|
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 October 05 2020 14:16 Nevuk wrote:
Bernie has actually been pretty effective at getting some of his 2020 campaign personnel to work inside of Biden's campaign, and that probably has a better effect at getting the desired movement in the party establishment than the 2016 platform changes did.
Quite effective. Probably not effective enough to reassure the GHs of the world, but definitely effective enough to put the conservative vote off of Biden that might otherwise believe him moderate enough to be a viable choice. Biden, for his own part, is probably right that he doesn't really need that vote as much as he needs Bernie's supporters. He wants more of Trump's voters to stay home (debate performance helped with that), because he's not pre-Iowa Kamala, Bernie, or Warren and it'll be safe to take this election off.
Biden might not even be that bad if Republicans can hold the Senate  .
|
United Kingdom10007 Posts
On October 05 2020 15:43 Danglars wrote:Biden might not even be that bad if Republicans can hold the Senate .
Never has GH been more proven right lol
|
Split party control of Congress and the White House has been an attractive conservative option since at least the 90s.
Then even big-government Republicans can't get their agenda through. They don't have the ability to all unite behind the means by which the government takes a bigger slice of the pie. The Democrats also get enough of their agenda talked about and debated to remind voters about what they stand for.
|
On October 05 2020 15:51 Danglars wrote:
Split party control of Congress and the White House has been an attractive conservative option since at least the 90s.
Then even big-government Republicans can't get their agenda through. They don't have the ability to all unite behind the means by which the government takes a bigger slice of the pie. The Democrats also get enough of their agenda talked about and debated to remind voters about what they stand for.
So your perfect government is a government which doesn't do anything.
|
That's the way of conservatives. Block enough so nothing happens and rollback whenever you can.
If the republicans have the senate, they will be as useless as they were during Obama.
|
I mean it makes sense that if your ideal guy is someone who destroys everything, your next ideal guy is a guy that does - or rather can do - nothing.
I guess we are not gonna talk about Trump exposing a bunch of people in a car with his potentially deadly virus so he can have his crowd bathing. That's been described as"complete madness" by health specialists over here. The way his doctors are obeying his agenda no matter how much they are told to lie and compromise with everything they are supposed to stand for is an absolute disgrace. Those people should lose their licences.
|
|
|
On October 05 2020 17:35 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2020 15:51 Danglars wrote:
Split party control of Congress and the White House has been an attractive conservative option since at least the 90s.
Then even big-government Republicans can't get their agenda through. They don't have the ability to all unite behind the means by which the government takes a bigger slice of the pie. The Democrats also get enough of their agenda talked about and debated to remind voters about what they stand for. So your perfect government is a government which doesn't do anything.
It is absolutely no coincidence that basically all of the "small government" hacks appointed by Trump are also incompetent public administrators, which is both a gift and curse in terms of potential damage wrought. As has been said before, one of Biden's biggest tasks during his first term is to rebuild all of the stuff that has gone to waste, and with any luck I'll be able to do my part
|
Every single marxist revolution in history has been a dumpster fire with results ranging from hardcore dictatorship with total suppression of elementary liberties to full totalitarianism and millions of death. None of them has brought prosperity, none of them has conserved a shadow of democracy - they ALL ended being brutal dictatorship, and all of them have been economic fiascos.
One needs to be either a complete clown or seriously delusional to think that it's a good idea to keep trying that.
Now as usual, different kind of progressive revolutionaries mean different things by revolution, from the guys who want a proper revolution by taking the power by force and going full guillotine to people who are not revolutionaries whatsoever, like Sanders, but label a progressive agenda The Revolution because it's glamorous.
So it would be nice to know when revolution is mentioned if by that one means going full Robespierre or Lenin, or if it's about cancelling student debt and nationalizing the railways.
|
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On October 05 2020 14:06 Doublemint wrote:@ your reply jimmi - fair enough. WSJ reports Trump Didn’t Disclose First Positive Covid-19 Test While Awaiting a Second Test on Thursday Show nested quote +As the virus spread among the people closest to him, Mr. Trump also asked one adviser not to disclose results of their own positive test. “Don’t tell anyone,” Mr. Trump said, according to a person familiar with the conversation.
Mr. Trump and his top advisers also aimed to keep such a close hold on the early positive results that his campaign manager, Bill Stepien, didn’t know that Hope Hicks, one of the president’s closest White House aides, had tested positive on Thursday morning until news reports later that evening, according to a person familiar with the matter. The Trump campaign said Friday evening that Mr. Stepien had tested positive. One hand does not know what the other one is doing, it is quite the spectacle really. Maybe the Walking Dead had it right all along . . . Show nested quote +“I’m glued to Twitter and TV because I have no official communication from anyone in the West Wing,” an administration official said.
