|
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 November 26 2020 18:24 Oukka wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 17:02 Salazarz wrote:First of all, the government will never be able to do good for the people, including workers, the way a free market can. But that's another discussion of course lol Not to take your conversation too far off topic, but I am genuinely curious, what are the reasons for your position on this? Compared to the rest of the developed world, the US has some of the worst (if not genuinely the worst) track records when it comes to things like workers' rights, access to education and healthcare, justice system outcomes, etc. What makes you think that the free market does good for the people when the US has a higher relative poverty rate than such wonderful places like Russia and Mexico, keeps a proportion of its population in prison comparable to that of Stalin's Soviet Union, is the only OECD country that lacks such basic protections like mandatory paid parental leave or universal healthcare, and so on. Not trying to start an argument on this, I'm just very interested in what is your position based on. I'm glad someone else picked up on this, I'd also like to hear more on this. It seems like a bold statement to start with without backing it up further.
BerserkSword's post is so full of delusion I wouldn't try tot hard to understand it.
That said, the idea that government can't do anything good when compared to the free market is textbook libertarianism, regardless of how they try to square it with reality.
Also, I have to say that I never really thought of conservatism as KwarK posits it, but I can't really find a way to argue against that interpretation. I'm sure Danglars will be apoplectic to see KwarK calling out conservatives for the sheer identity politics.
unfortunately even the "sane" ones like David Frum and Jonah Goldberg were wrong about almost everything back in the 2000s (David Frum even thought gay marriage would destabilize the American family, lmfao). I think Republicans might have to go back 30, maybe even 40, years before their ideology can become salvageable.
If you go back that far in time you hit the Reagan era.
Reagan was an incredibly overhyped and extremely immoral president. Reagan-era conservatism and his supply side economics are morally bankrupt and absolutely atrocious.
|
On November 26 2020 23:08 PoulsenB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 18:34 Simberto wrote:On November 26 2020 14:50 BerserkSword wrote:On November 26 2020 14:46 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t know what to make of conservatives these days. They fervently support what is essentially a NYC liberal - a leftist trojan horse. The left has won the long game. Sad ! Were you actually serious here, or is this some kind of ironic take on a Trump tweet? It is hard to tell. It seems to me that Berserk is one of the people who are so far to the right (in this case, regarding the "freedom vs goverment" issue) that to them, everyone else looks a raging leftist radical, even other right wingers.
But even then, i didn't know that anyone used "Sad!" to end a statement, except if they are called trump or ridiculing trump. Also, the statement is less than 140 characters, perfect for a tweet. It just has so many of the tropes of someone making fun of Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
On November 27 2020 01:20 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 15:49 BerserkSword wrote:On November 26 2020 15:00 NewSunshine wrote:On November 26 2020 14:50 BerserkSword wrote:On November 26 2020 14:46 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t know what to make of conservatives these days. They fervently support what is essentially a NYC liberal - a leftist trojan horse. The left has won the long game. Sad ! I wish. I mean, like Kwark, I'm not totally sure what reality you occupy if you think Trump is some kind of left-wing wet dream. Progressives see the potential for government and its workers to do good for people in ways that a Capitalist market never will, and Trump basically saw our government as a big stack of hay, as he walked up with a match. That's American "no government is good government" conservatism at its heart. But again, I wish. First of all, the government will never be able to do good for the people, including workers, the way a free market can. + Show Spoiler +But that's another discussion of course lol
Second of all, calling Trump "conservatism at its heart" is akin to Republicans calling Biden a "socialist" - it just isn't the case. I never said Trump is a leftist wet dream either btw.
Trump is not a "no government" politician. The deficit ballooned under him. Federalism particularly the Executive branch flourished under him. Government intervention in the economy continued under him (and even increased in certain areas).
Central banking, growing federal deficits, tariffs/protectionism, subsidies for certain businesses and sectors, and bailouts are not conservatism at least in the original sense.
Trump violated the 2a with bump stocks with the NRA so fuck them both, not to mention the large ATF crackdown.
Proposing a 500 billion dollar initiative that benefits only one demographic is not "no government" or "conservative"
Just because Trump is not one of the far left nuts that have seeped into our system, doesn't mean he isn't a sign that the left has won. Just because Trump is the lesser poison, doesn't mean he still isn't poison.
Trump, and his gargantuan body of support, are proof that the overton window is shifting left. Even my own party's nominee, to my disgust, had something good to say about the self-proclaimed Marxist organization, BLM - another sign the left is winning the long game.
