thread) want to dictate terms to religious communities in how they shall share society with them, and (possibly) the religious communities firing back with the ways in which secular communities must compromise to share society with them. My discussions here, which I won’t repeat, have led me to believe the secular side is unwilling to compromise and is in the process of dictating terms. You keep bringing that up, and it keeps being wrong. No one has a problem with religious people living their lives in a religious way and doing stuff the way they want, as long as they don't harm anyone else or intrude in other peoples rights. The problem is that they are not happy with that. They want to dictate their stuff to as many people as possible, for example through preventing their employees from getting abortions or contraception. Just don't abort any of your babies. No one is going to force you to do that. Ever. But don't force other people to follow your religious laws. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On September 22 2020 04:31 Danglars wrote: You see the relevance of my nun example, being how government dictates how they must function, no matter how much they’d like to turn inward to their own communities and be left alone. You can see civil war brewing in the ways more secular Americans (and Europeans participating in this thread) want to dictate terms to religious communities in how they shall share society with them, and (possibly) the religious communities firing back with the ways in which secular communities must compromise to share society with them. My discussions here, which I won’t repeat, have led me to believe the secular side is unwilling to compromise and is in the process of dictating terms. Wasn't the whole nun ordeal just about the tax exemption status ? Meaning they could perfectly decide to provide abortion or drug-free insurance contracts, but would have to pay taxes ? That's not exactly dictating how they should behave. You want to not pay taxes, you follow the common rules. Government should encourage association and other charitable entities, I agree, it's for the common good, but if they follow the law of the land and common rules only. I don't see the issue. They could perfectly do what they want and live in their own vacuum, but would have to pay taxes since they still use the country's infrastructure, am I wrong ? When the state and the church are disjointed in a country, the religious status shouldn't be a basis for special treatment (that's my opinion, the secular one as you see it). You want the government to provide you with a freebie ? Don't ignore its rules. A tax-free status is just an incentive from the state, not a given. If you want independance to do what you want and skirt the rules, pay your due as everyone else does. Is that really so impudent ? If that leads to religious communities seceding, well good for them, they'll have to develop their infrastructure themselves, see how it's easy. Why should my taxes pay for special exemptions to entities that don't have to respect the same rules I do ? | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
On September 22 2020 03:40 IgnE wrote: Maybe we are already in a state of civil war. What would civil war even look in a 21st century superpower with a modern military? Wouldn't it look something like this? Or, you know, it's just politics as usual. Maybe civil war worthy of the name is impossible in a modern superpower. Civil war is probably a rather inappropriate term for what is happening (or may happen) in the US. But I do agree with the sentiment that the US could experience (or maybe already is in the process of) a loose all-encompassing power struggle carried out on the back of large portions of the general population that could lead to a radical change in the power and organizational structure of the country having many consequences akin to a civil war. Nowadays, there is such an enourmous divide in the population that it is hard to imagine how it could possibly be bridged. By now there has basically been an entire generation brought up on the premise that everyone who politically opposes them is either malevolent or straight up stupid. People have been constantly bombarded by twisted or outright hateful statements on political opponents for decades with the plethora of political talk shows that are at best hive-mind echo chambers and at worst hate-speech spreading dens of evil. All larger media outlets evolving into nothing less than propaganda machines for their political party of choice cannot be any good either. It seems like hearing non-stop for decades that political supporters of the other party are all lazy, malignant and retarded individuals or respectively primitive, fascist scum will lead to entrenched and unshakable political positions and kill the very idea of political discourse - never mind any considerations of compromises or joint work. I'd say the extremely negative way political opponents have been painted for so long has at this point led to wide-spread radicalization and thus has become a self-fulfilling prophecy with significantly large groups on either side becoming what the other side has always claimed them to be. And while the overwhelming majority of media outlets have been instrumental in creating the deep divide of today, the political caste has largely been doing their own part in endorsing and promoting the idea of everyone politically opposed being a completely unacceptable choice for the sake of securing and expanding their own power. The effects of this can be exemplarily seen in the change of how presidential elections are framed and conducted. While Gore vs Bush was to a large degree a battle to sway voters towards one's own ideas/values/positions/etc. Obama vs McCain showed that