|
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 27 2020 19:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 19:19 Wegandi wrote:On October 27 2020 19:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 27 2020 19:03 Wegandi wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. AOC would turn this country into Venezuela. Stop acting like you have the monopoly on "reason" and everyone else is dumb. Would you call Hayek, Friedman, Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, Constant, Bastiat, Say, Turgot, Jefferson, Yates, etc. dumb? The further America strays from its classically liberal roots the more it destroys the common person and the spirit of the country. Why don't you advocate for local and state secession instead of forcing folks from parts of the country who want nothing to do with your inanity into your "system"? Go live in Cali and have Cali seceede. That is going to be a lot easier than a "revolution" and foisting AOC onto the entire country. The idea that AOC would turn the US into venezuela is so idiotic you should be genuinely embarrassed that you managed to think the thought, type the thought out on your keyboard, and press post. Big bright red flashing warning lamps should have been going off in your brain telling you 'hm, this doesn't sound right' during each of those three steps. All of her economic policies would ravage the country. She's not far removed from the likes of Kshama Sawant. (After-all AOC is a DSA member...) I have a very hard time picturing AOC being left of the Norwegian labor party of the 1950s. Anyway, if you wanna say 'AOC would be disastrous for the economy', that's okay. But you're doing the right wing version of 'trump wants to ban muslims from entering the USA, he is only a couple years away from instigating the final solution now'. Extreme hyperboles like this really just ruin your argument (and also the potential for a productive discussion).
AOC is like 1998 Hugo Chavez. Her policy proposals are very similar. Plus all the calls from the Democrats to overhaul significant civil institutions is not exactly a thrilling sight (hell even this last page you hear a lot of talk about a new "constitution"). You never hear AOC and people like her talk about how market-oriented those European countries they point to are. They have lower corporate taxes, higher regressive taxation (VAT, Income, Sales, etc.), less regulatory burdens, strong property rights, etc. You don't hear prominent EU states like Netherlands propose basically nationalizing corporate stakeholders/board rooms like her contemporary in the Senate Elizabeth Warren did. You guys think folks like AOC and Warren and Sanders are like your moderate folks - they aren't. There's a reason the PM of Denmark had to tell Sanders that no, they're not socialist. All they point to is welfare regimes (which we have a lot of all ready).
I have no doubt a NRA on steroids would be of first order. Price controls, business control, centralized command and control, poorer property rights protections, etc. It's not like she keeps this a secret.
|
Norway28910 Posts
Even if I were to accept that AOC's policies are like 1998 Hugo Chavez (I don't), Hugo Chavez took over 1998 Venezuela. Hugo Chavez did not turn the USA into Venezuela, he turned 1998 Venezuela into 2013 Venezuela. (Which, for the record, wasn't really worse than 1998 Venezuela by most metrics I can think of. source Edit: I guess crime and murder rates increased by a significant amount, to be fair. )
|
Wegandi is just listing all of the things libertarians like him hate and then vaguely associating them with people he hates. Combine that with provably stupid shit like "AOC is like Hugo Chavez" and its clear he's not saying true things, he's just railing against an enemy because he's both afraid of them and equipped with a very limited set of ideas with which to impugn them. Meaningless tripe like "strong property rights" is one of the tells, that's as hoveringly empty a signifier as it gets, and when an immoderate starts calling others bad because they aren't moderate, it's clear we're in fantasy land.
|
I still remember when Obama was supposed to be implementing Sharia Law in the US. This feels like that again.
|
Arguably, electing someone with autocratic tendencies is genuinely bringing the US one step closer to Venezuela.
I honestly have never understood the 'implement non-controversial (in the rest of the world) socialist reform' = 'the US will become Venezuela' talking point. I mean what geopolitical power will play the role of 'the US' that was needed to turn Venezuela into Venezuela in order to convert the modern US into something like modern Venezuela? How would that actually work in practice?