The only saving grace is that the vast majority of civilian firearms and ammunition resides with those who at least, on the surface, believe in things like the Constitution, free markets, and classical liberalism/libertarianism; and reject government authoritarianism. It will take the oligarchs and their anti-liberty agenda time to overcome this - hopefully it won't be until after I'm dead and gone that those who believe in liberty will be on the fringe. It doesn't matter in the long run as more and more are subverted and end up fervently supporting trojan horses like Trump, who have the more right wing rhetoric but policy wise....gg No lets discuss this. Can you really believe this to be true? Workers had it better before worker rights laws? I would love to see your argument on this one! I feel like the sweat shop workers, including children, in countries without these laws would have a few questions on your theory of how the free market is taking good care of them.
What's more, Trump basically spent all 4 years either not filling appointments, or appointing people to important government offices who are not only not qualified, they had active financial interests that run directly contrary to what they're supposed to be doing there, think EPA, Betsy DeVos, etc. Not only is the aggregation of monied interests in power the culmination of a free market, he decidedly nullified all the good that these government offices are supposed to provide for. In a big way, Trump was a huge victory for conservatives who want government to be as small as possible.
|
They're religious, so they have rights that we don't. It's that simple. They're free to spread the Coronavirus and get people sick or killed in God's name. It is so decreed by our Christian overlords.
|
from the little reading I have done on this the problem is not limiting religious gatherings, but specifically targeting religious gatherings.
You can't say churches can't have more then 20 people but another business can have 40. You need to ban all gatherings over 20 instead.
|
|
|
It’s just so weird. Tons of churches just do zoom now. It works. The idea that people feel like they need to physically exist in the church is so wild
|
When my grandfather died (october) most of the funeral was held online. Only the closest family members (less than 10 people) where at the crematory/cementery. Its defiently possible to perform at least some religious ceremonies online.
|
On November 27 2020 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:
It’s just so weird. Tons of churches just do zoom now. It works. The idea that people feel like they need to physically exist in the church is so wild
I don't think the core objection being raised here is routine services (though church is caught up in it). It's more complex and intense rituals that a restriction is problematic for, many of which are much more common outside the Christian faith. Here, for once, "religious liberty" isn't being used as a euphemism for "protecting Christian hegemony."
That said, my own personal religious beliefs preclude me from participating in a religion that places more importance on rituals than the lives of the people involved, and I'm wibbly-wobbly on what I think should be done. Especially after listening to a podcast on the Attleboro Sect where a father let his infant son starve to death because a neighbor was jealous his mother was attractive and had a "divine revelation" that he could only breastfeed.
|
United States44352 Posts
On November 27 2020 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:
It’s just so weird. Tons of churches just do zoom now. It works. The idea that people feel like they need to physically exist in the church is so wild
Money grubbing mega churches do need physical attendance to make financial sense and they’re the ones making the campaign donations.
|
On November 26 2020 23:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 18:24 Oukka wrote:On November 26 2020 17:02 Salazarz wrote:First of all, the government will never be able to do good for the people, including workers, the way a free market can. But that's another discussion of course lol Not to take your conversation too far off topic, but I am genuinely curious, what are the reasons for your position on this? Compared to the rest of the developed world, the US has some of the worst (if not genuinely the worst) track records when it comes to things like workers' rights, access to education and healthcare, justice system outcomes, etc. What makes you think that the free market does good for the people when the US has a higher relative poverty rate than such wonderful places like Russia and Mexico, keeps a proportion of its population in prison comparable to that of Stalin's Soviet Union, is the only OECD country that lacks such basic protections like mandatory paid parental leave or universal healthcare, and so on. Not trying to start an argument on this, I'm just very interested in what is your position based on. I'm glad someone else picked up on this, I'd also like to hear more on this. It seems like a bold statement to start with without backing it up further. BerserkSword's post is so full of delusion I wouldn't try tot hard to understand it. That said, the idea that government can't do anything good when compared to the free market is textbook libertarianism, regardless of how they try to square it with reality. Also, I have to say that I never really thought of conservatism as KwarK posits it, but I can't really find a way to argue against that interpretation. I'm sure Danglars will be apoplectic to see KwarK calling out conservatives for the sheer identity politics. Show nested quote +unfortunately even the "sane" ones like David Frum and Jonah Goldberg were wrong about almost everything back in the 2000s (David Frum even thought gay marriage would destabilize the American family, lmfao). I think Republicans might have to go back 30, maybe even 40, years before their ideology can become salvageable. If you go back that far in time you hit the Reagan era. Reagan was an incredibly overhyped and extremely immoral president. Reagan-era conservatism and his supply side economics are morally bankrupt and absolutely atrocious.
