EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2874
| 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 | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 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 Man who ran on 'yes we can' says snappy slogan is not a good plan. This is a dumb game you can play with any slogan. It's a slogan, not a detailed policy description. From the article "The slogan refers to reallocating funding for police departments to social services for minority communities." Still not very specific, but there's a little more there. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On December 03 2020 05:10 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: Man who ran on 'yes we can' says snappy slogan is not a good plan. This is a dumb game you can play with any slogan. It's a slogan, not a detailed policy description. From the article "The slogan refers to reallocating funding for police departments to social services for minority communities." Still not very specific, but there's a little more there. Its not bad because it was snappy, its bad because it implies something that's totally outrageous to like 70% of the country. | ||
FlaShFTW
United States10367 Posts
On December 03 2020 05:10 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: Man who ran on 'yes we can' says snappy slogan is not a good plan. This is a dumb game you can play with any slogan. It's a slogan, not a detailed policy description. From the article "The slogan refers to reallocating funding for police departments to social services for minority communities." Still not very specific, but there's a little more there. Imagine comparing "Yes we can" which, on it's face, literally is just about working together to achieve a goal, to "Defund the police". Are you actually serious about this comment, or are you just a troll? | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
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. "abolish the police" is a TL.net only thing. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22239 Posts
On December 03 2020 05:10 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: Snappy slogans tend to leave room for interpretation.Man who ran on 'yes we can' says snappy slogan is not a good plan. This is a dumb game you can play with any slogan. It's a slogan, not a detailed policy description. From the article "The slogan refers to reallocating funding for police departments to social services for minority communities." Still not very specific, but there's a little more there. "yes we can" can be filled in any which way but it will generally always be positive. "Defund the police" is snappy but draws a lot of bad assumptions that will turn people away. I don't want to defund the police, I want to reform them. They need to stop executing citizens in cold blood, shoot less innocent people, less racial profiling, better training ect ect. They need money to do that, so please don't defund them. *proceeds to vote against defund the police candidate. Its why MAGA also worked. Its a generic slogan that the listener can insert whatever they want and feel good. "Make America racist again" wouldn't have had the same impact, despite being just as snappy. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On December 03 2020 06:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote: "abolish the police" is a TL.net only thing. Not even close. Huge support throughout the west coast. The two Portland city mayor candidates recently intended to hugely defund police. They ended up with >50% of total vote but split the vote and the incumbent won lollll | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14105 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
On December 03 2020 05:39 FlaShFTW wrote: Imagine comparing "Yes we can" which, on it's face, literally is just about working together to achieve a goal, to "Defund the police". Are you actually serious about this comment, or are you just a troll? To achieve what goal? "Yes we can" is an utterly meaningless slogan, Obama's time post-presidentially has indicated he never actually believed in anything, every time hes in the news I get more and more suspect he ever cared about accomplishing fuck all. At least "defund the police" actually indicates that we should defund the police, obviously its very hard to articulate all of a policy via three words, but its the important part of the general goal to defund the police and fund various social programs to help prevent people from falling into criminality. There is no slogan that will completely convey this idea and also get away with not being attacked by Republicans as "THEY WANT ACTUAL VIOLENT ANARCHY!" Criticizing slogans is just lazy, its the way people go about easily dismissing everything without having to engage with it, and someone as intelligent as Obama should do better. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On December 03 2020 03:31 Mohdoo wrote: 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. Curious since i've read it a few times now. Can he actually pre-emptively pardon himself and his crotch spawns for "stuff"? At least "defund the police" actually indicates that we should defund the police, obviously its very hard to articulate all of a policy via three words, but its the important part of the general goal to defund the police and fund various social programs to help prevent people from falling into criminality. There is no slogan that will completely convey this idea and also get away with not being attacked by Republicans as "THEY WANT ACTUAL VIOLENT ANARCHY!" Except that's not the real goal, is it. The slogan is absolutely idiotic because it can be construed to mean "libruls want violent anarchy" without even trying. It's literally what the slogan says. In fact, "defunding the police" is entirely misleading in the first place. It's not about defunding the police but shifting responsibilities away from the police. By defunding