|
On October 27 2020 19:09 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 18:36 Simberto wrote:On October 27 2020 18:08 schaf wrote:
I don't want to come off as a smug European but in Germany or highest court has a one term limit of 12 years and an age cap at 68. Wouldn't something like this be better than Kavanaugh still making rulings in fourty years thanks to modern medicine? It would take away the importance of a single person for the whole system and give young scholars of law something to dream about. Our system is also generally more sane, both by requiring a supermajority to actually seat someone in the supreme court, and by not being FPTP and thus having more sane parties in government. I think this requirement for a supermajority is one of the reasons our supreme court is so highly respected. It means that the judges selected are basically never partisan hacks, but always very respected professionals who focus on the law over their political opinions. But it simply wouldn't work in the US, because it would give obstructionist republicans even more power to simply never seat someone they don't like. You realize since Nixon 3 GOP SCOTUS nominees have been voted down while 0 Dem nominees have been voted down, right? Of course not. I also don't understand this sentence in context of requiring super-majority. Like...if the minority party doesn't like someone should they vote for them? What's the point then? It also must be said no one here has a problem if someone so politically inclined like a Brandeis, Warren, Marshall, or in more recent terms Sotomayer is appointed. Is it only a political problem if your political opponents appoint differing political jurists? My point is it is funny to see people so political polarized feign non-partisan attitudes when they conveniently ignore one sides appointees and only point to the other sides. Raise hands for how many here opposed Sotomayer because she was too liberal and too political?
Drone already gave the correct answer to your nonsensical argument about nominees being voted down.
And the problem is that the US regressives are so far gone that anyone even remotely sane is simply completely unpalatable to them. Obama tried a centrist compromise candidate with Garland, and they didn't even give them a hearing.
Republicans would simply never accept a compromise candidate, the turtle has made sure of that.
|
|
|
On October 27 2020 19:09 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 18:36 Simberto wrote:On October 27 2020 18:08 schaf wrote:
I don't want to come off as a smug European but in Germany or highest court has a one term limit of 12 years and an age cap at 68. Wouldn't something like this be better than Kavanaugh still making rulings in fourty years thanks to modern medicine? It would take away the importance of a single person for the whole system and give young scholars of law something to dream about. Our system is also generally more sane, both by requiring a supermajority to actually seat someone in the supreme court, and by not being FPTP and thus having more sane parties in government. I think this requirement for a supermajority is one of the reasons our supreme court is so highly respected. It means that the judges selected are basically never partisan hacks, but always very respected professionals who focus on the law over their political opinions. But it simply wouldn't work in the US, because it would give obstructionist republicans even more power to simply never seat someone they don't like. You realize since Nixon 3 GOP SCOTUS nominees have been voted down while 0 Dem nominees have been voted down, right? Of course not. I also don't understand this sentence in context of requiring super-majority. Like...if the minority party doesn't like someone should they vote for them? What's the point then? It also must be said no one here has a problem if someone so politically inclined like a Brandeis, Warren, Marshall, or in more recent terms Sotomayer is appointed. Is it only a political problem if your political opponents appoint differing political jurists? My point is it is funny to see people so political polarized feign non-partisan attitudes when they conveniently ignore one sides appointees and only point to the other sides. Raise hands for how many here opposed Sotomayer because she was too liberal and too political?
That may be because 15 of the last 19 justices were appointed by republicans...
|
So is it pretty much locked in that we won't see any coronavirus aid until January at the earliest if Biden wins, and possibly never if the Dems don't also take the Senate? Somehow I don't see Trump and McConnell allowing anything through.
|
On October 27 2020 22:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:
So is it pretty much locked in that we won't see any coronavirus aid until January at the earliest if Biden wins, and possibly never if the Dems don't also take the Senate? Somehow I don't see Trump and McConnell allowing anything through.
If they were going to pass it, it would've been done months ago.
|
On October 27 2020 22:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:
So is it pretty much locked in that we won't see any coronavirus aid until January at the earliest if Biden wins, and possibly never if the Dems don't also take the Senate? Somehow I don't see Trump and McConnell allowing anything through. Correct, if the Dems don't take the Senate why would the Republicans help the Dems take the credit, when they don't even want to try to take that credit themselves right now.
The Republicans want the country to be in as bad a state as they can get it when Biden wins and stop any attempt to improve it so that they can run on how bad the country is doing, completely skipping over the fact they put the country in that state.
