| 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 | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On October 28 2020 14:02 plasmidghost wrote: Did Trump really just abandon his supporters in freezing weather in Omaha? And his supporters will continue to support him. This is very on brand for Trump and his followers | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 28 2020 13:49 Mohdoo wrote: I feel the same way. Seeing him not just having speeches and stuff every day makes me worry they are getting complacent again. But the dude is old. This could also be them making sure he is not overworking himself. Him fainting or something during a speech would be legitimately terrible. He has plans to visit the Midwest and Pennsylvania. I don't think he's just sucking his own dick. I think they are playing it safe and making sure they are doing everything right. This could also be them spending a lot of time strategizing and planning the sort of things he should be talking about in his upcoming speeches based on data and stuff. Biden just isn't the self-absorbed entitled shitbag that Clinton is. I don't see him feeling like he deserves to be president, just that he wants to win. Clinton felt like she earned the throne and that people were defying their queen. He could have enough of a lead sealed in with votes already cast that he cruises and everything is fine. He should definitely show up in Pennsylvania before election day. Florida too. Trump has to win both in his easiest path to break the polls and win re-election. Either win by Biden makes the Trump sweep-stakes incredibly small. The turnout in rural areas and the Biden lead in the suburbs have to be way off. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8078 Posts
On October 28 2020 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't know how familiar with this kind of discussion (whether social democracy is functionally absorbed into neoliberalism through 'pragmatism' or whatever/+ Show Spoiler + not stupid enough not to see the difference between "really not my first choice but probably going to push the country the right way" and "the absolute worst" I can assure you though, that the issue isn't that I don't understand your preference for social democratic policy. So even though I oppose neoliberalism on every single aspect of its ideology, you frame me as such because apparently, neoliberal can also mean that you think centre right is still better than populist far right. Good. So AOC and Sanders, who are both going to vote / and support Sanders are neoliberals, since they have more or less the same political opinions than me and make the same tactical vote. Since you voted Sanders in the primaries, you are a neoliberal too since you support neoliberal politicians. Ouh!!! GH the neoliberal!! You see how fucking dumb that is? That's what you do constantly. You successfully empty actual political concepts of all meaning and transformed them into vague slogans and vague insults. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 28 2020 16:41 Biff The Understudy wrote: So even though I oppose neoliberalism on every single aspect of its ideology, you frame me as such because apparently, neoliberal can also mean that you think centre right is still better than populist far right. GH’s point is simply that what you notionally claim to support, and what you support by virtue of the actions you’re willing to actually condone, differ in such a way that you’re essentially a neoliberal by virtue of implied consent for actions that have that as an inevitable outcome. That definitely seems to be an accurate take based on the last couple of discussions. The counterpoint to that seems to be little more than a strange ad hominem on GH, which isn’t a strong argument. I suppose there’s a potentially stronger argument to be made from your end that said implied consent is simply short-term lesser evilism, a necessity in the wake of a freak accident of politics. A consistent history of opposing any actions whose outcomes are anything but neoliberalism, however, suggests that any left-leaning ideals are loosely held and give way to some preconceived notion of “pragmatism” at the first sign of meaningful adversity to their implementation. Exactly what GH asserts here. | ||
|
Neneu
Norway492 Posts
If Biff's viewpoints are neoliberal it would make the entire Norwegian parliament, with exception of one member, either neoliberals or conservatives. It would also mean that the Nordic model is primarily a Neoliberal model, which is crazy. If following the traditional values of the nordic model makes you a neoliberal, I am fine being one as a member of the green party in Norway. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8078 Posts
