EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2678
| 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 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On September 27 2020 09:38 Danglars wrote: Nah Obama made existing problems worse, and I gave a couple examples in the post. It's truly fitting that Trump followed him up, because I couldn't think of a better successor in that line. Take Obama calling the cops out for acting stupidly, and double it with Trump. Obama's hypothetical son is ground-and-pound Trayvon Martin, and Trump goes crazy on LAW AND ORDER tweets. Obama insults Americans clinging to guns and religion, Trump jacks it up to all the groups he insults on twitter. It really didn't pay to doze off during Obama, then wake up and reflexively blame Republicans for society's ills. And the kinds of things I hear called progress in these parts are an embarrassment. After all the damage called "attempts to make progress," you start to doubt that the proponents actually have it as a goal or have any idea how to achieve it. What did Obama do to make things worse specifically? I seem to recall the Birther Conspiracy happened more or less just because he existed. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On September 27 2020 10:59 JimmiC wrote: I see some of the similarities but I think someone pro environment would be ok with a gas sub ban, that is more like not giving it up if others still get it. Plus they are not pro suv they would be almost sheepish. Where as these people seem blue life matter and radically pro guns. You must have missed the yellow jacket protests over raising gas tax as a climate change initiative in France. Troglodyte climate change policies are not popular and when/if enacted will result in lots of protests as peoples QOL/Standard of living plunges. The rolling blackouts in CA are abysmal thanks to Wind/Solar uber-alles and the anti-science position against Nuclear energy. https://reason.com/video/how-californias-environmental-mandates-led-to-blackouts/ | ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
On September 27 2020 10:12 JimmiC wrote: Question: why are blue lives matters people pro guns? The logic makes no sense, if you trust the police are great, will protect you from.criminals and so on and are worried about the police themselves the most. Guns on everyone else makes no sense. I mean every criminal isn't one at one point and there is no way (pre-minorty report) to know ahead of time. So the best, by far way to protect blue lives is to get guns out of the populous. I'm scared to Google it but could it be that blue lives matter is not actually about saving cops lives? It's probably closer to this than anything else: a reactionary alliance based on a common "threat" in the form of virtue signaling that they want a safe society and believe that they have the answer. After all, these are people who are out making noise and counter-protesting, whilst a lot of the more extreme gun rights people have never had much reason to be a fan of the police. Ask the crazy militia guys that have been LARPing military drills in the woods for 20 years what they think about the cops & government. I'm just guessing though; I've been wrong before :3 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On September 27 2020 11:44 JimmiC wrote: Those are again similar but the first they could think there is other ways to help the environment than taxing people at the pump, and they are probably not wrong depending on what they would prefer. The second example is you thinking they are having power issues because of their environmental choice? That is not at related. The last is maybe your closest expect depending on your position of the danger of nuclear waste and your risk assessment on past nuclear accidents. Well each new one will get better, so far the short history of nuclear power has proved both human error and nature are pretty big threats. There is most certainly a science position to take on whether we should or should not invest in Nuclear energy. This is not a slam dunk like we shouldn't pour paint in rivers or put everything aerosol cans, slam dunk issues both the environmentalists and environmental scientists all pull in the same direction. No, it is an easy slam dunk. You're not aware of the science on the latest nuclear reactors are you? There is basically zero risk. In fact, many of the new reactors can use spent rods from early Gen reactors as fuel. Like, honestly, it's just as anti-science as the anti-vaxxers or the people who think Covid is a hoax, or the people who think economic science is capitalist propaganda. It is related - the environmental/climate doom movement will throw us back by centuries, many are luddite extremists. What people say and what people want are completely separated by reality. It's why in general, young folks who aren't working or making much money tend to be ideologically located on a certain spectrum, but you ask them when they're 30, or 40 and their political ideologies often vastly change. It's why the argument that today's young 19 year old progressive will be tomorrow's 42 year old progressive is ridiculous (demographic determinism). For all the complaining about the boomers many of those folks were hippie Woodstock free-love types, but now-a-days they're about as far from that as possible. (It's why I also say that how progressive policies poll is irrelevant since if/when they get enacted they will be hugely unpopular as they wreck peoples economic lives) I think you get my point here. Coincidentally, this is (one of the reasons) why I hate democracy and the mob mentality it incentivizes. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On September 27 2020 11:43 NrG.Bamboo wrote: It's probably closer to this than anything else: a reactionary alliance based on a common "threat" in the form of virtue signaling that they want a safe society and believe that they have the answer. After all, these are people who are out making noise and counter-protesting, whilst a lot of the more extreme gun rights people have never had much reason to be a fan of the police. Ask the crazy militia guys that have been LARPing military drills in the woods for 20 years what they think about the cops & government. I'm just guessing though; I've been wrong before :3 All the strident gun rights folks I am friends with and communicate with absolutely loathe the cops and the Government especially the ABC agencies. We haven't forgotten Waco and Ruby Ridge, that cops will be willing and in many cases happy with gun confiscation, and that the institution of police is very corrupt and the arm of Government enforcement (not "protecting wealth or capitalists" like GH loves to believe). Your standard NRA doofus though (who honestly aren't very "pro-gun") are very much your Thin Blue Line law and order types. You won't find that with folks like me, the GOA, NAGR, JPFO, etc. We make ACB and Scalia on 2A issues look tame. