US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3048
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 | ||
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
farvacola
United States18819 Posts
| ||
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
On January 22 2021 01:26 JimmiC wrote: Let's hope so, but given how close it was and how much support Trump still has (inspite of everything)I think it will be hard for many of to feel that it is unique and not the new normal. Demagogues are supposed to be really effective. That's the whole point of fascism and why its so scary and bad. We have seen the effect even on this forum. People who used to be reasonable find themselves saying "well he's better than the alternative", which isn't their own fault. It is human nature to be weak to fascism. That is why super delegates were originally created. Too many weak people are susceptible to fascism. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 22 2021 00:52 Biff The Understudy wrote: The canadians could have totally realized that making a deal with Trump that was totally unacceptable to everyone but him for multiple reasons was not a great idea Though it's more unpopular than not in recent times, it's not really a "only Trump and cronies want Keystone." Obama shuttered it and Trump green-lighted it, but it's most accurately described as "controversial" rather than "almost universally despised." There is also something to be said for consistency in policy between administrations, which is the more concerning part of this. | ||
EnDeR_
Spain2568 Posts
On January 22 2021 01:52 LegalLord wrote: Though it's more unpopular than not in recent times, it's not really a "only Trump and cronies want Keystone." Obama shuttered it and Trump green-lighted it, but it's most accurately described as "controversial" rather than "almost universally despised." There is also something to be said for consistency in policy between administrations, which is the more concerning part of this. If Obama had green-lighted it, Trump would have shuttered it. One of Trump's main motivations to run for president was to undo everything Obama did. Similarly, Biden was elected to undo as much as possible of what Trump did. Expecting continuity in policy between administrations is now a bit of a pipe dream. The way things are going, I would expect more polarization and more instability rather than less. | ||
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On January 21 2021 11:10 Sermokala wrote: China is not energy independent, but it is food independent in terms of staples. Most European cuontires are completely dependent on a few easily blocked chokepoints, but you don't see multiple European countries building massive artificial islands over Rotterdam, Straits of Gilbraltar, Copenhagen, both sides of the Suez canal. Actually it's more analogous to building artificial islands all over the Mediterranean Sea as the chokepoints itself isn't guarded. China has deliberately chosen to not use its economic power as diplomatic power to safegaurd its vulnerable points, but to use military power instead. An if you look at a map, there are plenty of space to go around the vulnerable spots anyways.The problem with china being able to match the US militarily is that it doesn't really matter. People think that china is just making fake islands with bases in the south china sea because of imperialism when in reality they have no other way to benefit their position. America has oil and more farmable land than it knows what to do with. China doesn't have oil or the ability to feed itself. They're sprawling int he south china sea with fake islands because it needs the oil and food imports from the rest of asia africa and south america to continue to exist. America can't dream of invading china but if they sit on a line from Japan, the Phillippines Tiawan Singapore to india they simply starve China from exporting products and importing food and oil. And what can china do in response? reach out across the pacific like Japan tried in WW2? No china has always been thinking longer term than any other people on the globe. They will continue to invade other nations economically and abuse everyone in their way until people simply have no other option. On January 21 2021 11:17 Mohdoo wrote: Really now? When Russia invaded Ukraine just a few years ago, do you really think something similar may not happen in the Baltic states when the oligarchs needs another manufactured external enemy? You think that if China invades Taiwan, USA will just allow that to happen with no resistance? You think that if NK implodes, Russia and China may not enter military conflict? Who knows what the future will bring.One of the things that is interesting to me is that there will never be a military conflict between any of the following: EU/USA/RU/CN. The whole mutual destruction thing means most of this stuff doesn't matter. Conflict will only happen when one of those 4 have no other options. Which is why I think a lot of foreign policy should revolve around the others having enough to not suffer but not enough to tip the scales of power. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42017 Posts
| ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42017 Posts
On January 22 2021 03:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote: They are food independent. They can feed their population if there are no more imports and exports. Your definition of food independence would exclude all countries, all regions, and even the entire world taken as a whole, as food unindependent, for anywhere can suffer catastophe. You can be vulnerable and reliant on trade for specific food and be food independent in terms of staples. They are not food independent. They’re a net importer of food. My definition would not exclude all countries or the world as a whole, for there to be net importers there must be net exporters. The net exporters make more food than they use. The net importers use more food than they make. The US is a net exporter. China is a net importer. They are not food independent. China cannot feed the Chinese, it does not produce enough food. Even if it could, it cannot do so reliably due to the exposure of their irrigation system to extreme weather events. As part of establishing the legitimacy of the CCP one of their first great projects was creating a huge network of dams to control the rivers, end annual floods, and convert a huge amount of land to agricultural use. This was a very important cultural and political symbol of how the CCP was both modernizing China and ending the famines that had historically ravaged China. Those dams are aging and some have previously broken with catastrophic consequences. Extreme weather in the last few years has made the future of China's agricultural heartland uncertain which is an extremely sensitive political issue for the CCP. A catastrophic dam failure would not only be a symbol of the failures of the regime, comparable to Chernobyl for the USSR, but would also have a knock on impact causing a famine. Food/energy/resource independent has always meant that you produce what you need domestically. For example energy independence is a strategic goal of the US because it wants to reduce reliance on Middle Eastern oil. | ||