On October 28 2020 17:16 LegalLord wrote: GH’s point is simply that what you notionally claim to support, and what you support by virtue of the actions you’re willing to actually condone, differ in such a way that you’re essentially a neoliberal by virtue of implied consent for actions that have that as an inevitable outcome. That definitely seems to be an accurate take based on the last couple of discussions. The counterpoint to that seems to be little more than a strange ad hominem on GH, which isn’t a strong argument. I suppose there’s a potentially stronger argument to be made from your end that said implied consent is simply short-term lesser evilism, a necessity in the wake of a freak accident of politics. A consistent history of opposing any actions whose outcomes are anything but neoliberalism, however, suggests that any left-leaning ideals are loosely held and give way to some preconceived notion of “pragmatism” at the first sign of meaningful adversity to their implementation. Exactly what GH asserts here. Yeah so I guess Noam Chomsky is neoliberal too. He has said he definitely supported Biden because that's suuuuch a better option. Surprise, that's exactly what I am saying. Look, it's very simple. If you want to say pragmatic, say pragmatic. Neoliberal doesn't mean pragmatic, it means something relatively specific that is at the antipodes of my thought and my positions. I know looking smart and use fashionable words is half of the fun for some of you, but it just ends up being embarassing. It's such an incredibly dumb hill to die on. On October 28 2020 17:35 Neneu wrote: Well Biff's expressed viewpoints are pretty consistent with the party called Socialistic Left (Sosialistisk Venstre, SV). There is only one party left of them in Norway and that is Rødt which is the previous Communist party. They are, as all traditional Norwegian parties, known to be able to be pragmatic and a reliable partner when in government. Their previous party leader were even the Minister of Finance during and after the financial crisis in 2007 and did a great job at that. If Biff's viewpoints are neoliberal it would make the entire Norwegian parliament, with exception of one member, either neoliberals or conservatives. It would also mean that the Nordic model is primarily a Neoliberal model, which is crazy. If following the traditional values of the nordic model makes you a neoliberal, I am fine being one as a member of the green party in Norway. I think neoliberal in that context is some kind of vague insult for anyone who is not an operetta revolutionary. It's GH, we are not discussing actual substance, it's all ad hominem under a pretentious vernis of fancy words and references. Anyway, I think I am done with this one. If anyone wants to keep being a clown and call me neoliberal, just feel free, I don't care. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45861 Posts
On October 28 2020 14:42 Danglars wrote: He could have enough of a lead sealed in with votes already cast that he cruises and everything is fine. He should definitely show up in Pennsylvania before election day. Florida too. Trump has to win both in his easiest path to break the polls and win re-election. Either win by Biden makes the Trump sweep-stakes incredibly small. The turnout in rural areas and the Biden lead in the suburbs have to be way off. I agree. He should just bounce between PA, FL, MI, WI, and a few other states. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23934 Posts
On October 28 2020 17:16 LegalLord wrote: GH’s point is simply that what you notionally claim to support, and what you support by virtue of the actions you’re willing to actually condone, differ in such a way that you’re essentially a neoliberal by virtue of implied consent for actions that have that as an inevitable outcome. That definitely seems to be an accurate take based on the last couple of discussions. The counterpoint to that seems to be little more than a strange ad hominem on GH, which isn’t a strong argument. I suppose there’s a potentially stronger argument to be made from your end that said implied consent is simply short-term lesser evilism, a necessity in the wake of a freak accident of politics. A consistent history of opposing any actions whose outcomes are anything but neoliberalism, however, suggests that any left-leaning ideals are loosely held and give way to some preconceived notion of “pragmatism” at the first sign of meaningful adversity to their implementation. Exactly what GH asserts here. Feels a bit like Russiagate and the "useful idiot" thing. I don't think social democrats don't want social democracy, I think they have consistently been useful idiots for neoliberalism through 'pragmatic' 'lesser evilism' of the 'white moderate' (who promises they have more 'radical preferences' and 'hopes') in the context of US politics That neoliberals like Hillary and Obama (and to a lesser degree Biden this election) purposely lie to people with more progressive inclinations (like social democrats) about their intentions and they consistently fall for it. Or support them anyway despite knowing they are lying to their faces. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9845 Posts
It appears to me to have been trending pretty drastically in the opposite direction for a very, very long time. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9055 Posts
On October 28 2020 19:33 Jockmcplop wrote: I can't understand how 'incremental change' is supposed to create the kind of radical economic shift America needs to become a fair economy. It appears to me to have been trending pretty drastically in the opposite direction for a very, very long time. It's not supposed to. Hence why it is called incremental and not radical. There is only one way that it gets to the radical change part and that's a mass influx of young voters. Stripping the elderly from their perch of voting power is the only way we get a lot more progressive/radical changes to happen. And then you have to pack the courts and keep regressive policies/people from ever becoming a thing again. But we know that won't happen, so take what and as much as you can. While you can. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9845 Posts