mobilizing non-voters is an extremely effective way of getting the upperhand. Trump vs Clinton was largely a race to mobilize as many non-voters as possible. The current entrenched positions of the voter blocks makes trying to change voters' convictions an extremely weak strategy and thus Trump vs Biden appears to have the sole focus on getting access to new voters - and this seems to be done solely by fueling the flames of divide by doubling down on the idea that the opponents getting in power will basically destroy the country (which at this point may very well have some truth to it). | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 22 2020 05:03 Nouar wrote: Wasn't the whole nun ordeal just about the tax exemption status ? Meaning they could perfectly decide to provide abortion or drug-free insurance contracts, but would have to pay taxes ? That's not exactly dictating how they should behave. You want to not pay taxes, you follow the common rules. Government should encourage association and other charitable entities, I agree, it's for the common good, but if they follow the law of the land and common rules only. I don't see the issue. They could perfectly do what they want and live in their own vacuum, but would have to pay taxes since they still use the country's infrastructure, am I wrong ? When the state and the church are disjointed in a country, the religious status shouldn't be a basis for special treatment (that's my opinion, the secular one as you see it). You want the government to provide you with a freebie ? Don't ignore its rules. A tax-free status is just an incentive from the state, not a given. If you want independance to do what you want and skirt the rules, pay your due as everyone else does. Is that really so impudent ? If that leads to religious communities seceding, well good for them, they'll have to develop their infrastructure themselves, see how it's easy. Why should my taxes pay for special exemptions to entities that don't have to respect the same rules I do ? Lol no. Obamacare is not about tax exemptions. It mandates certain minimum essential coverage (written now by Trump’s HHS, but back then Sebelius and Obama HHS). So they WILL provide health insurance that contains fully subsidized pre-pay for abortifacient contraceptives OR ELSE they violate the law. You bring up secession. Secession is kinda historically related to civil wars, remember? Also, what happens when the nuns refuse to shut down the elderly care homes they’re operating (as a nonprofit), refuse the federal officers (or say state officers refuse to enact the orders), protest and block the seizure of assets and the rest? Please look to other countries at what happens when the government looks to be going around with jackboots coming down hard on aid organizations. (I’m not saying this is the necessary precondition for civil war, or will ultimately result in it. Compromise may exist as nuns decide to not offer their employees health insurance, and obtain legislative relief in other ways) | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On September 22 2020 05:52 Danglars wrote: Lol no. Obamacare is not about tax exemptions. It mandates certain minimum essential coverage (written now by Trump’s HHS, but back then Sebelius and Obama HHS). So they WILL provide health insurance that contains fully subsidized pre-pay for abortifacient contraceptives OR ELSE they violate the law. You bring up secession. Secession is kinda historically related to civil wars, remember? Also, what happens when the nuns refuse to shut down the elderly care homes they’re operating (as a nonprofit), refuse the federal officers (or say state officers refuse to enact the orders), protest and block the seizure of assets and the rest? Please look to other countries at what happens when the government looks to be going around with jackboots coming down hard on aid organizations. (I’m not saying this is the necessary precondition for civil war, or will ultimately result in it. Compromise may exist as nuns decide to not offer their employees health insurance, and obtain legislative relief in other ways) My bad, I don't know why, I thought I remembered about *tax* exemption, not just exemption from the law itself for religious beliefs. Must be too tired... I'm talking about seceding since you bring up communities that would like/might turn inwards due to issues about sharing society. Not as a war, just that the ultimate form of turning inwards is creating your own society, thus your own country. Living in an union is living with the tyranny of the majority. If society turns more secular, the rules tend to cater less to religious communities. The only way to avoid that if it's unacceptable is to secede (again, not talking about any war, but the process of leaving an union and hopefully getting your own bit of territory). Israel did it. It was pretty ugly for millions of reasons. Would the US spare a part of its territory to accomodate these religious communities that would like to be left alone by a secular country they are part of ? I don't think so, but I would not fight it (not really support it either, since I'm more of a "common rules for everyone" guy). Again, the issue at hand is petty in my view. The argument for not providing the coverage and that is not being discriminatory to employees is that employees can choose not to work with the nuns not providing the coverage. The opposite is also true : nobody forces the employees of the nuns to actually use contraceptives or abortion (though I don't think it would be legal to have a contract clause saying they should not use these. A moral contract could be enough). It could be considered a "live together tax" of sorts. For all the far right is talking about special snowflakes in regards to LGBTQ and others, I find their feelings to be easily hurt as well :-D We all have to do, pay or sign things we don't like... Also, what happens when the nuns refuse to shut down the elderly care homes they’re operating (as a nonprofit), refuse the federal officers (or say state officers refuse to enact the orders), protest and block the seizure of assets and the rest? Please look to other countries at what happens when the government looks to be going around with jackboots coming down hard on aid organizations. Oh, I'll admit that it's a very bad outlook and they usually refrain. Governments should definitely support charitable orgs. And they do. It's no excuse for breaking the law, though, so it's a tough spot. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
