EPTNow, if Trump didn’t manage to repel the ACA, chances are that some major achievements of Biden might hold next R presidency. Also if he carries on delivering, Biden will probably have very, very good chances at reelection.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3196
| 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 | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
Now, if Trump didn’t manage to repel the ACA, chances are that some major achievements of Biden might hold next R presidency. Also if he carries on delivering, Biden will probably have very, very good chances at reelection. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 27 2021 16:54 Salazarz wrote: Those are all wonderful buzzwords, but how does it translate to real life? China has gone from being one smoldering ruin in mid 20th century to what pretty much amounts to a developed super power at this point, with their quality of life improving rapidly across the country year on year. People are simply living better there than they have 10 or 50 years ago, and it's foolish to discard that under the usual 'but authoritarian! but no free speech!' nonsense. Trust me, if you've got no money for food, free press is the least of your worries -- I've been there, I know how it feels. Meanwhile in the US, the only things that's grown in the same time frame are income inequality and debt. Oh, and military spending, I guess. Russia isn't as cut and dry, but it's not as if free press would suddenly solve their issues, either; and what is 'free press', anyway? Most of the media (certainly mainstream media) in the west is extremely biased and largely driven by feelings and narratives rather than facts, anyway. I'd argue that this pretense of independence and truthfulness is just as insidious and harmful as full on propaganda of China is. I mean, if 'respected' news outlets push the bullshit about 'forced sterilization in Xinjiang' or 'Chinese debt traps in Africa' as if those are real things, what's the use of this 'free' media at all? If you are genuinely interested in having honest and nuanced discourse, I don't think you can default to the 'Authoritarian China / Russia bad, free and liberal west good' since it's a lot more complicated than that. Good post - and the fact that the response you got is some silly reductionist comparison to Hitler is pretty telling. Life in the US is generally better than in countries like Russia and China (certainly if you're well off financially), but the trend is pretty noticeable as well. The matter of free speech / free press is certainly an interesting one. You have free speech - but woe be you if your free speech is contorted into being seen as "hate speech" and therefore no longer free. Or if you piss off a wealthy individual or group and get fucked over by some contortion of patent/defamation law (with good expensive lawyers, the law is always on your side). And the "free press" is owned by corporations that are far more likely to post lowest-common-denominator garbage than your average state-controlled media, let alone the government propaganda that all these media organizations have admitted to receiving and passing on to their viewership. Frankly as far as the press goes, state news agencies like Xinhua and TASS are better sources of news than 90% of what you'll find in the "free press" of the US. But I digress - there's not much point in having the discussion of what things are and aren't better when there isn't much interest in honest and nuanced discourse. Might as well just take the lyrics of "God Bless the USA" to heart; it'd at least be more honest than playing the "I don't like the way things are in the US, but Russia and China are terrible and evil dictatorships" card. Usually the latter is just a refrain to justify notional progressivism but practical apathy when it comes to the very real problems that exist at home. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10808 Posts
On April 28 2021 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote: Yeah. Now, if Trump didn’t manage to repel the ACA, chances are that some major achievements of Biden might hold next R presidency. Also if he carries on delivering, Biden will probably have very, very good chances at reelection. I'm subscried to r/conservative on reddit... and oh boy... I hope that sub is really just a bubble of the most vile people or we are in for a rough awakening in 3 years. Especially if Biden would have to step down and Harris would be the D nominé. Can't recommend that sub enough btw.... It's really just so vile and absolutely non reflective. I'm told thedonald and stuff was worse, I just can't really imagine how. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
On April 28 2021 00:45 Velr wrote: I'm subscried to r/conservative on reddit... and oh boy... I hope that sub is really just a bubble of the most vile people or we are in for a rough awakening in 3 years. Especially if Biden would have to step down and Harris would be the D nominé. Can't recommend that sub enough btw.... It's really just so vile and absolutely non reflective. I'm told thedonald and stuff was worse, I just can't really imagine how. How representative digital spaces like that truly are is a question of the constant push and pull of US politics. Biden has done well enough that I remain hopeful with respect to '22 and '24, but cynicism is certainly warranted at this point regardless. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On April 28 2021 00:21 EnDeR_ wrote: As a slight change of topic: www.theguardian.com I'm genuinely surprised. Biden's presidency is exceeding all my expectations so far. I wonder if the next R president will undo this one; hard to argue against making sure everyone pays what they owe, but with the GOP in the state it is, you just never know. I am very thankful for this. I hope Biden and Congress use these funds to invest in green infrastructure throughout the US | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23464 Posts
On April 28 2021 00:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: Of course. That’s why protests like BLM are so important. They enable change that was impossible before them. And most importantly, they actually change people’s mind and ideas. Even when they encounter massive resistance or are even unpopular in the polls, they plant the seeds that make sctual progress and actual change possible. It's important to recognize the difference between the protests like the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and the following conflicts + Show Spoiler + Harlem riot of 1964 en.wikipedia.org1964 Rochester race riot Dixmoor race riot, August, 1964 1964 Philadelphia race riot Watts riots, August, 1965 1966 Chicago West Side riots Hough riots, July, 1966 Waukegan riot of 1966 Hunters Point social uprising (1966) Benton Harbor riots of 1966 It's also of note that MLK Jr. got increasingly less popular in his final years, not more popular. Expect peaceful marches/protests to increasingly turn into more massive uprisings and riots the longer the US goes before passing something at least as significant as a (demonstrably inadequate) Civil Rights Act (a moderate minimum which the George Floyd Policing Act fails to even come close to). | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6215 Posts