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On September 27 2020 13:49 JimmiC wrote: You have very little facts in that post. Even the nuclear power association talks about risk, it (not surprisingly) does think the risk is mitigated but this is a far difference from people being luddites. Feel free to actually cite things. And you second paragraph is some real stupid shit. Yes people politics change as they change, it does not always flow left to right. And what any of that has to do with blue life matters having no logical consistently. Your best counter is that there are other groups that might be as bad? So I take this that while I disagree with your examples you clearly agree with me that it is a stupid movement who has no logical consistency or sense. So glad we got that. Far right libertarians are the only ones who it makes some sense to be proguns but that logical consistency is more of the exception than the rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Advantages_and_disadvantages You obviously don't understand that many (I would argue most times) times what people say and how people react to what they purportedly promote or want is often very much at odds. The people who support Thin Blue Line and are presumably pro-2A don't know what they want (or would reject the cognitive dissonance in any event), are the same as the people who promote climate doom, but if they actually had to live like 2nd world folks would riot and protest those conditions (as you saw with the yellow vests on something as relatively benign as increase in gas tax). You 1) overrate how pro-gun the average Republican is (who are the most pro-police folks) & 2) Underrate the #'s of folks who are very pro-gun and recognize that the Government is not our friend (and want many police reforms) It's time to call out the anti-scientism concerning Nuclear Reactors. Folks will roundly reject the environmentalists if they ever get their way with solar and wind non-sense. MSR's are the future. China is way too ahead on this front, thanks to all the propaganda against nuclear by the luddite faction in the West. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
On September 27 2020 13:42 Wegandi wrote: All the strident gun rights folks I am friends with and communicate with absolutely loathe the cops and the Government especially the ABC agencies. We haven't forgotten Waco and Ruby Ridge, that cops will be willing and in many cases happy with gun confiscation, and that the institution of police is very corrupt and the arm of Government enforcement (not "protecting wealth or capitalists" like GH loves to believe). Your standard NRA doofus though (who honestly aren't very "pro-gun") are very much your Thin Blue Line law and order types. You won't find that with folks like me, the GOA, NAGR, JPFO, etc. We make ACB and Scalia on 2A issues look tame. Yeah, I had the ATF's history in mind when considering posting, which points to a few reasons for those who believe in full 2nd amendment rights to know who their biggest threat is (hint: it's not the people with signs.) I have found it a bit amusing how well-received the fall of the NRA was, and think a lot of people on the left didn't recognize that it never really represented the people being referenced above. Just about zero people were unhappy when it was dissolved. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24208 Posts
the institution of police is very corrupt and the arm of Government enforcement (not "protecting wealth or capitalists" like GH loves to believe) Do you think the billionaires work for the government or the government works for the billionaires? | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8152 Posts
On September 27 2020 15:35 GreenHorizons wrote: Do you think the billionaires work for the government or the government works for the billionaires? What about "neither, it's way more complicated than that"? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24208 Posts
On September 27 2020 16:36 Biff The Understudy wrote: What about "neither, it's way more complicated than that"? That would be a meaningless and useless answer imo. + Show Spoiler + EDIT: I decided not to give a damn about my 20k wasn't worth writing some big post | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27236 Posts
On September 27 2020 10:36 Fleetfeet wrote: Probably is comparable to people being pro green energy but unwilling to give up driving an SUV. Humans pretty consistently can identify something as 'good' but be unwilling to actually sacrifice anything to get it. I guess the good has to be linked to effectiveness in some manner. Be it voting or anti-Covid measures or the climate. Most people I know think those are good ideas, they start to waver in say, voting because their previous votes haven’t been particularly impactful. On the other hand people can play ball and make much bigger sacrifices if there’s a wider top-down buy in society-wide and there’s a more clear link to sacrifice and an outcome. A good example would be the diets people adopted due to rationing in the World Wars. From my recollection of at least some of the rhetoric around problems about proposed green taxes in France and also Ireland, it wasn’t an outright lack of desire to chip in on the issue, more on why the financial burden was falling on the public when the corporate sector was remaining relatively untouched. If you do both, as well as frankly shifting the culture to outright consuming viewer things full stop, which I think is an option usually neglected, then I think people would be happy enough to contribute. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27236 Posts