A preemptive state of emergency has been declared ahead of an announcement regarding the Breonna Taylor case The police in Louisville, Kentucky have declared a state of emergency for the department ahead of an announcement from the state’s attorney general in the Breonna Taylor case regarding police who fatally shot a 26-year-old black woman in her sleep during a drug-related raid. Many have said the declaration seems to anticipate violent protests, suggesting an unfavorable ruling for those seeking justice in the case. Officials have also closed two federal buildings in anticipation of the announcement and the police force has prohibited officers from taking time off work. The family of Taylor has also received a settlement from the city of $12m in a civil suit stemming from the incident, in which Taylor was mistaken for a suspect in a drug raid. The incident has called into question “no-knock” warrants, in which police enter a home without announcing or identifying themselves. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/sep/21/donald-trump-joe-biden-supreme-court-ruth-bader-ginsburg-coronavirus-covid-19-live-updates?page=with:block-5f691a4d8f08666918528289#block-5f691a4d8f08666918528289 | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Evidently there are others who feel it's time to start worrying about the debt that can't be repaid for once. Interesting timing to have such concerns, but it's a damn sight better than yet another slush fund masquerading as coronavirus relief. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
Another trump paradoxe, he's against the military complex AND hes bragging about being the most military focused president ever. In 20secs. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 22 2020 07:21 Erasme wrote: Can anyone listen to trump and biden, and really question biden's mental health ? Trump can't stay focused on a topic for more than 20sec, unless that topic is him obviously. Another trump paradoxe, he's against the military complex AND hes bragging about being the most military focused president ever. In 20secs. yeah its just twitter kids and republicans. Its weird they even tried to push it when all it takes is a couple videos and its like "oh apparently not lol". | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On September 22 2020 07:19 LegalLord wrote: Anyone following the stimulus talks? They seem to have stalled in light of the new, more exciting judicial appointments opportunity. I did find the following interesting snippet from the middle of the talks, a Biden statement very much encouraging spending a whole lot of money here: https://twitter.com/politico/status/1305733128259072006 Evidently there are others who feel it's time to start worrying about the debt that can't be repaid for once. Interesting timing to have such concerns, but it's a damn sight better than yet another slush fund masquerading as coronavirus relief. There's also the govt shutdown incoming on October 1st because McConnell declining to take the stopgap bill from the House because it doesn't include 30bn that Trump wants for farmers to fuel his trade war with China ? Yeah, somewhat. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22490 Posts
On September 22 2020 07:34 Nouar wrote: a shutdown a bit over a month before the election, during a pandemic. Because why not.There's also the govt shutdown incoming on October 1st because McConnell declining to take the stopgap bill from the House because it doesn't include 30bn that Trump wants for farmers to fuel his trade war with China ? Yeah, somewhat. I expect McConnell to cave on that, Republicans are not in a position where they can afford to take the heat from a shutdown. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On September 22 2020 07:37 Gorsameth wrote: a shutdown a bit over a month before the election, during a pandemic. Because why not. I expect McConnell to cave on that, Republicans are not in a position where they can afford to take the heat from a shutdown. Will they take the heat though? And does it matter? I seem to recall the last couple of shutdowns having almost no effect electorally. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On September 22 2020 01:43 Mohdoo wrote: Can you clarify this? Are you saying we used to be able to legislate, but now we can't? My understanding is that the failure to legislate is a function of the unsavory aspects of elections, the idea that someone who does something ends up being judged worse than someone who just sits on the sidelines criticizing. When you write legislation, it always has pros and cons. voters don't care about pros, just cons. That is why there is still not even a hint of willingness for republicans to fix healthcare. They would deeply suffer if they tried to fix healthcare. Because of that, they just throw everything at the supreme court and then try to do anything they can to have power in the court. Huh, maybe direct democracy is a poor idea, and the 17th Amendment was a train wreck that should be abolished. | ||
| ||
