EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2873
| 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 | ||
KwarK
United States43262 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
This was always where this was going to go. It was basically the only actual strategy for getting him a second term after he lost the election so badly. It's not going to happen, but is a continuation of the crack in the foundations that are Trump and his enabler's dictatorial tendencies. Sidney Powell: ![[image loading]](https://am12.mediaite.com/med/cnt/uploads/2020/12/Screen-Shot-2020-12-02-at-9.48.27-AM.jpg) | ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9137 Posts
On December 03 2020 01:51 Nevuk wrote: Sidney Powell, lunatic lawyer fired by Trump's re-election team for being too bonkers, has backed the call as well. I don't understand why everyone's framing it this way, she's been making the same Chavez/Dominion claims as Rudy with the same "we know a guy who knows a guy who knows this stuff, man" proof. Either they're both too bonkers or neither of them are. The Flynn ad reads like the rant of a homeless guy outside a kebab shop at 3 AM. Both entertaining and depressing at the same time. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21961 Posts
Suspending the electoral college vote and the inauguration doesn't matter. A Presidents term ends jan 20th 12:00. No if's or buts change that. Without a President-Elect I believe the US would get President Pelosi. Biden would probably be better for them then that. On December 03 2020 02:22 Dan HH wrote: Considering the man was once head of military intelligence, its 100% depressing.I don't understand why everyone's framing it this way, she's been making the same Chavez/Dominion claims as Rudy with the same "we know a guy who knows a guy who knows this stuff, man" proof. Either they're both too bonkers or neither of them are. The Flynn ad reads like the rant of a homeless guy outside a kebab shop at 3 AM. Both entertaining and depressing at the same time. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On December 03 2020 02:22 Dan HH wrote: I don't understand why everyone's framing it this way, she's been making the same Chavez/Dominion claims as Rudy with the same "we know a guy who knows a guy who knows this stuff, man" proof. Either they're both too bonkers or neither of them are. The Flynn ad reads like the rant of a homeless guy outside a kebab shop at 3 AM. Both entertaining and depressing at the same time. Oh, they're both bonkers. But she really was fired for being too extreme in her theories. Trump thought she was making him look foolish. (No idea why he doesn't realize that Giuliani is doing the same). | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On December 03 2020 02:52 Erasme wrote: Oh man, leftists in this thread sure were doomsayers when predicting that trump wouldn't go quietly. It's the condescending posts from conservatives that they would dare be concerned about the President actively expressing a desire to overturn our Democracy that really sells it. They sure got the win on that one. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21961 Posts
On December 03 2020 03:31 Mohdoo wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but martial law doesn't suspend the general constitution and importantly amendment 20, which puts a hard deadline on the end of a Presidential term. I really think Trump has no option other than martial law. People are wrong to think that he is even slightly comfortable with the idea of losing his legal immunity. So much stuff is waiting for him the moment he isn't president, and given his age, its no surprise he basically has nothing to lose. Let's say his coup doesn't work, what will really happen? His quality of life will basically be totally over once he isn't president as things currently stand. Declaring martial law won't stop his term from ending Jan 20th. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On December 02 2020 18:47 FlaShFTW wrote: Have the countries with universal health care shown that this is the case though? Obviously a lot of this stems from culture but I'm willing to bet that asian countries with universal healthcare like Korea and Japan already practice quite a bit of preventative care, as with the Scandinavian countries. I could totally be wrong about this, just stereotypical view of those countries. Or maybe your point isn't referring to UHC but just how to improve healthcare in general could lead to less preventative care measures. Forgive me if I got the point wrong. Even if it weren't the case, it certainly is difficult to change how America is already. We're so dependent on fast food and american food in general is incredibly oily, greasy, buttery. Very high in fats, less emphasis on vegetables. (not directed towards that post, but the whole discussion) This whole debate is pretty easy. When healthcare is public, the government wants it to be less expensive and enforces preventative measures by the mean of regulation on the food industry. When healthcare is private, the companies want people to be ill and take medication/go to hospitals to make money (hello opioid crisis as an example). And the government cares less about public health since the money is not coming out of its pocket. Add to that intense lobbying in the US leading to even less regulations than everywhere else for a lot of reasons, and you have extremely poor public health metrics (comorbidities etc), and a very high price because the goal is to run a profit. Is there a need to argue for dozens of pages ? Having healthcare public would cost a lot at first (more than other countries, though still less than currently), force the government to take measures to incrementally improve public health to lower costs. It would take decades, no politician would reap the benefits during his term, and as long as the lobbying system is the way it is (thanks citizen united, even worse now), it's not going to happen anytime soon. I don't understand why it's so unacceptable to run the same kind of system as France for example : - social security decides on basic costs/coverage and ensure that basic care products can be provided with full coverage (basic glasses, etc). Premium comes with a price. Basic coverage is mandatory (free when out of work, you contribute when you work), you can choose your doctor. - secondary insurance is provided by the state for people out of work, and can be provided by your company or acquired privately, to cover for extra costs or take premium options. (single room in hospital, etc etc). This is regulated to cover for pre-existing conditions and other bullshit that private companies often try to pull. - hospitals are public, clinics can be private but prices are not going through the roof. You might be less comfortable than in private US providers, but you're not bankrupt after a few days there. tl:dr : USA health care, gg no re. | ||
FlaShFTW
United States10238 Posts