On October 28 2020 19:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: It's not supposed to. Hence why it is called incremental and not radical. There is only one way that it gets to the radical change part and that's a mass influx of young voters. Stripping the elderly from their perch of voting power is the only way we get a lot more progressive/radical changes to happen. And then you have to pack the courts and keep regressive policies/people from ever becoming a thing again. But we know that won't happen, so take what and as much as you can. While you can. But that's what we are being told. Incremental change with the loose idea of ending up with some kind of social democracy when all that change is done. All I'm saying is, incremental change is taking the country in the opposite direction and has been for decades. Voting in a democrat will not stop that from happening. We're being asked to believe in fairies. There must be a distinction between absolute incremental change and incremental change to the rate at which things are deteriorating. I have to say though, this argument was much more relevant before the end of the Dems primary. If I was in the US, I would be voting for Biden anyway in the election just to keep Trump out. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8078 Posts
I mean I just don't get that. That makes no sense. And that's just an example among dozens. Not even going to mention how incredibly stupid it is to call a reform like that or the people who made it "neoliberal". Neoliberal would be the exact opposite: transferring health to the private sector and deregulating it at the expense of people who can't afford it. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23934 Posts
On October 28 2020 19:33 Jockmcplop wrote: I can't understand how 'incremental change' is supposed to create the kind of radical economic shift America needs to become a fair economy. It appears to me to have been trending pretty drastically in the opposite direction for a very, very long time. ~60 years (practically an entire voting lifetime) of neoliberal incrementalism (with *robin leach voice* social democratic dreams) has done almost nothing to close the Black-white wealth gap “The historical data reveal that no progress has been made in reducing income and wealth inequalities between black and white households over the past 70 years," wrote economists Moritz Kuhn, Moritz Schularick and Ulrike I. Steins in their analysis of U.S. incomes and wealth since World War II. www.washingtonpost.comand yet, like Trump supporters in the cold, we line up for hours election after election to support it in hopes of staving off the current iteration of the Republican apocalypse and get told (often by those on the other side of that gap) anything else is asking too much. Yeah, that's a no from me dawg . | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9845 Posts
On October 28 2020 19:58 Biff The Understudy wrote: How is the ACA, for example, that has changed the life of dozens of millions of people for the better "incremental change" that take us "the wrong direction"? I mean I just don't get that. Because you are just pointing to a single example, which is why I used the word 'trending'. I never said the dems were incapable of doing good, but inequality continues to rise, climate change disaster gets closer and closer and none of that has been anywhere close to being reversed even for a single day because of something a democrat has done. Hence the distinction between things improving and things getting worse but slower. But I'll agree, if you limit the scope of what we are talking about to only healthcare and ignore everything else, then yes, dems have improved things. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9055 Posts
On October 28 2020 19:58 Biff The Understudy wrote: How is the ACA, for example, that has changed the life of dozens of millions of people for the better "incremental change" that take us "the wrong direction"? I mean I just don't get that. That makes no sense. And that's just an example among dozens. Not even going to mention how incredibly stupid it is to call a reform like that or the people who made it "neoliberal". Neoliberal would be the exact opposite: transferring health to the private sector and deregulating it at the expense of people who can't afford it. The larger issue is that a lot of people want widespread immediate change. They don't want to piecemeal change together, they want it done at once. And that is just unrealistic. Incremental change, as they are leading us to believe, is a lifetime of waiting. A lifetime of watching nothing get better on the micro. The macro looks dandy in some regards, but the day to day lives of individuals aren't as great as their dreams would lead them to believe. It isn't so much that nothing isn't being done, it's that they want it all at once. There is no way, absolutely impossible, for the change GH and his kind are asking for without sacrificing a lot of people. And I mean at least 1 billion. Those lives are going to have to be forfeit to see the change on a global level most of them are advocating for. We'd probably lose a few million in the states alone to implement their structural change. But that isn't the issue here in that case. They just want their immediate change and gratification. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2879 Posts