On September 27 2020 16:36 Biff The Understudy wrote: What about "neither, it's way more complicated than that"? Both the government and billionaires work as agents for a race of aliens who sell the hit reality show ‘Earth’ around the galaxy. Things can’t run too smoothly or ratings will dip which I think explains many of the baffling things we’ve seen in recent times. Congrats on the 20k GH btw. Wooot | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
Also wombat you tryin to catch up or what 2 posts in a row greasy dude.... (JK) hah. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8152 Posts
On September 27 2020 16:57 GreenHorizons wrote: That would be a meaningless and useless answer imo. + Show Spoiler + EDIT: I decided not to give a damn about my 20k wasn't worth writing some big post Very moved that you spent your 20k post on me. Congratulations though. Now, that tendency of yours to uber simplify very complex dynamics and realities to reach one crude position that applies to everything is where our thought diverge. There is PLENTY to say about the extremely unhealthy relationship between a class of ultra rich donors and politicians, but it's way more intricate than blanket statements such as "X is working (or sold to) for Y." | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24208 Posts
On September 27 2020 20:07 Biff The Understudy wrote: Very moved that you spent your 20k post on me. Congratulations though. Now, that tendency of yours to uber simplify very complex dynamics and realities to reach one crude position that applies to everything is where our thought diverge. There is PLENTY to say about the extremely unhealthy relationship between a class of ultra rich donors and politicians, but it's way more intricate than blanket statements such as "X is working (or sold to) for Y." I'd rather you tell me how instead of just reasserting that whatever nuance you're referencing significantly undermines the generalization. If it's just some mindless platitude like "the government works for everybody" then I can discard it, if it is some substantive argument against the government working for billionaires then I'd be curious. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On September 27 2020 18:52 WombaT wrote: I guess the good has to be linked to effectiveness in some manner. Be it voting or anti-Covid measures or the climate. Most people I know think those are good ideas, they start to waver in say, voting because their previous votes haven’t been particularly impactful. On the other hand people can play ball and make much bigger sacrifices if there’s a wider top-down buy in society-wide and there’s a more clear link to sacrifice and an outcome. A good example would be the diets people adopted due to rationing in the World Wars. From my recollection of at least some of the rhetoric around problems about proposed green taxes in France and also Ireland, it wasn’t an outright lack of desire to chip in on the issue, more on why the financial burden was falling on the public when the corporate sector was remaining relatively untouched. If you do both, as well as frankly shifting the culture to outright consuming viewer things full stop, which I think is an option usually neglected, then I think people would be happy enough to contribute. More true than not, but the fact is there is very little evidence of effectiveness for the vast majority of policies championed by the people most concerned with those issues. (I'll use one example that has been in the news more recently) https://news.yahoo.com/why-diversity-training-campus-likely-122743248.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADXrcpZzPowNGobUl6yduBMsJOvhyzvkmqCZIqWVkw7IZ4EPLbcKHAIjplst6ag63O53VmUF6qPbYLK3yzkADA5rttuF0oBGrkWAKGwG39k9drn0gkK-LqcW_N8EntxsJBIyUM8rZA1VA9Q_TfU-3lgPH7F81am27YCzIiRaDbmr In terms of reducing bias and promoting equal opportunity, diversity training has “failed spectacularly,” according to the expert assessment of sociologists Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev. When Dobbin and Kalev evaluated the impact of diversity training at more than 800 companies over three decades, they found that the positive effects are short-lived and that compulsory training generates resistance and resentment. “A company is better off doing nothing than mandatory diversity training,” Kalev concluded. Some of the most popular training approaches are of dubious value. There is evidence, for example, that introducing people to the most commonly used readings about white privilege can reduce sympathy for poor whites, especially among social liberals. There is also evidence that emphasizing cultural differences across racial groups can lead to an increased belief in fundamental biological differences among races. This means that well-intentioned efforts to celebrate diversity may in fact reinforce racial stereotyping. Which is why I found it so funny how apopletic people were when Trump said no more diversity training for federal agencies (whether you want to believe it's because he's a white supremacist or not diversity training is an abject failure and does way more harm than not having it). This is just one of many many examples of "feel good" emotional BS driving policy and not rational evidence-based reasons. I could go on about a litany of progressive programs which are based on emotion and not reason/rationality or evidence and to be fair the current iteration of the GOP is heavy on this as well. (I could go on a 500 word diatribe about how awful minimum wage laws are for the poor as well, but what's the point. Folks are so entrenched on a host of issues and less to do with evidence and more with dogma and ideology, and don't worry you can find that remark funny coming from a libertarian. I get it, but I would say most of my dogma concerns natural rights and not specific policies/programs (for the most part)) PS: https://reason.com/video/this-environmentalist-says-only-nuclear-power-can-save-us-now/?itm_source=parsely-api (For reasons why wind/solar are not answers to climate change) From 2009 to 2015, the Obama administration took up that call and put billions of dollars into renewable energy subsidies. That, Shellenberger says, opened his eyes to the fact that no amount of government funding can overcome the inherent drawbacks of renewables. When California invested heavily in wind and solar, Shellenberger says it led to energy price increases at a rate about six times faster than the national average, despite the falling cost of solar panels. | ||
| ||