The lack of clear communication about who was getting the virus has extended to reports on the president’s status as he undergoes treatment. Show nested quote +Mr. Stepien and the rest of the Trump campaign first learned of Ms. Hicks’ positive test from Bloomberg News, and weren’t consulted on whether to proceed with a Thursday trip to New Jersey, a campaign official said. Just imagine being Chris Christie, carrying water and helping with the debate prep and getting done like that by hearing it from the news. A guy in his physical shape getting the virus, no matter what else that has got to be a terrible situation for him. Show nested quote +Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor, said on Friday that he learned about the initial positive tests at the White House on Thursday through news reports. No one had contacted him even though he had spent much of the past week with Mr. Trump.
Mr. Christie tested positive for the virus on Saturday, he said on Twitter, and a few hours later checked himself into Morristown Medical Center.
The Trump administration in microcosm really. Not only if you have to work for him do you have to continually put out fires based on his latest impulsive move, run the risk of him throwing you under the bus at any time, but sometimes you don’t even know there is a fire.
Presumably at least some of his staff and colleagues have a less laissez-faire attitude to Covid than Trump himself and are rightly furious at this, if merely privately at this juncture.
I mean I think we’re long past the straw that broke the camel’s back territory but how much more evidence does one need that Trump has no regard for other people whatsoever?
|
On October 05 2020 19:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Every single marxist revolution in history has been a dumpster fire with results ranging from hardcore dictatorship with total suppression of elementary liberties to full totalitarianism and millions of death. None of them has brought prosperity, none of them has conserved a shadow of democracy - they ALL ended being brutal dictatorship, and all of them have been economic fiascos.
One needs to be either a complete clown or seriously delusional to think that it's a good idea to keep trying that.
Now as usual, different kind of progressive revolutionaries mean different things by revolution, from the guys who want a proper revolution by taking the power by force and going full guillotine to people who are not revolutionaries whatsoever, like Sanders, but label a progressive agenda The Revolution because it's glamorous.
So it would be nice to know when revolution is mentioned if by that one means going full Robespierre or Lenin, or if it's about cancelling student debt and nationalizing the railways.
I just want liberation for myself and the countless oppressed people around the world and am not stupid/naïve enough to think that comes from liberal bourgeois democracy
|
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On October 05 2020 19:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Every single marxist revolution in history has been a dumpster fire with results ranging from hardcore dictatorship with total suppression of elementary liberties to full totalitarianism and millions of death. None of them has brought prosperity, none of them has conserved a shadow of democracy - they ALL ended being brutal dictatorship, and all of them have been economic fiascos.
One needs to be either a complete clown or seriously delusional to think that it's a good idea to keep trying that.
Now as usual, different kind of progressive revolutionaries mean different things by revolution, from the guys who want a proper revolution by taking the power by force and going full guillotine to people who are not revolutionaries whatsoever, like Sanders, but label a progressive agenda The Revolution because it's glamorous.
So it would be nice to know when revolution is mentioned if by that one means going full Robespierre or Lenin, or if it's about cancelling student debt and nationalizing the railways.
What we’re doing now doesn’t exactly work too well and the pursuit of prosperity is rather destructive when its focus is so often on material wealth as opposed to the totality of what makes humans content.
I’d say revolutions of such a radical kind are borderline impossible now because the world is so intimately connected both in trade terms as well as businesses with global interests, as well as a lot of people loving capitalism.
One will run into serious problems the second you go to nationalise something that another powerful country has people with financial ties in, or your country has a large swathe or people who don’t buy in to the new paradigm.
It may seem inherently contradictory but I guess you need (in my worldview anyway) incremental radicalism. So within say the US context fully nationalised healthcare or a restructuring of the college system is a pretty radical change, albeit not atypical internationally, then if you can showcase the benefits you whittle down the resistance to further sacred cows down the line.
|
On October 05 2020 21:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2020 19:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Every single marxist revolution in history has been a dumpster fire with results ranging from hardcore dictatorship with total suppression of elementary liberties to full totalitarianism and millions of death. None of them has brought prosperity, none of them has conserved a shadow of democracy - they ALL ended being brutal dictatorship, and all of them have been economic fiascos.