it. Defunding is the means, not the goal. This isn't even mentioning that defunding the police doesn't in fact mean increased funding for social care, mental health etc. It means literally "get rid of police". It's like running "PAY YOUR TAXES" as a slogan to increase funding for healthcare. It's absolutely idiotic. edit: hell, "FUND SOCIAL CARE" makes miles more sense as a slogan. Only hardcore dickheads would argue that social care is unnecessary, whereas a lot of people would argue against "defunding the police" even while supporting increased funding for social care. Except of course "defund the police" requires them to read into all kinds of shit to figure out that "well we don't really mean defund, we mean kinda reform, while taking money away for military toys, to fund mental health programs, social care and stuff". The only reason why you'd think that this slogan is great is simply because "your" team came up with it. Objectively its horseshit. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On December 03 2020 08:47 m4ini wrote: Curious since i've read it a few times now. Can he actually pre-emptively pardon himself and his crotch spawns for "stuff"? Only federal crimes. He has enough state level stuff that will ruin his life at this point that its kinda GG either way. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On December 03 2020 08:54 Mohdoo wrote: Only federal crimes. He has enough state level stuff that will ruin his life at this point that its kinda GG either way. Cheers, reassuring. No idea how the presidency works in that regard, apart from being rather.. idiotic. The entire concept of presidential pardoning seems weird to me, putting the presidents word above the law. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14105 Posts
I think the idea of a pardon is one of those things that seems clearly and obviously abusable but is really nothing worse than the entire rest of the system. Its a lot like how France is able to grant instant citizenship to the heroes of France or for heroic acts despite not being a french citizen in the first place. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
On December 03 2020 01:51 Nevuk wrote: Freshly off being pardoned, Flynn took out a full page ad calling for suspending the constitution, invoking martial law, and holding a new election. Sidney Powell, lunatic lawyer fired by Trump's re-election team for being too bonkers, has backed the call as well. 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) This is batshit stuff right here. During some of my driving today I skimmed through conservative radio on XM (Fox news, Triumph, Patriot, etc) all they are doing is talking about shit like this. Its frightening. These people know no bounds. People ARE going to be killed or mamed over this type of talk. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
On December 03 2020 05:05 TheTenthDoc wrote: Policy slogans are uniformly pretty terrible in 2020, but they pretty much always have been. It's just that today instead of focus grouped dishwater they're driven by social media engagement more than ever before, which means they're farther from reality than ever before because there's no incentive to approximate reality on social media. Look no further than "Medicare for All" as a slogan when your policy is not, in fact, Medicare for all (because actually giving everyone Medicare is not a good approach to the problem since, you know, Medicare requires premiums for two major parts of coverage). Medicare for all is a way better slogan than Single Payer or National Health insurance. Medicare has issues and should be fixed but no one currently on Medicare would willingly give it up. Medicare polls great. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
On December 03 2020 08:47 m4ini wrote: Curious since i've read it a few times now. Can he actually pre-emptively pardon himself and his crotch spawns for "stuff"? Except that's not the real goal, is it. The slogan is absolutely idiotic because it can be construed to mean "libruls want violent anarchy" without even trying. It's literally what the slogan says. In fact, "defunding the police" is entirely misleading in the first place. It's not about defunding the police but shifting responsibilities away from the police. By defunding it. Defunding is the means, not the goal. This isn't even mentioning that defunding the police doesn't in fact mean increased funding for social care, mental health etc. It means literally "get rid of police". It's like running "PAY YOUR TAXES" as a slogan to increase funding for healthcare. It's absolutely idiotic. edit: hell, "FUND SOCIAL CARE" makes miles more sense as a slogan. Only hardcore dickheads would argue that social care is unnecessary, whereas a lot of people would argue against "defunding the police" even while supporting increased funding for social care. Except of course "defund the police" requires them to read into all kinds of shit to figure out that "well we don't really mean defund, we mean kinda reform, while taking money away for military toys, to fund mental health programs, social care and stuff". The only reason why you'd think that this slogan is great is simply because "your" team came up with it. Objectively its horseshit. Objectively its subjective. ALL slogans are fucking crappy, your slogan is dog shit too because funding social care completely ignores the bloated police budgets and their absurd militarization. FUND SOCIAL CARE has significantly less targeted resonance among a society who is experiencing dramatic police brutality. Funding social care doesnt stem the tide of murder by the hands of an increasingly militarized police, it seems to completely sidestep "dont murder black people, cops." Well will you look at that, slogans dont convey every nuance of the complexity of policy, turns out thats the politician's job, to sell their constitutents on the ideas behind the slogans in a digestible way, but pretending that any slogan, including yours, is good is asinine. "Only hardcore dickheads would argue social care is unnecessary" christ man, do you know what country we're talking about? Theres an entire political party with a large base that LOVES to argue that social care is unnecessary. | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10367 Posts