KwarK's post only touched the truth in one tiny respect, and it was almost certainly not intended. Of the major political orientations it is quite possibly the least ideological, at least with respect to means. This actually does throw lefties and right-wing authoritarians for a loop. But I think this is believable at least on the surface when you consider that conservatism explicitly rejects utopian thinking.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
|
On November 27 2020 03:03 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:
It’s just so weird. Tons of churches just do zoom now. It works. The idea that people feel like they need to physically exist in the church is so wild Especially after listening to a podcast on the Attleboro Sect where a father let his infant son starve to death because a neighbor was jealous his mother was attractive and had a "divine revelation" that he could only breastfeed.
Good example of how "devotion" and "faith" become a matter of competition and tiered'ness in people's heads.
|
On November 27 2020 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:
It’s just so weird. Tons of churches just do zoom now. It works. The idea that people feel like they need to physically exist in the church is so wild
Maybe my ID on the website makes me not the best person to ask this, but are you surprised that people want to meet, talk, and gather with others in person? Do you think church is just a sermon?
|
A lot of superspreader events are religious gatherings. They are putting their whole communities at risk. Of course with a religious zealot on the court it is given what way they where going to rule. There is a reason the US is pushing 300k deaths and its crap like this.
|
On November 27 2020 03:20 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:
It’s just so weird. Tons of churches just do zoom now. It works. The idea that people feel like they need to physically exist in the church is so wild Maybe my ID on the website makes me not the best person to ask this, but are you surprised that people want to meet, talk, and gather with others in person? Do you think church is just a sermon?
I absolutely agree here. Church in the smaller parishes or communities is much more about relationships than the respective holy text, in my experience with friends and family.
That notwithstanding it's absolutely dependent on people minding the distancing and mask usage rules. And I'd love to have your experience on the matter. Have the people in your experience been adhering to the preventative measures?
No singing inside, distancing, regular/permanent ventilation, masks?
I know of only a few superspreader events due to singing, parties, funerals here in Germany. So I suspect that many if not most did adhere to guidelines. And the parishes I know personally are very keen on fostering the common good of the populace, so they do implement preventative measures.
|
On November 27 2020 03:31 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 03:20 Introvert wrote:On November 27 2020 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:
It’s just so weird. Tons of churches just do zoom now. It works. The idea that people feel like they need to physically exist in the church is so wild Maybe my ID on the website makes me not the best person to ask this, but are you surprised that people want to meet, talk, and gather with others in person? Do you think church is just a sermon? I absolutely agree here. Church in the smaller parishes or communities is much more about relationships than the respective holy text, in my experience with friends and family. That notwithstanding it's absolutely dependent on people minding the distancing and mask usage rules. And I'd love to have your experience on the matter. Have the people in your experience been adhering to the preventative measures? No singing inside, distancing, regular/permanent ventilation, masks? I know of only a few superspreader events due to singing, parties, funerals here in Germany. So I suspect that many if not most did adhere to guidelines. And the parishes I know personally are very keen on fostering the common good of the populace, so they do implement preventative measures.
I haven't done a survey, but from what I can tell almost all of the churches in my area either gather outside or are exclusively online. There was a very short period of time a few months back when things looked like they were getting better that people came back in. But even then for some of them you had to actually sign up for a seat because they would only fill to a certain capacity. With a few exceptions most churches are taking it seriously, but they don't want to be singled out.
Reminder that I live in SoCal, most of the time it is totally possible to gather outside somewhere, as the weather is always at least bearable 
|
On November 27 2020 03:20 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:
It’s just so weird. Tons of churches just do zoom now. It works. The idea that people feel like they need to physically exist in the church is so wild Maybe my ID on the website makes me not the best person to ask this, but are you surprised that people want to meet, talk, and gather with others in person? Do you think church is just a sermon?
If the social aspect is the part that is essential, it shouldn't be justified with religious freedom. Religious freedom should be extremely confined to strictly religious experiences. If people also like being able to gossip at church, so they wanna go to church, they can go fuck themselves. Its a pandemic, it is reasonable for people to make concessions. But if we are deciding religious expression is inalienable, it should be clear what we are protecting. If its just people saying "I should be able to always go to the religion place to hang out because freedom of religion", that's fucked and they should be ashamed for having that level of entitlement.
Covid spread is always related to particle concentration per square meter. Most churches have very small volumes and have been giant spreader events because of it. Old janky buildings with poor circulation are not where you should be. If you don't need it for religious fulfillment, people shouldn't be going.
In Oregon we have had spreader events where 30% of a church walks away with covid.
|
Religious gatherings and ceremonies, including funerals, are just very common super spreaders all over the world. The first on most famous one was in South Korea, where half of the initial cases could be traced back to a single church goer.
One main reason is probably that a pandemic was the last thing thought of when making the churches in terms of distancing and ventilation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