On October 28 2020 20:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: The larger issue is that a lot of people want widespread immediate change. They don't want to piecemeal change together, they want it done at once. And that is just unrealistic. Incremental change, as they are leading us to believe, is a lifetime of waiting. A lifetime of watching nothing get better on the micro. The macro looks dandy in some regards, but the day to day lives of individuals aren't as great as their dreams would lead them to believe. It isn't so much that nothing isn't being done, it's that they want it all at once. There is no way, absolutely impossible, for the change GH and his kind are asking for without sacrificing a lot of people. And I mean at least 1 billion. Those lives are going to have to be forfeit to see the change on a global level most of them are advocating for. We'd probably lose a few million in the states alone to implement their structural change. But that isn't the issue here in that case. They just want their immediate change and gratification. I think it's less about 'instant gratification' and more about ensuring that there is long-lasting, meaningful change. The last 60 years has shown that incremental change doesn't actually close the black/white attainment gap. Similarly, the gap between wealthy/poor white people has also not gotten any better - and this is something that is contributing to Trump's support. If you're in an unprivileged situation, wouldn't you also advocate for radical, meaningful change? | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
On October 28 2020 20:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: The larger issue is that a lot of people want widespread immediate change. They don't want to piecemeal change together, they want it done at once. And that is just unrealistic. Incremental change, as they are leading us to believe, is a lifetime of waiting. A lifetime of watching nothing get better on the micro. The macro looks dandy in some regards, but the day to day lives of individuals aren't as great as their dreams would lead them to believe. It isn't so much that nothing isn't being done, it's that they want it all at once. There is no way, absolutely impossible, for the change GH and his kind are asking for without sacrificing a lot of people. And I mean at least 1 billion. Those lives are going to have to be forfeit to see the change on a global level most of them are advocating for. We'd probably lose a few million in the states alone to implement their structural change. But that isn't the issue here in that case. They just want their immediate change and gratification. Let me apply your logic to the opposite side of the argument here. The larger issue is people aren't willing to do what it takes to create positive change in a reasonable timeframe. They want to piecemeal change over hundreds of years, they aren't interested in solutions beyond voting. And that is just unrealistic. Change in a non-incremental timescale is impossible and unreasonable, they lead us to believe, that it can't be done without killing 10% of humanity. The macro has been getting shittier in many regards and noone seems to have plans to see it get appreciably better during their lifetimes. The day to day life of individuals in the US is often really bad, people are being shot and killed by the police regularly, people are in abject poverty and homelessness, and wealth has experienced a precipitous transfer upwards during a time of national crisis. It's not that they don't want to see these things change, its just that they see the people suffering from these things as being a worthwhile expense to continue utilizing the system as we know it here in the US. Your side declares our sides ambitions impossible, and unrealistic, whereas from my vantage point incrementalism requires a weird view of how America has been shifting in many aspects. The idea that you can expect to reign in America's capitalistic dystopian aspects via electoralism is bizarre to me given the trajectory we see not only from the last forty odd years, but given that America proceeds to slide more conservative. And we can likely agree that conservative policy isn't going to be accomplishing much at all. Even as we see small numbers of progressives arrive to the field, they're clearly unwanted by the Democrats, the pathway to progressive policies gaining any headway in America is going to be fought tooth and nail by the only party we have right now that might have any hope of achieving those policies. Electoralism in the US is just bleak, and I think its worth considering alternate solutions, including riots, civil unrest, and everything else thats been utilized during previous periods of American history that induced radical change a la Civil Rights. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