On December 03 2020 08:44 Zambrah wrote: To achieve what goal? "Yes we can" is an utterly meaningless slogan, Obama's time post-presidentially has indicated he never actually believed in anything, every time hes in the news I get more and more suspect he ever cared about accomplishing fuck all. Jesus christ you've missed the point so hard. At least "defund the police" actually indicates that we should defund the police, obviously its very hard to articulate all of a policy via three words, but its the important part of the general goal to defund the police and fund various social programs to help prevent people from falling into criminality. There is no slogan that will completely convey this idea and also get away with not being attacked by Republicans as "THEY WANT ACTUAL VIOLENT ANARCHY!" Ok but again, not the point. Yes, of course a slogan doesn't articulate the entire point of the policy proposed, but it has to be at least approachable. No one is going to care about the important part of the goal if they're already off-put by the slogan. Again, you've missed the point of the use of slogans. Criticizing slogans is just lazy, its the way people go about easily dismissing everything without having to engage with it, and someone as intelligent as Obama should do better. You're also assuming that the average American is smart enough to read past the slogan that would translate into votes or supporters of said slogan. The average American is really, and I mean REALLY, dumb. We are incredibly intellectually lazy, and these people that you're trying to convince to vote for you/side with you, need these things heavily simplified and if that simplification isn't properly highlighting your important goal and it communicates, or appears to communicate, a totally different idea, then what's the point? Those people aren't going to see your "important goal", they're going to see something else and get mad at it. And let's not act like this is just Republicans screaming about the slogan, you've got people from solid always-Democrat voters all the way to the right saying the same thing. To call this criticism lazy shows that you have both missed the point and also don't understand how policy actually gets pushed through and how to convince voters. This is typical progressive style thinking which leads to them being laughed at and not taken seriously. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
On December 03 2020 10:08 FlaShFTW wrote: Jesus christ you've missed the point so hard. Ok but again, not the point. Yes, of course a slogan doesn't articulate the entire point of the policy proposed, but it has to be at least approachable. No one is going to care about the important part of the goal if they're already off-put by the slogan. Again, you've missed the point of the use of slogans. You're also assuming that the average American is smart enough to read past the slogan that would translate into votes or supporters of said slogan. The average American is really, and I mean REALLY, dumb. We are incredibly intellectually lazy, and these people that you're trying to convince to vote for you/side with you, need these things heavily simplified and if that simplification isn't properly highlighting your important goal and it communicates, or appears to communicate, a totally different idea, then what's the point? Those people aren't going to see your "important goal", they're going to see something else and get mad at it. And let's not act like this is just Republicans screaming about the slogan, you've got people from solid always-Democrat voters all the way to the right saying the same thing. To call this criticism lazy shows that you have both missed the point and also don't understand how policy actually gets pushed through and how to convince voters. This is typical progressive style thinking which leads to them being laughed at and not taken seriously. This is the core of my problem, Obama is not the average american, Obama is PRECISELY the kind of person that needs to be doing MORE than just reiterating slogans, he is a popular politician who is gifted at articulating things in a way that Americans are capable of understanding, Obama is precisely the kind of person with a responsibility to take these slogans and make the policy behind them understood by Americans. When the people in Obama's position spend their time purely criticizing framing and ignoring the issue behind the framing we're left with an endless shitshow about why whatever slogan sucks. They all suck, they're all reductive. Its like rioting, rioting is bad, noone WANTS to be in a situation where people are rioting, but criticizing the rioting is often used to ignore the reason why people are rioting. Slogans and catchphrases and shit are crappy and I wish we lived in a society where we could count on each other to trust our politicians to communicate clearly (and more importantly, communicate honestly) and trust each other to hold politicians to their word, to their stated policy be it on a website or be it from their mouths. No slogan will ever get the goal of "stop the police from murdering people, black people in particular, so flagrantly" Defund the Police has its set of problems, but any slogan will, the fact that we're so focused on criticizing the phrasing of a slogan that we ALL know has a root belief of "STOP THE POPO KILLING BLACK PEOPLE" reads to me like the typical way of deflecting acknowledging whats causing these problems so we dont feel compelled to change anything. We'll spend the entire public attention span debating the slogan and then it'll fade away from public consciousness with nothing having actually been done. | ||
| ||