Its something they have done before.
|
I'll go one step further and say it'll be impossible to pass unless the filibuster is nuked.
|
It probably just won't pass at all period, really.
|
On October 27 2020 23:00 Nevuk wrote:
I'll go one step further and say it'll be impossible to pass unless the filibuster is nuked. very true, tho if that happens I can only hope the Dems actually nuke it. Its such a bullshit rule to begin with.
|
The biggest danger is that you can only nuke it at the beginning of the term (not sure why. I think the rules could be changed, maybe, with a majority vote? Senate rules are very arcane). So the GOP lies and says they'll vote for aid, then promptly filibusters it for the next year. Basically Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football again.
(I could see this literally getting some of them assassinated, given that something like 7 million have fallen into poverty already due to inaction, so I'm not sure that they'll actually do this. It would just align with their pattern of behavior under McConnell perfectly).
|
|
|
The worst offender in my book is "fiscal conservative," a term that means something specific to actual conservatives and "anti-government waste" to everyone else. It's a great example of how certain conservative ideas have linguistic advantages that those opposed to need to acknowledge and work around.
|
On October 27 2020 23:37 farvacola wrote:
The worst offender in my book is "fiscal conservative," a term that means something specific to actual conservatives and "anti-government waste" to everyone else. It's a great example of how certain conservative ideas have linguistic advantages that those opposed to need to acknowledge and work around. Fiscal conservative seems to mean "I get to spend money and you don't" since it only seems to really come up when they are not in power and if they are the deficit booms up without a squeak.
|
|
|
On October 27 2020 19:45 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 19:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 27 2020 19:19 Wegandi wrote:On October 27 2020 19:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 27 2020 19:03 Wegandi wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. AOC would turn this country into Venezuela. Stop acting like you have the monopoly on "reason" and everyone else is dumb. Would you call Hayek, Friedman, Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, Constant, Bastiat, Say, Turgot, Jefferson, Yates, etc. dumb? The further America strays from its classically liberal roots the more it destroys the common person and the spirit of the country. Why don't you advocate for local and state secession instead of forcing folks from parts of the country who want nothing to do with your inanity into your "system"? Go live in Cali and have Cali seceede. That is going to be a lot easier than a "revolution" and foisting AOC onto the entire country. The idea that AOC would turn the US into venezuela is so idiotic you should be genuinely embarrassed that you managed to think the thought, type the thought out on your keyboard, and press post. Big bright red flashing warning lamps should have been going off in your brain telling you 'hm, this doesn't sound right' during each of those three steps. All of her economic policies would ravage the country. She's not far removed from the likes of Kshama Sawant. (After-all AOC is a DSA member...) I have a very hard time picturing AOC being left of the Norwegian labor party of the 1950s. Anyway, if you wanna say 'AOC would be disastrous for the economy', that's okay. But you're doing the right wing version of 'trump wants to ban muslims from entering the USA, he is only a couple years away from instigating the final solution now'. Extreme hyperboles like this really just ruin your argument (and also the potential for a productive discussion). AOC is like 1998 Hugo Chavez. Her policy proposals are very similar. Plus all the calls from the Democrats to overhaul significant civil institutions is not exactly a thrilling sight (hell even this last page you hear a lot of talk about a new "constitution"). You never hear AOC and people like her talk about how market-oriented those European countries they point to are. They have lower corporate taxes, higher regressive taxation (VAT, Income, Sales, etc.), less regulatory burdens, strong property rights, etc. You don't hear prominent EU states like Netherlands propose basically nationalizing corporate stakeholders/board rooms like her contemporary in the Senate Elizabeth Warren did. You guys think folks like AOC and Warren and Sanders are like your moderate folks - they aren't. There's a reason the PM of Denmark had to tell Sanders that no, they're not socialist. All they point to is welfare regimes (which we have a lot of all ready). I have no doubt a NRA on steroids would be of first order. Price controls, business control, centralized command and control, poorer property rights protections, etc. It's not like she keeps this a secret.
AOC like most progressives wants to turn the US into something like Denmark, not into something like Venezuela. No remotely serious politician in the US is a marxist leninist, those people are on various level all social democrat.
I suppose you know that. Then again, as I said multiple times, the progressives have painted a giant target on their back by talking about "revolution" and "socialism" to appeal to romantic millennial starbuck communists. So I don't completely blame you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