So, ordinarily I'd say this isn't Trump's fault, but reading the details it 100% is. He bussed the supporters in, but didn't provide enough busses to get them out. Why was Trump in Nebraska anyways? That seems way crazier than any of Biden's movements. Per Philadelphia Inquirer, the most reputable of the places reporting it currently (it's also the only one that said they tried to ask the Trump campaign about it. No response.) At least seven people were taken to hospitals, according to Omaha Scanner, a service that monitors official radio traffic. Police and fire authorities didn’t immediately return messages from The Washington Post early Wednesday and declined to provide reporters on the scene with precise numbers of how many needed treatment. The Trump campaign said it had provided enough buses but that traffic on the two-lane road outside the airport was throttled to one direction after the rally, tweeted Aaron Sanderford, a political reporter at the Omaha World-Herald. The campaign didn’t immediately respond to a message from The Post early on Wednesday. www.inquirer.com While 538 usually cautions ignoring solo outlier polls, there's been a pretty extreme one in Wisconsin by one of the most reliable pollsters : Biden 57, Trump 40. If this is the start of trend then we may not be able to fully detect it before election day. They note that Biden has been having his lead grow rapidly in surrounding states and theorize the recent covid surge may be credited, as these areas are among the worst hit. [...] And this is not an easy poll to disregard. ABC News/Washington Post adheres to what we consider the gold-standard methodology (meaning they use live phone interviewers, call cell phones as well as landlines and participate in the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s Transparency Initiative or the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research archive) and earns an A+ grade in FiveThirtyEight’s pollster ratings database.1 The poll single-handedly increased Biden’s lead in our polling average of Wisconsin from 7.1 points to 9.0 points, and it is currently the most influential poll in our forecast of Wisconsin, where Biden’s chances of winning the state have reached a new high as a result — 93 in 100. On the other hand, this poll doesn’t exactly exist in a vacuum. Biden has also gotten a lot of very strong polls from some of the states that border Wisconsin. To wit: RABA Research was out with a poll yesterday showing Biden at 50 percent and Trump at 46 percent in Iowa. Last week, the A+ pollsters Monmouth University and Siena College/The New York Times Upshot found similar margins. Iowa, remember, is a fairly red state, having been carried by Trump by 9 points in 2016. And for the first time, our forecast now gives Biden a better chance than Trump of winning the state, although it’s still basically a coin flip (Biden’s odds are 51 in 100). Yesterday, Gravis Marketing released a survey of Minnesota in which Biden led Trump by 14 points. Biden’s chances of winning Minnesota have now reached an all-time high of 94 in 100. On Sunday, we also got a Gravis poll of Michigan that gave Biden a 13-point lead. That’s on top of last week’s Fox News poll of Michigan showing Biden 12 points ahead. And this morning, ABC News/Washington Post also released a Michigan poll giving Biden a smaller 7-point lead. Overall, our forecast gives Biden a 94 in 100 chance of winning the Wolverine State. What might be going on here? Well, Biden has led in some of these states for a while, but it’s also possible that Trump could be losing support in the Midwest due to the recent spike in COVID-19 cases there. Much of Wisconsin is currently a hot spot; on Tuesday, the state reported more new cases (5,262) and deaths (64) than any other day of the pandemic. The same day, Iowa and Minnesota announced a record number of hospitalizations, and cases are on the rise in Michigan as well. [...] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-to-make-of-that-new-wisconsin-poll-that-has-biden-way-ahead/ | ||
micronesia
United States24772 Posts
On October 28 2020 22:57 Nevuk wrote: 7 Trump rallygoers have been hospitalized due to the cold and 30 are being monitored, per several sites, but most are citing Omaha Scanner. So, ordinarily I'd say this isn't Trump's fault, but reading the details it 100% is. He bussed the supporters in, but didn't provide enough busses to get them out. As discussed lower in your post, the claim is that the number of buses wasn't the problem. Do you know if the problem actually was the roadways, and where the responsibility lies for that? I mean I don't really care but I agree we should be cautious about blaming Trump's campaign if it actually wasn't their fault or not blaming Trump if it was their fault. On the other hand, the Biden campaign should totally make a huge deal out of this and accuse Trump of recklessly freezing his own supporters to death, even if they have insider knowledge that it wasn't Trump's fault, because that's still only a tenth as bad as what the Trump campaign would do to them if the situation was reversed... that's the state of campaigning these days. Why was Trump in Nebraska anyways? That seems way crazier than any of Biden's movements. Trump is probably insisting on friendly crowds to recharge. | ||
| ||
WardiTV Invitational
Wardi Spring Cup
ByuN vs Rogue
Solar vs Ryung
Zoun vs Percival
Cure vs SHIN
RSL Revival
Season 5: Group D
Zoun vs LamboLIVE!
Cure vs TBD
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Weekly #131 (TLMC 22 Edition)
Classic vs ShamelessLIVE!
TBD vs Krystianer
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War BeSt Dota 2 563Mini 384910  343EffOrt  277ZerO 243Last 233Mind 138Rush 132Pusan 82Backho 79[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games gofns27746 singsing1994 B2W.Neo1224 DeMusliM402 Liquid`RaSZi300 KnowMe127 DenverSC227 ZerO(Twitch)18 MindelVK12 fpsfer  4 |
|
BSL
Dewalt vs DragOn
Aether vs Jimin
GSL
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Leta
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs Flash
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