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/528266-obama-you-lose-people-with-snappy-slogans-like-defund-the-police I've been saying this since I entered this thread, the left is piss poor at proper messaging and uniting behind an actual message. Wtf does "defund the police" even mean? All definitions that I find of "defund" mean to either withdraw funds or deplete financial resources. If it's the former, it's unclear if withdraw means absolute withdrawal or partial, since the definitions don't allude to that, and if it's the latter, that absolutely doesn't seem like a good policy goal. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defund https://www.dictionary.com/browse/defund | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
I mean slogans don't really have to accurately convey policy. I doubt many of the "abortion is murder" people literally expect everyone who's had an abortion to be jailed for murder. Of course the left and minorities are always held to a higher standard though in questions like this. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9137 Posts
On December 03 2020 04:45 Starlightsun wrote: It is a bad slogan, but I'm having a hard time thinking of anything better. "Abolish" sounds even more incendiary. "Reform" is too tepid. Maybe NWA's "Fuck tha police" is actually the best slogan. I mean slogans don't really have to accurately convey policy. I doubt many of the "abortion is murder" people literally expect everyone who's had an abortion to be jailed for murder. Of course the left and minorities are always held to a higher standard though in questions like this. Maybe come up with slogans after writing down what you want to achieve on a certain topic rather than the other way around? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 03 2020 04:34 FlaShFTW wrote: So Obama just came out against the slogan of "Defund the Police" (but not necessarily the actual idea behind the slogan). https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/528266-obama-you-lose-people-with-snappy-slogans-like-defund-the-police I've been saying this since I entered this thread, the left is piss poor at proper messaging and uniting behind an actual message. Wtf does "defund the police" even mean? All definitions that I find of "defund" mean to either withdraw funds or deplete financial resources. If it's the former, it's unclear if withdraw means absolute withdrawal or partial, since the definitions don't allude to that, and if it's the latter, that absolutely doesn't seem like a good policy goal. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defund https://www.dictionary.com/browse/defund He's doing something good for Democrats right now. They were too worried to change any of their messaging during the loss of seats a month ago. They need their base on board with the party, and that includes the Bernie Sanders-AOC wing and particularly the way the young activist guns of the party do their passionate speeches. Obama steps in and does a quick slap-down on the kind of slogans that will cost them seats in swing districts. He's got the reputation to not just fade in the party's eyes for taking a stand. The party that owns the Defund the Police slogan (and I'd argue prior to Obama's statement, this mainly consisted of weak spinning of the slogan into something different, instead of trying to shed the slogan) will be connected to areas like Minneapolis. Look up the news about surging violent crime in previously peaceful neighborhoods, and all the while they're facing a shortage in officers alongside calls from city council members to defund the police. Nice twist from the guy that brought hashtag sloganeering to modern politics needing to rein in what the following class did with it. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On December 03 2020 04:34 FlaShFTW wrote: So Obama just came out against the slogan of "Defund the Police" (but not necessarily the actual idea behind the slogan). https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/528266-obama-you-lose-people-with-snappy-slogans-like-defund-the-police I've been saying this since I entered this thread, the left is piss poor at proper messaging and uniting behind an actual message. Wtf does "defund the police" even mean? All definitions that I find of "defund" mean to either withdraw funds or deplete financial resources. If it's the former, it's unclear if withdraw means absolute withdrawal or partial, since the definitions don't allude to that, and if it's the latter, that absolutely doesn't seem like a good policy goal. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defund https://www.dictionary.com/browse/defund It means two different things to two different camps. Most progressives see it as "cut police budgets to put money into alternative programs". However, some that are on the more extreme side see it as "abolish the police", and accuse the former of co-opting the term in a manner that has racial undertones. | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10238 Posts
On December 03 2020 04:45 Starlightsun wrote: It is a bad slogan, but I'm having a hard time thinking of anything better. "Abolish" sounds even more incendiary. "Reform" is too tepid. Maybe NWA's "Fuck tha police" is actually the best slogan. I mean slogans don't really have to accurately convey policy. I doubt many of the "abortion is murder" people literally expect everyone who's had an abortion to be jailed for murder. Of course the left and minorities are always held to a higher standard though in questions like this. No, but they surely need to be able to accurately convey a simplistic notion of what the actual policy is going to be. You don't get people to understand your policy position if their initial instinct when reading "defund the police" is that you want to remove the police entirely. There needs to be a new message for this, because "Defund" is not working. On December 03 2020 04:51 Stratos_speAr wrote: It means two different things to two different camps. Most progressives see it as "cut police budgets to put money into alternative programs". However, some that are on the more extreme side see it as "abolish the police", and accuse the former of co-opting the term in a manner that has racial undertones. Sure, but every conservative, most moderates, and even a significant portion of establishment Democrats interpret it as closer to "abolish". Just because progressives are like "No that's not what we actually mean, what we mean is X", you're not getting many people to come to your side. A slogan needs to be catchy and worth liking or getting people to listen. Defund the police, while catchy, completely turns off people from the message, and if they don't like the slogan, fat chance they're going to want to listen to the actual points and semantics. Here's an example: there's apparently a new class at UCSD now called "Abolition Medicine". What do you think it means? Type out your answer, then click on the spoiler for what the class description is. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/vAdNQow.png) | ||
| ||