On April 28 2021 00:21 EnDeR_ wrote: As a slight change of topic: www.theguardian.com I'm genuinely surprised. Biden's presidency is exceeding all my expectations so far. I wonder if the next R president will undo this one; hard to argue against making sure everyone pays what they owe, but with the GOP in the state it is, you just never know. To be completely honest, this is a big breath of fresh air. I really think the amount of money you push to the IRS should be increased til until the ROI is less than 1.2 or so. 80B to collect 700B is an amazing return, even if it's 80B to get 350B, it's still amazing. If the money allows them to acquire and retain talent, it's probably the most progressive way to ensure government revenue. If the IRS delivers, I wouldn't be surprised to see the IRS grow slightly more in the next year or two as well. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
They're usually very helpful after you get there, but the waiting time shows how clearly understaffed they are. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
On April 28 2021 01:39 GreenHorizons wrote: It's important to recognize the difference between the protests like the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and the following conflicts + Show Spoiler + Harlem riot of 1964 en.wikipedia.org1964 Rochester race riot Dixmoor race riot, August, 1964 1964 Philadelphia race riot Watts riots, August, 1965 1966 Chicago West Side riots Hough riots, July, 1966 Waukegan riot of 1966 Hunters Point social uprising (1966) Benton Harbor riots of 1966 It's also of note that MLK Jr. got increasingly less popular in his final years, not more popular. Expect peaceful marches/protests to increasingly turn into more massive uprisings and riots the longer the US goes before passing something at least as significant as a (demonstrably inadequate) Civil Rights Act (a moderate minimum which the George Floyd Policing Act fails to even come close to). I mean, the least violent the protests the better, but I think some level of violence is unavoidable. And it’s ok, imo. The 1960’s protest violence was at the measure of how god awful the injustice were. And people getting so, so, shocked at some windows getting broken during the BLM protests blatantly disregard the fact that what is at stake - dignity, equality and justice - trumps temporary disorder by orders of magnitude. I am with you on the fact there won’t be civil peace until really serious action is taken. That being said, Biden has been very active on the front of racial justice, and if there is a moment it can happen it’s now. Sometimes democracy needs riots. I think we are in such a time. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28706 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 28 2021 04:09 plasmidghost wrote: Senator Joe Manchin has said in the past that he is opposed to the filibuster being changed in any way, but his voting record is almost always in line with Dems. Do y'all think that he would vote against any Dem proposal to change it? If he didn't usually vote with the Dems, he'd just be an unreliable member of the party that can't be counted on. He has power if he breaks rank only on specific key issues. I don't think he'd break rank on the filibuster in particular; that sounds like a party line thing to vote for. | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On April 28 2021 04:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: I thought he had issued support for the 'force people to actually speak'- filibuster? I thought this was the case as well? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23464 Posts
He's not an honest man, so he's said both, but most recently that there's no circumstance where he will eliminate or weaken the filibuster: Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, a pivotal vote in the evenly divided Senate, said on Wednesday he was opposed to a process called reconciliation “The filibuster is a critical tool to protecting that input and our democratic form of government. That is why I have said it before and will say it again to remove any shred of doubt: There is no circumstance in which I will vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster,” Manchin said. www.reuters.com | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On April 28 2021 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote: He's not an honest man, so he's said both, but most recently that there's no circumstance where he will eliminate or weaken the filibuster: www.reuters.com Thank you for the quote. Pretty disappointing of him but not really surprising | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
I cannot emphasize enough that these kids are going to be traumatized and die. www.texastribune.org/2021/04/27/texas-senate-transgender-child-abuse/ | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2774 Posts
On April 27 2021 21:01 BlackJack wrote: Even doubling that rate doesn't help your case. 1 in a million chance of dying is 0.0001%. Not much difference between 0.0001% and 0.0002%. Also my point is that it's illogical for black mothers, especially wealthy ones, to fear that their child is going to be killed by police. Maybe you are okay with the media manipulating people into irrational fears but I am not. History has shown many negative things can happen if you allow that. The math doesn't check out. In addition, the important number is how likely are you to die at the hands of police. Not, how likely are you to die at the hands of police on a given year. The odds for black men are particularly poor at 1 in a 1,000 (so 0.1%). Even for white folks, the odds are unacceptable at 0.04% ish. With regards to threat perception, it is also illogical to carry a gun for personal protection, but most Americans are okay with that. People are not rational actors, and we are particularly irrational when it comes to assessing the threat levels our children are exposed to. Maybe Im just being nitpicky, but I don't understand why you are singling black mothers here (and affluent black Americans in your previous post). I mean, black parents already have to have 'the talk' with their children. It's pretty messed up any way you look at this and I don't think their struggle should be minimised. | ||
| ||