One needs to be either a complete clown or seriously delusional to think that it's a good idea to keep trying that.
Now as usual, different kind of progressive revolutionaries mean different things by revolution, from the guys who want a proper revolution by taking the power by force and going full guillotine to people who are not revolutionaries whatsoever, like Sanders, but label a progressive agenda The Revolution because it's glamorous.
So it would be nice to know when revolution is mentioned if by that one means going full Robespierre or Lenin, or if it's about cancelling student debt and nationalizing the railways. I just want liberation for myself and the countless oppressed people around the world and am not stupid/naïve enough to think that comes from liberal bourgeois democracy
That's a view, but then why are you stupid/naive enough to think that it's gonna come from a marxist-leninist revolution?
In all seriousness, what exactly do you call "your liberation"?
|
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On October 05 2020 21:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2020 19:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Every single marxist revolution in history has been a dumpster fire with results ranging from hardcore dictatorship with total suppression of elementary liberties to full totalitarianism and millions of death. None of them has brought prosperity, none of them has conserved a shadow of democracy - they ALL ended being brutal dictatorship, and all of them have been economic fiascos.
One needs to be either a complete clown or seriously delusional to think that it's a good idea to keep trying that.
Now as usual, different kind of progressive revolutionaries mean different things by revolution, from the guys who want a proper revolution by taking the power by force and going full guillotine to people who are not revolutionaries whatsoever, like Sanders, but label a progressive agenda The Revolution because it's glamorous.
So it would be nice to know when revolution is mentioned if by that one means going full Robespierre or Lenin, or if it's about cancelling student debt and nationalizing the railways. I just want liberation for myself and the countless oppressed people around the world and am not stupid/naïve enough to think that comes from liberal bourgeois democracy
Instead of a year’s military or community service which conservative talking heads bring up every so often to redress some perceived decline in the youth, I feel it would be much better for society if everyone was forced to live at the poverty line for a year.
|
On October 05 2020 21:31 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2020 19:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Every single marxist revolution in history has been a dumpster fire with results ranging from hardcore dictatorship with total suppression of elementary liberties to full totalitarianism and millions of death. None of them has brought prosperity, none of them has conserved a shadow of democracy - they ALL ended being brutal dictatorship, and all of them have been economic fiascos.
One needs to be either a complete clown or seriously delusional to think that it's a good idea to keep trying that.
Now as usual, different kind of progressive revolutionaries mean different things by revolution, from the guys who want a proper revolution by taking the power by force and going full guillotine to people who are not revolutionaries whatsoever, like Sanders, but label a progressive agenda The Revolution because it's glamorous.
So it would be nice to know when revolution is mentioned if by that one means going full Robespierre or Lenin, or if it's about cancelling student debt and nationalizing the railways. What we’re doing now doesn’t exactly work too well and the pursuit of prosperity is rather destructive when its focus is so often on material wealth as opposed to the totality of what makes humans content. I’d say revolutions of such a radical kind are borderline impossible now because the world is so intimately connected both in trade terms as well as businesses with global interests, as well as a lot of people loving capitalism. One will run into serious problems the second you go to nationalise something that another powerful country has people with financial ties in, or your country has a large swathe or people who don’t buy in to the new paradigm. It may seem inherently contradictory but I guess you need (in my worldview anyway) incremental radicalism. So within say the US context fully nationalised healthcare or a restructuring of the college system is a pretty radical change, albeit not atypical internationally, then if you can showcase the benefits you whittle down the resistance to further sacred cows down the line.
Sure. If that's what "Revolution" means, I am all for it.
If it's seizing the power through violence to further your cause (that IS what a revolution means), I will pass.
|
On October 05 2020 21:34 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2020 21:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2020 19:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Every single marxist revolution in history has been a dumpster fire with results ranging from hardcore dictatorship with total suppression of elementary liberties to full totalitarianism and millions of death. None of them has brought prosperity, none of them has conserved a shadow of democracy - they ALL ended being brutal dictatorship, and all of them have been economic fiascos.
One needs to be either a complete clown or seriously delusional to think that it's a good idea to keep trying that.
Now as usual, different kind of progressive revolutionaries mean different things by revolution, from the guys who want a proper revolution by taking the power by force and going full guillotine to people who are not revolutionaries whatsoever, like Sanders, but label a progressive agenda The Revolution because it's glamorous.