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On January 22 2021 01:20 Mohdoo wrote: anyone know why the f antifa is throwing a fit already? extremists hate a competent boring leader. It's easier to grow a revolution in time of crisis than when people feel that their government is effective. Effective being relative obviously. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42017 Posts
On January 22 2021 04:00 Erasme wrote: extremists hate a competent boring leader. It's easier to grow a revolution in time of crisis than when people feel that their government is effective. Effective being relative obviously. Biden is more popular than Trump, he's not objectively popular. He's a centre right candidate that a lot of people hate for good reason. | ||
![]()
Nixer
2774 Posts
On January 22 2021 03:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote: They are food independent. They can feed their population if there are no more imports and exports. Your definition of food independence would exclude all countries, all regions, and even the entire world taken as a whole, as food unindependent, for anywhere can suffer catastophe. You can be vulnerable and reliant on trade for specific food and be food independent in terms of staples. What's your claim based upon? Because this is contrary to official statements by the Chinese government. While there's a widely known policy of self sufficiency, particularly regarding the staple grains, it still hasn't been achieved even with highly fertilized land. There just isn't enough arable land, evident by the fact the Chinese government has made efforts to lease arable land. Besides the yearly growth in imports in both grains, such as wheat, and animal products. (roughly 1.5% yearly increase in staple grain consumption and 0.6% in production for the next five years). That's not even all either.. Moreover the Yangtze basin is increasingly in a more precarious position due to climate change, which is incredibly influential on Chinese food production, which Kwark also alluded to. | ||
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
His next last option after that was Jim "Gym" Jordan... who never passed the bar (but did go to law school). However, Trump still hasn't got anyone lined up (meaning he either hasn't asked anyone or Jordan turned him down). Here's the NBC report on the impeachment and the president's total lack of defense. Apparently, democrats are unsure if they even need witnesses : as all of them were already eyewitnesses. Sidenote - I'd much rather Durbin be majority leader than Schumer if I had to pick from the current leadership, and I'm not really sure why Schumer got the role over Durbin. Ex-President Donald Trump is not prepared for his Senate impeachment trial despite the fact that it could begin as early as next week. Trump, who is charged with inciting the deadly Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol by a mob of his supporters, still has not assembled a group of lawyers to defend him at what will be his second impeachment trial, NBC News reported. He also has no clear legal strategy for the trial, according to NBC. Democratic senators, and likely a number of Republican ones, hope to convict Trump and then vote to bar him from becoming president ever again. The failure to prepare for the trial is consistent with Trump’s behavior this month, where he did little actual work related to the presidency. [...] Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told an NBC reporter earlier Thursday that it is also not clear whether the trial will be “a full-blown trial with evidence and witnesses,” or a quicker one without either of those. Durbin noted that calling witnesses may not be necessary because “in addition to being jurists we are eyewitnesses to this crime.” “You know, it isn’t like, oh, did somebody come into the Capitol,” Durbin said. “We know the Capitol policeman was killed, and we saw the damage that was done.” “In that respect, it isn’t like what in the hell was going on in that telephone conversation with the Ukrainian president?” said Durbin, referring to Trump’s first Senate trial. When asked whether Trump’s lack of lawyers for the trial could delay the proceeding, Durbin said, “Well I suppose you can ask for a continuance, but it’s going to be hard to argue.” https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/21/trump-not-prepared-for-senate-impeachment-trial-for-capitol-riots.html In comparison, the NYT is running articles about how awful it is that Biden has a peloton bike. | ||
Archeon
3251 Posts
On January 22 2021 01:25 farvacola wrote: Cuz they hate Democrats and Biden only a tiny bit less than Republicans and Trump? Regardless of the specific reasons, this goes to show how there is no left-wing equivalent for all the Trump loving right wingers, so I welcome it. Considering the apparent hate the QAnon crazies displayed for the conservative part of the GOP during the riot I fail to see how that isn't exactly the same thing. The difference is that Trump is a fairly far right candidate so the right crazies felt represented, while Biden is a very central candidate so the left crazies don't. Not that I don't see differences between the left and the right crazies, but these differences really aren't in tolerance and hesitation to act violently. | ||
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
I think it is a little bit of both - pacifists have been a notable part of the far left for decades and prevent the kind of cohesion saw during the storming of the capitol. | ||
Slydie
1900 Posts
On January 22 2021 05:38 Nevuk wrote: The far left is extremely less predisposed to act violently than the far right is, in the US, at least. Whether this is due to cops investigating leftists with 1000x the scrutiny of far right nationalists or something inherent is harder to know. I think it is a little bit of both - pacifists have been a notable part of the far left for decades and prevent the kind of cohesion saw during the storming of the capitol. I think the split is something like 20/80 in favour of far right as far as violence goes, just enough to make whataboutism viable. As for why, I would not point to the police, but rather how communists were treated for a long time and how far-right extremists have been emboldened by Trump. | ||
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
| ||
Archeon
3251 Posts
On January 22 2021 05:57 Slydie wrote: I think the split is something like 20/80 in favour of far right as far as violence goes, just enough to make whataboutism viable. As for why, I would not point to the police, but rather how communists were treated for a long time and how far-right extremists have been emboldened by Trump. Got a source? Would like to read more on that. I always hear from both sides that their side isn't as bad, would be nice to get actual data for discussions on this. Personally I feel closer to the left crazies than to the rights, mainly because I get motivations like the fight against inequality and not ones for nations or ethnic separation, but I've seen enough pics of violent protests to know not to trust either. My inherent assumption would be that the radical right is more organized due to anarchism and anti-authoritarianism of left movements, but that wouldn't necessarily influence the regularity of violence albeit perhaps the level of escalation. | ||
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||