So it would be nice to know when revolution is mentioned if by that one means going full Robespierre or Lenin, or if it's about cancelling student debt and nationalizing the railways. I just want liberation for myself and the countless oppressed people around the world and am not stupid/naïve enough to think that comes from liberal bourgeois democracy Instead of a year’s military or community service which conservative talking heads bring up every so often to redress some perceived decline in the youth, I feel it would be much better for society if everyone was forced to live at the poverty line for a year.
They don't care, they'd just wear it like a scout badge proving they do care about and understand the poors because they spent a year sorta imitating being impoverished.
It's truly remarkable the horrific atrocities people can tolerate so long as they happen to people that aren't them, and how they can convince themselves they are the humanitarians while bombing, starving, and terrorizing people around the world.
EDIT: It is completely asinine to think a handful of people with unimaginable wealth and a system built to maintain it are just going to peacefully hand that over.
Maybe it wouldn't seem so absolutely oblivious if people didn't have to fight to the death in the US just to make weekends a thing.
|
|
|
Out of interest, GH, what atrocities are happening to you, and, again, what do you mean by "your liberation"? If it's not too much to ask.
A bit of context will help me to see where you are coming from.
|
On October 05 2020 21:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2020 21:34 WombaT wrote:On October 05 2020 21:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2020 19:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Every single marxist revolution in history has been a dumpster fire with results ranging from hardcore dictatorship with total suppression of elementary liberties to full totalitarianism and millions of death. None of them has brought prosperity, none of them has conserved a shadow of democracy - they ALL ended being brutal dictatorship, and all of them have been economic fiascos.
One needs to be either a complete clown or seriously delusional to think that it's a good idea to keep trying that.
Now as usual, different kind of progressive revolutionaries mean different things by revolution, from the guys who want a proper revolution by taking the power by force and going full guillotine to people who are not revolutionaries whatsoever, like Sanders, but label a progressive agenda The Revolution because it's glamorous.
So it would be nice to know when revolution is mentioned if by that one means going full Robespierre or Lenin, or if it's about cancelling student debt and nationalizing the railways. I just want liberation for myself and the countless oppressed people around the world and am not stupid/naïve enough to think that comes from liberal bourgeois democracy Instead of a year’s military or community service which conservative talking heads bring up every so often to redress some perceived decline in the youth, I feel it would be much better for society if everyone was forced to live at the poverty line for a year. Well that perspective would be powerful in some ways. I think it would also create new problems as it would not include the hopelessness with the people knowing they would be out of it shortly and then could be like, "I lived it, it is not that bad". Would be a interesting social experiment though. + Show Spoiler +I also have to post this great track from the 90;s, because how often do you get the chance to post Common people and be relevant!
I have a friend from London who used to say that working for a while on minimal wage was the most important lesson she had had in her life.
I never did, and can absolutely believe it.
|
On October 05 2020 19:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Every single marxist revolution in history has been a dumpster fire with results ranging from hardcore dictatorship with total suppression of elementary liberties to full totalitarianism and millions of death. None of them has brought prosperity, none of them has conserved a shadow of democracy - they ALL ended being brutal dictatorship, and all of them have been economic fiascos.
One needs to be either a complete clown or seriously delusional to think that it's a good idea to keep trying that.
Now as usual, different kind of progressive revolutionaries mean different things by revolution, from the guys who want a proper revolution by taking the power by force and going full guillotine to people who are not revolutionaries whatsoever, like Sanders, but label a progressive agenda The Revolution because it's glamorous.
So it would be nice to know when revolution is mentioned if by that one means going full Robespierre or Lenin, or if it's about cancelling student debt and nationalizing the railways.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it often ignores that the revolutions in question are caused by social disaster. When people go on and on about how bad things got in Russia, they rarely go into it either aware or interested in the fact that Lenin inherited a Russia in the middle of famine that had just had its ass kicked by the Japanese and then kicked in WW 1. Not to say that it would have gone much better in better circumstances, but Russia was fucked long before Lenin's reign.
On the other hand, the French revolution did lead to horrors almost beyond imagining, but it also led to the abolition of one of the most oppressive social regimes in Europe, a permanent end to the French monarchy, and a longterm embrace of libertarian ideas.
You end up in the situation of saying 'I want things to change but only if it does no damage, costs no lives, and actually doesn't change anything at all in any appreciable fashion'.
The Russian revolution, as nasty as it was, was as necessary as the French one, and it may not have brought prosperity to the nation but the old regime wasn't going to either, and the Russia that came AFTER the revolution was a lot better off than before, and literally couldn't have existed without the revolution first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
